Official Report: Monday 01 December 2025

Ms Finnegan: Last month, I had the privilege of taking part as a panellist in the 'Turning pain into policy: united against gender-based violence' conference in Limerick hosted by Sinn Féin MEP Kathleen Funchion. It brought together survivors, front-line workers, academics and policymakers from across the island, all of whom were united in the same mission: ending violence against women and girls. The testimonies that were shared were courageous, heartbreaking and painfully familiar. They were a reminder that ending violence against women and girls is not an abstract policy theme; that violence is lived trauma, affecting women and children in every county, every class and every community. Their voices must shape every decision that we make in the Assembly.

Throughout the discussion, several gaps came up time and again. The chronic lack of secure and affordable housing means that too many people are forced to leave their homes while the perpetrators remain undisturbed. That balance is not only unjust but dangerous. The barriers created by partition mean that women living on the border face inconsistent protections, fragmented services and gaps in justice between North and South. Abuse does not respect borders, but, too often, our systems still do. Last but by no means least, there was the urgent need to reform family courts. Outdated cultures and practices continue to allow courts to be used as weapons and tools for control, intimidation and re-traumatisation. The children's well-being must finally come first. Their voices must be heard, and their safety must be non-negotiable.

Of course, there is also the response that victims receive when they first reach out for help, especially to the PSNI. Too often, the police respond to domestic abuse as single, isolated incidents, but coercive control is defined in the Domestic Abuse and Civil Proceedings Act 2021 Act as a pattern of behaviour and a deliberate erosion of autonomy and safety.

When agencies fail to look at the overall pattern, perpetrators simply continue their abuse, often using the very agencies that are meant to protect victims as new tools of harassment. We have many dedicated police officers who do exceptional work, and I acknowledge them, but they must be supported with trauma-informed, pattern-focused training, so that victims know that they will be believed, understood and protected. As we mark 16 Days of Activism against Gender-based Violence, we must be honest that gender-based violence is a societal crisis. It recognises no border and requires an all-island response, shared data, shared learning and shared will.

The theme of the conference was turning pain into policy. Let us honour that by turning what we have heard into action — urgent, coordinated and sustained — until women and children across this island are safe.

Ms Brownlee: I rise today to raise the issue of the horrific levels of violence being inflicted on our PSNI officers. Sadly, we are seeing a pattern of brutality that is becoming more frequent, more severe and more dangerous. Between October 2024 and September 2025, there were over 2,600 assaults on officers. They are not routine risks of the job. Officers are being kicked, bitten and spat at, and their vehicles are being rammed. One officer had blood sprayed in their face and eyes after a detainee ripped out a cannula and claimed to have HIV and hepatitis C. That is trauma that no one signs up for. A female officer was sexually assaulted during an arrest and was left with physical injuries and psychological scars. We have also seen more than 100 vehicle ramming incidents, with police cars being taken off the road and officers hurt. More recently, just last week in Londonderry, an officer was stabbed with a blade during a violent attack in the early hours of the morning.

Attacks on our emergency services are completely unacceptable. Officers go out every day to keep our communities safe, and they should be able to do that without the fear of violence. It is criminal, and the DUP will never accept it as usual. When officers are hurt, vehicles are rammed and morale is shattered, it affects everyone in Northern Ireland. It means fewer officers on the streets, slower response times and the public being left less safe. The consequences ripple far beyond the incident. Our officers need greater protection, and I am pleased that my colleagues Philip Brett and the Chair of the Justice Committee, Paul Frew, continue to explore amendments to the Sentencing Bill to ensure that those who attack police officers face tougher and more meaningful penalties. If criminals know that there are no real consequences, the violence will only continue. We need sentencing that reflects the seriousness of the assaults, a justice system that stands firm with our officers and a political system that does not hesitate to say, "Enough is enough".

Ms Bradshaw: Today, we mark World AIDS Day, and this year's theme, "overcoming disruption and transforming the AIDS response", reminds us that, while much has been achieved, our work is far from over. Services remain under pressure, inequalities persist and many still face barriers with testing, treatment and support. At the heart of those barriers lies stigma. Too often, stigma dictates how we feel safe asking for help, who comes forward for testing and who remains silent. It remains one of the most damaging forces in our fight against HIV, preventing people from accessing the care that they deserve.

I want to take a moment to thank Positive Life for the vital work that it does across the province to support people living with HIV and their families. It challenges stigma every day with compassion and courage and offers a safe and welcoming space for people who might otherwise feel overlooked or misunderstood. Its contribution to public health and the well-being of so many individuals cannot be overstated.

Earlier this year, I submitted a question for written answer to the Health Minister about the long-acting, injectable, prevention treatment called cabotegravir (CAB-LA). The injection is administered every two months and offers a powerful alternative for people who struggle with daily pills or have difficulty accessing regular services. I am pleased that the Minister has written back to say that it has now been approved for use here as part of the roll-out of injectable pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP). The Department of Health has also begun the process of formally endorsing the relevant guidance, so that eligible patients can soon start to receive the treatment.

Over the past year, we have seen further encouraging developments. Global evidence continues to support injectable PrEP as a safe, effective prevention tool; more people are accessing testing; more countries are expanding prevention; and researchers are now working on even longer-acting options. However, none of those advances will reach their full potential while stigma remains. Too many people still hesitate to test, because they fear what others think. Today, on World AIDS Day, I make it absolutely clear that getting tested is normal and responsible and protects your health and the health of those whom you love. Testing is free, confidential and one of the most important things that anyone can do. There should be no shame, no fear and no silence around caring for your health.

It is also crucial that people know this: when someone living with HIV is on effective treatment and has an undetectable viral load, they cannot pass the virus on. Undetectable equals untransmittable. That simple but powerful message saves lives. Our goal must be to bring an end to new HIV transmissions and an end to the stigma that has held so many people back for too long.

Ms D Armstrong: Last Thursday, the Health Committee met in the South West Acute Hospital (SWAH) in Enniskillen. Whilst Parliament Buildings is, no doubt, a hugely impressive location to work from, I have found, in my relatively short time as an MLA, that the opportunity to engage directly with organisations and to visit their premises is just as important. I am certain that the members of the Health Committee were hugely impressed with the size of the South West Acute Hospital and the many opportunities that exist there. It remains one of the best and most modern health facilities in Northern Ireland.

I was alarmed, however, by the report, subsequent to the meeting with the Western Trust, that it had apparently told the Health Committee:

That was a shocking, sweeping statement, but it perhaps also revealed what many had long suspected was the belief of some. Equally galling was the trust's shirking of responsibility when, after being asked a fairly straightforward question by a journalist about emergency general surgery, its immediate reply was:

To be clear, the review of general surgery set out the standards for emergency general surgery, but, importantly, it did not state which hospitals should and should not deliver it. No matter the reason behind that latest attempt at smoke and mirrors, it is for the Western Trust to determine how to configure its general surgical service to meet those standards. That is a matter of fact, and the trust needs to be careful in its noticeable efforts to rewrite that.

After the shambles of its botched consultation process in July, I thought that the Western Trust would have learned some lessons, and, for a while, I thought that it had, when it issued an apology in October admitting its multitude of failings. Recent weeks, however, which have seen the trust enter into an unnecessary public spat about who should even have chaired an upcoming meeting, combined with last week's comments, have revealed a regression in the trust's approach and attitude. Earlier this year, the Minister took the highly unusual decision to publicly intervene, yet it appears that the trust is even now beginning to deviate from the clear instruction that it was given about coming up with a focused vision plan for the SWAH. Public confidence matters, and, regrettably, the Western Trust is still doing little to restore it. That urgently needs to change.

Since becoming an MLA, my priority has always been to the people of Fermanagh and South Tyrone and their well-being. I will always seek to do what is right for my community and challenge what I see as failings.

Mr McNulty: On Friday, a woman came into my office in Newry, bringing with her a letter containing a legal threat sent by a solicitor about her unpaid parking ticket. The letter said that she had two weeks in which to pay an incredibly expensive fine —£170 — but she received the letter only on the last day possible. Given the limited time constraints, we could not advise the lady, who was running from pillar to post in a distressed state and seeking advice and help, not to pay the fine and help her to appeal it.

That woman is not alone. Literally hundreds of people have come through our doors, whom we have helped to successfully challenge many such fines with help from the Law Society and the Consumer Council. What is going on? Private parking companies now methodically adopt the calculatedly low tactic of sending frightening legal threats to individuals to siphon money out of them, taking advantage of people by threatening them into paying fines to avoid legal action.

Those companies are a scourge on our society and a money-making racket. Their control over shoppers, business people and all motorists must end. The Department for Infrastructure must hold them to account and stop them harassing and threatening motorists by sending not just extortionate fines but extremely threatening solicitors' letters in the mail. It is unfair. It is unreasonable, and it is completely unregulated by the Department, which should put the clampers on such unscrupulous, exploitative companies.

Mr McGuigan: I speak today in advance of the International Day of Persons with Disabilities on Wednesday 3 December, which is an important moment each year to recognise the rights, leadership and contribution of disabled people across our society. The day, which was established by the United Nations in 1992, asks us all to recommit ourselves to building a community rooted in equality, dignity and inclusion.

Across the island, many people with disabilities unfortunately continue to face barriers. In the North, we have some of the highest levels of disability. We know that those living with disabilities experience poverty at disproportionate levels and face long waiting lists for assessments and support, and we are acutely aware of the challenges that they face when navigating the social security system. We also know that people with disabilities are more likely to encounter obstacles when entering, remaining in or progressing in their school or workplace. The obstacles and barriers faced by disabled people are not and should not be inevitable.

We must continue to highlight the fact that having a disability does not limit a person's talent, ambition, creativity or desire to contribute meaningfully to society. The United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities places a clear responsibility on public authorities to remove those barriers and to uphold the rights, independence and participation of disabled people in every aspect of life. This year's theme, "Fostering disability inclusive societies for advancing social progress", speaks directly to the work that still needs to be done. That includes delivering properly resourced public services; ensuring timely access to therapies, aids and community-based supports; strengthening our disability and autism strategies; tackling the disability employment gap; and ensuring accessible, safe and reliable transport and public spaces. That work and any solutions must be designed in partnership with disabled people and their advocacy groups.

Sinn Féin has consistently advocated a rights-based approach to public policy that is based on equality. Supporting disabled people properly is fundamental to building a fair, prosperous and equal society where everyone is valued and can participate fully. As we mark International Day of Persons with Disabilities, let us recommit to meaningful, practical action North and South, across all sectors and all communities, to remove the barriers that hold people back and to build a truly inclusive society.

Mr Dunne: I welcome the decision last week by the Home Office to end the use of the Marine Court Hotel in Bangor in my North Down consistency as asylum accommodation. That was the right move and was long overdue. It highlights the failure of successive UK Governments to properly manage immigration in a controlled and responsible way. For many years, the Marine Court Hotel was a premier venue in North Down and a landmark that supported Bangor's tourism sector and, indeed, the local economy. Instead, it has been closed to the public and used for asylum accommodation at a very significant cost, causing concern across the local community. My constituents regularly raise those concerns with me. They are reasonable and fair-minded people; they are not motivated by intolerance. They are worried about planning pressures, housing shortages, the strain on our public services and the lack of transparency in how such decisions are made.

One of the biggest issues is how the Home Office has been able to operate outside the normal planning framework. Local residents and businesses must follow every rule, yet the UK Government can change the use of a major hotel without scrutiny. If a shop puts up the wrong style of sign, for example, enforcement is often swift, but a hotel can effectively become a large house in multiple occupation (HMO) with zero accountability. That is why many believe that there is one law for the public and another for the Home Office and the UK Government. Equality before the law matters, and public trust depends on it.

The impact on our area has been clear. A hospitality venue sitting idle has had an adverse impact on our local economy, but the pressures and impact extend much wider. Our GP surgeries and the wider NHS are under severe pressures — we hear, see and feel that daily — and our housing system is already stretched, with more than 49,000 households on the waiting list and over 37,000 in housing stress across Northern Ireland in every town, village and city. A broken asylum system only adds to those pressures while taxpayers cover the excessive cost of hotel-based accommodation. As the Home Office moves away from hotels, many people are asking, "What happens next?" There is a risk that Mears and the UK Government will start buying or leasing homes in our communities, further reducing available housing and increasing already high rents.

Such parties as the Alliance Party, the SDLP and Sinn Féin continue to defend the current approach to immigration and recently voted against a DUP motion aimed at addressing illegal and uncontrolled immigration. That position speaks for itself. We will keep pressing the Government to fix the system and ensure fairness for local communities.

Ms K Armstrong: Many of us and much of the public will be out and about in our towns and cities doing a bit of shopping before Christmas. How many times have any of us walked past someone who is sitting on a cold street? How often do we actually see that person? How did they end up there? Why are they there today? When was the last time that they sat on a comfortable seat or had something healthy to eat? When was the last time someone said a simple "Hello" to them?

Today is the start of Homelessness Awareness Week. It runs every year from 1 December to 7 December. This year's theme is "See the person". I ask all MLAs this: when was the last time you saw a homeless person? Too often, homelessness is reduced to statistics, labels or stereotypes: they must be begging, or they must have something wrong. Often, that is completely incorrect. This year, I remind everyone that behind every figure and every headline is a person with hopes, struggles and potential.

There is a programme of events on Homeless Connect's website. I encourage every MLA to take a look at the website and to take part in one of those events. I invite all MLAs to go along to an event in the Long Gallery at 1.30 pm today that is being operated by Homeless Connect. At that event, we will launch a major piece of research that has been completed by the Housing Executive on Housing First. The Housing First approach is one of the best-evidenced models from around the world for responding to chronic homelessness. We have chronic homelessness in Northern Ireland. We believe that the launch of that research fits well with this year's theme, because the approach is person-centred, designing and delivering tailored support to suit the individual needs of the person experiencing homelessness. Led by Fiona Boyle and co-authored by Imogen Blood and Nicholas Pleace, the research outlines what Housing First is and what it has done up until now and makes recommendations on how it could be further utilised to respond to chronic homelessness. Please come along to today's event to hear Fiona outline the findings of the research, alongside input from other voices in the homelessness sector.

I thank all of the organisations that help people who are homeless every day. I especially thank the health inclusion nurses who work on the ground with so many on our streets. Homelessness can be resolved. Every person in Northern Ireland who does not have a suitable, safe home can have one if every Minister comes together and focuses on homelessness as a priority. It is a key issue in the Programme for Government, and I hope that we will see a commitment across Departments to end homelessness in the upcoming multi-year Budget.

Mr Baker: Saturday was International Day of Solidarity with the Palestinian People. Over 100,000 people marched in London, and there were large rallies in Belfast and Dublin.

Yesterday, my friend Tuathlaith ran 52 miles and cycled a further 52 miles in an ultramarathon to raise money for mobile maternity units in Gaza. That is an unbelievable achievement, and much-needed money will go to the front line in Gaza. Unfortunately, because of Israeli bombs and genocide, children are being born not in hospitals but in tents with limited medical equipment and medicine. Imagine if your wife or partner had to bring your child into the world in that unsafe environment.

Despite the ceasefire, over 400 Palestinians have been killed, and two children were murdered just the other day. Members and Ministers should remember that when they praise the Israel Defense Forces (IDF), take visits from the Israeli Government and justify visiting the occupied territories. It is absolutely shameful.

Mr Kingston: Dublin City Council was set to discuss this evening a proposal to rename Herzog Park in Rathgar in the latest demonstration of anti-Israel and antisemitic politics in the Irish Republic. The proposal was approved by a council committee last July, with only one councillor voting against, and it had been brought forward by a Sinn Féin councillor. Thankfully, the proposal has been removed from the order paper by the council's chief executive, due to legislation that is in progress. However, it is deeply concerning that the proposal could return. If approved, it would be an appalling example of a lack of tolerance and an attempt to expunge from history the contribution of the Jewish community.

The park was renamed Herzog Park in 1995 in honour of Major General Chaim Herzog, a former president of Israel, who was born in Belfast in 1918. He grew up in Dublin, where his father, Yitzhak Herzog, served as the first Chief Rabbi of the Irish Free State from 1921 until 1936. Chaim Herzog served with distinction in the British Army during the Second World War, fighting against Nazism. He went on to serve as president of Israel from 1983 until 1993. Any country or city should take pride in people who have gone on to achieve great things on the international stage. Herzog Park is around only one acre in size and is located next to Stratford College, a multi-denominational school, which was established predominantly by people of the Jewish faith.

Sinn Féin's intolerant proposal has rightly been met with condemnation from the prime minister of Ireland, Taoiseach Micheál Martin, and internationally from US Senator, Lindsey Graham, and the office of the current Israeli president, Isaac Herzog, who is the son of Chaim Herzog. Whatever way some may wish to present it, it is an attempt to remove a reference to a prominent Jewish figure and the son of a former Chief Rabbi of Ireland. It is symptomatic of the insular antisemitism and mean-spiritedness that is on display in the Republic of Ireland and of how certain minorities are treated in that state. It comes on the back of the hostility displayed towards Heather Humphreys because of her family background.

We have seen such intolerance on display in Belfast through the removal of the blue plaque commemorating the birthplace of Chaim Herzog on Cliftonpark Avenue. It will not be lost on people that Dublin may be set to erase the family name of a Chief Rabbi, yet it retains a statue of Nazi collaborator, Seán Russell, who died on board a German U-boat on his way home in 1940. He was buried at sea with full German naval honours and wrapped in a swastika flag.

Ms Ferguson: Today marks the beginning of Homelessness Awareness Week 2025, the theme of which is "See the Person". We are well aware of the recent research by the Simon Community that revealed that childhood trauma plays a powerful role in the levels of homelessness here. Some 66% of those who reside in hostel-based homeless accommodation have had four or more adverse childhood experiences. To put that in context, that figure is four times higher than that for the general population. As we are well aware, behind those statistics are real people who have dreams and aspirations for their lives; people who have an equal right to a safe, secure place to call "home"; and people who evidently encountered far more difficulty in their childhood than should be expected of anyone at any point in their life.

What does that mean if we strip it right back and see the person?

It means that homelessness is never about personal failure. Homelessness across Irish society is our collective shame. Statistics evidence that, in each of the past 10 years, the number of homeless households here has consistently risen. Last week, sadly, we heard more of the same. We are creating a cycle of exclusion that is almost impossible to break.

The British Government's approach of recent days — keeping local housing allowance rates frozen and unable to keep pace with rising rents — is absolutely shameful. Homelessness is not inevitable, yet nothing changes if nothing changes. Unlike the British Government, we recognise that our response must focus on the entwined nature of poverty and homelessness. Today, we see in research that was published on the fundamental Housing First model evidence of high housing retention rates and how that model helps to resolve non-housing problems, including offending and re-offending rates and mental health issues. We need the Department for Communities and the Housing Executive to carry out a full, comprehensive review of our homelessness legislation here.

Finally, and fundamentally, we must deliver never-before-seen levels of investment in social and affordable housing and the scaling up of the Housing First model in the North. Once again, I remind Members that there is a range of events in Derry, Armagh, Ballymena, Bangor, Belfast, Coleraine, Dungiven, Newry, Newtownabbey, Portrush and Strabane this week, and I encourage Members to attend their local events to honour Homelessness Awareness Week.

Mr Speaker: I call Maurice Bradley. You have two minutes, Mr Bradley.

Mr Bradley: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I place on record the outstanding contribution of the North West Football Association, which marked its 140th anniversary with a packed gala dinner at the White Horse Hotel on Friday evening. It was not simply a social occasion; it was a celebration of what is one of the oldest and most influential football bodies anywhere in Northern Ireland and an organisation that has quietly underpinned the game in the north-west for well over a century.

The calibre of those in attendance spoke volumes. The Irish FA president, Conrad Kirkwood, led the delegation from Belfast, which was joined by former IFA presidents David Martin, Jim Shaw and Raymond Kennedy, who each have long-standing links to the North West FA council. They were joined by Gerard Lawlor, president of the Northern Ireland Football League (NIFL), Colin McKendry, vice-chairman of NIFL, and Gregory Campbell MP, underlining the association's political standing as well as its standing in sport.

There was also genuine star power from the pitch. Former Northern Ireland internationals Tony O'Doherty and John O'Neill were present, representing the golden thread that runs from the streets and pitches of the north-west to the international stage. Apologies were received from fellow Northern Ireland greats Terry Harkin, Stephen Lomas and Dessie Dickson, whose names rightly drew warm appreciation in the room.

The evening was expertly compèred by broadcaster Liam Beckett and featured a lively question-and-answer session with guest of honour, Gerry Armstrong, who will forever be remembered for his winning goal against hosts Spain in the 1982 World Cup. His memories of Spain '82 may have been light-hearted, but they reminded everyone present of the heights that players from this part of the world can reach.

A particularly poignant moment came when special presentations were made for long and dedicated service to the North West FA, with many of the recipients also having served on the IFA council. Raymond Kennedy, Charlie Johnston, Jim McLaughlin, Billy Smallwood, Dessie Bradley, Jackie Morrison, Charlie Ferguson, Jerry Stewart, Trevor Hogg and Ken Lowry were all honoured by Gerry Armstrong, assisted by the north-west league secretary, Jonathan McCunn.

Those are the kinds of volunteers and administrators without whom local football simply could not function. The north-west —.

Mr Speaker: The Member's time is up.

Mr Bradley: Sorry? What did you say?

Mr Speaker: Your time is up. You had two minutes, not three. [Laughter.]

Mr Bradley: Is that it?

Mr Durkan: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I rise to refer to correspondence that I received from you this morning on a remark that I made last week in reference to the Education Minister. I retract any term that I used that caused hurt, but I genuinely did not think that Minister Givan, who has casually called people in the Chamber "sectarian" and "antisemitic" — never mind that he praised the perpetrators of a genocide — would be so offended by a playground jibe. Perhaps Minister Givan will have the good grace to consider and to retract things that he has said and done that have caused considerable hurt.

Mr Speaker: Now that the Member has raised it, I have a statement to make on the issue. Members know that I encourage robust debate and challenge.

In particular, I want Ministers to be held to account vigorously. That is only right, as we are holding Departments to account. However, I also made clear that Members should focus on challenging issues and not persons, because that is what debate is about. We are here to challenge people on the issues that they represent, not the individuals themselves.

Over the past few weeks, I have had to deal with a number of issues by reminding Members, whether that is in the Chamber or in writing, that it is not in order to accuse other Members of being an antisemite or homophobic. I pointed out to a Minister that they should not accuse a Member of asking a "stupid question". I made clear to a Member that they should not tell another Member to "Wind your neck in." Last week, during a debate, following an exchange between the Minister and Cara Hunter, Mr Durkan made this remark:

The import of that remark is really not on. There was exchange on issues, but your remark was a crude personal attack without an evidence base. Furthermore, given the fact that Members', particularly those who are women, being subject to abuse and unwanted attention is so serious, it was in poor taste to make that comment to another Member. Irrespective of who else was involved, that is an issue to reflect on. I have written to you, and you know where we stand on that. There have been a number of examples in the past. To be perfectly honest, I do not want to deal with those issues or comment on them. We should be capable of engaging in vigorous debate without playing the man or, as I probably should say in this instance, the woman. If we stick to playing the ball, we will all get on a lot better. I thank the Member for his apology. It is important that we clarify those matters.

Mr Butler: I beg to move

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

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): Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle.

Thank you for the opportunity to update Members on the implications of last week's autumn Budget for our public finances and our society.

I have been clear, inside and outside the House, that delivering quality public services and creating conditions for economic growth are key priorities for me. Ahead of the Chancellor's Budget, my consistent message to the Westminster Government was that we needed a Budget that supported workers, families and small- and medium-sized businesses. I welcome the removal of the two-child limit, which will help to lift thousands of children here out of poverty. That was the right, if not long overdue, decision to make. I also welcome the Chancellor's decision to increase both the minimum wage and the living wage. Those important steps will support our lowest-paid workers.

However, the Chancellor's decision to freeze income thresholds will impose an additional tax burden on thousands of workers and their families. That will limit their ability to cope with the rising costs of living and reduce their spend in local businesses. I am disappointed that there was not more support in the Budget for businesses. That was a missed opportunity to allow us to grow and support our local economy. The Chancellor has neither gone far enough to invest in our stretched public services nor taken steps to support economic growth. I will outline today what the Budget means for our public finances, the impact of the tax measures that were announced and my next steps as Finance Minister to support our public finances and public services in the time ahead.

First, I will turn to our public finances. While I welcome the additional £370 million of Barnett funding that was announced, the Chancellor could, and should, have gone further. The allocation provides some £240 million for day-to-day spending over the four years from 2025-26 to 2028-29 and £130 million for capital investment over four years from 2026-27 to 2029-2030. While that may sound like a substantial allocation, the reality is that, when taken over the four-year Budget period, it falls far short of what is needed. The additional funding that has been provided will not undo the damage that has been caused by years of British Government underfunding of our public services and is insufficient to plug current and future funding gaps.

It is unquestionable that our public services are facing increased demand and increased pressures, with increased costs to deliver the services that people rely on. The announcement provides just £18·8 million in 2025-26. While I anticipate that Westminster’s spring Supplementary Estimates will provide some modest additional funding uplifts for 2025-26, the exact amount remains uncertain. What is clear, however, is that it will not come close to addressing the level of pressures that the Executive are facing this year. Each Minister must strive to improve efficiency in the delivery of our public services, ensuring that every pound of funding delivers maximum value. All Departments must continue to take all necessary actions to manage their overcommitments and to reduce any overspends in this financial year.

The measures that have been announced will result in the British Government’s tax take rising to an all-time high. Yet, despite the Budget resulting in an additional £26 billion being raised by 2029-2030, it is extremely disappointing how little additional funding is being provided to the Executive. For public services to be delivered, you need tax income. I am not arguing against collecting tax revenue, but it must be done in a fair and equitable way. Those with the broadest shoulders should carry the biggest tax burden. I do not think that the Chancellor has got that right in this Budget.

The Chancellor’s decision to freeze income tax and National Insurance contribution thresholds until 2030-31 represents a stealth tax, which will impact on workers and their families. Since income tax thresholds were first frozen in April 2021, thousands of low-paid workers have been dragged into paying tax for the first time, while others have been pulled into higher tax bands. As a result of the measures in the Budget, the Institute for Fiscal Studies has said that, in 2030-31, a basic-rate taxpayer will pay £220 more tax a year, while a higher-rate taxpayer will be charged £600 more a year. That freeze could also affect our pensioners. Pensioners who have income in addition to the state pension could pay more tax as a result of threshold freezes.

The Westminster Government’s decision to cap National Insurance contributions on salary sacrifices into pension schemes will also hit workers. The Treasury’s own analysis shows that the cap is expected to affect more than a quarter of basic-rate taxpayers who are using the scheme.

The Chancellor also made a number of changes across a suite of other taxes, including increasing tax rates on dividends, property and savings income; an increase in duties on gaming and betting; and a new electric vehicle excise duty, among other measures.

Unfortunately, the Chancellor has missed the opportunity to improve the tax system through measures that had been called for locally and, in particular, by not changing the rate of VAT for our local hospitality sector. In the South, hospitality VAT is currently 13·5%, and the Irish Government have announced that, from July 2026, it will reduce to 9%. That will only increase the existing disparity that is already faced by our local sector. A reduction in the VAT rate is crucial so that hospitality businesses here can compete on a level playing field in the all-Ireland economy.

The Westminster Government have also failed to make significant improvements to the application of inheritance tax on our local farming community. While the Chancellor has announced that the £1 million threshold for the family-farm tax will be transferable between spouses, that is, in my view, insufficient to protect our family-farming sector. Nor did the Chancellor take the opportunity of the Budget to address the lack of resource funding for the local growth fund, which enables the community and voluntary sector to support those who are furthest from the labour market to get back into work. That is a key barrier to economic growth here.

I have consistently made the point to the Westminster Government that taxes should be fair, proportionate and progressive, with those with the broadest shoulders carrying the greatest burden. In my view, this Budget represents a missed opportunity to make the tax system more progressive, to significantly increase investment in public services and to deliver the stimulus that is necessary for our economy.

Instead, it primarily feathers the nest for the headroom that, the Chancellor thinks, is needed within the fiscal rules that she set, all to appease the financial markets.

In my view, the Budget is another illustration of why we need greater powers locally to ensure that our tax system takes account of our circumstances. Having greater fiscal powers would allow us to make different choices, to change behaviours, to spur economic activity or to generate income for public services in a fairer and more progressive way. My Department will intensify work to progress a full fiscal framework that will include consideration of additional tax powers. I am fully aware that Members will have different views on that, but I believe that we can work together and use the evidence base provided by the independent Fiscal Commission to agree where greater control over fiscal powers could deliver real benefits.

While I would have wanted a different outcome from the Budget, it gives us funding certainty. I will shortly bring forward a multi-year Budget for Executive agreement, one that will shape our public services for the years ahead. That will give Departments the certainty that they need to plan for the longer term and make much-needed transformational change in the delivery of our public services, despite the Chancellor's not providing the investment required to accelerate the pace of change. The multi-year Budget will, of course, present challenges, not least because the quantum of funding falls short of what we had hoped for. As I said last week, this is one of the biggest decisions that the Executive and the Assembly will make between now and the end of the mandate, and it is important that we get it right. We need to be realistic. There is not sufficient funding to do all that we would want to do or to provide any Department with the level of funding that it will have requested. Agreeing a multi-year Budget in a mandatory coalition will mean that there will have to be give and take on all sides.

The statement has provided Members with an overview of the implications of the autumn Budget. While additional funding for public services is always welcome, it must be viewed in the context of a marginal increase only, with demand and the cost of delivering services exponentially rising. While there are elements in the Chancellor’s statement to be welcomed, the Chancellor has neither gone far enough to invest in public services nor helped to boost our economy. The autumn Budget falls far short of what is needed to support the delivery of front-line public services. While the autumn Budget presents challenges to us as an Executive, there is no doubt in my mind that, by working in partnership, we will be better placed to meet those challenges head-on. I stand ready to play my part in supporting workers, families and businesses, first and foremost by putting forward a multi-year Budget that is focused on doing what matters most.

Mr O'Toole: Minister, I agree with some of your analysis of the Budget. There are good things, including getting rid of the two-child limit, several bad things and lots of incoherent things. However, we are, fundamentally, not here to debate what is happening at Westminster. You and I are supposed to agree that we want more power brought back here, but only two of the 12 pages of your statement are about things that you propose to do, and there is not that much detail on those. So, to be specific, when will we see a multi-year Budget? Are we to understand that the Executive have even discussed a multi-year Budget? Given everything that you and, indeed, the DUP have said about how awful the UK Government are and about how lots of what they are doing is wrong, will there be specific proposals on revenue raising and fiscal powers in that multi-year Budget, and when will it be published?

Mr O'Dowd: The Member seems to have changed his tone since last Wednesday and Thursday. I listened to him and other SDLP representatives who were out on the airwaves welcoming the Budget and challenging the Executive, saying that everything and anything was the Executive's fault. It is good to hear, now that, over the weekend, you have had the chance to properly analyse the Budget, you taking the opportunity to say, "Hold on. The Budget is not that good. We should not have been out praising it, and we should not have been pointing the finger at the Executive for all the woes in this society".

Mr O'Toole: No, do your job. Tell us what you are doing.

Mr O'Dowd: I am about to tell you want I am doing, if you would — [Interruption.]

Mr O'Dowd: Somebody said something from the Back Benches. I am not sure what it was.

I will be bring a multi-year Budget to my Executive colleagues.

Mr O'Toole: When?

Mr O'Dowd: The Chancellor's Budget was last week, and the Executive have not met since then. I will bring a multi-year Budget once I have had the full opportunity to analyse the implications of the Budget and all the returns thus far from my Executive colleagues. I will bring that Budget to my Executive colleagues before the Christmas break. They will then have to decide whether they agree with the draft Budget, and it may require more analysis, because it is the most important decision that the Executive will take.

The Member talks about revenue-raising measures. The Member keeps raising the matter, so which revenue-raising measures would he like to bring forward? Whom does he want to tax and how? Whom do you want to tax?

Do you want to follow the example of [Interruption.]

Do you want to follow the example of your sister party, the Labour Party, and tax low earners? That was the Budget that you welcomed last week. The Budget that you welcomed last week taxes low earners.

Miss Dolan: I welcome the Minister's statement. Minister, will you outline your plans for progressive and fiscal devolution?

Mr O'Dowd: Yes. I have already presented a paper to my Executive colleagues on that, and I intend to intensify engagement with the Treasury on it. If there is one thing that the Budget made clear to me it was that the Executive, the Assembly and this society will have to take greater control of their taxes. I will use the simple example of VAT. The rate of VAT has been set elsewhere; it does not meet the needs of the business community and workers in this society. For example, hospitality here will lose out as a result of the difference between a higher rate of VAT here and a lower rate across the road in the border communities.

We will have to get serious about it. I have, as I said, brought a paper to my Executive colleagues, and my engagement with the Treasury will intensify. There are differences of opinion across the Floor on the issue, but we have to reach agreement on it.

Ms Forsythe: I thank the Minister for his statement. Minister, we agree that that was a bad Budget for those who work. As we move to what you do next as the Northern Ireland Finance Minister, will you support the plans of Gordon Lyons, the Communities Minister, to recover from the Treasury some of the savings from tackling benefit fraud and error to reinvest in Northern Ireland?

Mr O'Dowd: Some of us agree that it was a bad Budget for those who work. Others were out welcoming it last week, so they were. [Laughter.]

There is a business case with the Treasury with regard to Minister Lyons's proposal. The Treasury has not yet agreed that business case. My officials will continue to work with Mr Lyons's officials and the Treasury on that. When the Treasury responds to the business case, I will respond in due course to Mr Lyons.

Ms K Armstrong: Minister, you spoke about doing what matters most and about a draft Budget being put forward to the Executive. How will we reduce energy costs for households and businesses in Northern Ireland, given the extra help that people in GB will get as a result of the Budget?

Mr O'Dowd: My understanding is that the Treasury has undertaken to work with the Executive, in particular the Department for the Economy, to see how it can support the Executive in relation to the scheme that was announced, which largely covers England and Wales. We have a different energy scheme here, so that is my understanding of it. There will be ongoing engagement between the Treasury and DFE on how we bring forward a support package, if one is available.

Ms D Armstrong: Thank you, Minister, for your statement. I am pleased that you referred to the difficulties with VAT for the hospitality sector in particular. Moving ahead to the multi-year Budget, the hospitality industry and, indeed, retail are looking at a lean season post Christmas. What can you recommend post Christmas for the multi-year Budget to protect businesses that are at risk?

Mr O'Dowd: I will bring proposals to the Executive in the near future on a multi-year Budget, setting out, primarily, the spending amounts for each Department. After that, it will be up to each Department how it uses those moneys to support the sectors within its areas of responsibility. A number of weeks ago, I made a statement to the Assembly about how we could support businesses further, and I intend to launch a consultation on that pre-Christmas.

Mr Delargy: I thank the Minister for standing up for ordinary workers and families in the North. What impact, if any, will the so-called mansion tax have on people in the North?

Mr O'Dowd: As the Member is aware, we are responsible for our own rating policy. If the proposals that were announced recently as part of the Chancellor's Budget were to apply here, they would apply to only about 19 properties. However, I have a paper that sets out how we should increase the cap in relation to rating policy and bring more and more people into a higher level where they pay more rates, particularly for properties over around £485,000. There is merit in what has happened in England, but it would affect only around 19 properties here, and I think that my proposal is a fair way forward.

Mr Harvey: I thank the Minister for his statement. Minister, can you provide some clarity on whether you are engaging with the Treasury on the design of a scheme to ensure that Northern Ireland households get the benefits of energy cost reductions?

Mr O'Dowd: My understanding is that the Treasury has said that there will be a requirement for discussions with the Executive, primarily the Department for the Economy, though my Department is the conduit for discussions between the Executive and Treasury and vice versa. There has been a commitment to start those discussions.

Ms Mulholland: Minister, is it still your intention to provide the Minister of Justice with first call at the next monitoring round in relation to the moneys that were hoped for for PSNI recruitment?

Mr O'Dowd: Yes, that is a previous Executive commitment that I intend to honour when presenting my next monitoring round paper to the Executive.

Mr Brett: Minister, you said that:

As Minister of Finance, what are your preferred options for how we will generate additional income?

Mr O'Dowd: I want to see the recommendations of the Fiscal Commission report as a starting base for discussions between the Executive and the Treasury on the matter. The Fiscal Commission recommended, as the most suitable for devolution, income tax partial, stamp duty land tax, air passenger duty, landfill tax and the apprenticeship levy, if income tax was devolved. That is a good starting base for the Executive and the devolved institutions here to work our way through. We have to approach this with our eyes wide open. There are challenges and opportunities with this. I am not saying for one second that it is a panacea for all our problems, but the Executive, the Assembly and this society will have to take the challenge on.

Mr Speaker: I remind Members to keep standing if they wish to be called.

Mr Martin: I will follow on from my colleague's question. The Minister just highlighted a range of fiscal powers that he would like to see, and he mentioned income tax as one of them. If income tax was devolved, what would he plan to do with that?

Mr O'Dowd: First of all, we have to get it devolved, and then, at that moment in time, the Executive would collectively have to consider our economic position, understand the figures and decide what to do with it. There is no point in me standing here as Minister of Finance, perhaps a couple of years away from any of that being devolved, and saying, "We should do a, b and c", because that would be nonsensical. You would have to make decisions based on your economic position at that time, and that is when you would decide what to do with it.

Mr McMurray: Thank you, Minister. Can the Minister update the House on when he next plans to engage with the UK Treasury, given that many measures in the Budget do not go far enough to help businesses, families or the NI Executive's finances?

Mr O'Dowd: There is always ongoing engagement between my Department and the Treasury at an official level. The most recent correspondence that I have had with the Treasury in relation to the Budget was immediately after it to discuss the local growth fund. I am concerned that there has been a change to the Budget breakdown given to a number of local authorities in England in relation to the capital/resource split, and I have written to the Minister for Housing and the NIO to ask why the same provision was not offered to our local growth fund.

Miss Hargey: Minister, your statement outlines that Westminster does not serve the best interests of people here when you look at the breakdown of the Budget. When will the December monitoring round come forward?

Mr O'Dowd: I have now received all the returns from my Executive colleagues. We now have the autumn Budget figures in front of us. I will bring a paper shortly to my Executive colleagues on the December monitoring round.

Mr Butler: I thank the Minister for his statement. We all agree that funding is needed for transformational change, and that is in today's statement. We also know that our Departments need to be fiscally appropriate. Is the Minister content with the savings and efficiencies that are being found in each Department, given that the Minister of Health was able to find around £300 million of savings this year? Will he outline what that system looks like?

Mr O'Dowd: I am not sure that you can ever satisfy a Finance Minister in that regard, and perhaps you should never be able to do so. I am on record as saying that all our Executive colleagues face significant challenges in the delivery of their mandate, whichever Department they are in. I have commented on the ongoing cooperation and work between me and the Health Minister and my Department and the Health Minister, and I urge other Ministers to show the same level of cooperation.

Mr Durkan: It is safe to assume that all parties here welcome the removal of the two-child limit; at least, I hope that they do. Will the Minister confirm that the Executive will implement it here, and can he tell us when?

Mr O'Dowd: It will be for the Department for Communities to bring forward a report to the Executive and, I assume, to the Assembly in regard to that. I can confirm to the Member only that I and my party colleagues support the removal of the two-child cap here.

Mrs Cameron: I thank the Minister for his statement to the House. He noted that there was no announcement on the local growth fund in the Budget, but the cliff edge rapidly approaches for the voluntary and community sector. What is happening with that fund? Have discussions on revising the proposal for a 70% capital/30% revenue funding split, which will clearly be devastating for the sector, been looked at yet?

Mr O'Dowd: I have raised that matter directly and in correspondence with the appropriate Ministries and made my views clear. I gave an update to my Executive colleagues as recently as last week in the Executive meeting. As I said to a Member who asked me a question previously, one of my first actions following the Budget was to write to the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, the NIO and the Treasury raising my concerns that changes have been made to the budget for a number of local authorities in England but have not been replicated here.

Mr Mathison: Minister, you have been clear about the pressure facing all Departments. Will you provide detail on any engagement that you have had with the Education Minister on his plans to live within budget in this financial year and wider plans to transform how we deliver education in the most efficient and sustainable way possible?

Mr O'Dowd: How education is delivered is a matter for the Minister of Education. In relation to his budget, I have met him, had significant correspondence with him and engaged with him at the Executive table. I remain open to further engagement with any Minister. As I said, the greater the cooperation between Ministers and me and at official level, the more effective the delivery of the Budget will be. I have always said that it is a hugely challenging task for all Ministers, but we have to work in partnership to achieve common goals.

Mr Kingston: With the Budget providing just £18·8 million of additional revenue for Northern Ireland in this financial year, a significant shortfall remains. Minister, you said in your statement that:

What are you, as Finance Minister, doing to encourage, incentivise and lead that efficiency drive?

Mr O'Dowd: My Department is not projecting an overspend. I lead by example in that regard. As I have said to a number of the Members who have asked me questions today, I will work with all Ministers to assist them in delivering their budget, and I recognise the challenges that they face.

Ultimately, it is the responsibility of each Minister, but all Ministers must work with their Executive colleagues. If one Department overspends, that will impact on all Departments, because it will come off next year's Budget.

Ms Bradshaw: I thank the Minister for his statement. Following on from Mr Kingston's question, Minister, will you provide an update on the exact overspend that the Executive face this year?

Mr O'Dowd: The monthly out-turn from each Department will give us the latest figure, but the most recent returns gave a figure of around £440 million for the estimated overspend.

Mr Speaker: That concludes questions to the Minister of Finance.

Ms Kimmins (The Minister for Infrastructure): In compliance with section 52 of the NI Act 1998, I wish to make a statement on the meeting of the North/South Ministerial Council (NSMC) in the transport sector, which was held on Thursday 23 October 2025. I chaired the meeting, which took place in the offices of the NSMC joint secretariat in Armagh. Minister Darragh O’Brien, the Minister for Transport, attended the meeting, and Mike Nesbitt MLA, Minister of Health, attended as the accompanying Minister. This statement has been agreed with Minister Nesbitt, and I make it on behalf of us both.

Ministers welcomed the recent completion of the Carlingford lough greenway and acknowledged that there had been an official launch event on 12 September. The NSMC recognised the positive ongoing cross-border collaboration between officials and councils on various greenway projects, including an expert-led report on opportunities to support the development of cross-border greenways that is being reviewed by both Departments.

The Council noted the Department for Infrastructure's decision to appeal the judgement against the A5 western transport corridor and the fact that the appeal is scheduled to be heard in December 2025. Ministers welcomed the setting up of a cross-border working group to ensure alignment of all aspects of the delivery of sections on both sides of the border and noted that the Donegal Trans-European Transport Network (TEN-T) and N2 road infrastructure projects continue to progress, with both Administrations working collaboratively on them. The NSMC noted that both Administrations are fully committed to the delivery of the A5 project.

Ministers welcomed progress on the development of a project prioritisation strategy for the all-island strategic rail review and the intention to publish that strategy later this year. Ministers noted the significant stakeholder engagement that has been undertaken by the Government of Ireland and the progression of the market-sounding exercise to support their Programme for Government commitment to:

The Council welcomed the collaboration that there had been on organising the transport biodiversity workshop, which involved stakeholders from various modes of transport, and the fact that a summary of the discussion and findings from the workshop will be provided at a future NSMC meeting. Ministers noted that engagements between officials on reducing emissions and mitigating the causes of climate change will continue and that a report will be provided at a future NSMC meeting. The NSMC noted that a panel of three operators has been appointed for the Shared Island sports club EV charging infrastructure scheme and that the panel is actively engaging with sports clubs. Ministers welcomed the collaboration on the procurement process for the new train sets for the Enterprise fleet.

The Council noted collaboration between Departments in sharing best practice and advancements in transport policy, planning and modelling. Ministers noted that Departments have engaged and will continue to engage on the development of relevant plans and strategies such as the transport strategy 2035, the national sustainable mobility action plan and the Moving Together strategy. The NSMC noted that an information-sharing session had occurred in March 2025 between officials working in sustainable mobility and other climate-related areas. Ministers agreed that officials will continue to participate in further in-person information-sharing sessions.

The Council noted the Departments’ engagement on research and innovation, with a specific focus on road safety and hydrogen refuelling. The Council meeting examined two areas on which research and innovation is ongoing: road safety and hydrogen refuelling.

The NSMC welcomed the substantive engagement on road safety between officials in the Department of Infrastructure and the Department of Transport that there has been during 2025. Ministers noted that road safety officials have met twice since the previous sectoral meeting to discuss their road safety initiatives and that they have discussed areas in which further exploration and collaboration could take place as part of their commitment to enhancing their working relationship. The Council agreed that officials will exchange information papers outlining their respective experiences of setting speed limits and installing and operating road safety cameras. The NSMC welcomed the fact that the Departments will work together to explore the potential for a workshop on road safety communications.

The Council welcomed the progress made on the Belfast-Dublin hydrogen refuelling study, which moved into phase 3 in August. The NSMC noted that the contract for the pre-procurement market engagement report and the business cases have been awarded and agreed that Ministers would return to the matter at the next sectoral meeting.

The Council agreed to hold its next transport meeting in spring 2026. My officials and I look forward to working with the Minister for Transport and their officials in all areas of cooperation in the transport sector.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Minister. I call Justin McNulty to speak on behalf of the official Opposition.

Mr McNulty: I thank the Minister for her statement. Legal challenges and judicial reviews (JRs) are causing huge delays to major infrastructure projects and housing developments North and South, including the A5, Casement Park and Metro North. Was that discussed at the North/South Ministerial Council meeting? Does the Minister agree that it would be prudent to bring forward a series of legal and regulatory reforms like those proposed by the Irish Government to accelerate the development of infrastructure and housing?

Ms Kimmins: That was not specifically discussed at that meeting. However, I am aware of comments that have come from the Government in Dublin. I intend to watch that situation closely. When we talk about the A5 and look at the significant delays to what is a project to save lives, we see that it has been stopped time and time again by those objecting to it and JRs. As an Executive, we will need to monitor that closely. It is not specific to my Department to tackle the issue, because the use of JRs or, in some cases, the abuse of JRs to stop projects is important for everyone. We will watch what happens in the South closely.

Mr Martin (The Chairperson of the Committee for Infrastructure): Minister, you referenced the A5 twice in your statement. In paragraph 200 of his judgement on the A5 appeal, Justice McAlinden said the following:

What did you ask for from the Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs? Why did he not provide it to you?

Ms Kimmins: As I was not in post at that time, I did not ask him for anything. That probably answers your question.

Mr Boylan: I thank the Minister for her statement, which I welcome. The Minister is well aware that we have had a number of tragedies on our roads across the island. What work is she doing with her counterpart in Dublin to get people to think about road safety?

Ms Kimmins: I thank the Member for his question. Sadly, over the past week or so, we have seen a significant number of road deaths across the Six Counties. I attended the NI Road Safety Awards on Friday a week ago. Sadly, the figures that were quoted at that have increased dramatically in just about a week. That brings to 47 the number of people who have been killed in road traffic collisions this year. A total of 69 people lost their lives last year.

It is almost an understatement to say that the devastation that road traffic collisions cause is huge not just for the people who are directly involved but in the ripple effect that it has across all our communities. That is why road safety is an issue for us all as a society. It is an absolute priority for me. The Member will be aware that my Department launched our road safety strategy in the North in 2024. Working with our road safety partners, we aim to reduce road deaths by 50% by 2030. The strategy is steered by the road safety strategic forum, which includes representatives from the PSNI, the Fire and Rescue Service, the Ambulance Service, DAERA, DOJ, DFE and the Public Health Agency (PHA). Road safety is a key measure in the Programme for Government, and, together with our partners across road safety, we are working on a strategic action plan to take us into 2027. A report on the progress of the 2024-25 action plan was published on 30 October. I approved an allocation of just under £2 million to road safety promotion for this financial year. In addition, the road safety partnership has allocated half a million pounds in sponsorship, bringing the total budget to almost £2·5 million.

My officials have reinstated a full advertising programme. We have added to our "RoadWise Up" advertising campaign series and have included information on pedestrian safety, motorcyclist safety, drink-driving and a new point-of-danger radio campaign on the safety of children getting on and off school buses. In recent weeks, I have commissioned a new drug-driving campaign, and that will run from 20 November to the end of December. From January until the end of March, my Department will run campaigns that address careless, inattentive driving; mobile phone use; speeding; cyclist safety; and general driver behaviour and the impact of poor choices while driving.

The Member asked about the work that we are doing with partners in the South. I will soon announce a consultation on a review of speed limits. That will be of particular interest to most MLAs. We have been working closely at official level with our counterparts in the South to monitor the impact of the changes that have been made in the South and to monitor the progress that has been made. We are also looking at sharing research and knowledge on the use of speed cameras.

I am doing a vast range of things in that regard in my role. I am also working collaboratively, because many of our roads cross the border. We share those roads every day. Those of us who represent border consistencies know that, essentially, there is no border because those roads are part and parcel of everyday life. Therefore, it is important that we work as closely as possible and align our key objectives.

Mr McMurray: The statement refers to the sharing of information papers on speed limits: have there been any initial discussions about that? Has the Minister considered reducing speed limits in the North, given the recent changes in the Republic of Ireland, Wales and Scotland?

Ms Kimmins: We have had those conversations already. As I have just said, I will soon launch a consultation on a review of speed limits. My Department is actively working on that. I hope to make that announcement fairly soon.

Ms D Armstrong: Minister, thank you for your statement. I also reference the fatalities on the Derrylin Road in Fermanagh at the weekend. Having been out there, it was clear to me how that accident could have happened. I appeal to DFI to consider replenishing the road markings there — they are desperately in need of it — so that they are more emphatic for drivers. It is an extremely busy North/South road that is used every day by many vehicles, including goods lorries.

Minister, was there any indication from the Irish Government of further funding for the A5? On a second matter, Fermanagh is absent from the all-Ireland rail review: was that absence highlighted again?

Ms Kimmins: I think that there were three questions there.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Yes, there were three questions there, Minister.

Ms Kimmins: The Irish Government have reiterated their commitment to funding the A5. There is no indication that there is any risk to that funding. I am grateful for their support, particularly given the uncertainty that we have experienced for some time. I hope that we will see a positive conclusion to the appeal.

The all-island rail review is continually referenced and is very much kept on the agenda of every meeting that I have, whether it is the North/South Ministerial Council or any other engagement that I have as Minister. We will continue to monitor and assess that in the time ahead.

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

What engagement has been had with the Irish Government in relation to the transport strategy and transport plans?

Ms Kimmins: I usually have my iPad with me. Bear with me.

On 18 November 2025, my officials hosted a knowledge-sharing workshop with officials from Dublin City Council, Transport Infrastructure Ireland and the National Transport Authority (NTA). That workshop had a transport planning and delivery focus. My officials organised and facilitated the session, including delivering a presentation on the approach and indicative timelines for the transport strategy and draft transport plans. That provided an opportunity to outline our methodology and strategic direction. The workshop also created a valuable forum for collaboration, enabling officials to share experiences, discuss what works well and what does not and to learn from delivery challenges faced by other organisations. My team led discussions on practical steps for organising data-sharing, modelling and the use of analytical tools. Those exchanges will help to ensure consistency, improve decision-making and strengthen the evidence base for our plans. On the basis of the success of the session, we have agreed to continue that style of engagement through 2026, providing regular opportunities for officials to collaborate, share knowledge and embed best practice.

Mr Harvey: I welcome the statement by the Minister. Minister, you have elaborated about road safety, and I had the privilege of attending the launch of your drug-driving advertising campaign last week, which was also attended by Road Safe NI and The Road Ahead NI. On research and innovation, will you elaborate a wee bit more about hydrogen refuelling, please?

Ms Kimmins: As the Member will be aware, hydrogen refuelling is being looked at globally now. There are really good opportunities to make the shift to using hydrogen refuelling methods, particularly when you look at HGVs and some of the options. Some major companies have already put that in place, so we are keen to look at that. In some of the other sectoral meetings, we have heard about how other areas of work, on a North/South basis, are exploring what solutions are out there and what the benefits of those will be. We are watching that continually to see how we can embed it into good practice across the island.

Ms Mulholland: Thank you, Minister. You talked a wee bit about information-sharing and the sharing of knowledge. Has there been any discussion around the sharing of information on disqualified drivers?

Ms Kimmins: That issue has been brought to my attention in recent months. We are looking at that with officials because we recognise that there have been specific cases, and some Members in the Chamber have raised it with me directly. My view is that there are potential discrepancies that need to be addressed, so, at this time, officials are working on it to see how we can address it and close that gap.

Miss Hargey: Thank you, Minister. You rightly pointed to discussions around road safety, given recent events on our roads across the island. What other engagement is taking place with Irish government officials around other innovative technologies, particularly data-sharing?

Ms Kimmins: DFI officials have been working closely with colleagues in the National Transport Authority (NTA) and Dublin City Council to explore how we can share information and approaches to transport planning. Those discussions have focused on practical ways to make data and tools easier to use across organisations and, in learning from one another's experiences, to improve how my Department can plan and deliver projects. An example of that working relationship is how my officials have recently collaborated on the introduction of smart-sensor technology in Belfast city centre. That technology was initially trialled in Dublin city centre, and my officials have engaged with NTA and Dublin City Council to understand which systems work best and how they can be used to monitor and evaluate transport activity. That partnership has helped my officials to ensure that we can make the most of those innovations in Belfast. In particular, those innovations are a key part of the announcements that I have made on traffic congestion alleviation measures leading up to the Christmas period: how we can tweak the measures that we are putting in place for this year, based on last year's experience. That means that, if those measures are not working as well as we hoped that they would, the sensors will allow us to pick that up in real time so that we can make adjustments where needed.

Mr Brett: Minister, in your statement, you discuss how officials have been sharing best practice on how to advance transport policy. Does that extend to Hill Street in north Belfast? Your Department committed that the pedestrianisation of that street would be completed by November. It is now 1 December, and the street has still not been pedestrianised. Can you give us a date today for when the pedestrianisation of that street will be completed?

Ms Kimmins: Despite its not being explicitly linked to the statement, I am happy to answer the Member's question. As he is aware, there have been delays beyond my control that meant that we were not able to get the pedestrianisation started on the date on which we had hoped that we would. Those were important issues that we needed to address. I am happy that we have overcome those issues and have found a solution, but it has resulted in needing some tweaks to be made to some of the signage. I hope that that will be imminent, and as soon as we have an update, I will make that announcement. However, at this point, the delays are out of my control. Please be assured that my officials have been working extremely hard to get the scheme up and running as soon as possible.

Miss Dolan: I thank the Minister for her statement. Minister, what progress has been made on the Sligo-Enniskillen greenway?

Ms Kimmins: The Sligo-Enniskillen greenway project is in development, as the Member will know. An early design and route selection phase for the greenway, including the 18-kilometre northern section between Enniskillen and Belcoo, is being led by Leitrim County Council, with funding provided by the Department of Transport. The preferred corridor was published in October 2025, and an appraisal of route options to determine a preferred route within that corridor will now commence. My Department has issued a letter of offer for 50% of the funding, which is £126,000, to Fermanagh and Omagh District Council to support geotechnical survey work to inform the design development process in the North. Subject to the completion of a procurement process, it is anticipated that works will commence in 2026. My officials are also engaged with all parties with regard to funding for the future stages of the project.

Mr O'Toole: The Minister mentioned the all-Ireland strategic rail review. I am glad that it was discussed because we want to see progress on that. I understand that just one third of a full-time equivalent official is working on it in the Department. Has the Minister specifically requested from the Finance Minister a multi-year budget line — a capital allocation — to deliver the all-Ireland strategic rail review, so that people can see how progress will be funded?

Ms Kimmins: As I said in a previous answer and in the statement, we are waiting on the outcome of the prioritisation, but we will be factoring that into any future budget discussions.

Mr McAleer: I welcomed in the Minister's statement the reference to the setting up of the cross-border working group to ensure alignment of the A5. What conversations has her Department had with the working group about how the Donegal TEN-T and the N2 in Monaghan will link with the new A5?

Ms Kimmins: I have had numerous engagements with the various committees and cross-border groups that are working on the A5/N2 project. The Member may be aware that work continues to address the Planning Appeals Commission recommendations for the remaining two sections of the scheme. Those recommendations will be subject to separate consultations and decisions in due course. The cross-border working group that has been established to reinforce collaboration on the continued development of the N2 from Clontibret to the border and phase 3 of the A5 from Ballygawley to the border is up and running. Both Administrations continue to collaborate closely on the A5/Donegal TEN-T project interface, including on the mitigation of impacts on the River Foyle floodplain. Regular meetings are taking place with Donegal County Council and the Office of Public Works.

Mrs Cameron: I thank the Minister for her statement, in which she spoke of the significant stakeholder engagement undertaken by the Government of Ireland and the progression of the market-sounding exercise to support the Programme for Government commitment to establish air connectivity between Dublin and the City of Derry Airport. A few lines down in the statement, we heard of the engagement between officials in reducing emissions and mitigating the causes of climate change. Will the Minister explain how she manages those two contradictory subjects, which are just a few sentences apart?

Ms Kimmins: There is a balance to be struck in all these things, including air connectivity and creating connectivity across the island, and other routes are already in use. Many people who are not using air connectivity are potentially driving up and down those routes, so if we are able to cut down on some of those emissions. However, with everything that we do, it does not mean that we absolutely eliminate; we have to look at things sensibly and try to create a balance with what else we are doing to reduce emissions while giving people a range of options.

Mr Durkan: For decades in Derry, the roads in Donegal were the butt of jokes, but now, sadly, the shoe is on the other foot. Obviously, we are aware of collaboration with Dublin on the hopeful delivery of the A5, but has the Minister explored any potential for collaboration on other cross-border routes, specifically, the A2 Buncrana Road?

Ms Kimmins: Anything that we can do collaboratively is good. As I said earlier, our roads do not stop at the border. You can see how we worked it out on the A5, and the various sections and the working group that has been set up to address that. There has to be collaboration on all schemes because we have to bring it to the point where we are fulfilling our responsibility and, likewise, where the roads meet. Where we have a joint or shared interest in something that serves our citizens right across the island, we will continue to work with the Southern Government.

Mr Dunne: The statement referenced meetings about road safety initiatives. Can the Minister outline whether any of the initiatives discussed will be included in a road safety action plan for 2025-26?

Can she also outline why there has been a delay in the publication of any plan, given that it was advised that it was expected in summer 2025?

I thank the Minister for meeting the family of the late Jaidyn Rice, who was tragically killed in the summer, with us. That was a reminder for us all of the pain that can be inflicted on us by road safety tragedies.

Ms Kimmins: I thank the Member for his comments. I also thank him and his colleague for facilitating the meeting with Jaidyn's grandmother. I pay tribute to the Rice family for the commitment and strength that they are showing to ensure that Jaidyn's life will not have been lost in vain. They are channelling their grief into making our roads safer for all road users. I am grateful to have had the opportunity to meet Mrs Rice.

That ties into the Member's broader question. I am looking at everything that is available to me to see what we can do to make our roads safer. I mentioned the collaboration and shared working around reducing speed limits and having speed cameras on the roads. We discussed that as part of the engagement last week. Anything that I bring forward will inform future action plans to make sure that we continually narrow the gaps. That feeds into the broader piece around road safety advertising and campaigning to make sure that people realise that we all have a responsibility to play our part. As the House has heard me say before, over 95% of collisions are down to human error, so there are always things that we can do to ensure that, when we drive, we protect not just ourselves and the people with us but other road users, in line with anything else that we can do as a Department.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: That concludes questions —.

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

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Just let me finish this part first, Peter.

That concludes questions on the statement from the Minister for Infrastructure.

Mr Martin: Thank you very much, and apologies, Principal Deputy Speaker: I think that I called you "Deputy Speaker" at the start of my point of order.

The Minister did not answer my question, because, she said, she was not in post at that time. I do not dispute that, but a colleague of hers, the current Finance Minister, was. The Minister took a line with me that —.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Peter, sit down. That is not a point of order. It is not.

We have been through this repeatedly: if you are unhappy with the response that any Minister gives you, I advise you to write and put that on the record.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Members, as the statement on a suspected case of bluetongue virus was received by the Business Office at 1.10 pm, I propose, by leave of the Assembly, to suspend the sitting until 1.40 pm.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: The Speaker has received notice from the Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs that he wishes to make a statement. Before I call the Minister, I remind Members that they must be concise in asking their question and that this is not an opportunity for long-winded introductions.

Mr Muir (The Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs): Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker, for the opportunity to make a statement to the Assembly on the recent suspect case of the bluetongue virus (BTV) in Northern Ireland. I intend to use the statement to update Members on the current state of BTV incursion across the UK; the suspect case of BTV at a farm near Bangor, County Down; the immediate disease control actions that have been taken by my Department and next steps; and key measures for industry at this worrying time.

Bluetongue is an insect-borne viral disease to which all species of ruminants are susceptible, although sheep are most severely affected. Often, cattle and goats that appear healthy can carry high levels of the virus and provide a source of further infection. The disease is caused by a virus that is transmitted by certain species of biting midges. Animal-to-animal transmission is not a significant method of spread, except through the transplacental route, and germ plasm is also involved in the spread. The species of midge that carries the infection is found in Northern Ireland. Bluetongue can reduce milk yield, cause sickness and reduce reproductive performance. While it can also have major trade impacts, it is a disease of animals, not humans, so there are no public health or food safety issues.

As Members will be aware, there have been a significant number of BTV cases across England and Wales in recent years. The total number of cases since July 2025 is 228. There have been no cases in Scotland or the Republic of Ireland. As a result, direct movement of all live ruminants and camelids from Great Britain to Northern Ireland is still suspended. The use of approved unauthorised vaccines in England and Wales does not impact on that.

In seeking to progress actions to protect Northern Ireland, I agreed in June of this year to publish DAERA's disease control framework for Northern Ireland for bluetongue virus BTV-3. The framework presents DAERA's surveillance in response to a heightened disease risk of BTV with respect to serotypes — otherwise known as "strain types" — without an approved vaccine and for those with vaccines that have been authorised by the EU in exceptional circumstances. Developed in close cooperation with industry, it details the range of existing and ongoing measures to prevent and detect early disease introduction. They include existing post-import testing for ruminant and camelid animals imported from mainland Europe, with one or more tests required, depending on origin and pregnancy status; midge surveillance carried out by the Agri-Food and Biosciences Institute (AFBI) across seven Northern Ireland sites in spring and autumn to detect start and end of vector-active season; and horizon scanning of the mainland Europe, Great Britain and Republic of Ireland BTV disease picture to be aware of heightened risk, learn lessons from other authorities and tailor our approach, as required. The framework also outlined our surveillance-testing protocol, which was reinforced last year to include more comprehensive sampling, including EDTA sampling, to facilitate PCR testing of serology positives. In addition, as Members will be aware, I took the further decision in July of this year to permit the voluntary use of three bluetongue serotype 3 vaccines in Northern Ireland.

I turn now to the suspect case. On Saturday 29 November, the Agri-Food and Biosciences Institute indicated that two of three cattle samples submitted to the laboratory on 18 November were positive for bluetongue. Neither animal was vaccinated. The samples came from a cattle and sheep farm near Bangor, County Down. I take the opportunity to thank the affected farmer for his ongoing cooperation during such a difficult time. The suspect BTV positive was picked up because of the enhanced surveillance-testing protocol at all Northern Ireland abattoirs, which was introduced in June 2024. That, along with the actions that I have just mentioned, complement the immediate follow-up of any reported cases with veterinary investigation to negate concerns or declare a suspicion.

Due to those initial results, as outlined in the framework, a 20-kilometre temporary control zone (TCZ) was immediately introduced around the affected farm on the same day, Saturday 29 November. It should be noted that the samples are now subject to confirmatory testing at the Friedrich Loeffler Institute (FLI) in Germany, the EU reference laboratory and the UK national reference laboratory (NRL) at Pirbright before disease can be either confirmed or definitely ruled out.

The immediate disease control restrictions that are now in place mean that moving susceptible species, such as cattle, sheep, goats, deer and llamas and alpacas, on or off premises in the zone and on the affected farm is now prohibited while officials carry out further investigations. Moves direct to slaughter are permitted under a general licence, which is available on my Department's website. It should be noted that such moves are, in part, being permitted as the advice indicates that the risk is minimal. That is because it is likely that we are nearly, if not already, in the vector low period, which means that midges cannot spread the disease in the colder weather. The further capture of midges will allow us to confirm that over the coming days.

In addition, DAERA officials were on-site on Saturday morning and confirmed that there were no clinical signs in any of the remaining cattle or sheep on the farm, nor were there any clinical signs in the animals that were sampled at the abattoir. Officials are also tracing any animals that moved on or off the farm during the risk window from 1 October 2025. Any holdings that are identified as having received animals from the affected farm will be subject to surveillance and testing if required.

The Department has issued a press release and updated the departmental website with further information on BTV, with specific information for farmers who are in the temporary control zone. The Chief Veterinary Officer (CVO) and officials met the Ulster Farmers' Union (UFU) last night to discuss the situation, and they are directly contacting all farmers in the area by text and email. Further communications will be considered in the coming days, and the most up-to-date information will be available on the DAERA website.

As our BTV-free status has now been suspended, moves of live animals to the Republic of Ireland and the EU can be permitted only for direct slaughter. Breeding and production moves will not be permitted either from or to farms that are in the control zone. Animal moves to Great Britain are all suspended while immediate discussions are held between officials to agree on the requirements for moves for slaughter and breeding and production in line with those available to the rest of the UK. As Members will appreciate, this is a developing situation, and we expect clarity on those movements imminently after the necessary meetings take place today. Germ plasm movements out of the zone are not permitted unless they satisfy testing and biosecurity requirements. Furthermore, the effects on the movement of products of animal origin should be minimal. Some individual export certificates may be dependent on bluetongue freedom, but those will be limited in number.

The suspected incursion is worrying, and I have outlined to officials my determination that all necessary steps are taken to mitigate any further risks and that all efforts are made to stamp out the disease. My Department will, therefore, immediately test all the remaining cattle and sheep on the affected farm. The results from that testing will further inform actions. In addition, a range of surveillance activities will be progressed in the temporary control zone and will include a ban on any moves except to slaughter. Twenty large farms, randomly spread across the area, will be tested to determine the extent of spread, if any, within the zone.

It is important to note that only when further veterinary investigations take place, in addition to a further assessment of potential midge activity, can decisions be made about how long the temporary control zone will remain in place, how long trade restrictions may last, whether any further zones need to be established and how long the current ban on movements within the zone will last. Officials will, therefore, keep affected farmers and the wider industry regularly updated with timely communications. That will include convening a wider stakeholder and industry meeting later today to update them on the current situation. I have also had direct discussions with my counterpart in the South, Minister Heydon, and I plan to discuss the matter with DEFRA colleagues at the earliest opportunity. I will keep in close contact with colleagues in Great Britain and the Republic of Ireland.

In the time ahead, I appeal to all farmers to immediately notify the Department of any suspicions of BTV so that appropriate action can be taken. A large range of material is available on the DAERA website, including pictures of the clinical signs and next steps if an incursion is suspected. I also remind the public that, while bluetongue is extremely serious for animal health and productivity, it is not zoonotic, and there are no public health or food concerns.

I will ensure that updates are provided, as necessary, to my Executive colleagues and also, importantly, the AERA Committee in the first instance. I will be happy to return to the House if there are any further significant and serious developments in the time ahead.

Mr Butler (The Chairperson of the Committee for Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs): I thank the Minister for his statement and for contacting me at the weekend in regard to the situation. Bluetongue is happening against the backdrop of avian flu and bovine tuberculosis, and the spectre of the veterinary medicines debacle is also hanging over farmers at the moment. Is there anything that we can do to give further confidence to farmers that vaccinations will be readily available post 1 January?

Mr Muir: As Minister, I made a decision to allow farmers to have access to the vaccines. That is a decision for them. They are available, and farmers can take advice from their private veterinary practitioner in relation to their uptake. The focus now has to be on eradication. That is why we set up the temporary control zone and why movements are only permitted directly to slaughter, and there is a form available on the DAERA website to facilitate that. Additional testing is under way by the Department.

Together, I think that we can stamp it out, but it is important that we all work collectively on the issue and stand united on one message that the temporary control zone and the understanding of it must be respected, and I am sure that it will be. My engagement with the Ulster Farmers' Union has shown that we are in this together, and we are going to work together on it.

Mr McAleer: I thank the Minister for his statement and for his communication at the weekend with me, in my capacity as Deputy Chair of the AERA Committee. Minister, this issue is potentially devastating for the farm affected and potentially, but hopefully not, for any other farm that may be impacted on. I appreciate that it is the early days of your investigation, but has any consideration been given yet to compensating farmers who may be very heavily affected?

Mr Muir: As Minister, I take the issue very seriously. When the positive test was confirmed on Saturday evening, the Department rolled into action in its response to it, and rightly so. I have also spoken to my counterpart in the South because we are one single epidemiological area, and that is why it is important that we work together on it. We have a policy in place in relation to compensation. It states:

Miss McIlveen: I thank the Minister for his statement. The issue is very worrying. I am conscious that it is still considered to be a suspected case, but, given the low temperatures over the past couple of weeks, is it likely that cattle may have been infected for a longer time? If that is the case, and further testing concludes that a number of herds have been infected, what will the next steps be? Will the Department work with industry to determine whether there will be a mass cull, or will there be an alternative plan that will help to build herd resilience?

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Minister, there are four questions there.

Mr Muir: First, on how it came about, there are ongoing investigations. It is spread by midges, so it is a bit more difficult to totally ascertain. It is relatively cold weather now, but Members will probably remember that, a few weeks ago, it was relatively warm, so that risk has existed in Northern Ireland.

On the risk of bluetongue going beyond that herd, the guide, which I have been going through all weekend, is the disease control framework, and we will work through that in our response. The most effective way to avoid it spreading is to set up control zones and to limit movements and for farmers to be vigilant. If they suspect bluetongue, it is important that they immediately report it and isolate any sick animals. The Department is taking a number of actions in its response. It is conducting additional blood samples of other herds and the affected herd. Traps for midges are being set, and we are going to be testing those. There is also additional abattoir surveillance. Hopefully, through those collective actions, we can progress to eradication.

I am very conscious that it is a worrying time for the farming community in Northern Ireland. I did not want to have to come the Assembly about this, especially at this time of year, when we had hoped that we were out of the vector-borne season, but it is important that we respond collectively, and I think that we will.

Mr Blair: I thank the Minister for the statement. Will the Minister provide information on any of his engagement with the Irish Government regarding the arrival of bluetongue on the island of Ireland? He touched a bit on that in his statement, but, for clarity, it would be useful to have more information, if he has it.

Mr Muir: Thank you, John. I was immediately in contact with my counterpart in the South, Martin Heydon, when the results came through on Saturday evening. I spoke to him yesterday, and we will continue our engagement as Ministers. There is also significant engagement between veterinary service colleagues, North and South, on the issue. It is a threat to our agri-food industry in the island of Ireland, and it is important that we respond accordingly. That is what we are doing. Beyond that, we need to work together as politicians and with the farming community in Northern Ireland so that we have one collective and clear message that a control zone is in place and only moves direct to slaughter are permitted. A form for that is available from the DAERA website. People can download the form, and, if they bring it with their livestock to the abattoir, it should cover them.

Mr McNulty: I thank the Minister for his statement. Does the Minister have any concerns about livestock prices at marts and factories and the implications of any drops for farmers and their families?

Mr Muir: As Minister, my focus in the situation now has to be on dealing with the consequences of the positive samples that have come through. The best way that we can secure the future of the agri-food industry in Northern Ireland is by moving fast and hard in response to those samples. My officials have been doing that. They did it all day on Saturday and Sunday, until late last night, and again from first thing this morning. That is what we must do, and that is what will secure the future of the agri-food industry.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Members will be aware that Question Time starts at 2.00 pm. Questions on the statement will continue after Question Time and the question for urgent oral answer. I suggest that the Assembly takes its ease until then. Thank you.

Dr Archibald (The Minister for the Economy): The recent increase in employers’ National Insurance contributions, persistently high energy costs and the higher input costs driven by inflation are major components of the challenge. Many of the issues are outside my Department's remit, but support exists for businesses on a number of fronts, including support to invest in low-carbon energy to reduce energy costs. In addition, alongside its delivery partners, my Department provides a range of supports for businesses to help them to become more competitive through innovation, skills and support for exploring new markets. Ultimately, businesses will thrive when they have the support available to meet their full potential within the constraints in which they operate. My economic vision is geared towards driving the economic change that we need to ensure that people across the North are able to benefit from that transformation.

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

Minister, this is an extremely challenging time for businesses. You outlined some of those challenges, another of which is the increase in the minimum wage, which your colleague welcomed earlier. That will put pressure on small businesses in particular and will, I fear, lead to more unemployment. I appreciate that some of those things are outside your gift, Minister, but are you committed to working with your colleagues to make things easier for the many businesses here that struggle? Numerous businesses closed last year, and it does not look good for many more going into the future.

Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for his question. I concur with a lot of what he said: it is a challenging environment for business for a range of reasons. There are lots of cost pressures. All of us will endorse the idea that the lowest paid should have their wages topped up annually, but, alongside other cumulatively increasing costs, that poses a challenge for businesses. I am absolutely committed to working with my Executive colleagues and the Finance Minister in particular to make representations to the British Government about the need for interventions that will support businesses to grow and thrive.

Disappointingly, we did not see a great deal in last week's Budget that will deliver on that. When I was Finance Minister, I commissioned research on the cost of doing business that provided an evidence base for Treasury to look at some of the interventions where there are differential impacts in the North. It would have suited the Treasury better to do that, and it would be wise for it to consider that going forward. I am committed to working with all my colleagues to address the challenges that businesses face. I engage with businesses and their representatives regularly in order to understand the issues that have an impact on them.

Mr Middleton: Minister, we all agree that all Ministers should work together to ease pressures on local businesses. Do you agree that the proposals in your 'good jobs' Bill will, in fact, increase financial pressures on local businesses?

Dr Archibald: I do not agree with the Member in that regard. What we are trying to achieve with the 'good jobs' Bill is to ensure that workers have good terms and conditions and that businesses that are doing the right thing and implementing good policies and supporting their workers are not being undercut by those who are less scrupulous. Working with business organisations and the trade unions, we are charting a way forward with the 'good jobs' Bill that will adopt a balanced approach, benefiting employers and workers alike.

Ms Nicholl: In my constituency of South Belfast and, indeed, all constituencies, Christmas is a particularly important time for businesses. What work will the Minister do, alongside her colleague in the Infrastructure Department, to monitor traffic issues, which could have a huge impact on businesses during that important time?

Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for her question. She will be aware of the measures that the Infrastructure Minister has taken in advance of the Christmas period to minimise traffic disruption. However, we want people to be out in the shops and on our high streets, spending money and supporting businesses in advance of Christmas, so a certain amount of traffic, which we want to see, is not within that control. I am committed to working with my ministerial colleague to ensure that the festive period is successful for businesses. I endorse the Retail Consortium campaign about being kind to our shopworkers over the Christmas period and not taking our frustrations out on people who are trying to help us. I will be more than happy to work with ministerial colleagues to get the best out of that time.

Dr Archibald: The energy strategy aims to ensure a secure, affordable and clean energy system for current and future generations by reducing reliance on fossil fuels, increasing local renewable generation and creating a flexible, resilient and integrated energy system that closely monitors and enhances security of supply. Anaerobic digestion supports the energy strategy and the economic vision by enabling the decarbonisation of energy and promoting regional balance through economic activity in rural areas. The anaerobic digestion sector has also benefited from support through the Northern Ireland renewables obligation. The energy system is complex and interconnected, with policy officials being supported finance, analysis and legislation colleagues. It is therefore not possible to provide a precise breakdown of the scale of resource dedicated to anaerobic digestion.

My Department, like all Departments, faces a constrained fiscal situation, but we are working hard to bring forward policies and programmes that will benefit the sector and the wider economy. That work includes advancing biomethane actions such as issuing a public consultation on the treatment of connection costs and gas quality standards in early 2026. My Department will continue to collaborate with DAERA, the Utility Regulator and other key stakeholders to support the development of a sustainable biomethane sector.

Mr Butler: I thank the Minister for a fulsome and honest-sounding answer. I am glad to hear that the Minister recognises the value of anaerobic digestion and biomethane in particular. Can she outline any ways in which grid connections could be advanced more quickly by using the current legislation rather than waiting for a specific biomethane strategy?

Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for his question. It is important that we have the correct regulatory framework in place to support the sector's development and the use of biomethane more generally. As you would expect, we are working on that with colleagues across the energy sector, particularly the Utility Regulator. We are engaging with those who are already doing anaerobic digestion, and there is an opportunity for us, particularly in more rural areas, to better utilise that resource. I look forward to the consultation being published and to making progress in that area.

Mr McAleer: Can the Minister indicate when she expects the biomethane policy to be published?

Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for his question. The re-formation of the interdepartmental methane group will enable my officials to work with DAERA and other key stakeholders to develop policy. My Department is already taking actions to support that work and is planning to issue a public consultation on the treatment of connection costs and gas quality standards in early 2026.

Mr Brett: Minister, the Northern Ireland Audit Office published a damning report on the Department's energy strategy. We have already seen one delay to the renewable electricity price guarantee (REPG) scheme.

When will you, as Minister, get to grips with the energy department in the Department for the Economy and deliver on the so-called targets that you are committed to achieving?

Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for his question. I am well on record as acknowledging the Audit Office report and indicating that we will implement its recommendations. The midterm review of the energy strategy is ongoing — I know that the Member is aware of that — and will be published in the next few weeks. It will set out the progress that we have achieved to date, which, in some respects, is considerable, and delivery milestones up to 2030 to provide the best opportunity for us to achieve what are ambitious but, of course, statutory targets that we have to achieve. I am committed to ensuring that we work towards that and towards an energy system that secures our energy future on the basis of renewables and of supporting people who live and work here, in particular protecting costs for consumers, which, I think, all of us seek to do.

Mr Honeyford: Minister, you said that energy is a complex issue, and I appreciate that. We have had the Audit Office report as well. However, I have repeatedly asked for clarity on this: do you intend to produce a single, comprehensive master plan that will incorporate everything and sit above councils' local development plans, bringing our entire energy system together to allow strategies for biogas renewables and everything else to come together to give us a strategic direction?

Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for his question. I know that he has an interest in the area. He will know that we are pursuing a number of policies under the broad category of energy and are making good progress. I view the energy strategy as the plan. The midterm review provides us with an opportunity to set out a clear road map to 2030, bringing everything together. I look forward to sharing that with the Committee and more widely in the coming weeks.

Dr Archibald: The City of Derry Airport is a critical gateway for the North, because it provides essential connectivity for the north-west region to London, Manchester, Glasgow and other key cities that support business connectivity and inbound tourism. I welcome the Irish Government's announcement that they will provide funding to support the restoration of the Dublin to Derry route. Promotion of that additional route will be important, and I have asked Tourism Ireland to identify options to best deliver it.

On a wider point, to support the airport's long-term sustainability and to help maximise its economic potential, I have committed up to £12 million in investment. My Department is also funding 50% of the £4·6 million cost for the City of Derry to Heathrow route. It is estimated that the London Heathrow route alone delivers a minimum benefit of £15 million per year in GVA for the Derry city region. That highlights the airport's role in supporting productivity and wider regional development. It is an integral part of my wider plans to improve regional balance and ensure that the north-west shares in the economic and social benefits.

Mr Delargy: I thank the Minister for her answer and for her and Minister Murphy's support for City of Derry Airport at over £3 million per year, which has allowed the sustainability to introduce the Dublin to Derry route. Minister, what engagement has your Department had with the Irish Government to ensure that that route is not only sustainable but successful?

Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for his comments and his question. My officials are engaged with their counterparts in the Irish Department of Transport, which is leading the preparatory work to re-establish the Derry to Dublin air service. That engagement has helped to inform a market-sounding exercise that transport officials will publish in due course. It will seek views on demand and specifications for the service and help to determine the best way to connect and support the north-west region. Further cross-government engagement and collaboration will continue as that work progresses.

Dr Archibald: My Department continues to work on drafting the employment rights Bill. That work is at an advanced stage and will deliver a substantial Bill that will be the most significant reform of employment law since devolution. Obviously, we have lost two years of this mandate, and I and my Executive colleagues are therefore working to a very condensed time frame. Despite that, my Department is working at pace to deliver a very considerable piece of legislation addressing many of the most complex and critical employment issues facing us, delivering a balanced package that will help prevent positive employers being undercut by competitors using unfair practices and ensuring that workers across the North can benefit from the most significant update of employment rights in a generation. It is important that we get this right, and, to that end, I and my Department are continuing to engage with employers, trade unions and other stakeholders.

Mr O'Toole: Thank you. Minister, given that you said that your Department is continuing to draft the Bill, I presume that it is not drafted yet. The 'good jobs' Bill was first trumpeted by your predecessor, Conor Murphy, way back in the early days after restoration in 2024, and you made an oral statement here in April of this year about the Bill progressing. Workers deserve clarity on the progressive legislation that they were and continue to be promised by you and your party. There is real concern that the Bill will either be watered down or timed out. Can you confirm that it will be introduced early in the new year, in time for it to be passed in this mandate?

Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for his question, and I presume from his tone that he supports the principles of the 'good jobs' Bill. I can confirm that we are working at pace to ensure that the legislation is delivered to the Assembly as early as possible in the new year. The drafting is, as I said, at a very advanced stage. It is comprehensive and considerable legislation with many parts to it, and we have been working closely with the Office of the Legislative Counsel to ensure that the drafting is completed as quickly as possible. We will then bring it to the Executive for approval and introduction to the Assembly.

Mr Kearney: Minister, can you outline for us how you envisage the 'good jobs' Bill improving the working lives of young people across our entire community, with particular reference to the proposal that tips earned should be held on to by those workers?

Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for his question. Many parts of the 'good jobs' Bill will be beneficial to young people. The one that the Member mentioned comes up regularly in the engagement that I have with young people, and, in my opinion, it is an unfairness that many of them face. We are seeking to address that. There are other aspects to the Bill, such as addressing zero-hours contracts and increased flexible working, that will benefit not only young people but people of all working ages. Of course, access to trade union representation will be of benefit to all workers but particularly to young people, many of whom, at times, feel that they cannot raise their voice in work settings. Therefore, that protection from trade unions is important. Also, many of the family supports that we are bringing in through the legislation, including access to carer's leave, neonatal care leave and other progressive measures, are really important and beneficial to young people. I am really keen that we make good progress and get the legislation through the Assembly at the earliest opportunity.

Ms Forsythe: Minister, do you now accept that, despite public claims, the Bill will not be introduced to the Assembly in January 2026?

Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for her question. It is certainly my intention that the legislation will be introduced to the Assembly at the earliest opportunity in 2026. As I mentioned to Mr O'Toole, we have to ensure that it passes through the Executive, so I am sure that the Member will engage with her ministerial colleagues to make sure that that happens at the earliest opportunity.

Mr Dickson: Minister, can you assure the House that there will be no watering down of rights, as the UK Government have proposed to do with Mr O'Toole's colleagues at Westminster?

Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for his question. I certainly want to see no watering down of rights. I intend that the Bill that I indicated I would draft will be introduced into the Assembly. Once it is in the Assembly, it is in the ownership of the Assembly, and it will be for the Assembly to finally determine what comes out at the other end. However, I know what I intend and what I want to see.

Mr Carroll: Minister, I am sure that you are aware of the Unite the union's hospitality campaign — the 'Get me home safely' campaign — which includes employers getting hospitality workers home safely after they have worked until the late hours of the night and the morning, zero tolerance on harassment and other issues. Can you confirm whether aspects of that will be in the 'good jobs' Bill?

Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for his question. Some aspects of that may be covered by the legislation. I would need to look at the campaign in detail to understand all of the asks again. Certainly, I am open to looking at that.

Ms D Armstrong: Minister, following the Labour Government's U-turn on their manifesto commitment to grant all workers first-day rights to claim unfair dismissal, will you also recommend the same measure in the 'good jobs' Bill in Northern Ireland?

Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for her question. Obviously, we have engaged with counterparts in the Department for Business and Trade as we and they progress our legislation. At times, there are unhelpful cross-references to such things, and I intend that my legislation, as I set out, will progress and be introduced to the Assembly.

Dr Archibald: With your permission, Mr Speaker, I will answer questions 5 and 9 together.

I am fully committed to introducing the legislation to operationalise safe leave during this mandate. The workplace can provide a safe space, and staying in employment can help victims and survivors of domestic abuse to retain their financial independence. However, they may also need time off work to deal with issues connected to that domestic abuse. People in that situation should of course continue to be paid and should not suffer financially.

My Department consulted on proposals to operationalise the safe leave Act last year. I hope to publish the findings of that as soon as possible. As well as introducing regulations, my Department will issue supporting guidance for employers and workers to help them navigate the new right. Developing the guidance will entail engaging with key stakeholders to ensure that it provides proper support to workers and employers so that this important right can be accessed by those who need it. I hope that access to paid safe leave from work will help victims and survivors of domestic abuse to access the vital support that they need.

Ms Egan: Minister, the Act was passed in 2022 and the longer the delay in implementation, the more we let down victims and survivors. You said that you want to publish your consultation as soon as possible: can you give us any firmer timescales on that? When will victims and survivors who need it be able to take safe leave?

Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for her question. I am sure that she shares my frustration that we lost two years of the mandate and the ability to progress vital work like this. It was consulted on as early as possible once the Executive had returned. Obviously, we are progressing a number of important pieces of legislation, and this is one of them. My commitment is that it will be delivered as soon as possible and will be as effective as possible. I gave that commitment to the campaign that was here last week for the International Day for the Elimination of Violence against Women and Girls. It is important that we get it implemented and operationalised as quickly as possible so that people get that practical support.

Mr Brett: This month marks two years since Sinn Féin took on ownership of the Department for the Economy. In that two years, the Act has not progressed one iota. Trade unions were forced to protest outside this Building at the delay. Will you please articulate to the House why, in two years, your Department has not been able to introduce the regulations?

Mr Brett: I thank the Member for his question. I am sure that he will not mind me pointing out that his party kept the institutions down for two years and delayed us from taking forward any of the work needed to ensure that the Act is implemented. As I indicated in my response to Ms Egan, we are working at pace to deliver this as quickly as possible. The consultation has been completed since we took ownership of the Department, and I am committed to ensuring that this important legislation is operationalised as quickly as possible.

Mrs Dillon: I thank the Minister for the work that she is doing on safe leave. It is important that we get the legislation right, not that we do it quickly. What are you doing, Minister, to work with advocates and the groups and organisations that represent people who have suffered domestic abuse to make sure that the regulations are right and that the guidelines are fitting for those whom they must serve?

Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for her question. That is exactly what we need to work towards. The legislation must be effective for those who require it. My Department will engage further with stakeholders, including support groups, employer representatives and trade unions, as it develops effective guidance for workers and employers. It is important that the guidance provide employers with easily accessible information that will assist them in meeting their responsibilities in a supportive manner. It is also important that it provide workers with the information that they need to help them to exercise their rights. The guidance will also include information on the requirement to treat any information provided by workers with sensitivity and due regard to confidentiality.

Dr Archibald: I very much welcome the news that the 153rd Open generated £280 million in economic benefit for the North. That figure comprises £89 million of economic impact and £191 million of media benefit. Of the £89 million of economic impact over £40 million was in the Causeway Coast and Glens area.

The independent research undertaken points to an increase since the 2019 event of £44 million in economic impact from hosting the championship: nearly double the value of the previous time that it was hosted here. That increase has been attributed to a higher number of spectators, higher daily spending and more visitors staying in commercial accommodation. That was helped by the large proportion of spectators who extended their stay to enjoy the wonderful experiences that we have to offer. It boosted local businesses and provided a platform for building relationships with investors, including an event that I hosted in Derry to showcase the north-west as a location for international expansion.

We once again demonstrated our ability to host major events, strengthening our reputation across the world, including generating new tourism opportunities, as our wonderful landscape was broadcast globally to over half a billion households. I look forward to the R&A returning for the next competition soon.

Mr Robinson: I thank the Minister for that response. Minister, building on the success of the recent Open, how confident are you that the Open will return to Royal Portrush? What work is under way to ensure that that happens?

Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for his question. When the R&A first came here, it indicated that it would come for three competitions. Since then, that has been confirmed on a number of occasions by spokespersons for the R&A, the most recent of which was when the economic impact was announced just a couple of weeks ago. My Department is working with Tourism NI to ensure that that happens at the earliest opportunity. We can all see the clear impact that it has had from on the economy and on tourism, as well as in showcasing what we can do in hosting global events, which is another thing that I will seek to build on.

Mr McGuigan: I welcome the work that the Minister is doing to enhance and capitalise on the North's tourism potential. Minister, will you provide an update on the extension of Fáilte Ireland's experience brands into the North?

Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for his question. Tourism NI has been working closely with Fáilte Ireland to secure agreement to license the use of the Ireland's Hidden Heartlands brand in the North. We anticipate an announcement in the near future that will enhance opportunities for businesses in the Fermanagh region and strengthen the Ireland's Hidden Heartlands brand.

The Wild Atlantic Way and Causeway coastal route are being closely linked through an ongoing Shared Island project that is supporting research, a small capital grant scheme, marketing and shared signposting to bring the two iconic routes together. Tourism NI is playing a key role in that project in collaboration with Fáilte Ireland and Tourism Ireland. Fáilte Ireland is undertaking a review of Ireland's Ancient East and anticipates a brand refresh in the next year. An extension of that into the North could include County Armagh, County Down and County Antrim.

I am keen to incorporate parts of the North into all Fáilte Ireland's regional brands. However, Fáilte Ireland owns the brands, so it is ultimately for it to decide how parts of the North might be included. You can be assured that I will be vociferous in my lobbying of it.

Mr Speaker: We move on to topical questions.

Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for her question. I do not agree that no action has been taken. Considerable work has been done by my Department and Invest NI and through working in partnership with businesses across the North to advance propositions for inclusion in the enhanced investment zone. On 16 October, I brought a paper to the Executive, where constructive discussion took place. Further engagement is planned to address the comments that were received as part of that discussion. A revised paper for approval of proposed thematic spend has been submitted. I am hopeful that that will be tabled at the next Executive meeting. Subject to the Executive's approval of my paper, we are on track to secure the necessary approvals from the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government to enable spending on the programme to commence in this financial year.

Ms McLaughlin: Minister, I welcome that news. It is really important that those decisions are made quickly in the Executive, because the Budget offered nothing meaningful for businesses. Firms here are crying out for support and help. Energy prices throughout Northern Ireland are —

Mr Speaker: This is Question Time, Ms McLaughlin: it is not speech time. Please ask your question.

Ms McLaughlin: — continuing to rise. What other actions are you taking to support businesses in their moment of need?

Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for her question. She is quite right: what was in the Budget was a restatement of what we already knew about the enhanced investment zone. It is designed to accelerate productivity and private-sector growth. Targeted interventions are intended to be made in business support, R&D, skills, local infrastructure and support for green industries. As I indicated, we are working to advance agreement as quickly as possible and to get the necessary approvals over the line. Some of the other programmes that involve the British Government have also had a convoluted process of approvals that have to be gone through. We are working as assiduously as possible to ensure that that is achieved.

Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for her question. I certainly agree. I am sure that no MLA who is from a rural constituency has not had that issue raised with them. It is simply unfair that many people in rural communities face additional reinforcement charges to connect to the grid. As well as being unfair, the high cost of grid connection is also a barrier to business investment in rural areas. When I visited FP McCann last week, I was told that investment in its plant in Magherafelt had been put on hold due to the cost of connection but that, thanks to the new policy, that investment will now go ahead. Fairer connection charges will also support people who live in rural areas to build homes locally and to stay there and invest in their communities. I have no doubt that, by unlocking that investment and supporting job creation in rural communities, that policy will help to promote a more regionally balanced economy.

Mr Speaker: Question 3 has been withdrawn. Sorry: Ms Finnegan.

Ms Finnegan: I thank the Minister for her answer. Can she provide detail on when the policy will come into effect? What arrangements are in place to advise people who are in the process of connecting to the grid?

Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for that question. Following my decision, the Utility Regulator is working to modify NIE Networks' licence. A new statement of connection charges will be published in the new year. NIE Networks and the Utility Regulator are committed to working together at pace to bring that change through as quickly as possible. The change will take effect in the first half of 2026.

You asked about those who have already submitted an application for connection to the grid. NIE will make contact with all existing applicants with reinforcement elements to discuss how the new policy affects them. It will work with those customers on a case-by-case basis to explain the cost and the process, which will enable the customer to make an informed decision on the approach to best suit their individual needs.

Mr Speaker: Question 3 has been withdrawn.

Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for her question. The most recent official statistics show that 69% of jobs here in the North are good jobs that provide secure employment and a decent wage through permanent non-zero-hours contracts and paying at least the real living wage. That represents an increase in the good jobs rate over the year. In addition, the latest earnings statistics show that median-growth weekly wages have increased by 7·4% from 2024 and that the proportion of jobs paying at least the real living wage has increased from 80% to 83%. It is also encouraging that nearly 200 organisations across the North have committed to paying the real living wage, demonstrating their commitment to fair pay. There is therefore a strong foundation that we need to continue to build on to embed good jobs across all sectors of our economy.

Ms Ní Chuilín: Minister, thank you for that response. You talked about "all sectors" across the economy, so how are you working with groups in the Irish language sector, such as GaelChúrsaí, to help Gaeilgeoirí

achieve good jobs? If you do not have a response now, maybe you can get back to me with an update.

Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for her question. I have engaged with Forbairt Feirste on a number of occasions recently on the Irish-medium economy. We are looking at research to address some of the barriers that Irish-medium businesses might face.

GaelChúrsaí is an organisation that supports young people who face barriers to employment and training. I visited it earlier this year. It was set up because a lot of young people who leave school after being educated their whole life through only Irish find that they have limited options to develop their skills as Gaeilge

GaelChúrsaí delivers vocational training as Gaeilge

I am pleased that it is now a delivery partner for my Department's ApprenticeshipsNI 2025 and Skills for Life and Work programmes. That will support Irish speakers to gain valuable learning and skills, enabling them to move closer to the labour market and open up support that was not previously available. I was delighted to see that its great work was recognised at last week's Aisling awards, at which it won an Irish language award. It clearly meant so much to it. That is recognition of the really important work on vocational training that it continues to do.

Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for his question. I know that, like me, he will be well aware of the good work that goes on in North West Regional College and of some of the really positive and constructive relationships that it has with local employers. That is replicated across our colleges in different sectors. I certainly think that we can strengthen the knowledge and experience that our colleges have built up over many years through their engagement with businesses. They are close to the ground and are often able to provide that first level of support for local businesses. I am really keen to build on that further.

Mr Middleton: I thank the Minister for her response. Although the FE sector is facing a difficult budgetary landscape, NWRC has been able to punch above its weight. Does the Minister acknowledge that that sector is not just a cost to be managed but an engine to be fuelled and that, if further support were provided to the like of North West Regional College, it could do much more than it currently does?

Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for his question. I say very often, when I am engaging with stakeholders across the Department's remit, that skills underpin everything that we are trying to achieve and that our further education colleges are absolutely crucial in delivering programmes of support, whether it is through training or with businesses.

Since coming into this role, I have sought, as did Conor Murphy before me, to invest in our colleges. I managed to get some additional funding during this financial year, which has gone towards supporting our further and higher education institutions. Going forward, it is certainly something that I will continue to prioritise.

Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for her question. Businesses have faced a really challenging environment over the past number of years and again this year, when we had the threat of tariffs being imposed and the uncertainty that was created by that. Productivity is one of my four priorities in the economic vision. It is a complex issue to address, and we are seeking to do that through skills, support for innovation for businesses and investment in the type of business support that will make a difference to costs, for example, by reducing energy costs. Infrastructure also has a huge role to play, so it is one of those issues that we have to seek to address across the Executive, and I am certainly working with colleagues to try to do that.

Ms Bradshaw: Thank you for your answer, Minister. How are smaller firms able to avail themselves of those interventions at the same rate as larger companies?

Dr Archibald: I thank the Member again for her question. In working with Invest NI, we have tried to ensure that supports are available to businesses regardless of their size. Often, when businesses are at an early stage in their development, some of the first people with whom they engage will be through their local councils, so the support via Go Succeed has been really important, as has signposting businesses to the other types of support that is available to them. We continue to work on that to ensure that our SMEs and microbusinesses, which are the absolute backbone of our economy and make up the vast majority of our businesses, are getting access to the types of support that they need and that they know what support is available to them. That is work in progress, and we are committed to making sure that it achieves positive outcomes.

Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for her question. I welcome the significant investment in Newry, Mourne and Down District Council through the Shared Island Fund as part of the €23 million tourism shared destination programme. It is important that we continue to optimise that funding opportunity and collaboration across the North for tourism with our other priority sectors.

My Department will continue to work closely with Tourism NI and Newry, Mourne and Down District Council to ensure strategic planning and guidance for the development of the tourist industry. It builds on the Carlingford lough review and master plan, including the potential for destination stewardship support, as outlined in my tourism vision and action plan. Tourism NI officials are working closely with Fáilte Ireland to ensure that tourism elements of the allocation, as part of that programme, complement one another on each side of the border, maximising the additional accessibility that the Narrow Water bridge will provide to the area. There are a number of key elements that the destination programme can support on the networks, trails and water access points. We can certainly maximise that to the benefit of the whole region.

Ms Ennis: I thank the Minister for her response. Minister, you recently met the chief executive and senior officials from Newry, Mourne and Down District Council to discuss potential tourism projects in South Down that will, as you say, complement Narrow Water bridge when it is completed in 2027. Does the Minister agree that investment in Kilbroney Park, for example, and the restoration of Warrenpoint's iconic baths will be transformative, with the potential to boost cross-border visitor numbers and drive local economic growth?

Dr Archibald: My Department continues to work closely with Newry, Mourne and Down District Council to develop projects that will complement the completion of Narrow Water bridge. The projects that the Member has spoken of — Kilbroney Park and Warrenpoint baths — could deliver significant cross-border benefits in terms of growth in our visitor numbers and wider economic benefits. We will be happy to continue to work to support those aims.

Mr Speaker: Question 1 has been withdrawn.

Mrs Long (The Minister of Justice): With your permission, Mr Speaker, I propose to answer questions 2 and 7 together.

Whilst I welcome progress on addressing legacy issues and firmly believe that victims are entitled to expect transparency, truth and justice via a process that does not introduce further delay, concerns remain about the feasibility of the current proposals with regard to the degree of legislative scrutiny afforded to the proposals and, crucially, how they will be funded. On 11 November, I laid a legislative consent memorandum (LCM) to advise the Assembly that I am not laying a legislative consent motion, at least at this time, as I cannot currently recommend that the Assembly provide consent for the transferred matters in the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill. I did so on the basis that there has been a lack of meaningful engagement by the UK Government on the details. I do not have the departmental resources to implement a UK Government policy over which I have no control without abandoning our agreed legislative programme. I also cannot move an LCM without the consent of the Executive, which has not been achieved to date. However, the necessary engagement is under way.

Furthermore and crucially, the UK Government have never adequately resourced legacy, and that has not changed with the introduction of the Bill. Indeed, there appears to be no additional UK Government funding proposed for the Northern Ireland Executive arising from the outworkings of the Bill, despite significant resource implications flowing from it. Given the potential implications for my Department and wider justice bodies and the fact that all Executive Departments are already under significant financial pressure, it is not reasonable to expect that additional costs can be met from existing Northern Ireland departmental allocations. I will, however, continue to engage constructively with the UK Government with a view to ensuring that the provisions in the Bill are workable in practice, properly funded and resourced and that victims’ needs and rights remain central in any future arrangements.

Mr McGlone: I thank the Minister for her answer. I presume that it is not purely a resourcing issue. Does the Minister have any concerns, as the SDLP does, over elements of the proposal such as the retention of national security vetoes, disclosure to families, protection of hard-won inquests, human rights compliance, the strength of statutory oversight and the independence of the Legacy Commission and the legacy unit in an Garda Síochána?

Mrs Long: There are issues on which I would express some concern and some agreement with the Member at a party political level. However, at a departmental level, my main concerns are interference with judicial independence, which, I think, the use of the Advocate General as a backstop will do. There are also issues with the direction on how a coroner should run an inquest, which, again, for me, is crossing into issues of judicial independence. I have concerns about a number of elements of this, but, fundamentally, there is no point in raising expectations when it comes to victims: they have been raised and dashed repeatedly over many years. The only way that this will work, if it is to work at all, is if it is properly funded and resourced so that people can get the answers to the questions that they seek within a reasonable time frame. To under-resource it from the outset will simply ensure that it will not work; it will not be a success. As the Member has rightly said, there are other issues around independence and the engagement of the Irish Government, but those are issues that we will raise at a party political level, . At a departmental level, I am focused on the issues that fall within my remit.

Mr Tennyson: I thank the Minister for her answer. Does the Minister agree that some of the positive changes in the legacy Bill will be undermined if inadequate funding is provided?

Mrs Long: I absolutely agree with the Member. Dealing with the legacy of the Troubles has never been properly funded by the UK Government. No dedicated funding has been provided to the Department of Justice for the implementation of the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill. No additional UK Government funding has been signalled to us either. It appears that the expectation of the Government is that any responsibilities falling to the DOJ, the PSNI, the Coroners Service or other devolved bodies should simply be met from existing budgets, which, as Members know, are under significant pressure. The absence of additional funding means that delivery would have to be prioritised against other statutory commitments and would inevitably affect the pace and scale of operational work, adding more distress and delay to victims wishing to avail themselves of the new arrangements and slowing down justice for the wider cohort.

Mrs Dillon: Minister, do you agree that, in the absence of the Bill, there is absolutely no reason why the British Government cannot fund the Office of the Police Ombudsman (OPONI) and the PSNI for legacy cases, so that the cases could be dealt with right now? The PSNI does not have the resource to fund them. That happened whilst there was direct rule, and the Government should pay for it.

Mrs Long: There is a significant issue with the remaining inquests, which do not fall within the scope of the legacy arrangements, and a significant burden that will be placed on OPONI and the PSNI to service the needs of the Legacy Commission. Whilst the Legacy Commission's costs will be met in full, the organisations that will need to adapt their practices in order to service that body will have no contribution made to their costs. That will come out of the same pot as all the other work that they do. That is not fair.

Victims and survivors have already had to wait too long for answers. A lawful, workable legacy framework is essential. I welcome the efforts that have been made to improve on what the previous Government tried to introduce on information and accountability. However, I do not want further uncertainty around this, particularly when it comes to funding, nor do I want the police, OPONI, the Coroners Service and the courts castigated when they are unable to meet the expectations of people who are desperate for information and find that they do not have the funding to deliver.

Mr Kingston: Minister, given your public utterances on innocent victims and your party colleagues' adopting language such as "non-combatants" to describe victims of terrorism, will you take the opportunity today to repair trust with the innocent victims?

Mrs Long: Anybody who listened to exactly what I said about innocent victims will be well aware that I said that there is no equivalence between those who broke the law and those who were injured at the hands of those who broke the law; that having been a victim does not make you unaccountable for what you did; that you should still be held to account; and that it was not an excuse. Instead of twisting my words, the Member would do well to read the entire content of what I said in that interview.

When it comes to repairing trust, I have already engaged with victims' organisations and individual victims. Much of the mischief-making that went on about that interview was wholly and utterly upsetting to those who were led to believe that I said things that I did not say.

Mrs Long: I understand the distress that families can feel when a pseudonym is used in a domestic homicide review (DHR) rather than the real name of the perpetrator who killed their loved one, particularly when the family of the victim have waived their right to anonymity. However, the fundamental purpose of a DHR is to learn from domestic abuse deaths so that agencies can strengthen their responses to domestic abuse victims and their children, thereby reducing the risk of future incidents.

The DHR is not undertaken as a means to hold a perpetrator accountable; that is a matter for the courts, and there is no additional value to be derived in identifying learning in a DHR report by naming perpetrators. Domestic homicide reviews in Northern Ireland are established in statute and underpinned by the 'Multi-Agency Guidance for the Conduct of Domestic Homicide Reviews', which all participants are required to follow. The guidance makes it clear that reports must be anonymised as far as possible. Even where a family waives its right to anonymity and where the courts have found a perpetrator guilty, there is a legal obligation to balance the data protection rights of any living individual included in the DHR. The situation is similar in other jurisdictions. For example, in England and Wales, the vast majority of DHRs are pseudonymised, and, on occasions when families of victims have waived their right to anonymity, a pseudonym has still been used for the perpetrator.

Mr Beattie: I thank the Minister for that answer. Domestic homicide reviews are a good thing, and I absolutely welcome them, but the Minister said that there is no benefit in naming the perpetrator when the victim's name is known. My argument is that, for public confidence, there is a reason why we should name the perpetrator in such a case. Will the Minister review that decision on the legislation?

Mrs Long: I have looked at that because, unusually, a family waived their right to anonymity in a recent case, so the question arose of whether the perpetrator in the DHR would be offered anonymity when the victim was not exercising that right. However, having reviewed that, I believe that it adds nothing to the process. This is not about holding someone accountable or guilty; it is about finding out whether the services that were involved in the person's life before the homicide could and should have done better and what lessons can be learned as a result. Simply using the DHR to name a perpetrator will do nothing for public confidence. What will do something for public confidence is people seeing the lessons learned from DHRs implemented in practice and better outcomes for victims.

Ms Egan: Minister, what work is your Department undertaking to address the learnings that emerge from domestic homicide reviews?

Mrs Long: It is for each of the organisations involved to look at what it needs to implement as a result. We have regular check-ups to make sure that the learnings from one domestic homicide review will be carried forward and implemented. Some of those learnings will have already been addressed in the interim period through changes to, for example, procedures and practices in those organisations. Ultimately, it falls to each body, be it the trust, the PSNI or another body, to ensure that it implements the recommendations. As I said, the reviews are regularly discussed and updated. It is important that the overarching learning that comes from domestic homicide reviews is taken on board for future protection.

Mr Speaker: Question 4 has been withdrawn.

Mrs Long: In Northern Ireland, a life sentence is already mandatory in any murder case and, in circumstances considered appropriate by the court, can be imposed where a defendant, such as those in the Harper case, is found guilty of manslaughter. Current sentencing guidance also specifically addresses the aggravating effect of attacks on public servants where the victim is engaged in providing a service to the public, and sentences are expected to reflect that.

My planned review of further sentencing issues will consider the need to make provision equivalent to Harper's law in Northern Ireland. I intend to commence that review before the end of the year. As we discussed when we met on the issue in the past number of months, I do not plan to include provisions equivalent to Harper's law in the forthcoming sentencing Bill. However, the Bill will create a new offence of assaulting a person providing services to the public, performing a public duty or providing a public service, which will serve as a deterrent to attacks on public-facing workers, including police officers.

Mr Brett: I thank the Minister for her answer. Minister, I listened with interest to your interview today on 'The Nolan Show', in which you highlighted some of the barriers to police officers joining the force and how we need to make sure that our police service is reflective of all sections of our community. With that in mind, will you consider supporting an amendment in my name to your forthcoming Bill that would introduce Harper's law in Northern Ireland to ensure that police officers here have the same legal protections as their counterparts in the rest of the United Kingdom?

Mrs Long: Whether the Member decides to table an amendment is purely a matter for him. I would have to consider the nature of that amendment. I am not opposed to Harper's law, as, I think, I discussed with you. The issue is this: it has not been used anywhere that it has been introduced, so, in effect, it puts on paper and in statute something that is not being operationalised in practice. My concern is that, if you make it mandatory, there might be situations in which people are charged with a lesser offence in order to avoid the mandatory sentence, which would potentially have a deleterious effect on prosecution.

I am happy to continue to engage with the Member about it. I cannot say for sure that the law has not been used; I simply say that, to date, we have not seen any case in which it has been deployed in England and Wales. Thankfully, that may be as a result of there being few cases of manslaughter of a police officer. I am certainly happy to continue to engage with the Member on the sentencing Bill. If not through that engagement, the sentencing review, which should be launched later this month, will be a good vehicle for us to test opinion on the issue.

Mr Burrows: In 2013, my officer and colleague Philippa Reynolds was killed by a career criminal, Shane Frane. He rammed her police car and was convicted of manslaughter. The sentence that he got was paltry: a minimum term of six years. He was out not long after that. Will you urgently review your thoughts on Harper's law and make it an absolute priority to protect our police officers from such paltry sentences?

Mrs Long: Ultimately, the sentencing that is available for manslaughter includes a life sentence, and the decision on what is handed down in any individual case is up to the judiciary, which is independent and has to assess all elements of a case, such as whether there was intent and whether the act actually took place. That decision will always have discretion. Even were we to introduce Harper's law, we would have to introduce it in a way that meant that it had exceptions, because it would still have to allow for judicial independence and discretion. That is the nature of the system, and it is important that we respect it.

I am clear about this: no police officer doing any police work should face any assault when they are out helping the public. When you attack a police officer, you are attacking not just an individual but a whole community that is no longer able to be served by that officer. You are draining resources from the PSNI at a time when it needs them, and you are disrespecting someone who is putting themselves on the front line to keep other people safe.

Mr McNulty: If the Minister is refusing to include Harper's law in her forthcoming sentencing Bill, what measures will she take to strengthen the sentencing guidelines for anyone who is convicted of the manslaughter of an emergency worker who is on duty, including police and prison officers, firefighters and paramedics, when carrying out another crime?

Mrs Long: The first thing to say is that I am not refusing to include it. I would be unable to include it, because the Executive have already decided on and passed the sentencing Bill in its current form, and it is now in the late stages of drafting. I have indicated that I am happy to engage with the Member who raised the issue today, and, if a private Member's amendment on that were to come forward, I would discuss with him the limitations and give some suggestions about how that might be included. Sadly, however, that would deprive the Assembly of the right to fully scrutinise it and the public of the right to be consulted on it. We are all aware of how important that is.

On the seriousness of the offences, I have mentioned that, as part of the sentencing Bill, we are looking at the introduction of an aggravated offence, which will focus on public-sector workers and those who are delivering a public duty or public service. That would be helpful. It is already an aggravating factor to attack a member of the emergency services, and that should be taken into account in sentencing. However, to be clear, sentencing guidance is not for the Department; it is for those in the Lady Chief Justice's sentencing group. They are the people who write the sentencing guidance based on case law and on the legislation that we pass, which usually sets a maxima. That allows them to interpret it for individual circumstances.

Mrs Long: My Department published a new restorative justice practice standards and accreditation framework on 17 October 2025. That will govern the delivery of future restorative justice work for accredited organisations and practitioners. The framework development has been taken forward in partnership with our protocol lead and a restorative justice working group, with statutory, voluntary and community sector stakeholder representation, which considered and agreed the core elements of the new process.

One of the key changes is the introduction of organisational-plus-practitioner accreditation, which was first outlined in the 2023 restorative justice protocol. The three practitioner accreditation tiers are level 1, which is foundation; level 2, which is intermediate; and level 3, which is advanced. Each level requires increasing levels of experience and training. Level 1 practitioners will undertake restorative work in response to incidents that fall beneath the criminal justice threshold but have the potential to escalate to the attention of the police. Level 2 practitioners will undertake restorative justice work relating to formal criminal justice cases, and level 3 practitioners will be accredited to facilitate restorative justice processes relating to sensitive, complex and serious crimes. The level that is awarded will be determined by the practice experience of those who apply.

The accreditation application window opened on 17 October and closes this Friday. The protocol lead and an independent suitability panel will then assess the applications and make recommendations on the appropriate level of accreditation, which will be determined on an individual basis. A senior official in my Department will consider and sign off that recommendation. A register of accredited organisations and practitioners will be published on the Department of Justice website in 2026 once the current accreditation round is complete.

Ms Ferguson: I thank the Minister for her answer. When NI Alternatives and Community Restorative Justice Ireland presented to the Committee recently, it felt as though they were being pushed to the periphery of the Department of Justice's new system, despite being accredited since 2007. Whether it is from a community or criminal justice perspective, could it be more beneficial to lean on their expertise, particularly for complex and sensitive cases?

Mrs Long: We have leant very heavily on their expertise, and it is important to note that they were part of the panel that we engaged with when designing the system. Much of their work is the same as the work that they will do post-accreditation, but other organisations and individuals can offer restorative practice. There is also the opportunity for the organisations already engaged in restorative justice to upskill their workforce and individual practitioners and, hopefully, assist us in delivering restorative practice.

Restorative justice will still be delivered by community-based, accredited practitioners using the same values, principles and practice standards that underpin it in the community. As evidenced by youth conferencing, however, the criminal justice system gives access to more victims of crime, who will be offered the opportunity to participate in restorative justice. That is in line with the directive on victims' rights, but it also requires us to ensure that there is a pathway, particularly for the most complex cases, which many restorative practitioners will not have had an opportunity to engage with.

Mr Bradley: Minister, can you allay concerns on the ground that the new accreditation framework will lead to the accreditation of unprofessional and undesirable people, which will undermine the many years of hard work in that field?

Mrs Long: The purpose of the accreditation process is to ensure that the people and organisations that say that they are accredited by the Department have a regular review of their practice standards, any new qualifications and learning, and are kept up to date with the latest practice. Those who decide to take the restorative route through the justice system must have as much confidence in that route as in any of the other routes through the justice system. It is important that those people are adequately accredited and inspected so that the public can have full confidence, and that is the purpose of our work.

Mr Dickson: Will the Minister outline the benefits and the impact of restorative justice approaches and the evidence for that?

Mrs Long: There is a wide range of benefits linked to the delivery of restorative justice. First, it is a victim-centred approach that allows the perpetrator to be held directly to account. Important questions can be asked, and the impact of the harm that has occurred to the victim can be shared with the perpetrator, and that can be a transformational experience on both sides. Victims can also witness direct accountability from the perpetrator and influence how the harm will be repaired, and, very often, that feels like a better process than one in which they may feel that the process has moved beyond their control or that they are a bit player in the justice system, and we will all be familiar with that complaint.

Out-of-court disposals for suitable cases can reduce the victim's involvement in very lengthy and stressful court proceedings. It also better allows the perpetrators to understand how their actions have affected their victim, their community, themselves and those closest to them. The perpetrators also often appreciate the opportunity to meet their victim to actively participate, express remorse and try to make things right. It can help them to identify what they need to do to avoid further offending and get the support to do so. Our research shows that perpetrators generally have positive attitudes towards the police and law enforcement when they do a restorative justice intervention. Where the police are seen as the facilitators of justice and not just the enforcers, it can strengthen the relationships between the police and the community.

Mrs Long: Ending violence against women and girls is a cross-Executive priority led by the Executive Office. My Department, alongside the Department of Health, leads on the domestic and sexual abuse strategy, which is gender-inclusive and recognises that those harms can affect anyone.

While my Department does not hold specific data on progress against the wider ending violence against women and girls strategic framework, we continue to work closely with the Executive Office to support the delivery of its objectives. However, it is important to recognise that violence against women and girls goes beyond domestic and sexual abuse and encompasses a broader spectrum of harms, which is why the Executive Office leads on that work and the associated data collection.

Alongside the domestic and sexual abuse strategy, which was launched in September 2024, my Department has published a comprehensive performance framework to monitor progress for all victims of domestic and sexual abuse. Work is under way to agree the approach to identification of baseline data and data capture to inform future reporting cycles, which will enable us to measure how much we are doing and how well we are doing it on a consistent financial basis. However, the data collected under the domestic and sexual abuse strategy will relate to all victims of domestic and/or sexual abuse, regardless of gender.

Ms McLaughlin: Thank you, Minister, for your answer. Ending violence against women and girls is, of course, a cross-government priority, but the PSNI launched the tackling violence against women and girls action plan in September 2022, and the Executive launched their strategic framework to end violence against women and girls in September 2024. Surely, it is really important that, if we know that the two action plans are working, we know the data and track it on a daily basis.

Mrs Long: The data is being tracked. The PSNI tracks the data that it has. That is an operational matter that the Chief Constable is engaged in routinely and held to account for, I am sure, by the Policing Board. The Executive Office will track the data in relation to the strategy, which is Executive-wide. My Department clearly will have input into that monitoring, but we are not the sole repository of all actions around protecting women and girls or ending violence against women and girls. We will play our part, but every Department needs to look at those issues and feed into that overall reporting. We do not hold the data. TEO holds the data.

Ms Bradshaw: Minister, can you please outline the work that your Department has undertaken to design and implement domestic abuse protection notices (DAPNs) and domestic abuse protection orders (DAPOs)?

Mrs Long: On the request of the Assembly in the Domestic Abuse and Civil Proceedings Act 2021, we have undertaken extensive preparatory work with the PSNI and voluntary sector partners to design a Northern Ireland-specific DAPO and DAPN model that will be both effective and operationally deliverable. Engagement has provided a very strong foundation, but we need to do further work with the Northern Ireland Courts and Tribunals Service and the judiciary around the operational processes and court handling arrangements.

Cross-agency collaboration has ensured early identification of resolution of key operational IT procedural and safeguarding requirements. We have also learnt from other jurisdictions. There was a detailed fact-finding visit to the Croydon and greater Manchester pilot sites, as well as engagement with officials in Scotland. That insight has enabled officials to refine the model to a`frto3l nlesvoid the challenges that were experienced elsewhere and to ensure that it is tailored to local needs and understands the operational responsibilities around local structures. We hope to introduce necessary regulations in spring 2026 and, subject to Executive and Assembly approval, the preparatory work places us, I believe, in a strong position to begin piloting DAPOs and DAPNs in the second half of 2026 or early 2027.

Mrs Long: Tackling delay is one of the biggest challenges facing the criminal justice system and has been identified as a key priority by me, as Minister, and the Criminal Justice Board and justice agencies.? The speed with which domestic violence cases progress is of huge importance to victims, witnesses, the accused and, indeed, their families and the wider community.?The delivery of the speeding up justice programme is a Programme for Government commitment that supports its safer communities priority.? The programme is a joint cross-justice collaborative effort, under the direction of the Criminal Justice Board, upon which the senior leaders of the criminal justice system are represented, including me, the Lady Chief Justice, the Chief Constable, the Director of Public Prosecutions, the director of the Northern Ireland Courts and Tribunal Service and a number of other senior officials, including the Victims' Commissioner.

The programme takes a whole-system approach, focusing on reducing avoidable delay, reducing demand, freeing capacity and facilitating more proportionate and effective responses to offending behaviours. It is also aiming to take advantage of technological developments to improve operational processes and the communication between criminal justice organisations and the public.?Earlier this year, the Department secured £20·5 million of transformation funding to support delivery of the programme. The funding is already being used to accelerate ongoing work in the early engagement and out-of-court disposals projects and is a significant boost to progressing this very important programme of work.

Ms Sheerin: Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire as ucht a freagraí.

During the previous mandate, the sector welcomed the passing of the Domestic Abuse and Civil Proceedings Act, but, as I understand it, not all elements of that have been implemented, particularly around coercive control and how incidents are often treated as single incidents, which is leading to a delay in perpetrators being brought to justice. Can you advise on what you are doing to implement all the elements of the Act?

Mrs Long: The major outstanding bit is the DAPOs and DAPNs because we were not prepared enough to be able to do the regulations in the time frame that the Committee set out in its amendment and there were serious concerns about their operation in other jurisdictions.

The coercive control elements of the legislation are operable and are working at the moment. The question is, I suppose, whether people are adequately trained and supported to identify coercive control of all kinds. I will often feed back to colleagues in other parts of the justice system that victims have said to me that they felt that, for example, their financial coercive control was dismissed by the PSNI as simply a civil matter that they needed to take through the civil courts. More work can be done around training, but, as you know, annual training is part of the Act. Therefore, we have the opportunity to revisit that with colleagues on the operational side to make sure that, where, we feel, gaps or trends are emerging, we can close those gaps through training.

Mr Speaker: We move to topical questions.

Mrs Long: Members will be well aware that there has been an ongoing debate on PSNI pay this year. There are two elements to PSNI pay. The first is the contractual element, which has been paid. It is a legal entitlement. The second element is the uplift advised by the Police Remuneration Review Body (PRRB). That uplift is technically a discretional input. However, from my perspective, it is essential that the PSNI's pay keeps pace with pay in other jurisdictions in the UK and that we are able to effect that pay increase as soon as possible.

The PSNI currently indicates that it will have an overspend at the end of the year. It is a relatively modest overspend at this point, and it has been coming down steadily over recent months. I have worked with the Department of Finance on a number of issues, but I understand that, given last week's rather disastrous Budget in Northern Ireland terms, we will not have the amount of Barnett consequentials that we had hoped for. However, we have made other provision in the PSNI and my Department to wring out potential savings from the budget that we have at this point in the year. I am confident that we will be in a position to approve PSNI pay as affordable certainly before the end of the financial year and ideally before the end of the calendar year.

There is, however, still significant work to be done, and I do not want to get ahead of myself before I go to the Executive and see what the December monitoring round might hold. If we get the money that, it was indicated to me, I would have first call on, which, I believe, is available, and if that promise is kept, I believe that we are in a very good position to do so.

Mr McGlone: Thank you very much, Minister. I heard a number of caveats there. Can you guarantee that the uplift, as you referred to it, will be to the satisfaction of the PSNI officers who are waiting for it?

Mrs Long: My duty is not to do it to the satisfaction of PSNI officers who are waiting; my duty is to implement the recommendations of the PRRB. I have no idea whether officers will be happy with what the PRRB asks for. My job is to meet that requirement, because that is what maintains broad alignment with forces across the UK. I cannot give a cast-iron guarantee. It would be foolish for any Minister to say that at this point in the year. I can say that the trajectory of the projected overspend by PSNI has decreased month on month. We have done some hard work in the Department and with the PSNI and other Justice arm's-length bodies to see whether more money can be freed up from work that we perhaps had intended to do but have not been able to take forward because of limited resources.

I recognise that the PSNI does an incredible amount of work. PSNI officers deserve not just to be praised for what they do but to be paid for it. In conjunction with the Finance Minister and the rest of the Executive, I want to be able to tell them that the pay will come and that they will be paid. That is the most important thing that we can do. PSNI officers should not be at the end of the queue simply because they cannot take strike action. They deserve to be rewarded for their work and the sacrifices that they make. As Justice Minister, my objective has been to ensure that that happens. So far, we have never not paid what the PRRB has advised.

Mrs Long: A critical element of reducing reoffending is how offenders leaving prison can be stabilised in the community. That means making sure that somebody has secure accommodation, that they have family links where appropriate and that they have access to healthcare and, crucially, a job or education. Without those things, it can be difficult for people to reintegrate into the community. Having a job gives people more than a wage; it gives them purpose, identity and a sense of belonging. It allows people to be seen not just through the lens of their offending but of what they can contribute to society, which is hugely important for rehabilitation.

We have invested in education provision and work opportunities in custody in order to increase the potential for employment on release. We also provide learning and skills qualifications through Belfast Met. Employability tutors are based in each establishment, and, through our voluntary and community sector partners, we make significant provision, including through the SkillSET programme, that supports people. We also have representation on the DFC regional labour market partnership, through which we work to ensure that the needs of those in the criminal justice system are considered.

That is quite a lot of work, but, most important, in October 2024, we launched the business-led employers' forum for reducing offending. The forum will have its first official meeting on 2 December 2025, and it will be instrumental in business-to-business conversations about how people who have an offending background can be successfully employed. We were delighted that Lord Timpson was at the launch of the forum, because it will be a game changer. I can tell businesses that it will be fine to employ somebody who has an offence on their record, and they will nod and say, "Well, you would say that", but, if another business that has done that successfully can tell them so, it will be much more powerful.

Mr Honeyford: I thank the Minister for her response. We have seen great stuff in hospitality with such initiatives. The Public Accounts Committee heard evidence that employability was a key factor in reducing adult reoffending, and security of funding was critical to that. Does the Minister share my concern that the UK Government's failure to adequately replace the Shared Prosperity Fund could have a detrimental impact on the wider efforts linked to the Programme for Government commitment to reduce adult offending and reoffending?

Mrs Long: I share the Member's concern entirely. The lack of any clear replacement for the Shared Prosperity Fund risks undermining efforts to reduce offending and reoffending; in fact, the uncertainty about what will follow that programme puts at risk the delivery of programmes in prison. In the prison situation, where there is staff attrition as a result of being put on protective notice, you cannot simply bring in somebody new to take up a post the following week. Those individuals have to go through extensive clearance before they are able to work in prisons. That could create a huge gap in our service provision, particularly with the community and voluntary sector. I am concerned about that, and I have raised it with Executive colleagues. People in the UK Government do not understand just how important the Shared Prosperity Fund has been. We are engaging urgently across Departments to explore what mitigations we can put in place and to press for arrangements that better reflect local priorities. At the moment, however, it seems that the UK Government are absolutely determined to move forward with a process that does not serve this community well.

Mrs Long: If people are not feeling depressed enough after listening to our revenue budget needs, I will depress them further by telling them about our capital budget needs. The justice system is currently delivered from facilities that are often antiquated and use outdated technology. I will give Members an example of the antiquation: people in Magilligan prison are still housed in Nissen huts that were put there to house Italian prisoners of war during the Second World War. If we are going to make progress, we will need significant capital investment in order to upgrade and modernise the ageing justice estate. Doing so will release savings, because we will have more efficient buildings, more heat and sound controls and other things, but that will require investment.

Planned capital projects for the four years from 2026-27 to 2029-2030 will cost, on average, £270 million each year, which would require significant funding above the current £100 million capital budget of my Department. The figure reflects the costs of a number of key departmental projects for the police, the courts, the prisons and Forensic Science, many of which are included in the draft investment strategy. We have to invest in ambitious transformation programmes across the justice estate and to support and sustain investment in our estates, with a focus on rehabilitation and a clear opportunity, as I said, to invest to save.

Mr Dickson: Thank you, Minister, for your answer. Will you take us through some of the potential consequences for the justice system if those capital funding projects are not funded?

Mrs Long: Our five-year plan highlights the need to modernise an ageing estate. That is a critical element of making the system faster, more effective and more victim-focused. For example, we have courtrooms in which victims and witnesses cannot be separated from the accused, and that can create distress in some of those cases. We will not be able to adequately meet the needs of those engaging with the justice system if we are not able to carry out the required upgrades.

It would also reduce the Department's ability to deliver future savings from the planned projects, including estates rationalisation and the use of energy-efficient systems. That capital investment will reduce the need for ever more urgent and expensive maintenance repairs as infrastructure is modernised and replaced. Those of you who watch the weather forecasts as avidly as I do during spells of bad weather will note how often the highest winds in Northern Ireland are at Magilligan Point. It is literally through hope and prayer that that building has held together during all those storms, given the battering that it takes regularly. We know already about some of the significant damage that was done in a previous storm when the wind demolished the walls of the boiler house.

The funding that we have already secured from public-sector transformation is a positive step, and it will help us, but we need to do other things. We need new offices and laboratories at Forensic Science headquarters, which, in some places, is being held up internally with scaffolding. We need modular accommodation for the Prison Service, because our prison population is growing. We need to modernise the Magilligan and Hydebank prison estates. There is a new police college and modernisation of the wider police estate, IT transformation and modernisation projects for courts and the modernisation of the Royal Courts of Justice and Bishop Street courthouse, both of which are listed buildings and are heavily used.

Mrs Long: Officials are analysing responses to the out-of-court disposals consultation, which invited views on a number of the proposals aimed at tackling delays in the justice system. As is commonplace in the justice system, many of the offences put forward in the proposals are broad in nature and can cover a wide range of offending behaviour from the minor to the major. The broad nature of those cases is evidenced through the options available for dealing with a case, whether by prosecution in either the Magistrates' Court or the Crown Court, which can vary significantly in penalties. That is to be borne in mind, because it is has been raised a lot that penalty notices will in some way be a lighter-touch option.

The PSNI will often not proceed with the cases for which we recommend that penalty notices may be of use because it lacks the capacity to prepare the files or because there is a lack of will, even, frankly, on the part of those who have been injured, to go through the hoops. It can often be the thing that gets dropped when the case goes to the Public Prosecution Service (PPS) because it does not think that there will be an opportunity to get a significant penalty at court. If a case makes it through all those hoops and gets to court, often it is dismissed with a fine anyway. We propose that, in cases in which a fine is the most likely outcome, we should simply allow the PSNI to issue a fine and cut out all that middle work, which is consuming resources and time for everyone concerned.

Ms Bradshaw: Thank you, Minister. Some parties in the Chamber have put into the public domain an extraordinary amount of misinformation about the consultation. Would you like to take the opportunity to set the record straight again on what the consultation actually proposed with regard to assaults on police, assault occasioning actual bodily harm and the PSNI's role in designing those proposals?

Mrs Long: I will never shirk from an opportunity to provide clarity. The proposals were developed through a cross-justice working group led by PSNI, and they included measures to reduce pressure on the system through additional powers for police and prosecutors to deal with lower-level offences. That included expansion of the offences that the PSNI can deal with by way of a penalty notice, which it already does for many of the cases that are listed.

I am disappointed that the people who wish to criticise the proposals are focusing solely on the more serious examples in the cohort of cases rather than looking at the cases that could fall within that definition albeit at the more minor end. Penalty notices are designed to target first-time or non-habitual offenders for a set number of offences. Once you have had a penalty notice, you have a criminal record. Therefore, you cannot get a penalty notice again, and the case has to go to court. Those notices are a criminal penalty. It is not, as some people were describing it, like getting fined for parking. Parking offences, of course, have been decriminalised; assault has not. It would affect only those cases that are at the lowest end of the scale.

Most cases will continue to go through the courts, but one of the reasons why we are talking about the out-of-court disposal system is so that we can use the courts for the most serious cases and speed those up and so that we can ensure that people are punished for lighter offences, which very often get tossed out by the PPS or get a derisory fine from the courts at the end point anyway. To me, it seems much better to allow police officers to use their judgement. To be clear, it will be police officers who will make the judgement, and they will have to take into account the views of the victim of any crime before they-decide to dispose of it via a penalty notice.

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

Mr Speaker: Phillip Brett has given notice of a question for urgent oral answer to the Executive Office. I remind Members who wish to ask a supplementary question that they should rise in their places.

Mrs O'Neill (The First Minister): No.

Mr Brett: Thank you, First Minister, for that fulsome answer. Institutional understanding of this place and public confidence in this place are based on the fact that statements made by Ministers in the House are true and accurate, so I will remind you what you said to the House. You stated, as First Minister, on 22 October 2024:

You were then contradicted, First Minister, by your Chief Whip in her public statement to the Public Prosecution Service (PPS), when she stated that the individual responsible made no admission to being at the event or knowing about the damage.

First Minister, either you misled the Assembly, or your Chief Whip misled the police. Both are very serious. Which one is it?

Mrs O'Neill: There have been a number of inaccurate comments and claims made in relation to the events at Belfast City Hall on 19 October 2024, including at the Executive Office Committee last week. The junior Minister said at that Committee meeting that she attended the event as a West Belfast constituency MLA and, equally, as a Gaeilgeoir. She was very clear about that statement then, so let me also be very clear today. That invitation was not accepted in her role as junior Minister. As would be normal practice for all Ministers in TEO. Aisling Reilly forwarded the invitation to the private offices to ascertain whether she could attend in her role as junior Minister. That is the only reason why the invitation is held on file. To be clear, the total information held by the Executive Office is one email, an invitation to Aisling Reilly as a constituency MLA.

Aisling Reilly and four other Sinn Féin representatives received the invitation. Aisling Reilly, as junior Minister, did not receive five complimentary tickets. The invitation was not fulfilled in the role as junior Minister. TEO had no further involvement beyond registering the case. TEO did not provide any advice in respect of the invitation. There was no briefing commissioned or compiled from officials, and, for absolute clarity, TEO does not hold any further information in relation to the events of 19 October.

Aisling Reilly attended the event as a West Belfast constituency MLA and as a Gaeilgeoir, so, for the avoidance of doubt, the Executive Office was not represented at the event. I have signed off on a written departmental response to the Executive Office Committee, which will confirm all that.

The question also refers to our commitments to the elimination of prejudice, racism and hate crime. Let me be clear: many forms of hate and prejudice, racism and sectarianism, antisemitism, homophobia, misogyny and sexism exist in our society. The Assembly can be fully confident that we all collectively have a role to say no to all that and to stand up collectively against any form of intolerance. That is the work that I am focused on getting on with.

On what you asked, on 22 October, I did make a statement to the Assembly as Sinn Féin vice president, so you are incorrect in your statement. The events in Belfast City Hall on 19 October have been fully investigated by the PSNI and the PPS, and I said that in the Chamber last week. The PPS has made its decision, and that is the appropriate course of action. Given that there was a criminal investigation, I am confident that the action that Sinn Féin took was entirely appropriate.

Mr Sheehan: Does the First Minister agree that we must confront hate and discrimination in all its forms?

Mrs O'Neill: Yes, I do, and that is why I said that we collectively have a role, as elected representatives in the Chamber, to stand very firm against discrimination, hate, sectarianism, racism, homophobia, misogyny or anything that we see and to send a very clear collective message that there is no place for this in our society. We cannot — again, this is a collective endeavour — allow these incidents to happen. We cannot allow people to mark out territory or to attack homes. They must be dealt with with the full force of the law. We cannot allow any of those things to become normal behaviour, because, collectively, we are tasked with leadership in this Assembly to try to build an inclusive society. I am certainly committed to that, and I am sure that many others in the Chamber are also.

Ms Bradshaw: From the Executive Office Committee's point of view, we are very concerned that we have not been given this information to date. Why has it taken over a year for us to be made aware that the junior Minister did not attend that event in that official capacity? It could have put to bed a lot of the confusion and mistrust that the situation has created.

Mrs O'Neill: The question only arises at this moment in time out of political opportunism — not by you, of course, but by others who want to use this issue. The question arose in the Committee last week, and I can assure you, as the Chair of the Committee, that I have signed off on a response to you that will set out very clearly what I have said in the Chamber today. Hopefully that will clarify the matter for you.

Mr Allen: Would the First Minister like to take this opportunity to encourage anyone in her party or otherwise to come forward with any information that they may have that may assist the police in their further investigations?

Mrs O'Neill: That should not even be a question put to me. Absolutely, of course, all day long.

Mr O'Toole: First Minister, with respect, I think that a lot of people will be a wee bit baffled that, a year ago, an individual whom you told us was suspended from party membership and resigned his employment here because of his involvement in an incident will now not face charges, but, more than that, your party appears to have changed its story. So often, there is a kind of omertà that exists with your party, where stories are changed and people get a bit lost. I am afraid that this is true. I think that lots of people will think that that person did face consequences, and that is fair enough. If that person had no involvement and if there are no issues at all, why did he have to resign from his post, why was he suspended from party membership, and will both those roles be restored?

Mrs O'Neill: Again, given that there was a criminal investigation, we took appropriate action. I think that that is absolutely correct, and I am very confident to stand over the action that we took at that time. I am not getting into some of the commentary made by many others about an individual. It was the role of the PPS to do its work, and that is now complete. I am satisfied that we discharged our duty, and I am very confident to stand over it.

Mr Carroll: I declare an interest as Glór na Móna is in my constituency and I regularly attend community events at the site. Minister, your Department is responsible for ending violence against women and girls, historical institutional abuse, the Programme for Government and leading the Executive response to all sorts of strategies. Do you agree that that is what Members should be focusing on? Do you agree that it is quite pathetic that people are trying to focus on a damaged picture? Despite attempts to try to make it so, there is no evidence of a damaged picture being about racism or antisemitism, and people to my right are grasping at straws.

Mrs O'Neill: Yes, I agree with that. The Member will be aware, but I refer to the comment from the artist himself at that time on his view around all that. You are absolutely right that we have a serious problem with misogyny and violence against women and girls in our society. We have serious work to do in this institution, and I encourage Members to focus on the things that really need to be grappled with in our society: the problem with violence against women and girls and tackling the racism and the rise in hate crimes that we have seen, particularly over the past year. That is the business of the people elected to this Chamber, and that is where I am focused.

Mrs Dillon: Minister, given the growing diverse and rich community that we are all part of and all live in, can you outline how the Executive Office racial equality strategy can help to confront racism in our society and stamp it out once and for all?

Mrs O'Neill: I agree that it is our responsibility to stamp out and say no to racism and to face it down when we see it in our society. You referred to the racial equality strategy; that is a really important piece of work. The strategy is multifaceted, because there are many barriers that people in the ethnic minorities out there in society are facing. We all need to properly understand the data that is available to identify those barriers, if we are to tackle hate crimes, which, unfortunately, are on the rise. The strategy itself looks to how we can support community cohesion, and I am very pleased with the work that we have done, particularly since the summer, in supporting communities that face race-hate-fuelled incidents. It is important that, where those occur, we are able to respond immediately. I am pleased with the work that we have been able to do.

All aspects of the strategy are important, but it starts here, with appropriate information, with facing down racism and with the language that is used even in the Chamber. It starts with honesty and taking to task people who peddle myths and create divisions in society and perceptions of divisions and the unequal nature of some things in society. If we work together on that, it will lead to a better and more inclusive society.

Mrs Cameron: As a demonstration of commitment to transparency, will the First Minister publicly call on Glór na Móna to release the attendee list for the City Hall event in question?

Mrs O'Neill: The Member knows that that is the role of the PSNI and the PPS.

Some Members: No. [Inaudible.]

Mrs O'Neill: Well, as a matter of fact, folks, it is. I have discharged my duty in my remit; my role as Sinn Féin vice president. Outside that, it is for the PPS, which has made its views known.

Ms Sheerin: First Minister, do you agree that all elected reps have a responsibility to human rights and equality and that the language and tone that elected representatives use, in the Chamber and in the media, should be accurate and responsible in terms of human rights and equality, rather than promoting fear?

Mrs O'Neill: I agree. I say it time and again, because it is important to underline it. Across the world, you can see how harmful disinformation and misinformation are, particularly in the world of social media where things can be said unchecked. Quite often, a lot of the big companies are not even taking those things on in a responsible way.

People look towards us, as political leaders, for some guidance as to the misinformation that we see. Absolutely, we should all be about promoting inclusivity and tackling the hatred that we see sometimes. That is the huge responsibility that we all have as political leaders. The tone of some commentary that we have heard in recent weeks adds fuel to the fire. People elect us to speak up on their behalf and to lead society. We need to ensure that we call out the wrongdoing when we see it.

Mr Frew: Minister, you failed to answer the questions from my colleague Phillip Brett and the leader of the Opposition. Will the First Minister explain why her party, Sinn Féin, moved to immediately suspend an employee from the Assembly who, if we are to believe the revised accounts provided by the Sinn Féin Chief Whip, made no admission of being present at or involved in the incident in the City Hall on the night in question? Why would you suspend someone in that regard? Or were you right the first time, when, on 22 October, you said:

Which one is right?

Mrs O'Neill: On 22 October last year, I made a statement in the Assembly as Sinn Féin vice president. The events in Belfast City Hall on 19 October 2024 have been fully investigated by the PSNI. The PPS has made its decision, and that is the appropriate course of action. Given that there was a criminal investigation, the actions that I took were absolutely appropriate. I am confident in the action that I have taken.

Miss Hargey: Obviously, Together: Building a United Community exists to promote inclusion and to help unite communities. How important do you feel that that policy is, despite attempts today to try to create division and political posturing?

Mrs O'Neill: One of the areas that we can be so pleased with in the work on Together: Building a United Community has been how it has brought people together. It has had a really positive impact, and that is why we are now looking at future iterations of it. The good relations programme is match funded, delivering £2·8 million in funding in 2025-26. That supports good relations projects on the ground that we are all aware of in our constituencies. Even since this summer, we have had additional funding provided to fund projects that are about the promotion of integration, particularly given what we saw earlier in the year.

I really believe that that will help us to improve community relations and to deliver a truly shared and inclusive society.

Ms Forsythe: Will the First Minister ask her party to publish the details of the findings of any internal investigation that was initiated after the former Sinn Féin employee came forward?

Mrs O'Neill: As with many of the questions that have been asked today, that is not a matter for the Executive Office.

There was no criminal investigation. The PPS and the PSNI did their job.

Mr Clarke: While you may have been speaking as the vice president of Sinn Féin when you made the statement, you were still First Minister of the Assembly. In your capacity as First Minister of the Assembly, did you offer to give any information to the police? Did you give an interview to the police, or give them any information that you were in receipt of? Did you avoid all contact?

Mrs O'Neill: I think that I have answered that question. I have made very clear the basis on which I — [Interruption.]

You may not like it, but the answer is very factual, and I can stand over the position that I took. When I made the statement to the House on 22 October 2024, I did so as Sinn Féin vice president. There was a criminal investigation, and the action that I took was wholly appropriate in the context of that investigation.

Mr Brooks: I will have another rattle and see whether we can get past the press office's prepared lines. As has been said, on 22 October, the Minister stated that a Sinn Féin employee had admitted involvement in the incident that led to the criminal damage of the portrait in Belfast City Hall. I am not asking about the PSNI or PPS investigation, but I am asking this: was a Sinn Féin employee involved, or did the First Minister mislead the House?

Mrs O'Neill: I am confident in the action that I took. I have nothing to add to what I have said already, folks.

Ms Brownlee: Will the First Minister commit to releasing any and all information held by the Executive Office, including any emails or briefings relating to an invitation to junior Minister Reilly to the Belfast City Hall event?

Mrs O'Neill: In my initial answer, I stated that there is nothing to be seen and that we will write to the Committee. I have already signed off on the response that will go to the Committee, as I have just stated. That response will set out clearly that there was no briefing and no list of invitees. Junior Minister Reilly did not attend in her capacity as junior Minister, and you know that.

Mr Kingston: First Minister, do you believe that it was appropriate that, at the Executive Office Committee meeting that you attended on 23 October 2024, when Harry Harvey and I raised the subject of the damage to the former Lord Mayor's portrait, Carál Ní Chuilín, who is a Committee member, did not recuse herself, given that she had failed to declare a clear conflict of interest, specifically that her son had let Sinn Féin know of his involvement in the damage to the portrait, which Sinn Féin had reported to the PSNI?

Mrs O'Neill: Again, that has nothing to do with the Executive Office, and I believe that Ms Ní Chuilín answered that question in the Committee.

Mr Bradley: Mr Speaker, I remind Members that any leader or deputy leader of a political party has no right to address the Assembly. The First Minister therefore addressed the Assembly as First Minister.

May I ask the First Minister to provide a statement, including her recollection of the account given by the Sinn Féin Chief Whip to the PSNI or the PPS? If not, would she be willing to do so?

Mrs O'Neill: I can point out as a matter of fact that I addressed the House from the Back Benches as Sinn Féin vice president, as the Member's party's Ministers do on occasion. I am confident in the actions that I took in the discharge of my duties. I have repeated that on numerous occasions today.

Mr Speaker: That concludes questions to the Minister. We will now move —.

Mr Brett: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I appreciate your accepting this question for urgent oral answer, but will you outline to the House what avenues are open to Members should a Member, whether speaking as First Minister or from the Back Benches, inadvertently or intentionally mislead the House? It is clear that the comments made by the First Minister on 22 October are in total defiance of the comments made by the Chief Whip in a statement to the Public Prosecution Service. Will you articulate to Members how we can ensure that we find out which Member of Sinn Féin misled the House?

Mr Speaker: If the Member wishes to make that case, he should put it to me in writing, and I can then consider what is provided to me.

Mr Speaker: We will now go back to the ministerial statement on the suspected case of bluetongue in Bangor. The next Member to ask a question is Aoife Finnegan.

Ms Finnegan: Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle.

Are we good to go?

I thank the Minister for his statement. Should farmers vaccinate their herds and flocks immediately to protect them against bluetongue?

Mr Muir (The Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs): As I outlined in my statement, I made the decision to make the vaccines available in Northern Ireland. The decision is for individual farmers to take in conjunction with advice from their private veterinary practitioner, and I encourage them to do it. The most immediate focus has to be the eradication of the virus in Northern Ireland.

Mr Dunne: I thank the Minister for his statement. Breeding and production moves will not be permitted to or from farms in the temporary control zone (TCZ). That has the potential to have serious consequences for some farms and, indeed, farmers' livelihoods, depending on how long it is in place. What more can be done to support the farmers and the farm businesses that are most impacted? Is there any indication of the length of time that the restrictions will be in place? Obviously, I appreciate that it is a live situation.

Mr Muir: Thank you, Stephen. I am aware of the impact of the restrictions, which you outlined. There is the capacity for direct export to slaughter. A form is needed for that, and it is available on the DAERA website. The focus now has to be on vigilance. We in the Department are working on increased testing so that we can follow through on our framework in response to the situation, and then we can move out of the control zone. That is where our focus is at the moment.

Let us hope that we are not in this situation for an extended period. That will rely on us all working together. I know the impact that this will have on the farming community. In order for us to best serve the farming community in Northern Ireland and ensure the ongoing success of our agri-food industry, we must be compliant with the regulations. It is absolutely key that we do that. The Department is supporting farmers through the work of the veterinary service. Additional information is on the DAERA website. Together, we will get through this over the time ahead.

Ms Egan: Thank you for your statement, Minister. Will you give more details on the temporary control zone in the Bangor area and the rules associated with it?

Mr Muir: Thank you, Connie. There is a map on the DAERA website detailing the temporary control zone. I encourage Members to view it and to make their constituents aware of it. It is a 20-kilometre control zone from a holding near the Bangor area. Those who view the map will see that it extends beyond County Down. For example, it goes into east Antrim and the Belfast area. It is important that people acquaint themselves with it. The Department is making contact with farmers in the area by email and text. The rules associated with this situation are pretty simple: there are no permitted moves except for those direct to slaughter. A form is available from the DAERA website that can be downloaded and brought to the abattoir when that slaughter is about to be undertaken. It is important that people are aware of the reasons for that. They are about being able to manage any potential spread of the virus, and that is a key part of our disease control framework in Northern Ireland.

Ms Murphy: I thank the Minister for his statement on what is, no doubt, a deeply concerning and worrying time for many in our farming communities. Minister, in your statement, you said that officials will carry out further investigations as the days go on. Will you detail what exactly those further investigations will entail?

Mr Muir: Further samples have been sent to UK and EU laboratories, so work will be undertaken on those. In addition, we have increased the amount of surveillance in our local abattoirs. We have set out traps for midges, which we will test. Extra blood samples are being taken not just from the herd in which the animals were detected but from the broader area. We are stepping up that surveillance. We are also asking for increased vigilance and for farmers, if they see anything of concern, to report it to us immediately. If there are any sick animals, they should isolate them immediately.

Mr K Buchanan: Thank you for your statement, Minister. You said that the outbreak may have been the result of midges. We are speculating on that. There remains a risk from importing animals from other parts of Europe. Given that it appears that bluetongue is now a reality in Northern Ireland — hopefully, it is not, but let us say that it is — will you now look seriously at implementing restrictions on animal movements from Europe?

Mr Muir: There are already restrictions on movements from GB to NI. Since I took up office in February of last year, there has been a request for us to ease those. I am not doing that, because I am aware of the risk to our agri-food sector in Northern Ireland. We have a risk-based approach to everything that we do. Movements into Northern Ireland are very limited and are even further limited within the temporary control zone. It is important that we comply with the restrictions. We will monitor the situation in the time ahead. We are coming towards the end of the vector-borne season — hopefully, the colder weather will help us — but that does not rule out further infection. That is why it is important that we abide by the restrictions put in place on Saturday evening.

Ms D Armstrong: Minister, thank you for your statement. I commend you for the swift action that was taken at the weekend. You mentioned at least a couple of times in your statement the fact that there is no risk to public health. What measures are you taking to communicate the message more widely to consumers that meat and lamb are safe products to consume?

Mr Muir: Thank you, Diana. That is a really important message. We trade on the basis of people's confidence in our agri-food industry. Bluetongue does not affect humans, so there are no human or public health implications. There is no risk of the disease being contracted or spread through meat or milk. Let me be very clear on that.

Mr McGlone: Thank you, Minister, for the swift action by your Department and officials. You said that all animal movements to GB are suspended while immediate discussions are held between officials to agree the requirement for movements. If animals outside the control zone have already been vaccinated, does that make any difference to the restriction on their movement to GB?

Mr Muir: Thank you, Patsy. That does not come into the decision-making because no moves to Great Britain can occur until the conditions for those moves are agreed with the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) and other UK authorities. My officials are in discussion with colleagues in Great Britain to enable those moves to restart as soon as possible. Potential exporters and private veterinary practitioners are encouraged to watch for further guidance from DAERA. That guidance may change as the situation develops.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: That concludes questions on the statement. Members, we will take our ease; we are waiting for the Economy Minister for the next item of business.

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

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

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

Today, I seek the Assembly's approval of the draft Renewable Heat Incentive Scheme (Amendment) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2025.

As Members will be aware, my Department is progressing legislation to close the non-domestic RHI Scheme, in line with the New Decade, New Approach commitment and Executive approvals. The closure legislation includes a Bill to provide the Department with the powers to introduce closure regulations, and the closure regulations themselves.

The Bill was introduced to the Assembly on 6 October and is currently at Committee Stage. With respect to the closure regulations, a public consultation on the proposals for closure concluded on 24 November. A total of 216 responses were received, and I put on record my thanks to those who took the time to provide their views on the closure arrangements. My officials are working at pace to summarise the responses and prepare a consultation report as quickly as possible. I do not intend to go into detail on the proposals for closure today. That is a discussion to be had when the closure regulations are being considered.

The draft legislation relates to an increase in tariffs for small and medium biomass installations to be implemented now, in advance of the finalisation of the closure legislation. The current tariffs for small and medium biomass were introduced in 2019 using the best information available at the time. However, substantial movements in fuel prices mean that it is appropriate to increase the tariff. The draft regulations therefore substitute a new schedule 5 into the principal regulations. Its effect will be to increase the tariffs for accredited biomass boilers falling within the small biomass, lower medium biomass and upper medium biomass bandings. The increased tariffs will apply from the day after the regulations are approved by the Assembly. Members will be aware that my Department brought regulations before the Assembly in 2024 to increase the tariff levels for small and medium biomass installations. The tariff levels set out in the regulations before us today have been developed following further analysis of fuel prices carried out by the Department during the course of this year and extensive engagement with stakeholders and independent experts.

The draft Renewable Heat Incentive Scheme (Amendment) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2025, which I bring before the Assembly today, are an important step to ensure fairness to participants while closure legislation is being progressed. I would welcome the Assembly's support.

Mr Brett (The Chairperson of the Committee for the Economy): As Chair, I rise to support the regulations moved by the Minister. As the Minister has advised, the proposed rule will amend the Renewable Heat Incentive Scheme Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2012 to increase the tariff for support payments made under non-domestic RHI schemes to accredited small and medium biomass installations. The increases are for heat generated from December 2025 and are to be based upon readings recorded by Ofgem. The proposed rule is expected to fix the tariffs for those installations for heat generated up to the end of March 2026.

The Department has advised that the winter uplift tariffs are essentially the same as the closure payment tariffs that are currently out to consultation. The increase in costs associated with these new tariffs is understood to be around £10 million for the period December 2025 to March 2026. The Department has advised that Treasury has agreed to the increase in costs for the non-domestic RHI scheme. The proposed regulations appear to have been designed following engagement with the Ulster Farmers' Union, the Renewable Heat Association Northern Ireland and the Federation of Small Businesses (FSB), and are in line with the cost models derived by Professor David Rooney at Queen's University Belfast. Officials advised that the new tariffs will generate an internal rate of return of over 12% and are compliant with state aid rules. Members noted that the cost of the new tariffs is well within the £33 million of annually managed expenditure (AME) that is ring-fenced for renewables. Thus, the Committee was assured that the proposed tariff increase will not lead to any increased liability against Northern Ireland's block grant. With that in mind, the Committee was content to support the regulations.

I now make a few comments as DUP MLA for North Belfast. First, I thank the Minister and her departmental staff for their commitment to providing the Committee with the information to make this decision. We are in a much better position this time around than we were when previous uplifts were proposed, so from a party perspective and on behalf of the Committee, I am happy to recommend that the Assembly vote for the regulations as outlined by the Minister.

Mr Delargy: I acknowledge the work of both Minister Archibald and Minister Murphy in dealing with the aftermath of RHI. From the moment that Minister Archibald took up office, she made it clear that closing the scheme was a necessity, and that builds on the clear commitment to close the scheme set out in New Decade, New Approach. This work ensures that a deeply flawed scheme can be closed while compensating those who entered in good faith and protecting the taxpayer and public services from excessive payouts. The Department has undertaken a rigorous review, corrected long-standing flaws, strengthened oversight and ensured that robust governance structures are now firmly in place. The amendment regulations represent another step towards the completion of that work.

The Minister's leadership on the issue has been steady and responsible. Instead of allowing RHI to cast a shadow over the future of renewable energy support, she has made sure that the lessons of the past shape a better and more accountable system going forward. That is part of a wider agenda to build a clean, affordable and secure energy future, which matters to families, to businesses and to all those who want to see good government and good governance in action. I welcome the progress that the Minister has delivered and commend her for the work undertaken to bring us to this point. I support the motion.

Mr Honeyford: I echo the comments made by the Chair of the Committee about the departmental staff and the Minister. This time has been a lot different from the previous time. The Committee appreciates the amount of information and the briefings that it has had.

The Alliance Party will support the regulations. It is a necessary step in finally drawing a line under the RHI saga. As I have said before, the RHI scheme has been a stain on public confidence and on the credibility of the Assembly. To get it towards closure is of benefit to everybody. RHI has dragged us back for years and held up the kind of modern and ambitious energy strategy that we all need to deliver and that should have been delivered a long time ago. Energy security, as Pádraig has just said, is fundamental. Generating our own home-grown energy is fundamental to families and businesses across Northern Ireland in reducing the price of electricity and, for the wider public, in keeping more money in their pockets, rather than spending it and struggling.

Every time that RHI comes back to the Chamber, we are reminded of that scandal, which should never have happened in the first place, and the damage that it has left behind. I see it all the time in the Public Accounts Committee. The shadow of RHI seems to dominate decision-making in the Department and causes fear, caution and hesitation at exactly a time when we need ambition, creativity and momentum to see that energy transition. We look forward to ending that chapter.

Today's regulations amend the schedule, and, on paper, they are technical changes. Nothing with RHI is ever simply technical, so everything has to be viewed through the lens of trust, fairness and final closure. The fairness matters: we must be fair to the people who entered the scheme in good faith, invested properly and operated it as intended. It is also about fairness to the public at large, because we will not accept any system dragging us back to days when people were paid for heat that was never generated in the first place. I want to be absolutely clear that, as we move to closure, the Alliance Party will simply not rubber-stamp any repeat of that, and, when it comes to the next stage of closure, we will not give a blank cheque to payments that do not reflect real and genuine renewable heat. I put that on the record, because my concern is that what is presented and what has been presented at the Committee in the upcoming legislation will do that.

Tariffs must support environmental transition. Closure must enable us to move forward at pace with renewable schemes but not recreate the mistakes of the past and compensate for failures of oversight.

Moving to supervision, even though the rule deals only with tariffs, we cannot ignore the wider issues. We continue to hear suggestions around reducing checks and scaling back inspections, but, given the history here, the Department still has a long way to go to build that trust and credibility. The regulations are fine as far as they go; they make a sensible update and will help to move the scheme towards closure, but they will not and do not rebuild trust on their own. Trust will come only when we have full closure and when that package is fully transparent, fair and evidence-based and is clearly communicated.

We support it for moving forward. We are moving forward in the right direction, but we will not support going forward unconditionally, and we will keep demanding accountability, keep pushing for proper oversight and keep insisting that renewable heat policy aligns with our climate objectives. The public deserve and absolutely demand confidence that, when we bring it to a close, lessons have been properly learned — it must be done properly; it has to be done openly — and that, never again, will what happened in the past be repeated in the Assembly.

Ms D Armstrong: I thank the Minister for attending. Among my colleagues on the Committee for the Economy, there is unanimity in supporting the statutory regulations. We recognise that the RHI scheme must work towards its end point, which is necessary to allow other renewable energy schemes to come into play. However, as others have said, it is vital that the integrity and transparency of the process be assured. Given that the scheme has been plagued by scandal, mismanagement and a huge decline in public confidence, people today want us to focus on the implications of its closure for the public purse. At this stage, therefore, I support the statutory regulations. I welcome the move forward and the work that you and your Department have been doing, Minister, and I am happy to support the motion.

Ms McLaughlin: From the outset, the SDLP has had profound concerns about the process that has led us to this point. The regulations set the tariffs only until March 2026, when the Department for the Economy will take responsibility for administering the RHI scheme. The tariffs that we are being asked to endorse are extremely similar — almost identical — to the tariffs on which the Department has just finished consulting as part of the proposed closure arrangements. In other words, the Assembly is being asked to vote in favour of a tariff structure that is being consulted on as we speak. That is not good practice. It undermines confidence in the consultation process and suggests that the Department has already settled on an outcome long before participants, stakeholders and the Assembly have had a meaningful chance to respond.

However, that is only a symptom of a much wider and more deeply troubling pattern. We should never forget that we are here because the Department failed to act when Ofgem first indicated that it intended to hand back the administration of the scheme. The warning was given two years in advance. The Department had sufficient time to prepare a smooth and orderly transition; instead, it hesitated, delayed and allowed the situation to drift. The result is what we see before us: a rushed process, regulations being introduced at the last minute and an Assembly being given far too little time to scrutinise something that deserves the highest level of scrutiny.

We are being asked to approve tariffs without having sight of the closure guidance; we are being asked to trust the Department to deliver the inspections needed to ensure that the scheme is not abused without being provided with a detailed plan for them; and we are being asked to accept administration costs that are more than 50% higher than Ofgem's, with no convincing justification. There are also serious questions about the banding scheme. Under these regulations, we could see boilers operating at 5% usage whilst getting payments for their operating at 50%. We understand the theory that the scheme is meant to nudge participants to use the higher usage bands, but we remain unconvinced that that will work in practice and that it represents a fair or an efficient approach. Serious doubt remains about how it can be monitored, verified and enforced.

We recognise the wider context: Northern Ireland must continue to support the generation of renewable heat and to honour commitments to those who entered the scheme in good faith, including many in my constituency. The SDLP has always stood by that principle, and we will always stand by those people. Those who acted honestly deserve proper compensation. However, the truth is that, because of the Department's mishandling, delays, lack of planning and failure to act when action was needed, the Assembly has been backed into a corner. The options before us are so limited and so constrained that we have, in effect, been left with no choice but to support the regulations despite the many flaws in how we have arrived at this point. That should be a source of shame for the Department. No Minister, official or Department should take pride in forcing the Assembly into such a position. We will support the regulations because we refuse to punish those who entered the scheme in good faith, but let me be clear that — I hope that this is clearly understood — that support is not an endorsement of the Department's approach or the flawed process that has brought us to this point.

Miss Hargey: I thank the Minister for bringing the regulations forward. It is important that we are at the point of looking at the tariffs for the RHI scheme. The RHI scheme was flawed from day 1, resulting in incentivising more burning and in higher costs. In the clear mismanagement of the scheme, a further written assurance was given that tariffs would be guaranteed into the future. The scheme was fundamentally flawed from the very start. This Economy Minister has stepped in to clear up what was, undoubtedly, a mess and to deliver responsible action and finally close the failed scheme. Minister Archibald has brought forward clear legislation that is grounded in independent evidence from Professor David Rooney, ensuring that any tariff adjustment is fair and transparent, with the key point being that it is temporary. Those key aspects were missing from the original scheme.

The temporary tariff uplift is exactly that — temporary — and forms a wider part of a carefully managed pathway to closure, not another delay or half measure. Keeping meters running or tinkering around the edges would only prolong a scandal that should have ended years ago. Real closure means ending the scheme outright, which the Economy Minister is committed to doing. The regulations before the Assembly today embed fairness and transparency and, importantly, deliver on the commitment in 'New Decade, New Approach'. I welcome this important next step.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: I call the Minister for the Economy to conclude and wind up the debate on the motion.

Dr Archibald: Go raibh maith agat, a Phríomh-LeasCheann Comhairle.

I thank Members for their contributions to today's debate and for their support for the proposed regulations. I will pick up on a couple of Members' points. A number of Members referred to the principle of fairness. That is what we are trying to achieve. The regulations seek to address the level of the tariffs to make them fairer for participants and to protect taxpayers. Just to clarify, the £10 million figure is additional per annum, not just for the period between now and the end of March. Perhaps I picked the Committee Chair up wrong on that.

David Honeyford and Sinéad McLaughlin highlighted issues with the closure scheme rather than with the tariffs regulations that we are debating. We have heard the Committee's views. The consultation has just closed, and the responses are being considered. The whole point of a consultation is to take views on board. We will seek to do that in the coming days and weeks. We will, hopefully, be in a position to inform the Committee of the outcome of that in January.

Sinéad made a point about the tariff. Independent experts modelled the tariff to help support the Department to come to the figures that it has reached. The Department separately did its own analysis, which the expert input affirmed. We have had significant and extensive engagement with stakeholders, including participants and their representatives, to get to the position that we are at on the tariffs, which have broad support. I am content that we are moving in the right direction.

The measure is a stopgap, if you like, between where we are and where we will be when the closure legislation progresses. It is about ensuring that participants receive a fair payment in the interim while we move towards closure. It is the right thing to do. I appreciate the support that Members have voiced in the Chamber today, and I commend the motion to the House.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Members, take your ease while there is a change at the top Table. Thank you.

Miss McAllister: 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 will have 10 minutes to propose the motion and 10 minutes to make a winding-up speech. As an amendment has been selected and is published on the Marshalled List, the Business Committee has agreed that 15 minutes will be added to the total time for the debate. Please open the debate on the motion.

Miss McAllister: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I rise as spokesperson for Alliance on the Health Committee and as a member of the Policing Board to propose the motion, which highlights the pressures faced by the PSNI due to health system failings around mental health crisis services and calls on the Health Minister to ensure that he plays a proactive role in the implementation of the Right Care, Right Person (RCRP) model.

Under the Mental Health (NI) Order 1986, police officers have a power to enter private premises with a warrant and temporarily remove people to a place of safety and a power to remove persons from public places to a place of safety, provided that specified criteria are met. The powers that we are predominantly focusing on today are the powers under article 130, under which we see officers answer "concern for safety" calls and remain at emergency departments with people in mental health crisis.

Before I get to the statistics that are outlined in the motion, I must seek clarity from the Health Minister regarding the full implementation of the Mental Capacity Act 2016 and when we might expect to see the safeguards in that legislation enacted. They may not always help in circumstances in which the police are the first responders for emergency deprivation of liberty, but, currently, when the police are the only body able to act on "concern for safety" calls and subsequent deprivation of liberty, it is clear that the Department needs to act on that 2016 legislation.

It is no secret that Northern Ireland faces a substantial mental health crisis. Regardless of whether that is due to our unique history, levels of deprivation or many other factors, our rates of mental ill health are the highest on these islands. That has resulted in a specific strain on our health services due to the number of people at crisis point who are trying to access support or are calling for an urgent intervention for their loved ones in a crisis. However, as the motion states, that intervention, which should be a Health response, is, too often, falling to the police.

As a result of the strain facing the police, the PSNI conducted a survey over four weeks last year to understand the impact on resources. During that period, at least 8,142 officer hours were spent on "concern for safety" calls, which include calls about people who have walked out of healthcare settings, mental health detention calls, the transportation of people who are in a health crisis and dealing with voluntary mental health patients, which means taking people to hospital who are going there voluntarily rather than detaining them because of concerns about their mental health. Over the course of a year, the 8,000 hours scale up to over 100,000 hours and £4 million of officer time. Of those hours, over 29,000 were spent waiting in emergency departments (EDs), and that location accounted for the highest percentage of the three-plus-hour waiting times at 38%. This is not a new issue; it has been discussed at length at the Policing Board, and colleagues from across the Chamber have joined with the PSNI to advocate about it. It was also discussed at a joint Justice and Health Committee meeting last November, and the PSNI made it clear that the pressure from dealing with mental health crisis calls was unsustainable. Policing has become very much baked into the everyday public sector response to unmet Health demand.

As a member of the Policing Board, I have seen the Right Care, Right Person model from its inception in Humberside in 2021 to its replication in other forces. However, over the last four years, we have yet to see its implementation, and that is not for the want of trying on the part of the PSNI. Other forces in England and Wales are now following suit, and Northern Ireland must not be left behind. Unfortunately, I have also witnessed at first hand the detention of people in my constituency of North Belfast, and it is in no way an easy thing to do. A person who is in a mental health crisis is already going through a traumatic and difficult time, and the presence of the police can sometimes exacerbate that. Not only does it result in the unnecessary stigmatisation of those in crisis, who are potentially seen as criminals due to the presence of police officers in stab vests with sidearms, but it is not a therapeutic way of dealing with a mental health crisis. Furthermore, it leaves officers in the extremely difficult position of making potentially clinical decisions when they have no authority to do so. That has been advocated for and lobbied on by the senior leadership of the PSNI, not least due to the issues I have already highlighted around the Mental Health Order.

The PSNI and the Department of Justice cannot be found lacking in trying to find solutions to the problem. They have taken a leadership role in implementing the Right Care, Right Person model, ensuring that individuals in mental health crisis can receive the right care from the right person at the right time. The PSNI leadership team has hosted cross-agency meetings with the trusts, the Department of Health and relevant health representative bodies to emphasise the opportunities that a collaborative approach through the model could create for everyone — the police, health workers and, most important, the individuals in need of care. However, despite that, the failings in the health sector limit the success of that approach. The police have been upfront that they cannot and will not leave a person in crisis unaccompanied, meaning that they still spend countless officer hours supporting people who need more appropriate support from healthcare professionals. Let me be clear: it is not the fault of the individual healthcare staff in our workforce. Many GPs, front-line hospital staff and approved social workers are doing everything they can with the resources available to them to support individuals facing a mental health crisis.

I hope that we do not hear that the financial situation surrounding the Department of Health is a reason for not implementing Right Care, Right Person, because the resources are already spent. They are spent on the officers waiting in A&E for up to 14 hours a day, who have no choice but to respond to the "concern for safety" calls. They are spent in the community by the community and voluntary sector that picks up the pieces when our statutory services fail. They are spent on the health services when people's mental health is so badly affected that their care and the response to their care is so much more significant where there has been a failure to act early for each person. For what it is worth, I would prioritise spending on investment that would result in savings, either in the future or for another service.

Delivering the mental health strategy is a perfect example of that, not least because it will reduce the burden on policing and free up officer time to deal with crime in our community, which is something that every MLA in the Chamber is vocal on, calling for more resource to deal with it. However, most importantly, it is about the individual and the care that they need at the right time.

The motion is not about policing stepping back from any and all responsibility in those crisis scenarios. The PSNI has been clear that it wants to fulfil its duties in that area. It is about pressing the Department of Health to ensure that the health sector can fulfil its responsibilities, rather than have the current unfair and unsustainable burden lying with the police, and, ultimately, to ensure that people in a mental health crisis get the right care, by the right people, at the right time.

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

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Thank you. You will 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. Mr Buchanan, please open the debate.

Mr K Buchanan: Thank you. For the record, Mr Deputy Speaker, I declare that I am a member of the Northern Ireland Policing Board.

We welcome the motion tabled by the Alliance Party. Nobody disputes that the issues that it raises are serious, unacceptable and must be addressed. Police officers are under immense pressure, and the public rightly expect us to act. Our amendment adds to the motion. It makes some small tweaks to add to it, but it does not take away from its importance or the motion more broadly.

Underfunding has reduced our police service's capability in recent years. The public rightly expect their police service to focus on keeping communities safe, preventing crime and responding swiftly when danger arises. Yet, through no fault of their own, officers are being diverted into roles that they are neither trained for nor resourced to carry out.

Every day, police officers are deployed to around 100 concern for safety calls. That is not the most appropriate use of policing resources. It is neither safe nor sustainable. The statistics provided by the PSNI are staggering. Officers spend an average of 14 hours in A&E waiting with individuals who require a mental health assessment. That is time taken off our streets when neighbourhood policing numbers are already critically low.

Since 2010, spending on public safety has risen by just 8%, while the Health budget has increased by 88%. In that same period, the PSNI budget has fallen below £900 million. Our officers are being asked to do more than ever before, with fewer resources than ever before.

In March 2024, the Chief Constable, Jon Boutcher, put it plainly when he said:

It is unacceptable.

During a briefing to the Policing Board, it was noted that the PSNI responded to around 500 ambulance calls when the Ambulance Service could not attend. In just three months, officers spent over 4,500 hours in hospitals supporting people in mental health crises. They dealt with more than 21,000 mental health-related calls.

The PSNI is not only keeping our community safe, but it is increasingly acting as a substitute health service. That is not its role. Without proper funding, the PSNI will face impossible choices about what it can and cannot do. That means slower response times, fewer officers on the ground and communities left vulnerable. Policing is not optional; it is fundamental.

If we continue to underfund the PSNI, we risk breaking the backbone of public safety in Northern Ireland. There must be a review of the PSNI budget. We must provide the resources that our officers need, and we debated that in the House last week. We must ensure that the police service remains a police service and not a stretched substitute for the health service.

While I recognise that the Department of Justice and the Department of Health have acknowledged the overlap in responsibilities, acknowledgement is not enough. The Minister of Health and the Minister of Justice must move beyond discussion and deliver a properly resourced system in which health professionals lead in a health crisis and police officers can focus on keeping our communities safe.

The crisis in mental health in Northern Ireland is deeply worrying. Rates of ill health continue to rise year-on-year, and mental health services are becoming ever more stretched. It is regrettable that Northern Ireland spends less per head on mental health services than the rest of the United Kingdom, despite its having some of the highest rates of mental health cases in the UK. It is imperative that the Health Minister works to prioritise funding for those vital services. Expediting a new regional mental health service would also support a more consistent approach to care across Northern Ireland. The Health Minister should continue to progress the mental health strategy. Progress has been made on a number of actions, but there is still more to do.

As cases rise and services stall, the strategy needs to be accelerated. Let us be clear: as a party, we will support any measures that improve treatment and support for people who are experiencing mental health challenges. It is incumbent on us all to continue to press the Government for more funding so that we can tackle those serious issues.

Without decisive intervention from both Ministers, public safety will suffer, and vulnerable people will not receive the specialist care that they deserve.

Mrs Dillon: I thank the proposer of the motion. We will support the motion and the amendment. I begin by recognising the reality that faces the PSNI and, more importantly, the people who find themselves in deep distress or in crisis. Every day, police officers respond to more than 100 concern for safety calls, but only a tiny fraction of those situations involve any criminal activity. It is clear what that tells us: people who experience mental ill health, vulnerability or breakdowns in their well-being are not getting the response that they need from the health and social care system. The police are being forced to step into a space that was never meant to be theirs. That is neither fair nor sustainable, and it is certainly not fair on the person in crisis. Officers have told us time and again that they are being asked do work for which they are not trained or resourced and that, ultimately, cannot deliver the best outcome for individuals who need clinical and therapeutic support, not a policing intervention. This is not about criticising the PSNI — it is not about criticising the Health Minister and his Department either — which is doing the best that it can, but it is placed in impossible positions because of the failings elsewhere in the system.

For Sinn Féin and me, the issue is fundamentally about outcomes for the person and ensuring that they receive the required care. When someone is in the midst of a mental health emergency or personal crisis, the question that we must ask is simple: who is the best person to help them? I disagree slightly with the previous contributor about the police being a health service. They absolutely cannot be that service, because they are not the right people. They are not able to help those people in crisis. The answer is simple: the best people to help are trained health and social care professionals, not the police. We need the right care to be delivered by the right person at the right time. I know that the Minister and his departmental officials have bought into that, but we need to accelerate it.

I have said this in the Chamber before, and I will repeat it today, because it is the core of what needs to change. The Health Minister's Department has significant resources compared with the PSNI. Those resources need to be used to target the people who most need them. We need to find better pathways. It is about doing things differently. I accept that money is needed in every Department, but we need to do things differently.

The gaps in mental health services, crisis response, community support and early intervention continue to grow. Police officers fill those gaps, often doing so late at night and alone in situations where they cannot provide what the person genuinely needs. That is unsustainable and unsafe, and it places enormous pressure on services and communities. We know that it is unsafe, because we see what happens when people do not get the right response. We saw what happened in the Cawdery case. In my area, I see people being repeatedly taken to A&E and ending up in prison because it is the only safe place to take them. That is not on. It cannot carry on in that way.

The Right Care, Right Person model offers a clear and compassionate framework to address the issue. It is about ensuring that vulnerable people get expert assessment and support from those who are trained to give it, while freeing up our police to focus on keeping our communities safe. However, the model needs to be delivered with urgency. Alongside that, we need the full implementation of the mental health strategy and the 'Delivering Together' vision to build proper responsive community-based care that prevents crisis rather than just reacting to it. It is not about Departments passing responsibility from one to another; it is about a whole-system commitment to ensuring the right outcome for people who are struggling. People deserve dignity, safety and the right professional response. PSNI officers deserve to be able to focus on their core role, and our communities deserve a health system that is able to meet need rather than push it on to the police.

I urge the Health Minister to take the lead on a cross-departmental effort to deliver the Right Care, Right Person approach. Our police cannot continue to be the service of last resort. Actually, it is not the last resort but the first resort: when somebody has a mental health crisis, people call the police before they call the health service. The Right Care, Right Person strategy is excellent. It is a good policy, but it needs to be implemented. We need to see that happen.

As I said, I absolutely believe that the Minister and his officials have bought into that strategy, but we need action on it and we need to see it being moved on. I apologise; I should have declared that I am a member of the Policing Board. We on the Policing Board have heard repeatedly from the senior team about how not only could the Right Care, Right Person model deliver but how the pathways need to be in our health service. That is what we are asking for today.

Mr Chambers: I declare an interest in that I am a member of the Northern Ireland Policing Board. Let me be absolutely clear about this: when a person or a loved one is facing a mental health crisis, the last thing that they need is for the issue to be politicised. Yet, regrettably, that is exactly what the motion appears to do. It wraps an incredibly sensitive subject in political language and pretends that system-wide pressures can be solved by pointing a finger. That is not leadership; it is opportunism wearing the clothes of compassion.

Miss McAllister: Will the Member give way?

Mr Chambers: No, I want to make progress.

Let me say something important. Our police crews, paramedics, nurses, social workers and mental health professionals are the ones who are stepping up to make real changes. They make impossible judgement calls every single day. They do not need the Assembly to cast broad criticisms over their heads. They need us to back them fully and without political caveats. However, the motion is filled with caveats. It implies that Northern Ireland's health and social care system is failing in some collective, sweeping way. That casual disrespect might help some Members to land a political punch, but it does absolutely nothing to improve outcomes for the people who are in crisis.

I acknowledge absolutely that officers are supporting too many people who are in a crisis situation. However, that is not because the health service is not doing its job; it is because it is struggling away. The issue is far bigger than just one Department. Exactly the same thing could be said about the sheer number of people who end up in our prisons with mental health distress. Instead of recognising that wider truth, however, the motion reduces everything to a simplistic political formula, which is that Health gets half the Budget and, therefore, Health must be blamed. That is not analysis; it is political opportunism from the Alliance Party disguised as scrutiny.

It is disappointing to hear how, when speaking about Health getting half the total Budget, some people can make it sound as though they are doing the Health Department and, by extension, the Northern Ireland public some sort of favour by their generosity. Everyone here knows that the size of the Health budget is driven by need, not luxury. We have an ageing population, rising complexities in children's mental health and escalating pressures across learning disability and social care, as well as greater expectations in clinical standards. Those demands grow every year. We then come to the call to prioritise the mental health strategy. Of course, we all want that, but the real question is this: what do Members want the Minister to cut to achieve that? The motion is absolutely silent on the trade-offs. It demands a destination while refusing to engage with the journey. The practical and genuine alternative, of course, is for MLAs to join the Minister in the upcoming multi-year Budget discussions and to call for an allocation that is based on genuine objective need.

I fully support the idea behind and the intention of Right Care, Right Person, and I hope that it will be implemented as soon as it is safe to do so. However, we cannot simply instruct police officers to step back unless there is someone else who is fully equipped to step forward. If we move too fast and create a gap, there is a risk that someone will fall through it. Responsible government requires care, sequencing and realism, not bulldozing your way towards an artificial deadline because it suits a particular political narrative that some are trying to paint.

Let me end on this point: the motion simplifies an incredibly complex issue. If we are serious, let us work together honestly and responsibly. Let us stop using our health service as a platform for political posturing. People who are in crisis deserve better, and the system deserves far better. Once again, I will place on record my party's full support for and appreciation of the work of the police alongside all the staff who are working across the health and social care sector. We owe them all a huge debt.

Mr Burrows: Hear, hear.

Mr McGrath: I welcome the debate, but I do so with a sense of deep concern, sympathy and frustration at the position in which the Executive continue to place our police officers and some of the most vulnerable members of society. It is simply astounding that, for example, the police respond to over 100 concern for safety calls every day, that more than 97% of those incidents have no link to a crime at all and that 1,600 a month have a mental health component. I will segue from that point by saying that I know that from being a member of the Policing Board, and I declare that as an interest. Every one of those calls takes time and resources, and they take officers off the streets and place them in situations that, essentially, they are not trained for and should never be expected to handle as primary responders. We are starting to get through some of the noise to hear agreement on that from everybody who has spoken so far.

It is clear that it is not the police's fault. They are stepping into the breach because they care deeply about public safety, and they cannot, in good conscience, simply ignore somebody who is looking for help. It is an impossible position in which we place our police, because they should not be left to make clinical judgements at a roadside, and they should not have to sit for six, seven, eight or, as has been referenced, 14 hours in an emergency department, waiting for somebody in their care to have a mental health assessment. They should not be the first port of call for someone who is experiencing suicidal thoughts or an overdose or acute psychosis. That happens because there are gaps in other parts in the system, and they are being left to do it.

It has not arisen because of a surge in crime, and it is not because of poor policing. It is because the health and social care system is under extreme strain, and vulnerable people are falling through the gaps. Those gaps have widened, and we have had many debates in recent months about the under-resourcing of our community mental health teams, delays to the implementation of the mental health strategy, inconsistent out-of-hours provision, the lack of crisis services that are available and the way in which we are removing funds from those who are providing alternatives to emergency departments. We have insufficient social care capacity, and we also have fragmented pathways between various agencies where people are looking for help. Because of all of those failings taken together, the police, already stretched to breaking point, are being asked to hold the system together.

As is referenced in the motion, there is a solution, and it is not one that we need to invent. It is the Right Care, Right Person model. That model ensures that, when someone is in mental ill health, the responder is a mental health professional, not a police officer. It ensures that, when someone is experiencing a health emergency, the responder is in the health service and that, when somebody is in social distress, the responder is a social worker, not the police. That has been proven to work in other places, and it would be good to see whether we could get it to the stage of working here. However, for the model to work here, we need to see the Executive funding it and the responsible Ministers driving it, and we must see cross-departmental work between Justice and Health to address the issue. That is why we will be supporting the amendment to the motion.

The old line that I have not trotted out in a while is not lost on me, so I will revisit it: we have a motion from one party in the Executive criticising another Executive party, with an amendment from another Executive party, all as part of a non-binding motion. We all agree on the fundamentals, so I would love to see the Executive going ahead and doing that.

Miss McAllister: I thank the Member for giving me the time to make an intervention. It is important to acknowledge that, in a power-sharing Executive, we have to advocate and speak up for individual issues across each Department in the Executive. We have no problem with the DUP amendment and will also support it. You raise the issue that the Department of Justice and the PSNI have supported that model and have run with it, but it has taken years of trying to get everyone else on board. That is a realistic factor, and we need to achieve that.

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

Mr McGrath: Thank you very much. I appreciate that. As I said, it is the old line that I trot out, and it is not meant to be aimed at an individual party. It is the frustration that the public feel when they ask us to stop talking about things and get on with doing them. If we are raising awareness and are pushing the Executive towards some sort of delivery on that front, that has to be something that is positive.

I have a number of other pages in my speech to talk about how, if we do not change this, we will simply push our police, especially, to burnout because they are undertaking roles that they feel they are not trained to do. It puts them under pressure.

It is being done because the entire system is not being examined and dealt with properly. It is good that we have the model that is there. It would just be so good to see that model implemented, allowing our police to police and our medical staff to carry out their medical work. Fundamentally, if that was done and done properly, it would be for the good of the community as well, and that is what we would all like to see.

Ms Flynn: As Sinn Féin spokesperson on mental health and as chairperson of the all-party group on suicide prevention, I start by saying plainly that it is not sustainable or acceptable that the police have become the default response to mental health crises in our society. That is not to pin blame specifically on the Minister of Health. We all understand that the issues cut across every Department and are the responsibility of every Department at some level, so we all have a role to play.

The motion is fair in respect of what the police have to deal with and cope with at present. It is not fair on them as an organisation in terms of what duties they should be freed up to carry out. It is also not fair on the individual who is in that state of mental health crisis, psychosis or whatever the situation may be. It is not appropriate that that is being dealt with by a police officer as opposed to a healthcare clinician.

Mrs Dillon: I appreciate the Member's taking an intervention. The previous Member said that Right Care, Right Person would be a good thing as soon as it was safe to do it. Do you agree that how we currently operate is unsafe and people are dying because of what happens at the moment?

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

Ms Flynn: I thank the Member for her intervention. Sadly, that is the reality. Too many people are not receiving the appropriate care in time and are losing their lives as a result. Again, that is not to pin it all on whether they have been handled appropriately by the PSNI if officers had been dealing with them. It is not to pin it on emergency department waits or mental health waiting lists. This is a problem that we all need to take responsibility for. You cannot pin it on Health or Justice.

Alan spoke passionately on behalf of his party. I am conscious that it is his colleague who holds the Health portfolio. We all understand where the Minister is coming from. He simply does not have enough money to put into crisis services or to put some of those models in place. What needs to come from the debate, however, is what can be done at whatever level, whether it is Executive level or different parties or Ministers coming together to see how we can make it work better and maybe speed up the Right Care, Right Person approach so that we are not losing lives in the meantime, as Linda pointed out.

Colin said that the PSNI responded to over 100 "concern for safety" calls per day. Think about it: that is per day, so it is obviously taking up a massive amount of police time. Again, it comes back to whether the person who needs the help and support is receiving it regardless of how much police time is taken up. Probably not.

Points were made about the strategy, and, again, it comes back to the funding. The Minister can fully implement the mental health strategy, Protect Life 2, only if his budget will allow him to do that. However, it still needs to be —.

Mr Burrows: Will the Member give way?

Ms Flynn: Yes, I will.

Mr Burrows: Has the Member, as a mental health lead, spent any time on patrol with PSNI officers to see how they deal with mental health emergencies?

Ms Flynn: I thank the Member for that intervention. I spent a bit of time with them when they were introducing the multi-agency triage teams, which have been fantastic, with police working alongside mental health practitioners and the Ambulance Service. I am also conscious of the successful custody suites pilot where a mental health practitioner assessed the prisoners coming in, as opposed to a forensic medical officer doing it. I was going to make that point. I am not sure if the custody suite pilot has since fallen because we could not get match funding. I am not sure that it was match funding, but Health and Justice were funding that together at one stage, so there are good examples and models of practice that we can look to. If we could expand those on a regional basis and if Health and Justice worked in tandem to do those things, that would have an impact on the person or patient in mental health distress. We can talk all night about things that might be holding the Minister back in moving forward with some of this stuff — funding is a problem — but how do we build on the good pilots that have already been in place?

Just last week, the Health Committee visited the Mater Hospital and the path project. I know that we will write to the Minister about that anyway, but, again, that is another wonderful example of what is happening in the Mater Hospital when people have been assessed and are suffering with really poor mental health. That ward has been set up to take them out of the emergency department ward to a place where they are safe and have one-to-one care and treatment, and that frees up the police officers and the social workers, who do not need to stay with them. However, the path project is not being funded by the Department; the trust is managing that itself at the minute. If we can look at the good models and good examples that we can build on, that might ease a wee bit of pressure on both Health and Justice.

Ms Brownlee: I declare an interest as a member of the Policing Board.

The public rightly expect the PSNI to focus on keeping our community safe and responding to crime. However, it is through no fault of their own that officers are being diverted to roles that they are neither trained nor resourced to carry out. The PSNI has told the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee that officers are now responding to 107 "concern for safety" calls every day and that only 3% of those calls have anything to do with actual crime. Officers spend an average of 14 hours in A&E waiting for someone who needs a mental health assessment, and deploying police officers to hundreds of such incidents is not the most appropriate use of policing resources, nor is it safe or sustainable. At the Policing Board, all members have repeatedly raised concerns about the unsustainability of pressures on the front line, and we all know that the PSNI cannot continue to act as the service of last resort simply because other parts of the system are not functioning.

It was during my time on the Public Accounts Committee (PAC) that we looked at the inquiry into mental health, and it highlighted that Northern Ireland spends less per head on mental health than any other part of the UK despite having some of the highest levels of need. It also exposed the fact that over 17,500 people are on a waiting list for their first appointment. The PAC described that as unacceptable and rightly so. However, those are not just numbers on a page; they are people who are struggling every day to access support. When a crisis worsens, that will, in some cases, fall at the door of the PSNI. The inquiry also highlighted a number of things about that provision, particularly around services for those who have had a dual diagnosis of mental health and addiction issues. Again, we have not really dealt with that effectively. As a result of a lack of crisis services, those in need are forced to attend emergency departments just to get basic help and support. More complex mental health needs are now presenting, and we are aware of the workforce challenges. Invest to save was the main message from the inquiry, and I know that the proposer of the motion detailed that today.

All of this is happening at a time when officer numbers are at critically low levels and when officers are under extreme pressure from all angles. We cannot ignore the reality that police officers, however dedicated they are, are not trained clinical professionals. When they are sitting for hours in emergency departments with someone in distress, they cannot give that person the care that they need, and they are being dragged away from the core duties that the public expect them to carry out. We all know that the Health Minister must accelerate the delivery of the mental health strategy. I know the challenges that he continually faces, but we also know that we must work collaboratively, and that includes the Justice Minister. They must show leadership by ensuring that Right Care, Right Person is implemented properly and safely. We recognise that progress has been made, but, of course, the strategy must be accelerated. I recently received correspondence, which I welcome, in which it is said that both Health and the police are approaching the point when they are ready to launch the first stage of Right Care, Right Person. That is really welcome news. We want to see vulnerable people getting the right support at the right time and that being worked on collaboratively to ensure that people get the help that they need.

We will, of course, support any measure that improves care for those experiencing mental ill health. People in crisis deserve clinical care, not a policing response by default, and, of course, our officers deserve to focus on the job that they were trained for.

Ms Egan: I support our motion, which asks the Health Minister to address the undue pressures that gap filling for the health and social care system has placed on our police service and to ensure that every person across Northern Ireland who needs mental health support receives that care from the right person at the right time.

The motion from Alliance is not only resourcing pressures facing the PSNI alone; it is about ensuring that front-line workers, including police officers, are not left to do jobs that they do not feel they are the best fit for and that those who need care receive it from a healthcare professional who is adequately trained in intervention and support to deliver it. When we put the needs of vulnerable people at the centre, it is clear that action is needed.

Members of the public have expectations as to the ideal use of police time that, for the most part, align with their responding to concerns about crime. As our motion notes, however, the PSNI responds to over 100 "concern for safety" calls per day on average, with only 3% of those incidents being linked to crime. Why has that happened? It is because the PSNI is time and again put into the position of acting as a service of last resort, gap-filling for our health system.

There needs to be a joint, multi-agency approach to supporting those in mental health crisis. The PSNI can have a role in that, and their involvement is appropriate in some instances. What that looks like is this: police responding to calls where there seems to be an immediate risk to life or of serious harm of an individual, where a crime may take place or where the thresholds set out in the Mental Health Order 1986 are met and it is clear that the police should remove a vulnerable person from a private or public space to a "place of safety" for support and assessment. It does not look like PSNI officers sitting in emergency rooms for long periods because of the lack of resource to enable them to hand the person over to relevant personnel in A&E for triage. In the period from January to April 2023, more than 4,500 hours were logged by police officers as time on duty in hospitals whilst accompanying patients with mental health concerns. We now know that cases relating to mental health concerns take up, in total, over 100,000 hours of police time each year.

To be clear, that situation is not the fault of the healthcare workers on the ground in our emergency departments or communities but comes from funding for mental health from the Department being lower than the actual need. That is why the Alliance motion calls for the urgent implementation of the Right Care, Right Person model, among the delivery of the Department of Health's other mental health strategies and programmes, to put in place the clear roles and responsibilities of the PSNI, trusts and other partners to ensure that vulnerable people receive the most effective and timely help possible. It is not about removing the PSNI from intervention in mental health crises; it is about formally addressing the inappropriate use of PSNI involvement. It can be part of helping people but cannot replace the help of healthcare professionals.

There have always been clear intersections between the health system and the justice system, but both systems work only when all partners recognise one another's expertise. The Right Care, Right Person model is essential. It provides a framework in which the health service and the PSNI can work together and, crucially, puts the vulnerable person's needs at the heart of it.

Mr Beattie: This is the eleventh motion or Matter of the Day in the past 12 months to call on the Health Minister to prioritise something. I will be interested to see what the priority of the priorities will be at the end of it all. That said, I agree with the intent of the motion regarding mental health. Absolutely, it needs to be funded — we need to find the money somewhere — because we have a societal problem that we are all dealing with: I agree with that. I also agree that we cannot tie up our police in doing what they do now in response to many mental health issues.

Therefore, I agree with the motion but not with all the words in it. The health service is not failing, and those who work in it are not failing either. Absolutely not: they are working as best they can, to capacity.

Miss McAllister: Will the Member give way?

Mr Beattie: Just one minute. I will try to get you in.

The DUP amendment adds value to the motion, and we will support it. It is a genuinely important motion. We are talking about a fundamental change, and, because it is such an important, fundamental change, I am surprised that the Justice Minister is not here to hear about it. I want to hear her view on Right Care, Right Person. I want to hear what she wants to do on that, so I am surprised that she is not here.

Miss McAllister: I thank the Member for giving way. I note that you made that point almost to get back at us for using the words "failings in the health ... system". Those are not words that I alone use: they come from family members whose loved ones died by suicide because the system failed them. That does not mean one individual healthcare worker; it is a system failure. Whether we like it or not, families have had loved ones take their own life because they did not have the support that they needed. That is a fact. It comes not come from me but from the people who reach out to us to say, "I want my loved one to be here. They should have got the support that they needed".

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

Mr Beattie: I thank the Member for that intervention. I have been touched by suicide on at least five occasions, so I know exactly where she is coming from. I am talking about a societal issue. This is a societal issue, not a structural issue. We need to tackle its cause at the root. I think that it was Desmond Tutu who said:

It is a societal issue, and we need to deal with it.

The PSNI's Right Care, Right Person approach is, without a doubt, the right one to take. It will take time and will, clearly, need Justice and the police to work in partnership not only with the Health Department but with the Department of Education and the Department for Communities. It goes right across our Departments. The result will be a huge reduction in calls to the police, because they will not attend them. That will save them time and resources. The police will triage calls and decide whether they or their partners will attend a call. Let me give an example. A neighbour has not been seen recently; a call is made to the police; and the police triage that call and decide that they will not attend but that it will be for the adult safeguarding team, maybe local council services or a registered family member to attend instead. That makes perfect sense to me.

I will give another example. A child could miss school; a call is made to the police; the Right Care, Right Person approach is taken; the call is triaged; and the Department of Education decides that it will look at it with education welfare services. You get the idea behind the system; it is pretty straightforward.

The statistics are really stark. The police receive around 38,000 calls a year on concerns for safety. They attend about 28,000 of those calls, which is about 78%. However, under Right Care, Right Person, the police would attend about 13,000 calls, which is about 36%. That is a huge change in resources. The remaining calls would, obviously, go to other agencies. Some really good work is happening between the Department of Health and the Department of Justice. They need to work at this. However, it will take time. The motion rightly states that, on average, the police receive around:

However, the police also receive 400,000 phone calls to their 101 service, the majority of which are not crime-related. Without a shadow of a doubt, the reduced headcount in the police is having an effect.

The call about the Budget is an absolute red herring, to be perfectly honest. I genuinely think that. The Department of Health is the largest Department. It has the most real estate, the most vehicles and the most people — 95,000 employees in the Department of Health. The Department of Education has about 45,000 people, and the Department of Justice has 14,000 people. We should remember that the Department of Health also looks after the Fire and Rescue Service. Many people forget that. We need a joined-up approach. We should also remember that the judiciary is putting people with mental health issues into prisons. There is an issue across the board, which is why I said that it is societal.

We need to make sure that, when we implement Right Care, Right Person we do so at the right time, that it is staged right and that we do not just throw it in without making sure that it has been properly sequenced. If we need to see why we should not do that, we just need to look to what happened to the Cawdery family —

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

Mr Beattie: — when something was rushed that should not have been.

Mr Burrows: I welcome the opportunity to speak on the motion. It is a pity that it is a somewhat simplistic motion that fails to understand the true complexities within which the police operate and with which people present themselves to police, often in an emergency. It should be said at the outset that our Police Service has been under-supported, under-resourced, over-scrutinised and let down by the political class in general in Northern Ireland. It is important to understand that context, and I will explain it as I go through my remarks.

Before I do so, I just want to explain the model of policing that we hold dear in this country. I will tell you why that is directly linked. It is not a paramilitary model of policing. When I say "paramilitary", I do not mean it in the sense of Northern Ireland's paramilitaries, but in the sense of "semi-military". It is not an auxiliary force. It is not a pure law-enforcement agency like the National Crime Agency. It is a police service. It has dealt and always will deal with more than simply crime. It is right that it deals with vulnerability and has that at the heart of everything that it does.

Let me just divide two things, because they are entirely different matters. I spent thousands of hours in the police dealing with mental health issues and trying to solve the fact that my officers were spending huge amounts of time on mental health issues. Separate the "concern for safety" calls from the issue of spending too much time in emergency departments, effectively babysitting people whilst the health service get ready for them.

We need to understand what police face when they respond to "concern for safety" calls. The first thing is that it is a whole-society and whole-Executive issue that people find themselves presenting in a moment of personal crisis. It might be someone standing on a bridge in Derry/Londonderry, where I used to work, ready to throw themselves off. Often, that is due to domestic violence, homelessness, a gambling addiction or some issue in their life that any number of Departments could be responsible for trying to fix. We have seen the statistics on male suicide. More than seven out of 10 suicides are men. They mostly do not self-harm; they go from nothing to personal crisis and suicide. Often, there is no warning sign. That is why the Police Service has to respond, often as the first emergency service that has vehicles out on the ground, to help someone in a moment of need.

The second thing that people do not understand is that, often, when dealing with someone with mental health problems, the Ambulance Service needs the police because, whilst we might not like to say it, people with a mental health problem are often extremely violent. They spit. They have weapons. They have knives. They have flags against them that show that they have a propensity for violence. Often, the Police Service sends a resource to protect the people who are our front-line emergency services. It has the equipment, training, experience and vital police powers. A further issue is that, often, the police are the only people with the ability to force entry into a house or do emergency checks — for example, on someone's mobile phone — to determine their well-being.

The next thing that we fail to acknowledge is that the reason why the police attend so many "concern for safety" calls is that their resources have been run down so badly that they do not have enough neighbourhood police to do proactive problem-solving. That is one reason why we have seen an increase in "concern for safety" calls. What used to happen was that your neighbourhood policing team would have looked at your profile of "concern for safety" calls and carried out a follow-up. It would have worked with multiple agencies, such as the Housing Executive and education service, to try to problem-solve a case so that the police did not get repeat "concern for safety" calls.

Mrs Dillon: Will the Member take an intervention?

Mr Burrows: I will not at this stage.

There are lots of reasons why the Police Service deals with "concern for safety" calls. By the way, the police have skilled negotiators who sometimes have to spend eight hours talking someone off a bridge. Only the police have those skills.

A separate issue is emergency departments. That is a killer for police morale and time. Here is a brutal fact: one of the reasons why the Police Service in this country does not feel able to say no at times or to take a measured risk and tell the security in a hospital, "Keep an eye on that individual. We got him in here safely. Give us a ring if he leaves" is this: if that person leaves and self-harms, we have an ombudsman who will punitively investigate the police officer and spend years trying to find fault, and we have politicians in this place who will call for the head of the police officer. My former colleagues will sometimes say, "It is easier just to stay in the ED because I do not want to risk my career".

If you want to take the Right Care, Right Person approach, you need to put support round the Police Service so that, when it takes risk-based decisions, you will support it and not throw it under the bus. The fact that we are where we are is a reflection of society as a whole and of the Police Service that has, in fact, been created by the very people in the room who are now attacking the health service, which is disappointing.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): That concludes the list of Members who wish to speak. I will now call the Minister of Health to respond. Minister, you have up to 15 minutes.

Mr Nesbitt (The Minister of Health): Thank you, Deputy Speaker. There is only one place where I feel comfortable beginning, which is by acknowledging as critical — I repeat: "critical" — the issue of the right person with the right skills responding to somebody in mental health crisis. When I say "critical", I mean "potentially life-saving". I hope that no Member has any doubt that I have a focus on the issue. In fact, when it comes to mental health, others in the House have acknowledged for some time that I was the first MLA to bring a focus to the issue of mental health, long before it was a popular talking point. I will not embarrass people by naming those who derided me and scoffed at me for trying to make it an issue all those years ago. Those names include not only political commentators; I am sorry to say that they also include elected representatives. I like to think that, today, everybody is on board.

The motion is interesting. The first sentence expresses "grave concern" at "failings" in the system. Members should be well aware that, in my opinion, the HSC system is the workforce; the wonderful 70,000-odd people who deliver health and social care to a truly high standard daily. I make no apology for refusing to join the Alliance Party in claiming that the health service is broken. I saw a social media video to that effect yesterday. Pathways may be badly damaged, but, when you receive care, you get first-class treatment.

The motion states that only 3% of the mental health calls that the police respond to are linked to crime. I do not dispute that, but the motion does not acknowledge the fact that the majority of all PSNI responses are not linked to crime. It is not helpful to isolate the mental health response in such a way as people may consider it as an outlier: it is not. We then get to the old trope: Health gets over half the Executive Budget. The motion refers to half the "entire" Budget. Is there a difference between half the Budget and half the "entire" Budget? There may be. The former is clearly a statement of fact; the latter may read like a party political statement. What happened to objective assessed need? Two Members who signed the motion are members of the Health Committee. Do they not care about the objective assessed needs of our people? I accept that Health needs to rationalise, stabilise, reform and deliver but not because of some random percentage; rather, because it is the right thing to do. It is the right thing to deliver better outcomes. The motion calls for the prioritisation of the mental health strategy, but it does not explain how I should go about doing that. Under section 29(1)(a)(ii) of the Northern Ireland Act 1998, members of the Health Committee have a statutory obligation to "advise and assist" me when they call for the prioritisation of a specific health service. Is saying, "Prioritise mental health", without advising how to do it without damaging other services and service users, really advising and assisting?

I will now focus on Right Care, Right Person. I was a member of the Policing Board when the current Chief Constable first mentioned it. I supported the intention. I accepted the Chief Constable's contention that his officers were not trained to respond. That said, I asked whether it would make more sense to fund the training of police officers to be those first responders, but that argument has been lost. When I took up my current role, not only was I aware of Right Care, Right Person; I wanted my officials to explore the possibilities as a matter of urgency. I will touch on the timeline, because some Members have given the impression that the approach has been in development for many years. As I said, I heard about it first when Jon Boutcher became Chief Constable in late October 2023, which is around two years ago. When I took up post at the end of May last year, I jointly chaired an initial meeting between my officials and Assistant Chief Constable Ryan Henderson, who is the lead officer on Right Care, Right Person for the PSNI. That meeting was held on 22 August. For the avoidance of doubt, it was not 22 August just gone; it was 22 August 2024. Within 10 or 11 weeks of taking up post, I was trying to implement the Right Care, Right Person model. In the meeting, I articulated but one concern: we should not move so quickly that we create a hiatus where the PSNI withdraws before HSC is ready to fill the void. Assistant Chief Constable Henderson agreed with me.

Where are we now? First, we need a regional partnership agreement. The status of that is as follows. We have submitted our thoughts, suggestions and preferences to the PSNI, so the ball is in its court. In fairness, I expect the police to take whatever time they need to respond to our suggestions. Members will know that these matters tend to be iterative. They go back and forth in search of the best deliverable agreed outcomes, but do the Members who tabled the motion know that? Comments have been made suggesting that my Department is in some way at fault or that nothing is being done. Furthermore, for clarity — this is an important point on the partnership agreement — will the Justice Minister sign it? Will the Justice Minister sign that partnership agreement?

Again, I say for clarity that we have established appropriate governance structures, with key stakeholders from across the relevant organisations, in order to ensure a coordinated approach to future implementation. That includes the establishment of a Right Care, Right Person strategic group that is co-chaired by the Department of Health and the Department of Justice. There is the silver operational group co-chaired by the Department of Health and the PSNI. There have been no fewer than 10 subgroups established, which report to the Right Care, Right Person silver operational group. Each subgroup has been tasked with considering the implications of and preparing for the introduction of RCRP. The subgroups include inter-agency working, the issues associated with walkout and missing from healthcare, restraint, acute care pressures, issues relating to places of safety, approved social workers, how medical assessments are carried out, evaluations and outcomes, Mental Capacity Act considerations and, importantly, training. Work is well advanced to develop and agree memoranda of understanding between agencies that set out clear roles and responsibilities for each agency in responding to emergency calls for assistance.

I am grateful to HSC colleagues for rising to the challenge, and, again, I reject the accusation of failure. It is vital that we monitor the impact on HSC services when we begin to implement RCRP. We will do that on a phased basis, beginning with the response to calls relating to concern for welfare. I also appreciate that the PSNI has been working in partnership with us to agree a date to begin implementation of the policy based on the assessment of readiness.

The motion also refers to the Department receiving more than half of the Executive's resource budget. The Health budget was 50·5% of the 2025-26 Northern Ireland block, but that, in fact, represents a small reduction in Health's relative share of the block grant from previous years. The level of additional spending on health over that in England is now projected to be at a 10-year low in 2025-26, well below the 4% to 7% that, the Fiscal Council reported, may be necessary to meet the additional health need in Northern Ireland. That includes maintaining services, meeting demographic growth and increasing clinical standards. While England is ramping up the capital investment in the NHS to stimulate productivity, our investment in that area is also lagging well behind. There is clear evidence in the HSC of further expected growth in demand in acute and community services associated with an ageing population and year-on-year increases in demand for mental health, learning disability and children's services. The 2025-26 Health budget was not sufficient to cover the significant increases in costs that we faced as a result of pay and price inflation, increased National Insurance contributions for GPs, pharmacists and social care providers, rising demand and the ring-fencing of waiting list funding, which left a significant shortfall of £615 million.

Mrs Dillon: I thank the Minister for taking the intervention. Earlier today, I was on a panel with one of your party colleagues, and, when we were discussing PSNI resources, I was the only person on that panel who said that I agreed that the Health Department and Education Department should get the budget that they get. We do not want to see our children, young people or anybody in our community ending up having to come into contact with the police or our justice services because they are not getting the services that they need.

That is why it is so important that we find a different way of spending the money that we have, because there is no more money in anybody's budget. There is no more money coming to anybody right now. We have a block grant, and that is where we are, so it is important to find different pathways and get the trusts to come together to see how we can best deliver a good service.

Mr Nesbitt: I thank the Member for her intervention. Deputy Speaker, I do not wish to admonish the audiovisual team, but every time that the Member stands up, the microphone to her left comes on, but she faces right. I am sorry, but I find it very hard to hear. Maybe next time, the audiovisual team will switch on the microphone to the right.

In July, I published a health and social care reset plan, which aims to address the funding that between establishing a neighbourhood-centred care system, driving significant efficiencies and focusing on the key themes of stabilisation, reform and delivery. To support stabilisation, my permanent secretary has established a systems financial management group, which is driving a series of efficiencies and savings and reducing the deficit as far as possible. The plan was to deliver some £300 million internally — an unprecedented amount — while seeking Executive support for the remaining £300 million, with a hope that it would secure the financial wherewithal to balance our budget and stabilise. To date, Health has received £25 million from June monitoring. It has identified saving plans of £300 million, but, despite that, it is unable to fully eliminate the overspend.

While the Executive have approved my ministerial direction on HSC pay awards this year and agreed that Health will have the first call of up to £100 million in December monitoring, it will still leave a significant gap. However, I will continue to make every endeavour to reduce that figure further, through efficiencies and savings right across health and social care, but our assessment is clear: without further support, which is not currently expected, we will not be able to break even. Mental health services, in particular, have faced historic underinvestment over decades. The strategy identified an additional funding requirement of over £1·2 billion over the 10 years to effect the transformation needed. To date, only a fraction of that has been invested, and that resource has had to be found from within our existing budgets.

Members of the Health Committee are free not only to advise me on how to prioritise the delivery of the strategy but to assist me in understanding how to do it without disadvantaging other areas of health and social care.

In conclusion, I want to be clear: mental health will remain a priority, not because a motion instructs it but because it is the right thing to do. I will continue to drive reform and support the implementation of Right Care, Right Person in a safe and responsible manner, beginning with concern for welfare calls, following the walkouts and missing from healthcare facilities, the transportation of patients with mental health needs, and under article 130 of the Mental Health (Northern Ireland) Order 1986, those cases and voluntary mental health patients. If the House is willing to set aside the political rhetoric, we can work together to deliver the improvements that our citizens require and deserve.

Some Members: Hear, hear.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): I thank the Minister for his response. I now call Trevor Clarke to make a winding-up speech on the amendment. Mr Clarke, you have up to five minutes.

Mr Clarke: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. It is not usual for me to commend the Minister, but I commend the Minister for the insight that he has given us today on where Right Care, Right Person is at. I should declare an interest as a member of the Policing Board. Indeed, when the Minister was a member, we sat beside each other. The only thing that I would say in criticism, not of the Minister but of his Department, is that it should have been happening much sooner, because it is not a new problem within Health or policing, as the Minister will know from his time on the Policing Board. He is right to put on record the work that ACC Henderson has done. Indeed, when he got a promotion to a different post, he continued to look after that particular piece because he saw it as his baby, and I commend him for the work that he has done with the Minister.

If you look at our amendment, Minister, the reason that we want to amend the motion is to tie in the Justice Minister. Acknowledgement has been made that the Justice Minister is not here, but probably could have added to the debate, because we talk about a tripartite agreement within policing, and, obviously, the Justice Minister has a big part to play in the resolution of this within policing itself. That said, there is a problem with the policing budget, but that is not what today is about; we are talking about the Health element.

I am in danger of repeating everything that has been said about numbers. You will know, Minister, because you were there when all the issues were discussed.

One thing strikes me that has not been touched on. To pick up on Jon's point about the police, some of us on the Policing Board have had the opportunity to do ride-alongs. On every ride-along that I have been on, when the police were asked about their job, they said that the bit that they hate most is the time that they spend waiting in A&E departments. They say, "We did not join the police to do mental health calls or health calls in general".

One of the dangers is that, while the stats that we are talking about are purely for mental health calls, the calls, as you will know, Minister, are not only about mental health. Many of them are other health-related calls, such as for heart attacks or other reasons, when the Ambulance Service is unable to attend. I will give an example. There was an accident in my constituency on Saturday night, in which somebody was trapped in a car. It was classed as a category 3 incident. The Fire Service was asked to attend, but the police suggested that there was no rush for the Fire Service, because it was going to take 29 hours for an ambulance to arrive. That gives an indication of the waits that the police face. If the police had stayed with the injured party in that car, they would have been waiting for 29 hours. The other thing that all Members will be familiar with is that, when we attend A&E departments for whatever reason, there are always police cars there. No one can say that that is a good use of police resources, and no one has tried to do so today.

Alan spoke defensively from the Minister's perspective, but I think that we all agree that the problem is within. However, I commend you, Minister. If you had not had the insight from having been on the Policing Board, seeing some of the numbers behind all this, things would never have changed. However, an opportunity was missed that could have come much sooner from previous Health Ministers. I am not pointing the finger at anyone in particular.

I also commend the reference that was made to custody suites. The custody suite model is still in operation but is far from perfect. Again, on one of the ride-alongs, I saw the risk-averse nature of some of the health professionals who are in those suites. They do not divert as many calls to hospitals as they should. More of those cases need to be dealt with, and, in this part of the debate, I call on you, Minister, to take that back to your officials to do what can be done to make sure that more of those cases are dealt with.

Miss McAllister: I thank the Member for taking an intervention. I neglected to mention in my speech that I also did a ride-along to a custody suite. There has been a media spotlight on young people who are not in a mental health crisis but are under the care of social services, who remain detained in custody suites because the health service cannot find a home for them. It is not just about Right Care, Right Person; it is much wider.

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

Mr Clarke: I get an extra minute. That is all right.

There is clearly an issue with custody suites, but another key issue is funding, which was talked about today. It is my understanding that the PSNI is lifting that budget and that there is no assistance from the Department of Health. It is not a case of the PSNI asking Health to do everything; the PSNI is prepared to do something, but it seems to have been on a lonely path for some time.

Living in the constituency that we do, Mr Deputy Speaker, you will be fully aware of the mental health crisis there, given that we have two establishments. We frequently hear people ask, "Why is the helicopter up in Antrim tonight?" The reason that the helicopter is up is that people have left those establishments. More needs to be done in those establishments to make sure that, when people are there, they are being cared for and looked after and that the police are not being called to them. Of course, there is then the case of Muckamore Abbey Hospital, with all the issues that have gone on there. Now, too frequently, staff default to calling in the police when issues happen in those establishments. Additional training needs to be given to people in those facilities to prevent them from calling, because the police are not trained to work in mental health crisis teams.

As I said at the outset, Minister, I commend you for introducing the Right Care, Right Person model. We look forward to its implementation and to seeing those changes happen.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): I call Danny Donnelly to conclude the debate and wind up on the motion. Mr Donnelly, you have up to 10 minutes.

Mr Donnelly: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I am not a member of the Policing Board, but I am an NHS nurse, so I declare an interest.

I reassure the Minister and Members that this is not a "political punch" motion. It is disrespectful to people who have been in mental health crisis and have been harmed to suggest that it is. The heart of the motion is a straightforward point: when someone is in mental health crisis, they should be met by trained mental health professionals, not police officers who, through no fault of their own, are being sent to situations that require specialist clinical care. Right now, that is exactly what is happening. As Members have noted, the PSNI is taking more than 100 concern for safety calls every day, and almost none of those calls involves crime. They involve people who need mental health care, but instead of getting the mental health support that they need, they get a police response, because there is no one else available. I have seen many PSNI officers spend long periods in noisy A&E departments with people in crisis, and that is totally inappropriate. I agree with Trevor that that is the bit of the job that they do not feel that they should be doing, and it is not their favourite bit.

I could have guessed what the Minister's response was going to be today to the calls to fund a mental health strategy: workforce shortages, funding pressures, competing priorities and no magic overnight fix. Yes, those are real issues, but they cannot be used as a catch-all forever. If workforce shortages is the point, we need to look honestly at the evidence. In 2013, the Northern Ireland Audit Office reported that mental health conditions were the leading cause of sickness absence across the entire public sector, including the trusts, and it warned that that long-term pattern was putting huge pressures on staffing levels. That was 12 years ago. We have not suddenly discovered that problem. Between 2018 and 2022, the Royal College of Nursing found exactly the same trend: mental health was the main reason for sickness absence. None of this is new. What is new is the scale of the crisis, and that is only going to continue to grow.

On funding, as has been mentioned several times today, Health receives more than half the Executive's budget and is already £100 million into next year's allocation. I do not underestimate the challenges facing the Minister. Departments are already stretched to their limit, and we need joined-up working. One example of joined-up working that we on the Health Committee saw was when we visited the ambulance control centre. The South Eastern Trust and the Ambulance Service have worked together on a pilot scheme to redirect mental health calls in order to make sure that patients get the appropriate care that they need and talk to the appropriate person. That has reduced mental health admissions by 40%.

We have a mental health strategy that could drive change and use early intervention to avoid crisis and that could be used to address one of the biggest workforce challenges that Northern Ireland faces, yet 80% of it remains shelved, and only 16% has been funded since 2021. That is just asking for the crisis to continue. Right Care, Right Person is not complicated. It is about providing appropriate care, and that means that the right professional responds to a right crisis. If we implemented it property, we could free up police time, with more than one million police hours saved per year, reducing risk for individuals and making the system safer and more humane for everybody involved.

The motion is not about blaming anyone on the front line. It is about facing up to what is happening and accepting that we cannot continue like this. People in crisis deserve proper care. Police officers deserve to focus on policing, and the Department of Health needs to implement Right Care, Right Person.

Nuala McAllister opened the debate and asked for clarity on the full implementation of the Mental Capacity Act 2016. She mentioned the four-week survey that highlighted the fact that 8,000 hours of PSNI time were spent on mental health calls, but she stated that that is not the fault of front-line healthcare staff.

Keith Buchanan introduced the DUP amendment, which we support, with a few, small tweaks. He said that it was not an appropriate use of resources and highlighted the fact that waiting with a patient in A&E for 14 hours in order to get a mental health assessment was not a good use of police resources. He also said that Northern Ireland spends less per head on mental health services than anywhere else in the UK, despite having the highest levels of mental health illness.

Linda Dillon said that PSNI officers are not trained or resourced to deal with mental health crises. She asked a question that I very much agree with: who is the right person to care for someone who is in a mental health crisis? That is the person who should respond. Linda also said that Right Care, Right Person is a clear and compassionate approach.

Alan Chambers said that the Assembly was casting broad criticisms over healthcare workers' heads and that the motion was a "political punch". I disagree entirely with that. The motion is not about blaming Health. Alan also said that we brought forward the motion for political reasons. That is not the case at all. The issue has been talked about for years. The PSNI and the Policing Board have lobbied for the Right Care, Right Person model, and it is already functioning in other parts of the UK.

Colin McGrath said that it was impossible to place the police in a situation when they are making clinical decisions at a roadside and that it existed because of gaps in the system at the minute. Pathways are fragmented for people in need. Right Care, Right Person does not need to be invented, because it already exists.

Órlaithí Flynn said that it was not sustainable or acceptable that the PSNI had become the point of contact for people in mental health crisis. It is not fair on the PSNI, and it is not fair on the person who is in crisis.

Cheryl Brownlee said that the PSNI cannot continue to act as a service of last resort. She referred to the PAC report on mental health in Northern Ireland, which stated that 17,500 people are on waiting lists, and said that that was unacceptable. People do not remain static on waiting lists, as I am sure that the Minister is aware. They tend to get worse when on a waiting list. While waiting for care, people tend to deteriorate and get sicker. We need to see vulnerable people getting the right care at the right time.

Connie Egan said that this is not about removing the PSNI entirely from mental health calls but removing them from inappropriate calls. Vulnerable people need to be put first.

Doug Beattie agreed with the approach but wanted to hear from the Minister of Justice on this. He said that he too had been touched by suicide — I am very sorry to hear that, Doug — and said that it is a societal issue. He also highlighted the need for a joined-up approach.

Jon Burrows, previously a PSNI officer, said that the PSNI was under-resourced by the political class and that it was always dealing with vulnerability. He said that —.

Mrs Dillon: Will the Member take an intervention?

Mr Donnelly: Yes, certainly.

Mrs Dillon: It has been said a number of times that we do not understand how the PSNI operates. A number of Members declared an interest as Policing Board members, so I think that we do have a fair understanding. I have been on it for eight years — I am happy to understand it less, any time Michelle O'Neill feels like it — but it is important. We actually do understand. That is why we are speaking to this today. It is a really important issue. We absolutely understand it from a PSNI perspective. As some of us are on the Health Committee, we also understand it from the Minister's perspective and that of the Health Department. That is why we want to discuss it. It is important that we have these conversations.

Mr Donnelly: Thank you, Linda. I agree with that. I was struck by how many Members have served on the Health Committee and the Policing Board, and for how long. I think that the Minister has done both. I absolutely agree that there is a lot of experience here.

Jon Burrows said that the concern for safety calls are a whole-society issue and that the PSNI is often sent to mental health patients because, at times, they can be violent. He also highlighted the fact that the PSNI is currently needed to force entry into houses and suggested that PSNI officers are negotiators who can talk someone off a bridge, sometimes by talking to them for up to eight hours. He said that the PSNI has those skills. I disagree slightly with that. It does not need to be a police officer. There are mental health professionals who are highly skilled in communicating with people in distress. We have seen that with the NIAS staff working with the South Eastern Trust. They are able to talk to people in distress, and they are able to de-escalate the situation.

Mr Burrows: Will the Member give way?

Mr Donnelly: Yes.

Mr Burrows: Will he clarify how many critical, trained negotiators there are within the NHS in Northern Ireland? He says that they are able to deal with this.

Mr Donnelly: I do not have that figure in front of me, but I am aware of the mental health professionals who are able to work and talk to people in mental health crisis and who are able to de-escalate the situation and assist the people who are in crisis.

Mike Nesbitt responded to the debate. He said that it is critical that the right person responds to a person in a mental health crisis. He also said that he does not agree that the health service is broken. He said that the people receive treatment once they get into it, but that the pathways may be broken. He advised that the Health Committee should advise and assist the Minister. I do not believe that the Health Committee has received a full list of priorities —.

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

Mr Donnelly: Do I not get another minute?

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): No, not with a 10-minute limit.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Members may take a break while we change the personnel at the Table.

Miss McIlveen: I beg to move

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: The Business Committee has agreed to allow up to one hour and 30 minutes for the debate. The proposer of the motion will have 10 minutes 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. Michelle, please open the debate on the motion.

Miss McIlveen: Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. Food security is not an optional extra for Northern Ireland; it is a fundamental responsibility to ensure that the people who live here and the millions in the rest of the UK who depend on what we produce have access to safe, affordable and high-quality food. However, national food reserves are low, with some suggesting that they could be as low as six days. There is no buffer for shocks, given our reliance on imported food.

Northern Ireland feeds around 10 million people, which equates to around 25% of the UK's food production. That is remarkable for a region of its size. While we can be proud of that, it is something that we must protect. It depends on the health of our farms, the strength of our supply chains and the ability of our agri-food businesses to compete on a level playing field. At present, all those face very serious challenges.

The Ernst and Young (EY) report, 'Food for thought', spells out clearly why the agri-food sector matters. It generates £4·9 billion in gross value added, and it supports 113,000 jobs. The Northern Ireland economy is three times more reliant on food and drink than the UK average, with 77% of everything that we produce being sold outside Northern Ireland. It is the backbone of Northern Ireland's economy: it sustains rural communities, drives exports and supports our ports, logistics sector, manufacturing base and hospitality industry. When something is that important, every sinew should be strained to allow it to grow, yet food producers find themselves battling red tape, getting conflicting planning advice and guidance and seeing a lack of joined-up thinking between Departments. Sadly, a lot of that rests at the feet of the Department.

We hear time and again from poultry farmers who are stuck in planning limbo. The Northern Ireland Environment Agency (NIEA) gives one assessment and Shared Environmental Services (SES) gives another: nobody seems to be accountable for the delays. Those farmers are ready to invest and to improve their environmental performance, but they are blocked by a system that cannot provide clarity. We have raised issues with that system in the Chamber on several occasions, yet we are no further forward. That is neither sustainable nor fair, and it is certainly not consistent with the Programme for Government's commitment to supporting sustainable growth. The Minister needs to bring forward clear guidance on ammonia controls in planning: not aspirational statements or theoretical models, but clear, practical guidance that will allow investment to proceed, which is better for the environment. That is entirely achievable but long overdue.

It is important to acknowledge the strengths that already exist in our agri-food industry. Take, for example, the internationally recognised Food Fortress scheme developed with Queen's University. That scheme increased testing for high-risk contaminants by over 500% at no extra cost to industry. It has helped to secure new markets in Southeast Asia and shows what can be achieved when government and industry work together rather than against each other.

However, innovation can take us only so far when our trading relationship within the UK is undermined. The Windsor framework and the continued application of EU law in Northern Ireland create serious obstacles to food security and business confidence. The DUP will always support practical arrangements that genuinely ease trade, but it is clear that the framework has not solved the problems that businesses are living with day-to-day. The UK Government claim that the new sanitary and phytosanitary (SPS) agreement with the EU has restored trust. If that is the case, why are "Not for EU" labels still due to be imposed on products moving within the United Kingdom? Why should taxpayers here keep footing the bill for trader support that would not be needed if we had unfettered access to our own internal market?

Most concerning of all is the threat to veterinary medicines. From January 2026, when the grace period expires, anywhere between 10% and 40% of veterinary medicines currently supplied to Northern Ireland could be discontinued because Great Britain suppliers simply cannot justify the cost of meeting EU rules for such a small market. That affects farmers, feed manufacturers, pet owners, vets, processors and, in fact, everyone who depends on the health and welfare of animals. It has been suggested that the Government have decided to simply wait and see how serious the situation becomes before acting. That is not acceptable when animal health, food safety and public confidence are at stake, particularly when it is blindingly obvious how dire the situation will be. We need only consider feed producers who produce medicated feed for the pig sector on advice from vets. Those businesses will need to be informed of what veterinary medicines are available or what alternatives they should use.

The absence of action is an abdication of responsibility. Certainty is needed now, and there need to be assurances that Northern Ireland will not be left at the bottom of the priority list for access to essential medicines. We also need the Government to take a genuinely radical approach to resolving the structural problems in the framework rather than tinkering around the edges.

A further area of growing concern is the new EU deforestation regulation. The new due diligence requirements will impact on about 20% of the raw materials imported by the Northern Ireland Grain Trade Association, but there is no clarity on how Northern Ireland will be affected if Great Britain chooses not to align. It is not a stretch to presume that that could result in shortages that, in turn, would cause costs to rise for feed companies and, ultimately, consumers. Those are real risks for an industry that is already working on tight margins. What, if any, tangible steps has the Minister taken to press the UK Government on that? What mitigations has he sought to minimise the risk of disruption for inputs moving between GB and NI if the rest of the UK does not follow suit? Waiting to see what happens is not an option: the Minister needs to be ahead of that instead of reacting to it.

The DUP fully supports the need to protect our environment, reduce emissions and encourage sustainable practices, but climate policy must be realistic, evidence-based and fair. The interim targets that were set last December were not realistic, costed or accompanied by the policies that would be required to deliver them. The net cost of carbon budgets up to 2037 is almost £479 million, and the estimated cost to meet the 2040 target is around £707 million. Those are enormous sums that will, ultimately, fall on businesses, farmers and consumers.

As the DUP has pointed out, the Minister's nutrients action programme (NAP) proposals would have resulted in significant reductions in livestock numbers. That would have devastated the agri-food sector and undermined food security. The result would have been offshoring our emissions to countries with much lower welfare and environmental standards. Not only would that not protect the planet but it would damage our economy and hand an advantage to our competitors.

A genuine just transition recognises that farmers manage 78% of Northern Ireland's land area, deliver high-quality, sustainable produce and have a vested interest in caring for the land. Where is the investment in advisory services? Far too often, farmers face complex schemes and regulations, with very little one-to-one support. The Department would be better spending money on providing expert guidance to those who actually manage the land rather than creating new climate bodies or consultancy groups. There is no shame in the Minister revisiting the interim 2030 and 2040 targets. It would be an act of honesty and responsibility. We see that in jurisdictions around the world where pragmatism is favoured over hubris.

For obvious reasons, we will not support the Sinn Féin amendment. It fails to recognise the problems that the Windsor framework causes and, therefore, fails to seek to address those problems. It fails to recognise the damage that will be caused by strict adherence to unrealistic targets rather than revisiting them, as is happening in other jurisdictions. It does not address what our agri-food sector needs.

Northern Ireland's agri-food sector is one of our greatest assets, and it should be cherished and protected. It is productive, innovative, resilient and respected globally, but it is also vulnerable. If we want to retain food security, the obstacles that prevent growth need to be removed, the lack of clarity on ammonia controls in planning needs to be addressed and the looming crisis in veterinary medicine and the regulatory divergence created by the Windsor framework all need to be addressed. However, we must also adopt realistic climate targets that protect the environment and the farms and businesses that feed us.

Food security is not delivered by overburdening the very people who provide the food, and sustainability is not delivered by driving production elsewhere. Economic growth is not delivered by allowing bureaucracy, whether it is from London, Brussels or our own agencies, to choke off investment. Food security is an issue not just for DAERA; there must be an Executive-wide approach, and the Minister must, as a priority, establish formalised discussions with the Department for the Economy on the development of a food strategy that places food security at its heart. The motion recognises those realities and identifies the steps that are to be taken. It sends a message that the Assembly values our farmers, processors and the tens of thousands of families whose livelihoods depend on the agri-food sector.

Mr McAleer: I beg to move the following amendment:

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Declan. You will have 10 minutes to propose the amendment and five minutes to make a winding-up speech. All other contributors will have five minutes. Declan, please open the debate on the amendment.

Mr McAleer: I welcome the opportunity to speak in support of our amendment, which seeks to place clarity, balance and reality at the centre of our discussion on agriculture, food security, environmental sustainability and the future of our rural communities. It recognises not only the challenges but the enormous opportunities that lie ahead, should we choose to take them.

The amendment begins by recognising environmentally sustainable practices, but it also sets out truths that can no longer be avoided. The first of those truths is:

and, by extension, on our farmers, processors and the rural communities that rely on them. Our agri-food sector is one of the greatest economic success stories. It grew by 7% in 2018 alone, rising to over £5 billion in value. That figure makes it clear that agri-food is not just another part of our economy but a key catalyst for growth, manufacturing, logistics, hospitality, retail and exports.

The sector does not operate in isolation; it is part of a finely balanced all-island system with supply chains, processing networks and labour flows that simply cannot be separated by lines on a map.

The free-trade agreements struck by the British Government with third countries and often negotiated without sufficient regard for the specific structure of our agri-food market pose real risks. Cheaper imports from countries with lower environmental and welfare standards have the potential to undercut our farmers, particularly in their major market: Britain. That is not scaremongering; it is already happening. Our farmers are competing with products from across the world that are produced at lower cost and, often, to lower standards.

The loss of labour has been even more pressing. For decades, our food-processing plants, mushroom farms, dairy operations and horticulture businesses were able to rely on a steady stream of EU workers. Post Brexit, that workforce has drastically reduced, and COVID-19 only intensified the problem. The problem of labour shortage is far more acute in the North. That is because, just a few miles away, in the South of Ireland, firms continue to enjoy full access to EU labour and can operate a general employment permit scheme for third-country nationals.

It is against that backdrop that our amendment emphasises the all-island nature of the agri-food sector. That is not a political statement but a statement of economic and agricultural reality. Livestock do not recognise when a field is cross-border. Raw milk does not require customs paperwork as it moves from processing. Our agri-food systems operate seamlessly across the island. Animals and raw ingredients move freely across the island because that is how the industry was designed to operate.

Mr McGlone: I thank the Member for giving way. Does he agree that, but for that all-island economic approach to agri-food, the North would be a less successful place in terms of its productivity?

Mr McAleer: Yes, I absolutely agree with you, Mr McGlone. One third of the milk that is produced by the industry in the North is exported across the border for further processing. If we did not have that seamless processing trade across the island, our dairy industry would collapse overnight.

Recognising that reality does not undermine anyone's constitutional position; it simply means acknowledging how the sector works in practice.

Our amendment makes it clear that the Windsor framework, whilst not perfect, provides a workable way of managing the new trading realities created by breakfast — Brexit. [Laughter.]

It prevents the emergence of a hard border on this island, and it preserves dual market access for our produce. That dual access into the EU single market and the UK internal market is a competitive advantage that no other region in these islands enjoys. It is already opening doors for exporters, particularly in dairy and meat, and we should do everything that we can to maximise that opportunity. We must also acknowledge the serious concerns that exist, such as those among farmers about future access to veterinary medicines and the implementation of emerging regulatory requirements.

At last week's AERA Committee, Committee members heard that the North of Ireland Veterinary Association has warned of serious pressures on the supply of veterinary medicines. Brexit has created significant uncertainty, and vets still have no official guidance on which products may be withdrawn, increasing the risk of shortages of essential treatments. Some supplies are now being routed through the South, which is helpful, but concerns remain about NI-only pack sizes becoming more expensive and hitting smaller farms hardest.

We urgently need clear guidance on the veterinary medicine directive, proper communication from the British Government and a practical plan to avoid supply gaps. Importantly, we need to see continued constructive negotiations between the EU, the British Government and all stakeholders in order to secure a long-term, workable solution that protects animal health and our farming sector.

Our amendment also places an emphasis on the path towards emissions reductions. Let us be clear: farmers understand the need to address climate change. They are very much part of the solution. New science, new technologies and new practices are emerging faster than ever. Our farmers are embracing soil testing, carbon surveys and a range of innovations that reduce emissions while improving efficiency. The North's farm support measures have been designed to encourage exactly that kind of progress. We must ensure that the transition is fair, evidence-based and consistent with the principle of just transition for agriculture. Absolutely central to that will be avoiding the kinds of blunt, damaging measures such as culls that would devastate family farms while doing little to address global emissions. Equally important is avoiding carbon leakage, where reducing local production results only in more imports, with higher emissions and lower welfare standards. That would be an environmental failure and an economic catastrophe.

Food security is a priority. Insecurity in global supply chains, geopolitical instability and extreme weather have shown us that the ability to produce food locally is vital. Society needs farmers more today than ever, yet government policy, particularly at Westminster, has too often moved in the opposite direction. For example, the decision to remove agricultural property relief and business property relief will hit family farms the hardest. In the North of Ireland, where family farms dominate and land values are high, that will pose a serious threat. That is why our amendment supports the DUP's call for the Minister to bring in measures that will unlock greater on-farm investment and innovation. If we want farmers to meet environmental standards, improve productivity and maintain food production, they need certainty, support and the right tools. That includes providing long-overdue clarity on ammonia controls in the planning system. No farmer can be expected to invest in modern infrastructure if planning guidance is unclear, inconsistent or subject to sudden change. We need an approach that protects the environment while enabling farms to modernise, grow and become more efficient. That is fully consistent with the Executive's Programme for Government and is essential for the confidence of the sector. Our amendment acknowledges the challenges of Brexit, recognises the opportunities of the Windsor framework, defends the interests of farmers, promotes sustainability without sacrificing food security and calls for clear, practical action to support innovation and investment. I commend the amendment.

Ms Mulholland: We are a region with a proud agricultural heritage, and I have such a deep respect for our farmers, who work every day in every season to feed the rest of us and the countries further afield where our food is exported. They deserve honesty, and the motion does not provide that. It reads like another attempt to undo the consequences of a future that the proposers helped to create.

Food production is already recognised as a strategic asset through the food strategy framework, which links food to health, education, climate, sustainability and economic growth. The truth is that there are sectors in our agri-food industry that, without the Windsor framework, would simply collapse. If anything has held our agriculture back, it has been Brexit and bad trade deals that the DUP actively welcomed. The motion takes a real concern — food security — and uses it as a vehicle to roll back on climate ambition and to reopen political arguments about the Windsor framework, rather than genuinely addressing how we ensure that people here access good food in the years ahead. Scrapping the protocol would not be a solution but an act of self-harm. As agri-food leaders have said, Brexit created major frictions and challenges, most of which were resolved by the protocol, which now offers new opportunities. Another stakeholder put it plainly when I spoke to them, saying that their members benefit from unfettered trade to GB and onwards to the EU, and they want those benefits to be protected. It is not just trade: the DUP backed the UK Government's migration White Paper, despite years of warnings that the agri-food sector, including mushroom growers, need that access to labour. It is absolutely critical. It is deeply hypocritical to claim to be defending farmers whilst supporting policies that leave farms without workers on a seasonal basis. The architects of Brexit are now protesting the barriers that they helped to build.

From my Communities perspective, I also put on record that, while we talk about food security from the point of view of production, it is also about the depth of poverty in this country. Food security is not only about what we produce but what people can afford to put on their plates. There are Ministers in the Executive from the DUP who have the power to ease food security more effectively than any change to climate targets or legislation. The Minister for Communities holds the pen on the anti-poverty strategy, and the Education Minister holds major responsibility for food security through free school meals and holiday hunger provision. Let us talk about food security, but let us talk about it honestly. It will not be secured by lowering our climate ambition, and it will not be secured by ripping up trade agreements. That is why I support the Minister's doing whatever he can to enable farmers to invest in technology and practices that future-proof agriculture but also future-proof our environment, rather than rolling back on our environmental ambition. Lowering emissions targets would undermine Northern Ireland's climate commitments and our global reputation.

Progress has to be fair and evidence-based and to avoid carbon leakage. The Sinn Féin amendment reflects a more balanced approach, and we will support it. Ensuring food security and sustainability can go hand in hand. That is the reality, and that is why we will oppose the unamended motion and support the amendment. The motion looks at food security in the rear-view mirror, when what this region needs more than anything is a vision for the future. The Minister has clearly set out a vision, but he needs the support of all his Executive colleagues to make that vision a reality.

Mr Butler: I welcome the opportunity to speak on the motion. I begin by acknowledging that the one thing that we will all agree on is that food security matters but that is where the similarities in the motion and the amendment end.

In Northern Ireland, food security means more than a few lines on a page or a few words in a speech. Food security is our strategic asset. As was said, we feed around 10 million people across these islands, we sustain rural communities and our agri-food sector contributes around £5 billion in gross value added (GVA) to Northern Ireland's economy. When our farmers thrive, Northern Ireland thrives.

I offer qualified support to the DUP motion. We will oppose the Sinn Féin amendment. The protection of our ability to produce our food, to invest in agriculture and to ensure that regulations enable rather than paralyse innovation is at the centre of our support. However, we must remain ambitious in our climate and environmental ambition, and pragmatism must prevail.

Many of the challenges referenced in the motion, however, did not appear out of the blue, and nor were they created by the Windsor framework alone. As was picked out, they were and are the symptoms of a Brexit that was mis-sold; a Brexit that promised frictionless trade. It was a Brexit that insisted that there would be no borders on this island; nonetheless, there is one in the Irish Sea. It was a Brexit that was presented as cost-free for farmers, processors, the rural supply chain and industry. That Brexit never existed. Now, however, my ears have to listen to those who champion an internal regulatory border as if it was some kind of benefit to Northern Ireland. I am sorry but that stretches credibility beyond breaking point.

The Windsor framework should never have been seen or sold as a prize. It was offered by some as damage limitation, constructed perhaps because of political dishonesty that left Northern Ireland without any alternative. It was sold as avoiding a hard border on the island. However, we ended up with one in the sea. The framework brought challenges, and we should acknowledge that, but to suggest that it was created in a vacuum or that we would have been better off is false, because there was always going to be some form of arrangement. However, we have to deal in facts and not fantasies. The reality is that our farmers face uncertainty over veterinary medicines from 2026, planning paralysis caused by years of unclear ammonia guidance, the prospect of more not fewer regulatory requirements from the UK and the EU and a global market that is becoming more competitive, more volatile and more influenced by climate risk. That is one that retailers and consumers are demanding action on. Those issues require clear, grown-up policymaking, not slogans, not wishful thinking and not pretending that rolling back on commitments alone will create progress.

We should remain ambitious on emissions targets, but we have to tackle that with realism and fairness and by being pragmatic. Northern Ireland has committed itself to some of the most stretching emissions targets anywhere on these islands, but targets alone do not deliver progress. It is the approach that matters. I suggest that the approach to achieving those targets is where the failings have been evidenced so far.

We see that being realised elsewhere, because new approaches and revised targets are not just within our purview here.

Just this year, the EU has signalled a more pragmatic approach to regionally significant sectors as it negotiates its own climate framework, and Scotland, faced with its ambitious but unrealistic pathway, adjusted its interim targets in recognition of the fact that progress must be fair, deliverable and rooted in evidence, not aspiration alone. That is not abandoning climate action; it is aligning ambition with reality. It is about ensuring that we do not force cuts in local production only to replace them with higher-carbon imports from elsewhere, and it is about protecting food security whilst moving forward. We must remain ambitious — absolutely — but we must also adopt a balanced, regionally appropriate path that recognises the unique structure of our agriculture sector and its essential role in feeding millions.

I will finish with this: our agri-food sector does not sit in isolation. Regardless of the top-line figure, with the rural economy, whether it is about rural shops, engineering or schools, the whole economy is tied —

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Time is up. Thank you.

Mr Butler: — to our food security.

Mr McGlone: A recent study by the UK bodies the Constitution Society and the Federal Trust indicated that the widely held opinion before the referendum that Brexit's economic impact would be negative and large has been borne out. The UK's GDP has reduced by about 4% compared with a Remain scenario, trade has reduced by about 15% and there has been a sizeable impact on investment. I will break that down. That is £92 billion per year in lost output. To break that down further, that is £1,350 per person per year. The 4% of GDP lost means that government collects £30 billion to £40 billion less in tax each year. The reality is this: the DUP campaigned for that Brexit and got what it asked for, and now everyone else has to pick up the pieces.

The motion reads like a wish list of reactionary policies that the DUP cannot get through the Executive. The SDLP does not support the motion, but we will support the amendment. We agree that food security is important in the North and across these islands, and I emphasised earlier the importance of the agri-food sector in the entire 32-county context. That is how that economy works. That is how it has developed and evolved naturally on this island, and that is why it is so successful.

We also celebrate and congratulate the food and drink sector on generating £4·9 billion of gross value added to Northern Ireland. Of course, we want to see more investment in agriculture to support improved productivity, job creation and more environmentally sustainable practices. However, the DUP wants to return to the failed policies of the past, whether they involve Brexit, agriculture or so many other issues.

We are living with the implications of the intensification of farming without any environmental remediation. In my area, each year, Lough Neagh faces issues with blue-green algae. That has to be addressed by new farming practices. A strategy has caused damage to the environment and may cost us millions in remediation. The DUP motion also complains again about the current climate change targets set in legislation by the Assembly. Previously, the DUP kicked the can down the road in the hope that a technological solution would appear, and it still has its fingers crossed on that one.

Mr Speaker — a Phríomh-Leas-Cheann Comhairle; gabh mo leithscéal, a Carál

— in my previous role as the SDLP's AERA spokesperson, I highlighted the ongoing threat to the supply of veterinary medicines to the North: another unadvertised consequence of Brexit. That Brexit was promoted by the DUP and rejected by the majority of the people of the North. The risks to animal and human health will primarily affect the North and the island of Ireland, but the problems are not the result of a divergence in regulations between Britain and the EU on veterinary medicines; they are the result of a failure of negotiations. Who supported the people who were at that negotiating table? Who voted the procedures through Westminster? Join the dots.

The solutions to the problems that we discussed in 2024 are still on the table. Those solutions will require compromise from either the EU or the British Government or both. It is, however, time for the Executive to step up on the issue and press the British Government for a solution.

We can certainly agree that there is a need for clarity on ammonia controls in planning. The Department and the Executive cannot continue to delay a resolution to that issue. They must resolve it to address the threat of legal action from the Office for Environmental Protection (OEP) over the failure to adhere to the law on protecting the environment. That is also looming. It is the job of Governments and the Executive to consider, within the demands of the law, the demands of lobbyists, including us, when we are in the Chamber debating the issues.

We in the SDLP believe that it is possible to improve productivity and job creation through more environmentally sustainable practices, which become a major selling point on the world stage. Having that product with those credentials is a bonus for any market into which we try to sell. That is what the public want to see an Executive deliver.

Go raibh míle maith agat.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Fáilte romhat, a Patsy.

Mr Honeyford: We are approaching another Christmas when families across Northern Ireland are struggling with food prices, energy bills and the rising cost of living. Yes, the Assembly should talk about food security, because it goes to the heart of whether people can afford to heat their home and put food on the table. From the point of view of the Department for the Economy, it matters even more.

The food and drink sector is one of our largest employers. It is one of our most stable industries and one of the few sectors in which we genuinely punch above our weight. It supports tens of thousands of jobs, as has been said, and it is essential for rural communities and regional balance. It is a hugely important industry in which there is real money, real jobs and real security. It is also about families in our community.

Although we are having this debate after years of rising food prices, one of the biggest drivers of food prices is energy costs. Our bills are still tied to global gas prices, which are shaped by wars around the world and instability in international politics. Those shocks feed directly into farm and business costs and on to the price of goods on our supermarket shelves. We on this island have the ability to become self-sufficient in energy. That is the transition on which we need to be focused if we want long-term lower costs to deliver real energy security. Alongside food security, we need a proper master plan from the Department for the Economy on renewables, biogas and all those future technologies. That links in with the wider rural community.

Once again in the Chamber we have the DUP tabling a motion that chooses division. Instead of focusing on what makes people's lives better, we are yet again dragged back into yet another debate in another week about the Windsor framework, which is a direct consequence of the very Brexit that the DUP championed. You cannot push for Brexit, create all the barriers and then act as though you are shocked when the consequences land, nor can you set fire to regulatory frameworks and then complain that there is smoke in the room. Businesses tell us all the time that they want stability and certainty and clear, easy access to information and support for investment. Our agri-food sector thrives because food can be moved seamlessly across the island. The final product can trade to the UK, the South and into EU markets.

Again and again, through such negative motions, the DUP talks Northern Ireland down — every time. Fact is fact: dual market access is growing our economy. Our growth figures are different from those in the rest of the UK. We see that with real jobs and growth, and we see our economy starting to pick up and grow. We see jobs being created.

Across the Chamber, I see that DUP Members are shaking their heads. They do not live in the same world as the rest of us and the community out there. People in my constituency have a job today because they have dual market access. Food producers are creating jobs today because they have dual market access. The facts are clear. You can shake your heads and bury them in the sand, but that is actual fact.

Keeping our supply chains open in every direction strengthens food security. We should build on that advantage, not talk it down or try to tear it down. If we are serious about growth, the Department for the Economy needs to bring that master plan for energy through to allow investors and local communities in rural areas to have confidence not in a strategy but in a plan of action.

Farmers need to be part of that solution. I see their commitment every day. I live in a rural community. I married a farmer's daughter, and my brother-in-law and wider family still farm. They are being badly let down, not only by the authors of the motion — it is another case of 'The Grand Old Duke of York', where everybody is marched to the top of the hill and then left lying — but also, to be frank, by the Ulster Farmers' Union, which continues to choose outrage over outcomes.

Food security is important. It needs to be prioritised but not as a political stunt and not to raise stuff about the Windsor framework. Our people deserve better than division dressed up as debate.

Mr Blair: Like my Alliance colleagues, I oppose the DUP motion. In our view, not only is it an attempt to shirk responsibility, it risks undermining crucial ambitions for climate and environmental progress — ambitions that are essential to safeguarding our farming community and food security. Despite the rhetoric in the motion, of which there is much, food security is already a key policy focus in Northern Ireland. The motion indicates how our agriculture sector is already seen as a strategic asset, employing thousands, adding £4·9 billion to gross value added and producing enough food for 10 million people, when there are only two million of us. Additionally, the motion fails — conveniently, perhaps — to acknowledge the fact that, in this mandate, the Minister has already secured significant support for the agriculture sector. For example, he has secured ring-fenced funding of over £300 million for the sector and £12·3 million for the just transition fund. He is progressing our sustainable agriculture programme and actively engaging with the Finance Minister to secure further support for the industry.

The main challenge is ensuring the sustainability and resilience of our food system against threats such as climate change and the poor policy choices of the past. Instead of learning from mistakes, the motion seems intent on ignoring the impact of past choices. It was, after all, the DUP that championed Brexit, which brought UK trade deals with countries such as Australia and New Zealand, but it now raises alarm at the trading reality that those choices ushered in, including the very Windsor framework that it criticises in the motion. While concerns about regulatory changes to veterinary medicines and on-farm practices are real, let us not forget who helped to create those circumstances in the first place.

I acknowledge the active engagement of the Alliance AERA Minister with the UK Government on regulatory clarity for veterinary medicines. Schemes have been developed to maintain access to critical products and to support farmers as they navigate changing requirements. I know that the Minister continues to push for greater clarity as the deadline approaches.

Turning to environmental responsibilities, the motion refers to climate targets as being merely "aspirational", yet the targets are legally binding, having been set in law by a Minister who, if you do not mind, was from the very party that has tabled this anti-environment motion. Climate action and food security are not in conflict, and to suggest otherwise is simply wrong. Northern Irish farmers are some of the best custodians of the land. Many of them know too well the mounting risks that climate change brings, from extreme weather to threats to soil health and biodiversity. We cannot let short-term thinking jeopardise their future. Let us be clear: watering down climate targets will only harm our farmers in the long run, making us less, not more, food-secure. That is why the Alliance AERA Minister has launched schemes such as Farming with Nature and the bovine genetics project. Those are pioneering approaches that prove that agriculture and climate can and must work hand in hand.

Only last week, the Office for Environmental Protection significantly announced an investigation of the handling of sewage discharges into Belfast lough — as if we needed another wake-up call. Minister Muir is working tirelessly to reverse the decline of our water quality, but meaningful change will require all Executive parties to step up, not step away.

Inaction on polluters, lack of investment and denial of evidence from parties in this Chamber only perpetuates the problems. While the DUP motion appears to aim at preserving animal welfare standards, the pollution that results from inadequate climate action directly contradicts that goal. Ignoring pollution harms animal health and ecosystems as more species decline and our natural environment deteriorates even further. Yes, we must prioritise the welfare of livestock. However, equally, we must protect biodiversity to ensure its ongoing survival. To put it simply, there can be no farming without nature.

Continuing on that theme and the subject of pollution, the Minister has consistently proven how committed he is to delivering clarity on ammonia controls. I am hopeful that future imminent progress on air quality will help with that. Ammonia pollution has real and immediate impacts on public health and the environment.

Mr Muir (The Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs): Will the Member give way?

Mr Blair: Yes, of course.

Mr Muir: Will the Member also acknowledge that the issue of ammonia is complex, and that the Office for Environmental Protection has set that out?

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

Mr Blair: Absolutely; of course. That guidance is essential to the Minister, to his officials and to us, but those issues have been ignored for far too long by previous Ministers.

Alliance is able to support the amendment, particularly its recognition of the destabilising impact of Brexit and the opportunities that dual market access offers. We agree that there must be no culls and that a just, evidenced-based transition is critical. Alliance cannot support a motion that is riddled with contradictions and blind to the reality that we face. Our climate and our agriculture are two sides of the same coin. Food security is not possible if we sacrifice one for the other. Our focus needs to be on solutions, not on scapegoats.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Thank you, John. The Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs will respond to the debate. Minister, you have 15 minutes.

Mr Muir: Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker.

This DUP motion is perhaps one of the most bizarre that the Assembly has debated for a long while. It is riddled with contradictions and, as per usual, light on solutions. DUP Members bemoan the outworkings of Brexit, a cause that they championed, which has damaged the UK economy and resulted in appalling trade deals, negotiated by Boris Johnson and Liz Truss and endorsed by the DUP, that have thrown our farmers under the bus. They want to support the agri-food sector, but willingly pulled the rug from under it after gleefully supporting the White Paper on immigration and, indeed, calling for the UK Government to go much further, clear in the knowledge of the serious impact that that is having on the labour supply for local agri-food businesses. They complain about the climate change legislation that their own Minister progressed and which they all voted for at Final Stage. They call for a just transition, yet fail to acknowledge that it is their own party that is holding up moves to set up a just transition commission designed to ensure the very thing that they want. All of that is disingenuously framed within the issue of food security.

I acknowledge the importance of food security. However, as we all know, it is a complex topic with a range of risk factors: most notably, geopolitical, as well as the very real impacts of climate change and biodiversity loss. While there are many definitions, the most widely used one is from the 1996 World Food Summit, which defined food security as:

There are many interacting factors that shape and determine the stable relationship between people and food that is at the core of that definition. Food security, therefore, cannot be reduced to a single metric or concept. It is complex and multifaceted.

Northern Ireland's agri-food sector is indeed a strategic asset, employing around 80,000 people with a gross value added of around £2 billion per annum, accounting for 36% of total manufacturing sales. I have clearly set out my vision for the sector where financial and environmental sustainability go hand in hand. I reaffirm my commitment to building a thriving, resilient and environmentally sustainable future. We are a proud food-producing region, recognised internationally for our high-quality produce, most notably milk and meat products, which command a significant premium in export markets. However, we also rely heavily on importing significant quantities of other food products, such as fruits and vegetables, which is why I remain committed to expanding our horticulture sector. Farmers are central to our future food security, but food security is not just about farms; it includes our fisheries and aquaculture sectors. Foods from aquatic sources, both wild-caught and farmed, generally have a significantly lower carbon footprint than terrestrial animal-sourced foods, offering an opportunity to deliver low-carbon food security, support rural economies and contribute to Northern Ireland's decarbonisation commitments. My Department's marine environment and fisheries fund ensures that Northern Ireland's seafood sector remains strong and sustainable and that our fisheries and aquaculture sectors thrive while contributing to environmental targets and food security.

At a national and global level, the risks to our food security are growing. Climate change, biodiversity loss, geopolitical instability and supply chain disruptions that increase costs to farmers, food producers and consumers are very real. I am also acutely aware that, at a household level, disposable incomes are lower in Northern Ireland than in other parts of the UK, which puts significant pressures on the affordability of food. I am therefore proud to have secured Executive agreement on the long-term Northern Ireland food strategy framework and its associated two-year action plan. A key focus on addressing food inequalities and developing a right-to-food culture while recognising the need for a more sustainable agri-food sector and utilising the necessary science, technology and skills to support that transition is absolutely fundamental.

In January this year, via a written ministerial statement to the Northern Ireland Assembly, I provided an update on my Department's new programme of farm support, which was required as a result of EU exit. Through striving to achieve its four outcomes of improved environmental sustainability, enhanced productivity, stronger resilience and an effective, functioning supply chain, the sustainable agriculture programme has an important role in the delivery of DAERA's key priorities. I am extremely proud to be the only devolved Minister in the UK to have secured ring-fenced funding totalling £332 million for agriculture, agri-environment, fishery and rural development, which enables the sustainable agriculture programme to be delivered this year and in future years. Many strong and positive benefits from the sustainable agriculture programme are being delivered, most especially the bovine genetics scheme. That scheme is a no-brainer. The conditionality associated with the farm sustainability payment is proportionate and fair. However, without rhyme or reason, the DUP saw fit to vote against it. I am grateful that others saw sense, and I am glad that we are pushing forward and are able to realise the clear and real benefits for our farmers.

In the run-up to the referendum in 2016, many warned about the implications of Brexit, with Northern Ireland's sharing a land border, involving over 200 crossing points, with an EU member state. Indeed, Tony Blair and John Major visited Derry/Londonderry to set out those issues. However, the DUP carelessly ploughed on regardless, mistakenly trusting charlatans such as Boris Johnson, just like it is doing now by putting its faith in Nigel Farage, despite all the warning signs. The Windsor framework is the outworking of Brexit. Although it is not perfect, it provides the best way forward, short of the UK's rejoining the single market and customs union, which it really should.

The Windsor framework and the unique dual market access that Northern Ireland enjoys is a real economic benefit and a safeguard for many in the agri-food sector in Northern Ireland. Without the Windsor framework, the dairy industry, for example, would be sunk. The DUP knows that, but, as ever, it is prepared to play fast and loose with people's jobs. I am not prepared to do that; nor am I prepared to sit back and bemoan some of the issues encountered. That is why getting an agri-food SPS agreement between the UK and the EU has been a priority for me ever since the new UK Government came into power. I am pleased to report that negotiations commenced last month on the legal text of that agreement between the UK and the EU. That is a positive step forward. The agreement, once implemented, will provide greater certainty for businesses across the UK and will reduce the need for checks on goods moving between GB and NI. Differences in regulations related to trade will always bring about trade frictions and complications; hence I have been pressing the UK Government to seek the maximum possible dynamic alignment with the EU regulations as part of an agreement that creates practical and sustainable arrangements that can be implemented as soon as possible.

The proposed simplifications and one-year delay to the application of the EU deforestation regulation (EUDR) will be welcomed by businesses. However, we still require urgent clarity on the extent to which the EU deforestation regulation will apply in Northern Ireland. I have repeatedly asked the UK Government, who lead on the EUDR, to communicate the relevant arrangements as soon as possible.

While veterinary medicines are not under my direction and control, their continued supply has been a key issue for me. Whilst the most recent work by DEFRA and the Veterinary Medicines Directorate suggests that the situation may be less critical than initially feared, I understand the ongoing concerns about product availability. I welcome the introduction by DEFRA and the Veterinary Medicines Directorate of the veterinary medicine internal market scheme and the veterinary medicine health situation scheme from 1 January next year. The schemes are designed to be responsive, adaptable and capable of addressing anticipated and unforeseen supply issues. I will continue to work closely with the UK Government, whom I met again last week, and the veterinary medicines working group to ensure that the schemes are governed effectively and deliver the outcomes that we need.

In responding to calls for clarity on ammonia controls, it is important that I first set out the context. The report by the Office for Environmental Protection on the issue, published in October 2024, is essential reading. Ammonia levels in Northern Ireland are shockingly high and must be reduced. The OEP report starkly sets it out that DAERA:

on ammonia advice. The report states the cold, hard fact that the previous Minister just kept kicking the can down the road:

The issue on which DAERA was acting unlawfully was rectified towards the end of 2023, after the OEP initiated legal action against the Department. The immense challenge is to reduce emissions whilst dealing with practical issues such replacement sheds. I am committed to finding a lawful way forward, and I look forward to a key meeting with stakeholders in the next few weeks, when we can hopefully set out a pathway ahead.

I will move on to the call for me to urgently bring proposals to the Executive to reduce Northern Ireland's interim 2030 and 2040 emissions reduction targets and the nonsensical idea that those are aspirational goals. They are not; they are legal obligations, democratically set by the House. As ever, on the issue of climate action, the DUP is out of step with the world of business, just as it was on Brexit. Look at all the businesses that have signed up to the Business in the Community climate action pledge: companies such as APB Food Group, Almac, Belfast Harbour Commissioners, Danske Bank, Encirc, the Galgorm Group, GRAHAM, the Henry Group, Hughes Insurance, Northern Ireland Water, Translink, Wrightbus and more. They are leading the way, and I am determined that Northern Ireland will not be left as a laggard yet again, dragging our heels and refusing to grasp the real benefits of decarbonisation in creating the good, green jobs that the people of Northern Ireland deserve.

For the avoidance of doubt on the matter, I will not consider or bring forward proposals to reduce the 2030 or 2040 emissions reduction targets. My focus remains on continuing to implement our existing legislative commitments, which were agreed by the Assembly. It is important that we provide our businesses and investors with certainty and confidence whilst ensuring that Northern Ireland realises the benefits associated with decarbonisation in a fair and balanced manner.

We have seen at first hand the impact that severe weather events such as flooding and storms can have on our businesses, communities and environment. Just over a month ago, we debated a motion calling on the First Minister and deputy First Minister to strengthen infrastructure and emergency response systems due to concerns about the impact of the increasing frequency and severity of storms. As we all know, the DUP has a long history of climate scepticism and denial of science. Take, for example, Sammy Wilson, a man who has said that man-made climate change is a "gigantic con" and a "hysterical semi-religion". Those DUP views talk down the UK's role as an international, global leader and show the DUP to be a party that has learned nothing from Brexit and continues to be completely unable to comprehend consequences. Taking action to reduce our emissions is important to protect food production against the ever-worsening impacts of climate change.

Alongside mitigation actions, my Department is leading the development of Northern Ireland's third climate change adaptation programme. The programme contains over 280 actions across all Departments, including 28 actions focused on building resilience to the impacts of climate change on our food supply system. Food security is one of our most immediate and economically significant reasons for maintaining strong climate ambition. Without emissions reductions and climate adaptation, we face a future in which we put our farming community at risk.

The amendment to the motion calls for progress towards our emissions reduction targets to be:

I am committed to ensuring that there is a fair and just transition as we work towards reducing our emissions. A key part of that transition will be supporting sectors. I am pleased to have allocated funding to a dedicated just transition fund for agriculture, and I will continue to seek further funding for that. It is not about pitching climate against food production. Farmers are our greatest ally in tackling climate change, and many already play their part and should get credit for that. I have seen at first hand many examples of innovation and positive action and of farmers leading the way. In line with the just transition principles and the 11 objectives set out in the 2022 Act, my role is to help support them to do that, and I will continue to do so.

The amendment states:

The 2022 Act has measures relating to carbon leakage, and I support those. I continue to seek Executive agreement to bring forward regulations to establish a just transition commission that will provide advice and hold all Departments, including mine, to account by ensuring that we have a just transition principle. That commission will be made up of independent experts and will have representation from the agriculture sector.

If the DUP is serious about a just transition for agriculture, I ask it to please stop sitting on those regulations, which have been with the Executive since September. It should agree the paper and let me get on with the job. Holding up tangible ways to safeguard a just and fair transition for agriculture is unreasonable, irrational and disrespectful. We must address the issues that are in front of us, and we must do that together. I am committed to doing that.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Minister. I call Aoife Finnegan to make her winding-up speech on the amendment. Aoife, you have five minutes.

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

I will speak in support of our amendment, which seeks to strengthen the motion by grounding it firmly in the lived experiences of our rural communities and the challenges that they face.

The amendment rightly recognises that, while our farmers are the backbone of the North's economy, they operate in a landscape profoundly shaped by Brexit, as Ms Sian Mulholland discussed. Its destabilising impact on our agriculture and agri-food sector cannot be overstated. It has created new frictions, uncertainties and pressures on those who already work in the most demanding and essential of industries. That is especially important when we consider the economic profile of our rural areas. According to a recent analysis by DAERA, almost half — 46% — of businesses in rural areas more than an hour outside Belfast have engaged directly in agriculture, fishing and forestry. When combined with construction, those sectors account for 56% of rural enterprises. In 2024, agriculture alone represented 39% of rural businesses, with construction at 17%. Those figures demonstrate not only the dominance of agriculture in our rural economies but the extent to which rural livelihoods depend on stable, workable policy frameworks.

The amendment acknowledges the vital reality that the agri-food sector is inherently all-island in nature. Supply chains, veterinary systems, animal movement and food standards operate seamlessly across the border. In that context and to address Mr Robbie Butler's comments, the Windsor framework offers a pragmatic way to manage new trading realities, avoiding a hard border on the island of Ireland and, crucially, securing dual market access for our produce, giving it an economic advantage.

The Assembly must recognise farmers' legitimate concerns. As other Members have highlighted, we heard in the Agriculture Committee last week directly from the North of Ireland Veterinary Association about the issues on future access to veterinary medicines after the grace period, as well as the burden that farmers see of emerging regulatory requirements. Those cannot be ignored. Our path towards emissions reduction must be fair, evidence-based and protective of food security. It must reject destructive measures, such as herd culls, and it must guard against carbon leakage, which would see local lower-emission produce being replaced with imports from higher-emission jurisdictions.

For those reasons, the amendment calls for greater on-farm investment, clarity on ammonia controls in planning and support for innovation. That is not only reasonable but essential. Rural businesses need certainty, the tools to adapt and a Department that is willing to champion their contribution to our shared prosperity.

I urge Members to support the amendment and to stand with our rural communities at this pivotal moment.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: I call Keith Buchanan to conclude and wind up the debate on the motion. I advise you that you have 10 minutes.

Mr K Buchanan: Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker.

Northern Ireland's agri-food sector is the backbone of our economy. It deserves clarity, support and respect, which I have not heard much of in here today, to be honest. Let us back our farmers, protect food security and ensure that that world-leading industry continues to thrive. It is estimated that Northern Ireland feeds approximately 10 million people. Food production is not just a business; it is a strategic asset. Our farmers are world leaders in many innovations. It was noted in a briefing by Invest NI that 35% of the businesses in the Mid Ulster council area, which is in my constituency, are agriculture. Having worked in the food processing sector for 22 and a half years — I will not go into the number of days, minutes and seconds, because that would bore people — I have seen exactly what farmers and food processors do daily.

The Minister needs to work alongside the DUP — the DUP has been referenced a lot today — to establish realistic and achievable climate change targets that safeguard the future of our agriculture industry while ensuring environmental protection. I deal weekly with farmers and landowners who are stuck between Shared Environmental Services and the planning legislation. They are stuck in the middle of that, and they are not getting clarity either way. If they had clarity, at least they would know where to go. I appreciate that the Minister has already made his comments. Farmers are stuck between SES and the NIEA. They need some clarity on where to go. Farmers are trying to improve their business, but, as they cannot get any direction from either organisation, they are stuck.

Mr Muir: Will the Member give way?

Mr K Buchanan: Yes, go ahead.

Mr Muir: On the issue of ammonia, we are, hopefully, acknowledging that it is complex and that we need to remain on the right side of the law. I have had sustained engagement with officials on that. There is a desire to look at whether we can give more advice to people, because they have to navigate the system. I acknowledge your point on that.

Mr K Buchanan: Thank you. It is good to hear that, Minister. It is important to put yourself in the shoes of those farmers, because they are pulling their hair out — what is left of it.

Ambition is important, but ambition without realism risks undermining our economy and our environment. Rural communities and major infrastructure projects cannot be sacrificed to satisfy the overly ambitious and impractical climate agenda that risks undermining economic growth and the livelihood of farmers. What is needed is a balanced approach. I do not think that you will get any argument about that from the farming sector. There needs to be a balanced approach that promotes sustainability without imposing disproportionate burdens on the rural community. The planning logjam from ammonia controls, as has been touched on, is strangling investment, especially in poultry. Farmers are willing to adapt, but they cannot do that if the Minister and his agencies contradict one another, and we have already covered that.

We all want sustainability, but it cannot prevent progress. Current climate targets would slash livestock numbers. Looming over all those issues are other external threats. A farmer today, who is trying to make a living at the side of the A5 or, indeed, the A32 and who has had part of his land taken, leaving it in devastation, also has to deal with TB; bird flu; planning issues; bluetongue; inheritance tax; the weather; costs; negative press, with people who do not even know what they are talking about; veterinary medicines; and world trade prices. I declare an interest; I have two brothers who are farmers. Why would you ever want to be a farmer when that is looming over you every single day?

To be fair, there is only so much that we in here and the Minister can do; I appreciate that. However, as we have heard, the world trade price of milk will have another detrimental impact on farming. We therefore have to try to do what we can here not to make it difficult for farmers, who are willing to work with us, as we have heard before. We cannot rely on complex fixes. We must restore certainty, fairness and unfettered access across the UK internal market. Northern Ireland deserves nothing less.

Those are not abstract risks; they hit animal welfare, food security and consumer costs. This is not just a transition; it is a direct attack on food security.

I will briefly go through some Members' comments, if I may. Michelle McIlveen, who moved the motion, talked about Northern Ireland producing 25% of the UK's food, which is an awful lot for a place the size of Northern Ireland, and said that 77% of the food produced here is sold outside Northern Ireland. She also talked about the veterinary medicine issue, which a lot of Members covered.

Declan McAleer said that the agriculture sector is a growing part of our economy. He talked about other cheaper imports at lower standards. If our production in Northern Ireland is reduced, where will the produce come from, not necessarily to feed Northern Ireland but to feed the UK mainland? Where will that produce come from, and what standard are you going to get? He voted for "breakfast", not Brexit. I am not sure what he voted for or did not vote for. I will leave that there. He also talked about veterinary medicines.

Sian Mulholland talked about food banks and their impact. Robbie talked about planning paralysis — everyone covered that more broadly. He also talked about the emission targets. Patsy wanted investment to improve productivity. That is fair enough. He talked about blue-green algae and new farming practices, but he did not mention the impact of NI Water. The impact that NI Water is having on Lough Neagh is widely known in the Chamber, but maybe some Committees do not really understand the impact. Maybe they need to own up to that. He also talked about veterinary medicines and planning issues.

David Honeyford talked about food and drink and said that we punch above our weight here. He also said that energy costs here reflect directly on to business costs. That is a fair enough point. John Blair touched on the just transition fund, veterinary medicines and the sewage discharges into Belfast lough, not all of which, to be fair, point to the agriculture sector. I sometimes question the 62/24/12 figures and where they have come from. I think that some of them have been dreamed up, but I do not want a response on that one. Modelled is one thing, but actual is another. John Blair also said that climate and agriculture are two sides of the same coin. I do not really know what that meant, but I wrote it down anyway. John, thank you for that.

Mr Blair: Will the Member give way?

Mr K Buchanan: Yes.

Mr Blair: It simply means that they are interdependent.

Mr K Buchanan: Thank you.

Finally, the Minister touched on the fact that the agriculture sector is a strategic asset. He talked about the import of fruit and veg into Northern Ireland, and veterinary medicines — something on which he is working with DEFRA. We will see where that goes. Obviously, time is running out on that. To be fair, he provided a degree of clarity on SES and NIEA issue more broadly for planning. I will leave it at that.

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