Official Report: Tuesday 10 March 2026

Ms Finnegan: Partition was never meant to operate on the basis of fairness, equality and parity of opportunity. It was an undemocratic political decision that was imposed upon this island. Citizens across Ireland are living with the consequences daily. Our all-island economy and cross-border trade have grown exponentially over the past decade. The recent Economic and Social Research Institute (ESRI) report on assessing economic trends on the island of Ireland shows that North/South trade is continuing to go from strength to strength. That report allows us to better understand our economies and their integration. Increasingly, businesses across Ireland are working together, so it is important that decisions that are taken by the Dublin Government and the Executive keep pace with those changes. The latest trade statistics show comparable levels of trade North and South, with around £4·3 billion worth of trade travelling in each direction. Collectively, the value of North/South trade equated to £8·6 billion in 2025, which underlines the opportunity for growth and prosperity.

While the Southern economy records budget surpluses, here, in the North, Westminster continues to tell us that we have received record funding. The truth is that the underfunding of our public services continues. The British Treasury's claims simply do not stand up. Wealth is created here every day by workers and businesses across the North. Large corporations operate and profit here, yet those profits are often recorded elsewhere and counted as British revenue. Similarly, the value of tax that is paid by workers here remains opaque and unclear. People here pay taxes towards things that bring no benefit to daily life in the North. Money goes on the British monarchy, royal estates, historic war debts and military spending. That money is not available to the Executive to tackle waiting lists, repair roads or build homes. Services are left underfunded, and community groups are cutting the number of staff and vital projects in our most disadvantaged areas. That is not ideology: it is reality.

That system affects everyone. We can no longer pretend that it is working. Working families in nationalist areas feel it, working families in unionist areas feel it, rural communities feel it, and towns and cities feel it. We see it in overcrowded hospitals and broken infrastructure. The result of political choices being tied to the British economic system —

Mr Speaker: The Member's time is up.

Ms Finnegan: — has been a catastrophic failure for ordinary people here.

Mr Harvey: I highlight the real pressure being faced by households up and down the country as a result of the spike in home heating oil prices. Many people have contacted me, understandably concerned about current global events and their impact on already tight household finances. Regrettably, many local distributors have borne the brunt of public frustration, when, in reality, our focus should be on the wholesalers who serve the Northern Ireland market who have made the decision to hike prices to such obscene levels.

We all benefit from a competitive oil market. Having a healthy number of local suppliers across the country works to local consumers' advantage by ensuring value for money. However, when global energy uncertainty comes to the fore, as it has not only in recent days but in the past, we see what appear to be sickening levels of profiteering by wholesalers. When international markets show the price of crude oil rising by 11%, local rises of 50% and 60% are unjustifiable. It is incumbent upon the House not merely to call that apparent racket out but to take action to stop it and protect our customers. That is why I echo the call made by Gavin Robinson last week for the Economy Minister to take steps to ensure that this is the last time that we allow local consumers to be left at the mercy of oil giants.

With 70% of Northern Ireland households relying on home heating oil, which is significantly above the UK average, the issue requires the Minister's full and urgent attention. An unregulated sector is facilitating an unjust financial impact on all our constituents. Alongside regulation, I call on the Minister to explore the potential for local oil reserves to be used in such circumstances to head off short-term price hikes due to global events.

I am proud that, when our elderly and vulnerable needed support last year, Gordon Lyons stepped in to plug the gap left by Keir Starmer's decision to scrap the winter fuel payment. Once again, the Assembly must act to protect our people and uphold a fair and competitive market.

Ms Egan: I highlight an incredibly important event that took place in my constituency in the town of Donaghadee last week. Donaghadee Community Development Association, alongside North Down and Ards Women's Aid, organised a community conference that focused on domestic abuse and violence, which was called When Home Isn't Safe.

The event shone a light on the often hidden crime of domestic abuse in our communities. It was an opportunity for those who have been affected, for people who wanted to learn more and for organisations providing vital support to come together and share information, bust some of the myths and highlight that anybody in our community can be a victim of that horrific crime. We had presentations from organisations such as Hourglass, the Men's Advisory Project and Women's Aid. They highlighted the wide range of services that they offer and the brilliant work that they do in supporting women, children, men and elderly people with unique services that each of them needs, reiterating that anybody can be a victim of that type of crime.

'The Souls of our Shoes' exhibition from the Mothers' Union was on display. It was incredibly moving and showed lived testimony, with the display of a simple article — shoes — from a victim or survivor, which, often, had been used to walk away to safety or to achieve justice, alongside a quote from that victim. It really brought home to many of us who were there that evening the impact that those crimes have.

The PSNI spoke, and it was welcome to hear how it is using the relatively new offences of coercive control and non-fatal strangulation to address abuse and violent behaviours.

It was very clear, however, that despite receiving a call relating to those types of crimes every 16 minutes, it believes that they are still under-reported.

The most powerful contributions came from victim and survivor testimonies. This insidious crime affects people across society, and the support, recovery and justice journey will be different for them all. They bravely spoke up to raise awareness, in the hope that sharing their story could help someone else and prevent that type of crime happening. I thank the organisers and everyone who attended on the evening. It was a truly worthwhile event, and it will make a difference.

Mr Burrows: Since I have been in this place, I have noted that although the people of Northern Ireland enjoy relative peace now, they do not enjoy the full prosperity and first-class public services that they deserve. That is mainly because of the rank incompetence of some people here and the incessant blaming of the Brits, as we have just heard from a Sinn Féin Member, for issues that lie directly within the responsibility of the Northern Ireland Assembly.

I will give you some examples that would make an episode of 'Yes, Minister' seem too far-fetched. As I said yesterday, it costs some schools hundreds of pounds to change a light bulb because of rules that prevent a caretaker working above a certain height, and schools are charged a call-out fee. Procurement is ripping off the public left, right and centre across all public services. When it should cost a school £1,000 to paint a wall, it is costing £4,000 because of rip-off procurement, but a simple trusted trader scheme could save a huge amount of money.

The lack of accountability in our Executive and our Stormont Assembly is astonishing. I recently asked the Executive Office who was responsible for ensuring that the Police Ombudsman got security clearance vetting when there was an incident at her home. The Executive Office told me that it was the Department of Justice. The Department of Justice told me that it was the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State has now replied to me, saying that it is the Executive Office. Round and round it goes, but where it stops nobody ever knows.

Recently, I have been exposing the fact that some people owe hundreds of thousands of pounds to the Department for Communities for benefit fraud. Twenty of those people have repayment plans that are simply £1 a week. One of the debts will take 770 years to pay off. That is ludicrous. There is a Northern Ireland Audit Office report that says that the Northern Ireland Civil Service is vastly underperforming. When I asked Minister O'Dowd who is responsible for the line management of the head of the Civil Service, he replied, "I don't know". This is not a dig at hard-working, front-line civil servants, but when I asked how many members of the Civil Service, given that they have been collectively underperforming, have been marked as underperforming in the organisation, I was told that it is 24 out of 24,500, which is less than 0·01%.

This is a Chamber, of course, that talks about international affairs — Gaza; Venezuela. We are supposed to talk about international affairs that affect the safety of citizens here. When there was a security briefing about how to get our citizens back home, the Minister who calls herself the First Minister for all ran for the hills. We are happy to debate international affairs that are of no relevance to the people of Northern Ireland, but when the safety of people from Northern Ireland who are living in the Middle East depended on it, some Members could not discuss those international affairs. This place needs to change urgently.

Ms McLaughlin: I rise today to mark a very important milestone for Derry Women's Aid, which is a remarkable organisation in my city. This year, it celebrates its 50th birthday. For five decades, Derry Women's Aid has been a lifeline for women and children who are experiencing domestic abuse, providing accommodation, outreach services, advocacy and practical support. It has stood beside thousands of women and families at some of the most frightening and uncertain moments in their lives. That work has been carried forward by generations of staff, volunteers and campaigners who have shown compassion, courage and absolute determination. They have not only provided safety when it was most needed, but helped women to rebuild their confidence, reclaim their independence and begin again.

What began 50 years ago as a grassroots response by determined women in our community has grown into an organisation that is widely recognised as an exemplar in supporting women and challenging violence against women and girls. In the heart of Derry, their work represents solidarity and resilience. It sends a powerful message that women should never feel isolated, silenced or trapped by abuse.

I also want to recognise the wider progress that has been made in supporting victims of domestic abuse in our city in recent times. The opening of the Women's Aid Foyle Family Justice Centre in Bishop Street has been a hugely significant step forward. That innovative model places support services around victims as they navigate the justice system, and it allows women to give evidence in a safe and supportive environment, surrounded by the services that can help them through what can be an incredibly difficult time in their life. It is genuinely leading the way, not just here but right across Europe, as a model of how justice systems can be designed around the needs of victims rather than expecting victims to adapt to the system.

I place on record my sincere thanks to the dedicated and committed Marie Brown and everyone who is and has been involved in Foyle Women's Aid, past and present, for 50 years of extraordinary service to the people of our city and to the wider region.

Mr Sheehan: Tugtar deis dúinn leis an tSeachtain um Fheasacht Meabhairshláinte aird a dhíriú ar an ghníomh phráinneach atá de dhíth lena chinntiú go gcuirtear a ndotháin acmhainní ar fáil do na seirbhísí meabhairshláinte, agus do na seirbhísí tacaíochta a chuidíonn leo, le freastal ar an éileamh. Tá obair iontach á déanamh ag grúpaí agus ag carthanais agus iad ag cur tearmann agus spás sábháilte ar fáil do gach duine. Tacaíonn sin le meabhairshláinte na ndaoine, téann sé chun a leasa, agus cothaíonn sé an muintearas agus an dáimh ba chóir bheith ann idir dhaoine. Ach tá a fhios againn go bhfuil géarghantannas oibrithe meabhairshláinte cáilithe ann le freastal ar an éileamh ar sheirbhísí — éileamh atá ag ardú leis.

Ach in ainneoin a ndíchill agus in ainneoin na hoibre iontaí atá na heagraíochtaí sin a dhéanamh, is fadhb ollmhór é an féinmharú inár bpobail go fóill. Is é téama na seachtaine: "Gníomh: duit féin, do dhuine eile, dúinn uile". Ní hualach í an droch-mheabhairshláinte atá le hiompar ag aon duine amháin; tá tacaíocht an phobail chomh maith le cur chuige uilerialtais de dhíth. Tuairiscítear gur chuir 290 duine lámh ina mbás féin anseo sa bhliain 2024. Is scanrúil an figiúr é sin. Is féidir teacht roimh na básanna sin, ach daoine an tacaíocht agus an cuidiú cuí a fháil. De na daoine sin a chuir lámh ina mbás féin, meastar go raibh 70% acu gan aon bhaint ghníomhach a bheith acu leis na seirbhísí meabhairshláinte. Is é an chéad chéim le leas a bhaint as na seirbhísí sin ná labhairt faoinár meabhairshláinte, cúnamh a iarraidh, agus ár smaointe agus ár mothúcháin a ligean le duine éigin.

Cuirim fáilte roimh an fhógra go mbeidh fiosrúchán traspháirtí ann ar an dóigh a ndéantar maoiniú ar sheirbhísí um fhéinmharú a chosc sa Tuaisceart. Tá súil agam go gcuideoidh torthaí an fhiosrúcháin linn ár n-aird agus ár n-iarrachtaí a dhíriú d’fhonn torthaí dearfacha meabhairshláinte a bhaint amach feasta.

Miss McIlveen: I rise to recognise a significant milestone in the life and godly witness of one of our oldest Presbyterian congregations. On 6 March 2026, Ballywalter Presbyterian Church in my constituency of Strangford celebrated 400 years of continuous ministry in the village. The celebrations marked the anniversary of the installation in 1626 of the Reverend James Hamilton as the first Presbyterian minister on the Ards peninsula. A nephew of Viscount Clandeboye, Reverend Hamilton was ordained in March 1626 and faithfully served the growing Scottish community for a decade. That date is commemorated on the front of my old office in the village, the former Presbyterian church hall. For four centuries, Ballywalter Presbyterian Church has been at the very heart of village life. The congregation has provided spiritual and pastoral support and practical service to every generation. Its distinctive building on Main Street, completed in 1889, stands as a landmark of faith and community.

The weekend celebrations, which included a concert, a special historical exhibition and a service of thanksgiving, were a wonderful success. I warmly congratulate the minister, the Rev Gareth Simpson, the kirk session, the congregation and all the supporting groups and volunteers who worked so hard to make the anniversary memorable and meaningful. Their faithfulness over 400 years is an inspiration to us all. I extend my sincere congratulations and best wishes to the entire Ballywalter Presbyterian family as it looks forward to the years ahead.

I record special thanks to the Ulster-Scots Agency for generously supporting the celebrations, to Mark Thompson and to Billy Carlile of the Ballywalter and District Historical Society for pulling together all the information. Congratulations to all involved.

Ms Nicholl: Rosetta Primary School is a cornerstone of that part of south Belfast. For the past number of years, its school hall has been closed, owing to significant structural concerns about the roof. I met Mr McGarrigle recently and saw the hall for myself. There is a padlocked door and steel poles propping up the roof. I was told that concerns about the condition of the roof were first raised nine years ago, but, since 2023, access has been restricted because of rain. The hall is now not used. It is not safe, and no permanent solution has been delivered.

Parents, staff and the community have been asking us, as elected representatives, what we can do about it. The impact on parents and staff has been profound. There is no appropriate space for indoor PE. There are no assemblies or whole-school gatherings. The principal, who is new to the school, feels that he has not had the chance to address the community as a whole. One parent told me that her child is now in P2 and has never been in the school hall; she said that her child does not even know where it is. There are no performances or shared community events, and the ongoing disruption to timetabling and curriculum delivery is having an impact. We all know what it was like when we were at primary school. We all have memories of being part of plays and being with children of other ages. At the moment, Rosetta Primary School's children are being denied that.

There has been extensive engagement with the Education Authority (EA), including site visits, repeated correspondence and assurances of reports that never materialise. We do not have a clear timeline outlining when and how the matter will be resolved. Deadlines have been missed, and essential reports have been delayed. The school is in a state of prolonged uncertainty. It has had to go to the media to raise as much awareness as possible to try to get the matter dealt with.

The school is asking for four simple things: a clear and transparent update on the status of the project; confirmation of allocated funding; a defined timeline for permanent remediation; and accountability for the delays that have brought the matter to this point. The school has not apportioned blame to anyone. Its focus is on securing a timely and sustainable solution for the children of the school. Every child in every school should have access to a school hall, and the EA now needs to resolve the situation as a matter of urgency.

Mrs Mason: I will highlight the amazing work of Mainstay DRP in Downpatrick and its new social enterprise, Silent Cuts. Silent Cuts offers sensory-friendly appointments for adults and children with sensory needs who may find it difficult to visit a hair salon or barber's. That quiet space with dimmed lighting and minimal distractions is the perfect inclusive and calm environment in which to get their hair cut. It employs fully trained stylists. Those ladies are absolutely amazing, and they are experienced in supporting clients with sensory needs. They offer flexibility and choices for clients, such as opting out of the usual small talk, bringing in their own comfort objects, choosing whether to have the radio on, off or turned down low and sitting in a chair with or without a mirror in front of it. The salon also has sensory lights and toys for children.

The salon is closed to the public for a couple of days a week so that training can be provided to its apprentices, who also have special educational needs or disabilities. I was lucky to get to chat to some of them, and it was lovely to hear what working there meant to them.

I was also honoured to be invited along to Silent Cuts' official opening. I was completely blown away by the entire concept and just how truly inclusive it is.

Those of us with children know that early-years haircuts can be really challenging, but, for a child with sensory needs, it can be a truly traumatic experience for the child and their parents. I spoke with one mother who had tried on many occasions to take her son to get his hair cut. After so much stress and anxiety, she just had to give up. No matter how patient and good the hairdresser was, the child just could not handle his hair being touched and all the sounds that go along with a haircut. She explained how Silent Cuts came along just as she had resigned herself to the fact that she would never be able to have her son's hair cut in a proper salon. Silent Cuts' entire concept met their needs, from him entering through the door to him leaving with a huge smile on his face and freshly cut hair. It might seem trivial to many, but it certainly is not trivial for parents who have to face those issues.

I was delighted to see that Silent Cuts received £2,000 after winning the Social Enterprise Dragons' Den competition, which is supported by Community Finance Ireland. I pay tribute to everyone involved in the project and encourage everyone to check out its services. I wish Silent Cuts the very best of luck in the years ahead.

Mr Brooks: Yesterday, this place marked European Remembrance Day for Victims of Terrorism, which takes place tomorrow. I was unable to attend the event, but I take this opportunity to say that I stand in solidarity with the innocent victims represented yesterday and, in particular, with those who still await justice.

Speaking of innocent victims of terrorism, also yesterday, I, along with a number of other representatives, had the opportunity — one that, I have to say, I was conflicted about taking — to see some unedited footage of the Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ) attacks on Israel on October 7. I saw the horrors of terrorism that can be wrought upon innocent people living their everyday lives. I am glad that I took the opportunity to confront that, even if some of it will stay with those of us who watched it for a long time and even if I had to avert my eyes on a number of occasions from the sheer barbarity of what was carried out.

Children, parents and grandparents — ordinary people living ordinary lives — were murdered in their beds and kitchens, burned in cars and, of course, murdered at a music festival by what I can only describe as animals, who, with demonic zeal, chanted "Allahu Akbar", declared themselves heroes and called their families to boast of killing their first Jew or about how many they had killed. One repeatedly told his parents on the phone, "I've killed 10, I've killed 10: your son is a hero". A father panicked, guiding his young sons, all in their underwear, to a small safe room in the garden, where a big, brave Hamas terrorist — the people, perhaps, whom Gerry Carroll referred to as "the Palestinian Resistance" — seconds later, threw in a hand grenade to murder and maim. Heads were removed by shovels to gleeful chants and cheers; they were played with, and orders were given to take photos. I could not watch that scene, but, even as I turned my eyes away, it was clear what was about to happen. Women with their clothes torn from them were lifted like a prize to be showcased on the streets of Gaza from the back of trucks to celebratory cheers. Supposedly ordinary civilians but, in my opinion, animals — vermin — kicked at the lifeless bodies.

Watching that footage should not be undertaken lightly, but there are Members in the Chamber who, I wish, should take such an opportunity: those who have criticisms of both sides in that conflict and those who have, frankly, been apologists for Palestinian terrorism by whatever name they choose to call it. They may well draw attention to scenes from Gaza, with which, I imagine, they are much more familiar, but I wonder how anyone who had seen that footage would be able to quite so enthusiastically defend Hamas, PIJ or the many ordinary Palestinians who joined the attack that day. Undoubtedly, they would then know why, across the Israeli political spectrum and the Israeli people, while different views exist on the conflict, there is unison in the determination that that will not be allowed to happen again and that whatever is required to prevent it must be done.

Mr Gaston: Last Wednesday, the Executive Office Committee pack contained a letter from the chief commissioner of the Equality Commission, dealing with the toilet policy operated in this Building. That policy allows individuals to access the toilets of the opposite sex on the basis of their supposed gender identity. To put that in layman's terms, a man pretending to be a woman can access female toilets: that is simply wrong and must stop.

The letter contains two salient points. First, it makes it clear that the Assembly's policy has been shaped by guidance that the Equality Commission regards as outdated. I will quote directly from the chief commissioner:

Secondly, the commission recommended that the Assembly Commission seeks its own legal advice about the policy.

The Assembly should treat those matters with the utmost seriousness. A Committee of the House now has it in black and white that the legal basis of the toilet policy operating in this Building is open to serious question. That cannot be allowed to continue. It is time for those who sit on the Assembly Commission to change the current policy to reflect biological reality. The current policy is repugnant to common sense, biologically illiterate and an insult to women, girls and the children who use the building.

Mr Speaker: I call Michelle Guy. You have two minutes.

Mrs Guy: Yesterday, the Justice Minister launched an incredibly important campaign to challenge common myths about rape. Experiencing sexual assault is traumatic. It is life-changing, and it is not for those of us who have not experienced that trauma to presume to tell victims how they should respond to it.

Rape myths are deeply damaging. They create shame and self-blame for victims; they discourage reporting; and, far too often, they shift the focus away from the perpetrator and onto the person who has been harmed. As Gisèle Pelicot said so powerfully, "Shame must change sides". If we are serious about achieving that, we must challenge such myths clearly, confidently and with care. For example, "If both people were drinking, it is not really rape": that is a myth. Someone who is intoxicated cannot give informed consent. "If you did not report it immediately, it did not happen": myth. Taking time to report an assault does not mean that it did not happen; it reflects the reality of a deeply personal trauma. "If there are no physical injuries, it must have been consensual": myth. Rape is defined by the absence of consent, not the presence of violence; violence is not required for it to be a crime.

I hope that Members will support the campaign as it rolls out on social media, but challenging the myths cannot happen through social media alone. Education is central to changing attitudes and preventing harm in the first place. As a member of the Education Committee, I particularly welcome the support provided by the Department of Education and the Council for the Curriculum, Examinations and Assessment in making resources available to teachers through the relationships and sexuality education (RSE) hub. High-quality RSE plays a vital role in helping young people understand consent, respect and healthy relationships. It equips them to challenge harmful narratives, recognise abusive behaviour and support one another. Resources like that give teachers the tools to have informed age-appropriate conversations and to build a culture where victims are believed, harmful attitudes are challenged early and the responsibility is placed where it belongs —

Mr Speaker: The Member's time is up.

Mrs Guy: — with the perpetrator.

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

Mr Speaker: I would like to inform the House that I will not be in the Chamber for business on Monday 16 March as I am undertaking engagements in the United States.

Mr Speaker: David Brooks has sought leave to present a public petition in accordance with Standing Order 22. The Member will have up to three minutes to speak.

Mr Brooks: Today, I present a public petition on behalf of Zuzana Revayova of CitizenGo. It had been signed by over 68,000 people from across Northern Ireland and beyond when it was given to me, and it is now nearing 100,000 signatures online. The petition expresses deep concern about the future place of Christianity and the Christian ethos in our schools. The petition arose in the wake of the UK Supreme Court’s ruling on religious education and collective worship, a judgement that prompted understandable anxiety among many parents, teachers, Churches and local communities.

For generations, Christian faith and values have played a foundational role in shaping education in Northern Ireland. Our schools were built not only to provide academic learning but to nurture moral character, service to others and respect for the traditions that have shaped our society. Many of those who signed the petition feared that, in response to the court's ruling, forthcoming reforms could unintentionally weaken or marginalise Christian teaching, even in schools that were founded with a clear Christian ethos and identity.

The petitioners are not calling for exclusion or intolerance; they are asking that Christianity continue to have a respected and meaningful place in education, reflecting Northern Ireland's historical, cultural and legal foundations. They are asking for parents' rights, including the right to have their children educated in accordance with their convictions and beliefs, to be respected.

I spoke to Zuzana this morning. She has followed events in the Assembly and been reassured by the response of the Education Minister, Paul Givan, who has set out a measured and balanced way forward. The Minister has confirmed that Christianity will remain central to the religious education syllabus, reflecting Northern Ireland's historical and cultural context, while the curriculum is reviewed to ensure that it is academically robust and consistent with the court's judgement.

Those who have signed the petition will be thankful that the Minister has brought clarity by stating that collective worship will continue in schools and that the review process will involve consultation with Churches, teachers, parents and the wider community. Those commitments provide important reassurance that the response to the judgement will respect the law and safeguard the place of Christianity in our education system.

The message of the petition is simple: people across Northern Ireland and, indeed, the UK value the Christian heritage of our schools and want to see it protected, respected and carried forward for future generations. I therefore commend the petition to the House.

Mr Speaker: I will forward the petition to the Minister of Education and send a copy to the Committee.

Ms Kimmins (The Minister for Infrastructure): I wish to provide the House with an update on how my Department will assess and deliver future residents' parking schemes across the North. I am very much aware that parking is an issue of concern for residents in many areas, and, along with my officials, I have carefully considered the best ways of addressing that.

Members will recall that, whilst the residents' parking review published in November 2024 found that the scheme for Rugby Road/College Park Avenue in Belfast had worked well, it identified challenges that resulted in other schemes not being able to progress. Those included the resource-intensive nature of the current departmental process and the inability to secure the level of buy-in from residents and businesses required for schemes to progress to implementation.

Following publication of the review, there has been significant interest in the establishment of residents' parking zones. Given the demand and ongoing budgetary and resource constraints, my Department has developed an application and assessment process for residents' parking schemes that will ensure a streamlined process for considering, assessing and prioritising requests for schemes going forward.

In April 2026, my Department will open the new, demand-led application process that will enable individuals and communities to bring forward proposals for residents' parking zones for formal consideration. That approach follows recommendations from the residents' parking review report, which confirmed that residents' parking zones can work well where there is a clear local need but identified changes required to deliver schemes more effectively. To ensure effective management of the application process, the window for applications will open initially for a period of three months and will reopen on a cyclical basis. That approach will allow my Department to better coordinate the assessment and prioritisation of schemes so that the process is managed in a structured, transparent and efficient way.

The demand-led pathway will allow applicants to submit requests for their area to be considered for a residents' parking zone, providing my Department with information about the nature, extent and timing of parking pressures. In order for any scheme to be eligible for consideration, proposals must demonstrate persistent commuter or nuisance parking; cover adopted public streets only; have fewer than 50% of properties with access to private off-street parking such as driveways; and include evidence of local support for a scheme.

Further information on residents' parking zones, including guidance on how to apply, will be published on nidirect and on my Department's website. The resources will provide any potential applicant with as much information as possible to allow them to consider whether a scheme is suitable for their area before submitting an application.

Following the application stage, my Department will confirm that a majority of residents living in the proposed area support the introduction of a scheme. Each household and business in a proposed scheme will be issued with a ballot addressed to the occupier. A return rate of at least 50% plus one of those balloted in support of a proposed scheme will be required for a scheme to progress.

Securing an overall majority of residents' support for a residents' parking zone within specified areas is a fundamental part of the demand-led application and assessment process to ensure that more schemes can be delivered across the North going forward. That reflects a balanced approach and underpins the fact that schemes are community-driven, while being deliverable and sustainable.

Following the confirmation of support for a scheme, my Department will verify that off-street parking access is below 50% and that there is sufficient kerbside capacity to design a workable zone. Engagement will take place with the PSNI and the relevant local council, and traffic and parking surveys will be commissioned to establish viability before moving to the design and statutory consultation processes under the existing policy framework. Any applications that do not meet the required criteria at any stage of the process or fail to garner the necessary resident support when balloted will not be reconsidered for a residents' parking scheme for another five years, unless there has been a significant change in circumstances in the area. That aligns with best practice in other jurisdictions, where similar cooling-off periods are used to manage demand and encourage well-considered and community-backed applications.

The process of assessing, designing, consulting on and potentially implementing a residents' parking scheme is resource-intensive. Introducing a five-year interval will help to ensure that resources are used efficiently and are not repeatedly directed towards areas where there is insufficient support or where a scheme is not viable. This approach aims to deliver workable community-backed residents' parking zones that improve neighbourhood liveability while making best use of available resources.

The delivery of more schemes will also help to persuade those who currently drive into our towns and cities and park all day to use more active or sustainable modes of transport. Alongside that demand-led pathway, which will launch in April, I remain committed to continuing to develop schemes where work has already commenced, such as those in Derry and the Iveagh area of Belfast. My Department will also give consideration to a scheme that could address the emerging on-street parking pressures in the vicinity of the Ulster University campus in Belfast.

Mr O'Toole: Thank you, Minister. I genuinely welcome the statement today. It is welcome to see progress in this area. The Rugby Road scheme is around the corner from my constituency office. Many parts of the statement apply to inner south Belfast probably more than to areas in any other constituency across the North. Communities in the Markets, lower Ormeau, Donegall Pass and Stranmillis will all be interested in the scheme. However, there will be a concern and a question about the 50% plus one barrier, particularly in some areas where there are high levels of short-term rentals, for example, by students in the Holylands, Stranmillis and the lower Lisburn Road. Is that not a high bar for those areas, and will you devote resource to those areas to ensure that there is proper turnout? There is a fairly transitory population in lots of those areas, so permanent residents will want to ensure that they are not caught out simply by the high number of people in short-term lets who may or may not respond to a ballot.

Ms Kimmins: I appreciate the issues that the Member has raised. Officials will continue to explore any further measures to strengthen the process. I recognise that there may be anomalies. The 50% plus one threshold was brought in to recognise that there will be areas that have significant support, and we really want to ensure that they are properly considered. There may be differences in student areas, for example, but we have been working on a similar scheme in the Magee area of Derry. That will help to guide how we move things forward.

Mr Martin (The Chairperson of the Committee for Infrastructure): I thank the Minister for her statement. The Infrastructure Committee has received oral evidence that there could be a high demand for such schemes. What specific resources will be dedicated to meeting that demand in her Department? How will her Department ensure that applicants for such a scheme are kept informed of progress?

Ms Kimmins: As I outlined, it is resource-intensive. We will have a team of officials working on it. We have put in certain parameters to try to manage demand. I think that there will be a significant demand. There will be a lead-in time before the application process opens. The information will be up on the website from today, ahead of the application process officially opening. I hope that that will help to ensure that people have plenty of time to get their head around what is required and to assess whether this is the proper pathway for them and their area.

I have forgotten the second question.

Mr Martin: How will your Department ensure that applicants are kept informed of progress on a given scheme?

Ms Kimmins: That is an integral part of the entire process.

Whilst it is not possible to outline specific timelines at this stage, we have an approximate timeline for how long each stage of the process will take. It will depend on demand for the scheme and how departmental resources are directed. Once the application process closes, we will have a better idea of the sort of time frames that we can expect.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Before I call Cathal, I will say that I gave you a bit of leeway, Peter, as the Chair of the Committee, as that was two questions. I let you away with that. Thank you, Minister, for doing him the honour of answering his second question.

Mr Boylan: I thank the Minister for the statement. As the Minister is aware, one of the reasons why such schemes are so important is that nuisance parking can prevent emergency services or health and social care workers from accessing patients' properties. To ensure that patients receive the best care and that that care is timely, will there be permits for carers and community nurses?

Ms Kimmins: Absolutely. I can think of examples in my constituency of where parking like this can impact on householders and local residents' ability to get access to emergency services and other services that are critical to their day-to-day lives. I hope that the scheme will alleviate some pressures by freeing up access. In the case of domiciliary carers, community nurses and other things like that, the local health and social care trust or independent providers of domiciliary care can apply on behalf of the staff who deliver care to people. The carer permits will be issued free of charge.

Mr McReynolds: Minister, you said that the new approach will open in April. In January 2025, the Infrastructure Committee heard that 230 applications were still in the system. What will happen to those applications?

Ms Kimmins: Everyone will have to make a new application, because we have done a lot of work to streamline the process. Whilst we have pre-committed to a number of schemes, which I mentioned in my statement, all areas that would like to apply now will have to put in a new application.

Mr Stewart: I welcome the Minister's statement. What is the plan for enforcement? We have seen traffic measures installed elsewhere across the country, and they have been welcomed by residents, but those residents invariably get frustrated by the lack of enforcement when people break the rules. Will it be enforced by the police, the councils, the red coats or a combination of some of those? What engagement have you had with them?

Ms Kimmins: I recognise that effective enforcement is an integral part of the success of any residents' parking scheme. It is important that that enforcement helps to ensure that the scheme is respected and delivers the intended benefits. As happens with the scheme that is in place on Rugby Road, enforcement of further schemes will be implemented by our departmental traffic enforcement teams, which are responsible for ensuring compliance with all parking restrictions and regulations across the North. As with any breach of parking regulations, a penalty charge notice will be issued. Enforcement will, therefore, be delivered through our teams, but we will also engage with the PSNI on broader delivery.

Ms Flynn: I thank the Minister for her statement and for all the work that she has carried out on the issue. The problem of nuisance parking impacts on a lot of us. Minister, many areas that are in need of a residents' parking scheme are also neighbourhood renewal areas. Will there be any exemptions for such areas?

Ms Kimmins: We recognised that issue during the development of the new process. The cost of a resident permit or business permit is currently £30. That is valid for a year. That will, however, be reviewed periodically to ensure that it remains sustainable. There will be exemptions wherever some of the proposed schemes are wholly or partially in neighbourhood renewal areas, and permits will be issued to residents and blue-badge holders, free of charge.

Mr Dunne: I thank the Minister for her statement. The review is welcome. It is fair to say that too few schemes have been delivered over the past number of years, despite considerable concern from residents across Northern Ireland, including in Bangor and Holywood in my constituency, where significant interest remains. Minister, in your previous response, you talked about cost. Will you clarify whether that will be an annual fee? Will it be one space per household, as has been the case previously?

Ms Kimmins: It is an annual fee. That will be kept under review to establish how sustainable it is.

As I mentioned, one of the considerations that will be taken into account when doing an assessment for a scheme is whether there is off-street parking, such as a driveway, available. That will be looked at in the round. We also have to ensure that proposed areas for a scheme have a workable solution. For example, is there enough space to deliver the scheme properly? That will be worked out through the process. We will look at the requirement for 1·2 parking spaces per property. A bit of methodology is involved in how that is worked out, but it will be taken into consideration to ensure that there is ample parking for everyone involved.

Mr McMurray: I thank the Minister for her statement. What mitigations will the scheme provide in rural town centres, where there are a lot of competing pressures from businesses, commuters and private residents? I will not say that there is conflict between the two, but there is DFI-owned land and there are council-owned parking areas. How will the measure help address and mitigate the issue in rural towns?

Ms Kimmins: In residential areas where there is a particular issue with commuter or nuisance parking, with people parking for long periods, which affects the ability of local residents to get access to or park close to their home, the aim of the scheme is to mitigate those challenges.

I appreciate your point about the different car parks that are there, but the schemes are looking at residential areas specifically. For example, in Belfast, people park in residential areas that are near their workplace. I know that there are particular issues in some student areas and suchlike. It is therefore about trying to strike a balance so that residents are not forced to park very far away from their home because of people from outside the area coming in and parking there all day. I hope that that answers your question, but if you need more specific information, please let me know.

I assume that there are similar impacts in rural areas. Where there are challenges, I encourage people to have a look at the application process and submit an application, because we will look at everything in the round and take on board the unique circumstances that may affect certain areas.

Mr Sheehan: Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire as ucht a ráitis ar maidin.

The Minister will be aware that residents of the Iveagh area of west Belfast have been waiting a long time for a scheme. I am glad to see from the statement that it will now proceed quickly. What are the next steps for the scheme in the Iveagh area?

Ms Kimmins: The scheme represents a good step forward, because I know that parking is a particular issue there, and people have been waiting a long time for a scheme. We developed the process because what existed previously did not meet the needs of communities, so, hopefully, the various schemes will help create broader benefits right across the North.

On the scheme for the Iveagh area, the proposals for the residents' parking zone are being finalised to enable officials to carry out a formal consultation. Any further progress made on that will be subject to the satisfactory completion of the legislative process.

Mr Harvey: I welcome the Minister's statement. Minister, what comparisons were made with other jurisdictions? I know that you mentioned that areas will have to reapply, but I just mean in general. Is the scheme open to all areas, all towns and all cities?

Ms Kimmins: We looked across all jurisdictions to see what has and has not worked well and at our experience of the previous process. We very much took the view that the process should be based on good practice in areas where we have seen such schemes run smoothly. One of the developments as part of that work is that the schemes will be designed very much from the Department's perspective, because one of the challenges in the past was that the design went back and forth between residents and kept changing, and we then did not make any progress, because it was very difficult to agree on something that suited everyone. The support will absolutely be community-led, but the Department will design the schemes to ensure a more efficient and effective process.

Mr Allen: I also welcome the scheme. In my time as an MLA, I have been contacted by many residents about nuisance parking. I will build on the question from my colleague to my right about enforcement. What assessment has the Department conducted of current enforcement capacity, and what additional enforcement will be required as more schemes come online?

Ms Kimmins: That will very much depend on the demand for schemes. As I said earlier, it is a resource-intensive process. There are various stages: application, assessment and implementation. As we go through the process, we will be able to work out exactly what enforcement capacity we will need. In areas in which a number of schemes will be in place, staff will not be required to be in one location for 24 hours a day or anything like that, but we will be able to manage our resources to meet the need. We are at the earlier stages, but, as we go through the process and once the application window closes, we will have a better sense of what is required and what resources we will need to deliver the schemes.

Miss Hargey: I thank the Minister. This will be welcome news to many of the inner-city communities in my South Belfast constituency, including the one in which I live. I also welcome the fact that the Department will consider streets in and around the Ulster University campus. Will you outline which streets will be considered?

Ms Kimmins: The Department is committed to giving consideration to a residents' parking scheme to address the emerging pressures that are faced around the Ulster University campus area in Belfast. As part of that, officials will undertake feasibility work for the potential of the scheme in Lancaster Street, Thomas Street, McGurks Way, Portland Place and part of Great Georges Street. Any further progress will be subject to satisfactory completion of the same legislative process that I outlined in relation to Iveagh.

Mr K Buchanan: I thank the Minister for her statement. My question goes a bit broader than residential parking. As you will know, a trial is under way for electric charging leads going across footpaths etc. How will that trial and this policy tie in together to prevent issues in the future, bearing in mind that people will need to park outside their house if they are going to charge their car? What thought has been put into that to tie the two schemes together?

Ms Kimmins: This is a scheme that seeks to ensure that people are able to park closer to their homes. I hope that it will benefit anywhere where there is a problem with people from outside the area nuisance parking, or preventing someone who needs cross-pavement access for charging from doing so. These schemes will operate within restricted hours. They will look at the peak times for particular problems with commuters, or whomever it may be, parking in residential areas and impacting on residents. I hope that that will be a natural mitigation for people who require cross-pavement charging.

Ms Bradshaw: Thank you, Minister, for the statement. No doubt, many residents in south Belfast will be delighted to see the scheme opening, especially in the Ormeau Road area, where they are concerned about the impact that the Glider will have on parking, and Stranmillis. Minister, you will be aware that the consultation for a scheme in the lower Lisburn Road area — the Eglantine area — failed because it was blocked by local businesses. How will their voices feature in the community-support issue?

Ms Kimmins: We have looked at a threshold of 50% plus one to ensure that minority voices are heard and recognised. The example that you have given is one of the issues that has arisen in the past. I hope that we can address that to ensure that local residents in the area can get a solution that will benefit them more widely. As I said earlier, we will be looking at the process continually to see if there are ways in which it can be strengthened. Matthew O'Toole gave the example of short-term lets, and we will be looking at things like that. Hopefully, as we go through the process and get the applications in, we will get a better sense of whether more work is required in relation to unique issues.

Mr McNulty: I thank the Minister for her statement. Minister, in our great constituency of Newry and Armagh, I highlight the residents of Boat Street, Newry; Derrybeg and Gantry Lane, near Newry train station; Green Road, Bessbrook; Monaghan Row, Newry; Windmill Avenue, Armagh; Castle Street, Armagh; and Edward Street, Armagh. They are at their wits' end trying to find parking outside their homes. Progress on a pathway for the introduction of a residents' parking scheme is welcome, but, as you have outlined, the process of assessing decisions, carrying out consultations and implementing the schemes is time- and resource-intensive. When can residents expect the introduction of these schemes?

Ms Kimmins: To address your earlier points, the idea of developing the process is to ensure that we find solutions for residents who have been particularly impacted by nuisance parking and an inability to park close to their homes. I am, obviously, familiar with many of the areas that you mentioned.

As I said, the application process is due to open next month, so I encourage anybody who has an issue to look at the information that will go live on the website today so that they can get up to speed with what is required and what the criteria are and can prepare themselves for the application process. The timeline for implementation will very much depend on the level of demand. A number of stages have to be completed to get approval, and every area will be treated in that way when going through the process. It is important that, during this lead-in time, people get as much information as possible, prepare the required evidence and then get their applications in at the earliest possible stage. We will certainly endeavour to process applications in the timeliest manner possible.

Mr Delargy: I thank the Minister for her answers so far and for meeting me recently to discuss these schemes. Councillor Grace Uí Niallais and I have been working with local residents in Derry, particularly on the Magee scheme and in relation to areas surrounding the Magee campus, which will expand over the coming years. I welcome the Minister's commitment to that area, and it is very welcome that the statement outlines that that scheme will not change based on the new proposals because it is already in situ, or at least in progress. Will the Minister give an update on the timeline for that? How does she think that it will roll out over the next weeks and months?

Ms Kimmins: As the Member may be aware, my officials regularly attend the university community engagement forum to discuss a residents' parking zone for the Magee area. We have held a number of events dedicated to that. Based on the feedback that has been obtained through those engagements, including with residents' groups who have engaged directly with households, an updated proposal was shared with the engagement forum. Following the most recent meeting of the forum, officials are now undertaking the agreed amendments to the proposal ahead of further planned engagement events. That will hopefully ensure that progress continues and that we see implementation in the not-so-distant future.

Ms Egan: Thank you, Minister. Residents in my constituency of North Down who live near beauty spots, beaches and visitor attractions often have access to their properties impeded or have access for emergency service vehicles blocked. When you are considering the roll-out of residents' parking schemes, will you take such circumstances into consideration?

Ms Kimmins: Absolutely. The criteria very clearly lay out what will constitute nuisance parking. There are variations of that for different circumstances. For example, during the week, there is a lower threshold, but, at weekends, the issues are more likely to be in line with what the Member describes because there may be more tourists, for example. All those things will be taken into consideration. As I said, the information will be online from today, and that, hopefully, will set out very clearly for people who have unique circumstances where exactly they will fit into the process.

Mrs Guy: I thank the Minister for her really welcome statement. My constituency office in Moira often gets complaints from residents about access to their homes competing with access to businesses. Equally, we get the same concerns raised by parents who are doing school drop-offs and pickups. How will the scheme balance those competing priorities? What is the lead-in time for new schemes to come online?

Ms Kimmins: School pickup times are probably not the same as the issue that we are talking about. We are thinking of a more sustained situation that lasts a number of hours. I think that the minimum is about five hours, but I will get clarification on how long someone can park outside a property. It is very much targeted at the areas of highest need where there is long-term parking by people who are not from the area that is directly impeding local residents. However, if there are specific areas where that is a long-term issue, we can take that into consideration. As I said, once the information goes live, it will, hopefully, be clearer as to what exactly is included and whether the examples that the Member is aware of meet the threshold. It is mainly targeted at commuters or others who park outside homes and affecting residents' access in a sustained way that is causing serious issues, not just for residents' own access but access for emergency services and other services that need to access properties throughout the day.

Mr Gaston: Minister, in a previous answer, you stated that the metric that is used is 1·2 parking spaces per property where sufficient residential parking does not exist and where DFI owns green space. Will investment finally be made in local section offices to alleviate the parking problems faced by residents across many of our towns and villages? If it is not included in this scheme — I do not think that it is — what are your plans to address that issue?

Ms Kimmins: As you will be aware, the Department is working on transport plans for all the council areas across the North. There is the eastern transport plan, which takes into consideration a number of council areas. Outside of that, individual council areas will work on that. That is a prime opportunity for areas to have input and identify where there are significant issues, of which parking is one, while enhancing public transport access, active travel routes and all those things to ensure that we offer many different modes of transport and keep our towns and cities moving.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Thank you very much indeed, ladies and gentlemen. That concludes questions on the statement.

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

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): The Business Committee has agreed that there should be no time limit on the debate. I call on the Minister to open the debate on the motion.

Mr Muir: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I am grateful for the opportunity to bring the motion to the House. I do not propose to cover in detail the background and operation of the UK emissions trading scheme (ETS). However, I am happy to address any clarification questions that Members may have.

Members and, in particular, members of the Committee for Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs have engaged positively with my Department on the emissions trading scheme. There is good understanding across the Chamber of the importance of the UK-wide decarbonisation scheme to our Northern Ireland and wider UK climate targets. The proposals contained in the Order have been subject to extensive local and UK-wide stakeholder engagement dating back to 2022, when they were first proposed, through a wide-ranging consultation on developing the UK ETS and, more recently, a consultation specifically on expanding the scope of the UK ETS to include emissions from domestic maritime voyages.

The domestic maritime sector is a major source of greenhouse gas emissions. We are conscious of the need to address that. It is envisaged that including domestic maritime emissions within the scope of the UK ETS will help overcome a key barrier in the decarbonisation of the sector, which is that the current prices of maritime fuels do not reflect their environmental costs. Its inclusion in the scheme will strengthen the incentives to adopt low-carbon fuels and support the deployment of fuel-efficient technologies and practices. The policy is expected to deliver a UK-wide net emissions reduction of approximately 645,000 tons of carbon dioxide equivalent over the next 20 years. That reduction will have associated air quality benefits.

Alongside my counterparts in England, Scotland and Wales, I agreed to the content and subsequent publication in July 2025 of an initial interim response to the consultation to allow maritime operators and regulators time to prepare for the requirements of the scheme. In November 2025, I agreed to the content and publication of the main response, which outlined the remaining provisions to be included in the draft Order. Executive colleagues and Committee for Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs colleagues have been kept fully informed throughout the process.

The Greenhouse Gas Emissions Trading Scheme (Amendment) (Extension to Maritime Activities) Order 2026 was laid under the draft affirmative resolution procedure before both Houses of Parliament, the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Senedd and the Northern Ireland Assembly on 13 January 2026 under the UK Climate Change Act 2008, which requires that the Order be laid in draft and debated in each legislature where it is to have effect. So far, the Order has been debated and approved in the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Senedd and the House of Commons. If it is approved, the Order will extend the scope of the UK ETS to domestic maritime emissions.

I will now outline the main provisions of the draft Order. It defines domestic journeys as voyages travelling from one UK port to another, as well as voyages that start and end at the same UK port. It also includes emissions within a voyage, including while at anchor and while moored. It will also include all import emissions comprised of emissions at berth in UK ports and emissions from movements in UK ports from ships travelling domestically, internationally or both. The threshold for inclusion in the scheme will be vessels of 5,000 gross tons and above. The same threshold is already used for existing monitoring, reporting and verification regimes in the UK and internationally. The majority of ships of that size are already equipped for collecting and reporting emissions data, which should facilitate a smoother transition for operators. Small local ferries, such as the Rathlin Island ferry and the Strangford lough ferry, will not fall into the scope, as they are well below that threshold, contrary to previous comment around this. Emissions of methane and nitrous oxide, as well as carbon dioxide, will be included within scope. The same regulatory regime will apply to the maritime sector as applies to the rest of the UK ETS, including the definition of scheme year and reporting and surrender deadlines.

The draft Order sets out that the obligation to comply with UK ETS should be applied to the registered owner of the vessel, except where the responsibility has been delegated by a legally binding agreement. Significantly, I have secured, as an interim measure, a 50% partial exemption from UK ETS obligations for emissions from routes between Northern Ireland and GB. That will ensure parity with routes between the Republic of Ireland and GB, which are already subject to 50% emissions coverage under EU ETS, and it has been welcomed by stakeholders. It should also help to mitigate any potential cost impacts on consumers in Northern Ireland. The future inclusion of international maritime emissions in UK ETS, as referenced in the common understanding from the UK-EU summit on 19 May and on which a UK-wide consultation has recently concluded, will subsequently ensure parity in the Irish Sea and remove the need for the partial exemption.

A full impact assessment has been undertaken alongside the draft Order, and further analysis, at my Department's request, was conducted by the authority looking specifically at the potential impacts on Northern Ireland across cruise ships, passengers and cargo. The analysis indicated that the impact on Northern Ireland consumers is expected to be minor. The findings from the analysis are supported by emerging data from the EU, which has included maritime emissions within scope since 2024. The inclusion of offshore vessels in the UK ETS will be delayed until January 2027, which aligns with the position for offshore vessels in the EU, helping to avoid the risk of gaming created by any policy divergence or misalignment.

An exemption will be provided for ferries serving Scottish islands and peninsulas due to the legal duties imposed by the Islands (Scotland) Act 2018 on the Scottish Government to consider the vulnerability of small island populations and their reliance on the mainland for lifeline services such as emergency healthcare and education. An exemption is also provided for vessels in the fishing sector, which mirrors the EU position and will ensure that Northern Ireland fishing vessels will not be disadvantaged against those operating out of Irish ports. Government non-commercial maritime activity is fully exempted from UK ETS. Exemptions will be reviewed as part of the review in 2028, which will look at wider socio-economic impacts of the expansion and the ability of various sectors to decarbonise. The allowance cap will be increased in line with predicted emissions for the maritime sector for the remainder of phase 1 of UK ETS. That will ensure that an undue burden will not fall on existing scheme participants while maintaining a net zero trajectory.

As announced at the UK-EU summit on 19 May 2025, the UK and the EU have agreed to work towards linking the UK ETS and EU ETS, the parameters of which are set out in the common understanding text agreed following the summit. That understanding stipulates that the maritime sector, among others, should be in the scope of a linking agreement. Linking should create the conditions to facilitate mutual exemptions from the EU and proposed UK carbon border adjustment mechanisms (CBAMs).

I believe that the extension is necessary to incentivise decarbonisation of the maritime sector. The UK emissions trading scheme's inclusion of the maritime sector has been consulted on extensively and clearly signposted over a number of years. Its introduction is both well trailed and entirely expected by stakeholders and those impacted. Over 200 operators have already registered their details with regulators.

In addition to the immediate changes that maritime participants can make in relation to their operating practice, decarbonisation efforts will be supported by £448 million of funding that will be made available by the UK Government through the UK shipping office for reducing emissions (SHORE) project. I have secured agreement from the UK Government's Department for Transport to ensure that a Northern Ireland-specific event is held that will drive local engagement on the recently announced additional £271 million boost to shipping and coastal communities. I will continue to work with the UK Government to support the Northern Ireland maritime sector to secure good outcomes from that opportunity.

I am pleased to note the strides that have been made by the industry in decarbonising the maritime sector, such as the introduction of multi-hybrid vessels and proposals to develop shore power. I am encouraged that such innovative advancements are indicative of the sector's commitment and capacity to continue to progress maritime decarbonisation. I am also working closely with the Finance Minister and our respective officials to explore potential fiscal opportunities for Northern Ireland as a result of our participation in emissions trading schemes. Accordingly, I commend the draft Order to the House.

Mr Butler (The Chairperson of the Committee for Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs): I rise on behalf of the AERA Committee to represent its scrutiny of and decision on the draft Greenhouse Gas Emissions Trading Scheme (Amendment) (Extension to Maritime Activities) Order 2026. The Committee's scrutiny has been very thorough, over a total of four meetings. I will not be able to do that work full justice today, but other Committee members will add to what I say now.

Our scrutiny began at the Committee's meeting on 15 January 2026, when we considered a notice from DAERA on the laying of the draft SI, together with the proposed amendments to the Greenhouse Gas Emissions Trading Scheme Order 2020, providing for the expansion of the scope of the UK ETS to include the domestic maritime sector. Minister Muir had given consent for the draft SI to be laid under the draft affirmative resolution procedure as an Order in Council before the Assembly. The draft Order has been approved by the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Senedd and the House of Commons, and we know that the House of Lords will be asked to approve it on 12 March.

Members noted the history of the SI from March 2022, when the UK ETS Authority consulted on amendments to increase the decarbonisation potential of the ETS, including expanding it to the domestic maritime sector. In July 2023, the authority confirmed its intention to proceed, and it consulted on detailed proposals between 28 November 2024 and 23 January 2025, after which it published an interim and main response. Officials were then scheduled to brief us at our meeting on 19 February. However, prior to that date, we received correspondence from Stena Line, highlighting its concerns about impacts for NI businesses and, in particular, the agri-food industry, given its reliance on NI to GB ferry routes.

On 19 February, the Committee held an oral evidence session with DAERA officials, when we heard that the intention to include domestic maritime activities in the UK ETS was to help overcome barriers to decarbonising the sector and strengthen the incentive to adopt low-carbon fuels, fuel-efficient technologies and, indeed, operating practices. Committee members noted that an interim 50% partial exemption from UK ETS obligations will be introduced for routes between Northern Ireland and GB. The future inclusion of international maritime emissions will, thereafter, ensure parity in the Irish Sea and remove the need for a partial exemption. At that point, officials also advised us that certain sectors will be exempted, including vessels in the fishing sector, in order to ensure that NI fishing vessels will not be disadvantaged over those that operate out of Irish ports.

The Committee raised industry concerns that the policy risked acting as a tax on activity, which, in turn, would be passed on to consumers. Officials responded that, based on the available evidence of a low increase in charges, that was the expectation. The stated intent of the policy is to make it more cost-effective for businesses to decarbonise. However, the officials conceded that, as some of the alternatives for decarbonisation are limited in availability at the moment, it might be considered by some to be a tax.

The Committee agreed to invite Stena Line and the UK Chamber of Shipping, which had also contacted us, to give evidence on 5 March. In written correspondence dated 26 February, DAERA advised the Committee that the inclusion of maritime emissions in the UK ETS is essential for linking the scheme with the EU scheme. It also highlighted that the linkage of schemes will remove a barrier to trade and will lower costs for UK exports of goods that are within the scope of the UK CBAM, which are estimated to be worth in the region of £7 billion.

At our meeting on 5 March, the Committee took evidence from Stena Line and the UK Chamber of Shipping. The Committee heard that the shipping industry supports decarbonisation and has invested heavily in new technologies but that the Order would damage Northern Ireland transport businesses in particular. In the words of the representatives, it would guarantee ETS costs for Northern Ireland from 1 July 2026, with no guarantee that either EU or UK CBAM burdens will be avoided in 2027. The Committee heard further industry concerns that included no examination of NI-specific economic impacts and estimates of passenger fare rises of up to 15% and fuel rises of up to 30%, which will damage competitiveness, with the 50% reduction viewed as being insufficient. They also highlighted a lack of access to the technologies needed to cut emissions, such as shore power, and said that biofuel is four times more expensive than the fuel that is used currently. The shipping industry called for a 12-month delay in implementation and for a three-year phased introduction, and representatives said that Northern Ireland should be given an exemption similar to that for the Scottish islands.

At our meeting on 5 March, the Minister briefed us on the DAERA corporate plan for 2025-27, and we took the opportunity to raise the issue of the ETS with him. He stated that the Order is essential for linking the EU ETS and the UK ETS, which will limit the impacts of CBAM and bring substantial cost benefits to Northern Ireland businesses. The Committee agreed to take more time to consider the evidence, and we met DAERA officials yesterday. Procedurally, we did feel under pressure, as, although we have had a considerable amount of evidence to look at and work through, the draft SI did come to us rather late. That was not the fault of the Minister or the Department. We are also aware that the Sewel convention does not apply in this case and that, if it is not agreed by the Assembly, the draft SI will not be made in any other UK jurisdiction.

Officials highlighted several matters, including the importance of the negotiations on the linkage of the UK ETS and the EU ETS, which is dependent on the inclusion of the domestic maritime sector. They also cited the economic impact from CBAM that will potentially arise from the failure to achieve that linkage. They also noted that securing the 50% partial exemption for NI-GB routes was a significant concession achieved during the Minister's negotiations with the UK ETS Authority and said that, if ferry services to Rathlin Island or the Strangford ferry were brought within the scope of the Order, DAERA would seek exemptions at that time for what are termed lifeline services.

Members raised a number of issues, including that the UK ETS may operate as a carbon tax. Officials responded that, although the revenue generated will not be used to incentivise decarbonisation, other funding is available, such as funding from the Department for Transport's SHORE programme, from which over £200 million has already invested in order to address maritime emissions. On the point about a delayed or phased introduction, officials responded that no discussions with the UK ETS Authority had taken place and that DAERA had not been aware of such concerns from the shipping industry until very recently.

Before I make a few brief points as the Ulster Unionist Party spokesperson, I will conclude my remarks as Chairperson of the Committee. The Question was put to the Committee for Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs that it had considered the draft Greenhouse Gas Emissions Trading Scheme (Amendment) (Extension to Maritime Activities) Order 2026 and that it was content to support the SI as drafted. The Committee divided, and there were five votes in favour and four against. The Ayes were Declan McAleer, John Blair, Aoife Finnegan, Áine Murphy and Daniel McCrossan, while the Noes were Robbie Butler, Tom Buchanan, Michelle McIlveen and Gareth Wilson. In conclusion, I hope that Committee members feel that I have covered the extent of our scrutiny. The majority of the Committee therefore agreed to recommend that the draft Greenhouse Gas Emissions Trading Scheme (Amendment) (Extension to Maritime Activities) Order 2026 be approved by the Assembly.

I will take a few moments to make a few remarks in my capacity as my party's spokesperson on such matters. The Ulster Unionist Party strongly opposes the proposed extension of the emissions trading scheme to domestic maritime activities. We do so because Northern Ireland relies more heavily on maritime connectivity than any other region across the UK does. Around 90% of trade and passenger movements take place on our ferries and shipping routes. Those are not optional links. Rather, they are essential as an economic lifeline, yet the draft Order has failed to assess properly the unique impact and circumstances that the policy will have on communities in Northern Ireland. There is a glaring absence of Northern Ireland-specific data outlining the financial consequences for our businesses and the knock-on effect for our consumers. Even more concerning is the uncertainty around the carbon border adjustment mechanism exemption. Once again, we are being asked to accept vague assurances from a Government whilst the real economic risks remain unquantified: that is fact.

Let us be clear about what the measure represents: in practice, it is a carbon tax. Revenue raised through the scheme will not be reinvested in Northern Ireland, directly into decarbonising our maritime sector or supporting operators to transition to cleaner technologies. If that link had been absolute and indisputable, there would have been agreement, but, unfortunately, it is not there. We should have learned by now the consequences of excluding Northern Ireland's voice from critical negotiations between London and Brussels. Instead, this proposal risks placing further pressure on our businesses, supply chains, economy and consumers, many of whom are already grappling with the lasting effects of a Brexit settlement that fractured our internal market. For those reasons, the Ulster Unionist Party will not be supporting the SI.

Ms Finnegan: I welcome the opportunity to speak on the motion to extend the emissions trading scheme to maritime activities.

Climate change remains one of the defining challenges of our time. The scientific evidence is clear, and the consequences of inaction are increasingly visible in extreme weather events, the pressures on the natural environment and the growing risks faced by future generations. Shipping, like all sectors of our economy, must play its part in reducing carbon emissions. Extending the emissions trading scheme to maritime transport is, therefore, an important step in supporting carbon reduction across the sector and ensuring that responsibility for tackling emissions is shared fairly.

While we support the principle behind the measure, it is essential that climate action and carbon reduction are delivered in a way that is fair, balanced and workable for the industry. That means applying the principles of just transition. In preparing for such measures, it is important that we listen carefully to those who will be affected most directly, including the ferry industry, manufacturers and other industries that rely on cargo being shipped as part of their business. With that in mind, there is an onus on the AERA Minister and the British Government to work with the industry as the changes come into effect and, where possible, consider whether mitigations could assist implementation. I am glad to see that some mitigations have already been factored in through the measures for goods imported across the Irish Sea.

While the challenges facing businesses as part of the changes remain, doing nothing is simply not an option. Failure to implement the ETS would result in the costs being incurred through the carbon border adjustment mechanism. Whilst some in the House would like to bury their heads in the sand in respect of climate change, Sinn Féin continues to show leadership, and that is why we will support the implementation of the ETS, as we have supported other schemes in the past. We will continue to engage constructively and ensure that climate action is based on just transition so that workers, families and businesses can be supported to reduce their climate emissions in order to help us to meet our targets.

Miss McIlveen: There is much talk in the media and other places, including from Members, about the lack of legislation coming through the Chamber. No focus is placed on or thought given to the hours of scrutiny in Committees weekly, and in particular to the importance of statutory instruments. Delegated legislation that brings the provisions of Acts into force, and that creates detailed laws and orders, essentially puts flesh on the bones of primary legislation. This is the devil in the detail — the legislation that changes citizens' lives.

Scrutiny of SIs, or the lack thereof, has been a bugbear of mine. Until this year, there was no mechanism for Committees to formally seek views outside what was presented by the relevant Departments.

Having that ability in relation to this Order has been enlightening. As the Chair has outlined, having heard from the Department on 19 February, when all parties bar Alliance raised concerns, we agreed to hear from Stena and the UK Chamber of Shipping. Last Thursday, we heard an incredibly detailed and considered presentation from both organisations. So convincing were their arguments that the United Kingdom Government (UKG) clearly believed that the Committee was going to oppose the Order.

What happened was, frankly, disgraceful. Last-minute pressure was placed on parties by UKG. A new dimension associated with CBAM and impact on EU negotiations was introduced. No facts, detail or proper briefing, just smoke and mirrors. That is not the way that we should do our politics, and interference at such a late stage is highly suspicious. What is interesting about all this is the fact that Sinn Féin and the SDLP folded under a threat from the British Government.

Setting the process aside, let us look at the proposed extension of the UK emissions trading scheme to maritime transport and the significant concerns that it raises for Northern Ireland. It is clear from our discussions that the maritime sector supports decarbonisation and is already investing heavily in cleaner vessels and technologies. It is a sector that works on small margins, so managing time and fuel is essential. However, in its current form, the proposal risks imposing additional costs on trade between Northern Ireland and Great Britain without delivering meaningful emission reductions. Given Northern Ireland's structural reliance on maritime transport, the policy will disproportionately affect local businesses and households.

Mr Butler: I thank the Member for giving way. She raises the spectre of the impact on businesses. Does she agree that there was absolutely no quantification of a reduction in carbon through discharge?

Miss McIlveen: I agree with the Member's comments, and that was clear in our considerations.

At a time when cost-of-living pressures remain severe, it is reasonable for us to ask whether the proposal is properly designed, adequately evidenced or sufficiently adapted to Northern Ireland's circumstances. In practical terms, the scheme risks functioning less as a decarbonisation mechanism and more as a tax on trade across the Irish Sea.

Why does this matter so much to Northern Ireland? It matters because Northern Ireland is uniquely dependent on maritime connectivity. As the Chair said, around 90% of goods entering or leaving Northern Ireland move by sea. For many businesses trading with Great Britain, ferry services are not just one option among several; they are the only route to market.

Mr Buckley: I thank the Member for giving way. She makes a valid point. It is interesting that Sinn Féin seems to have bent the knee to UK Government pressure in this regard. Does she agree that the potential 6% increase in haulier costs to Northern Ireland from GB places additional pressure on a sector that has already been hammered by arrangements that were supported by Alliance, the SDLP and Sinn Féin?

Miss McIlveen: I thank the Member for his intervention.

Those routes underpin agri-food exports and chilled supply chains; manufacturing inputs and just-in-time logistics; supermarket and retail distribution; construction supply chains; and tourism and passenger connectivity. As a result, any increase in maritime operating costs flows directly through the entire Northern Ireland economy. Initial estimates suggest that ETS compliance could increase freight costs by around £15 per trailer, equivalent to roughly a 6% increase in average freight costs. Those costs will not simply remain with shipping operators. They will ultimately be passed on via higher export costs for Northern Ireland businesses, including our haulage firms, increased supply chain costs and higher prices for consumers. DAERA has downplayed those costs. However, the MLAs who are concerned about household budgets — we hear daily about food prices and economic competitiveness — should be concerned about freight costs too. We hear calls from the parties opposite for intervention on the soaring price of fuel at the pumps and the rocketing cost of home heating oil. The Treasury Minister is meeting MPs to explore further action about the unique challenges facing households that use heating oil, but what about the unique circumstances facing Northern Ireland in respect of the Order? In this instance, it seems to be perfectly acceptable to add a further tax from July this year to our customers.

The question is whether the specific policy will drive decarbonisation or simply add costs without enabling change. At present, alternative fuels remain extremely limited and cost up to four times more than conventional maritime fuel, and shoreside electricity infrastructure is largely unavailable across UK ports. This will require considerable investment. Yet, despite the additional revenue being proposed, there is no guaranteed mechanism to reinvest ETS revenues into maritime transition infrastructure. Without those enabling measures, the policy risks raising costs without reducing emissions. As Daniel McCrossan noted during the Committee's discussion on Thursday, it risks putting the cart before the horse.

On a specific economic impact assessment to look at the GB-NI route, DAERA officials have suggested that the impact on Northern Ireland has already been assessed. However, the available evidence raises significant questions. The Frontier Economics study that is often cited was commissioned in 2023 by Whitehall Departments, not DAERA, and does not take into account many of the current market developments. It mentions Northern Ireland only six times and provides no quantified estimates of the impacts on Northern Ireland's consumers or businesses. It also uses examples such as cruise shipping rather than analysing the full implications for NI-GB freight routes. While the UK Government's analysis acknowledges that Northern Ireland is more exposed to cost transmission through maritime freight, it does not quantify the real economic consequences for Northern Ireland households or businesses. That raises a reasonable question: why has no dedicated Northern Ireland economic impact assessment been commissioned for a policy with such obvious regional implications?

Officials have also suggested that, if Northern Ireland does not adopt the ETS maritime extension, the costs arising from the CBAM could be higher, but there are problems with that argument. First, CBAM is not contained in the statutory instrument and does not apply directly to shipping; secondly, there is clearly no quantified estimate of CBAM costs for Northern Ireland; thirdly, Northern Ireland operates in a complex regulatory environment; and finally, if ETS-CBAM alignment becomes relevant in the future, that does not mean that the current policy design is correct. What evidence supports the claim that CBAM costs would exceed ETS costs? What modelling has been undertaken specifically for Northern Ireland? What would UK CBAM costs be in any scenario? Without transparent evidence, the CBAM argument remains an assertion rather than a demonstrated fact.

We now turn to the Scottish exemption. The UK Government have already recognised that some maritime routes face disproportionate impacts. That is why the Scottish island communities have rightly received exemptions. No wonder Scotland voted for this: it is protected through those exemptions. Their existence demonstrates that flexibility is possible within the policy framework. It is not unreasonable to ask why a similar case was not advanced for Northern Ireland, given its complete reliance on maritime transport. Northern Ireland's circumstances, I argue, make it even more structurally dependent on ferry connectivity than many places served by Scottish routes. The Minister referenced the fact that other regions have supported this, but we know that Scotland has an exemption, that Wales has no domestic ferries and that Labour has a majority in the Commons. Why would they object?

We are aware that this is under review by the EU, as member states already affected are unhappy. We are also aware that the rules of the game will be changed again when the Order is reviewed in 2028. At that point, the tonnage is likely to be changed to incorporate ferries over 400 tons, which will include one of the Strangford ferries. What will that mean for DFI and for the passengers who use it daily? What other changes will come about as a result of the impending review?

Despite the uncertainty surrounding the proposal, we have limited options under Assembly procedure. A statutory instrument cannot be amended; Members can either approve it or reject it. However, given that serious concerns remain about economic impact, policy design, evidence gaps and regional fairness, there is a strong argument that the Assembly should ask Westminster to reconsider the proposal. It is my understanding that Ministers in Westminster are openly discussing a new statutory instrument that would address our concerns. Stena and the UK Chamber of Shipping have asked for reasonable adjustments: a 12-month delay to allow them to prepare; a Northern Ireland-specific economic assessment; a phased introduction period; and the targeting of ETS revenues towards maritime decarbonisation.

If we are unhappy with the lack of an exemption for Northern Ireland that is similar to that for Scotland, if there are concerns about the economic impact on Northern Ireland consumers, if we are unclear about the CBAM argument, if there are clear competitiveness concerns and if there is no clear decarbonisation pathway in place, is it responsible to proceed? Is it more prudent to ask Westminster to come back with a revised proposal that properly reflects Northern Ireland's economic realities and amends the legislation to take account of our reasonable concerns? If the answer to all of that is yes, that should be reflected in how we vote today. There is no reason why the legislation cannot be amended so that Northern Ireland is treated in exactly the same way as Scotland; it just requires the will of the Assembly.

Mr Blair: I welcome the opportunity to speak on the draft Order, which aims to decarbonise the maritime sector. I thank the AERA Minister for presenting the Order and for his ongoing and significant engagement with the UK Government. I appreciate the support provided by departmental officials to the AERA Committee, and I thank the stakeholders who shared their views with the Committee.

Ultimately, Alliance views the Order as a significant declaration of intent by the United Kingdom domestically and internationally. It shows a strong commitment to climate action in a sector that has traditionally been more difficult to regulate and decarbonise. Emissions trading schemes such as the one being discussed today are a proven tool in driving down carbon emissions. By placing a cost on emissions within a cap-and-trade model, they create a long-term price signal that incentivises sectors to innovate, invest and cut their carbon footprint.

In simple terms, the more that you pollute, the more that you pay, and the more that you will save by cutting emissions. We must embed that logic across our economy if we are serious about meeting climate targets, which, I remind Members, are legally binding.

Mr Butler: Will the Member give way?

Mr Blair: I will give way briefly, but I am keen to make progress.

Mr Butler: I think that the Member and I are on the same page in that regard, but does he not accept that, given the failure to be able to provide power to ships at the dockside and that biomethane is four times as expensive, this is not an incentive to decarbonise, which is what everybody wants; it is simply a carbon tax?

Mr Blair: I will come shortly to levies and investment in the sector, which, as I am sure that the Chair will admit, were not represented in his report.

It should be noted that some ferry operators already include an environmental fee in fare charges. There is no doubt that that will have helped already in decarbonisation efforts. The principle is not new. I am intrigued as to why the report from the Chair, and, therefore, the Committee, did not reflect any of that. I will be blunt: two of the three shades of the TUV have spoken already and have chosen to ignore that, just as they chose to ignore CBI opinion, which was also offered to the Committee.

Since Brexit, the UK and the EU have operated separate emissions trading schemes. However, the decision last year by the EU and UK to begin negotiations to link the schemes is very positive. That has long been called for by Alliance, very specifically in our recent 'Stronger Together' document. From an environmental perspective, linked systems can reduce carbon leakage, stabilise carbon prices and create clearer incentives for decarbonisation across these islands and throughout Europe. The inclusion of maritime emissions in the UK ETS is essential for linking the UK and EU schemes. That linkage will also facilitate an exemption from the EU carbon border adjustment mechanism — as was pointed out, there is more detail on that to come — removing a major barrier to trade and lowering costs for UK businesses.

If the instrument does not pass at the Assembly today, it will fall everywhere. The Order in Council cannot be made without the agreement of all the UK Administrations. Therefore, this is not only a local environmental measure; it is a decision with clear UK-wide implications. In real terms, that has consequences. It also affects parity on the Irish Sea. If we fail to pass the Order, there is a real risk of businesses rerouting via the Republic of Ireland to avoid additional costs in the future, which would undermine our economy and our environmental goals by shifting, rather than reducing, emissions.

Mr Buckley: Will the Member give way?

Mr Blair: Not at this stage, no.

Therefore, the Order helps to protect Northern Ireland from the economic impacts of divergent ETS regimes between the UK and the EU while embedding the principle that maritime emissions must be accounted for and reduced. Such initiatives are vital if the UK is to meet its climate commitments. They safeguard our natural resources and ecosystems while strengthening our economy, creating opportunities for growth and innovation, and keeping us in line with other leading economies.

Alliance supports the direction represented by the Order and will continue to work for a future in which Northern Ireland is at the forefront of climate action and green innovation, not playing catch-up.

Mr Honeyford: When people hear the phrase "emissions trading scheme", most will switch off. It sounds really technical and not related to everyday life, but such decisions are not abstract; they are about our economy and our trade. Ultimately, they are about opportunities and costs facing people and businesses here in Northern Ireland. Ultimately, the emissions trading scheme is a market tool. It places cost on pollution and allows businesses to innovate and compete to reduce emissions. Those who invest in cleaner technology benefit, and those who do not face increased costs. Over time, that creates incentives for innovation, efficiency and investment in new technologies.

For us, however, the most important issue in the debate is not the climate policy, although that is vital. Rather, it is how such decisions affect our economy and our unique trading position. Northern Ireland sits in a distinctive place, between two major markets. We have access to the UK internal market and to the EU single market. That dual market access gives us a real economic advantage. At the minute, it is growing our economy at more than twice the rate of that of the rest of the UK. That creates opportunities and generates investment. It supports trade and grows better jobs and opportunities for the people who are listening to the debate. It also means, however, that we must think carefully about how regulatory systems interact across those two markets. When systems diverge, there is a risk of businesses facing unnecessary complexity or of trade routes starting to shift in ways that disadvantage us. That is why the provisions, which relate to maritime emissions, are really important.

Maritime emissions have been within the scope of the EU emissions trading system since 2024. The system covers 100% of emissions generated from voyages between EU ports and 50% of emissions generated from voyages that start or end in the EU. Applying a 50% reduction to the UK ETS surrender obligations on voyages between Northern Ireland and GB, rather than requiring 100% surrender, will ensure fairness and parity with EU ETS carbon pricing across the Irish Sea and avoid the risk of competitive distortion locally. If that approach were not to be taken here, routes between Northern Ireland and GB could be faced with different carbon costs from routes between here and ports in the South. That would create an unintended distortion and encourage operators to reroute goods through Dublin port simply to avoid paying higher costs. That would not be good for Northern Ireland's ports, for its logistics sector or for the wider economy here. The approach that is taken in the draft Order avoids that risk. Applying the same 50% emissions coverage for Northern Ireland to GB routes will maintain parity across the Irish Sea and ensure that our ports are not placed at a competitive disadvantage. That is an important safeguard for a region where the economy depends so heavily on trade and connectivity. We live on an island and depend on shipping.

Mr Buckley: I thank the Member for giving way. At least he has the bravery to do so, unlike his colleague from South Antrim.

The Member said that the draft Order protects Northern Ireland hauliers and consumers, yet the evidence, including in representations from said hauliers, shows that it will damage their business model in Northern Ireland and add 6% to their costs. The Member for Strangford Miss McIlveen referred to the exemptions that the Scottish Government were able to secure for the Scottish islands. Is the Member aware of any such exemptions being sought by the Minister of Agriculture?

Mr Honeyford: Jonny, you know that I will always let you in. I hope that that will be reciprocated. I will proceed with my contribution, but I will cover what you asked in a second. This is about economics, divergence and everything else. We dealt in Committee with the issue that you raised, and I will answer you as I go on.

Carbon pricing is increasingly one of the rules of international trade. The European Union's carbon border adjustment mechanism will apply charges on imports from countries without comparable carbon pricing. That means that alignment between carbon-pricing systems can reduce barriers for exporters, thus making it easier for businesses to trade. For a trading region such as Northern Ireland, that really matters. Linking the EU ETS and the UK ETS would reduce friction for exporters, provide greater certainty for businesses and support stable trading relationships across these islands.

The debate should be about not just compliance but opportunity. The maritime sector is undergoing a major technological transformation as it moves to using cleaner fuels and having more efficient vessels. Shipping companies around the world are investing in hybrid vessels, in methanol engines and in hydrogen fuel. That gives us major research and development opportunities to grow new technologies and skills locally. Ports are investing in shore power so that ships can plug into electricity while they are docked, rather than having to run their engines.

Mr Butler: I thank the Member for giving way. His are the same points that his colleague from South Antrim made. We are not against decarbonisation, but the SI will not generate a cent or farthing for the Northern Ireland maritime contingent from decarbonisation. The fact that we will not be able to get shore power for probably the next 10 years means that this is simply a tax, unless the Member has something up his sleeve by which we will expedite getting onshore power and cheaper fuel so that the ships that are able to run on such fuels can do so.

Mr Honeyford: Robbie, honestly: if you mention the word "EU" and the word "Ireland" —

Mr Butler: Answer the question.

Mr Honeyford: — three parties simply go against it.

Mr Butler: Answer the question.

Mr Honeyford: We did not even need to read the thing —

Mr Butler: Answer the question.

Mr Honeyford: — to see where you were going. If we were to wait for —.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Gentlemen, stop barracking back and forth. My hearing is not quite up to it. I want to hear Mr Honeyford. Mr Butler, if you want to make another intervention, I have no doubt that Mr Honeyford will be very happy to take it.

Mr Honeyford: You are making my decision for me, Mr Deputy Speaker. [Laughter.]

Thank you for that.

If we wait for everything to be in place before we change anything, nothing will ever change. You have to move. If pushing people brings that change, so be it.

Belfast harbour has invested in shore power. We have seen investment in the harbour. It was recently announced that it will invest in a cruise and offshore wind terminal. Companies such as Stena are investing in hybrid vessels and new technologies to improve efficiencies. Those are exactly the kinds of innovations that will shape the future of maritime transport if we position ourselves well. In Northern Ireland, we have an engineering heritage. We have advanced manufacturing capabilities and a thriving industry. We have huge research and development capabilities and brilliant universities. We have strategic ports. We can play a major part in the transition.

Mr Muir: Will the Member give way?

Mr Honeyford: Yes. I am happy to.

Mr Muir: Does the Member agree that there are examples in Northern Ireland of the decarbonisation of maritime transport, one of which is Artemis Technologies? We have to be conscious of the fact that decarbonisation can and should be done.

Mr Honeyford: I thank the Minister for his intervention. That example is beside his constituency. Research and development is happening, as is investment. Jobs are reliant on that, and jobs are being created in those areas. There are so many opportunities for us in the maritime sector here.

Some Members may suggest that such policies somehow undermine our economy; I take a completely different view. The real risk to our economy is in ignoring the direction of global markets, burying our heads in the sand and pretending that nothing is changing and that we can control everybody else. That would leave Northern Ireland unprepared for the changes that are already under way. The real risk is pretending that the global economy is not already changing. The countries and regions that succeed will be those that adapt, innovate and position themselves for the industries of the future. For Northern Ireland, that means making practical decisions to protect our competitiveness, support our ports and ensure that our economy continues to benefit from trade and investment.

The Order helps to achieve that. It is not about choosing between the UK or the EU; it is about making sure that Northern Ireland's economy works in both markets and benefits from both. The Order protects Northern Ireland from unnecessary distortion across the Irish Sea, supports the competitiveness of our ports and positions our economy to take advantage of the transition that is taking place in maritime transport. Ultimately, the goal should always be the same: we bring forward practical policies that strengthen our economy, support jobs, create more jobs and build a more secure and prosperous future for everyone here and the people who call this place home.

Mr Gaston: On the face of it, Members may be tempted to see the Order as a routine environmental measure. I can already hear the green welly brigade chime, "One small step for mankind, one more technical step in the pursuit of decarbonisation". However, when one examines the detail of what the Order means and, more importantly, the consequences for Northern Ireland, it becomes clear that it is anything but routine.

The proposal risks imposing significant new costs on Northern Ireland businesses and consumers while delivering no environmental benefit. Worse still, it does so in a way that treats Northern Ireland differently from other parts of the United Kingdom. That is the sole reason that we see the nationalist and republican alliance once again coming together. Northern Ireland is uniquely exposed to measures of this kind. For many businesses that trade with Great Britain, maritime transport is not simply one logistical option amongst many; it is the only viable route to market.

Our supermarkets depend on it; our manufacturers depend on it; and our agri-food sector depends on it. The everyday functioning of our economy depends on reliable and affordable maritime links with Great Britain. Therefore, when additional costs are placed on those routes, they do not sit in isolation. They flow through the entire supply chain. They affect exporters selling into Great Britain, businesses importing components and goods from Great Britain and, ultimately, the price paid by the consumer.

The maritime sector has warned that compliance with the extension of the ETS could add around £1·10 per freight metre. That works out at roughly £15 per trailer. That may not sound dramatic in isolation, but, across thousands upon thousands of freight movements every week, it quickly becomes a substantial additional burden. Industry estimates that it could lead to an increase in freight costs of around 6%. Every one of those costs will inevitably find its way into the wider economy.

Members will hear this defended as an essential environmental policy, but the central difficulty with that argument is this: the mechanism that is being imposed cannot change behaviour in the way in which environmental policy is supposed to. Normally, a carbon tax works by encouraging people to switch from a more polluting option to a cleaner alternative, but that logic works only where a viable alternative exists. In the case of maritime transport serving Northern Ireland, that alternative does not exist. What happens when you impose a carbon cost in those circumstances? It does not drive behavioural change but simply adds cost. Therefore, what is being proposed is not an environmental instrument; it is a tax on trade and a tax on people's connections through personal travel.

Even if Members were prepared to overlook those problems, there is a second issue that is even more troubling. The Government have already recognised that maritime routes can face disproportionate impacts. That is why ferry services serving the Scottish islands have been granted an exemption. The Government accepted the argument that imposing costs on those routes would unfairly burden island communities. That is a perfectly reasonable position, but here is the difficulty: Northern Ireland depends on maritime connectivity as well but receives no equivalent exemption. We hear the Minister talk about the 50% partial exemption that he has secured, while the Scottish islands get 100% exemption until 2028. Why are ferry routes that are servicing Scottish islands exempt from the costs, while ferry routes servicing Northern Ireland are not? When the issue has been raised with officials, the explanation offered is striking: the Scottish Government, we are told, lobbied hard. That raises uncomfortable questions. Why did the Northern Ireland Executive not do the same? Why should businesses in Northern Ireland face costs that ferry services to Scotland's island communities do not? Why should our constituents be placed at a competitive disadvantage simply because our Executive failed to make the case for the businesses?

We are also told that Members should support the Order because rejecting it might somehow jeopardise discussions between the United Kingdom and the European Union regarding emissions trading schemes or carbon border adjustment mechanisms. That argument simply does not stand up to scrutiny. Voting against this version of the Order does not bring maritime decarbonisation to an end. It does not dismantle the UK ETS. It does not prevent further and future alignment with European systems. If that were the direction of travel that we wanted to take, it does not go against it. All that it does is require the Government to return with a better drafted and fairer version of the regulations.

The solution is remarkably simple. The Government could withdraw the Order, amend a small number of words so that Northern Ireland receives the same exemption as has been granted to Scotland and then reintroduce the measure in revised form. That happens frequently with secondary legislation. When drafting errors occur or policy flaws are identified, the Government correct them and bring forward a revised statutory instrument. There is nothing extraordinary about that, and doing so would cause no real delay. The Government could table revised regulations within days, so the idea that rejecting the Order today will somehow jeopardise further and wider ETS arrangements simply does not stand up. What would be extraordinary is for the House to knowingly pass legislation that treats Northern Ireland worse than other parts of the United Kingdom.

At the end of the day, the question before Members is simple: are we prepared to support a measure that will increase costs for Northern Ireland businesses and consumers, offers no environmental benefit and treats Northern Ireland less favourably than Scotland? If this discriminatory version of the Order passes, it will not be because there was no alternative; it will be because Members chose not to insist on fair treatment for the people whom they represent. Members should reflect carefully on that, because the issue has already been examined at the Committee. Members know how their parties voted there, so the question today is straightforward: why would anyone vote to pass a flawed version of the regulations when they could simply reject it and ask the Government to come back within days with a version that does not discriminate against Northern Ireland vis-à-vis Scotland?

It is not acceptable for Northern Ireland to be treated as an afterthought in UK policymaking. It is not acceptable to add cost to the supply chains on which our economy depends. It is not acceptable to impose a policy that places Northern Ireland at a competitive disadvantage in its national market. For those reasons, I cannot support the Order in its present form, and I urge other Members to vote against it and require the Government to come back with regulations that treat Northern Ireland fairly.

My last comments will be from the director of TST Group, who has been in touch. If Members do not want to take my word for it, they should listen to what he has to say. TST contacted us, concerned about the disproportionate impact that the proposal will have on Northern Ireland businesses and supply chains. He said:

The House has a clear choice to make. There is a better and more cost-effective way for business. We should reject the Order today, and the Government should return with a better offer for Northern Ireland.

Mr Muir: In making a winding-up speech on the debate, I will try to cover a couple of the points that have been raised. The Department has kept the Committee for Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs updated on the maritime ETS. On 27 November 2024, the Committee was informed of the UK ETS scope expansion consultation in respect of the maritime sector. On 18 July last year, the Committee was advised about the interim consultation response. On 25 November, it was advised of the main consultation response and publication of the UK ETS international maritime consultation. Officials have also engaged with the Committee this month and last month. There has been engagement on this. The issue has been discussed for a long period. It should come as no surprise that it has come to the Assembly today.

As has been outlined previously, if the instrument is not passed by the Assembly, it falls everywhere. The Order in Council cannot be made without the agreement of all UK Administrations. We need to be conscious —.

Mr Gaston: Will the Minister give way?

Mr Muir: I will happily give way, yes.

Mr Gaston: The Minister said that "it falls everywhere", but does he accept my argument that the UK Government could bring back an improved offer for Northern Ireland that does not discriminate against us, using the Scottish model that is already built into the legislation? Why should we be treated differently from the Scots?

Mr Muir: I will address the Scottish model in my comments

When it comes to being a driver of decarbonisation, this policy is about cutting emissions and getting the incentives to drive investment in a cleaner economy. The scheme drives the market to reduce emissions where that is most cost-effective without prescribing specific technologies in any sector. For maritime operators, the scheme provides a clear price signal that supports investment in cleaner vessels, operational efficiency, emerging low-carbon fuels and modern wind propulsion. We have seen that, for example, in the Stena Line ships that have recently been deployed and the fact that shore power will be deployed in Heysham this year. The UK ETS will work alongside other policies that, together, will deliver decarbonisation of the sector. We see the impacts in terms of fuel prices and the need to decarbonise across society.

The Government will continue to work with industry to support the development of the infrastructure and technologies that are needed to facilitate decarbonisation. The emissions trading scheme has a proven track record of supporting decarbonisation across high-emitting sectors. There has been a 55% reduction in emissions in the trading sector alone.

With regard to the associated impacts associated, I will address a number of the points that were raised and how those impacts were considered. A full impact assessment that considered the impacts on the whole of the UK, including Northern Ireland, was published alongside the main authority response in November 2025. At my Department's request, the UK ETS Authority also undertook additional internal analysis during policy development to understand the potential impacts on Northern Ireland. The analysis shows that the impact is expected to be minor. The analysis suggests that the additional cost on Northern Ireland imports could be equivalent to 6p per ton of agricultural feedstocks, such as barley, and less than a penny per litre of fuel. That is expected to lead to an increase of less than 1% in the final prices of those case-study goods.

Mr Butler: Will the Minister give way?

Mr Muir: Yes.

Mr Butler: On that point, you are absolutely accurate about the wording: it says "suggests" and "expected". We want certainty when we legislate. To use the words "suggests" and "expected" suggests that those figures are a moveable feast, particularly the one penny or more on fuel, given the current geopolitical situation and the rise in oil and fuel costs. Does the Minister accept that that is not set in concrete?

Mr Muir: I can give you certainty on two things: the reality of climate change and the impact that it is having in Northern Ireland and more broadly and the fact of our reliance on fossil fuels. We see that playing out today in how the conflict in the Middle East has increased the price of fuel and will push more people into fuel poverty. That is why we need to reduce our reliance on fossil fuels. The analysis that I have set out was based on a full cost pass-through worst-case scenario. Therefore, the actual cost impact could be much less.

The outcome of the impact assessment is supported by the emerging analysis that has been completed on the EU scheme, which is already in place, and indicates that there will be minimal impact. Analysis from the EU shows that, in real terms, it could increase the price of a pair of shoes by a maximum of 80 cents, a banana by 0·8 cents and a TV by 10 cents. There is a clear understanding that this has already been introduced by the European Union, analysis has been undertaken on it and there are options for decarbonisation.

It is important that we address the decarbonisation options. I am pleased to note the strides being made by industry in the decarbonisation of the maritime sector, with ships capable of operating on low-carbon fuels and making use of modern wind propulsion technologies now operating from Belfast. I fully support the plans being made by Belfast Harbour to introduce shore power. I am also pleased to note that £90 million has been made available for projects in Northern Ireland under the UK Shipping Office for Reducing Emissions (SHORE) scheme, including a project to demonstrate a fully electric crew transfer vessel in Belfast harbour and feasibility studies for a zero emissions shipping corridor between Northern Ireland and England, involving trials at Larne harbour.

In addition, Belfast Harbour Commissioners has recently concluded a public consultation on its draft master plan, with the final master plan due to be published in May. It aims to invest in shore power and to support partners to decarbonise. I am fully supportive of the commitments to sustainability made by Belfast Harbour Commissioners in the draft master plan. I met its representatives last week in regard to that and, in particular, to their proposals to develop shore power, and I am pleased to note that a tender process has already commenced.

In the short term, operators can reduce their ETS costs through fuel efficiencies. The ETS also means that operators can choose the lowest-cost way for them to invest in decarbonisation. It does not mandate specific technologies. Northern Ireland operators can approach decarbonisation through efficiency upgrades and new technologies or by whatever means they deem appropriate for their own circumstances.

Mr Brett: I appreciate the Minister giving away. I will listen with interest when he talks later about why Northern Ireland should not get the same exemptions as Scotland. Minister, you talk about feasibility studies and planned interventions, and the Member for Lagan Valley beside you often talks about delays in feasibility studies here in Northern Ireland. The increase in taxes will be introduced in July, but the buy-off for that is that there will be a feasibility study. That will be years down the line, but customers will be paying the bills from July.

Mr Muir: I will seek to address that. The Committee has been briefed on that. The situation will come into place, but there will be a phased implementation of ETS, and people need to be aware of that.

I will finish my point about decarbonisation. I am pleased to note that Stena is now operating its groundbreaking Stena Futura vessel, which is the first roll-on roll-off ship equipped with multi-hybrid solutions, enabling it to operate on battery power, biofuel and methanol and to utilise battery propulsion and shore power when available. It currently operates on the Belfast to Heysham route. Stena has also launched the Stena Connecta, which uses a multi-hybrid propulsion system, enabling the use of battery power, biofuel and methanol. Uniquely, the Stena Futura has two rotor sails designed to enhance energy efficiency and deliver fuel savings. Stena Connecta also operates between Belfast and Heysham. As my colleague Mr Blair outlined, Stena Line currently charges environmental fees. I have looked those up, and we need to be conscious of that.

On the issue of the Scottish ferries, we all know that the situation that applies to Northern Ireland is different. Northern Ireland is much larger than the Scottish islands. We secured a 50% exemption for Northern Ireland. The ferry for the Isle of Wight, which, as far as I am aware, is part of the United Kingdom, will have to pay 100%. Therefore, a dispensation has been given to Northern Ireland. We all know that it is currently 50% between GB and the Republic of Ireland. If that is not in place, there is a risk that gaming could occur, and I have set out the situation in that regard.

With regard to previous debates on the issue in another place, the Rathlin Island ferry is not included in the scope. If there is a review in the time ahead, it will be important to have two things: the first is a sitting Assembly so that we can scrutinise it; the second is having Ministers in post so that we can make our case as the situation is reviewed in the time ahead. I am very clear that the Rathlin Island ferry is a lifeline ferry and should have an exemption, as has already been set out.

Mr Gaston: Will the Minister give way?

Mr Muir: Yes, no problem.

Mr Gaston: As I outlined, approximately 90% of goods entering Northern Ireland come here via ferry routes. The Scottish exemption is 100%. You are bumming up and talking about how good it is to have an Assembly and Ministers in place.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Mr Gaston.

Mr Gaston: What have you done —

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Mr Gaston.

Mr Gaston: — to deliver a 100% exemption —

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Mr Gaston.

Mr Gaston: — for Northern Ireland?

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Mr Gaston, language, please. We do not use words such as that in the Chamber, or, at least, if we do use them, we get caught out for it. The Minister can choose to answer that if he wishes.

Mr Muir: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. It is important that, when we are debating things, we use appropriate language in this place. It is important that you set that out.

I have set out the situation with regard to the 50% exemption that was secured. It is much better than the situation with the Isle of Wight. A wider issue has to be considered, which is the situation regarding the linking between the UK and EU ETS. We need to be conscious of that.

Mr Buckley: Will the Minister give way?

Mr Muir: I want to make a bit more progress on how the linkage will come into place.

As is standard with emissions trading schemes, once the linkage is in place, there are arrangements for the surrender of allowances and how those are traded, and that will allow operators to adjust. If the Order is made at the March meeting of the Privy Council, which is set for 1 April 2026, it will come into force the day after, so on 2 April 2026. Operators will not be required to surrender any allowances for the 2026 period, nor will they be required to surrender any allowances for the 2027 period until April 2028, so there is sufficient lead-in time. Operators have been able to access guidance and have been able to register since late last year, with over 200 operators already having registered across the UK. I am happy to take your intervention, Mr Buckley.

Mr Buckley: I thank the Minister for giving way. During the debate, we heard, initially from Miss McIlveen, about the hard-won exemptions that were secured by the Scottish Government for consumers and businesses. The Minister has outlined how there is to be a partial 50% exemption here, compared with the Scottish Government's 100% exemption. We already know that the industry is facing significant challenges on the Irish Sea, with a 6% potential increase in costs projected that will ultimately have to be passed on to the consumer. For what specific exemption percentage did the Minister lobby? His Alliance Party colleagues have not been able to answer that question. Is it the case that he advocated for no further exemption in order to fit his net zero-zealot attitude when it comes to Northern Ireland?

Mr Muir: I have outlined the situation with the funding that we have secured to assist us on the decarbonisation journey. I have stated how that links to the wider ambition to join together the UK ETS and the EU ETS, as well as how that links to CBAM. We have to consider those wider issues. It is strange that some people of a unionist persuasion come to the Chamber having not considered the UK's wider ambition to link to the EU ETS. That is something that we need to consider.

Brexit has created lots of challenges in Northern Ireland. As Minister, I am seeking to work through those challenges and find solutions to them. As is often the case when I come here with solutions, there are Members who say that they do not like them, yet they do not offer alternatives. Linking the UK and EU emissions trading schemes offers us clear benefits, and there will be impacts from CBAM if we do not do so. If the CBAM exemption is not achieved, there will likely be a much greater impact, especially for industry, manufacturing and construction, than the inclusion of maritime emissions within the scope of the UK ETS.

The UK ETS maritime legislation will apply only to emissions associated with the transporting of goods by ship. Transport costs are a small component of the final price of goods. Securing a CBAM exemption would remove a major trade barrier for £7 billion of UK exports that are currently within the scope of the EU CBAM. Matching maritime scope is a requirement of linking to the EU ETS and to subsequent EU CBAM exemptions. It would avoid significantly higher costs and admin burden for businesses and consumers in Northern Ireland and across the rest of the United Kingdom. Taking into account the benefit of linking the two emissions trading schemes, combined with the sanitary and phytosanitary agreement, the benefit to the UK economy would be almost £9 billion by 2040.

Mr Gaston: Will the Minister give way?

Mr Muir: I want to continue. Matching maritime scope is a requirement for linking to the EU ETS and for mutual CBAM exemptions. We therefore must adopt a wider perspective for the maritime issues in hand. A firm ETS link is the only path to CBAM-free trade between the UK and the EU. Numerous businesses and industrial stakeholders have been calling for alignment between the UK ETS and the EU ETS for some time. In advance of the UK-EU summit on 19 May 2025, a letter calling for the strengthening of UK-EU cooperation through linking the UK ETS and the EU ETS was supported and signed by 52 organisations. Organisations that signed the letter included the CBI, the Northern Ireland Chamber of Commerce and Industry, the British Irish Chamber of Commerce, Energy UK and SSE.

There is a wider issue to be considered. The draft Greenhouse Gas Emissions Trading Scheme (Amendment) (Extension to Maritime Activities) Order 2026 will extend the scope of the UK ETS to include emissions from the domestic maritime sector. That has been well trailed for a number of years. Extensive consultation and engagement has taken place on it.

The UK emissions trading scheme has proven to be one of the most effective tools in reducing greenhouse gas emissions from high-polluting sectors. The Order, if approved, marks a vital next step in developing effective proposals for expansion of UK ETS, increasing the level of emissions that will come under the scheme and helping to shape the future of UK ETS in a way that supports the long-term decarbonisation strategy of both Northern Ireland and the United Kingdom. It will allow the maritime sector to choose the most effective way to reduce emissions, supported with £448 million of UK Government funding through the UK shore programme. As Minister, I will continue to work closely with the Finance Minister and our respective officials to explore potential fiscal opportunities for Northern Ireland as a result of our participation in the emissions trading scheme. There is a significant opportunity here for us to link the UK ETS and EU ETS schemes and address the concerns about CBAM that are often raised with us. I urge Members to look at the broader picture of the challenges that we have faced as a result of Brexit, to focus on solutions and to support the Order.

Some Members: Aye.

Some Members: No.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): The Business Committee is scheduled to meet at 1.00 pm, so there is no time to vote through the Lobbies. Accordingly, we will return to the Question and the vote after Question Time. I propose therefore, by leave of the Assembly, to suspend the sitting until 2.00 pm.

Mr Lyons (The Minister for Communities): My Department continues to work closely with DWP to progress reforms to the Child Maintenance Service (CMS), with a particular focus on strengthening compliance and improving enforcement. Following a consultation, secondary legislation will be brought forward to introduce administrative liability orders, reducing current enforcement timescales from around 22 weeks to an estimated six to eight weeks. The necessary legislation is expected to become operational in this calendar year.

Ms Finnegan: I thank the Minister for his answer. Parents rely on child maintenance to ensure that their children receive the support that they are entitled to. There are concerns, however, that some individuals deliberately avoid making payments or manipulate the system to reduce or evade payments. One example of that is cross-border workers, who are supposed to declare their income but, many times, do not. What measures are in place or are being considered to identify and address cases where the system is being abused, particularly where income may be deliberately under-reported or hidden?

Mr Lyons: That is absolutely why the reforms are taking place and the review is being put in place alongside a wider programme of reform to Child Maintenance Service operations. That includes compliance to ensure that children receive the maintenance to which they are entitled. That includes a focus on updating the child maintenance calculation system. That will ensure that any changes support parents and work effectively for CMS customers. If the Member has specific examples of where she believes that that is not working or, more generally, examples of where improvements need to be made, we are open to those because we need a Child Maintenance Service that is effective and does the job that it is meant to do — importantly, making sure that support gets to children.

Mrs Cameron: It is important that the Child Maintenance Service is fair to parents and children. Will the Minister outline what the improvements will be following the review?

Mr Lyons: The reforms are intended to improve the service overall to make it more robust and ensure that practices are more efficient at getting support to children through improved enforcement and collection. The reforms are intended to increase compliance and therefore reduce child poverty. There will be better support for victims of domestic abuse with the removal of the direct pay service. We will, of course, ensure that we maintain parity with GB so that there is no discrepancy in service.

Mr Lyons: With your permission, Mr Speaker, I will answer questions 2 and 3 together.

In their Programme for Government, the Executive committed to a target of starting 5,850 social homes by the end of the mandate. By the end of the financial year, we will, at best, have started 3,250. That leaves around 2,600 social homes required to be started next year to fulfil that commitment. The contribution from other Departments is vital to address whole-system barriers to supply. Examples of that include addressing waste water constraints. My officials are engaging closely with the Department for Infrastructure to unlock capacity for new social homes. I will circulate an action plan to the Executive shortly, and I trust that it will receive their full support.

In some aspects, the support provided by some Executive colleagues has been found wanting, particularly with regard to funding allocated to my Department for social housebuilding. The funding allocations made over the first two years mean that we now have to start 2,600 homes next year. That will be extremely challenging and puts at clear risk the achievement of the Executive's Programme for Government target. That is why I have been pressing for a sufficient budget for social housebuilding to be earmarked in the Budget exercise.

Mr Brooks: I thank the Minister for his answer. I also thank him for everything that he is doing to address housing need. I can only hope that other Ministers live up to the promises that their parties like to make in relation to addressing social housing need, so let us see them put their money where their mouth is. How much funding is proposed for the social housing development programme (SHDP) in the draft Budget, and is it aligned with the Programme for Government targets?

Mr Lyons: The proposed funding for the SHDP is less than half of the total required. We are £128 million short. That means that, even if I devote all the capital proposed for my Department that is not earmarked, I cannot fund the Executive's commitment. In 2026-27, after I deal with my Department's inescapable commitments, I will have only £95 million of non-earmarked capital remaining. From that, I will have to determine how to meet £230 million of high-priority needs, including the £128 million still required for social housing. Therefore, even if I allocate no funding to any other project across my portfolio — urban regeneration, culture, heritage, sport or other housing priorities — I will still have a shortfall of £33 million.

Others say that it is up to me to find the money from within my budget, but it is crystal clear that their priorities do not lie with housing. The draft Budget demonstrates just that.

Mrs Dodds: Minister, thank you for your answers. You have outlined a severe issue in funding and in whole-Executive cooperation to enable you to do that housebuilding. Do you not find it a bit strange that the Communities Committee, which is chaired by a Sinn Féin MLA, has endorsed the earmarking of funding to meet the Programme for Government commitments but that Sinn Féin in the Executive has not?

Mr Lyons: I do. I welcome the fact that the Committee has made that move and recognised the need for us to meet our target. To do that, we need to have the budget and make sure that it is properly earmarked for that.

We made a commitment as an Executive on this issue. I came forward and said that social housing should be a priority. I said, "Here is what, I believe, our target should be". The Executive agreed to that, signed up to it and reinforced it in the housing supply strategy. It is fairly straightforward that it should follow that the money comes. I have made that case to the Committee and to the Executive. In fairness to the Committee, we were back and forward a little bit on it, and I thank my colleagues and Andy Allen and Mark Durkan for being on board with it from the start. We now have the Alliance and Sinn Féin members of the Committee on board as well. I hope that that can transfer to the Executive.

I am not asking for something new. I have not come up with a new proposal at the last minute that I expect the Executive to fund. However, if we make a promise and give a pledge, and if all agree that it should happen, the funding needs to follow that. I am fed up with people saying how much housing is a priority for them, but they are not prepared to follow that up with the funding.

My clear question is this: where do your priorities lie? I hope that Executive colleagues join me and the Committee in its unanimous view that the money for social housing should be earmarked. The public deserve clarity on that. It cannot just be us who advocate for social housing.

Mr Honeyford: Will the Minister give an update on the conversations that he has had with the Finance Minister on the revitalisation of the Housing Executive?

Mr Lyons: That work continues. When I came into post, I said that that should be a priority for us and that we should get it done. I was able to secure cross-party, cross-Executive agreement on the need for it to move forward. Progress has been made — we should acknowledge that — but we have got to the point where the Treasury recognises that it is an issue. We have provided all the information that it has asked for, sometimes two or three times. The work is progressing. There is a sound case to be made, and I will continue to make it and work with Executive colleagues to do so. However, I would appreciate the continued support of everybody in the House, because it is one thing that we can do in the mandate that can be a genuine game changer. Now is the time to get on with it.

Mr Durkan: From the outset, we lamented that the Executive's housing targets were nowhere near ambitious enough, but, sadly, as it comes to pass, they now look way beyond reach. Housing needs to be funded, and the SDLP will support any attempt to ring-fence funding for social housing. However, the Minister is well aware that we need to find ways to build more with what we have. Can the Minister update us on his progress in identifying and ascertaining public land that can be used to develop social housing?

Mr Lyons: I thank the Member for his support. It is important that we have the capital to build homes, but that is not the only thing that we can do. We have to be inventive and look at innovative ways to deliver our targets. That is why I took decisions to help the housing associations grant go further and why I am making changes to the design guide to ensure that houses are built as efficiently as possible. It is also why I have brought a paper to the Executive to outline some of the ways that we can better utilise public land for housing. The paper is now with Executive colleagues, and I have received some feedback from other Ministers. There is more work for us to do to get the paper to a place where other Ministers can agree, but it is something that can be a substitute for capital. If I cannot get it in cash, I want to get it in land. I want to find a way to do that, and I will continue to find ways to make sure that we can get that agreement.

Mr Lyons: Sport NI has appointed Fathom Consultancy Solutions, which is engaging with a range of stakeholders to take their views, including the national governing bodies of sport in the outdoor sector, partner organisations and commercial operators. The preferred options for a future operating model are expected to be presented to Sport NI for consideration before the end of March 2026. Following that, Sport NI will deliver a wider public consultation to ensure that local communities, stakeholders and centre users can share their views on the proposed options for the future of the centre. The consultation is planned to start in May and run for 12 weeks. I am not in a position to provide an update on the plans and associated timelines to deliver the future operating model, as those will not become apparent until a preferred option is selected.

Mr McMurray: Thank you, Minister. National outdoor centres contribute a huge amount to society, not least through safety, health and economics. Will the Minister meet me and representatives from the national governing bodies to hear at first hand the positive role that national outdoor centres play?

Mr Lyons: I am happy to do that. I hope that we will also hear directly from the Member during the consultation period, because it is a sincere attempt to hear from a wide range of stakeholders and make sure that we put something in place that works for the future.

Ms Forsythe: I thank the Minister for his ongoing engagement with me on the key concerns about Tollymore National Outdoor Centre in the Mournes. I know that the Minister appreciates the important role that it plays, but many people have become concerned as the consultation has progressed. Is there a possibility that the Tollymore National Outdoor Centre could be permanently closed?

Mr Lyons: There are no plans to permanently close the Tollymore National Outdoor Centre. I fully recognise that Tollymore has facilities that are unique to Northern Ireland, and it is an important part of our outdoor activity offering. I am also aware that Sport NI has a duty to ensure value for money for the public purse and the sports sector. However, the centre's temporary closure has continued to facilitate the review, which will allow Sport NI to reimagine the role and function of Tollymore National Outdoor Centre in a financially sustainable way, while ensuring that it continues to develop our outdoor sector. I hope that that provides some reassurance to the Member's constituents and others who use the centre.

Mr Lyons: The policy and legislative responsibility for the free school meals scheme sits with the Department of Education. Free school meals are available to children in households claiming universal credit where household net earnings do not exceed £15,390 per year. My officials met their Department of Education colleagues, most recently in May and December 2024, to provide assistance in developing guidance for claimants on uploading their universal credit statement to the Department of Education's online portal to allow their eligibility for free school meals to be determined.

Mr McReynolds: I thank the Minister for his response. Minister, Advice NI has recommended that children from families in receipt of universal credit should be automatically enrolled for free school meals to ensure that no eligible family misses out.

Were data-sharing arrangements to make auto-enrolment possible discussed at those meetings with the Department of Education? Could that fit into the Executive's anti-poverty strategy?

Mr Lyons: My officials have engaged with the Department of Education to provide verification of UC award amounts for those who need to use that service. I am more than happy to explore what else we can do to make sure that that works more easily.

When it comes to the wider issue of what could be included in an anti-poverty strategy, we should put everything on the table, assess all the options and measure them against one another. Many ideas have come forward, including further welfare mitigations and other plans for payments, for short-term support and for the longer-term support that can tackle the root causes of poverty. However, we should not do that in a piecemeal way. As an Executive, with input from the Assembly, we should put all the options on the table and decide what will give us the greatest return on our investment and what will make the biggest difference to the lives of children, young people and others in our society. I am open to hearing all those ideas, weighing them up and seeing what can make a difference.

Mr Lyons: Members will be aware that the local growth fund is administered directly by the UK Government and that the Finance Minister leads on that programme on behalf of the Executive. Beyond the local growth fund, my Department continues to deliver a wide range of employability support to disabled people and people with health conditions. Provision includes specialist health and employability support through Workable, Access to Work and the condition management programme as well as more general support via our front-line jobs and benefits offices, JobStart, the work experience programme and localised interventions commissioned by the labour market partnerships and funded by my Department. Those activities help people with disabilities or health conditions to move into and remain in meaningful employment, with tailored support for them and their employers.

Mr Tennyson: I thank the Minister for his answer. Minister, you will be aware that many community and voluntary sector organisations are crucial to meeting the targets set out in your disability strategy. What assessment have you made of the impact of changes to the local growth fund on that strategy? Do you plan any changes to programmes such as Workable in the context of changes to the local growth fund?

Mr Lyons: Like every other Member, I want to see a satisfactory resolution to the matter, and, through the Department of Finance, we continue to press that case. The Member is correct in saying that many of the programmes contribute to helping us tackle the wider problems in that area, which is why I want to see them continue. Depending on the outcome, we will examine what needs to be done to make sure that we are still on the path towards meeting those goals. That is why, in bringing all that together, the disability and work strategy will be so important and will make a real difference, as long as we can ensure that it is properly funded.

Mr Kingston: The Minister will be aware that the 64% cut in funding for third-sector economic inactivity support projects will result in 400 redundancies in two weeks' time and that the number of beneficiaries of those projects — 1,100 — will be cut in half. Is the Minister's Department in a position to plug the gap created by the reduction in funding from the local growth fund?

Mr Lyons: Under the draft Budget, I am not in a position to fill those gaps. That is why, as part of the correspondence that I had with the Finance Minister, I raised the fact that the matter had been omitted from the draft Budget. We knew back then that there were concerns about the potential for there to be gaps in funding. I support the moves being made to make the UK Government look at it again, but the Finance Minister missed an opportunity by not referring to it in the draft Budget. If we do not resolve the issue, it will have an impact across Northern Ireland on many issues that multiple Departments are trying to resolve. Including it in the draft Budget would have been the sensible thing to do.

I have written to the Finance Minister. I urge him to explore solutions to address the impacts of reduced budgets, and I stand ready to play my part in that.

Ms Mulholland: I apologise for not being in my place yesterday, Mr Speaker.

Mr Lyons: I am aware of the Joseph Rowntree Foundation's 'Poverty in Northern Ireland 2025' report, particularly the information in it regarding the high rate of relative poverty after housing costs and the difficulty with accessing jobs with remote and hybrid working in the Causeway Coast and Glens Borough Council area and other parts of Northern Ireland. We are working alongside the council to support the Causeway Coast and Glens growth deal. Those growth deals allow for place-based regeneration and represent a shift towards localised economic development, empowering local authorities with resources to drive tailored strategic support. We are also working closely with the council on the proposed leisure and well-being centre, which is one of the growth deal projects. That is currently at outline business case stage, requiring departmental approval.

In addition, my officials are represented on the board supporting the Coleraine Pride in Place programme. That is a 10-year UK Government-funded programme worth £20 million that is aimed at tackling deprivation with a focus on community-led improvements, allowing local people to decide how funds are used to regenerate disadvantaged neighbourhoods and to restore pride in their area.

Ms Mulholland: I thank the Minister. Last week, in Committee, we heard from all 11 councils about the anti-poverty strategy. They told us how important place-based interventions are in tackling poverty. Will he outline what further engagement councils will have? What part will they play in the next stage of the development of the anti-poverty strategy?

Mr Lyons: I hope that, in the first place, the councils responded to the consultation to ensure that their views are known. Engagement will continue not only on the strategy but on all the other ways in which councils will help us deliver some of the other plans and strategies that we have in place. I have not yet received the read-out of the meeting, so I have not gone into the detail with officials at this stage. I am happy to see what learning we can get from that. Councils have a very important role to play in helping us achieve the ambition that is set out in the document.

Mr Brett: In North Belfast, our councils do vital work to support the long-term unemployed and those who are economically inactive into work. Does the Minister agree that one of the greatest ways to get people out of poverty is by supporting them into work?

Mr Lyons: Yes, absolutely. Some of the programmes that I have put in place have made a real change to people's lives. JobStart is one of the most successful tools in our armoury for tackling unemployment. It has a success rate of over 70% return on investment. That is phenomenal, not just from a financial viewpoint. Programmes can make a difference. Getting people into work is really important.

One of my greatest concerns, however, is the working poor: those who do the right thing by trying to get employment but still seem to be hit all the time. I am investing to try to make a difference in their lives. That is why I will be launching the warm healthy homes fund to make key improvements to people's lives so that we increase their income where we can and reduce their outgoings. The cost of heating their home has one of the biggest impacts on people's income. I have a plan to tackle just that.

Mr Lyons: Single lets are inspected at the point of acquisition by the Housing Executive, and accommodation providers are responsible for all aspects of the maintenance and repair of their properties.

Ms McLaughlin: I thank the Minister. We understand that the Housing Executive has conducted multiple visits to non-standard accommodation following concerns about quality. As far as we are aware, however, those visits are more or less to confirm that the properties are occupied. What steps are being taken to implement regular inspections to ensure that the houses are in a good, liveable condition and of a high safety standard?

Mr Lyons: In the first instance, I would appreciate it if the Member were to provide me with any specific examples that she has of where those failings are taking place, because I would like to be in a position to investigate them. It should not be the case that the Housing Executive is investigating just to make sure that the houses are occupied. Those inspections should take place, absolutely, but, if there have been complaints, there is a requirement on the Housing Executive to make sure that repairs are actioned. If the repairs are not actioned, those houses should no longer be used as temporary accommodation until they have been actioned.

I have heard concerning comments on this in the Chamber from you and your colleague Mr Durkan, and I will be more than happy to chase those up. I wish that we did not have to use temporary accommodation — certainly not to the extent that we do at the minute — but we need to make sure that the temporary accommodation that we have is fit for purpose. I am happy to work with the Member on that.

Mr Wilson: Minister, what protections exist for tenants in Northern Ireland?

Mr Lyons: The Housing (Northern Ireland) Order 1981 sets the standard of fitness for human habitation, including for those who are in temporary accommodation. It requires homes to be:

That distinction had not previously been made in other jurisdictions. If that is the case for some houses, that goes against the 1981 Order, and action can be taken.

There are, of course, other statutory protections that exist outside the responsibility of my Department. The Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Act (Northern Ireland) 2011 gives councils powers to inspect properties and enforce required actions for:

I hope that people will use those powers.

Ms K Armstrong: Minister, much of the single-let temporary accommodation is used to house homeless individuals. As we know, rough sleeping continues to rise, but communication problems between the Housing Executive and front-line agencies seem to have hit an all-time low. Is there anything that you can do to improve the situation?

Mr Lyons: Yes, there is. I have been working with the Housing Executive on that and have asked it about the issues with the provision of the severe weather emergency protocol (SWEP) in particular, because there seem to be some communication difficulties there. I have been assured, however, that the Housing Executive notifies funded partners who provide outreach services whenever the SWEP is activated — funded partners such as the Welcome Organisation in Belfast, which I was privileged to be out with last week, and First Housing Aid and Support Services in Londonderry. The Housing Executive will engage with other providers as well.

While the Housing Executive is happy to engage with any organisation that is aware of anyone who is rough sleeping, Members will understand that its focus is on engaging with the organisations that it funds. That is to ensure that appropriate safeguarding procedures are in place and so that we can be assured that people receive appropriate advice, assistance and support.

Mr Lyons: I reiterate the fact that I recognise, understand and value the work of artists and the contribution that they make to the quality of life of the people of Northern Ireland. I note that the Basic Income for the Arts in Ireland programme is going through its first iteration. However, in Northern Ireland, we do not currently have provision in the Budget for a similar scheme, so, at this stage, I have no plans to replicate it.

Mr O'Toole: Minister, you will be aware that it is awards season. People enjoy following that, and there are some great nominees and award winners from the North and the South of the island. I wish the nominees all the best for the upcoming Oscars.

Minister, are you looking at properly increasing core arts funding and asking the Finance Minister for a settlement? I recognise that things are tight, but the multi-year Budget offers an opportunity to address the long-standing failure to fund the arts. It is all well and good celebrating glitzy Oscar success and high-end productions, but, if we do not fund basic community arts, we will not get to that end point.

Mr Lyons: The multi-year Budget does not allow me to do what I want to do for the arts. In fact, unless changes are made, I will be in a difficult position with the budget for the arts, and that is not a position that I want to find myself in. It is essential that we allow the arts to continue to develop. Since my time in office, I have seen their impact more and more. We will need to make sure that any additional funding for the arts goes where it makes a difference and will have maximum impact.

I am happy to consider all the proposals that come forward to me. The Member will be aware of the emphasis that I have placed on getting more people involved in the arts and getting more money into rural communities, working-class communities and communities that have been largely left behind when it comes to funding for the arts. I will continue to do that, but I need the finance in order to get the money to them. Unfortunately, the draft Budget does not allow me to do that.

Mr Speaker: We will move on to topical questions.

Mr Lyons: Of course, I continue to do what I can to help the most vulnerable. Many people have found themselves in that position over recent months and years, not just since the current increase in fuel prices. The Member will be aware that, ultimately, a support package will, first and foremost, be a matter for the Minister for the Economy. I was concerned about the answers that were given to Mr Brett in the Economy Committee today about the £81 million that will be available for support. I ask the Member to ask the Economy Minister what plans she will put in place to make sure that people are properly supported.

As far as I am concerned, I will continue to do what I can in my Department to provide assistance. When the fuel payment was taken off our pensioners by the Labour Government — the Member's sister party — I stepped in, secured money from the Executive and ensured that we were able to provide that support, as the matter fell directly under the responsibility of my Department. I will not step on other people's toes, but I will do what I can, and that is why I have brought forward a fuel poverty strategy that will help in the long term. That is why we are looking at changes to discretionary support so that grants, as well as loans, may be given in the future to help people with the cost of fuel. It is why we continue to provide energy advice. If anyone is facing an immediate risk to their health and well-being, such as being unable to afford essential heating or basic living expenses, they should get in contact with us.

Mr Durkan: There is a collective Executive responsibility to protect people here, so it is disappointing to hear that disjointedness and dysfunction are to the fore again. It is hard to tell someone who cannot afford oil today, "Don't worry, this war mightn't last, and you might be able to afford it in a couple of months". While I recognise that the issue is an Executive responsibility, the Executive Office is not answering questions on that. The Minister's Department has the experience and the expertise to design and deliver such a scheme, so I urge him not to sit back. While the war may not last, it will not be the last, so it is important that we have schemes and ready reckoners ready to go if and when the Executive agree to provide support.

Mr Lyons: First, I can bring forward support if the funding is there, but the funding has not been allocated to me. From what I understand, it has been allocated to the Department for the Economy, and no plans or requests have come forward. I have stood up in the past. When I was in the Department for the Economy in 2022, I, alongside the UK Government, worked for many months to get the energy payment in place. That was exceptionally difficult because of the way in which our market and our system are set up here in Northern Ireland. However, I got on that straight away. I was in touch with the Utility Regulator and UK Government Ministers almost daily for weeks, so I stepped up when it was my responsibility. I am also ready to step up now and help in whatever way that I can.

Mr McCrossan is gesticulating across the Chamber. He is pointing to the Sinn Féin Benches, and he is absolutely right to do so, because we need to see a plan. I am glad that the Government recognised that at their meeting with the Northern Ireland MPs. That work should continue and should happen. I am ready. We may face more difficulties in five, 10 or 15 years' time. That is why I have put in place a long-term plan that will reduce people's bills year after year. I need Executive colleagues to support me, step up and provide the funding so that, regardless of the circumstances that we find ourselves in because of the global position, it costs less to heat our homes in the first place. I am willing to do that work.

Mr Lyons: The Member makes a good point. Mr Harvey says that we want Northern Ireland to stand out. That has not always happened. In the past, all too often, Northern Ireland was an add-on. I am happy to report to the House that that is no longer the case.

Some Members: Hear, hear.

Mr Lyons: I am happy to report to the House that Northern Ireland will be front and centre next week in Washington DC. Along with the deputy First Minister, I will be standing up and speaking out for Northern Ireland. We will attend a number of events that have been organised by the Northern Ireland Bureau, the UK embassy, the White House and the Speaker of the House of Representatives. I am also delighted to share with the House that the Department for Communities will host an event in the United States Senate at which we will highlight the role that people from Ulster played in the foundation of the United States. That is something that we should all be proud of and should celebrate, not just to reflect on those who came before us and did incredible things but to point forward to today and show that the spirit that drove people across the Atlantic more than 250 years ago still exists here. The same innovation and resilience exist here today. I am going out to promote Northern Ireland as a region that people should invest in, visit and come to so that they can find out more about their heritage and history.

Mr Harvey: Does the Minister agree that Sinn Féin's boycotting Washington DC is a dereliction of its duty to stand up and speak up for Northern Ireland?

Some Members: Hear, hear.

Mr Lyons: Yes, of course it is. Here is the thing: we can all have disagreements. In the past, there have been occupants of the White House with whom, I am sure, we will all have had disagreements. However, the fact that you disagree with somebody does not mean that you boycott the opportunity that is in front of you. Next week's events are an opportunity to engage not just with the current US Administration but with other voices in Congress and outside of Congress, in business and culture. That is why it is so important. We have this golden opportunity, once a year, to big up Northern Ireland and be proud of Northern Ireland. I want to see elected representatives out there doing just that. That is what I will do, and it is disappointing that Sinn Féin's narrow-minded approach will prevent that from happening in a cross-Executive way. Regardless, I, along with party colleagues, will be out there speaking up for Northern Ireland.

Mr Lyons: I am committed to ensuring that veterans and the wider armed forces community receive the right support at the right time and in the right way. We are progressing a dedicated armed forces liaison pathway that will provide a single point of contact and offer a free and confidential needs assessment. The pathway will help identify potential eligibility for benefits, support and services. It will be available to veterans and service personnel who are transferring to civilian life, and to their families, because we are seeking to reduce the risk of disadvantage and ensure that they are accessing the support that they need. In addition, I have brought forward a range of other actions to enhance wider engagement and coordination with veterans and armed forces representative organisations to ensure that the services that we provide can meet their needs. Those actions include the appointment of a senior official as the strategic lead for veterans' issues within the Department and active participation in veterans' roadshows. This is not about securing advantage for one section of our community. It is about making sure that no one is disadvantaged or left behind.

Ms Brownlee: Thank you, Minister. Does the Minister agree that the First Minister was wrong to suggest that the armed forces are simply a matter for the British Government? Our armed forces community is recognised in legislation, and it is a duty on all of us to support them.

Some Members: Hear, hear.

Mr Lyons: It was, and it was another dereliction of duty from the First Minister. I was shocked to hear her say in this place, a few weeks ago, "Nothing to do with me". The legislation — the law — says something different. There is a responsibility on all of us, because the covenant applies in Northern Ireland. We have a First Minister who will not go to stand up for Northern Ireland in Washington and who washes her hands of responsibility to her constituents who are in the Middle East. She was also quite content to see the Ministry of Defence removed from a jobs fair in Londonderry. We all have a responsibility to our veterans. We need to stand up for them, and now is the right time for us to do that. I encourage the "First Minister for all" either to do her job or to drop the title.

Mr Lyons: Anyone who is purchasing a home will know how difficult it can be and how it can take longer than we would like. However, we are making progress on that. Work needs to be done with the Housing Executive and the Department of Finance, but that work is progressing, and I hope that that can be done soon. Regardless, we are now in a position where we will soon be able to proceed. The initiative has the potential to save £75 million over the next seven years and make sure that people are not staying in unsuitable, non-standard temporary accommodation.

Mr Gildernew: OK. I did not hear any explanation other than its being difficult to buy a home. Minister, can you give a firm timeline for when the first of those homes will be purchased and brought into use?

Mr Lyons: Any amendment to the rent scheme must, first of all, comply with legislation, so a change needs to be made there. It also needs to reflect the additional costs, and it must not create departmental expenditure limit pressures for the Department or unnecessary pressures for Housing Executive landlords. Those things need to be worked through. We will be able to start the purchasing once approval for the rent scheme amendment has been confirmed, and I have been told that a further update on that is expected soon.

Mr Lyons: That work has progressed. I do not have a dissolution date for that, and, at this stage, I am not at liberty to say when it might happen. However, as soon as I have any more information for the Member, I will provide it.

Mr Beattie: I thank the Minister for that answer. The Local Government Staff Commission has played a really important role in overseeing the various councils from way back in 1972. Given some of the HR issues that we still have in our councils, what oversight mechanisms will be put in place to replace the commission, as opposed to just leaving it to the councils to deal with their own issues?

Mr Lyons: It will not just be left to the councils to deal with issues. I said that we needed to cut down on the number of arm's-length bodies (ALBs) and quangos, and that is what I am doing. This is another example of how we will be able to save some money. I believe that there are ways for those functions to be carried out, and, of course, the Northern Ireland Public Services Ombudsman will be there to deal with any complaints that may arise out of any disputes. There is more work to be done in getting rid of quangos and ALBs. A lot of money can be saved there, and this is part of the work that I am doing on that.

Mr Lyons: I have been asked that question many times, and the people who ask it often do not know what they mean. There is not even agreement within the GAA about what Casement Park should look like. There is not even agreement within the GAA as to whether Casement Park should go ahead. We have had calls from many who have said that the money should be divided up between the counties. There is no clear understanding of what it means when people say, "Should Casement Park be built?" I am not going to dictate what any stadium should look like; that is a matter for others. I have two roles to play in this. The first is to provide the funding that has already been pledged, and the second, importantly — people often forget about it in this debate — is to make sure that any proposed project provides value for money. That is a requirement for my Department, so we need to make sure that whatever proposals come forward meet that value-for-money requirement.

Mr Kelly: Let me contradict you: there is agreement that Casement Park will be built. The fact that you mentioned the money that has been put forward for Casement to be built is evidence of that.

Let me ask you that simple question in another way: do you believe that the stadium that has been talked about should be built at Casement Park for the GAA, or are you against the GAA?

Mr Lyons: There you go: a complete contradiction between his two questions. He is acknowledging the fact that there is disagreement on what that might look like and what might actually happen.

It has not been a straightforward process. I know that the Members across the Chamber like to blame others for why it has not progressed. I will say this clearly: a pledge was made on the sum, and I stand by that. It is up to others to decide what it looks like.

I will say this to the Member: Casement has not progressed at this point not because of the work of my Department or any unionist in this place but because of the actions of Sinn Féin Ministers and SDLP Ministers during their time in office. Mr Durkan is looking upset: he was the one who, a judge said, had acted unlawfully. Members on the other side of the House like to put blame over here.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Time is up.

Mr Lyons: Money has been allocated to Casement Park. It is up to others to decide how they will spend it.

Ms Ennis: With your permission, a Phríomh-Leas-Cheann Comhairle

, I will answer questions 1 and 4 together. I thank the Members for their questions.

On 26 April 2025, the Supreme Court issued its judgement on For Women Scotland Ltd v The Scottish Ministers, which held that the terms "man", "woman" and "sex" in the Equality Act 2010 refer to biological sex. Since then, the Assembly Commission has held a number of discussions on those matters. Whilst the Supreme Court judgement was not considering Northern Ireland legislation, it is acknowledged as a significant legal development that may have implications locally. As a consequence, the Equality Commission for Northern Ireland (ECNI) published a legal paper in June 2025 providing initial information for employers, service providers and public authorities.

The Assembly Commission agreed to review its transgender policy and guidance following the ECNI's legal paper. A review was undertaken by officials, and findings were presented to the Assembly Commission in September 2025. Following that meeting, the Assembly Commission asked officials to consider further interim options regarding restroom provision in Parliament Buildings. The Assembly Commission discussed that at its meeting on 4 March 2026. The Assembly Commission sought further advice, and this will be brought back to the Assembly Commission at a future meeting.

It is acknowledged that there are strongly held and differing views on these matters across the House, as there are on the Assembly Commission. It is a legally complex area, and the Assembly Commission is seeking agreement to manage its statutory responsibilities in an appropriate way.

Mr Martin: Does the Member agree that private and personal female spaces in Parliament Buildings should be used only by those who have been born female?

Ms Ennis: The Member will know that I am not here to give my personal opinion; I am here to answer on behalf of the Commission. As I said, there are differing views among the members of the Assembly Commission, as there are across the House. I assure the Member that we are keeping all of this under review. We will return to it at our next Commission meeting. I also assure the Member and all Members across the House that we take the matter extremely seriously.

Mr Buckley: It is ridiculous that, in this Building of all buildings, a policy that allows biological men to enter biological females' toilets continues to operate. Did the Commission receive legal advice on the Supreme Court ruling? If so, did that advice recommend the status quo or change?

Ms Ennis: As the Member will know, the Assembly Commission, like other public bodies, does not publish or comment on the legal advice that it receives.

Mr Gaston: In the words of the equality commissioner, Geraldine McGahey OBE,

when referring to Stormont's trans-inclusive toilet policy that allows men into women's bathrooms on its outdated guidance. Will the woke members of the Commission commit to footing the bill for damages if the current policy is challenged in court?

Ms Ennis: The irony will be lost on no one that those who have never lifted a finger to advance women's rights are now painting themselves as the champions and protectors of women. As a woman who uses and works in this Building, I can tell you that I have never felt unsafe in it.

Ms McLaughlin: Can the Commission outline how it is balancing legal compliance and its duty to ensure that Parliament Buildings remains an open, welcoming and respectful workplace for everyone?

Ms Ennis: As I said, those are the Assembly Commission's main considerations. We want to make sure that everybody who uses the Building feels safe and protected and considers it a welcoming place. We are continuing discussions. We want to have all the advice at hand before we make such decisions. That is the responsible thing to do, and that is how the Commission has agreed to proceed.

Mr Clarke: With your permission, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker, I will group questions 2 and 9 for answer. I thank the Members for their questions.

The remedial works to the roof of Parliament Buildings have been split into two phases to prioritise the works to the areas that were deemed to be the most critical and for the areas that require ongoing access, including the slope entrance, the boiler room and the kitchen. The first phase will address the defects at the rear of the Building in addition to courtyards 1, 2 and 3. The second phase will address the remaining areas.

A tender exercise for the first phase was undertaken by the Department of Finance's property services division and concluded in January 2026. A preferred bidder for the works has now been identified, and a contract is expected to be signed this month. A full plan of the works will be developed by the end of March. It is anticipated that the work will be completed over the next six months and that scaffolding in those areas will be removed as soon as the work is completed.

The Department of Finance's construction division is commencing the process to appoint an integrated consultancy team to undertake investigatory works and to develop proposals to address all sources of water ingress to the roof of Parliament Buildings and the remedial repairs not included in the first phase.

Mrs Dodds: Thank you for that answer. It is good to hear that there is now a preferred company in place to take forward the work. How much will that work cost, including the cost of providing scaffolding from 2024 onwards?

Mr Clarke: Given the contractual nature of the business, I am not in a position to give out that figure at this stage. Reference has been made previously to the scaffolding costs, however, and they were published at £407,000.

Mr Chambers: There has been a bit of adverse media comment about the cost of erecting the scaffolding and retaining it on-site. Is the Commission content that the current situation with the scaffolding represents the best practical solution and long-term value for money?

Mr Clarke: There are a couple of points in that question. First, erecting the scaffolding in the first place to allow investigative works to be carried out cost approximately £74,000. There was concern that, if the scaffolding were removed and later reinstalled, there would be criticism of that. The length of time that it has taken for the contract to be awarded has also been factored in. The Commission and those responsible therefore decided that it was best to keep the scaffolding in place for the foreseeable future until the work is done.

Members will be aware that there was disruption to Committees in the Building during the scaffolding's construction phase. We would have had to endure that disruption to Committees and to normal business again while it was removed, and it then would have had to be put back in place. To allow the Building to function, it was less disruptive to allow the scaffolding to remain in place.

Mr McCrossan: This issue dates back to 2015, and, 11 years on, it is still not resolved. Who is liable for the terrible situation regarding the roof? Is it the contractor, or was it a mistake by senior officials in this Building?

Mr Clarke: All Members will be aware of the works carried out in 2015, which the Member mentioned. All Members will also be aware of the legal issues surrounding the failure of the previous contract. That legal battle was concluded last year. The Assembly and the Commission wish to move on from that. We want to restore the Building to its former glory and make sure that there is no continuing damage to it.

Miss McAllister: I thank the Member for his question. As you are aware, the Speaker hosted an event in the Great Hall on 20 February in conjunction with the First Minister and the deputy First Minister to unveil a memorial to victims of historical institutional abuse. The Assembly Commission was proud to play its part in working in partnership with the Executive Office over the past few years to see the memorial finally delivered. A number of Members who sit on the Executive Office Committee and other Members from across the House attended the unveiling.

Extremely positive feedback has been received since the event. I am pleased to report that a number of thank yous to staff have been received, including from people who travelled a long distance to see the unveiling, in recognition of how well looked after they were on the day. The event had to be handled extremely sensitively to respect the victims and survivors, who live with the legacy of extremely traumatic experiences. It was important that they were treated with dignity. I am sure that the whole House will join me in thanking all the Assembly Commission and Executive Office officials who worked to deliver an event that was personally meaningful to all who attended it.

Mr McReynolds: I thank the Member for her response. I am one of the Members who were there, and it was fitting that victims and survivors were front and centre that afternoon. Do you agree that the plaque is a good example of the importance of listening to victims and survivors?

Miss McAllister: Yes, absolutely. The Commission was clear that it wanted to proceed with the memorial only on the basis of the widest possible agreement with victims and survivors. Whilst there is not one view on the issues among the victims and survivors, the engagement that took place with them to get to this point has been extremely important. Their views and feelings were an absolute priority.

Mr Allen: Madam Principal Deputy Speaker, I may require an additional minute for this answer. I thank the Member for her question.

In January 2025, the Assembly Commission approved a new public engagement strategy designed to increase public awareness, strengthen understanding and expand opportunities for meaningful participation in the work of the Assembly. Delivery of that strategy is well under way, and I welcome the opportunity to update the House on it.

In a very busy year of outreach, education and events activity that touched every constituency, we welcomed approximately 50,000 individuals to Parliament Buildings. The Assembly’s presence at the Balmoral show was a standout engagement activity in 2025, with 12,000 visitors to the Assembly marquee over the course of the four-day event. Outreach Parliaments are another key element of the public engagement strategy. In 2025, the Women’s Parliament and the Disabled People’s Parliament clearly demonstrated the impact of public participation, and the feedback underlined their value.

Community outreach work increased last year with 62 Assembly Explained workshops delivered to almost 1,300 participants in Parliament Buildings and across constituencies. Those workshops are designed to give people the confidence and knowledge to engage further with the Assembly’s work.

The Education Service provides a respected, curriculum-aligned programme for a range of educational settings. In 2025, the team delivered to almost 9,000 pupils from nearly 300 schools and provided professional development sessions to more than 120 teachers.

The Youth Assembly has commenced its third mandate. During mandate two, its Members made a significant contribution to public discourse, and their work has been positively referenced on numerous occasions by Members in this Chamber. It is anticipated that the Youth Assembly’s interaction with Assembly Committees will increase in pursuit of its legislative scrutiny and presentation roles.

The visitor experience team plays an important role in providing a warm and professional welcome to all visitors to Parliament Buildings while delivering informative and engaging tours. In 2025, 770 tours were delivered, which is an increase of 35% compared with the previous year, and the number of events hosted in Parliament Buildings almost doubled to 593.

Mrs Cameron: I thank the Member for that very detailed answer. We all, as Members of the Assembly, recognise how busy this place is and how many visitors we have. That is wonderful, because this is the people's Parliament, and it belongs to them. While the proceedings are broadcast and recorded, does the Commission accept that many people are not able to visit the Building in person to engage in that outreach? Some people still find it difficult to understand the workings of the Assembly. Has consideration been given to producing simplified summaries of Assembly business to improve public understanding of the work that is done here?

Mr Allen: I thank the Member for her follow-up question, which is an important question. The Assembly Commission is focused on connecting with as wide and diverse an audience as possible through social media and across several platforms. Staff produce videos and images to explain the work of the Assembly, as well as providing coverage of major events, including Committee activities, public outreach and Speaker engagements. Staff also produce "This Week at the Northern Ireland Assembly" posts, which detail the Business Diary and highlight an Assembly-explained term of the week. There is also a monthly "Did You Know?" series that tells the story of the Assembly and Parliament Buildings' history while informing the public about how they can visit and get involved.

Mr McGrath: I thank the Member for her question. The Disability Discrimination Act audit was completed in 2025, encompassing all areas of Parliament Buildings, including approaches and entrances, internal circulation routes, sanitary facilities, signage, general amenities and evacuation arrangements. The report recognises the Building’s grade A listed status, which places inherent constraints on the scope of physical adaptations that can be made to its historic fabric. As such, the recommendations seek to balance statutory and best practice accessibility standards with the preservation of the Building’s architectural and heritage significance. Where physical modifications are not feasible, the audit highlights the importance of operational adjustments and management strategies to ensure accessibility for all users. A limited number of recommendations were made, including the expansion of automated doors, lift controls and toilet layouts. The Assembly Commission considered the recommendations last week, and Members raised some additional points for officials to consider. The Assembly Commission is seeking to address all the key findings and implement all the recommendations. While some work is under way, budget has been incorporated to complete delivery of the automated doors in 2027-28.

Ms Brownlee: I thank the Member for his update. He may not be able to give me an update on one my main concerns today, but, hopefully, we can receive some kind of update regarding disabled access on the first floor opposite the Members' Bar. I met a lovely lady who was in a wheelchair and could not get past the three very heavy wooden doors to get into the bathroom. I have asked about that before, and I really want to ensure that the Commission is looking at that access point to ensure that anybody who gets into the Building can get very basic access.

Mr McGrath: I thank the Member for that really important point. We should have full access for every member of the public who comes to visit the Building and for staff and others. That is a key issue for us to take away and have a look at. Maybe we can write to the Member after some sort of assessment of those doors has been carried out to see what can be done to improve access.

Mr Clarke: I thank the Member for his question. I can confirm that the specialist cleaning of the tomb that was scheduled for this week has already taken place. In managing a heritage asset of such significance, it is essential that maintenance interventions are proportionate, conservation-led and compliant with best practice. Portland stone is a natural and comparatively porous material. Overly frequent cleaning can accelerate surface erosion and, ultimately, shorten the lifespan of the stone. Cleaning is scheduled to balance the need to maintain the asset against the risk of damaging it.

Mr Dunne: I thank the Member for his answer. I welcome the fact that power washing took place yesterday in advance of this question. Will the Commission commit to a more regular programme of cleaning and maintenance of that important site, which had not been cleaned for a number of years? Moreover, will consideration be given to an information board being placed at the tomb so that visitors can learn about Lord and Lady Craigavon and the significant impact that Lord Craigavon had on the history of Northern Ireland as our first Prime Minister and as a great Ulsterman?

Mr Clarke: Those were very good supplementary questions. The tomb was last cleaned in 2019. As I said, the preservation of the tomb has to be taken into consideration. The Commission is committed to ensuring that the site is subject to regular cleaning and maintenance. That work will be undertaken in line with conservation guidance and best practice to ensure that any maintenance protects the fabric of the site and avoids causing damage, bearing in mind the importance of the tomb's grade A listed status.

I will take the Member's second point, which was about an information panel, back to the Commission for an answer in writing.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Patsy McGlone is not in his place.

Mr Allen: I thank the Member for his question. The Assembly Commission's approach to promoting access to Parliament Buildings and its services has been developed in consultation with the Equality Commission and underlines our commitment to be an Assembly for everyone. People visit Parliament Buildings for a range of reasons, and the Commission is committed to providing an exemplary and accessible service for all visitors in a manner that respects their dignity and independence and promotes equality of opportunity and choice.

The Assembly website has comprehensive information about visiting Parliament Buildings in a variety of formats, including easy-read and a video. The website also has contact details of staff who can assist visitors and answer any questions via telephone or email. We encourage visitors who have additional accessibility requirements to make advance contact with officials so that they can discuss their individual needs or, upon arrival, with the ushering or visitor experience team.

In 2025, approximately 50,000 individuals visited Parliament Buildings for a range of purposes, such as casual visits, tours, attendance at functions and events, educational visits and Assembly business meetings. Given the nature of the support services contract, which provides catering throughout Parliament Buildings, a joint approach is taken between the Assembly Commission and the service provider to promote the catering outlets open to the public, namely, the Speaker's Corner gift and coffee shop and the Members' Dining Room. Public awareness has been raised through the Commission’s website, social media campaigns, Tripadvisor and occasional articles in the local press. Given the excellent service provided, word of mouth has played an important role in raising public awareness. In 2025, 8,090 people enjoyed lunch or afternoon tea in the Members' Dining Room and 9,652 transactions were recorded in the Speaker's Corner coffee shop.

Mr Butler: I thank the Member for his answer. It shows that the Assembly is a popular destination for many, but I am sure that Members would agree that there is still room to improve. There is nothing better, as Mrs Cameron said, than sharing the Building with the public who own it.

Does the Member agree that there seems to be a growing problem with cars parking up and down the avenues almost daily? That could prove to be a hindrance for people coming here, particularly for the first time, who may have mobility issues requiring them to park as close as they can to visit this fine establishment.

Mr Allen: I thank the Member for his follow-up question and for his focus on accessibility and disability as chairperson of the all-party group on disability. He raises an important matter. As I said in my opening remarks, we want to make sure that Parliament Buildings is accessible for all. As I understand it, the issue that the Member raised falls just outside the purview of the Assembly Commission and lies with the Department of Finance. However, I am more than happy to take the matter back and raise it to see how we can bring further focus to it.

Mr McGrath: Madam Principal Deputy Speaker, I may require an additional minute for this answer.

I thank the Member for her question. The Assembly Commission recognises that abuse and harassment of Members is a serious and persistent issue and that addressing it requires coordinated action across a number of bodies. Within its own remit, the Commission has taken forward a programme of engagement and action to strengthen support for Members and to address gaps in existing arrangements. Last year, the Speaker held separate meetings with the PSNI and the Electoral Commission. Those discussions highlighted the importance of ensuring that organisations involved in this area have a shared understanding of existing activity and where further action is required. Building on that work, the Speaker convened a round-table meeting in September, attended by representatives of the Assembly Commission, the PSNI, the Electoral Commission, the Electoral Office, the main political parties, the Assembly Women’s Caucus, the Jo Cox Foundation and the Hume Foundation. While a wide range of issues were discussed, participants emphasised the impact of hearing directly from Members about their personal experiences of abuse and harassment. Engagement between the Assembly Commission and partner organisations is ongoing and a significant development has been the PSNI’s MLA safety strategy. Assembly Commission officials now sit on a joint group with the PSNI to consider delivery of that strategy and to ensure that appropriate support is available to Members, both in response to specific incidents and through the provision of advice and training.

The Commission has also taken steps to ensure that its future work is informed by Members’ lived experience. A survey of Members on abuse and harassment was conducted between June and September 2025, with 48 Members responding. As a result, the Commission established a group to bring forward proposals for actions that the Commission can take, within its responsibilities, to address these issues. To inform that work further, Commission officials have engaged with colleagues in other Parliaments, including the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Senedd and the Houses of the Oireachtas, and have continued discussions with the PSNI. The Commission will continue to engage with other bodies on these matters, and Members will be aware that, last month, the Speaker joined the Presiding Officers from Scotland and Wales at the launch of the most recent report of the Jo Cox Foundation’s Civility Commission.

Ms Bradshaw: I will pick up on that last point. Thank you for the answer. I was at the round-table meeting last year and the Jo Cox Foundation, as you say, was there. It has done substantial work in looking at specific actions. In what way is the Assembly Commission considering those recommendations?

Mr McGrath: The Jo Cox Foundation launched its first call to action in 2024, with recommendations for a number of sectors to address the escalating level of abuse of Members of Parliament in the wake of the horrifying murder of Jo Cox and David Amess. Since then, the foundation has moved its focus to elected representatives in the devolved Administrations and, on 23 February, it launched its second call to action. That report focuses on actions for the devolved Administrations and includes recommendations for the Assembly. The Speaker participated in the launch of that report and noted that the recommendations would fall within the responsibility of a number of bodies in the Assembly and that that will be pursued and taken forward.

Ms Ennis: I thank the Member for her question, and I may require an extra minute.

The Clerking and Member Support Office is leading the development of arrangements to support Member induction in the next Assembly mandate. The induction programme is intended to provide structured support for new Members from the outset, while also offering updates for returning Members, targeted learning for Chairpersons and Committees, and relevant information for constituency office staff. Initial scoping work is under way to identify the key elements of the programme. This has focused on reviewing previous Assembly induction arrangements, examining approaches adopted in other Parliaments, and identifying programme elements that have proved effective for different categories of Members, including those co-opted during the current mandate. This phase is intended to inform the development of material that is practical, accessible and aligned with Members’ needs at the beginning of the mandate.

Building on that foundation, the next phase will focus on the identification and production of core content. It is envisaged that that will include a programme of introductory sessions, briefings and guidance materials designed to support Members in understanding Assembly procedures and practices, as well as the range of services and supports available to assist them in carrying out their roles. Alongside content development, consideration is being given to the tools and formats best suited to an environment that requires timely access to information, effective support for scrutiny and decision-making, and the capacity to respond to tight turnaround times. The diversity of content, methods of access, immediacy of need and appropriate depth of detail will all be taken into account in shaping an effective and flexible induction programme. Throughout the development process, structured engagement points will be built in to gather feedback and trial outputs with key stakeholder groups, including Whips, Members and constituency staff.

The induction programme will build on the established parliamentary excellence programme, which is well used and will continue to be a core element of Member support in the next mandate.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: I am sorry: there is no time for a supplementary question, Michelle. Members should take their ease.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Members will be aware that, just before we suspended and then had Question Time, we put the Question on the motion on the Greenhouse Gas Emissions Trading Scheme (Amendment) (Extension to Maritime Activities) Order 2026, and it was quite clear that the vote by acclamation was uncertain. Therefore, we need to vote through the Lobbies.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): We will take a short pause while we hand over at the Table.

Mr O'Dowd (The Minister of Finance): 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.

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

As Members are aware, legislation to set the regional rates for businesses and households is brought forward around this time each year. To facilitate the billing process, the Executive met on 12 February and agreed the regional rates that are before the Assembly in the order. The order legislates for an uplift of 5% for domestic properties and an uplift of 3% for non-domestic properties. Those uplifts continue the approach that was taken by the Executive last year and reflect the levels proposed in the draft multi-year Budget for the 2026-27 rating year.

Members will also be aware that, on 29 January, I outlined my decision to stop Reval2026, meaning that rates bills that are issued in April will be based on the rateable values in the current valuation list, which are set at 2023 values. My immediate focus is on advancing the legislation required to facilitate the annual billing exercise for rating systems and the related issues around seeking Executive agreement of the draft multi-year Budget, following the consultation closing last week. It is my intention, following that, to concentrate efforts on the next steps to be taken in respect of the Reval2026 process.

As well as this order, which sets the new regional rates poundage for 2026-27, the Assembly will today debate measures relating to the extension of business support measures. There will be a debate on the further extension of the Back in Business scheme and the rural ATM scheme. This morning, my Department laid the legislation that will extend the small business rate relief scheme, in its current form, into the 2026-27 year. All those measures will accompany rates bills issued from 1 April 2026.

The small business rate relief scheme will continue to provide vital support to almost 30,000 businesses. Small businesses are the backbone of our economy. I want to seek extra help for those businesses, which provide vital employment and support workers, families and communities. That is why I progressed the consultation on further enhancements to the small business rate relief scheme. I have set aside around £10 million for those scheme enhancements in my draft Budget proposals. Having assessed the feedback from the consultations, I feel that the enhancements to the small business rate relief scheme is funding well invested in our business sector. Pending the completion of the Budget process, I will make the case to my ministerial colleagues for the further broadening of small business rate relief support and an increase in the number of recipients of small business rate relief for 2026-27. That support will be applied retrospectively from 1 April 2026, if it is agreed at Executive level.

I will turn to the impact of today's order. The revenue raised from the regional rates will provide around 5% of the Executive's 2026-27 Budget. Taken together, the amount from domestic and non-domestic regional rates that goes to the Executive is forecast to raise around £900 million in revenue for the forthcoming financial year, of which £47 million is derived from the annual uplifts that will be applied by today's order. That funding is vital for our public services, including healthcare and education.

Breaking down the rates bills, regional rates represent around half of a typical bill, with the other half being made up by the district rate. The Executive have no decision-making power over the rates poundage, which is set by councils. District councils and the Executive increasingly have to undertake a difficult balancing act between funding services in line with public expectations and affordability. My Executive colleagues and I recognise the pressures on households and businesses. We therefore aim again this year to strike the balance in the fairest way possible to keep rates increases at a minimum while providing the funding that is required for public services across our Departments.

The legislation before you today will fix two regional rates in the pound for 2026-27: one for domestic ratepayers and one for non-domestic ratepayers. As I have noted, the Executive agreed an uplift of 5% for domestic ratepayers and 3% for non-domestic ratepayers. While we are acutely aware of the huge pressure on our public services, in setting the regional rate, we have aimed to balance that with the pressures facing households and businesses. That is why our means-tested support and other domestic support measures are among the most generous across these islands. We will continue to provide that support to domestic ratepayers for 2026-27. On the other part of the tax base, over a quarter of a billion pounds in support continues to be provided to 75% of non-domestic ratepayers in the system.

I am committed to continuing to develop the rating system to ensure that it is fair, equitable and progressive and that it is aligned with the Executive's economic vision. The strategic review process continues to be taken forward at pace, with four supporting measures having been assessed. In November, I announced that the process would be expedited further, with completion of reviews for all support measures by the end of the 2027-28 rating year. I will soon announce the next tranche of measures to be reviewed in 2026-27.

I will move into more technical matters that are covered by the order. The main purpose of the order is to give effect to the Executive's decision on the regional rates for 2026-27. Article 1 sets out the title of the order and gives the operational date as the day after it is affirmed by the Assembly. Article 2 provides that the order will apply for the 2026-27 rating year through to 31 March 2027. Article 3 specifies 30·79p in the pound as the non-domestic regional poundage and 0·5559p in the pound as the domestic regional rate poundage.

I look forward to hearing Members' comments about the order.

Mr O'Toole (The Chairperson of the Committee for Finance): I will speak first as Chair of the Finance Committee and then in an Opposition party context.

I thank the Minister for moving the rates order and for his comments. We will have the opportunity to debate the other rates-related legislation after this debate.

We have considered three variations of this annual statutory rule on the amounts of regional domestic rates and regional non-domestic rates that are to be used in the assessment of rates and the billing of ratepayers in Northern Ireland. On this occasion, it will be for the rates year ending 31 March 2027. Affirmation of the rule today will facilitate rates bills being issued from 1 April 2026 onwards. The bills will reflect decisions that have been taken by the Executive for the 2026-27 Budget, which is anticipated to be year 1 of the long-awaited multi-year Budget.

The policy proposal in the form of the SL1 letter was first considered by the Committee at its meeting on 3 December 2025. At that time, members received a useful briefing from the director of rating policy at Land and Property Services (LPS) not only on the statutory rule that we are debating today but on other items of subordinate legislation. Members were also keen to discuss areas of rating policy, and the director was as informative as always. We appreciate the evidence that he gave us that day. At that time, members acknowledged the fact that the regional rates order did not reflect any budgetary decisions but that, due to the legislative timetable and the procedures to be followed for affirmative resolution SRs, it was necessary to consider the policy proposal in parallel with the Budget process that was progressing at Executive level. Although that is not a novel approach, it is far from ideal, reflecting a situation that we often find ourselves in where timescales are compressed because of a range of factors, including those external to the Executive. As is usual practice, the Committee noted the assurances provided by the Department on the position in GB, the regulatory impact and the financial impact.

The Rates (Regional Rates) Order Northern Ireland 2026 was formally laid in the Business Office on 19 February as SR 2026/19. At the Committee's meeting on 4 March, members noted that the Examiner of Statutory Rules had reported on the rule and had not drawn anything to the Assembly's attention. At that meeting, members also considered detail provided by the Department for the purposes of funding public expenditure for 2026-27. The regional domestic rate for 2026-27 is set at 0·5559p in the pound and the non-domestic regional rate for 2026-27 is set at 30·79p in the pound, which is a rise of 5% for households and 3% for businesses. As the Minister correctly said, that obviously does not cover poundages set by district councils. Those are set independently of the Executive.

The director of rating policy was present at our meeting on 4 March to address questions from members. The director was able to confirm how much revenue the Executive could expect as a result of the regional rate, highlighting that £47 million of the uplift, as the Minister said, was from the uplift for 2025-26 to this year alone. That is the amount of additional revenue that has been raised from what is being discussed today in the order. Whilst not unanimous — it is important to say that there was not unanimous support for the rates order — there was a majority and a broad consensus to support the statutory rule. The Committee agreed to recommend, on a majority basis, that the SR be affirmed by the Assembly. Therefore, the Committee for Finance supports the motion.

I will now say slightly different things in my capacity as leader of the Opposition. The rates order is one of the most important pieces of legislation that we debate in the House. That is because we have only one meaningful piece of devolved fiscal power, which is on rating. It is split between the district rate, which is set by councils, and the regional rate, which is set by us. Often, in the Chamber, we hear complaints — including from me — about our debating non-binding motions. This is a binding motion. This is about taxing our people and setting a tax that people are legally obligated to pay. As we know, if households or businesses do not pay it, they face prosecution and legal sanctions. Today, we are dealing with a serious and profound matter. Taxation of any sort is one of the gravest and most important powers given to legislators. Therefore, when we come to the Chamber to debate this, we should think about the gravity of what we are doing.

Let me say this, as a member of a centre-left party and as a social democrat — someone who believes in public services, and who believes that the primary purpose of politics should be to improve people's lives through better public services; to promote equality of opportunity and, where possible, equality of outcomes in education and other areas; to alleviate poverty; and to redress the power of big business — I believe in the power of taxation to fund public services. I am happy to have a conversation with the public about how taxation can be used to improve their lives and their public services. The problem is that the Executive have not done any of that. The Executive have effectively hoodwinked the public of Northern Ireland by having a conversation in private, without a multi-year Budget or a meaningful plan for public services, and coming out with an above-inflation rise in the regional rate, which we are bouncing through this afternoon. I, and my party in opposition, have always been clear that we are willing to talk about revenue raising and greater fiscal devolution. We have never turned our face against that: we have always been mature, upfront and constructive about it. However, we have said that it has to be on the basis of a plan, that we have to be frank with the public about what we are spending money on and that we have to be honest with them about the choices that we are making and about how we intend to improve their services. The Executive have not done any of that. Furthermore, they have failed to produce a plan to improve public services. The Minister, and others, may say that that is contained in the Programme for Government or other documents that have been published, but I do not buy that, and, based on all the evidence, I am afraid that the public do not buy it.

We have heard repeatedly, in the Finance Committee and every other possible forum, about plans to reform the rates system. My party and I have said that we are up for that and that we want a conversation about it. The previous Finance Minister and the current Finance Minister have said that there is a strategic road map for rating policy. We have moved on from the mixed metaphors of the strategic cycle and the road map, but we were promised a meaningful reform of our rates system. We were promised changes, albeit modest ones, to the cap on domestic rates and to how small business rate relief works. We have not seen any of that. I do not know whether we are to understand that, thus far, the DUP is not allowing it on the Executive agenda.

The Minister may be able to elaborate on and explain that to us, but, as of now, there is certainly a collective Executive failure to explain to the public how the money is being spent and how the additional £50 million is being raised. I do not mind it being raised, but it has to be done on the basis of a plan. However, there is no plan, and there is no multi-year Budget.

I am robust in calling out the Finance Minister, challenging him and asking him and his party questions, so I have to be robust in saying this to the DUP: are you serious about agreeing a multi-year Budget? Are you serious about taking responsibility for improving services? If the Executive collectively, which includes your party, fails to agree a multi-year Budget, it will cast into even further doubt the ability of parties in the Executive to deliver for the public.

I want to go back to some things that were said a couple of years ago. When the Assembly was collapsed by the DUP in 2022 — well, the Executive was collapsed and then we had an Assembly election, the results of which the DUP did not allow to be implemented afterwards — we were, for nearly two years, under the rule of Tory Ministers, who set the rate and set Budgets for us in the North. Chris Heaton-Harris, the then Tory Secretary of State, raised the regional rate by 6%. We all complained and objected: 6%. The First Minister lambasted the Secretary of State and said that working families should not be hit with an above-inflation rates increase. That is exactly what the Executive have agreed and exactly what will, in all probability, be voted through today. It would be one thing if the Executive were able to say to the public, "This is how we will use the money to get waiting lists down, fix special educational needs, fix our crumbling waste water infrastructure or rescue our environment", but, as of yet, they cannot do that, and they have not agreed a multi-year Budget. That is simple stuff, and government is supposed to be about getting elected and taking responsibility. When you tax people, you should explain to them how their services will improve. That is not me being unreasonable or opportunistic — I am often accused of that in the Chamber — but it is the absolute basics of politics and government.

I will make a couple of final points, if I may. Over the past week or 10 days, we have seen an extraordinary spike in oil prices. That has left our people unbelievably exposed, because, unlike in other parts of these islands, two thirds of our people, particularly in rural areas but including in Belfast and Derry, are reliant on home heating oil. The price has gone up by 90%. It may have eased in the last 24 hours because of statements made by the madman Trump about how he may want his war to come to an end. Thus far, the Executive have said nothing about how they intend to support people. The Finance Minister's party said in Dáil Éireann that the Irish Government had failed to provide any support or come up with a plan. Well, that may well be true, but I have seen nothing about a plan up here.

I understand that the Minister has said today that he needs more financial firepower: that is fair enough. I do not think that the Executive have loads of money to fix a spike in the international oil price. I acknowledge that, and I would not expect that the Executive or the Finance Minister could click their fingers and find the money to compensate people for the increase in oil prices. However, there should be a plan, and all efforts should be made to help people where we can and to use some of the additional financial resource that was given to us last week, accepting the constraints elsewhere. The public expect that, and, given that that is what is being asked of the Irish Government by the Finance Minister's party, I do not see why it is unreasonable to ask for it up here, particularly when, today, we are voting through an above-inflation rise in rates. That was the first point.

This is the second point. I want to say to the other main party of government, the DUP, which will also vote through the regional rates rise, that that party and its constituents are driving past forecourts on which petrol prices have rocketed by 10% and 20% in the past few days. Yes, we are out of winter, but people — the DUP's constituents — are still vulnerable and have faced a huge cost-of-living squeeze in the North. Those constituents are also having to face up to the extraordinary pressure created by the rise in the price of home heating oil due to a war that some DUP Members in the Chamber were cheerleading for last week. Voting through a rates rise today while people are facing that pressure is remarkable. Most people, when they see a burning bus driven by a mad clown coming down the road, say to themselves, "I better get out of the way of this burning bus". The DUP stops, sticks its hand out, hails that bus, tries to get on and tries to bring the rest of us along. That, I am afraid, is bonkers and unacceptable. It is also unacceptable to do all those things in the context of voting through an above-inflation rates rise today.

In closing and in opposing today's rates rise, I say this: I am a social democrat. Along with the Minister, I am on the left. Along with the Minister, I want to build a new Ireland. I believe in being honest with the public about raising taxes to pay for public services. I believe in taking responsibility for the things that we want to do on this island. I do not believe, however, in agreeing to an above-inflation rates rise without being honest with the public about what it is about and, along with the DUP, bouncing it through without providing a plan. I say this to the DUP: if you are serious about representing people here, agree a multi-year Budget and take responsibility.

Miss Dolan: I thank the Minister for bringing the regional rates order for 2026-27 to the House. As the only major tax over which the Executive have control, the regional rate is a vital source of income that supports the delivery of our public services. When setting the rates annually, it is important that a balance be achieved that recognises the circumstances that local businesses and households are experiencing while providing funding that helps sustain the front-line services that people rely on every day. An increase of 3% in the regional rate for businesses and of 5% in the domestic regional rate, when combined with the district rate, will raise over £1·6 billion, which will be used to invest in areas such as the health service, public transport and education. It will help support parents with childcare costs and deliver programmes that tackle serious issues in our society, including ending violence against women and girls.

As we discuss the rates for the forthcoming financial year, I am also conscious that the Department is involved in a systematic review of all rates supports to ensure that we maximise the intervention that we provide to support our local economy and raise revenue to deliver public services. Small to medium-sized businesses are the backbone of our economy, providing jobs and services. Measures such as the small business rate relief scheme and the Back in Business scheme are therefore important parts of the overall rating system. As an elected rep for a large rural constituency, I recognise the value that the rates exemption for rural ATMs has provided communities with by helping them retain access to cash at a time when we see banks abandon our high streets and villages. With many households continuing to struggle with the costs of daily living, which have been further exacerbated by recent events in the Middle East, continuing with relief measures that help protect the most vulnerable in our society is also welcome.

Mr Tennyson: The Alliance Party will support the regional rates order and the subsequent orders that will be debated today on the Back in Business scheme and rural ATMs, as we recognise that rates revenue is essential to funding vital public services at Executive and local council level.

We are all acutely aware, however, of the need to balance the demands facing our public services and our constituents during the current economic crisis. As has already been said, that crisis has been compounded in recent weeks. I welcome the Minister's decision to decouple the non-domestic rate from the domestic rate. That goes some way to recognising the acute financial pressures that our business community faces, which, again, are challenges that have been compounded by the Labour Government's changes to employers' National Insurance contributions.

I have consistently spoken about the pressures that face hospitality, retail and leisure businesses on our high streets and the fact that those sectors have not benefited from equivalent reliefs that had been made available in other parts of the UK in recent years. Although it is, of course, welcome that pubs and the hospitality sector are not facing into this rating cycle with the valuations that were previously proposed as part of Reval2026, the shambolic management of that process has hammered confidence, created winners and losers and heaped further uncertainty on publicans and hoteliers in particular.

That cack-handed approach could and should have been avoided. The Minister was aware of the emerging valuation impacts on different business sectors in late 2025 but appears to have done nothing in the meantime to mitigate the monumental impact on hospitality businesses. Other jurisdictions have recognised the need for additional support or transitional relief. In Northern Ireland, the Minister seemed to believe that the changes could have been absorbed overnight. The Minister must stop passing the buck to businesses, demanding that they come forward with the evidence that is required. He must stop hiding behind reviews that are ongoing in Scotland and England and instead engage fully with our hospitality sector and commission his own review ahead of striking the regional rate for next year. We have a window of opportunity now to do it.

From these Benches, we have consistently called for a short, sharp independent review of the rating process and rate reliefs to ensure that the system is fair, progressive and fit for purpose and can support the needs of our people and public services. In fairness, over the past year, the Minister has proposed making some modest changes to the rating system through small business rate relief, the max value cap and the early payment discount. Those changes would make our system more progressive and fair, and they are changes that I would support. The latter two, though, appear to have fallen victim to Executive dysfunction. If we cannot make the most modest of changes and reforms to our rating system and cannot use the powers that we have to deliver better outcomes for the people whom we represent, what message does that send to Treasury about our ability to grapple with greater fiscal devolution or, indeed, to take difficult decisions around reforming public services more broadly?

Whilst a majority in the Chamber will likely support the rates order for 2026-27, it is vital that we see significant reform to the rating system in the year ahead. Some have criticised the rates increase before us, but they have offered no alternatives, no solutions and no plan for how they would fund public services, given the many demands that face the Executive.

Dr Aiken: I thank the Minister for his remarks, and I thank the other members of the Finance Committee who have spoken so far. We expect to raise about £900 million as a result of the rates rise. Members will be aware from evidence that we have received in the Finance Committee that, over the next three-year period, we can expect a growing deficit, which could be as large as £1·2 billion by the end of year 3. An open-book process is ongoing. If we get any feedback from the Treasury when it looks at the amount required to balance the books and when it compares our rateable system — our domestic and non-domestic rates — with what happens in the rest of the United Kingdom, it will be interesting to see what it does.

Minister, there is a lot of concern about the Reval process. We know, from our experience over many years, that LPS is assiduous in conducting its duties. However, on this occasion, there seems to have been a breakdown between LPS and the Department, and discussions between them went askew. I and many Committee members found the lack of communication strange. People should have realised the real concern in the hospitality industry. When was that signalled to the Minister? If the concern was signalled to the Minister early, why was that proposal allowed to get to the position that it did? Our experience has always been that LPS is absolutely assiduous in what it does and in its calculations. It is one of the few agencies in the Northern Ireland Civil Service that can be an exemplar. Therefore, this is a real concern that we would like to have addressed, and I would like to hear the Minister talk about it.

Despite the rollover of the overspend and the extra Barnett money, we will be probably looking at a deficit of £1 billion to £1·25 billion at the three-year point. We cannot continue to expect money to be found down the back of the sofa or to get more Barnett consequentials to fill the gap. That will fill part of it. After the blip from what is going on in Iran and the Middle East, inflation is likely to come down again, but the question is this: how much will we use rates as a mechanism to fill the hole? We cannot keep expecting money to descend in our general direction and hope for the best, as we have in the past.

We are increasing rates by 5% now. Given the inflation rate that we expect over the next couple of years, the general forecast is that we will have to look at substantially increasing rates to fill the gap. Minister, filling that gap will be a significant challenge for whomever replaces you as Finance Minister in the next term. As the Chair of the Committee pointed out, the only revenue-raising mechanism that we seem to have is rates. Unless we look seriously at other revenue-raising mechanisms or at the opposite — significantly cutting public expenditure and reducing the cost of government — or at both, we will not be in a position to manage the books.

Frankly, we cannot keep blaming the Brits for not giving us enough money. We are doing an open-book exercise, and, I am afraid, the answer that will probably come back is not only that we are getting enough money but that we are absolutely appalling at spending it.

We are not particularly good at government. Given some of the issues that we have had to deal with, such as the cost of the A5 rising to close to £200 million without a square metre of tarmac having been laid, no one can seriously say that we are very good at doing what is required.

The Ulster Unionist Party will support the rates order. We have made our comments on in the House and in the Finance Committee. If he would be so kind, I would like the Minister to address the issues that I have raised in his winding-up speech.

Mr Carroll: I want to speak against the Executive's proposal to increase rates. It is not inevitable that the only available option is higher rates for households or the collapse of public services. A 5% increase in rates for domestic properties, alongside the discrepancy of a 3% increase for non-domestic properties, has not been explained, nor has the Minister outlined his rationale for that. It is also worth putting this rates increase in the context of the rates revaluation. The Minister backtracked on his plans after a backlash from Hospitality Ulster and withdrew his proposal for the rates revaluation. I ask the Minister directly: what is it going to take for you to look again and reverse the decision to increase domestic rates? How many stories of people struggling to pay their bills will you have to hear before you abandon this proposal? Or do you abandon proposals only when groups such as Hospitality Ulster speak out?

Minister, you always ask about ideas and suggestions for revenue raising — you will probably come on to that — and where that might come from. I do not have the access to the staff and good people that you do, but I will give you one example that I have raised with you before. The income of the top 100 companies in the North has increased to £1·8 billion over the past year. Minister, I do not know why you are averse to tackling that through the rates system. Having raised that with you before, the answer that I received was that a rates review was happening. With respect, Minister, people do not need another review. Rather, they need action to tackle that naked profiteering.

The Chair of the Finance Committee talked about the £47 million in extra finance that may be brought about as a result of this increase. To put that in context, it is almost half of what the Finance Department gives out every single year under the industrial derating scheme, which is a handout to big multinational corporations, many of which are engaged in, to put it mildly, questionable human rights practices.

Bills, mortgages and rents are up, and it looks as though MLAs' wages are set to go up. If you are a public- or private-sector worker, however, your income is down for the most part. There is no mention of from where income can be generated. Hundreds of millions of pounds, every single year, go from the Executive through the Department for Communities to landlords in order to subsidise rent increases, because the Executive refuse to implement rent controls. Hundreds of millions of pounds have come from Barnett consequentials as a result of the increase in the special educational needs and disability funding for councils in England, but will that go towards helping families, workers and communities? It is going to pay off the Treasury reserve claim, which is absolutely absurd.

I have one final point to make, which the Minister may address in his winding-up speech. It is worth noting that when Amazon had a facility in Belfast over a period of four or five years — several years at least — it paid a total of £1·6 million in rates. That is where you get the money from. Amazon is the world's largest company and the biggest company in human history, but it pays a tiny fraction of its income and profits on rates. Again, Minister, you do not need a review to tackle companies such as that. You need to make a decision on this stuff.

I welcome the fact that the Opposition will vote against the rates increase today.

Mr Kingston: I rise to speak on this matter as a DUP member of the Finance Committee. As others have said, we have an important and fundamental legislative role in setting the regional rate. Those of us who previously sat on councils were responsible for setting the district rate and, likewise, legislating to set a tax on residential and non-residential property holders is a solemn responsibility. We take that responsibility solemnly and seriously, and we treat every pound raised in taxation with great responsibility, because we are taxing hard-working families — people who are struggling to make ends meet. We have had a spike in fuel costs this week. We hope that that will come down as quickly, or nearly as quickly, as it has gone up as the situation moves forward. Our role on rates is the only taxation role that we have, and we treat every pound with great seriousness.

We in the DUP welcome the open-book exercise that is being supported by the Home Civil Service as it looks at where it can find efficiencies and considers whether we can justify the expenses in our public services. The Committee is carrying out a review to examine where efficiencies and savings can be made in the Civil Service and all the policies that are pursued. We should constantly seek other ways to bring more funding for public services. We continue to highlight the need for a sufficient block grant that is based on our true level of need. We currently receive 124% of the funding average across the UK, and that should be at a higher rate, as other studies have found. We continue to make that case, and we assure ratepayers in Northern Ireland that we will treat with great seriousness the funds that we raise from them for the public purse.

We highlight again that there are other opportunities to bring in extra funding. We champion the city deals that are now delivering across Northern Ireland. We also have the opportunity to seriously tackle benefit fraud and error and to return an element of those savings to the public purse for public services in Northern Ireland. I would appreciate it if the Minister could touch again on how that is moving forward. That is a serious opportunity to increase our funds so that we are not always, as a first resort, looking to local families, our property owners and our taxpayers.

We will support the motion. Setting the regional rate is an important function of the Assembly, and I assure the public that we will continue to exhaust every opportunity to bring in other funds and to make efficiency savings in our public services.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: I call the Minister to conclude the debate and make a winding-up speech on the motion.

Mr O'Dowd: Thank you, a Phríomh-Leas-Cheann Comhairle.

I thank the Members who have contributed to this important debate, and I thank members of the Finance Committee for their comments and for facilitating the debate with their timely scrutiny.

As always, it has been an interesting debate, if not always an enlightening one, with a range of views expressed. As I stated, the 2026 order sets the regional rate for the forthcoming year, and the Executive have aimed to strike a balance between the needs of ratepayers and the need to raise vital funds for public services. I think that ratepayers acknowledge the need for annual increases to their rates, because they understand that, if we are to continue to provide front-line public services, public-sector pay awards and support to the economy, those costs will increase slightly each year and there will be a need to increase the contribution to rates. Of course, public funds should be spent effectively and efficiently, and each Minister has a role in scrutinising their Department's spend, just as there is a role for each scrutiny Committee in this place to ensure that public funds are properly spent.

Mr O'Toole spoke as Chair of the Committee and outlined the Committee's role. Again, I put on record my thanks to the Committee for carrying out its role on the matter. He went on to speak as leader of the Opposition; he spoke for maybe eight to 10 minutes and said a whole lot but said nothing. I still do not know at what level the SDLP would set the regional rate. Should it be below inflation? If so, where should it be below inflation? He said that he believes in being honest with the public. If he is going to be honest with the public as leader of the Opposition, he needs to set out what he believes the regional rate should be. Should it be 0%, 1%, 2% or 3%? What should it be? Answering that is being honest with the public. As I said in my opening remarks, I believe that the public acknowledge that there needs to be an increase annually to manage the costs that are there. As for the challenge on what that money is going to, it is going to childcare for 29,000 families that have around £19 million in savings as a result of the Executive's intervention and support for childcare. It is going to support the 200,000 extra elective care treatments and appointments that there have been this year. It is going to public-sector pay rises. Mr Carroll said that public-sector pay is not rising. Public-sector pay has risen as a result of the work of the Executive. Despite the challenges that the Executive face, public-sector pay has risen. I will remind you again that, at every opportunity that you had to vote for a public-sector pay rise, you voted against.

Mr Carroll: Will the Minister give way?

Mr O'Dowd: I will when I finish my point. You voted against a pay rise for MLA staff a number of years ago. I said to you at the time that you did not follow the example of big Jim Larkin; you followed the example of wee Jim Allister, because you and he voted in the No Lobby. The one opportunity that you ever had to increase public-sector pay, you voted against it.

Mr Carroll: The Minister should maybe go and read a bit of James Connolly, and then he could answer this question. Are public-sector or private-sector workers going to get a 24% pay increase like MLAs are getting?

Mr O'Dowd: The MLA award is separate to this, and it has been set by an independent body, but you have missed the point.

Mr Carroll: You voted for that.

Mr O'Dowd: You missed the point. When you had the opportunity to vote for public-sector pay, you voted against it.

Mr Carroll: I did not.

Mr O'Dowd: You did. The record will show that you did.

Understandably, the Reval issue was raised again. As I said in a previous debate on that matter, all of a sudden, many Members now realise that there are sectors other than the hospitality sector, and they are very concerned about those other sectors. They were not concerned about those sectors when the Reval debate was going on or before I made my decision. No Member ever raised with me the issue in relation to retail, the manufacturing sector, warehouses, the office sector or cinemas. Now there is legal action, and my Department and I are involved with pre-action letters etc, so I am limited in what I can say. All of a sudden, Members have concerns about those matters. You were not concerned about them several weeks ago. Perhaps if you had been concerned about them several weeks ago and allowed the space for an informed and full debate around Reval and for proper engagement, we could have reached the point where we met the needs of all sectors as best as we could in a rating system where there is always going to be a requirement to raise revenue to put back into the public sector and the economy, but that simply was not the case.

Mr Kingston: Will the Minister give way?

Mr O'Dowd: Yes.

Mr Kingston: When the Minister saw the increases coming through for hospitality — for hotels and pubs — did he consider any mitigation scheme, as was introduced in England, to reduce the sharpness of the increase in valuations?

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Minister, I just remind you that this is not a debate on Reval. It is about your statutory rule to confirm regional rates. I am reminding you and everybody else in the Chamber, OK?

Mr O'Dowd: Yes. Just to respond quickly to the Member's point, I was aware, and, to answer Dr Aiken's point, there was no breakdown in communication between LPS and my Department. I set aside £10 million in the draft Budget for the very purpose of supporting small and medium-sized enterprises, including the hospitality sector. Under the current scheme, around 50% or more of the hospitality sector and pubs etc benefit from the small business rate relief scheme. Under my proposals, that will increase significantly. There will be an opportunity for Members to return to that issue when we get to the three-year Budget.

As for other points, the ongoing review of rates etc will continue. I can bring it only so far. I can go out to consultation and bring recommendations to the Executive, but it is up to the Executive to make decisions. At times, those decisions can be challenging and difficult. They often will take on vested interests, but, sometimes, those vested interests need to be taken on if we are to have a fair and equitable rating system and the funds that we need to invest in our public sector and economy.

I have presented a proposal to the Executive in relation to the regional non-domestic rate. The Executive have agreed it, and I now present that proposal to the Assembly for agreement. It is presented in the absence of any alternative proposals from anywhere in the Chamber.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Before we proceed to the Question, I remind Members that the vote requires cross-community support.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Members should take their ease before we move to the next item of business.

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

Mr 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.

Mr O'Dowd: Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle.

Before dealing with the order, I will set out the background to the measure. The purpose of today's legislation is to extend the Back in Business scheme for the 2026-27 year. The scheme is designed to bring long-term vacant high-street properties back into use, specifically those that have been empty for at least 12 months and are unlikely to be reoccupied without support.

The scheme was first introduced as part of a package of measures aimed at assisting ailing businesses and improving the appearance of our town and city centres after the economic downturn. The original scheme provided a concession that allowed a 50% reduction to apply for the new occupier for one year only. The current scheme applies the 50% tax concession for 24 months to build a solid platform for new business occupation in the difficult first two years of trading. I recently visited a business in Mid Ulster that had taken over a property that had been vacant for nine years. That premises is likely to have stayed empty for much longer without the scheme. It is now a modern enterprise, boosting footfall for neighbouring businesses. The business owners emphasised how important the two-year rates discount had been in helping with cash flow; it allowed them to invest in their venture.

Our high streets and shops are vital in supporting the local economy and employment. For many, they are essential for not only their daily supplies but meeting and socialising with others. They are at the heart of our local communities. Since the introduction of the scheme, 113 new and expanding businesses have availed themselves of the support, breathing new life into previously empty premises and, in the case of new premises, creating new jobs and employment in local towns.

In November, I signalled my intention to develop a second phase to build on the scheme's success. In the new rating year, I will bring forward consultation proposals on a business growth accelerator that will defer increased rates for businesses that are expanding their premises. In the meantime, today's extension will mean that Land and Property Services (LPS) will be able to accept new applications until 31 March 2027. Crucially, it will allow the scheme to become a longer-term part of our wider package of business rate supports. I view it as a policy that will make a stable and substantive difference, helping to grow businesses, particularly in our town centres and on our arterial routes. Critically, it will moderate the business rate liability in the difficult first few years of trading, providing some certainty for businesses about their overheads and helping them to budget. It will also help them to adjust to paying full rates in due course, and it will grow the tax base in the medium to long term. Meanwhile, in the short term, the Department will generate the same revenue as it would have, had the property remained vacant.

I will turn to the statutory rule. The Finance Committee has been advised on the detail of the SR, and its members indicated, at SL1 stage in December, that they were content for the scheme to be continued until 31 March 2027. At its meeting last Wednesday, the Committee agreed that the statutory rule should be affirmed by the Assembly. Article 1 of the order is the citation and commencement. Article 2 provides for the amendment of article 31D of the Rates (Northern Ireland) Order 1977, importantly substituting a new end date of 31 March 2027 for the scheme.

I look forward to Members' comments. I commend the Rates (Temporary Rebate) (Amendment) Order 2026 to the Assembly.

Mr O'Toole (The Chairperson of the Committee for Finance): I will speak first to the Committee for Finance's scrutiny of the statutory rule, and then I will make some remarks in my capacity as leader of the Opposition.

I thank the Minister for bringing the rule to the House. The Committee considered the statutory rule to provide for the continuation of the Back in Business rebate scheme until 31 March 2027 — that is, for the scheme to continue until next year, not for the Committee's consideration to continue until next year. The continuation will allow any new business that occupies a long-term vacant property that is valued as a retail unit to pay rates at the vacant rating level for two years.

The Committee first considered the policy proposal in SL1 letter format at its meeting of 3 December 2025. At that meeting, Members received a useful briefing from the director of rating policy for LPS on the current issues in rating policy, including some items of subordinate legislation that included the SRs that we are debating today. As per common practice, the Committee noted assurances provided by the Department in relation to the equality impact, financial implications and regulatory impact, as well as information on similar schemes in England, Scotland and Wales. Committee members also noted the Department's position on section 24 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 and EU implications.

At the meeting on 3 December, Committee members noted and, like me, welcomed the scheme's effectiveness. Papers received from the Department at that time highlighted the fact that, under the scheme's current iteration, over 90 new or extended businesses had received support for the occupation of long-term vacant properties. Members were pleased to hear that momentum grows each year that the scheme is extended and that awareness of the scheme has increased, particularly through the work of a new forum established with the Society of Local Authority Chief Executives (SOLACE) across all council areas to drive it further.

The Rates (Temporary Rebate) (Amendment) Order (Northern Ireland) 2026 was formally laid in the Business Office on 19 February 2026 as SR 2026/20. At its meeting on 4 March, the Committee noted that the Examiner of Statutory Rules had reported and had not drawn anything to the Assembly's attention. The director of rating policy for LPS attended the meeting and provided more up-to-date information on the effectiveness of the scheme, highlighting the fact that, as of 4 March and since the current iteration of the scheme, 113 new businesses had availed themselves of the scheme, leading to savings in rates liability of £600,000 across all council areas. Members also welcomed the continued cross-council work and other related schemes aimed at increasing publicity for and uptake of the scheme. The Committee looks forward to receiving further updates on how the work evolves over the next year of the scheme's operation, including on any consideration given to increasing the rates reduction from the current 50%.

It would be remiss of me not to mention the bigger picture of rating policy and how the Back in Business scheme fits into the strategic review of all rating policy. The Committee has taken a keen interest in that and in all policy efforts to make better use of the tools at LPS's disposal in order to raise revenue within the rating base. Again, we look forward to hearing a bit more about that in due course. At its meeting on 4 March, members agreed to recommend that the rule be affirmed by the Assembly. Therefore, the Committee for Finance supports the motion.

I will briefly say a couple of things in my Opposition capacity. The Opposition strongly support the measure to continue the Back in Business scheme. It has been a success so far. In a constituency context in Belfast, I have seen its usefulness and effectiveness, so we welcome its continuation. However, it comes in the absence of a broad strategic intervention on our rates system. We were promised one; we have not got one. We were told on multiple occasions by the current Minister and his predecessor that work was happening. We were promised a strategic road map, a strategic cycle and various forms of metaphorical examinations of the rating system. Thus far, we have had nothing but a continuation of the status quo.

At the same time, businesses in Northern Ireland have continued to face extreme cost pressures. Some have closed. In many cases, they have had to lay people off, and they have faced extreme pressures. There has not been assistance from the rating system. I acknowledge that the Minister has indicated that he wishes to make reforms in the future. We have not seen those yet. This measure, welcome as it is, is small and discrete, and it sits in the absence of other interventions. Although the Minister and his colleague convened a cost-of-doing-business task force, it simply told businesses what they knew already: they were facing cost increases. They have abolished the high street task force, despite a consistent call from sector bodies and local authorities to reconvene it. We have not seen a plan to help. We have seen what Donald Trump calls the "outlines" or "concepts" of a plan, but nothing concrete. The Minister will say that he would like to take action on small business rate relief. He will say that he has specific ideas in mind. As yet, those have not even gone to the Executive. Why does the Minister not just force them on to the Executive agenda? He has that power. He can now, I believe, cite the three-meeting rule, so if he really wants to help businesses in a limited way through the rating system, he can do that. So my question is this: "Why doesn't he?" He was very keen in the previous debate, it has to be said, to blame others, including the Opposition and other parties in the Chamber, for the fiasco over the revaluation. Apparently, it was our fault that he made the announcement on revaluation. We asked him to pause it. We called for mitigations and transitional measures, as, indeed, did others in the Chamber. I think that Mr Tennyson said something similar. We did not tell the Minister that he had to —.

Mr Speaker: I do not think that Members really want to go over the previous debate. They want to hear the current one, Mr O'Toole.

Mr O'Toole: Thank you for drawing me back to the current debate, because the point that I am making is that the Finance Minister shifted blame to everybody else when it comes to supporting small businesses, all businesses and all workers through the rates system rather than take responsibility. Today, he is simply continuing a small but welcome measure of support through the rating system. As has been consistent with this Minister and this Executive, the main thrust of the argument is to simply shift blame to other people, including, somewhat surreally, the Opposition.

With that all said, and having made my point about it, the Minister is the Minister. I look forward to his finally coming forward with meaningful proposals to reform rates. When he does —. [Inaudible.]

Mr O'Toole: Ah, he raises an interesting point. He raised a point about the Opposition. First, we have produced detailed proposals. I will not go through them all in detail here, because we would be here until midnight, and Mr Speaker would have me up in front of a commissioner or some other forum. I think that I would not be allowed to speak again, were I to detail all the Opposition policy papers. We launched one last week, Minister. We did so with very, in broad terms, limited resource.

Mr O'Dowd: Do you want more money?

Mr O'Toole: No, I did not say that. Our entire Opposition resource is less than that for one of your party's spads, since we are on the subject. Let us be clear, Minister: we asked you to give us the opportunity to get official costings from civil servants for our alternative proposals, which is a right that your party has in Dáil Éireann. We have asked for that to improve scrutiny here. So far, you have refused it. Since you raised it, I simply make that point. [Inaudible.]

Mr O'Toole: I simply make that point. We lack costings, which your party has a right to get in Dáil Éireann. I do not think that that is unreasonable.

I will draw my remarks to a conclusion by saying that we support the measure, but we would like to see the Executive not just go further but do something at all through the rates system to help small businesses rather than simply continue with such policies, welcome though they are.

Miss Dolan: Only the Member who has just spoken could make something so positive into something so negative. The Back in Business scheme is a welcome intervention that helps to encourage businesses to take on new retail premises that have been lying vacant, thereby supporting the reinvigoration of our high streets.

The closure of a business in our town centres not only has a devastating impact on those directly connected to it but can reduce footfall across the board, increase pressure on other businesses and put further jobs in jeopardy. The scheme is a welcome lever that is being used by the Finance Minister to support business owners in what is usually their most challenging period — when they have to deal with initial overheads and get their business off the ground — as it mitigates costs for the first two years of trading. Some £600,000 has been invested in the scheme since the Executive were restored in 2024, and more than 100 businesses have benefited from it. That shows what a positive intervention the scheme is for our towns, villages and local economy. I look forward to the continued growth of the scheme and to seeing it utilised by businesses to create more jobs in our economy and support the regeneration of our town centres.

Mr Kingston: I rise as a DUP member of the Finance Committee in support of the extension of the Back in Business scheme through the Rates (Temporary Rebate) (Amendment) Order (Northern Ireland) 2026. It encourages the bringing back into use of commercial premises that have been vacant for 12 months or more in order to tackle dereliction on the high street. Through the order, a 50% reduction in the rates payable is provided for the first two years of the reoccupation of the premises. The scheme has operated on and off, over recent years. It ran from 2012 to 2017, was reintroduced in May 2022, lapsed in March 2023 and was restored in 2024, following the restoration of the Assembly. The SR will extend the rebate order for the forthcoming year, until March 2027.

At the Finance Committee, we were told that, since 2024, 113 new businesses have availed themselves of the scheme. That is 113 commercial premises that have been brought back into use, businesses established and jobs created. Ultimately, those premises will be paying the full rates liability after the two-year period, rather than the 50% liability that is payable while the premises is vacant. It, therefore, brings money into the public purse, ultimately.

We support the motion to further extend the scheme.

Mr Speaker: I call the Minister to make his winding-up speech on the motion.

Mr O'Dowd: Thank you, a Cheann Comhairle

I thank Members for their comments, and, again, I thank the Committee for its work on the scheme. The scheme is a positive contribution to our local economy. It supports many businesses in those first few difficult years, as they get themselves established on the high street or into the market, and it allows them to build up that business and move forward.

Mr O'Toole challenged me and said that we have no strategic direction in relation to our rates. This is part of a broader intervention that we make in our rates process, worth a quarter of a billion pounds. It directly supports businesses to enter the market or to remain competitive in the market. I am conscious that the Speaker does not want us to go back to the previous debate, but comments that I made in the previous debate are relevant to this: I have set aside £10 billion in the draft Budget to enhance small business rates relief. There is, therefore, a plan, a strategy and a way forward. I suppose that the leader of the Opposition has to find fault in these matters — he does not have to, but he does — and has to caveat his comments. His proposal appears to be that, if I give him more public money, he will come forward with proposals and solutions to all our issues. I suggest that a better use of public funds would be for his Members to spend less time tabling questions about why it is raining and more time tabling questions about what the Budget entails.

I commend the motion.

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

Mr 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.

Mr O'Dowd: The order extends the rural ATMs rates exemption scheme for the 2026-27 rating year. The scheme is now a mainstay of the non-domestic rating system, with an underlying policy objective of encouraging and sustaining the provision of rateable ATMs in rural areas.

When introducing the measures in 2024, my predecessor took the view that the policy objectives behind the scheme remained worthy, which is a view that I share. Previous research and analysis, along with feedback received from stakeholders during the previous rating reviews, also confirmed the value of the scheme, despite its modest nature, with an assessment of the scheme showing that it contributes to helping retain existing ATMs in rural areas. Given the decline in the number of banks and the need to maintain access to cash in our local communities, that is especially important.

The legislation extends the scheme until the end of March 2027. As things stand, just 30 ATMs are eligible for the exemption. That small number is as a result of a Supreme Court judgement in England on how ATMs are to be valued. That decision has seen the number of stand-alone ATM assessments be reduced and an increase in the number of ATMs included in the overall rateable assessment of the attached property. For the year ahead, the scheme will continue to apply to stand-alone ATMs that are individually valued on the valuation list, such as those located outside petrol stations or on main streets. As in previous years, the scheme will not apply to ATMs that are located in and valued as part of banks or building societies. Such ATMs tend to be valued as part of that property. The current revenue loss associated with the measure is a modest cost of around £30,000 in rates revenue forgone. That is overshadowed by the volume of Executive support provided elsewhere to businesses at present. The outlay brings with it wider benefits in the area in which the policy applies, however.

I will turn to the statutory rule (SR) itself. Article 1 of the order sets out the citation, the commencement date and the interpretation of provisions. Article 2 provides for the extension to 1 April 2027 of the date before which the scheme must end. Article 3 revokes the previous end date for the scheme that was set out in last year's legislation. I commend the order to Assembly colleagues.

Mr O'Toole (The Chairperson of the Committee for Finance): I will speak to the Committee's scrutiny of the statutory rule to extend until next March the rates exemption for separate entries in the valuation list associated with ATMs in designated rural areas. I thank the Minister for his comments.

The policy was first considered by the Committee in SL1 format on 3 December 2025, when members noted that the exemption applies to any ATM valued individually. For example, it applies to those located outside petrol stations or on high streets. ATMs located in banks, building societies and shops tend to be valued as part of the building, so they are unlikely to be eligible. During that meeting, members received a very useful briefing from the director of rating policy on current rating policy issues, which included some subordinate legislation, including the SRs that we are debating today.

Members noted that the scheme is essentially about maintaining the ATMs that are already in rural areas and further noted that, following changes to valuation case law in recent years, which removed the majority of ATMs from the valuation list, only a small number of them are now covered by the rule. At the briefing, the Committee was informed that, when it comes to its financial impact, the scheme's cost is modest — less than £50,000 — as a result of the previously mentioned valuation changes. As is common practice, the Committee noted assurances provided by the Department about equality impacts. Members also noted that there are no directly equivalent statutory instruments in GB and that the Department considered previous regulatory impact findings to still be valid. Members also noted the position on section 24 of the NI Act 1998 and the EU implications. On 3 December 2025, members therefore indicated that they were content with the statutory rule.

The Rates (Exemption for Automatic Telling Machines in Rural Areas) Order (Northern Ireland) 2026 was subsequently formally laid in the Business Office on 19 February as SR 2026/22. At the Committee's meeting on 4 March, members noted that the Examiner of Statutory Rules had not drawn any rule to the attention of the Assembly. Once again, the director of rating policy was on hand to brief members further. Members noted that the scheme was not necessarily about incentivising banks and building societies to install new machines in rural areas. Rather, it was about sustaining existing ATMs in rural areas.

This is an area in which the Finance Committee is particularly interested, given our recent inquiry into the banking and financial services landscape. In our inquiry, the Committee specifically examined the issue of financial exclusion in rural communities, hearing first-hand how vital access to cash is in rural areas. Therefore, all Members should, like me, be keen to support the retention of ATMs in rural areas to facilitate cash flow for small businesses, which is all the more vital given the constrained financial position in which many businesses find themselves. Of course, ATMs are also very important in urban areas: it would be remiss of me not to say that.

At the meeting on 4 March, I took the opportunity to ask the director of rating policy about the cost of making all ATMs exempt from rates, and was informed that that would be possible through secondary legislation at a relatively modest cost. I encourage the Minister to explore that further. It would be helpful if he could offer some guidance on that today. At the conclusion of the briefing on 4 March, the Committee agreed to recommend that the rule be affirmed by the Assembly. Therefore, the Finance Committee supports the motion to affirm it.

Speaking in my party capacity, we, of course, support this small but welcome measure. I will just say that, although it is welcome, the cohort of ATMs that are in receipt of the relief is now very small. Minister, is it possible to look at potentially widening the exemption, as I mentioned in my remarks, to all or other targeted ATMs at what would be, we are told, a modest cost, meaning that it would be affordable and would not create consequential issues for you when it comes to spending power or rates revenue? I encourage the Minister to look at that, given the exemption's connection with access to cash and the importance of that access to small businesses, the financially vulnerable and, indeed, community groups. Other than that, I am content to support it.

Ms Murphy: I welcome the extension of the rural ATM rates exemption scheme for the 2026-27 rating year. I thank the Minister for bringing it to the Chamber.

In recent years, we have seen the steady loss of local banking services across many rural communities. Bank branch closures have become an all-too-familiar story in towns and villages across the North. For many people, that loss has created real and practical difficulties. Older residents often rely on in-person banking, owners of small businesses still depend on cash and many households use cash in their day-to-day budgeting activities. While digital banking is becoming more common, it is not a realistic substitute for everyone in our community. People in many rural areas struggle with connectivity, and some simply do not have the confidence or ability to move entirely to the online system. Therefore, access to cash remains a vital part of everyday life in many rural communities. That is why such schemes matter.

The rural ATM exemption may be modest in scale, but it plays an important role in helping to maintain access to cash that might otherwise disappear. It is important that policy reflects the reality of our rural life. Rural communities face unique challenges, such as longer travel distances, fewer services and fewer alternatives when services are withdrawn. That means that we often have to find targeted solutions and not take a one-size-fits-all approach. Measures like the exemption recognise those challenges and help to ensure that residents in rural areas are not left behind.

Many of you will have heard me consistently wax lyrical in the Chamber about the need for a banking hub in Lisnaskea. A number of months ago, members of the Finance Committee and I met the Rural Community Network (RCN) in Cookstown to discuss the banking hub model. We all need to address the challenges that our rural towns and villages face, their unique circumstances and the criteria that LINK applies to those towns and villages, many of which find themselves out of the loop and unable to avail themselves of support.

The cost of the scheme to the public purse is relatively small, but the benefits are clear. Supporting the retention of ATMs helps local people, supports small businesses that rely on cash transactions and helps to sustain economic activity in rural areas. I hope that we will see further work in that area as we continue to look at how best to protect essential services in our rural communities.

Ms Forsythe: The DUP welcomes the extension of the rates exemption for ATMs in designated rural areas until 31 March 2027. In common with other Members who represent a rural area like South Down, I fully appreciate the value that is placed on access to cash in our rural communities. I welcome any initiative to secure or enhance that. There is scope to enhance it further.

As noted, the exemption applies to ATMs valued individually, that is, those outside petrol stations or on high streets, but those in banks, building societies and shops tend to be valued as part of the building and do not avail themselves of the relief. That often results in ATMs being available to members of the public only during office hours from 9.00 am to 5.00 pm or, sometimes, fees being passed on to customers.

The relief scheme has a modest cost. The Minister said that it was £30,000 per year, yet, as Áine Murphy said, it impacts significantly on many in our rural communities. A modest increase to the provision to include more ATMs could reap huge returns in social and economic value in our rural communities, where it is still well proclaimed that cash is king.

I encourage the Minister to consider the issue further, especially, as he mentioned, with so many closures of local banks and building societies affecting our rural communities. The DUP supports the motion.

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

Mr O'Dowd (The Minister of Finance): Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle.

I thank Members for their comments and thank the Committee for its work. As Members have said, the scheme is worth reinstating for those living in isolated rural communities who depend on available ATMs. We all appreciate the difficulties that are encountered in those communities from any measure that could lead to a reduction in the availability of ATMs, especially at this time. The Executive wish to do all that they can to support people in rural areas.

I am content to take any extension of the scheme on board and will ask officials to look at that. I want to reassure myself and other Members that we are not giving a simple tax relief to banks and that any actions that we take are to the benefit of local communities that use such facilities. I commend the order to the Assembly.

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

Mr Speaker: The Business Committee has agreed that there should be no time limit on the debate. I call the Minister of Finance to open the debate.

Mr O'Dowd (The Minister of Finance): Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle.

Today's Final Stage debate concludes the financial legislative process for the Budget Bill in the Assembly. The Bill provides the legislative authority for the final expenditure plans of Departments and other bodies, as set out in the spring Supplementary Estimates 2025-26, which were laid in the Assembly on Monday 16 February 2026. As we come to the end of the legislative process around this year's Budget Bill, and with our thoughts on the upcoming multi-year Budget, it is worthwhile to reflect again on the achievements up to this point.

As I have said in previous debates, while the Executive face many financial challenges, there have been some notable achievements since the Executive were restored in February 2024. Those include: delivering 200,000 additional elective activities in the health service, meaning that people are getting the care that they need; 19,000 families benefiting from the childcare subsidy scheme, leading to £19 million in savings for families and supporting parents to return to work or education; £105 million in the 2025-26 Budget to DFI specifically for water and waste water infrastructure to support investment in capacity, which has helped to unlock more than 5,000 extra properties across the North; investment in the Magee campus, facilitating year-on-year growth in student numbers, increasing access to higher education in the city and surrounding area, supporting regionally balanced growth; pay awards delivered for health workers, teachers, police officers, civil servants and NI Water workers; £100 million of funding earmarked in the 2025-26 Budget for new social homes, plus an additional £38·9 million in additional funding to supplement that; and £10·5 million to help people with disabilities adapt their homes, ensuring that their living spaces meet their needs and support greater independence.

You will not hear any of those issues being discussed or debated on many of our media channels or being highlighted in some of our newspapers, but those are facts. Those are facts that the Executive, despite all their challenges, financial and otherwise, have delivered since the Assembly was restored in February 2024. I welcome media scrutiny and media debate, but it should be balanced and should reflect the range of matters that the Executive have had to deal with, their successes and their failings, over the past two years.

Members will be aware from my oral statement last week that the Executive will receive an additional £380 million in resource departmental expenditure limit (DEL) over the next three years and £9 million in capital following the spring statement. Members will also be aware that, following negotiations, the Treasury has recognised the significant challenges that the Executive face and has agreed to provide the Executive with a reserve claim of £400 million in resource DEL for 2025-26. While the additional funding is welcome and will provide assistance to the Executive, the reality is that severe pressures on Executive finances remain.

The claim of financial mismanagement has been blown out of the water by last week's announcement of the £380 million in resource DEL and £9 million in capital. Why was that money provided? It was because councils in England could no longer endure the scale of SEN pressures that they were facing in delivering those services. Similar pressures exist here. Just before Christmas, the Department of Health in England was bailed out to the tune of £1 billion because it was facing huge challenges in delivering front-line public services, similar to the challenges that the Executive face here. When we debate our public finances, which we should debate and scrutinise often, we have to do so in the context of the pressures that other jurisdictions face, which are similar to ours.

The loss of the £520 million stabilisation fund, which was provided in the restoration package for 2024-25 and 2025-26, has made the task of delivering front-line public services and balancing the Budget almost impossible. Providing sustainable public services into the future will require adequate funding from Westminster, as well as substantive reform and meaningful transformation of how we design and deliver our public services. I continue to make the case to the British Government for restoring the stabilisation fund in order to support the Executive's transformation work to make public services fit for now and for the future.

Turning back to today's business, the Budget Bill provides legislative cover for the Vote on Account for 2026-27, which was also laid on 16 February 2026. The spring Supplementary Estimates and the Vote on Account were debated and agreed by the Assembly on Monday 23 February 2026. That was a valuable debate, and I thank all Members for their time and contribution to the process. The Budget Bill reflects the same position and will enable us to continue to deliver public services for the rest of the 2025-26 financial year, ensuring that Departments do not run out of money. The Vote on Account will allow services to continue beyond 1 April 2026 and will allow the Executive and the Assembly time to finalise a Budget for the 2026-27 financial year that will be reflected in the Budget (No. 2) Act.

Today's debate is on the Budget Bill. I emphasise that the focus today is on completing the Bill's legislative passage so that we can quickly obtain Royal Assent. Once again, I express my gratitude to the Finance Committee for agreeing to accelerated passage for the Bill. I thank all the Committees and all Members for the scrutiny that they have brought to the process. I look forward to hearing Members' final thoughts on this important legislation.

Mr O'Toole (The Chairperson of the Committee for Finance): As always, I will speak first as the Chair of the Committee for Finance. I am sure that the Minister is exhausted; these seats are not particularly comfortable for long debates. I should raise that with the Assembly Commission, but I do not want to be accused of making demands on the public purse. I certainly have sympathy for the Finance Minister, who is having to sit through very long debates.

The Minister has introduced the Bill in a condensed time frame. As we comment regularly, the situation is not ideal. The use of accelerated passage is not a practice or vehicle that people are particularly enthused about. However, we agreed to it on the basis of achieving sufficient consultation with the Committee. We are conscious that the time frames that the Minister works to are dictated by the cycles at Westminster; I may come on to more of that later in my personal remarks.

A number of Members spoke in the Second Stage debate on the Bill, so this debate may be shorter. Today's debate provides us with a final opportunity to offer Committee views and the views that stakeholders have expressed to Members. They have told us that our Budgets would be much more strategic and better applied were they to be directly linked to a Programme for Government. They have also made it clear that multi-year Budgets provide them with much greater scrutiny in order to plan and invest in reform. Now that the consultation period on the Minister's draft multi-year Budget has closed, the Committee eagerly anticipates the next step in the Budget process as, at the moment, it remains a draft Budget without Executive approval. I highlighted in my Second Stage speech the fact that the Committee is conscious that the Bill's purpose is to legislate for the reconciliation of accounts for 2025-26. Members are also aware of the impact that the balancing of this Budget will have on the Budgets of subsequent financial years.

The Committee notes the provision of a £400 million reserve claim by the Treasury for this financial year. The Committee also noted the additional £380 million for public services over the next three years announced by the Chancellor at last week's spring statement. Questions remain, including the full nature and purpose of the open-book exercise that has been referenced, the impact that that exercise will have and the very short timescale for it to be completed by the end of the financial year. It would be helpful to have an update from the Minister on that open-book exercise, which I presume and certainly hope has now started in earnest.

I also repeat the warning given to the Committee by the Minister's officials not to expect extensive Barnett consequentials and on the impact that the reserve claim will have in the years to come. Members have noted a cliff edge in the 2026-27 Budget as aspects of the Executive restoration settlement end. Indeed, the Minister rightly referenced the end of the stabilisation funding, although at least some of that will have been made up for in the spring statement allocation last week. The Minister will tell us how those numbers join up or not. Going forward, the Committee is conscious that every Budget decision made by the Executive will be even more crucial than it has been this year. We must live within our means and move beyond the culture of overcommitting Budgets in the hope that Westminster Estimates, Barnett consequentials or reserve claims will provide cover for a shortfall.

The Committee is very keen to build on the work of the past year to equip other Committees with the necessary tools to make these debates much more forensic. The Budget process is complex and littered with technical terms and accounting principles. It is not easy to understand, and that is a barrier to good scrutiny. The Committee is grateful to the Finance Minister and his officials for undertaking to work to simplify the process and how it is presented, and members are keen to support and advise on those efforts, as we always are. Additionally, the Committee will continue to work with the Minister to make the Estimates and monitoring processes that the Bill authorises much more accessible. Today, we are completing the process to grant legal authority to Departments to draw down cash and use resources, with the Budget Bill signalling that we are coming to the end of the 2025-26 financial year, with departmental accounts comparing their audited out-turns against the limits voted by the Assembly.

The Committee hopes that, by the time that we are examining a Budget (No. 2) Bill later this year, the NI Fiscal Council Bill and the Administrative and Financial Provisions Bill will have gone some way to, on the one hand, improving scrutiny and, on the other, removing items from the sole authority of the Budget Bill. The Committee Stage for those Bills will be finalised, I am pleased to say, ahead of target, by the end of this month. Members will eagerly await the next stages of the legislative process.

I will now say a few words wearing my Opposition hat. I will not detain the Assembly too long, because we have talked already through the various stages of the Budget Bill and, indeed, the rates orders that we have passed, the Vote on Account and the spring Supplementary Estimates. Today, we will authorise, I assume, the Budget Bill, which finalises the 2025-26 financial year, and we will begin the process for the next financial year. As I said earlier, we are doing so in the absence of an agreed multi-year Budget. That is a profound failure. I recognise that the Minister has produced a draft multi-year Budget, but, in repeatedly calling out the Opposition, I think that there is a frustration that the Minister cannot get his draft multi-year Budget through. Perhaps he can give us an update on where discussions are and whether he expects that one will be agreed. The Opposition make no apology whatsoever for doing their job robustly and constructively, holding the Minister and his colleagues' feet to the fire on Budget scrutiny.

I will pick up on a couple of quite specific points, having made some overarching points already. The Minister pointed out the additional Barnett consequentials that came from the UK Government in relation to special educational needs and local authorities in England. He said that that proved the point that he and his colleagues, particularly those in his party and other parties, had been making all along about underfunding. First of all, he is right to say that this place has been structurally squeezed by the way that the Barnett formula has worked over many years.

I have supported the Executive's efforts in relation to a new fiscal framework and increasing funding on the basis of a calculation of the level of relative need. I agree wholeheartedly that our system of devolved finance is utterly incompatible with doing proper government on a long-term strategic basis. There is no argument from me there. He and I agree that, in the long term, we want constitutional change but, on the way there, I hope — we still have not seen any concrete plans for it — more fiscal devolution and more powers on this island for the Assembly.

What I do not agree with is that we have no power here at all or that we cannot set priorities and be honest with the public about choices. The Minister listed achievements, so far as he is concerned, and things that the Executive have done. He is entitled to do that, and I am glad that he is doing that. I am glad that he is speaking up, because, at times, it has felt as though the Executive dared not speak with one voice about what they were trying to do. I have always encouraged the Executive to set out a clear plan, to budget for it and to link it to a Programme for Government. If the Minister is standing up now and has at least the courage to stand over what, he thinks, the Executive are delivering, that is fair enough. I happen not to agree, but, if the Minister is claiming credit for all those things, at some point, he and his colleagues have to accept accountability for the things that are not being delivered and are not happening through Executive dysfunction.

You cannot say, "We deserve credit for all these things", but, for everything that you do not like, it is the Brits' fault or "The DUP won't let us do it". That is undermining trust in the institutions, including from people from all sorts of backgrounds. That is not me. I will be accused of carping: that is fine. It is my job to be the Opposition and to hold people to account. The Minister has accused me of taking the side of others because I dared to hold him and his colleagues to account on spending. I have been clear: the UK Government are not prioritising this place. I have offered my professional experience. I know, because I worked in Whitehall, how far down the priority list we are. I know that it is difficult for him when he goes and has conversations. I know that they could not give two hoots about this place in general and that there is a degree of indifference there. I do not disagree with all those things. My question is, "What are you and your colleagues doing to improve things?"

The Minister has said repeatedly in Committee and in the Chamber that Departments need to live within their means. He used the term "shroud-waving" in the Chamber the other week. Is he saying — he needs to clarify this — that, on the one hand, no criticism can ever be made of financial management in the Executive and that there is no issue at all but also saying that Departments must live within their means and that there is shroud-waving and budgets being over-profiled in order to, hopefully, find some money down the back of the sofa later in the financial year? He needs to explain that. That is not me being oppositionist; he has said that. He said that there was shroud-waving, so, if there is shroud-waving, it cannot all be the fault of London. That is me saying that in the context of acknowledging that the devolved fiscal settlement does not work for this place. Do not accuse me of taking the side of London: I am not. I am on the side of the people here, and I am on the side of the Executive when they stand up, make choices and deliver services for people, but they are not doing that yet. That is why there is so little trust out there. That is why the public are so frustrated with the lack of delivery, Minister, two years on.

It would be helpful to understand the open-book exercise. I am concerned that we are two years on from the Executive restoration package, when an amount of money was made available to the Executive. A lot of it was smoke and mirrors. There were a lot of strange conditions. Some of the conditions that the UK Government insisted on were vague. There was a revenue-raising exercise that counted things such as the delaying of reductions in hospital car parking charges — something that we will debate later — so they were not exactly difficult revenue-raising decisions. A package was put in place, and now, as soon as it has come to an end, we are in the difficult situation again where we are starting a financial year effectively already overspent with vast pressures. A large part of that is, as I said, because the devolved financial settlement simply does not work. It is set up structurally for the North not to properly succeed. I do not disagree with that, but we have choices and responsibility here. How do we set priorities locally? How do we make the most of what we have? How do we improve the situation? How do we not just play into the hands of Treasury officials and politicians in London and their worst excesses of cynicism? Answer me that, Minister. I would like to know, because I have heard you talk in here about shroud-waving, over-profiling and financial mismanagement.

My suspicion — I will close with this — is that the public are losing trust. As the Opposition, we are here to build trust, believe it or not. We are here to create a culture of accountability. Members do not like it, and they will slag me off. Yesterday, we talked about one aspect of the reform agenda that we are trying to get through. The financial and fiscal dysfunction that exists here is completely connected, as others, I think, will agree, to the failure to reform our politics and the failure to deliver proper reform of Stormont.

We have put forward proposals. When we debated some of them yesterday, I was effectively Lundy-ed and smeared in the Chamber by the Minister's party. We are now passing a Budget Bill again, and we are again in a situation in which the UK Government are demanding an open-book exercise and to intervene in devolved decision-making. The Minister has agreed to that. Let us have an update to see what is being agreed. My fear is that Executive dysfunction is indulging the UK Government's worst excesses. Those two things are linked. We need to step up and take responsibility.

I have made my points on various fronts. We will not divide the House on the Budget Bill, because we have debated it enough.

Mr Gildernew (The Chairperson of the Committee for Communities): I will contribute to the debate on the Final Stage of the Budget Bill as the Chairperson of the Committee for Communities. Passing the Bill will grant the necessary legal authority to keep our vital public services running for the year ahead. As we reflect on the figures before us, however, we must be absolutely clear about the root of our structural problems. Public services in the North continue to be systematically underfunded by the British Government.

The Committee agrees entirely with the position established by the Executive. The North continues to be underfunded relative to our objective need. That has forced the whole Executive into an unenviable position. We recognise the considerable challenge that that presents in distributing scarce, inadequate resources across competing critical priorities. Balancing the Budget requires incredibly difficult decisions to be made collectively at the Executive table, and we acknowledge the constraints under which all Ministers have had to operate.

The human context of Treasury policy is felt acutely in the Department for Communities, which has an exceptionally broad remit, spanning housing, social security, employment and the community sector. Against an opening baseline of £754·1 million, the Department projects a resource DEL shortfall of £174·4 million or 23% in 2026-27. Officials recently informed the Committee that the Department faces inescapable resource pressures of approximately £40 million next year. A large proportion of that proposed allocation is pre-committed to staff costs, statutory obligations and contractual commitments.

We see the sharp end of that constraint in benefit delivery. Currently, the Department does not have the capacity to fund into-work support for citizens fully. The 400 staff recruited in 2025-26 to deliver those vital services generate a recurrent funding requirement that, owing to broader constraints, has not yet been fully recognised in the draft multi-year Budget. Failure to secure that funding could cause the North to fall further behind Britain on effective welfare service delivery. Furthermore, key initiatives endorsed at Executive level, such as the disability and work strategy, must have funding clearly allocated for their delivery. We must ensure that strategies that are meant to make a real difference to people's lives are backed by the resources to implement them.

On the capital side, the Committee is firmly supportive of social housing being treated as a top priority. Delivering the housing supply strategy target of 5,850 homes in this mandate requires 2,600 new starts in 2026-27, necessitating approximately £235 million before any other capital projects are considered.

We must also recognise that the continued inability of the Housing Executive to borrow is an immediate risk to the organisation's stability. It also risks the managed decline of our housing stock. We welcome the continued efforts by the Minister of Finance in his fiscal framework negotiations with Treasury on Housing Executive borrowing.

The Minister for Communities recently announced a number of allocations. While any investment in our communities is welcome, the Committee needs to see clearly how prioritisation decisions are made and exactly how funding decisions align directly with core Executive commitments. Given the severe financial envelope dictated by Westminster, the Committee considers that an invest-to-save approach is not merely desirable but absolutely necessary. There are areas in the Communities remit where targeted investment could generate measurable returns and, ultimately, save significant amounts of money. The financial oversight that we exercise in the Chamber cannot fix a system that is, ultimately, driven by Treasury policy in London. It is incumbent on the British Government to deliver a fair and sustainable funding model. Our communities cannot afford emergency fixes; they deserve a strategically planned and fully funded future. I commend the Bill to the House.

Ms Forsythe: As it has progressed under accelerated passage, we have all spoken about the detail of the Budget Bill in recent weeks. However, I will highlight, once again, the importance of fully scrutinising the finances; looking at the agreed priorities in our Programme for Government and seeing where our Budget flows to enable their delivery; and looking at how funding is allocated to deliver all the services in each Department. The Finance Committee gets excellent briefings, and that has happened on the Budget Bill. I thank the Department of Finance officials and the Minister for facilitating engagement with the Committee. Whilst they lead the way and issue guidance across other Departments, it has been clear from the debates that not all Committees get the detailed briefings that we do. I hope that that improves, especially now that the Budget consultation has closed and allocations are close. Departmental budgets will need to be closely scrutinised by all our Committees, once allocations have been made.

We are, once again, in the position of using accelerated passage for the Budget Bill. Whilst that is generally the position, we recognise that, although it is not ideal, the Bill would not have been able to progress without accelerated passage. The Budget Bill passes the points of resolution, which have been debated, on the finalisation of the 2025-26 figures, as well as the rolled forward Vote on Account, enabling our services to keep running into 2026-27. We have now seen the £400 million reserve claim applied to the 2025-26 projected overspend, with the repayment profiled over the next three years, and an additional £380 million Barnett consequentials over the same period. With the multi-year Budget consultation now closed, it is critical that all those things and the open-book exercise interconnect to deliver a meaningful Budget plan for 2026-27 and beyond. I hope that the Minister can give us an update today on how the open-book exercise is going.

This is a critical opportunity that we need to take. The DUP has long called for reform of the Northern Ireland Civil Service and transformation of public services in order to move away from siloed working and to transform how our business is done. There is a genuine opportunity to transform and reform how our public services are delivered and how our public finances are managed and scrutinised. While some are eternally pessimistic and say things like, "There won't be a multi-year Budget", I do not believe that there is a fundamental lack of will. We want to see a multi-year Budget, because that will facilitate better strategic planning, secure our voluntary and community sector and remove year-end panic spending, which is rarely done well. However, we want to see the progression of a multi-year Budget that prioritises quality front-line public services, that is achievable and deliverable and that aligns with the Programme for Government priorities. Not just any multi-year Budget will do; it needs to be right.

There is disappointment that the local growth fund is not referred to in the multi-year Budget proposals. At lunchtime today, some of us were at the all-party group on the voluntary and community sector, where it was highlighted, once again, that some 400 jobs are due to go in just two weeks' time, if there is no intervention. NICVA's NI Can't Wait campaign rings very true.

On the use of the sole authority, I note that the black box total has increased, which is far from ideal. However, the Finance Committee has scrutinised at length the Administrative and Financial Provisions Bill and the Northern Ireland Fiscal Council Bill, which, once passed, will, we will be pleased to see, remove a substantial amount of funding from the black box. The Committee Stages of both Bills are on track for completion in the weeks ahead.

It is clear for all to see that we are operating with huge financial pressures on our public services. That reflects our entire society, in which every home and business is feeling the pressure. It is our duty to do our best to ensure that every pound and penny of public money is spent properly and delivers measurable value for money. We will support the Budget Bill as an opportunity not just to roll forward last year's position but to work forward with transformation, including through the open-book exercise, as we enter the years ahead.

Mr Tennyson: On behalf of the Alliance Party, I support the Budget Bill at Final Stage. The Bill signals that we are coming to the end of another challenging financial year for the Executive, with demand on resources again outstripping, by a considerable margin, the funding available for allocation. That has been driven by inflation and a funding formula that does not properly reflect our relative need and the consequences of stop-start government, along with a failure to properly undertake sufficient public service transformation. I will say again, as I do in all these debates, that our financial stability cannot be divorced from political stability and that reform of public services cannot be delivered without significant reform of these institutions.

The Fiscal Council has pointed to what it termed "financial mismanagement" during the year. That was perhaps made most evident by the £450 million overspend that accumulated in the Department of Health and the Department of Education alone. I suggest that that has been driven, at least in part, by a failure of either Minister, in contrast to other Departments, to properly plan for public-sector pay at the beginning of the year. Progress on a Treasury reserve claim to ease those pressures is, of course, welcome but it is not a silver bullet, as it stores up trouble for further down the road.

Mr O'Toole: I appreciate the Member's giving way. I agree wholeheartedly with his point about reform. Many of us think that there is too much cynicism about this place in London at a political and an official level. Does he agree that people's cynicism is only reinforced when they see political dysfunction and failure to take responsibility for reforming and improving this place?

Mr Tennyson: Of course it is reinforced. However, when it comes to significant reform of these institutions, turkeys will not vote for Christmas, so it is not sustainable for the Secretary of State to believe that that can be achieved in the absence of support from the two Governments. The Government have a role to play. They cannot fly in and lecture the Executive about failure to transform public services or to stabilise finances if they are not willing to play their role in stabilising the institutions to do that. There are examples of significant pieces of transformation being blocked by the structures of the Executive.

I will return to the reserve claim. It is clear that the £380 million of Barnett consequentials announced last week could easily be hoovered up by repayments in the forthcoming financial years.

The 2025-26 financial year was our tenth single-year Budget in a row, and, as other Members have said, it ought to be our last. Single-year spending envelopes are not an efficient or effective means of managing public money, so, difficult as it may seem at this point, the opportunity of a multi-year settlement must be grasped.

In closing my remarks on this financial year, I will, with your permission, Mr Speaker, make some brief remarks on the potential route forward. In any plan for a multi-year Budget, we must learn the lessons that have been taught in debates over the course of the passage of the Bill and, indeed, this financial year. We must see robust public service transformation from across the Executive, meeting the principles of the Bengoa review and the independent review of education. Any such commitment could and should be supported by an enhanced transformation fund, building on the success of the public-sector transformation board to date. We must also see Ministers get serious about tackling the costs of division and duplication in public services. We need progress towards a permanent fiscal framework with a funding formula that truly captures Northern Ireland's relative need and is properly baselined from the beginning of 2021. It was short-sighted of the previous UK Government not to engage with those issues at the time.

It is regrettable that, since the restoration of the Assembly, the Department of Finance has resisted calls for the establishment of an independent commission to jointly adjudicate on some of those matters in order to chart a way forward. In the interim, a rollover of stabilisation funding from the Executive formation package may well be necessary; I am sure that the Finance Minister will make that case.

We have gone through yet another year of capital spending in the absence of an investment strategy. Capital spending has often appeared to be completely divorced from Programme for Government commitments, which is a situation that must be urgently addressed. We must — I agree with the leader of the Opposition's remarks in this regard — have a mature conversation about the capacity to raise revenue in Northern Ireland. We should, of course, reject the orthodoxy that taxpayers in Northern Ireland do not contribute their fair share; they do. Nor should we stand for a position where people in Northern Ireland are asked to pay more for less or to fill a gap that was created by the UK Government. However, we can, and should, take steps to raise revenue in a fair and progressive way that properly supports our public services.

The financial challenges facing the Executive are enormous, of which the 2025-26 financial year is more clear evidence. The challenges that we face, however, are not insurmountable. For our part, the Alliance Party stands ready to work with the Minister and other parties to seek to resolve them and move forward together.

Miss Dolan: The debate on the Budget and the financial challenges that we face has once again highlighted the gap that exists between the public services that we seek to deliver, and which our citizens deserve, and the resources at our disposal. Our public services have been damaged by a legacy of underfunding by the British Government over many years and by the austerity measures that they have implemented. Since the restoration of the Executive just over two years ago, the Finance Minister and his predecessor have pressed the Treasury for further funding for public services, which has secured an additional £1·4 billion. The spring statement in Westminster last week saw the British Government allocate £5 billion to alleviate the pressures on local councils in England. That will benefit us through Barnett consequentials to the tune of £390 million over the next three years. Although that is to be welcomed, it reaffirms the position of many of us in the Chamber: Westminster has failed to prioritise funding for front-line services, which has led to crisis interventions being required.

The recent agreement of the £400 million reserve claim between the Treasury and the Executive is positive from the perspective that it will help mitigate the pressure on the Budget for the next year. However, it underlines the difficulties that we face in trying to protect our public services. It is important, therefore, that, as local representatives, we use the resources and tools available to us to deliver tangible improvements to people's daily lives. That means building on the progress that has been made in the past year on the Programme for Government's priorities, such as reducing health waiting lists, with an additional 200,000 elective care procedures taking place; further funding for the child subsidy scheme, which has benefited 19,000 families; and increasing capacity in our waste water infrastructure, with 5,000 extra properties having been unlocked. I am pleased, therefore, to see that the Budget proposals include almost half a billion pounds to improve health waiting times; £195 million to support parents with childcare costs; £433 million for water infrastructure; and £441 million for social housing, which will help the construction sector and enable more properties to be built. We now have an opportunity to enable Departments to strategically plan for the longer term by agreeing a multi-year Budget. That will also support our efforts to deliver efficiencies and transformation, which will achieve better outcomes across the public sector.

I encourage the Finance Minister to continue his work on progressing a full fiscal framework and delivering more fiscal powers locally, which will allow us to make different choices that better suit the needs of our local economy and generate income for public services in a fair way.

Mr Carroll: I was expecting a few more Members to speak before me, but I am happy to contribute to the debate. The draft Budget was not agreed by the whole Executive, but it looks as though the DUP will support it today. I am not sure what has changed for the DUP; I am happy for anybody to clarify that.

There are very small uplifts for Departments in the Budget, which is alarming in the context of rising costs, including pay claims, and increasing demand for services. It is worth outlining that only four Departments — Health, Education, Justice and Infrastructure — will receive any increase next year, while the rest of the Departments will not. Public-sector pay settlements should be factored into budgets at the start of every year, but, obviously, that is not the case: we have yearly crises when it comes to funding pay awards, and we cannot afford to maintain basic parity. What message does that send to our workers? It is that they are worth less than people doing the same job because they live elsewhere. It is not acceptable to hold our classroom assistants, healthcare workers, civil servants and transport workers to ransom each and every year. We have to reject the language of efficiency savings, which, unfortunately, is trumped out in this Budget, as it was in previous ones. Budgets must meet people's needs as a bare minimum. It is also worth saying that allocations for Programme for Government priorities made up only a very small proportion of the total funding in the Budget, showing once again that the Programme for Government is little more than warm words, with no material substance or funding, even when it comes to the Executive's own priorities.

It is unconscionable that the big parties wanted, and today agreed, to hike the regional domestic rate by 5% for each of the next three years, which is above the current rate of inflation. Ordinary families still struggle to access basic public services. They see little meaningful improvement in health waiting lists, cannot access affordable childcare and, in many cases, cannot get an NHS dentist. They struggle to pay the rent, mortgages and household bills. In the past week, the cost of home heating oil has almost doubled. In that context, working-class communities are once again being asked to pay more while getting less.

The British Government are not coming to save us. There is a £400 million Treasury reserve claim coming this year, but that is, as I understand it, to be repaid over the subsequent three years, which means more financial punishment to come. We are getting an extra £380 million in Barnett consequentials over the next three years as well, which is connected to the SEND funding in England, but that is not being ring-fenced to invest in SEND here. No doubt, parents and carers of children here will be livid about that. That will probably be used to pay off the Treasury reserve claim as well. Tell that to the families of those who travel to attend a special educational needs school or those who are stuck at home for half the day because they have no suitable placement.

As the Minister and others have said in previous debates, we have limited devolved fiscal powers, so the British Government and the Northern Ireland Executive have a joint responsibility to make sure that long-term revenues are sufficient to meet people's material needs. It is not good enough for the British Government to accuse the Executive of fiscal irresponsibility. It is also not good enough for the Executive to place all the blame on the British Government for underfunding us. Westminster's role in perpetuating underfunding is undeniable, but the Sinn Féin Finance Minister conveniently fails to acknowledge the fact that the Executive, including those from his party, are acting as handmaidens for British austerity. They are implementing cuts by choice, not necessity. At a time of record corporate profits across these islands, the Finance Minister has not made a single proposal or raised his voice to argue for higher corporate taxes on companies here. It is in our control to do that, but the Minister refuses to act. He claims that he wants to hear concrete revenue-raising alternatives from other parties. I have repeatedly said to the Minister — I will repeat it again today — that he could abolish industrial derating. Stop giving rates breaks to huge multinational corporations; that would save in the region of £80 million a year. Those corporations also pollute the local environment, mistreat their workers and act in complicity with Israel and other rogue states. Complete the devolution of income tax and then increase income tax on higher earners. Create a fair rates system in which bills are calculated based on ability to pay. The likes of Amazon pay a pittance in rates when they come here, underpay workers and make a fortune across the globe.

The Executive must refuse to facilitate austerity and instead provide a Budget that improves the material conditions of working-class communities. This Budget does not do that. Most people out there will be waiting a long time for the Executive to change course. I say: leave it up to ordinary people to challenge the Budget through community mobilisation, unions and people power. I will do my best today by voting against it.

Mr O'Dowd: I thank all Members who expressed their views during today's debate and those who contributed to earlier debates on the Bill and its associated Supply resolutions. To clarify, we are debating the finalisation of the Budget for 2025-26 and the Vote on Account; it is not the multi-year Budget that we are voting on. I listened to Members' contributions with interest. Although I may not agree with all the arguments that were presented, it is useful to hear them, and it is only right and proper that we scrutinise the Bill and other legislation relating to the Budget.

I will turn to some comments from colleagues. I find the Chair of the Committee to be much nicer than the leader of the Opposition. He is much more helpful, I have to say. [Laughter.]

I jest; the leader of the Opposition is a lovely person.

In fairness to Matthew, he knows fine well that the British Government are underfunding this place and that the Executive face huge challenges in trying to balance the Budget and deliver front-line public services moving forward, but he just cannot help himself on occasion. Given his role, I suppose that he has to say that. The Executive are, quite rightly, open to challenge and scrutiny. I note that they have now dropped the term "constructive Opposition"; it is now just "the Opposition". A constructive Opposition would have been much more beneficial to us all.

Mr O'Toole raised, in this case, a valid question about where the Budget process is at. The public consultation closed on 3 March. The responses are now being scrutinised. The open-book process is taking place as we speak. I emphasise the fact that it is not the case that Treasury is involving itself in devolved decisions. It has no authority to do that, and the terms of reference that the open-book process is operating under do not allow it to do so. I hope that that programme of work will be finished around 20 March. That will allow the Executive to enter into detailed discussions on the way forward. In tandem with that, and as part of the open-book process, there need to be discussions with the British Government about how this place is funded and how we bring forward a Budget that we will be able to balance over the next three years.

It is worth noting some figures on that. There has been a lot of good work done on relative need, including in the Holtham report, and Assembly colleagues are aware of all those things. We now have 124% relative need, which means that, as I often say, we get a fairer slice of the cake but the cake is not big enough. Members will also be interested in these figures. In 2025-26, the Executive were, generally, funded 0·6% above need. Wales was funded 8·6% above need. Scotland was funded 20·5% above need. When the Treasury and others say to me and my Executive colleagues that we have received a fair funding settlement, that we are being funded to the level of need etc — all the lines that you have heard before — I will push back. I wish Scotland and Wales well in that matter — I am not suggesting for one second that the Budget for either Administration should be curtailed or cut back — but the Executive need to be funded in a fair way as well if we are to achieve the common objectives of good public services and an economy here that benefits the people whom it is there to serve.

On the Barnett consequentials, Members will be aware of the figures for SEN and business rates elsewhere. The Executive will decide as part of the Budget discussions how that funding will be allocated. There is demand across a number of areas. As I said in a previous debate, the Executive's pressures reflect the pressures in England on health and education. If you look south of the border, you see that it has pressures from SEN as well.

How the reserve claim will be dealt with has been well recorded and well announced. That will form part of our discussions with Treasury and the Government. I hope that the Executive finalise their three-year Budget in the near future. It is worth noting that it was 3 April last year before we finalised this year's Budget, so we still have time.

The leader of the Opposition asked me to clarify my comments on "shroud-waving". Let me be very clear about that. If I stood up in front of the Speaker and said, "We have achieved everything we wanted. I believe that the Executive are now being properly resourced and funded, and Departments have achieved the funding that they require to deliver public services", I would still expect Ministers to run an efficient and effective service and to scrutinise their spend. I have no doubt that the scrutiny Committees here would continue to scrutinise the role and spend of Ministers and Departments and to ensure that there is efficient, effective expenditure of funds. I would also challenge any Minister or any senior civil servant who came to me and said, "I need x amount to do z", and I would ask them to justify that. That is what good financial management is about.

It is not about simply accepting that every argument or every public pronouncement that is made is based in fact or is the basis on which a Budget should be set. It does not work that way.

Diane spoke about the local growth fund. It is not included in the draft Budget because it is a British Government responsibility. I concur with the remarks that Gavin Robinson made last week at the NI Affairs Committee, where he robustly challenged the Secretary of State on the matter. The British Government need to step up and fund it properly. I will continue to lobby them on that. I have written to my Executive colleagues to ask them whether any of the programmes that they are running could be used to complement the local growth fund. I have asked them to work with the community and voluntary sector to see whether they can support it through their programmes and, if so, to move in that direction.

I agree with Eóin Tennyson about public-sector pay. It should be front-loaded into all future Budgets. I have made such a recommendation in my draft Budget.

The Chair of the Committee for Communities outlined opportunities and challenges for the Department. He also spoke about the scrutiny work that the Committee is doing. I have said it before and will say it again: the role of Assembly scrutiny Committees is often undervalued beyond the walls of this place. Through their forward work programmes, their inquiries, their reports and their scrutiny of Departments, they do excellent work. It is invaluable and deserves much more public attention than it receives.

Apologies if I have missed out anyone. Finally, I turn to Gerry Carroll's call for an end to industrial derating. I have said that I will review the industrial derating policy. Just under 4,500 properties are currently in receipt of industrial derating. Some 54% of those properties have a net annual value of £15,000 or under, which is the current net annual value threshold for the small business rate relief scheme. That means that they are very small businesses. They are businesses operating in your constituency, Gerry, that are providing services and support to the local community and to the wider economy. They are providing employment in your constituency. If you want me to bring industrial derating to an end, you will need to consider that.

Mr Carroll: Will the Minister give way?

Mr O'Dowd: I will in a second. Some 81% of those properties have a net annual value of £50,000 or under, so they are by no means large businesses in the context of the rating system. As well as providing support to small manufacturers, industrial derating provides support to large manufacturers. Such businesses are an important source of employment. I do not agree with a number of them, and my views on them are known, but we have to deal with such matters through the ongoing review. For you to stand up in the Chamber and simply say, "Do away with it. These big capitalists are doing this and that" might be right in a small minority of cases, but there are many businesses in your constituency that are benefiting from industrial derating. There are many people in jobs in your constituency who are benefiting from the scheme, so before we do something, let us establish all the facts . Let us review the policy and see what the best way forward is.

Mr Carroll: I thank the Minister for giving way. With respect, we have been waiting for some time for your view on the matter, as we did that of your predecessor. You have been in office for a year and a bit, so when will we get your view? Furthermore, you cannot lump Caterpillar and Coca-Cola — huge multinationals that are capitalist organisations — in with small companies. When will the review commence? It is also worth noting that many trade unions that represent workers in those factories are against the industrial derating policy.

Mr O'Dowd: Those unions will be able to make representations to the review when it is complete. We are working our way through a range of reviews, and I will make an announcement in due course. All that I am saying to you is this: consider what you are calling for and the implications that there would be for many small to medium-sized enterprises, including those in your constituency, and for the many workers who live in your constituency. It is easy to make the rallying call to take on the capitalists. Great: let us take on the capitalists. The implications of what you trying to do through your rallying call would, I suspect, lead to the closure of many of the small businesses in your constituency.

Mr Carroll: Will the Minister give way?

Mr O'Dowd: No, you had your chance. All that I am asking you to do is think through what you are calling for and, rather than make calls from the corner of the Chamber, allow the process to play out in a measured, responsible and informed way. What you are calling for may make for good headlines on social media, but it makes absolutely no sense.

As I said, we are dealing with the 2025-26 Budget, the Vote on Account, etc and finalising that process. The debates over the past number of weeks have been useful, informative and, at times, challenging, as they should be. However, when it comes to the challenges that we face, we need a united front from the Executive and the Assembly in challenging the British Government to fund this place properly in order to allow the Executive to deliver the public services that our public deserve, and to invest in the economy to create good, well-paid jobs and support families and workers out there. There will always be challenges and differences of opinion on these matters, but, for the next number of weeks, we need a united front to present a case to the Government on how we fund this place.

Mr Speaker: Before we proceed to the Question, I advise Members that, as this is the Budget Bill, the motion requires cross-community support.

Mr Speaker: I invite Members to take their ease before we move to the next item of business.

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

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

Mr Lyons: I think that this is the third time that I have introduced the uprating under the Pneumoconiosis, etc., (Workers' Compensation) (Northern Ireland) Order 1979. We are uprating it by 3·8%. I do not believe that I need to go any further into the detail. If anyone is interested, they can look at the Hansard report from the previous two years.

Mr Gildernew (The Chairperson of the Committee for Communities): I will go into some detail, so that Members will not have to go to all that trouble. [Laughter.]

I am sorry, Minister, but I cannot let this great speech go to waste.

As the Chairperson of the Committee for Communities, I support the motion to affirm the Pneumoconiosis, etc., (Workers' Compensation) (Payment of Claims) (Amendment) Regulations (NI) 2026. At the outset, it is important to reflect on the purpose of the primary legislation that the regulations would amend. The Pneumoconiosis, etc., (Workers' Compensation) (NI) Order 1979 provides lump-sum compensation payments to people who suffer with certain dust-related diseases. Crucially, it also makes provision for payments to dependants, as defined by the 1979 Order, in circumstances where the sufferer did not receive a compensation payment under that Order before their death.

The diseases covered under the scheme, such as pneumoconiosis, byssinosis and diffuse mesothelioma, are devastating conditions. They are generally occupational in nature and are contracted by workers who are exposed to dust, such as coal dust, silica or asbestos, often over long periods of employment. The physical effects of the diseases are severe, chronic and deeply debilitating. Sufferers face progressive and irreversible lung damage, severe shortness of breath, chronic coughing and a significantly reduced quality of life. In many cases, the conditions are life-limiting.

The compensation provided under the 1979 Order is therefore a vital, albeit modest, recognition of the profound suffering and financial hardship endured by those workers and their families across the North. The regulations before us today form part of the annual uprating of social security benefits, pensions and lump-sum payments. Their specific purpose is to increase the amounts payable under the scheme by 3·8% effective from 1 April 2026. The 3·8% increase aligns with the rate of inflation as measured by the consumer prices index in September 2025. The Committee welcomes the uprating. By matching the consumer prices index, the regulations ensure that the compensation payments keep pace with inflation in line with the uprating applied to other disability benefits.

Turning to the Committee's scrutiny of the statutory rule, I will outline the timeline of our engagement with the Department for Communities. The Department initially submitted the SL1 for the regulations to us on 10 December 2025. The Committee subsequently considered the SL1 at our meeting on 8 January 2026, where members were content for the Department to proceed in making the rule. The rule was formally laid in the Business Office on 23 February 2026. The Department advised the Committee that there had been no changes to the policy content since the SL1 was originally submitted. Following that, the Committee considered the final rule and formally agreed the text of the regulations at our meeting on 26 February 2026.

Members should also note that the statutory rule mirrors the corresponding British legislation, so improving these regulations ensures parity of timing and substance between the North and Britain as both sets of regulations are due to come into force from 1 April 2026.

The implementation of a wider package of uprating is expected to increase the Department's annually managed expenditure. However, as is only right, that will be met in full by the Treasury in London, presenting no additional cost to the Executive.

This necessary legislation ensures continued and fair financial support for individuals whose health has been severely compromised by their working environment. Therefore, on behalf of the Committee for Communities, I am content to recommend that the Assembly affirm the regulations.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): No other Members wish to speak, so I call the Minister for Communities to conclude and make a winding-up speech on the motion.

Mr Lyons: Thank you very much, Mr Deputy Speaker. I welcome the support that we have received from the Chairman of the Committee for Communities in his comprehensive speech, outlining the rationale for what we are doing today. It is important that we put it through because of the benefit that it will bring to those who are helped by it.

I do not think that there are any particular issues that I need to respond to in the Chairman's comments. I thank the Committee for its scrutiny, and I commend the motion to the House.

Mr Nesbitt (The Minister of Health): I beg to move

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): The Business Committee has agreed that there will be no time limit on the debate. I call the Minister of Health to open the debate on the motion.

Mr Nesbitt: Deputy Speaker, thank you. I am grateful for the opportunity. I seek agreement to progress by accelerated passage the Hospital Parking Charges Bill, which will postpone the ban on charging money for parking vehicles in hospital car parks, as contained in the Hospital Parking Charges Act (Northern Ireland) 2022. I confirm to the House that Executive approval was secured for the process of accelerated passage, but I do not make the request lightly. Whenever possible, primary legislation, of course, should be subject to full Assembly scrutiny. The Committee Stage of any Bill is, clearly, a significant element of that scrutiny process. However, for reasons that I will outline, there are, on occasion, compelling grounds for the use of accelerated passage.

Before I do that, I will say a few words about why legislative change is required. I will, of course, cover that in more detail in the Second Stage debate that will follow the debate on this motion. Health and social care trusts have been working to implement the legislative requirements of the Hospital Parking Charges Act by 12 May 2026. However, the financial challenges facing the health and social care sector mean that difficult decisions will need to be made across all areas of spend to return the sector to financial sustainability. That includes deferring the abolition of charging for hospital car parking to avoid the loss of some £7 million in charge income recurrently. Achieving financial sustainability will take a number of years to achieve, and that is why the deferral is for up to three years, in line with the timescales for the ongoing Budget process.

I assure Members that I have made every possible attempt to avoid the need for accelerated passage. Last July, I wrote to Executive colleagues highlighting the implications for my Department of the outcome of the UK-wide 2025 spending review that took place in June.

I also set out some of the income-generation measures that I would need to consider, including deferral of the abolition of car parking charges in hospitals under the 2022 Act.

Formal proposals for the deferral of the ban on charging vehicles for parking in hospital car parks were first circulated to Executive colleagues on 8 October last year and recirculated on 11 November. Subsequent versions of the papers were circulated on 5 December last, on 14 January this year and on 9 February. I then made a request for a decision by the First Minister and the deputy First Minister under urgent procedure on 17 February, with my recommendations finally being approved by the Executive on 26 February. That has left a very short period in which to go through all the stages of Assembly approval and secure Royal Assent.

If the normal approach were to be adopted, it would not be possible to secure Royal Assent before 12 May, with the result that charges would have to be abolished temporarily, and it would be for a considerably longer period than the four days in 2024 before the current two-year deferral period came into effect. During that time, there was an uncontrolled surge in demand for car parking spaces. That resulted in significant disruption to flow in our busiest hospital sites. That is not something that I want to see repeated.

If Members do not grant accelerated passage, the stark reality is that hospitals will have limited means to control parking, to preserve blue-light routes and to protect designated spaces. I hope that it is clear to Members that that would create an unacceptable risk of traffic chaos in and around critical hospitals, bringing with it risks to staff, patients and the public. I therefore commend the motion to the Assembly and ask that it agree that the Hospital Parking Charges Bill proceed under the accelerated passage procedure.

Mr McGuigan (The Chairperson of the Committee for Health): I thank the Minister for his opening remarks. I am grateful for the opportunity to outline the Committee's consideration of his request to grant the Hospital Parking Charges Bill accelerated passage.

The Deputy Chair of the Committee for Health, Danny Donnelly, and I met the Minister and senior officials last Monday, and the Minister set out the rationale for seeking accelerated passage for the Bill. That discussion was followed by a detailed briefing from officials at the Health Committee meeting last Thursday. Committee members were taken through the justification for seeking accelerated passage and the implications should it not be granted. I record the Committee's thanks to the Minister and his team for that engagement last week and for facilitating further scrutiny of the circumstances that gave rise to the request.

Accelerated passage is not something that the Committee encourages. We all know the important role that Committees play in consulting the public on legislation and tabling amendments to legislation following the consideration of evidence. On occasion, however, should circumstances deem it to be necessary, accelerated passage is required.

The Committee was informed that the primary reason for introducing the Bill was financial. The Department advised that it could not allow free parking to come into place in May owing to current financial constraints on the health budget and the approximate cost of £7 million a year, which would have an impact on services. The Minister's request for accelerated passage was required, as the existing legislation states that free parking is due to come in in May. Accelerated passage is required to get the Bill through all its stages before then to prevent a period in which parking would be free before charging was put in place. As the Minister outlined, such a scenario arose two years ago when, before similar legislation was enacted, there was a period of days in which parking was free.

Officials advised the Health Committee that the Executive had agreed to the introduction of the Bill by accelerated passage on Thursday 26 February. The Committee did not take a position on agreeing to accelerated passage. I will outline the Committee's consideration of the Bill at Second Stage should accelerated passage be granted.

Mr Carroll: I state my opposition to the Bill and to accelerated passage. The Assembly does not pass much good legislation, but the 2022 Act that removed parking charges at hospitals was one positive thing for which I voted, as did the Assembly. I will repeat now what I said then: it is a bit rich for MLAs, who do not have to pay anything to park in their place of work, to tell health workers and the public to pay to go into a hospital or other healthcare setting, especially when many of those workers are low-paid and have to fight or threaten strike action just to get fair pay, which is not always fully implemented.

Charging workers and the public for parking is a punitive charge that should be opposed. That is not just my view; it was the view of the Assembly four years ago. It is worth reminding ourselves that all parties stood on electoral platforms and got re-elected by lauding the work that was done on free hospital parking. Really, the Bill is like 'Waiting for Godot'. I do not know in what year or decade free parking will actually be implemented. The attempt to rush deferral through again should be opposed, when the Department and trusts have had plenty of time to address the issues that were in the original Bill. I state my opposition to the Bill and oppose its accelerated passage.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): I call the Minister of Health to conclude and wind up the debate on the motion.

Mr Nesbitt: I thank the Chair of the Health Committee for outlining their considerations. I also note Mr Carroll's objection not only to the Bill but to accelerated passage. I made clear in my opening remarks the actions that I took to try to avoid accelerated passage. I tried to get earlier agreement from the Executive, but we are where we are. Accelerated passage, frustratingly, is the only way forward in my mind, and I encourage the House to support it.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Members, before we proceed to the Question, I remind you that the motion requires cross-community support.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Mr Carroll's dissent is noted. The Assembly has agreed that the Hospital Parking Charges Bill may proceed under the accelerated passage procedure. The Second Stage of the Bill may, therefore, be moved today.

Mr Nesbitt (The Minister of Health): I beg to move

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

Mr Nesbitt: Deputy Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to open the debate. At the outset, I thank my Executive colleagues for their support in bringing the Bill to the Assembly. I also thank the Health Committee.

While I readily accept that many colleagues in the House will be disappointed by the Bill, the inescapable fact is that our health and social care services face an unprecedented financial challenge. The aim of the deferral is to protect the delivery of front-line services from a loss of income should parking charges be abolished.

As Members will recall, the Hospital Parking Charges Act 2022 prohibits the imposition of charges for parking vehicles in hospital car parks. The Act was originally due to come into operation on 12 May 2024. Its main policy objective was to abolish hospital car parking charges across Health and Social Care (HSC) hospital sites in Northern Ireland for staff, patients and visitors. The 2022 Act was agreed by the Assembly with the best of intentions to reduce the financial burden on those who need to park at a hospital. At that time, it was a worthy aim. However, as the financial environment has grown more challenging, we have to recognise the impact of that loss of revenue at a time when literally every penny counts.

Subsequent to the Act receiving Royal Assent in May 2022, the health and social care trusts made good progress in preparing for its implementation to the original timescale. However, in early 2024, a need was identified for a two-year deferral due to contractual issues and to provide sufficient time to have the necessary infrastructure in place.

Over the past two years, the trusts have undertaken further work to prepare for the Act coming into operation. For example, a new traffic management system is being implemented regionally to control parking, preserve blue-light routes and protect designated spaces in the absence of charging.

I want to be very clear that the deferral is not being sought because we are not ready to implement the Act. The trusts would have been ready to abolish the charges in May. The investment will not be wasted. Plainly, the new equipment will be needed when charges are abolished, and, in the meantime, the new systems will provide much-needed data and management reports on car park usage, and that will allow trusts to make evidence-based decisions to increase efficiencies in their car parks and better manage the available space.

Although the trusts are willing and able to implement the abolition of car parking charges, the financial circumstances have now changed materially. Looking to the years ahead, the health and social care sector faces an unprecedented challenge, with the situation even more serious than it has been recently. The overall financial deficit facing the health and social care sector in 2026-27 is estimated at around £800 million, and it will grow further in subsequent years. That means that it is simply not possible for the health service to keep operating in the same way as it has been. Difficult decisions will need to be made across every part of the HSC sector. In that context, the abolition of hospital car parking charges would simply be unaffordable. It would require me to make decisions to reduce services to patients and their families to cover the £7 million in lost revenue every year. To be frank, the proposed approach set out in the Bill will not be the last time that I will need to make a difficult decision, and while £7 million on its own will not solve all the financial problems, the fact is that financial sustainability will require many small steps because there is no silver bullet.

While I might take pride in some of the new initiatives and projects that I have announced during my time as Minister, being in the Government is not just about making the positive and popular decisions; it is about making the necessary ones. At a time when the Treasury is conducting an open-book review of the budgets of all Northern Ireland Departments, it is important to show that the Executive and the Assembly take their financial responsibilities seriously. I could not allow one of the first discoveries of the Treasury's open-book review to be that we had willingly surrendered £7 million.

Turning to the details of the Bill, rather than specifying a date on which the 2022 Act will come into operation, the Bill indicates that it will subsequently be specified by regulation. Although I am confident that the challenging financial position can be addressed, I also know that it will take time. I hope that the necessary steps will be taken over the next three years to return our health and social care sector to a financially sustainable position, while protecting and enhancing the priority care that is delivered. For that reason, the Bill includes provision for a deferral of up to three years, but if the financial circumstances turn out to be better than expected, and sustainability is achieved at an earlier date, the Bill includes provision for the 2022 Act to come into operation at an earlier date, with May 2029 as the backstop. The Bill includes a provision that approval of the revised operational date for the Act will be sought by way of a statutory rule, subject to the affirmative resolution procedure in the Assembly. The affirmative resolution procedure, instead of the negative resolution, will provide an opportunity for the Assembly to debate and improve any draft statutory rule.

During the deferral periods, staff parking permits will remain free of charge, and a needs-based system will apply to ensure that staff with the greatest need are provided with free, on-site parking. In October, I circulated the initial draft of an Executive paper to ministerial colleagues to seek their approval for the deferral of parking charges in order to protect front-line services. That was followed by further versions of the paper over the following months in my attempt to secure a discussion at the Executive. However, it was not until the Executive met on 26 February this year that I was finally able to secure Executive approval. The delay from the Executive meant that it was necessary to secure approval of the Bill by accelerated passage. That is because of the importance of securing Royal Assent in advance of 12 May, when the Act is currently due to come into operation.

Although the timescales for approving the legislation remain tight, and the risk remains that charges will be abolished for a short period, Members will see that that eventuality is accounted for in the Bill, with the deferral coming into operation when the legislation secures Royal Assent. Departmental officials will continue to liaise with those responsible in the trusts to ensure that they are prepared for that eventuality.

In concluding, I give credit to those who are responsible for the often unglamorous but vital work of managing our hospital car parks. Having put a lot of time and effort into preparing for the abolition of charging, they will have to change tack. I know that Members supported that measure for the best of motives, reflecting a genuine desire to show solidarity with health service staff, patients and patients' families and friends. However, the House needs to balance that benefit against the impact on vital services if it is not possible to offset the lost income with other funding. I therefore ask you all to support the Bill.

Mr McGuigan (The Chairperson of the Committee for Health): I welcome the opportunity to contribute to the Second Stage debate on the principles of the Hospital Parking Charges Bill. The Bill proposes a further delay, this time for up to three years, to the commencement of the Hospital Parking Charges Act 2022.

Members will be aware that, in the previous mandate, the former Health Committee carried out detailed scrutiny of the 2022 Act, which included a public consultation and evidence sessions with a wide range of stakeholders. Many of the issues raised remain as relevant today as they were over four years ago: persistent capacity pressures on our hospital sites; inequity in charging arrangements across trusts; financial burdens on staff; and inconsistencies in the application of free parking entitlements for patients and families. In March 2022, the Assembly agreed that the Act should proceed, with the intention of moving towards free parking across our hospital estate. While the previous delay was sought on operational and procurement grounds, the introduction of the new Bill is driven primarily by financial constraints, reflecting the difficult budgetary environment facing the Department of Health and the wider health service.

The Bill is concise. It proposes to extend the postponement of the 2022 Act's commencement for a three-year period, which represents a longer delay than was previously provided for. During engagements with the Minister and officials last week, the Health Committee sought clarity on the necessity and proportionality of such a step.

Since the previous extension in May 2024, the Committee has received a briefing every two months on the implementation of the infrastructure required to introduce free car parking at our hospital sites and the work undertaken by trusts on staff permits. At our most recent briefing, in January, the Committee was assured that the necessary infrastructure was in place across all sites and would be fully operational in May 2026. The Committee was advised that the cost of introducing the new automatic number plate recognition (ANPR) system was approximately £5 million across all sites. In the briefings that the Deputy Chair and I had with the Minister last week and that the Committee had with officials, we were advised that the primary factor in seeking a new, three-year postponement was the wider financial pressure facing the health service and the need to save money where possible, including the £7 million in income that would be lost by introducing free car parking. The Minister has confirmed that again in the Chamber today.

During the Committee's briefing, members raised the issue of staff permits and welcomed the fact that staff permits will be free of charge in the next three-year period. The Committee discussed the number of parking spaces at our hospitals, noting that many staff do not have access to parking permits. The Committee has requested further information on the number of staff who avail themselves of a parking permit.

The Committee highlighted the need for trusts to take a more proactive approach in offering free parking to patients and families who meet existing eligibility criteria. Too often, access depends on individuals knowing to ask rather than being offered the support automatically. Consistency across sites is essential. The Minister and the officials indicated that free parking will be brought in before May 2029, if that is possible.

Provided that the Bill completes its Assembly passage and receives Royal Assent, the Committee will take forward its scrutiny of how the Department will use the extended window to address the operational, financial and capacity issues that have prevented implementation to date. The Committee's aim remains the same, which is to ensure that, when the 2022 Act is finally commenced, it is done in a way that is safe, sustainable and equitable.

Mrs Dodds: Like many in the House, I rise with mixed feelings to support the Bill. I acknowledge that there is broad support for free hospital car parking, and we approached the Bill in good faith. However, I also believe that the public want decisions about our health service to be based on and rooted in the reality of the financial situation in which we find ourselves. We have to be honest about the pressures within which the health service currently operates and the difficult and necessary choices that flow from that. This party acknowledges that the Health budget is under sustained strain. Front-line services are stretched, staff are operating under significant pressure, and waiting lists remain far too long. Waiting times in emergency departments are, and have been over the winter, quite horrendous. I have said many times in the House that our cancer waiting times raise moral and ethical concerns. We must do better.

In a health service under that level of strain, priorities matter. Minister, those priorities mean that the £7 million that you identify as savings from not proceeding with free hospital car parking must be used in front-line services, rather than simply disappear into a kind of unaccountable black hole in the health service finances. To give a real-time example, I revert to my contributions on having a full-time 24/7 thrombectomy service. At the Health Committee, we regularly receive updates on that service. It is estimated that the delivery of a 24/7 thrombectomy service would cost the health service £5 million every year and that it would save 160 lives. For some stroke patients, it would be the difference between walking out of hospital and a lifetime of severe disability. It makes no sense that a measure that could save lives, reduce disability and, ultimately, save NHS resources and time has not been introduced. If we are talking about competing priorities, such as £7 million on free hospital car parking, the introduction of a full-time thrombectomy service will always have my vote. I hope that you, Minister, will be able to announce that life-saving service in the very near future. Parties in the Assembly are helping you to make necessary choices so that you can make life-saving choices later in the financial year.

At the Health Committee — this is something that I want you to explore, Minister — officials indicated that they looked at the possibility of extending the existing exemption charges and categories. I am keen to hear whether that is something that you will explore and support. Officials talked about extending those to people with mental health and addiction issues in particular. I wonder whether you see that as a sensible way forward. I appreciate the fact that the £5 million that has already been invested will aid car parking flow. We need to address the car parking issues at the Royal Victoria Hospital in particular.

There are some issues that we need to address, but, on the whole, we will support the Bill, which facilitates a difficult but necessary choice.

I reiterate, however, that the saving must go into front-line services. It must help to protect services and aid the delivery of services by health service workers, who have been at the forefront of a challenging period for our health service.

Mr Chambers: I welcome the opportunity to contribute to the debate on the Second Stage of the Hospital Parking Charges Bill. I suspect that most Members would agree that, in an ideal world, hospital parking would be free. Patients attending hospital and staff who work in our health service face enough challenges and worries without having to think about the cost of parking. We all recognise, however, that we do not live in an ideal world. If we did, the Health Minister would not have the in tray that he currently does, bulging with pressures and problems. Our responsibility is to deal with the circumstances that we face now. In reality, the financial pressures that face our health and social care system are extremely serious. The Department of Health faces projected funding gaps that will run into many hundreds of millions of pounds over the coming years. In such circumstances, every decision about expenditure and income must be considered carefully.

Hospital car parking charges currently generate around £7 million a year. That might appear modest in the context of the overall Health budget, but, given the level of financial strain that the system is under, £7 million is not insignificant. It represents resources that help to support patient services, staffing and the day-to-day running of hospitals. If that income were to be removed immediately, the money would have to be found elsewhere in an already overstretched budget. That inevitably raises difficult questions about where the savings would be made. My party and I believe that protecting front-line health services must always be the priority.

The Bill does not abandon the principle of ending hospital parking charges. Instead, it recognises that the financial position of the health service is now so serious that the immediate implementation of a ban simply is not affordable. The legislation therefore proposes the deferral of the ban on parking charges, allowing time for the financial position of the health service to stabilise. Importantly, that is not an open-ended delay: the Bill provides for a maximum deferral period of three years, with 12 May 2029 as a backstop date. At that point, the Assembly will have the opportunity to assess the financial position and decide on next steps. That seems, to me, to be a pragmatic and balanced approach by the Minister, keeping the policy objective alive while recognising the financial reality that we face.

It is important to highlight the fact that considerable work has been undertaken by health and social care trusts to prepare for the eventual implementation of free parking. Significant investment has been made in modern traffic management systems, including through the installation of automatic number plate recognition technology across hospital sites. That investment will not be wasted. The systems that have been put in place will now help to ensure that hospital car parks are managed effectively, protecting access routes for emergency vehicles and ensuring that spaces are available for legitimate users.

Hospital parking is not simply a financial issue; it is a practical one. Parking capacity across our hospital estate is limited, and demand often exceeds supply. Across the health and social care estate, just under 20,000 parking spaces are available across hospital sites, yet the workforce numbers more than 70,000. That is before we even consider patients and visitors, who also rely on those facilities every day. Managing that demand is a complex challenge, requiring fair systems that prioritise those who genuinely need access to parking. During the deferral period, staff parking permits will remain free of charge, and a needs-based system will continue to operate to ensure that those staff who require on-site parking the most can obtain it. That is an important reassurance for healthcare workers who depend on access to hospital sites as part of their daily work.

It is worth noting that the current system includes a number of exemptions and concessions that are designed to support patients with particular needs. For example, patients who receive treatments such as chemotherapy, radiotherapy or renal dialysis are eligible for free parking.

I welcome the fact that the trusts also have the discretion to provide concessions for patients who face frequent or prolonged hospital visits and that those on low incomes may reclaim travel and parking costs through existing support schemes. Those are all important safeguards.

In conclusion, the Bill represents a pragmatic response to a very difficult situation. As I said, the protection of front-line care must come first. For those reasons, I will be supporting the motion, and I encourage colleagues across the House to do likewise.

Mr McGrath: What a farce: an Act that promised to bring so much to so many will be delayed once again. The legislation, which was full of promise, with suggestions that there would be plenty of money there for it, was passed just weeks before the election in 2022. Then, just weeks after we came back — eventually — in 2024, it had to be completely overturned, because there was not enough money for it.

Originally, the then Health Minister was landed with a private Member's Bill from Sinn Féin, and now the current Health Minister has said that he will struggle to commence the 2022 Act's provisions because he does not have enough money to cover the costs. We are told that the cost would be around £7 million, the majority of which is rates that need to be paid to the Sinn Féin Finance Minister. We therefore have money from a Bill that goes in one way, goes through the Department of Health and then comes back out another way. Then we have no money, so the legislation does not get implemented.

We were told the whole way through that the legislation would have no impact on front-line medical services, yet now we are told that, if we do not agree to the delay, £7 million will have to be diverted from front-line health services to fund it. The legislation therefore does have an impact on front-line services. What a farce.

Staff were promised free car parking. It subsequently turned out to be the case that only some staff were to get free car parking. Only some staff who work in hospitals where there are car parking charges get free car parking. That has created a two-tier system at some sites. That is down to the fact there is not enough capacity to deliver free car parking. Again, what a farce.

We are now dealing with a Bill that looks to delay free car parking until no later than May 2029. Free car parking will be brought in before then only if there is money available. I am pretty confident in saying that, a few weeks before May 2029, we will be back here looking at a further extension, because it is unlikely that whoever the Health Minister is then will be able to come up with the millions and millions of pounds in rates that need to be paid to the Department of Finance to introduce free car parking at hospitals.

The Bill has been granted accelerated passage. That was required because the Minister could not get it on the Executive agenda. It was not that the legislation was not ready. It was not that it had not been prepared. It was not that the Minister was not ready to say, "This Bill needs to be presented to the House". The Committee did not have an opportunity to scrutinise the Bill properly because the Minister could not get it on to the Executive's agenda so that it could be approved in time for it to have a Committee Stage. Once again, what a farce. Some parties blocked a Bill from going to the Executive in order to stop its going to the Committee to receive proper scrutiny. They stopped the Committee from discussing a Bill that would stop money going from one Department to another Department, and the result of that has been that staff are being prevented from getting the free car parking that was promised to them. What an absolute farce. What we have today is a delaying Bill to the 2022 Act. It was so delayed that it could not receive Committee scrutiny. This has been a farce from start to finish. It has been handled badly. It is another example of how the Executive sometimes cannot get the basics right.

Mr McCrossan: I thank my colleague for giving way. I remember that, when the original Bill came to the House, Sinn Féin Members championed it day and daily. They were so eager about it that they were almost out removing the meters themselves.

It is a bit strange that we have not heard much from Sinn Féin on it since. Do you agree that this short-sighted, populist opportunism is another example of how Sinn Féin and the DUP do government?

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): I remind the Member that this is the Second Stage debate, not the stage at which we would consider accelerated passage. There is clear scope to the Second Stage debate: the subject of the Hospital Parking Charges Bill, not political parties and the Northern Ireland Executive. Please return to the scope of the Bill. I suggest that the intervention was taking us some way from that.

Mr McGrath: Thank you very much for that defence of the process, Mr Deputy Speaker.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Mr McGrath, resume your seat. You know the convention around challenging the Chair. There was no defence of any process. I will ask the Speaker's Office to examine my judgement. I am confident that my request for you to return to the scope of the debate will be vindicated.

Mr McGrath: Thank you very much for your explanation of the situation, Mr Deputy Speaker.

My colleague mentioned how there was great urgency to remove the infrastructure. It was not just about removing the infrastructure. As the Minister said, it cost millions of pounds to implement new infrastructure in those car parks. It is costing us money. Yes, I accept the point that there will be an opportunity to use that infrastructure in the future, but we will wait and see whether the original Bill ever makes its way through.

I started my contribution by referencing the fact that this is a farce. I finish by saying that it is a complete farce.

Ms Flynn: I want to focus on the importance of the hospital car parking charges legislation, as originally passed. As we know, the Assembly debated and agreed the principles of the Hospital Parking Charges Bill. This debate is not about the merits of that Bill. I appreciate that my colleague on the Health Committee, and his SDLP and Opposition colleagues, are doing their job, as they see fit, by trying to focus on Executive divisions, DUP/Sinn Féin hostilities, the issues facing the Executive or whatever. However, that is not what this debate is about or what the legislation is about. We are discussing the work that the Minister is trying to bring forward. It is about focusing on the progress that the Assembly can make to deliver the legislation and how it can be carried through and delivered in practice.

It is worth reminding ourselves that, when we originally debated the Bill in the Assembly, almost four years ago, it passed with the support of all the main parties. It is not a fair representation to say that it was something that Sinn Féin landed on the Minister of Health. That is not fair, and it is not reflective of the process. The Minister has supported the intent of the legislation. I do not think that he has said anything different to that, even in his remarks this evening.

It is important to note that, since the legislation was passed four years ago, as has been explained, the Department has had the opportunity to consider how it will be implemented and what arrangements will be needed to deliver on it. It is also important to say that the Department has not opposed the Bill; it has recognised the need to implement it. The Minister made his remarks. We need to consider what steps we need to take next to ensure that we can deliver on it. I appreciate where the Minister is with his budget. He talks about trying to create a sustainable and stable health service. Yes, that is where we all want to get to — every one of us, as elected representatives, in the Chamber. Who the hell is going to argue against that? Yes, we support the need and drive to get to that point. Hopefully, as we said, all the work that has been done and the millions of pounds that have been put into getting the car parking infrastructure in place will hold us in good stead when we can fully deliver on the legislation.

I will bring my comments back to the impact on people. There has been some talk about front-line services. Colin was right when he spoke about the £7 million. It was unclear, at times, whether the £7 million that was garnered in charges was going directly to front-line services. We talk about the heart of the issue and the people affected by this, and, while it is affecting people on the front line, it is also affecting people who use the health service every day, including patients who are travelling to hospital for treatment, families who are travelling to hospitals to see their loved ones and workers who are caring for people, saving their lives and treating them in really difficult circumstances. That is at the heart of all of this. That was the intention behind the legislation, and that is the reason why we should all be motivated to make sure that we do all that we can to get it over the line no matter what it takes. We know that, for many patients and families who are attending hospital — some, unfortunately, on regular occasions — it is a very stressful and difficult experience. We know that people are travelling long distances for their appointments, travelling regularly for treatment or going to support loved ones who are seriously ill, and, in those circumstances, the additional cost of hospital parking can quickly add up, particularly for those who need to attend the hospital frequently. I know that all those points were made previously when the legislation was first debated, but it is really important to repeat them.

Gerry touched earlier on the fact that many households are struggling with the cost-of-living crisis and the whole financial situation, not just the health service. Everyone is feeling it. Additional costs, through any avenue, are putting an additional burden on people, and that includes the additional cost of paying for car parking. Health professionals have raised concerns that parking costs can become a barrier for vulnerable patients. Diane touched on how people with addictions and mental health issues already face barriers when attending hospital appointments. Removing parking charges will mean that those patients can focus on their treatment and recovery without additional financial worry.

While some arrangements have been put in place in recent years to support our staff, there is still, as has been pointed out, a kind of postcode lottery, and the situation is the not the same in every trust, because, as a health and social care worker, you cannot necessarily avail yourself of one of those permits or access parking free of charge at your place of work. That is another big inconsistency that the legislation was designed to address, and we still need to work towards that. Trade unions highlighted the fact that abolishing parking charges would recognise the vital work of our health and social care staff and support recruitment and retention, which, again, is something that everybody in the Chamber wants to see.

The key question that we must ask ourselves today is a simple one: what would another delay mean in practice? We have heard about the £7 million in lost revenue per year. It would also mean continued uncertainty for many health and social care workers, and it would mean that patients and families who rely on hospitals will continue to face additional costs when attending their appointments. The Assembly has already expressed its view on the matter, and the Department has recognised the need to implement the legislation. The Minister has mentioned taking the necessary steps and, please God, we can do that. The focus now needs to be on ensuring that the work continues so that these arrangements can be delivered. Our health and social care workers deserve fairness and consistency right across the system, and patients and families deserve a health service that removes unnecessary burdens when they need care.

Mr O'Toole: It is sometimes difficult to know whether to laugh or cry in the Chamber, to be honest. I am often accused of being cynical or negative, but it is the job of an official Opposition sometimes to say things that are pretty obvious — not "emperor has no clothes" stuff but stuff that is blindingly obvious. When the Assembly previously passed legislation on hospital car parking — I was a Member then — it is true to say that there was no formal Division. For obvious reasons, no one said, "No". It was the last thing that we did before people got in their cars and raced out to put posters up — in fact, posters were probably already going up at that point — and hand out leaflets.

The very last Act that was passed in the 2017-2022 mandate was — I will just get the correct title: I do not want to misquote for the purposes of Hansard — the Hospital Parking Charges Act (Northern Ireland) 2022. That Act abolished hospital car parking charges. That was the last thing that we did in the previous mandate.

Leaving aside Budgets, what was the first thing that we did in the 2022-27 mandate? Well, we passed the Hospital Parking Charges Act (Northern Ireland) 2024, which delayed the implementation of the last piece of legislation from the previous mandate. That, in itself, was an absurd and farcical situation: the first piece of legislation that we passed was one that delayed the last piece of legislation that we had passed in the previous mandate. As legislators, who must be aware of the extraordinarily low levels of public trust in this institution, we all have to acknowledge that that is not good practice, to put it mildly. In fact, it is shambolic.

We now have a 2026 Bill that, I assume, will shortly become a 2026 Act through accelerated passage, by which we are, once again, delaying the implementation of the 2022 Act. People will ask questions about the merit of the initial proposal. There are clear merits in the initial proposal, in the sense that hard-pressed people, particularly low-paid healthcare workers and people who are in vulnerable situations because they are facing care or going to hospital appointments, would rather not have to pay hospital parking fees. Nobody challenges that, which is why nobody challenged the Bill when it went through in 2022. However, there is a problem with our credibility as legislators when we come in here, pass laws, create social media content and go out and tell the world that we have abolished hospital car parking charges, and then keep delaying it.

The public were promised that hospital parking charges would be abolished. They were promised it not just via a motion or ministerial statement but by an Act. We are legislators; we created a statutory obligation for the Minister to abolish parking charges. Let me say this: I do not hold the Minister responsible for the delay.

Mr Carroll: Will the Member give way?

Mr O'Toole: I will give way in one second.

The Minister is in an extraordinarily difficult situation. However, the Assembly made a promise to workers and patients. We have then repeatedly delayed it. It is no use coming in here and saying, "We have to think about healthcare workers and patients". We should have thought of them when Members were going out, making social media content and giving out leaflets in 2022 saying, "We have abolished hospital car parking charges", which we then repeatedly delayed. We wonder why people think that this place is a Mickey Mouse Assembly or that it is toytown. That is not the Opposition's being cynical, nor is it the media that is doing that: we are doing it ourselves with things like this — genuinely. Members will probably find that uncomfortable. Once again, the SDLP is in the position of standing up and saying what the public already think. That is our job as the official Opposition. We have no problem doing that.

I will give way briefly to Mr Carroll. There is not much more to say.

Mr Carroll: I thank the Member for giving way. I agree with a lot of what he has said. I said similar stuff, albeit more briefly, in the previous debate.

Is the Member concerned, as I am, that finance was mentioned in the Minister's rationale for introducing the Bill even though his Department has no problem giving hundreds of millions of pounds to private healthcare bodies every year?

Mr O'Toole: There is certainly a point about referring to financial constraints without being specific. I appreciate that the Health Minister and the Finance Minister are under pressure. We were told, when we came back here in 2024, that there would be a plan for transformation and that there would be healthcare transformation. I think that the Health Minister wants to do that, and he has made some progress. However, the Executive writ large have made very little progress on delivering transformation. It is not just me who says that: representatives of Executive parties have said it on multiple occasions.

I will get back to the Hospital Parking Charges Bill of 2026. This is becoming almost biennial — if that is every two years. It is like the Ryder Cup: it comes round every two years. We promise the public that we will abolish hospital car parking charges. We then introduce a law delaying the banning of hospital car parking charges. Members are shaking their heads and looking disapprovingly at me. How dare I stand up and say that that is nonsense? It is nonsense. If you are a healthcare worker or someone with a chronic condition who was expecting free parking and was promised it by people here, and those people keep passing laws to delay it, it is nonsense. We should accept that it is nonsense. We should grow up. When we pass laws here, we should be honest with the public about what we are doing. That is what being a legislator is about. It is not about passing laws and then delaying them, making promises that we then do not keep or passing Mickey Mouse and meaningless motions. It is about taking responsibility for the public who sent us here, not shifting blame. I think that I have said enough.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): I call the Minister of Health to conclude and make a winding-up speech on the motion.

Mr Nesbitt: I take no pleasure in doing what I am doing, because I understand that I am going against the will of the House as expressed in the 2022 Act. There is one specific question that I want to answer, and it is about whether there may be further exemptions during the deferral period. To be clear with regard to the division of labour, my Department sets the policy, and that includes guidance on free and concessionary parking. That is for patients, next of kin and visitors. We want to see it in particular care pathways. For example, it is currently in place for radiotherapy, chemotherapy, renal dialysis, critical care and high-dependency care paths. It is implemented by the health and social care trusts. They have the discretion to apply eligibility criteria in other situations, but I have to say to Mrs Dodds that I have no intention of introducing further exemptions, and I am not aware of any of the trusts being in that space. However, I expect them to continue to keep operational arrangements under review, and, in the event of a specific vulnerability or exceptional circumstance being identified, to support and consider accordingly.

The one other issue is whether this is £7 million that would come off front-line services or go to front-line services. To be clear, it is not hypothecated, but if we were to lose the £7 million, we would have to make it up from somewhere. Money is so tight that we are increasingly edging towards taking the money off front-line services. That is why it is that serious. I agree with Mrs Dodds: I would like to see 24/7 thrombectomy services introduced as soon as possible. She is right to say that the money would see 160 people who take a stroke outside the hours when thrombectomy services are available, and whose stroke was amenable to a thrombectomy service, being able to walk out of hospital rather than perhaps having lifetime conditions arising from the stroke. So it is really important, and it is a £5 million annual recurrent cost.

This morning, I was with three clinicians who deal with a particular type of cancer, and that £7 million would go a very long way to funding their service. They were so reasonable: all they want, as a first phase, is something that will cost £100,000 or £200,000, but even that is really difficult to get. If you look at the three-year plan that I published last year, you will see that the three pillars are stabilisation, reform and delivery, but it starts with stabilisation. We are still challenged in respect of stabilisation because of the budgetary pressures, which, I repeat, are likely to be £800 million-plus from 1 April over the next financial year. So it is not hypothecated, and it would be difficult to start hypothecating spends like this because of the competing demands and pressures. However, I take the point that 24/7 thrombectomy is something that Mrs Dodds wants to see, and I want to see, before everybody else goes off seeking a vote in May 2027.

In conclusion, the aim of the deferral is to protect the delivery of front-line services, do our best with the budget and make sure that the Treasury does not come in with a deep dive and say, "I see that you have surrendered £7 million that you did not need to surrender". I thank the Members who contributed, and I commend the Second Stage of the Bill to the House.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Members, that concludes the Second Stage of the Hospital Parking Charges Bill. As the Bill is proceeding by accelerated passage, there will be no Committee Stage. The Bill stands referred to the Speaker.

Members, take your ease before we move to the next item in the Order Paper.

Mr Tennyson: I beg to move

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): The Business Committee has agreed to allow up to one hour and 30 minutes for the debate. The proposer of the motion will have 10 minutes to propose and 10 minutes to wind up the debate. As an amendment has been selected and published on the Marshalled List, the Business Committee has agreed that 15 minutes will be added to the total time for the debate.

Eóin, please open the debate on the motion.

Mr Tennyson: It is with some incredulity that I propose the motion. For three years, we have all watched as Lough Neagh turned green in what is now a seasonal spectacle, as the largest fresh water lake in these islands and the source of over 40% of Northern Ireland's drinking water is being choked by putrid pollution. We have grappled with the fallout from Mobuoy, the largest illegal dump in Europe, at staggering environmental and financial cost, and we have witnessed the real impacts of climate change on our communities. Flooding, wildfires and extreme weather have upended lives and livelihoods, not to mention the plight of biodiversity loss and, indeed, the deteriorating air quality that many of our communities contend with.

Those are not isolated incidents but symptoms of a deeper, systemic inertia that has characterised the approach of successive Executives to environmental protection. However, these are not only questions about our commitment to environmental protection; they are questions about fairness, equality and social justice. When our natural assets are allowed to die in plain sight, the people and communities whom we represent pay the price, and that price is not paid equally.

Generations of families who have worked the waters of Lough Neagh as fishermen with pride now find their boats idle. Their identity, income and heritage, all inextricably linked to the lough, are now threatened by toxic blue-green algae. Across our rural economy, the picture is the same. Farmers struggle with adverse and unpredictable weather. Tourism and recreation businesses lose visitors. Businesses that are the backbone of our rural communities are too often left to carry the burden of environmental degradation and failure.

Clean air, safe water and healthy land are not privileges; they are rights, and they must be safeguarded by a body with the independence and authority to hold all of us to account — government, businesses and wider society. An independent environmental protection agency (EPA) would not only act as a watchdog and a deterrent to polluters; it would be a catalyst for restoration, investment and rebuilding public trust. For 30 years, report after report has concluded that our system of environmental governance needs fundamental reform. The case for change is irrefutable. We need an agency that is independent of politics, can take decisions on the basis of scientific evidence, can enforce compliance robustly and is properly empowered and resourced to do so.

In 2020, every party signed up to establishing an independent environmental protection agency as part of 'New Decade, New Approach' (NDNA). Yet when Alliance sought to amend the Climate Change Bill to secure an agency in the previous mandate, the Assembly rejected it. We were told at that stage that there was not enough detail on the structure, functions or powers of a new agency. That is why, when the Executive returned, as a top priority, Andrew Muir commissioned an independent review of environmental governance. That review, which included a member of the Ulster Farmers' Union (UFU), has now provided the detail, recommendations and road map necessary to move forward. The model proposed would improve transparency, accountability and consistency, and yet that proposal is being blocked at the Executive.

It is no surprise that the DUP would renege on commitments made in 'New Decade, New Approach'. We are all well accustomed to their snake oil salesman approach. It is, however, a staggering display of arrogance and disrespect not just to their partners in government but, more important, to the people of Northern Ireland, that they have not kept their word. Nor is it surprising that the DUP takes a reckless approach to environmental stewardship. Many of the challenges that we face today stem directly from the policies that they championed and pursued in office.

What I find baffling, however, is that a party that professes to be vehemently opposed to a trade border in the Irish Sea — a border that they created — is now determined to build a sea border for environmental governance brick by brick. It is bizarre that the DUP, as a unionist party, would argue that citizens in Northern Ireland, drinking mouldy water and breathing poor air, are not entitled to the protections and safeguards enjoyed by citizens in England, Scotland and Wales. It is a perversion of democracy that clandestine sectarian vetoes are being deployed to prevent the issue even reaching the Executive table. The supposedly "Democratic" Unionist Party is running down the clock and deliberately frustrating the democratic will of the Assembly and the Executive. The abuse of cross-community protections and the joint nature of the Executive Office to block an EPA exposes just how warped these institutions have become and just how far we have fallen from the spirit and intention of the Good Friday Agreement of 1998.

The perilous state of our environment is not an orange or green issue. The establishment of an independent EPA will not have a differential impact on nationalists or unionists. All our people have suffered and will continue to suffer if the Assembly fails to act. Of course, while it falls primarily to local parties to honour the commitments made in 'New Decade, New Approach', it is not solely the responsibility of local parties. The UK and Irish Governments have an obligation to ensure that the deal that they brokered is honoured and delivered. Indeed, when the DUP previously reneged on New Decade, New Approach commitments to the language and identity Bill, the previous Government stepped in and legislated to ensure that it could be delivered.

The evidence for the need to reform the institutions is clear and has been well rehearsed. If dysfunction, deadlock, delay and the endless cycle of ransom politics are allowed to continue, the Secretary of State will condemn the institutions to death by a 1,000 collapses or death by a slow bleed of public confidence as institutions in which parties cannot deliver on their democratic mandates or even deliver on the least controversial of issues for which there is widespread public support. We must act now to protect our environment for future generations and to protect those whose livelihoods rely on it.

We know that an independent environmental protection agency is not the entire solution. Work is under way in a range of areas, such as peatland restoration, the nutrients action programme, the river basin management plan, strengthening penalties and, indeed, ending the bye ball on pollution for NI Water, but an independent agency is the foundation on which the progress must rest and be measured.

I commend the motion to the Assembly.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Thank you, Eóin. I call Matthew O'Toole to move the amendment.

Mr O'Toole: Our amendment—.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Move the amendment, please, Matthew.

Mr O'Toole: Of course, sorry. It is a long day.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): I know; it has been a long day.

Mr O'Toole: I beg to move the following amendment:

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): You will have 10 minutes in which to propose the amendment and five minutes in which to make a winding-up speech. All other Members who speak will have five minutes.

Mr O'Toole: Hopefully — I am sure others hope so, too — I will not use all my 10 minutes, but I will not make that promise, because I might break it.

I hope that our amendment adds to tonight's motion, because we entirely agree with most of the motion. It is one of the most urgent and unavoidable — some people in the Chamber want to avoid it — crises that this society faces that we have pushed our environment to what, I hope, is not the point of no return, although it feels very close to that. In his opening remarks, Eóin Tennyson pointed out two of the most clear-cut and striking examples of environmental violation that western Europe has seen. The first is the Mobuoy scandal, an extraordinarily disgusting and vast waste crime and one of the largest illegal dumps in Europe. There is still no plan for remediation, the cost is unbearably high, and there is no sense, although there have been criminal proceedings—.

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

Mr O'Toole: Yes.

Mr Muir: The Member will recall that, at Question Time yesterday, I outlined that we had consulted on Mobuoy. The response to the consultation will be published this week, and I will engage with elected representatives for the area about the response to that and the way forward. It is important for you to accept that that is the way forward on the issue.

Mr O'Toole: I am happy to accept that. It was not an implied criticism of the Minister. I was simply making a point about Mobuoy and that context because the motion refers to it.

It is true that Mobuoy is one of the biggest waste crimes in recent European history. It is also true that Lough Neagh, one of the biggest bodies of fresh water in Europe, is degrading in front of our eyes every summer, and it could well happen again this year. We are faced with an almost sci-fi vision of environmental degradation. Those are two examples. One has been caused by long-term pollution from agricultural intensification and the loading of nutrients into our soil. That is undeniable, by the way. Before anybody says that it is an attack on farmers, it is not; it is a fact. Number two has come about through long-term underinvestment in our waste water infrastructure and, as the Minister correctly said, issues around NI Water being given a bye ball on pollution. Mobuoy showed unseriousness when it came to environmental crime, allowing that kind of crime to pass if not unremarked then certainly with a much more liberal wave of the hand than there would be in other places.

It was because of that, frankly, appalling and unsustainable context that there was a commitment in 'New Decade, New Approach' to deliver an independent environmental protection agency. As has been said, that is something that exists in statute in other parts of these islands. It does not prevent farming; it does not prevent decisions being made on planning; and it does not prevent economic development. It means that, in law, there is a proper environmental watchdog to ensure that environmental standards are met and to defend our environment. We have simply not defended and protected our environment in Northern Ireland — the evidence is in front of us — and the public know that and are appalled by it. The Lough Neagh eel is not just one of the greatest natural resources but one of the great culinary resources of this part of the world. Lough Neagh eel fishermen have barely been able to fish for the past few years because of the state that we have allowed the lough to get into. That is an appalling indictment of us as politicians and the system that we have allowed to develop.

It is because of all of that that there should no longer be an argument about whether we have an independent environmental protection agency; the question should be how and when we deliver one. The SDLP has tabled an amendment to the Administrative and Financial Provisions Bill. That is a relatively arcane Bill, but it has a broad and miscellaneous scope. We hope that we will be able to debate that, but I do not know. We may or may not. If we are able to do so, we will be using our time in constructive opposition by trying to move this forward. I agree with what was said about the DUP's know-nothing attitude towards the environment. It is utterly short-sighted when it comes to the environment. It has absolutely no seriousness when it comes to the issue, and its blocking of an independent environmental protection agency is indefensible and needs to end.

The purpose of our amendment is to add to the motion and clarify a point of accountability. We have just had a strange debate on the Hospital Parking Charge Bill in which Members from one party appeared to indicate that they supported a Bill and then voted against it. We had a slightly surreal refusal of Members to accept accountability. It matters that, when we take office, we accept accountability. Let me say this clearly: I accept that the Environment Minister wants to make progress and that he has reform in mind, and I know that he wants to create an independent environmental protection agency. My question, which is a respectful one, is why that was not secured in the Programme for Government. It should have been. That would have been a reasonable ask for the Minister, his party leader and their party. They could have asked for that to be included in the Programme for Government. Indeed, it would not have been unreasonable for them to say that their participation in the Executive would be time-limited, because they may well have wanted to enter opposition had that promise not been kept.

Mr Tennyson: Will the Member give way?

Mr O'Toole: It would not have been unreasonable, given that that is how voluntary coalitions work in other parts of the world, to make that ask.

Mr Muir: Will the Member give way?

Mr O'Toole: Yes, but I do not know whom to give way to, because there have been two requests.

Mr Muir: Thank you, Matthew. On what basis do you make the assertion that I did not ask for that to be included in the Programme for Government?

Mr O'Toole: If you did, I am happy to defer to you on that, Minister. It certainly is not in the Programme for Government, but, if you are telling me that you made a specific request for that to be in it, I will take you at your word. I certainly acknowledge that you want an independent environmental protection agency. My question is how deep that ask was and what conditionality you offered. For example, did you say that you and your party would participate in the Executive only on the basis of achieving an independent environmental protection agency?

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Members, which way are you supposed to direct your questions?

Mr O'Toole: Of course, through the Chair.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Then do so. Thank you very much indeed.

Mr O'Toole: It would not have been unreasonable to say that your participation in the Executive would be contingent on a number of delivery items. I will give way to whomever.

Mr Tennyson: I thank the Member for giving way. Can the Member list one condition that his party extracted for the SDLP's participation in any Executive in the past 20 years? Does he recall the statements that he published when the Programme for Government was under consideration, which said, in effect, that the Alliance Party should just hurry up and agree whatever the DUP and Sinn Féin put in front of them?

Mr O'Toole: The Member has made a sharp political intervention; that is fine, because there is a degree of politics in all of us. That is not what is in the amendment. We are not debating things that happened in the Executives of the past.

We are in opposition now; you are in the Executive.

Since Mr Tennyson raised the point, the Alliance Party was given an extraordinary mandate in the 2022 election. It was an extraordinary election. We know that because it came in part at our expense. I congratulate you on that, but, since you pressed me on it, I think that the public have a right to ask what the Alliance Party used that mandate for. One of the things that it has not achieved is an independent environmental protection agency. That is not me being cruel; that is me holding parties to account. That is our job in opposition, and we make no apology for it. I do not think that it would have been unreasonable or intemperate for the Alliance Party to have said, "We will participate in the Executive on the basis of achieving an independent environmental protection agency" and perhaps one or two other things, including progress on Stormont reform. Bear in mind that the participation of neither the Alliance Party nor the Ulster Unionist Party, because they were not in a position to nominate a First Minister or deputy First Minister, would have prevented an Executive from being formed, so the accusation of what is sometimes termed ransom politics would not have been applicable in that case. It simply would have been a party with a vastly increased mandate and a specific set of manifesto proposals, including an independent environmental protection agency and Stormont reform, seeking to use its increased mandate to achieve that in government. That would have been an entirely legitimate thing to do, but it was not done. That is the point that I am making.

I now move back to the issue in the motion. The DUP is blocking the proposal at the Executive. I look forward to hearing its argument for continuing to block it, other than simply a thran, "No, nothing" desire to get its own way and block any progress. The public out there, including people from all backgrounds — unionist, nationalist and those who simply do not care one way or the other — want our environment to be protected. They know that we have allowed our biodiversity to slip into disrepair. They know that we are one of the most nature-depleted places in Europe. They know that industrial agricultural intensification has led to environmental degradation. To be absolutely clear, that is not any type of criticism of the farming community; it is simply to say that agricultural intensification has happened. All the people out there see those things and see the DUP's blocking progress. They wonder whether we can ever make progress at Stormont. The DUP is the party that wants to maintain the status quo, but it also wants to make the status quo dysfunctional and unable to deliver. I see that, very charmingly, Mr Buckley is looking at his watch. People will be looking at their watch in relation to the constitutional status quo if you and your party continue to block progress on important things, such as environmental protection. I have made my point and will leave it at that.

Ms Finnegan: I support the motion. Protecting our environment is a responsibility that we all share, not only for the communities that we represent now but for the generations that will inherit this island thereafter. Across the North, we have seen the devastating consequences of environmental damage and neglect, from the ongoing crisis affecting Lough Neagh to illegal dumping in Mobuoy and the greater pressures on biodiversity and water quality. Communities are rightly asking whether the systems that we have in place are strong enough to protect our natural environment. That is why the discussion about the establishment of an independent environmental protection agency is a very important one.

There was a clear commitment in the New Decade, New Approach agreement to establish such a body. That agreement must be respected and implemented. The DUP simply cannot, on the one hand, express concern about ongoing environmental crises, such as that at Lough Neagh, and, on the other hand, block measures designed to strengthen environmental accountability. We have seen similar positions before when it comes to environmental policy. Initial opposition to stronger climate action eventually gave way to acceptance when the direction of travel became clear. Communities expect that same recognition now. Stronger environmental oversight and accountability are necessary if we are to truly protect our natural environment.

Mr Gaston: Will the Member give way?

Ms Finnegan: Not now.

Strengthening environmental governance must remain a priority if we are to restore public confidence and ensure that environmental standards are properly upheld. However, as we consider the establishment of an independent environmental protection agency, it is also important that we take a practical and forward-looking approach.

I have said this before and will say it again: environmental damage does not recognise borders. Our rivers, waterways, ecosystems, wildlife and so on are shared across the island. Pollution that begins in one jurisdiction does not recognise a line on a map. If we are serious about protecting our natural environment, our approach must therefore be sensible and ambitious. Any new environmental body must have the independence, powers and resources required to hold authorities to account, but it must also be capable of working and communicating constructively with its counterparts across the island. Issues such as water quality, illegal waste activity and biodiversity loss require coordinated responses between North and South. At the heart of the debate should be the simple principle that communities deserve to have confidence that environmental protections will be robust, credible and effectively enforced. They also deserve advice and support on how to reduce pollution and improve waterways, which are functions that an IEPA could also fulfil.

For far too long, environmental protection has fallen between the stools, with Departments and agencies failing to step in to take proactive measures. An independent environmental protection agency could fill that gap and ensure better accountability and better protection of our environment. The people whom we represent expect there to be strong environmental protections and proper accountability, not false promises, blockages and parties speaking out of both sides of their mouth when it comes to the issue of tackling environmental decline. Sinn Féin will support the motion.

Miss McIlveen: The Alliance Party talks a lot about openness and transparency, but, whenever it comes under scrutiny from other politicians or, indeed, from journalists, it distracts, deflects and insults in order to avoid dealing with the hard questions. That is the opposite of openness and transparency. It is simply gaslighting of the public.

The attempted establishment of yet another quango in Northern Ireland is another way of placing accountability elsewhere, which seems to be one of the Alliance Party's favourite pastimes. From looking at the Alliance Justice Minister's responses to questions for written answer, one might wonder whether the Department of Justice is responsible for anything. It seems that the Alliance Party wants to use that as the blueprint for its other Department. Passing powers to an independent agency is yet another attempt by the Alliance Party to absolve itself of any responsibility or accountability for the failure of the Departments under its control. An independent environmental protection agency will not clean up Lough Neagh or improve the quality of one drop of water. What it will do is afford the Minister scope to say that it should do better rather than accepting that it is he who should do better.

The Alliance Party's agitation for an independent environmental protection agency is a distraction to deflect from DAERA's, and, by extension, the Minister's, failures. As I said in the Chamber in November:

There are around 120 arm's-length bodies (ALBs) in Northern Ireland, excluding those such as the NIEA that are Executive agencies in Departments. There are around 80 non-departmental public bodies (NDPBs), advisory bodies, tribunals, boards and cross-border bodies. That is an awful lot of government that is not part of government. In the motion, the Alliance Party refers to things being "undemocratic". Arm's-length bodies are the definition of undemocratic, yet the Alliance Party is asking for the establishment of an undemocratic body, with accountability being pushed away from democratically elected MLAs to an appointed board.

When the Minister made his statement to the Assembly on the independent review of environmental governance, I asked:

It appears that the answer is the magic money tree. If the money has not been available to fund adequately the bodies that the Minister has currently, it will not be available to fund this new body, unless it is taken from somewhere else. If we add the additional layers of governance required to operate an NDPB, it will only cost the public purse more, which means that somewhere else will suffer.

I asked what safeguards have been suggested to prevent the mission creep that has been seen with other independent bodies that were established through statute. I gave the valid example of the Equality Commission in the Ashers case. It was reasonable to highlight the actions of a publicly funded body that cost the public purse £250,000, an amount that could have been more if Ashers had pursued its costs. However, the Alliance Party's deputy leader saw fit to accuse me of engaging in a homophobic dog whistle. That was distraction, deflection and insult.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Michelle, return to environmental protection, please.

Miss McIlveen: Getting to the point, again, it was distraction, deflection and insult. It seems that the Alliance Party prefers no openness, no transparency and, certainly, no accountability.

A Member: Will the Member give way?

Miss McIlveen: No, I will not.

Add to that the fact that the Alliance Party is, once again, showing its disdain for the cross-community protections that are provided under the Belfast Agreement and St Andrews Agreement. It wants them discarded, simply because it is not getting its way. Instead of working within the perfectly legal framework that exists, the Alliance Party wants to run to the Secretary of State to attempt to override it. So much for minority protections.

At a time when the public purse is stretched, I am yet to hear a cogent argument for why I should support spending further money on an unaccountable quango, simply to cover the Minister's blushes. I am yet to hear a reason why I should support the establishment of another body and risk the squandering of public resources when it overreaches and is unanswerable for that overreach. I am yet to be convinced that the existing oversight mechanisms could not do their job properly if they were properly funded and supported by their sponsor Department. I am also yet to be convinced on why we should expect the situation to be any different with the new body that we are being asked to establish —.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Draw your remarks to a close, Michelle. Thank you.

Miss McIlveen: I will not be supporting the motion. [Inaudible.]

Mr Butler: Thanks, Mr Gaston, in the corner, for your words of encouragement. I will take them in the manner in which they are probably not intended.

I am the Ulster Unionist Party's spokesperson for agriculture, the environment and rural affairs. We may well support the motion. I will get to the detail. We may well support it because we support the creation of an independent environmental body and agency, under certain rigorous circumstances. There has been some good work on that. However, I would like clarity from the motion's sponsors on the last sentence of the motion, which:

Will they outline how that does not interfere with our current structures, archaic and ugly as they are? The DUP is not the only party in the Chamber that holds vetoes and has used vetoes.

Mr Tennyson: Will the Member give way?

Mr Butler: Yes, I will take an intervention.

Mr Tennyson: There are two options for the Secretary of State. He could engage the parties in a process of meaningful reform of these institutions. While that would take longer, it would respect the role of the institutions. Alternatively, he could follow the course taken with the then culture and language Bill, which the previous Government passed, and step in to put enabling powers in place to allow the Department to move forward.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): You have an extra minute.

Mr Butler: To be clear, my party would be open to number one but not number two. We would be prepared for the Secretary of State to negotiate with the parties to move things along with the commitments that were made, because allowing the process to move forward is important for the environment.

The findings of the independent review of environmental governance were a long time coming. If Members took the time to read them, they would know that they make for difficult reading. However, while we support addressing the blockage in the appropriate way, we do so with significant and clear caveats. Our support should not be interpreted simply as a blank cheque for creating another body or an assumption that structural change alone will solve the challenges that we face. I agree with Miss McIlveen in that sense. The environmental decline of Lough Neagh has become the clearest example of what happens when responsibilities are blurred, enforcement is inconsistent and accountability becomes diluted across multiple organisations. That is precisely why reform is needed, but reform must be carefully designed and not rushed.

Northern Ireland already operates within a complex network of organisations with environmental responsibility. The Northern Ireland Environment Agency operates within the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs, while councils, environmental health officers and the Office for Environmental Protection all play roles in regulation oversight. The challenge before us is not simply about adding another institution into that landscape; it is about ensuring that any reform simplifies governance rather than compliance, which would complicate it further. That point was made very clearly in one of the last speeches by Tom Elliott, now Lord Elliott, when he was an MLA. He said:

We are already dealing with that in the Committee that I chair.

That warning remains highly relevant today. If an independent environmental protection agency is to be created, it must not replicate the existing functions nor introduce layers of bureaucracy that ultimately slow decision-making and confuse accountability. Independence is important, but independence in itself is not enough. It must be built on a clearly defined mandate, proper resourcing and strong governance. Otherwise, we risk simply changing the structures on paper whilst the underlying problems remain unsolved.

The review that has taken place has examined a range of options, including whether NIEA should evolve into a more independent regulator; how enforcement powers might be strengthened; and how environmental governance can be better addressed across departmental structures. That work has been subject to engagement with stakeholders from across society, including environmental agencies, industry, academia and the farming community. That breadth is essential, because environmental policy does not exist in isolation. It intersects directly with agriculture, infrastructure, planning and rural and economic development, and, when we examine the pressures affecting water quality and biodiversity across Northern Ireland, we see just how complex those interactions are. Agricultural activity, waste water infrastructure and septic systems all contribute to the pressures on our waterways, and that complexity is why governance reform must be approached responsibly.

I will again reference Lord Elliott, who observed in the previous mandate:

That is an important point. A new regulator may strengthen oversight and enforcement, but it will not, on its own, resolve the environmental challenges that we face. That is why the terms of reference for any new agency must be rigorously defined.

If Northern Ireland moves toward a new environmental regulator, it must be capable of working across all Departments, coordinating effectively with existing bodies and enforcing standards where necessary. However, it must also be tasked with delivering practical and balanced solutions. Our environment does not exist separately from the communities in which we live and work. Northern Ireland's agri-food sector remains one of our most important economic pillars as it sustains rural communities across the region.
Farmers are not separate from environmental protection. In fact, in many cases, they are the bulwark of environmental protection. They are absolutely central to it. Many have been stewarding the same land for generations and have a direct interest in protecting soil, water and biodiversity. It is in their interests. Any future governance structures must recognise that reality. Environmental protections must go hand in hand with sustaining agriculture.

Mr McAleer: Environmental protection, water quality and long-term agricultural sustainability are among the most pressing challenges facing the North. Issues such as pressures on waterways, the health of Lough Neagh and the management of waste and land resources require thoughtful, balanced and evidence-based policymaking. In addressing those challenges, it is important that governance structures command public confidence, operate transparently and provide effective oversight. That is the context in which the proposal for an independent environmental protection agency has been raised.

The commitment to establish a body was contained in the New Decade, New Approach agreement, and we see it as an opportunity to strengthen environmental accountability while ensuring that decisions are informed by scientific evidence and independent scrutiny. At the same time, any framework for environmental regulation must consider the challenging circumstances facing the farming community. Agriculture remains central to our rural economy and to food production, and farmers are already adapting to a range of regulatory and environmental pressures.

We have previously debated in the Assembly the proposed nutrients action programme for 2026-29. Those proposals include measures such as stricter phosphorus limits, requirements around low-emission slurry-spreading equipment and uncultivated buffer strips for certain land uses. While those proposals are designed to improve environmental outcomes, they also highlight the complexity of balancing environmental ambition with the operational realities facing farms, particularly smaller family farms that are operating on tight margins.

It is therefore important to recognise that farmers are an essential part of the solution, and, across the country, farming families are already engaging with innovation and sustainability initiatives. Through programmes such as the soil nutrient health scheme, farmers are working collaboratively with the Department to improve nutrient management, strengthen soil health and support long-term environmental resilience.

That represents a science-based and data-driven approach to improving outcomes for agriculture and the environment.

Other initiatives, such as the sustainable utilisation of livestock slurry project, demonstrate the sector's willingness to trial new technologies and methods for processing and applying slurry more effectively. Those efforts contribute to reducing emissions, improving water quality and making better use of nutrients. Many farmers have also taken proactive steps by investing in low emission slurry spreading equipment through the farm business improvement scheme. Again, that demonstrates that, when appropriate support and partnership are available, the sector is willing and able to embrace change.

In that context, the establishment of an independent environmental oversight body can play an important role in strengthening trust and ensuring that environmental regulation is applied consistently, transparently and with appropriate expertise. An independent environmental protection agency has the potential to provide clarity, accountability and confidence to the public while ensuring that policy decisions are informed by robust scientific evidence and meaningful engagement with stakeholders, including the farming community.

My party supports the motion and the amendment. It is not about assigning blame but about recognising the importance of credible environmental governance. If we are to address the challenges facing our waterways, ecosystems and natural resources, institutions will be required that are trusted, independent and capable of balancing environmental protection with the —.

Mr Gaston: Will the Member give way?

Mr McAleer: Yes, OK. I am on my last line here.

Mr Gaston: Would the Member like to clarify for the House which party's Minister is in charge of the 20 million tons of untreated sewage that goes into our waterways each year? Sinn Féin seems to want to distance itself and have that independent body. What is your party's Minister doing about that?

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

Mr McAleer: Thank you.

When it comes to the independent EPA, it is important to highlight that we are an outlier compared with the rest of Ireland and, indeed, Britain. We are the only part of these islands that does not have independent oversight of those issues. I imagine that, as a unionist, the Member would like to have parity with, and be the same as, Britain. We are a regulatory outlier on those issues; it is important that we establish that agency here so that we have the independent and important oversight to deal with them.

As I was saying, institutions will be required that are trusted, independent and capable of balancing environmental protection with the sustainability of our rural economy.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Before we move on to the next Member to speak, Colm, you have been around here a long time, have you not?

Mr Gildernew: I have, Deputy Speaker.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): You know that you are not supposed to walk in front of a Member when he is making his speech. Come on, Colm. [Inaudible.]

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Yes. OK. Thank you very much.

Mr Gildernew: I was just [Inaudible.]

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Yes, I thought that that might have been the case. Right, settle down, everybody.

Mr T Buchanan: I note from the wording of the motion that the DUP remains a thorn in the Alliance Party's side as we continue to hold its Agriculture Minister to account by not allowing him to pursue his ideology, run rampant with the establishment of an independent environmental protection agency and add a further bureaucratic burden to an already overloaded, bureaucratic Department. Where have the days gone of cutting bureaucracy and red tape rather than adding to it? Unfortunately, those days seem to be long gone.

Amidst the Alliance Party's hypocrisy, I note from its motion that it decries the voice of what it describes as:

Who does the Alliance Party think that it is to propose that my party's views are to be ignored and trampled underfoot to allow it to pursue its pet projects and advance Minister Muir's single-track green agenda irrespective of the cost? It is time that the Minister took off the blinkers, took a good look at the environmental protection measures that we already have in place and provided them with the support and teeth that they need to deliver results in an effective and efficient manner. We already have the Northern Ireland Environment Agency, the Office for Environmental Protection and other bodies, such as Shared Environmental Services (SES), which were set up to protect and safeguard our natural environment and enforce regulations, as and when required, while holding the Department to account.

Yet it appears that the Minister is not satisfied with those bodies and wants to add to the environmental bureaucracy, but he has provided no costing as to how much the independent environmental protection agency would cost or where the money would come from to fund it.

Further to that, no clarity has been provided as to what the agency would do that the other bodies are not already doing. The reality is that, while we are not short on oversight, results are abysmal, and it is not another quango or more committees that we need, but tangible results. Yet that is what the Minister has failed to deliver on. When challenged about the poor delivery from the NIEA, which is causing huge problems for farmers who are endeavouring to upgrade their farm buildings to comply with environmental regulations but are being hampered from doing so, what response do we get from the Minister? He says, "It is someone else's problem." A planning problem, perhaps. Blame the planners. Or he says, "We are putting mechanisms in place to address the issue." It is a bureaucratic problem. He continually passes the buck, and little is being delivered.

Mr Buckley: I thank the Member for giving way. He is absolutely right to highlight the failure from the Alliance Party, and particularly the Minister, to properly fund and hold accountable the agencies that are already in place. Does he agree that there is more than a growing suspicion that the Minister is deliberately running down the agencies that are in place to advance his narrow ideological position, which is to the detriment of the agencies that are in place and of those who live in the rural countryside?

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

Mr T Buchanan: Thank you. That is a very fair assessment of what we believe the Minister is doing. If the Minister is serious about the environment — if he wants to be known as the Minister who led on environmental issues, rather than as the pass-the-buck Minister — he needs to man up to his responsibilities and begin with fixing the system already under his control by properly resourcing the NIEA and empowering it to act in a much more effective and efficient manner. Minister, you can no longer hide behind the environmental structures that you have responsibility for but that are failing to deliver. You have been long enough in post now to have had the outstanding issues in the NIEA resolved. How are you going to find the resources for a new independent environmental protection agency when you cannot find them for the NIEA?

I further note from the motion the phrase "enhance environmental accountability and safeguards". Perhaps the Minister can clarify whether that is not what the NIEA and the OEP are already supposed to be doing, albeit at a snail's pace. Minister, how can you be trusted with another environmental agency quango when you cannot even fix what is currently under your control? We do not support the motion.

Mr McMurray: It is no secret that our environment has suffered from decades of neglect and our system of government is not fit for purpose in being able to progress the structural changes required to deliver meaningful improvement in our environment. We need to be able to progress policy that delivers on the public's priorities within the Executive. That is what was promised on that famous day in 1998. However, instead, we have a system of government defined by constant standstill, delay and veto. The veto exercised over creating an environmental protection agency is just one more example of this inaction. Certain parties have shamefully collapsed our institutions before, with severe consequences for public service delivery, long-term planning and the delivery of good government. That includes severe environmental crises where our response to those issues was hampered by the lack of functioning institutions.

Much has been said by every party in the Chamber about the ecological crisis facing Lough Neagh. It is time that other parties stopped paying lip service and politics to the environment and got serious about tackling the issues. One party's actions ensured that there was no Executive in place to respond to the emergence of blue-green algae in the lough in 2023. Today, it is unilaterally preventing the AERA Minister from putting an IEPA in place to better protect the lough and the wider environment. Is it any wonder that public confidence in the Assembly is at such a low ebb when we have one party blocking a policy that has broad support across the rest of the Executive and Assembly? This way, nothing contentious gets done, we do not lead on issues where we should, and we do a terrible injustice to everyone in the country.

My Minister is the Minister for Agriculture, he is the Minister for Rural Affairs, and he is the Minister for the Environment. That part of the brief has long been neglected, noticeably by the DUP when it held that portfolio. I commend the Minister for changing that and for taking the environment brief seriously for the first time in a long time.

Regrettably, we have no shortage of environmental catastrophes in Northern Ireland.

Mr Durkan: Will the Member give way?

Mr McMurray: Will I get an extra minute? I have a lot to get through. [Inaudible.]

Mr McMurray: Thank you.

Mr Durkan: I thank the Member for giving way. It predates the Member's time in the Assembly, but I am sure that his colleagues can recall it and tell him that, when it came to the environment's place in DAERA, it was the initial desire of the larger Executive parties — the DUP and Sinn Féin — to call the new Department "the Department for Agriculture" and to omit "Environment" even from the name of the Department.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Mr McMurray, you do indeed have an extra minute.

Mr McMurray: Thank you; perhaps I can slow myself down a bit as well.

I appreciate that, and, yes, it reflects greatly on the importance of the environment that we pushed back on that and made sure that it was included.

Purely from an economic perspective, the water quality crisis in our rivers, bringing the death of Lough Neagh, Belfast lough and so many other bodies of water across the Province, and the illegal dumping at Mobuoy, which could cost hundreds of millions of pounds to remedy, are costing our economy dearly. They are eating up colossal amounts of public money; money that should be spent on addressing the many other issues that we face. Preventing those catastrophes from the outset is a prime example of invest to save —.

Mr McNulty: Will the Member give way?

Mr McMurray: I have a lot to get through.

Mr McNulty: I thank the Member.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Mr McMurray, it is up to you to decide whether to give way or not.

Mr McNulty: I thank the Member for kindly giving way. Speaking of water quality, 20 million tons of raw sewage were pumped into our waterways by the Department for Infrastructure last year. That equates to 8,000 Olympic-sized swimming pools full of raw sewage pumped into our waterways by the Department for Infrastructure. Do you believe that an independent EPA could get to grips with that challenge?

Mr McMurray: I will come on to our waste water infrastructure in a moment, but the Member makes a valuable point.

On the subject of better environmental governance, I know that farmers are cognisant of the role that they play in looking after the environment. Indeed, they are frustrated by other Departments that are dragging their heels when it comes to tackling issues such as waste water infrastructure. Better environmental governance will also be crucial in turning back the tide on climate change, the impact of which is already having significant consequences for the agriculture sector, particularly due to flooding, drought and other severe events. However, livelihoods are being put at risk due to the lack of environmental safeguards that the DUP stands against.

We must not talk about the environment as purely an economic matter either. To simply reduce it down to a decision based on market forces does it a disservice. We all depend on a functioning ecosystem for our very survival. We cannot keep killing the planet that we live on. We have a moral duty to respect and acknowledge the inherent value of the environment. Minister Muir brought plans for an independent environmental protection agency to the Executive in November 2025. That did not come out of the blue; it was part of the New Decade, New Approach commitment that the DUP signed up to at the time and which continues to have cross-party support.

The independent review of environmental governance also recommended that there should be an independent environmental protection agency. At this point, the only stumbling block is the DUP's refusal to let an EPA progress. Founded on a diet of "No, No, No", nothing seems to have changed in the DUP's conception, and now it is the people and the environment that are suffering. We need an independent environmental protection agency specifically, but we also need to reform our institutions in order to remove those kinds of blocks and vetoes, which are undemocratic and frequently abused.

An independent environmental protection agency is not a matter of legacy or national identity. Green/orange or right/left, political persuasions should not matter when it comes to our environment. It is a shared resource that we should all take an interest in protecting and restoring. There is absolutely no justification for a single party to be holding everyone else to ransom because of anti-science, anti-climate dogma. Unfortunately, that kind of situation keeps happening again and again. It needs to stop, and it should have stopped yesterday. We in the Alliance Party have made that case ad nauseam. It is now more urgent than ever that the fundamental flaws in our structures are addressed so that we can all move forward to enhance government delivery and improve the quality of life for people in Northern Ireland. Our people deserve a Government that function effectively, and everyone has the right to have —

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

Mr McMurray: — a healthy and flourishing environment.

Ms Murphy: I welcome the opportunity to speak to the motion. Obviously, we will support the motion. The establishment of an independent environmental protection agency is about protecting the natural assets that sustain our communities, livelihoods and local economies. Few places in the North are as closely connected to water as my beloved county of Fermanagh, which is home to Lough Erne, a unique network of rivers and lakes that forms one of the most distinctive inland waterways anywhere across these islands.

Those waterways are central to our identity, and they play a central role in our economy. Local tourism depends on them. Boat hire companies, angling guides, guest houses, hotels, restaurants and activity providers all rely on the health and, indeed, important reputation of those waterways. When environmental protections fail, that reputation is put at risk.

Mr Gildernew: I thank the Member for giving way. Does she agree that many constituents and communities in our constituency of Fermanagh and South Tyrone are crying out for enhanced environmental protection of air quality? Communities such as those in Killeeshil and Granville are repeatedly beset by odours emanating from commercial premises.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Áine, you have an extra minute.

Ms Murphy: I absolutely agree with the Member. Residents of Killeeshil and Cabragh have been dealing with horrific experiences, so having an EPA would help with transparency, enforcement and monitoring.

When environmental protections fail, jobs are put at risk, livelihoods are put at risk and rural economies are put at risk. Recent years have shown how vulnerable our waterways can be. Lough Neagh has been mentioned, and I will mention it again, and Mobuoy is referenced in the motion. The crisis at Lough Neagh should be a stark warning of what can happen and what the economic consequences can be for local communities that surround the lough shore. What has happened has been detrimental. Indeed, reputational damage has been done to communities around the lough shore. That is why it matters that an EPA be established.

It was agreed as part of NDNA that an EPA would be created. That commitment needs to be honoured, yet we have seen the creation of the agency blocked. That sends out the wrong signal, especially at a time when public confidence in environmental governance needs to be strengthened. It also weakens our ability as an Assembly to respond to environmental crises and to protect the natural assets that support regional economies such as the one in County Fermanagh. This is about protecting our waterways, protecting our rural economies and protecting the natural environment on which so many of our communities depend.

Mr Wilson: I find the motion and, indeed, the entire issue of the creation of an independent environmental protection agency to be a distraction. It is a distraction from inaction. I say that because there is much to be concerned about in the Minister's Department, and I feel strongly that the creation of yet another quango will do little to improve the outlook for the rural economy and, indeed, for those who live in the countryside or who derive a living from the land.

It cannot be dismissed or downplayed that we already have the Northern Ireland Environment Agency. Unlike an independent environmental protection agency, the NIEA exists. From what I have understood over the past three months, that agency is the regular focus of criticism from the Committee for Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs. Although the NIEA does do a lot of good work, it also fails to meet expectations on many issues. I think especially of the planning consultation function and the impact that delays with consultation responses are having on Northern Ireland's economic outlook. I would argue that resource and time should be focused on and targeted at that agency, with a clear view taken on improving it rather than on creating another new agency. It goes without saying that important projects, such as those on farms, that would see investment in new systems and ways of working, using new materials and new methods, are being held up. Such projects would ultimately benefit the environment, yet they are being held up.

Moreover, Shared Environmental Services exists as a consultee organisation and also causes significant concern as a result of delays with consultee responses on planning. Indeed, it seems that that organisation enjoys a type of inaccessibility akin to that of a secret service. Will the creation of another quango, as the Alliance Party motion suggests, help in any way when resources are very clearly stretched?

Mr Muir: Will the Member give way?

Mr Wilson: I will.

Mr Muir: Does the Member accept that there is a massive contradiction in his point? His own Education Minister is seeking to set up an arm's-length body for controlled schools, yet he is arguing against the creation of an arm's-length body because he says that he does not believe in having any more.

Mr Wilson: What I have seen from Minister Givan since I have come to the House is a bullet train of progress. That is what I would call it. We have seen a lot of progress from Minister Givan. It is relevant. People have come to me. I have been at schools, and they are very content with Minister Givan's progress. People do not have to lie to me about that. Teachers and members of the public come to me, saying, "We like what Minister Givan's doing". Unfortunately, the flip side of that is —.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Gareth.

Mr Wilson: Yes?

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): When I nod in that way, it means, "Sit down". [Laughter.]

Gareth, can we keep ourselves on the environmental protection agency rather than Japanese railways, please?

Mr Wilson: That is OK; will do. I was just responding to the Minister and giving him his place. I will continue.

I disagree that the creation of another quango, as the Alliance Party motion suggests, will help in any way. We already have the Office for Environmental Protection. I quote from its website:

The Minister and the Alliance Party want to further abdicate responsibility. A new quango, as they propose, would provide a useful diversionary shield for the Minister. That would weaken lines of communication and direct accountability and shift the focus away from the Department's remit and responsibilities. That should not be permitted. Consider the budgetary pressures in DAERA. The bovine tuberculosis bill is projected to exceed £60 million, as we discussed at the Committee last week. Do we need to put yet another quango into the Minister's portfolio, when his Department clearly struggles to tackle the costly problem of bovine TB?

Rather than adding to the bureaucracy, the delay, the cost, the inaction and the public's frustration, the focus should be firmly on improving the performances of existing bodies under the Minister's control. We should not be farming out responsibility to quangos. I do not support the motion.

Mr Gaston: I welcome the veto that the DUP is exercising at the Executive to oppose the creation of yet another unwanted, costly, green-welly-brigade quango in Northern Ireland. The proposal is the latest example of the Minister prioritising his environmental ideology over the agriculture sector — the very sector that he is supposed to champion, yet continually treats as the poor cousin in his portfolio. Let me be clear: protecting our waterways and our environment matters, but creating another costly quango is not the way to achieve those protections.

Let us examine the Alliance Minister's record on the issues that he wants to farm out to another body. On 3 March, Minister Muir told the House:

I regard that as the Minister failing to protect our waterways. He still has not done anything about that issue.

Mr Muir: Will the Member give way?

Mr Gaston: I am happy to give way.

Mr Muir: Does the Member support my moves to end the bye ball that has been afforded to Northern Ireland Water?

Mr Gaston: I have been in the Chamber for 20 months and have continuously pushed you on that issue. At the very beginning, you said, "Oh, it's not my Department. I'm not into the blame game", but, thankfully, you have woken up and moved to the mood music that you have to do something about it. You criticised the farmer but protected Northern Ireland Water. I am glad that that narrative has changed.

Let us look more broadly at the environmental side of Minister Muir's portfolio. The Minister is under pressure over allegations relating to the Agri-Food and Biosciences Institute (AFBI) that were first reported to his Alliance colleagues 11 months before, the Minister claims, they were first brought to his Department by an MLA and GB News. Let us remind ourselves what those serious allegations are, as reported by a whistle-blower who worked to AFBI: slurry spreading during the closed period, including blowing slurry into Hillsborough Forest; collecting Bovaer milk in a tanker and disposing of it into the willows, diluted with dirty water; biosecurity failures, with badgers roaming around the yard; and numerous animal welfare concerns. I regard that as another fail on the environment by Minister Muir. Those allegations strike at the very heart of fairness and credibility in the Department on the watch of the Alliance Party, which tabled the motion. The allegations suggest the existence of a two-tier system: one rule for private farmers and another for a government-run, publicly funded body.

Forgive me, Mr Deputy Speaker, if I roll my eyes when the Alliance Party tables a motion looking for an independent environmental protection agency. The Minister is already in charge of the Northern Ireland Environment Agency (NIEA). If Mr Tennyson's summing up is correct on the doom-and-gloom picture that he lays out regarding the environment, I suggest to him that he write to his Minister, because he is the man who has the power to do something about it. Oh, no! He is in the same party, so we have to farm this out to, guess what, an independent body. That is the code word in here for saying, "No responsibility here". Look at the MLA pay increase: "It is independent, so it is not our problem, guv".

Farmers are already under severe pressure from rising costs, greater regulation and the uncertainty of what the next round of nutrients action programme (NAP) proposals will be. A powerful new environmental regulator risks laying even more restrictions on that sector that is vital to our economy, our rural communities and our food production. This is especially absurd when the Minister and his party already have the powers and levers at their disposal to do something about it.

At a time when public finances are under immense strain, the people of Northern Ireland will rightly ask why millions of pounds should be spent on another administrative body. If that money exists, I suggest two places where it should go. The first is to Northern Ireland Infrastructure, so that it can stop pouring 20 million tons of untreated sewage into our waterways and unlock the capacity to get our housebuilding sector going again. If that is not acceptable, the second one is that the Minister should look at giving grant aid to the farmers, who could then bring in new environmental projects that will lower emissions on their farms. They are being strangled and prevented from doing so because of the red tape, poor responses by NIEA and SES.

I am happy to give the Minister time to come in.

Mr Muir: Sorry: you said about giving money to Northern Ireland Infrastructure. I do not know that body, but perhaps you would clarify that.

On your issues with regard to AFBI, I am aware of concerns raised through an MLA about AFBI in November 2024. It did not relate to animal health or to —

Mr Gaston: Deputy Speaker, there are only 15 seconds left, and I gave the Minister the opportunity to come in. He wants to be smart, but he knows rightly that it is DFI. It is putting 20 million tons of raw sewage into our waterways. If he wants to be smart about it, I ask him to go and speak to the Sinn Féin Minister, who could not, would not be drawn, because it was their Minister leading to the problem with pollution —

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Mr Gaston, your time is up.

Mr Gaston: — in Northern Ireland.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Your time is up. [Interruption.]

Thank you very much indeed. I know, Mr Gaston, that you are quite experienced now and [Interruption.]

— steady there. Just as a point of note, rather than a point of order, when the Minister is still standing and you have invited him in, until the Minister sits down, you cannot interfere. You know that one.

Over to you, Mr Carroll. Gerry.

Mr Carroll: In the last debate, I commented on how long it is taking the Assembly to implement free parking for people in hospitals. However, from this motion it is clear that we take longer and longer — the years have gone by, quite literally — to put an independent EPA in place. I say clearly that an independent EPA is long overdue, and I appeal to parties to stop blocking it. Obviously, I mean the DUP in this case.

I support the motion and the amendment. Executive parties signed up to this in early 2020, but, obviously, they were getting spooked by Timothy Gaston or by some of their own bogus arguments about the environment that they churn out daily. As a general point, agriculture and environment are often pitted against each other. That is a false dichotomy, a false debate. We should challenge that.

The Member for Strangford asked for a cogent argument as to why we need an independent EPA.

I can give her several: Lough Neagh is toxic green, the Mobuoy dump was allowed to exist for years, corporate farmers pollute waterways every year and scores, if not hundreds, of people are dying because of air pollution.

During the debate, my quango meter was going off, because I lost count of the number of times the word "quango" was used by Members to my right. I am happy to give way if the Members want to describe what a quango is. Is the Education Authority (EA) a quango? Is the Housing Executive a quango? If Members view those organisations as quangos, do they want to end them, or is it only the green and environmental quangos that they are against? There are too many quangos, and it is too late in the day.

Mr Buckley: I thank the Member for giving way. My definition of a quango is an organisation that has no direct political oversight from those who have been democratically elected, is funded with inordinate amounts of public money and is wasteful.

Some Members: Hear, hear.

Mr Carroll: That was a good effort, Johnny Timex. Fair play to you on that, but, as I said, there is still a rationale for keeping an independent EPA.

Mr O'Toole: Will the Member give way?

Mr Carroll: Go ahead.

Mr O'Toole: Not to be too much of a know-it-all, "quango" is an acronym that stands for quasi-autonomous non-governmental organisation. The EPA would not be quasi-autonomous; it would be independent. That is the point.

Mr Carroll: Yes. I did not realise that the term "quango" would cause such a stir, but we obviously need the organisation.

I pay tribute to Friends of the Earth, which has called for an independent EPA since 2004, before I and many others became elected representatives. Friends of the Earth led the way when it was not necessarily in vogue to call for an EPA. If, or rather when, an independent EPA is established, it has to be independent of the Department and the Executive, to go back to the previous point. The body should tackle NI Water and the other public bodies that engage in the nefarious behaviour that has been mentioned.

I do not understand the rationale for the position of some Members, who attack the Minister in support of farmers but are not in favour of an independent EPA because it would not look at NI Water and other bodies. I do not bat for the Minister on every issue, but that does not add up, in my estimation. The body should be properly funded, staffed and resourced. It should have the teeth to properly intervene to stop pollution and ideally prevent it from happening. Moy Park obviously comes to mind.

There is an absurd state of play in my constituency and, I am sure, other Members' constituencies whereby constituents can be fined if their bins are not collected through no fault of their own. Often, they are not collected through no fault of the council workers either. People who are deprived and live in poverty in working-class communities can be fined quite hefty sums of money. People across the North can be fined, rightly, for dropping cigarettes in the street, but corporate polluters get away scot-free. That is an absurd state of play.

I agree with the Member for Lagan Valley who said that an EPA alone will not stop pollution, but I hope that it will be a step in the right direction when coupled with the sea change, or maybe a slight change, in some parties' endorsement of the Going for Growth strategy, which led to so much dumping and pollution.

In conclusion, we need to move away from allowing extractive companies to dictate terms to local communities here. We should not let a disgraced former ambassador to the US and former Secretary of State — the prince of darkness — dictate what communities here should do.

Mr Buckley: Will the Member give way?

Mr Carroll: Maybe, if I have a second.

He should not dictate what mining companies should be allowed to get away with. I refer to Dalradian in that context.

There has been a lot of talk about public ownership of Lough Neagh in recent days. We said it last year, as did the Save Lough Neagh campaign —.

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

Mr Carroll: It is time for the earl to hand it over.

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

Minister, over to you. You have 15 minutes.

Mr Muir: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I welcome today's debate, and I commend my colleagues for tabling tonight's motion. The Assembly faces a defining decision about the kind of leadership that we choose to show in Northern Ireland. Are we an institution that believes in the stewardship of our environment, or do we shirk our responsibilities? Are we an institution that respects the democratic will of the House, or do we abide obstructionism? Do we, as an institution, fulfil our promises to the public, or do we break them? Lough Neagh shone a spotlight on our environment like never before. Make no mistake about it: the public are watching.

Mr Tennyson: I thank the Minister for giving way. Mr Carroll mentioned the remarks that the Earl of Shaftesbury made at the weekend. Does the Minister have a response to those?

Mr Muir: I welcome the Earl of Shaftesbury's support for an independent environmental protection agency. I also welcome his willingness to transfer the bed and soil of Lough Neagh to community ownership without charge. The conditions associated with that will need to be clarified; I have heard a lot about what those could be, and it is important that they are clarified. I will be seeking a meeting with the Earl of Shaftesbury to get clarification. Transferring ownership of the bed and soil to community ownership has lots of challenges. For example, who is the "community"? I welcome the initiatives being taken forward by many organisations around this, because it is something that we want to explore.

I am conscious that communities are suffering now from the environmental degradation of Lough Neagh — from drinking water to lost livelihoods, as you set out, Eóin. Our constituents are rightly demanding action. For more than three decades, report after report has delivered the same message: Northern Ireland's environmental governance arrangements are not fit for purpose and do not deliver what people and nature deserve. We are witnessing the consequences of that. Look at the blue-green algae in Lough Neagh, the illegal dump at Mobuoy, the wildfires in our countryside and more. It is not just about nature; it is about the communities that are suffering. Tonight's motion on establishing an independent environmental protection agency is not simply a tick-box exercise; it is a test of our resolve to protect public well-being, restore our natural environment and uphold our promises to the people of Northern Ireland.

From the outset, I reiterate clearly my firm commitment to establishing an independent environmental protection agency. The evidence is clear, the need is urgent, and the public expect progress. Northern Ireland's environmental governance challenges have been known about for over 30 years. From the 1990 Rossi report to the present day, each review and report has called for an independent EPA and reached the same conclusions: chronic under-resourcing, insufficient independence and a persistent gap between Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom and Ireland in environmental performance and compliance. Despite that, we remain the only jurisdiction in the United Kingdom without an independent environmental protection agency. That position is not tenable. It is not only about doing what is right by our environment but doing what is right for our communities that rely so heavily on our environment. It is about ensuring that protections are in place so that an environmental catastrophe on the scale of Lough Neagh can never occur again. It is a question of democracy and delivering on our promises. Through motions passed in 2020 and 2025, the Assembly has repeatedly endorsed the principle of an independent EPA. We also had the New Decade, New Approach agreement of 2020, which was endorsed by the DUP.

Mr Buckley: I thank the Minister for giving way. Will he clear up some confusion? Is the Alliance Party's position that it supports all the commitments in New Decade, New Approach? Any independent observer would say that it has reneged on and undermined other key commitments, such as the UK Government's commitment to ensuring that Northern Ireland remains an integral part of the UK market, because his party supported arrangements that put a border in the Irish Sea.

Mr Muir: So which party campaigned for Brexit?

Mr Buckley: What about the arrangements?

Mr Muir: Which party —.

Mr Buckley: Did you support them?

Mr Muir: We are looking to alleviate the issues, as I was doing today on the emissions trading scheme; that is what we are focused on. 'New Decade, New Approach' promised that the Executive would:

Mr Buckley: Cherry-picking, Minister.

Mr Muir: In November 2024, I appointed —.

Mr K Buchanan: He is cherry-picking.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Ladies and gentlemen — Jonny — let us just calm it down. Let us behave; let us let the Minister speak. I am actually quite interested in what he is saying. I will also be interested to see whether he takes any interventions from the Floor, so let us get back on track. Minister, over to you.

Mr Muir: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker.

As I was saying, in November 2024, I appointed the expert independent panel, led by Dr Viviane Gravey of Queen's University and supported by Diane Ruddock, a National Trust retiree, and John McCallister, a representative of the Ulster Farmers' Union. The panel was tasked with carrying out a review of environmental governance in Northern Ireland to assess the adequacy of current arrangements and provide recommendations for improvement for my consideration, taking into account the very changed landscape post EU exit. I put on record my sincere thanks to Viviane, Diane and John for carrying out an extensive and complex review as expert individuals. The independent panel has delivered a comprehensive road map for better environmental governance, and I have brought those clear proposals to the Executive, asking for their support for the establishment of an EPA.

The evidence is not in dispute. The only barrier now is, frankly, the undemocratic unionist party. My question for the DUP is, having supported 'New Decade, New Approach', "What has changed?". It is certainly not the state of our environment, which suffered enormously when it managed the relevant Department in previous years.

Our environmental dashboard is flashing red. I therefore urge all Members to consider fully the detailed independent panel's final report, which was published on 21 October last year. Its 32 recommendations span policy, delivery and governance, but its central recommendation is unequivocal: Northern Ireland should establish an independent EPA as a non-departmental public body with its own board and operational autonomy, sponsored by DAERA. I fully believe that the proposed model would deliver stronger accountability, greater transparency and a more coherent and consistent regulatory system. Importantly, it is a vital step in ensuring that we learn the lessons of Lough Neagh and put nature firmly on the road to recovery.

Securing Executive approval would have allowed detailed policy development and for the business case to proceed. It also would have enabled us to finalise regulatory and institutional design. Sadly, however, it looks as though none of that work will be realised.

Members have asked about costs. I question whether those concerns are genuine or whether they are a red herring being put forward by a party that does not really care about the environment. As I stated, precise figures would require detailed scoping work, which has not taken place. What is very clear is that we are already paying for inaction. The long-term cost of sites such as Mobuoy and the environmental and economic damage at Lough Neagh demonstrates the price of insufficient oversight and fragmented governance. An independent EPA —.

A Member: Will the Member give way?

Mr Muir: I will continue.

An independent EPA would consolidate, not duplicate. Regulatory and monitoring functions would transfer from the Department and the Northern Ireland Environment Agency to the new body. It would not be an additional layer; the existing structures would be replaced with a more effective and accountable model. Environmental governance in Northern Ireland has been chronically underfunded. The panel recommends statutory protections for the EPA's independence and funding. If we want durable, trusted regulation, long-term stable resourcing is essential.

I will not address the panel's other recommendations at this stage, except to note that many depend on the establishment of an independent EPA. Unfortunately, they cannot progress until the Executive reach agreement. It is now over four months since I outlined the outcome of the independent review to the Chamber, pressing for the need to move forward. I have sought Executive agreement in that regard, but the DUP has deliberately run down the clock. I say this to all those who have campaigned for years for the delivery of an independent EPA: I share your disappointment and deep frustration that our institutions are incapable of delivering it. It is an affront to democracy, which is why I have written to the UK and Irish Governments, asking them to begin a process of reform of these institutions. Following the motion, I will do so again, requesting that the outstanding New Decade, New Approach commitment to establish an independent EPA be implemented.

We cannot build stable government while the foundations of these institutions are not fit for purpose. We cannot risk waiting for yet another collapse or crisis to fix them, because there are no guarantees that we will get another opportunity to show that this place can work. The public are fast losing faith, and they have clearly had enough of the blocks and vetoes that ultimately do not deliver for them. We will never succeed if one minority party — whatever party it is — is able to stall progress. As important as an independent EPA is, this issue is bigger than that; it is about enabling government that can truly deliver a prosperous and shared society for Northern Ireland. We owe it to the spirit of the Good Friday Agreement to embrace change and fulfil the hope and vision for what this place could be.

I pay tribute to the people —. [Interruption.]

Your party was not there. It stood outside and campaigned against the Good Friday Agreement. I pay tribute to the people who worked to construct the Good Friday Agreement. Many years on from it, however, we have to realise that some people in the institutions are not working in good faith and there is a need for reform.

I will return to the matter of environmental governance. Some Members have asked what progress can be made on the expert panel's report, pending Executive agreement. The Committee has requested an update on progress made against the 32 recommendations, including on what actions are under way, pending Executive consideration of the independent EPA proposals. My officials will brief the Committee on Thursday. I am progressing wider measures to strengthen environmental protection. They include ending the previous administrative statement of regulatory principles and intent (SORPI) arrangement with Northern Ireland Water, preparing the fisheries and water environment Bill and continuing to work on delivery against the Lough Neagh report and action plan. Without Executive agreement on an independent EPA, however, key elements of the wider programme cannot proceed.

Mr Carroll: I thank the Minister for giving way. The British Government and the coalition in the South are not known for the speediness of their actions. In the absence of their acting to ensure that the Minister can establish an independent EPA, what is his plan of action to ensure that it is created before the mandate expires?

Mr Muir: I have been clear that there is a role for the UK and Irish Governments in reforming the institutions. In the Fresh Start Agreement of 2015, it was made clear that, if an item did not appear on the agenda after three consecutive Executive meetings, it should appear on the agenda for a decision. Those are the types of reforms that need to be made so that we can have effective government and effective delivery for the people of Northern Ireland. If those reforms are not made, there are other opportunities, such as through a private Member's Bill for consideration by the Assembly. It is wrong that we should have to consider doing that, because we should be able to deliver something that was in a previous agreement and that is also the will of the House, as was shown by a motion that was passed in November of last year.

Northern Ireland is at a crossroads. The decision in front of us is clear: continue with the politics of division and all that it costs or embrace reform and truly deliver for the people of Northern Ireland. Northern Ireland cannot afford to remain the only part of these islands without an independent EPA. Establishing an independent environmental protection agency will deliver stronger and more transparent regulation, consistent enforcement across all sectors, a level playing field for businesses, greater public confidence and reduced long-term environmental and financial costs. I urge all Members, for the sake of nature and the well-being of us all, to get behind reforming the institutions to bring about long-term stability and end the blocks and vetoes that are used far too often.

I will respond to two issues that were raised during the debate. First, Mr Gaston —.

Mr Gaston: Will the Minister give way?

Mr Muir: I am about to address one of the issues that you raised, Mr Gaston.

Mr Gaston raised an issue about AFBI. I am happy to respond on that, which is what I was trying to do in my intervention earlier. In November 2024, an MLA made me aware of concerns that had been raised about AFBI. They did not relate to animal health or environmental compliance issues, and they were passed to the AFBI chief executive to deal with. In June 2025, the chief executive made my Department aware that concerns had been received about animal welfare issues at Hillsborough and that they were being examined.

There is one last issue that I want to address. I want to give Mr Buchanan an opportunity to reply to me, if he would like to ask for an intervention. He asked me to "man up". Would he like to clarify exactly what he meant by that request?

Mr Gaston: Will the Minister give way?

Mr Buckley: Will the Minister give way?

Mr Muir: No, that is me done. Thank you [Interruption.]

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Steady. I call Daniel McCrossan to wind on the amendment.

Mr McCrossan: Thanks, Mr Deputy Speaker. At the outset, I thank the Minister for not giving Mr Gaston an intervention. It has been a long night, and I think that we all want to get home. Thanks for that, Minister. [Laughter.]

Mr Gaston: Will the Member give way?

Mr McCrossan: Not a chance.

I support the motion with the amendment and welcome the opportunity to contribute to this important debate. I do so because, if we are to have a serious discussion about the important issue of environmental governance in Northern Ireland, we must deal with it with honesty and ambition. Yes, the commitment to exploring the establishment of an independent environmental protection agency was included in the New Decade, New Approach agreement, but it is true to say that that commitment was not reaffirmed when the Executive were restored in February 2024 and does not feature in the Programme for Government. That is a fact, and it is right that the Opposition have acknowledged it.

The central issue, however, is the growing environmental crisis facing Northern Ireland and the failure of the current system to respond with the urgency that is absolutely required.

Our environment is in crisis, and the Executive have been unable to deliver meaningful change in response. You only have to look at Lough Neagh, which we have talked about for a long time, to see that that is the case. It is badly polluted, and a problem that will take many years, if not decades, to fully repair has been subject to piecemeal interventions. The issue extends far beyond Lough Neagh: many of our rivers and waterways are failing; biodiversity is declining at an alarming rate; and poor air quality is contributing to illness and premature death.

Our response to the climate emergency has lacked urgency and coordination. If we are serious about turning this around, we need a truly independent environmental protection agency that has the authority to enforce the law and hold the Executive to account. The AERA Minister has made clear that he has been unable to secure Executive agreement for an EPA due to the blockage from the DUP, yet there is clear public and Assembly support for stronger, independent environmental oversight. We will not take a DUP "No" or "Never" for an answer. That is why the SDLP —.

Mr Muir: Will the Member give way?

Mr McCrossan: I have a lot to get through, Minister, but I will let you in in a bit.

The SDLP Opposition are bringing forward an amendment to the Financial Provisions Bill to try to ensure that the issue is debated and voted on by the Assembly. It is amazing that the DUP's only defence is, "No more quangos". That is pretty weak, given that the DUP could not wait to get the East-West Council, which has done very little, up and running. The scale of the —.

Mr Buckley: Will the Member give way?

Mr McCrossan: Dame Buckley, I will let you have your seat. Sit down. Thanks very much. You can come in later.

The scale of the environmental challenges that we face demands leadership, and no party should be allowed to block necessary reform because of narrow political dogma. The SDLP will do all that it can to deliver an independent EPA — we will use every mechanism available to make that happen. One of our most precious natural resources is badly polluted and facing years, if not decades, of recovery; you only need to look at the Mobuoy dump to see one of the largest environmental crimes on these islands; many of our rivers and waterways are failing to meet basic environmental standards; and, as I said earlier, air pollution is contributing to many of the illnesses in society and needs to be dealt with.

The SDLP is not prepared to allow the veto from the DUP to continue. If environmental reform is needed, it should be debated and decided by the Assembly, not quietly blocked behind closed doors by one party. No single party should be able to prevent necessary reform simply because it does not suit its political position. That is the contradiction at the heart of this debate. We hear concern being expressed about Lough Neagh, and we have heard across the Floor about pollution and environmental decline, yet, when proposals are brought forward to strengthen oversight and accountability, the DUP suddenly discovers reasons to delay or block.

The First Minister was quick to go up Lough Neagh in a boat, after the SDLP, to point out how horrific the situation was. However, when the hokey-cokey party that is in government with the DUP — Sinn Féin — walked into the Chamber and voted differently on the NAP proposals, and then walked backwards and did a one-eighty very soon after that, as a result of pressure from the Opposition, it was not difficult to see who was speaking out of both sides of their mouth on the issue.

If we want to tackle the environmental crisis that faces Northern Ireland, the DUP and Sinn Féin need to drop the wind-blowing-, hokey-cokey-type approach. You need to prioritise the issue. If we are serious about bringing about environmental reform, saving Lough Neagh and listening to our people, you need to get on with the job of governing this place, putting your political agendas aside and putting the environment first, because these games are not washing with anyone.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Thank you, Daniel. I call John Blair to make a winding-up speech on the motion. John, you have up to 10 minutes.

Mr Blair: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. The Alliance position has been ably set out by my party colleagues, but, as the Alliance environment spokesperson, I will make some comments of my own before I reflect on the contributions that Members made during the debate.

As I have stated before, to the Alliance Party, creating an independent environmental protection agency is more than just a policy; it is a fundamental principle and long-standing goal. We have advocated for it consistently. We view its establishment as vital for a sustainable future in Northern Ireland. The need for such an agency is pressing, and the evidence is irrefutable. The recent independent review of environmental governance provided a thorough and scientific assessment, highlighting not only the depth of the environmental pressures facing Northern Ireland but the critical gaps in governance, accountability and enforcement that have undermined the achievement of real progress. The report's conclusion was clear: an independent EPA is needed to strengthen environmental governance in Northern Ireland.

Despite the difficulties that he continues to face at the Executive, the Alliance Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs has refused to step away from delivering on his commitment to establish an independent, effective and well-funded environmental protection agency.

Mr Buckley: Will the Member give way?

Mr Blair: Not at the moment.

The Assembly must also be honest about what has been happening politically. The motion rightly and strongly condemns the blocking of the establishment of an independent environmental protection agency by the DUP. It further condemns the hypocrisy of those who express concern about the Lough Neagh crisis, the illegal dump at Mobuoy and wider environmental degradation but then refuse to support plans to enhance environmental accountability and safeguards. We all know the line. They say that we, or the Minister, must do something about Lough Neagh, and they then come to the Chamber and vote against the very measures that have been proposed to improve things.

I will give way to Mr Buckley, but I may not take many interventions.

Mr Buckley: I thank the Member for giving way. There have been accusations that the DUP does not care about our constituents or, indeed, the environment. What would the Member say to the constituents who have been caught up in environmental climate change madness — climate change amendments from his party and, indeed, the Members on the opposite Benches — resulting in the A5, the A1 upgrade and A4 Enniskillen bypass schemes being halted? What about those constituents?

Mr Blair: The Member is repeating lines that he has rehearsed many times. He knows my position on climate action, and I know his position on climate denial.

As the motion states, we should also remember that a commitment to an IEPA was contained in the New Decade, New Approach deal. That was a collective agreement, and it is therefore fundamentally —

Mr Butler: Will the Member give way?

Mr Blair: I will give way once more, but this will be it.

Mr Butler: I appreciate your giving way. We need to set the record straight when it comes to New Decade, New Approach. There are no signatures at the bottom of the document. It contains a series of commitments that were made by individual parties. What is at stake here is the blockage. It is not about New Decade, New Approach. We can debate and vote for or against the items in New Decade, New Approach; it does not really matter.

Mr Blair: I appreciate the points made by Mr Butler, but we were all at the talks and, after the deal, back here to work.

As I was saying, it is therefore fundamentally undemocratic for an independent agency on the environment to be unilaterally vetoed by one party that represents a minority in the Assembly as a whole. When one party can block a cross-party, publicly stated commitment, it undermines faith in this institution and in the agreements that underpin it. Accordingly, the motion calls on the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland to take meaningful steps to ensure that the commitment in NDNA is implemented. If this Assembly is prevented from delivering on its own agreed commitments by a one-party veto, it is right that the UK Government should act to uphold what was promised to the people of Northern Ireland.

The distressing situation at Lough Neagh, the tragic loss of biodiversity, the state of our rivers, illegal dumping at sites like Mobuoy and many others, and the ever-worsening impacts of climate change are testament to the costs, environmental and financial, of inaction. We cannot continue to accept fragmented environmental governance, divided across multiple agencies with blurred lines of responsibility and accountability. That fragmentation breeds inconsistency and inefficiency and, most harmful of all, allows vital deadlines and targets to slip past unfulfilled.

The Alliance Party recognises that creating a genuinely independent agency will be challenging and that it is not a quick solution to our problems. Difficult choices will be necessary, and funding will need to be secured, but that should not be viewed as a drawback but, rather, as an opportunity and an investment in our future. To achieve lasting and effective solutions, we must embrace cross-departmental collaboration. Environmental challenges do not respect departmental boundaries or sectoral silos. They demand an all-of-government approach that is underpinned by strong political will and shared responsibility. The EPA must be operationally independent, but it must also be supported by and work with every part of government. I want to highlight the fact that this is not only about obligation but about opportunities for positive, lasting change. An independent environmental protection agency will act not only as a vital watchdog and a deterrent to polluters but as a catalyst for restoration, investment and fostering public trust in institutions. It can drive improvements in cross-border cooperation and help to protect what is a single biogeographical unit spanning the island of Ireland.

Before I turn to other Members' comments, I will clarify — because the point was made by a number of Members — that the Northern Ireland Environment Agency is neither an ALB nor a quango: it is an Executive agency in a Department called DAERA. That demonstrates very clearly its lack of independence in that regard.

I will move on to comments from Members from parties other than mine. Matthew O'Toole, when moving the amendment, said that it was intended to aid accountability. I accept that. I hope that he does not mind my saying, respectfully, that he criticised other parties for not having preconditions on entering an Executive but did not manage to demonstrate a single gain for the SDLP from the many preconditions that it laid down before taking part in an Executive. [Interruption.]

I said it respectfully.

Aoife Finnegan highlighted the need for action and called out the seriousness of the crises in our environmental systems, pointing out the crisis at Lough Neagh as one of them. Robbie Butler said clearly that, in principle, the Ulster Unionist Party agreed with having an independent environmental protection agency but that the process must be rigorous. Declan McAleer talked of the needs of smaller family farms and the important role that farmers can play in finding solutions in that regard.

The deputy leader of the DUP referenced other quangos. That dealt with the quango element of the NIEA, which is not a quango. Facts, such as the fact that the independent environmental protection agency could replace some of those groups, were, I think, deliberately ignored. The fact that the matter has cross-party agreement, not just agreement from the Alliance Party, was also ignored. The Member for Strangford used some latitude, I suggest, to refer to other Ministers, agencies and even a cake. In doing so, she seemed to conflate or confuse "distraction, deflection and insult" with having a difference of opinion on policy in a democracy. Let me make it clear, in good faith, to the deputy leader of the DUP that I respect her views on Europe, her views on the environment and her views on the motion.

Miss McIlveen: You do not.

Mr Blair: I am not insulted by them, nor should she be by my views.

Mr Buckley: Tell that to your Front Bench.

Mr Blair: An insult is different from a difference of opinion in a democracy. An insult is when members of a political party call an entire community "an abomination".

Mr Buckley: Tell it to your Front Bench.

Mr Blair: An insult is when members of a political party say that a community and its membership make them sick to their stomach.

A Member: Disingenuous.

Mr Blair: I know a bit about that community. I know a bit about those insults.

A Member: Nonsense.

Mr Blair: In good faith, I tell them that my door is open if they want to speak to me about those insults and the differences between those comments and a difference of opinion on a democratic policy.

Colleagues of the Members whom I have listed also spoke on similar issues. In conclusion, we need to deliver an environmental protection agency that protects the environment, ensures accountability and regains public trust. In simple terms, the public expect more from us in the Chamber, and, quite frankly, our natural environment deserves better.

Some Members: Hear, hear.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Ladies and gentlemen, it has come to my attention that, during the debate, inopportune language was used that I will not accept. I do not believe that it was appropriate to be used and directed at the Minister or anybody else. Inappropriate language was also used by a Member from these Benches here. I see your face, Daniel, and yours, Gerry. It is not acceptable. The Assembly's rules are clear: we should all call Members by their proper name. If anybody wishes to deviate from that, we have methods of dealing with it. The debate was not a particularly edifying experience for anybody who was out there listening to it. I hope that Mr Carroll and Mr McCrossan get the opportunity to apologise in person. I hope that somebody else apologises to the Minister in person as well — Tom.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): 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 a Division.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): In conjunction with the Business Committee, the Speaker has given leave to Aoife Finnegan to raise the matter of the reopening of Slieve Gullion Cairn. [Interruption.]

I ask Members who do not want to be here for this item to expedite their leaving. Thank you very much indeed.

Aoife, you will have up to 15 minutes. Over to you.

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

I promise that I will try not to keep us 15 minutes.

I welcome the opportunity to raise the closure of the South Cairn on Slieve Gullion. The site holds enormous archaeological, cultural and historical significance for the people of south Armagh. The South Cairn is the highest surviving Neolithic passage tomb in Ireland. It is over 6,000 years old — older than the pyramids. For six millennia, it has stood on the summit of Slieve Gullion, looking out across the landscape of south Armagh and beyond through storms and centuries of change, conflict and hardship.

For generations, people — families, schoolchildren, walkers and visitors from across the island and the world — have made the climb to the top of the mountain. They go there to experience something remarkable: to stand inside a structure built by human hands thousands of years ago to witness the winter solstice light entering the chamber. It is an experience that connects people directly with the deep history of this island, yet today, for the longest time in history, the South Cairn remains closed. That fact alone should give us pause.

Following my Member's statement on the issue, the response from the public was extraordinary.

Thousands of people engaged with the issue online. People shared memories of climbing Slieve Gullion as children, bringing their own children there years later and experiencing the winter solstice in the chamber. That response demonstrates something clearly: this is not simply about tourism; it is about heritage and identity. It is about having access to a place that means a great deal to the people of South Armagh and to those who travel far and wide to experience it.

In seeking clarity on the closure of the cairn, I wrote to the Minister for Communities asking for detail on the expected timeline for reopening the site, the works required and the funding that had been allocated or identified to complete them. The Minister's response stated:

It further stated:

However, that response raises further questions.

On 26 February, your Department met the Newry, Mourne and Down Ring of Gullion Group. At that meeting, it was indicated that the materials required to complete the works were already available. Indeed, it was suggested that the only significant logistical issue might be transporting those materials to the summit of Slieve Gullion, potentially by helicopter, and that the works could begin in the summer months when weather conditions had improved. If that is the case, there appears to be a clear difference between the information that was shared locally and the answer that was provided to the Assembly. That difference raises an important question. We have to ask ourselves, when we look at the Minister's response and compare it with the information provided by the Department locally, how much importance is truly being placed on sites such as Cailleach Beara's cairn and how much significance was attached to answering the question that meant so much to the people of South Armagh and those who travel from across the island and beyond to experience that remarkable place. Let me be clear: local people do not question the importance of safety. Safety must always come first. However, people question the lack of clarity, planning and communication. They want to know what works are required, when they will begin and when access to the cairn will be restored. Those are reasonable questions.

The debate gives the Minister an opportunity to provide the answers. The situation also raises a wider issue: the protection and maintenance of heritage sites such as the South Cairn. Such sites are not simply local amenities: they are part of our shared history and cultural landscape, and they must be protected accordingly. That is why the Department should consider whether funding should be ring-fenced specifically for the protection and maintenance of key heritage sites.

When conservation or safety work is required, monuments of such significance should not be left waiting on uncertain budgets or a delayed process. They should be prioritised. Minister, if you knew anything about the South Cairn — Cailleach Beara's cairn — at the summit of Slieve Gullion, you would understand what a remarkable place it is. You would understand that it is not only an ancient archaeological site but is steeped in the history of the people who live around it. You would know the story of St Oliver Plunkett, who once sought refuge there, during times of persecution for practising his faith, protected from the Crown by the people of South Armagh. That story is just one of many connected to that mountain. When you stand on the summit of Slieve Gullion, looking out across the landscape, you understand why places like that matter so deeply to local communities. The South Cairn has stood on Slieve Gullion, as I have said, for thousands of years, and it has survived storms, centuries of change and the passage of time. Surely we can ensure that it does not remain closed for any longer than is necessary because of lack of planning or clarity.

What the people of South Armagh ask for today is simple: clarity, proper planning and a clear commitment that that extraordinary part of our shared heritage will be protected and reopened without further unnecessary delay.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Thank you, Aoife. All other Members who wish to speak will have approximately six minutes.

Mr Wilson: I welcome the opportunity to contribute to the Adjournment debate this evening. At the outset, I thank the Member for her useful explanation of the site issues. I have never visited the site, and I may well have to plan a visit, given what I now know about it. I note that it is the highest surviving passage tomb in Ireland, which, in itself, is reason enough to maintain the site and repair the structure. Some years ago, I visited Newgrange with our local council to discuss issues relating to Navan Fort and its similarities, and I was struck by the history embedded in those types of structures and the importance of retaining and maintaining them for the generations to come.

The reports that I have read about the site at Slieve Gullion point to a structure that has been well explored and well used over the course of many years. The roof structure has fallen into some disrepair, hence the need for remedial action to allow the site to reopen to the public. I note from previous references to the site in questions for written answer that work is planned at the site, and my colleague Minister Lyons will no doubt update the House on progress to that end. I trust that work can be scheduled as soon as possible in order to allow the site to reopen to the public. The reopening of the site would, of course, be important for tourism in the area and the general amenity of the local people, who have been rightly concerned by the prolonged closure of the site. I look forward to progress being made on the issue.

Mr McMurray: I welcome the debate and thank the Member for raising the issue. I thank the Minister for attending. Slieve Gullion is not in my constituency, but I do not think that those who constructed the cairn and the burial chamber would have had much of a concept of Assembly boundaries. The cairn at Slieve Gullion is special for the reasons that have been highlighted. It is the most intact passage cairn in Northern Ireland, despite the current structural issues. It is the highest passage tomb in Ireland, and it also aligns with the winter solstice sunset. It does, however, form a wider landscape of interconnecting monuments that are located across the Mournes and more widely across Ireland and Scotland.

While I have taken the time to visit Slieve Gullion — it is a very nice hill — I am more familiar with the ancient sites in and around Castlewellan and South Down. There is the Ballynoe stone circle outside Downpatrick in Clough; the Legananny dolmen, which has a capstone that sits directly south; and the Drumena cashel and the Finnis souterrain that you can crawl into and through. The beauty of those monuments is that you can literally step in and through our shared history. Unfortunately, you cannot currently do that atop Slieve Gullion, and that is a cause of great annoyance to those who are even more passionate about our ancient sites than I am. The cairn has been closed for some time due to structural issues, and some of those who like to visit those places are worried that the closure might continue beyond this year's winter solstice on 21 December. There is an urgency to the matter because of the location of the cairn. The repairs must be done during the summer months; it is obviously more challenging to carry them out on the top of Slieve Gullion during inclement weather. Once we get into the autumn, there is a risk that another winter solstice will be lost.

The history and stories about the cairns are fascinating. They are very old, and some of their origins are unknown, but they are all clearly related to ancient myths and stories. However, those stories reach forward and touch our popular culture. Slieve Gullion cairn is the house of the Cailleach Beara, the infamous witch who tricked Finn McCool of the Fianna into diving into the bottomless lake for her ring. The story links into the setting sun atop Slieve Gullion and Cailleach Beara's lough, because, of course, you cannot see the sun set into the lake when you are on top of Slieve Gullion; you can only see that from Slieve Croob or Knock Iveagh, which are in South Down. Knock Iveagh has its own access issues, of course. These stories show the connections that we have to the landscape and these sites. When the past reaches forward, those of you who, like me, have read and still read 'The Lord of the Rings', will see the similarities to J R R Tolkien's Sméagol and Déagol, who go swimming for the golden ring. Tolkien and CS Lewis were contemporaries who were both influenced by our ancient myths and legends.

To sum up, the site was a very important site to the people who built the cairn, and it should be important to us today. People come a long way to see it, and it is a great disappointment for them when they find that it is closed.

We are sometimes good at protecting our more recent cultures at the expense of forgetting our shared ancient culture. It would be reassuring to have from the Minister a timeline for completing the works at the cairn, and I urge the Minister to ensure that those works are progressed as soon as possible, with a view to reopening in time for this year's winter solstice.

Mr McNulty: I thank my constituency colleague for securing the debate. As someone who lives in and grew up on its foothills, I have a huge physical, emotional and spiritual attachment to Slieve Gullion and its prehistoric court cairn, which was constructed at its summit more than 5,000 years ago. I know that everyone from south Armagh feels the same way. We have a visceral connection to our mountain and to the cairn at its summit. It is part of who we are; it is part of our cultural identity; and it forms part of our very being. It was built before the pyramids of Giza, Stonehenge and the Acropolis of Athens. It was built thousands of years before Machu Picchu. Situated nearly 2,000 ft above sea level, the South Cairn is the highest surviving passage grave in Ireland.

When you get down on your hands and knees and crawl down the passageway into the chamber, you feel a real connection to our ancestors who built that monumental structure on top of our mythical mountain so many thousands of years ago. The fact that that passageway is aligned with the setting sun on the winter solstice makes it even more mind-boggling, special and unique. From my childhood, I remember RTÉ's Donncha Ó Dúlaing, God rest his soul, on his tour of Ireland, coming to the chamber with his high-tech microphone and recording device — a tape recorder — to record the myths and stories of local people. That was an amazing, mesmerising experience for me as a child.

Our mountain is steeped in legend. One of the most famous legends is that of Fionn mac Cumhaill, the leader of the Fianna. It is told brilliantly by local historian Kevin Murphy, a former schoolteacher. He talks about the Cailleach Beara, who lived on top of the mountain and was the wicked witch. Fionn mac Cumhaill was chasing the wild stag in the Bog of Allen. The stag ran to the Cooley mountains. Fionn mac Cumhaill's dog Bran died, and Fionn mac Cumhaill then chased the white stag to the top of Slieve Gullion, where he came across a maiden who was crying at the lakeside. He said, "Why are you crying? What's the matter?". She told him that she had lost her ring in the lake. Fionn mac Cumhaill, heroic as he was, dived into its black waters and recovered the ring. When he crawled out of the lake on to its bank, he realised that he had been turned into an old, withered man, and he saw that the maiden was no longer a maiden but the Cailleach Beara: the wicked witch. She retreated to the passage grave.

When the warriors of the Fianna arrived, they wondered where Fionn was, but one of his other dogs identified him by his smell, and the warriors realised what had happened. They dug a trench from the lake to the cairn, and they threatened the Cailleach Beara, saying that, if she did not undo the spell, they would flood all of Ireland. She thought, "Oh, God: we can't let that happen", and she reversed the spell. Fionn was returned to his youth, but his hair remained white.

The other legendary story is that of Cú Chulainn. Setanta was a boy who wanted to join the Red Branch Knights at Emain Macha. His uncle brought him in, and he became a great hurler and a great warrior. His uncle went to a feast at the house of Culann, the metalsmith, on Slieve Gullion. Setanta arrived late because he had wanted to finish his game of hurling. When he arrived at the fort, Culann's hound had been let out. Setanta, with his sliotar and his hurl, killed the hound and became Cú Chulainn, the hound of Cullan. Those two wonderful Irish myths are directly linked to Slieve Gullion.

I will use a word that the Member who secured the debate will identify with: rulya. It is rulya that the court cairn on top of Slieve Gullion has been closed. It is rulya that, as the Minister for Communities stated in response to my question for written answer, the South Cairn "remains closed for safety reasons". He stated:

That is all very welcome.

I also asked the Minister for Communities:

to which he replied:

How about we rebuild the corbelling in its original form so that, when people crawl into the chamber, it is in darkness? It is a mesmerising experience as it is, but that would create an even more mesmerising experience.

Here is the rulya part. I wrote to the then Sinn Féin Minister for Communities in 2022 and asked her what she was going to do to restore the corbelling on top of the cairn on Slieve Gullion. She did not see fit to answer my question, so it is a bit rich for some Members to talk about other Ministers having responsibility. She did not even see fit to answer my question about the restoration of the wondrous court cairn on the top of Slieve Gullion. What a missed opportunity that was. What a mesmerising opportunity it now is for the Department for Communities and the Department for the Economy. I have written to both Ministers to ask what they will do to bring our court cairn back to life, which would allow locals to access it and for it to become a global tourism feature. It has the potential to be a mesmerising place of wonder.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Justin, if you ever seek another career, you would make an excellent seanchaí

.

Mr Lyons (The Minister for Communities): The debate has certainly been more temperate in its language than the one that went before it.

I begin by congratulating the Member for securing this evening's debate and for her contribution, which, along with those of other Members, outlined the history of the site. I particularly thank Mr McNulty for his one-man drama. He vividly outlined the history and myths of the place, which we are all now better acquainted with at 9.50 pm on this Tuesday evening.

I will summarise a little bit of the history. As Mr McNulty will be aware, in the 1960s, the chamber and the passage were fully excavated, and a concrete roof supported on steel beams was installed. The corrosion of those steel beams was identified through my Department's proactive programme of cyclical inspections of state cairn monuments and its robust health and safety regime. The decision by officials to close the state cairn monument and ensure public safety was taken following advice from structural engineers.

The project to replace the roof covering from the 1960s is well advanced, guided by my Department's conservation principles and international best practice, which demand minimum intervention, maximum retention of historical fabric, clarity of new work, reversibility and sustainability. I understand the importance of that special place to the community, as well as to visitors to the area. That is why I am pleased that my officials have maintained regular communication with the council and Slieve Gullion geopark staff to keep them updated on progress, most recently —.

Mr McNulty: Will the Minister give way?

Mr Lyons: I am happy to give way to the Member.

Mr McNulty: Minister, as part of your Department's deliberations, is any consideration being given to restoring the corbelling to its intact state rather than putting in a roof light, which is there now, in order to create the more mesmerising experience of going into a dark chamber?

Mr Lyons: Consideration was given to that since the main chamber collapsed, but restructuring the entire stone roof to its original state would be based on a degree of conjecture. Structural unknowns may impact on the significance of the monument, including readability between new work and original material. It is unlikely that that original roof structure would be feasible to deliver, owing to the mountaintop location and a general lack of knowledge of and skills in that type of roofing construction technique. In addition, because of structural unknowns, that type of roof may require the restriction of access to the cairn summit, which is currently accessible to visitors. That is something that we did not want to consider. I understand the Member's concerns and know from where he is coming, but we believe that that is the best route for us to take.

The project is logistically complex due to the mountaintop location of the site and the impact of changeable weather in the winter months. My officials have therefore taken care to plan the operation to get the new materials to the tomb, install the new roof covering and make the site good.

To the Member who secured the Adjournment debate, I say that the design for the replacement roof has been completed, and my conservation works team has been preparing to carry out the work. We aim to reopen the monument in time for the 2026 winter solstice. That will, of course, be subject to ecological permissions and, crucially, good weather. I do not believe that there is a contradiction between what was said in response to the question for written answer and what my officials have been saying. Things have developed. Of course, our actions are always subject to budget availability, but our aim is absolutely to have it reopened in time for the winter solstice. I hope that she understands that that will, to a large extent, be down to the weather, which plays a considerable role.

We are working with stakeholders to obtain the necessary consents for the location, since it is in an area of special scientific interest, a special area of conservation, an area of outstanding natural beauty and a peatland priority habitat. We are also in consultation with the Historic Monuments Council, which has identified an area of significant archaeological interest (ASAI) around Slieve Gullion. I note that Newry, Mourne and Down District Council has indicated, in its published local development plan, its intention to designate the ASAI.

Why is the work going forward? Why are we able to take it forward now? It is because, this year, I have invested nearly £19 million in salaries, resource and capital to protect and conserve Northern Ireland's historic environment. There are huge pressures on my Department. There are some politically very popular and topical things on my desk. Despite that, I have made this a priority. That has included the creation of 34 new posts at an approximate cost of £1·6 million. Of those posts, 28 were created in the conservation works team to protect and conserve the 187 state care monuments that are in the care of my Department.

I am glad that the Member secured the debate on this issue, and I am glad that she raised the points that she did in her speech, because this is important work. There are immediate pressures in front of us. In some cases, we will have only one opportunity to look after our state care monuments. There are 187 of them. They are all over Northern Ireland, and I do not want to lose them. That is why I have prioritised this investment, including £4·3 million capital and resource investment specifically to protect the state care monuments. That underscores my commitment. My investment will also support 11 apprentices, who will be the first apprentices to join the conservation works team in 25 years. I hope that that highlights my commitment to proceeding with the work. The investment that I have made is making it possible to prioritise the work at that nationally important site. We will reopen it for the benefit of the entire community and for visitors to Northern Ireland. I intend to continue protecting our rich cultural heritage and contributing to Northern Ireland's tourism offering.

I have not made it up there yet, but I look forward to the work being done. I may join my colleague Mr Wilson up there, and anyone else who wants to join —.

Mr McNulty: I will take you on tour.

Mr Lyons: I will even go with Mr McNulty, and he can tell us a little bit more. Thankfully, there are time limits in this place; there would be no time limits if I was getting a history lesson from Mr McNulty up there. I will certainly do that, however, because we have something that is worth protecting, and we have invested the money to make sure that it will be protected.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Thank you very much indeed. Thank you, everybody, for an enlightening Adjournment debate. The last time I was on top of Slieve Gullion, the visibility was not great. I look forward to going back. Hopefully I will get the right weather, so that I can actually see something when I get up there.