Official Report: Monday 23 March 2026

Mr Speaker: The Budget Bill has received Royal Assent. The Budget Act (Northern Ireland) 2026 became law on 20 March 2026.

Mr Speaker: Claire Sugden has been given leave to make a statement on the deaths of Amy Doherty and Ellie Flanagan and the urgent need to address violence against women and girls, which fulfils the criteria set out in Standing Order 24.

Ms Sugden, I wish you well; I am glad to see you back in your place. I have not yet had the opportunity to say that. I am pleased to see you, Claire. I trust that your health continues to improve and that you get stronger all of the time.

I, with Women's Aid, held an event some months ago, at which Leah McCourt, a former MMA world champion, spoke of her experiences of domestic violence. It was a powerful and emotive event. It is appalling that we are discussing this issue today. We have reached 30 deaths of women — mainly young women — who have had awful violence perpetrated against them. It is about not only about the women who die, but those who are injured and those who live constantly with domestic violence and coercive control and all that goes with it. It is an incredibly important issue. Any Member who wishes to speak on it will have three minutes, the same as Ms Sugden. Claire.

Ms Sugden: Thank you, Mr Speaker, and thank you for your kind comments to me and your subsequent comments about domestic abuse. Another woman has lost her life in Northern Ireland. The uncomfortable truth is that none of us can say that we are surprised. I offer my sincere condolences to the families of Amy Doherty and Ellie Flanagan. Their loss is unimaginable, and, sadly, two beautiful babies have lost the most important person in their life.

We have a strategy to tackle violence against women and girls. We accept that the issue is complex and that it will not be fixed overnight, but we have to ask — honestly and directly — what is changing. What we are seeing suggests that not enough is changing. We are still not prepared to confront clearly enough what is at the heart of this: misogyny, male aggression and the normalisation of both. They can show up in different ways. At one end, it is the objectification and devaluing of women, and, at the other, it is violence and, in the worst cases, murder. That does not just destroy the lives of victims; it devastates families, traumatises communities and, ultimately, ruins the lives of the perpetrators.

We can see those attitudes being reinforced in parts of our culture and online spaces with the like of harmful messages about women and relationships being amplified and normalised. However, it does not begin there; it begins much earlier. It begins in how children are raised; what they see; what they hear; and what they learn about respect, relationships and boundaries. It begins in our homes, schools and how we support families. However, our response is still weighted towards the point at which things have already gone wrong. Justice steps in after the crime, and health services respond to trauma, addiction and mental health issues once they have already taken hold. That is not prevention.

If we are serious about reducing violence, we have to be serious about where it starts. That means properly resourcing early intervention; equipping parents; ensuring that education is doing more to teach about healthy relationships and emotional resilience; and recognising the role of trauma and addressing it before it manifests as harm. I accept that prevention is harder to measure, because you cannot count the crime that did not happen, but that is exactly the point, because, if we continue to measure success only by how we respond after the fact, we will be standing here, after the next tragedy, saying the same things.

We have a severe problem of violence against women and girls in Northern Ireland. The question is whether we are prepared to act on that knowledge at the point at which it is most meaningful. Thank you.

Ms Ferguson: The tragic loss of another young woman's life, in Derry this weekend, is a horrific reminder that we have a long way to go to end the scourge that is violence against women and girls in our society. In fewer than three weeks, three women have lost their lives in the most heartbreaking of circumstances. Since 2020, 30 women have been murdered.

This recent devastation in Derry city has left two young children without their mother and another family to try to pick up the pieces that should never have been broken. I want to take a moment to express our collective support across the Chamber to Amy Doherty's children, wider family, friends, loved ones and local community in Derry city as they come to terms with the latest tragedy.

Enough is enough. No more families should be left to bury their daughters. No more children should be left to grow up without their mothers. No more women should be shamed, stigmatised and silenced in our society. Whether on our streets, in our schools or workplaces, or in our homes, women deserve to feel safe and be safe.

The epidemic of misogyny and violence against women and girls is a public safety crisis, and we have the highest rate of femicide in Europe. It begins with the very fundamentals that we teach our children: equality, respect and responsibility for our own behaviour. It continues into adulthood by never looking the other way and never minimising or normalising misogynist words, actions or behaviour. Even when it feels uncomfortable, we have to call that out. Women can be surrounded by people and still feel unsafe, so the importance of bystander awareness and intervention cannot be overstated.

We all have a duty to remember their names and honour their lives by working together, by implementing the strategic framework to end violence against women and girls, and by supporting Women's Aid in its work to challenge attitudes, structures and systems that perpetuate domestic violence. If we support women only when it is easy, nothing will change. Let us speak with one voice. Ending violence against women and girls in our society is everyone's responsibility.

Ms Bunting: I rise in the shadow of the tragedy of two more femicides in Northern Ireland. The murders of Amy Doherty and Ellie Flanagan are devastating reminders that violence against women and girls remains a very real and present danger in our society. Two more lives have been lost, two families have been left grieving, and two communities are asking how this can still be happening. Children will forever bear the scars of being left motherless. As a people, we must not and will not accept that.

Saturday saw the murder of Amy Doherty, a young mother of two who was found seriously injured and, sadly, later passed away. Like Ellie, she had her whole life ahead of her, and her young children have been left to grow up without their mum to help, love and guide them through life. My colleague Julie Middleton has indicated that the local community is devastated, shocked and horrified at that terrible loss of life and at how a life was stolen so violently.

We are all too aware that violence against women and girls continues to have a devastating impact on many in Northern Ireland and that the damage inflicted can extend far beyond the immediate victim and last for a lifetime. We know that it knows no boundaries, does not recognise class, creed or age, and that we can never really know what is going on behind closed doors. Every woman and girl has the right to live free from fear and harm, particularly in the sanctuary of her own home and when in the company of those who purport to love her. They should be free to walk, exercise or socialise and know that their dignity and safety will be upheld. When that basic right is violated, it is not just an individual tragedy; it is a failure that we must all confront.

Those who commit such heinous acts must face the full force of the law, but enforcement alone is not enough. We must also address the culture that allows violence against women and girls to persist. That begins in our homes, our schools and our communities. Respect must be taught early, modelled consistently and reinforced at every level of society, because, although this may be a problem that affects women and girls, the solution has to involve men and boys. I want to acknowledge that they, too, can be impacted and be victims. Numerous sons will have witnessed the domestic abuse of their mother in the home.

While the majority of perpetrators are men, there are plenty more men who are allies of women in this fight, and the more that we open their eyes and educate them to these problematic behaviours and mindsets and how they impact their mums, daughters, sisters, aunts and friends, the more they can be in our corner, understanding the issues and safely challenging what is unacceptable before it can escalate.

There is great work under way in the community, but we have a long way to go. We must recognise the importance of supporting victims and those at risk and ensure that services are accessible, responsive and properly funded. Victims of domestic abuse and violence must feel confident that, if they speak out, they will receive the help and support that they need.

Mr Speaker: The Member's time is up.

Ms Bunting: I extend my deepest and heartfelt condolences to Ellie and Amy's families.

Ms Egan: I rise in real anger and devastation that two more women in Northern Ireland have had their lives tragically taken away from them.

That the murder of Amy Doherty in the Foyle area over the weekend followed on so quickly from the murder of Ellie Flanagan in Enniskillen is beyond comprehension. Since 2020, 30 adult women have been killed in Northern Ireland. They were all beloved women with their interests, dreams and opportunities ahead. They had their whole lives to look forward to, but, instead, they were cruelly and unjustly taken away. I send my sincerest condolences to the loved ones of Amy and Ellie. I cannot fathom the pain and grief that they must be experiencing right now.

Violence against women and girls remains an insidious blight on our society. When will everyone finally get a wake-up call, stand up and take it seriously? We cannot take our attention away from putting it to an end. In order to truly tackle such violence, we must look upstream and recognise the behaviours that often precede it. That includes the misogynistic attitudes and behaviours that most women experience almost daily. Everyone, particularly those of us in the Chamber, has a role to play in challenging misogynistic aspects of our culture that lead to gender-based harm, violence against women and the rape and murder of women. As public representatives, we have a duty to model the respectful behaviours that we need everyone across our communities to exhibit for change to happen.

I urge anyone who has any information about the deaths of Amy and Ellie that could be relevant to the investigation to please get in touch with the police as soon as possible. My heart breaks for those women, their families and their children.

Ms D Armstrong: This is a solemn day. Once again, the Assembly is forced to confront the killing of not one but two women in such a short space of time: Ellie Flanagan and Amy Doherty. I will name them both because they deserve more than to be reduced to statistics, to be entries on a list or to be numbers on a growing tally. Ellie Flanagan and Amy Doherty were not numbers; they, along with the 28 other victims of femicide since 2020, were daughters and loved ones, women with futures that have now been stolen. They were known and cherished, and they should still be here. Their deaths are not isolated incidents. They represent a pattern that is repeated, relentless and utterly unacceptable.

Too many times, we have stood in the Chamber offering condolences. The words have become routine and the statements predictable, yet the violence continues. That is the uncomfortable truth. The strategy on ending violence against women and girls is not delivering the protection that it promises. Northern Ireland has, for some time, been described as one of the most dangerous places for women to live. We cannot allow our children and the next generation to grow up and believe that it is right for girls and women to be harmed. What message are we sending when perpetrators believe that they can abuse, assault and even kill without meaningful consequence? Where is the deterrence? Where is the urgency? We cannot allow the issue to silently become white noise for the general public.

The Justice Minister and the First Minister and deputy First Minister must act and act decisively. We are living in an emergency. If the Executive cannot deliver a strategy that works, they must have the humility to invest in those who make it work. Organisations like Women's Aid are on the front line every day supporting women in crisis, often with inadequate resources. I have seen that first-hand in my constituency. They are stretched and underfunded, yet they are indispensable.

This is not a women's issue; it is a failure of our society and a test of our political will. If we continue as we are, we will be back here again, offering more condolences, naming another victim and explaining once again why nothing has changed.

I offer my heartfelt sympathy to the Doherty and Flanagan families. I appeal to anyone who needs assistance or reassurance to reach out to support groups like Women's Aid.

Mr Durkan: Today, Derry is mourning a devastating loss following the murder of Amy Doherty, a young mother, a carer with North West Care and a woman who gave so much of herself to others. Alongside that grief, something else is sitting heavy in all of us: anger and a deep uneasiness that so many women know only too well.

Our hearts go out to Amy's children and family. I visited them last night and struggled to find words of comfort in the aftermath of that unspeakable crime. They have lost a daughter, a sister, a niece, an aunt and a granddaughter. Two more wee children face a future in this frightening world without their mammy.

It is shameful and shocking but, sadly, not surprising that we are here again, grieving the loss of another woman in such horrific and heartbreaking circumstances. I spoke with people at the weekend, and they told me in no uncertain terms that this is why women do not speak up and why they are afraid to leave their abusers. It feels like an impossible choice: leave and risk death or stay and risk it anyway, all the while trying to manage, placate and survive day by day in situations that no one should ever have to endure. Women are being silenced, broken down and murdered in their homes, because the system too often does not catch them when they are falling and support does not come until it is too late. We need a system that protects women from day 1, one that believes victims and allows them to access support early and safely without fear or judgement. We need to ask why the North is the most dangerous place in Europe for women to live and why 30 women have been murdered here since 2020.

Amy's name was on the lips of everyone across the city this morning. Going about our day-to-day lives does not feel right, nor should it, because something is deeply wrong with our society. Again and again we stand here after the fact, mourning, remembering and asking questions that we have asked so many times before: what do we do, and how do we stop this? Talk to your daughters. Talk to your sons. Believe victims the first time. Perpetrators of abuse must be punished, but the prevention of abuse is paramount.

My thoughts are with women across this island and those who are afraid, feel trapped and feel that no one is listening. We see and hear you. We cannot —

Mr Speaker: The Member's time is up.

Mr Durkan: — and will not accept a world where your safety is uncertain.

Mr Gaston: I express my sincere condolences to the families of Ellie Flanagan and Amy Doherty. My mind turns particularly to Amy's two young children, who have been left without a mother and robbed of that centrepiece in any family. I am sure that I am not alone in the House when I say that my sincere prayer is that they will know the comfort of almighty God, whom the Bible describes as:

As policymakers, we need to face up to the issues that have been highlighted in the aftermath of that murder. This morning, a lady from Foyle Women's Aid pointed out that, while there has been much talk about ending violence against women and girls and the funding that has accompanied that flagship scheme, the reality is that we are falling down when it comes to the basics. There is no core funding for the groups that provide services daily for those who suffer domestic violence. In the PSNI, there are no specialists who should be assigned to domestic violence cases as a matter of course. There is an appalling backlog in our court system. All of those are real issues about which this place could and should be doing something, particularly in the Executive Office and the Department of Justice. Spending millions of pounds on grants that are awarded through councils instead of on targeted interventions through schools and youth clubs is a missed opportunity in my eyes. It is time that we had more than platitudes from the parties that head up those Departments and real delivery for groups on the front line, such as Women's Aid. That, not speeches in the Chamber after a murder has taken place, would show determination to address the issue.

Recently, at the Executive Office Committee, Youth Assembly Members shared with us experiences of women and girls in the education system.

If we want to do something about this issue, that is where we need to target our money and focus to ensure that no other generation has to grow up living through a time like this when such a number of women and girls have been murdered in Northern Ireland. This needs to be a living, breathing document, but, for that to be the case, we need to spend our money and time in a targeted way; not, as is currently the case, through grants that we award through councils. We need to get our core funding right for those who are on the front line and delivering services daily, and we need to put money into our education system to ensure that no generation has to live through what we are going through at the minute.

Mr Speaker: I remind Mr Gaston and, indeed, all Members that we do not use props in the Chamber. That has historically been the case.

Mr Carroll: Thank you, Mr Speaker, for selecting this important matter for debate. I extend my sympathy and solidarity to the friends and family of Amy Doherty, a young mother of two who was murdered in Derry at the weekend. As other Members said, she was the thirtieth woman killed since 2020, which is unbelievable when you say it out loud. She was the second to be killed in fewer than two weeks, with Ellie Flanagan also having been killed.

Those are shocking and shameful statistics, and those two names will go on the list of women who were murdered by men, mostly men whom they knew. Barely a day passes without another horrific story of a woman being assaulted, attacked, violated or killed, and those are just the stories that make the news. Unfortunately, this Executive do nowhere near enough to tackle violence against women and girls, whilst defunding the very services that help women to survive, such as Nexus and Women's Aid. Disgracefully, the North remains the only part of these islands without consistent public funding for groups such as Women's Aid. Does that sound like a Government who are serious about tackling gender-based violence?

There has been a lot of talk about education. Our young people absolutely deserve standardised, inclusive relationships and sexuality education (RSE) in every school: education that challenges toxic gender stereotypes and builds relationships rooted in respect, equality and consent. Instead, they get, at best, a postcode lottery of patchy provision. At the same time, we watch political leaders from this place jet off to the White House to pose for photographs with Donald Trump, a man accused of rape and sexual assault by at least 28 women and whose name is littered throughout the Epstein files. Are those the actions of people who value women's lives, be they American, Iranian, Irish, British or Palestinian?

Over the past while, many people have pointed out that two women hold the highest positions of political power in the North. Yet, all the while, the epidemic of violence against women actually accelerates. Therefore, without political will and funding, representation alone does not change things .The austerity policies pushed by this Executive will see further erosion of health and social care, good jobs, wages and housing, and they will put more women at risk of violence. We need urgent action on gender-based violence. It has to be real action that is backed by real funding to eliminate its root causes from the top our society down.

Mrs Dillon: First, I offer my sincere condolences to the families of Ellie and Amy and to the families of all the other women who have died in the North at the hands of men. That is the thing that is missing from this conversation: it is violence against women and girls by men. Who are those men? They are mostly men who are related to them. They are partners or ex-partners who are known to the women and are supposed to love, protect and look after them. They are not strangers or bogeymen.

Many of the men who perpetrate those crimes are men in leadership roles. We in this Chamber are in leadership roles, and we need to show leadership. We need to show people that there is no tolerance for any level of misogyny and no tolerance for any level of violence against women and girls, whether that is through what you say or what you do. We have seen many in very high positions in the PSNI and some elected representatives be accused — some have been found guilty — of very serious crimes against women and girls. We have to be honest about that and call it out for what it is. We need people to stop making excuses for men and boys who carry out horrific actions against women and girls.

We need to say that and call it out for what it is. If we do not change the culture and we do not change society, all of the investment in the world in any statutory body or voluntary and community organisation will not be worth a jot. We have to be honest about it.

I absolutely concur with the commentary about the need to fund organisations such as Women's Aid and many others that help and support women. People need to stop saying, "Why do they not leave?". Where the hell would they go? Where would many of those women go with families and children? They have no home to go to, and, often, they do not have family support or the means to leave, so people should stop saying that. As has been highlighted today, women are often in the greatest danger when they try to leave. Let us take that out of the conversation and the equation. In many cases, those women cannot leave. We need to be honest about who is a danger to them. It is not the bogeymen in the streets; it is the men who live in their homes. It is their male relatives, their partners and their ex-partners.

Ms Bradshaw: Thank you, Claire, for raising the matter in the Chamber today. My party colleague Naomi Long, the Justice Minister, is at a family funeral this morning; otherwise, she would be with us in the Chamber.

The tragic and heartbreaking recent deaths of Amy Doherty, aged just 30, in Derry and Ellie Flanagan, just 23 years old, in Enniskillen illustrate to us all the reality of violence against women and girls in our society. First and foremost, we must highlight what their families have lost. They were two young women with futures, friendships and lives that mattered. Their deaths are not just individual tragedies; they are part of a wider, deeply troubling pattern in Northern Ireland. If we fail to confront that pattern honestly, we fail them and their loved ones. Too often, when such cases arise, the public conversation focuses narrowly on their circumstances. However, we know that violence against women and girls is not random; it is systemic and is rooted in inequality and in harmful attitudes and behaviours that are too often minimised, excused or ignored until it is too late.

That is precisely why the ending violence against women and girls strategic framework exists. It recognises that this is not simply a policing or justice issue but a societal one. It requires a whole-system approach from education and early intervention to support services and the consistent enforcement of the law. I thank the voluntary and community sector organisations that are delivering on programmes related to the strategic framework. We have to ensure that that work is sustained, targeted and funded at the level required to make a real difference to our society.

Behind every statistic is a person, and behind every missed opportunity to intervene is a life that might have been saved. There is a responsibility of all of us in the Chamber and beyond to lead cultural change. That means calling out behaviours that demean women, supporting organisations on the ground that do that vital preventative work and ensuring that the issue never slips off our political agenda. Unless we are prepared to confront the root causes, we will continue to see similar tragedies.

Ms Finnegan: I rise today with a heavy heart at yet another tragic loss of women's lives. The deaths of Amy Doherty and Ellie Flanagan have shocked communities across the North. They were women in our community. One was a mother. They were daughters, they were loved and they should still be here. Their loss is a devastating reminder that violence against women and girls is not a distant issue; it is here and it is real, and it is happening far too often. We simply cannot allow such tragedies to become moments of outrage that fade with time. They must be turning points, because the reality is that too many women live in fear in their homes or in their relationships, simply for being women. For many, that fear is not unfounded; it is based on lived experience.

We have strategies, commitments and words, but what women need and deserve is action.

That means properly resourced services for those experiencing domestic and sexual violence. It means early intervention and education, particularly for young men and boys. It means having a justice system that victims can trust and that protects them, holds perpetrators fully to account and recognises abusive behaviour as it is happening. Anything less is not enough.

It means recognising patterns of behaviour and not treating incidents as one-offs. Too often after such tragedies, we hear the same thing: that there were signs and that concerns had been raised. We need to be better at joining the dots. As public representatives, we have a responsibility not just to respond but to lead, in order to ensure that tackling violence against women and girls is not treated as a side issue or used for sound bites but as the urgent, cross-cutting priority that it is.

To the families of Amy and Ellie, all that I can say is that my heart absolutely goes out to you. It is devastating that we are in the Chamber again today to discuss women's deaths. To everyone out there who is grieving and to any victim who is suffering, I say that my heart is with you. We have to do better.

Mr Speaker: We normally allocate 30 minutes to a Matter of the Day, but, given the importance of the issue and the fact that there are still Members who wish to speak, I intend to extend the time.

Mr Burrows: I extend my condolences to the families and friends of Ellie Flanagan and Amy Doherty. People have tired of slogans, straplines and hashtags about dealing with the epidemic of violence against women and girls. The Executive Office has a strategy that is clearly not working, but even the best strategies take years to take effect. Changing cultural and behavioural norms takes years. That is why, in the intervening period, we need a justice system that deals decisively with domestic violence and violence against women and girls. We do not have that.

It is no coincidence that we have the slowest and softest justice system and the highest rate of femicide in the United Kingdom. Domestic violence perpetrators exploit the slowness of the justice system in particular. They put off pleading guilty until the very end, hoping that a vulnerable victim will pull out, because victims often do not have the resilience to carry on. Instead of providing an exemplary sentence for people who plead guilty at the last second, the justice system still rewards the last-minute plea. The system is not just slow but soft. Sentencing is not tough enough in cases of domestic violence. There is a revolving door of bail at court. The victim who needs to pluck up the courage to report someone who has controlled and abused them for years needs to know that, when the police turn up, that person will be locked away for a sufficient time for them to make a new life, but that is not the case. They live in fear that the person will be released on bail.

There are big gaps in our legislation. It should be the case that, if someone is convicted of domestic violence, they cannot change their name. We have a system in which people will be repeat abusers. They will befriend new victims, and those victims will have no idea of their background. We need to better promote the law that gives victims the right to come forward and make a request of the PSNI to see whether their partner has engaged in domestic violence. The Department of Justice should be promoting that. It does not help when the perpetrator can change their name. The PSNI, for which I am an advocate, still does not do enough to publish the mugshots of convicted domestic violence perpetrators. If a woman in Northern Ireland meets someone, they may have a different name, the police will not have published their mugshot and she will have no idea with whom she is striking up a relationship. Instead of empowering and educating women about whom they might be getting into a relationship with, we withhold information that we could legally provide.

For all the work on strategy, what we need is a criminal justice system that is on the side of victims and provides the space, once they make a report, for them to access the housing support that they need, to rebuild their credit rating and to have all the things that men have denied them in the first place. We need to get serious. The justice system is too slow, too soft and too often on the side of the suspect rather than the victim.

Ms Hunter: Amy Doherty was in her late 20s.She was mother to Rhea and Ronan; a loved daughter of Patrick and Sharon; a sister to Shane and Ryan; a granddaughter, a niece, a cousin and a friend to many. Over the weekend and today, I have been genuinely lost for words to say about the continuing murders and to say to Amy's family to provide them with comfort.

There really is nothing to say other than what other Members have echoed today. It feels as if, every other week, we stand in the Chamber, grieve the life of another woman brutally taken and demand change. We demand action; a few weeks pass; and then, sadly, the cycle begins again.

In the past week, women across the North have shared online their stories of surviving domestic abuse. They have compared living with abusive partners to a living, breathing nightmare. Their lives are lived on eggshells, and their children are scarred for life. We all know and love someone in a domestic abusive relationship — someone whom we check in with regularly. We know the fear that they feel. We pray and hope that the next horrific headline will not be about them. I say that that is not good enough. That collective holding of breath for women across Northern Ireland is not only wrong but unfair.

We must call this what it is: femicide. We cannot become accustomed to 30 women being brutally murdered since 2020 as "normal". Ellie Flanagan was 23 years old with her whole life ahead of her. She was known and loved by all in her community, her family and her friends. It is a true tragedy. Those beautiful, caring, loved women are so much more than just statistics and names on a page. I say, "No more" to this horrific behaviour. The cruelty and brutality of such men must end. That means ensuring that men speak up and join our voices and believe us when we tell our stories. We must get to the root of this horrific, ongoing problem. Many women feel that men get more time in prison for a drugs offence than they do for attempted murder. The system is not fair, and it needs changed. It is time for harsher laws; for more education; and to make those who instil fear in women feel the fear of the law and the consequences of their violent actions. Enough is enough. An unchanged society will continue to leave a generation of Northern Ireland's daughters dying at the hands of inaction and brutality.

May God bless Amy, Ellie and their families in the coming days, and may their precious souls rest in peace.

Mr Speaker: Thank you, Members, for your contributions.

Mr McGuigan: Living in and representing North Antrim as an MLA is a huge privilege for me. In my biased view, in terms of natural beauty and tourist attractions, no place in Ireland compares. In North Antrim, with all its special places to live, at the top of the tree sits Ballycastle. Is it any surprise that, last week, Ballycastle town won an award naming it the best place in the North to live? That recognition is richly deserved. Anyone who knows or has spent time in Ballycastle will understand exactly why the town has received that accolade. It is a place of extraordinary natural beauty from the stunning coastline to its position as the gateway to the glens, Rathlin Island, Carrick-a-Rede rope bridge etc.

Like any town, city or village, what makes Ballycastle special is its people and its welcoming atmosphere. Ballycastle is a place with a strong independent retail and hospitality sector. The cafes, restaurants, hotels, shops and producers' local markets give the town its unique character and energy. It is a town renowned for good food and great craic. There is a real vibrancy about Ballycastle, with a thriving arts and cultural scene; a proud and growing Irish-language community; and an events calendar that continues to grow from strength to strength. Last week, I was down there for the St Patrick's Day celebrations. We are all acutely aware of the Lammas Fair. We also have new, exciting festivals such as the Lir sessions and the Ballycastle Rock and Blues Festival. Those events do more than bring people together; they support local businesses, strengthen tourism and showcase everything that makes Ballycastle town special. If any of you are planning a trip over the Easter holidays or in the summer, I suggest that you make your way up to north Antrim and the north coast to Ballycastle town.

Not content to stand still, Ballycastle is looking to the future with investment in projects such as the shared campus and the indoor leisure centre, which will be huge assets for the community and for visitors in years to come. The award is recognition not just of what Ballycastle is today but of the people who built the town, those who sustain it and those who will shape its future. As we celebrate and congratulate Ballycastle town on receiving the award, we must also ensure that Ballycastle continues to grow in the right way, supporting local people, protecting its identity and building on its strengths.

Mrs Little-Pengelly: St Patrick's week in Washington DC offers unparalleled opportunities to build connections, establish relationships and promote and champion Northern Ireland. Last week, I travelled to Washington DC to engage in more than 22 meetings and events, not just as deputy First Minister but as an advocate for our people, our businesses, our tourism, our academic institutions and our ambition. I went to DC as part of my commitment to keep turning up, standing up and speaking up for Northern Ireland at every opportunity. In a world that is noisy and crowded, if you do not show up, your story does not get told; if you do not stand up, your interests do not get promoted; and, if you do not speak up, others take that opportunity for themselves.

Over the course of the five-day visit, I engaged with hundreds of people: key decision-makers from the president to members of his cabinet, leaders on both sides of the aisle in the Senate and the House, business leaders, investors, young people and those with an interest in Northern Ireland. People who believe, as we do, that Northern Ireland is not defined by its past but inspired by its potential.

I delivered a clear message: Northern Ireland may be small, but our ambition is not. Let me tell you something: they are listening. They heard how the people from Ulster, what is largely now Northern Ireland, helped build modern America 250 years ago and how the same driving values of hard work, grit, determination and innovation continue to define our people today. They heard how Northern Ireland is a place of innovation and talent, where global companies come not just to invest but to grow. Investors today see Northern Ireland not just as a location but as a launch pad. None of that happens by accident. Progress happens through engagement. It happens when we build relationships not just when it is easy but when it is necessary. It happens when we sit at tables, even with those with whom we might not always agree, and choose dialogue over distance. Relationships are not just soft power but real power. That was something that I was reminded of time and again in Washington. Strong economies are built on trust, and lasting peace is built on understanding. That is our responsibility: to keep reaching outwards and building bridges. Northern Ireland's story is still being written, and we decide what comes next.

To our universities, tourism bodies, business organisations, political representatives and community and voluntary leaders, I say a huge "Thank you" for turning up, showing up and speaking up. When we do that together there is no limit to what Northern Ireland can achieve.

Mr Dickson: I will use my Member's statement to mark Marie Curie's daffodil appeal for the month of March, an appeal that, this year, reaches its 40th anniversary. That is indeed a significant milestone, and it is right that the Assembly takes a moment to recognise that.

Marie Curie provides palliative care at the end of life to thousands of people across Northern Ireland in their homes and in the Belfast hospice. The nurses, volunteers and support staff who deliver that care do so with immense dedication. That support means so much not just to the patient, the person who is at the end of their life, but to the whole family around them.

The scale of the challenge is significant. Research shows that around 90% of people in Northern Ireland would benefit from a palliative care approach at the end of life. Yet too many face real barriers to accessing that support when they need it. The Health Committee of the Assembly published a 'Report on Access to Palliative Care Services' in December 2025. The direction of travel is clear: we need to invest in community-based services that allow people who are dying at home to be cared for at home or closer to home, rather than ending up in acute settings at the worst moment of their life.

Marie Curie has four asks of the Assembly and our Health Department: that palliative care is prioritised in government policy and planning; that crisis situations are avoided so that people can be cared for in the place of their choosing; that no one dies without support; and that, as a community, we are informed and empowered to know when and how to access those services before things reach crisis point.

There is a real opportunity here for the Minister to make significant strides before the next election. I urge him to take those asks seriously. People in Northern Ireland deserve a better end to their lives, and there is no second chance to get this right.

Mr Burrows: On 30 June 1990, two community police officers were murdered in Belfast, shot by the Provisional IRA: Constable Harry Beckett and Constable Gary Meyer. They left behind a wife each and three children who were later orphaned. Another man was killed in a linked attack: James Babington, an entirely innocent man, was also murdered by the IRA.

The unimaginable grief of the families and colleagues of those two innocent men was compounded in 2015, when BBC journalist Chris Moore made a 'Spotlight' programme alleging that the weapons used in their murders had been in the possession of the Royal Ulster Constabulary's Special Branch and that, having been tested, they were handed back to the IRA, which committed the murders. That caused real devastation, but there was not a scintilla of evidence to support Chris Moore's assertions. In fact, the weapons were recovered after the attack. One had been dropped, and the other came from the dreadful murder of two corporals in Belfast.

A complaint went to the Police Ombudsman about the assertions made by the 'Spotlight' programme. The Police Ombudsman took 10 years to come to the conclusion that the guns involved had not been in the hands of RUC Special Branch at any time. In fact, inquiries conducted since show that Chris Moore relied on a whistle-blower who had left the relevant department six years before these guns got into the hands of the IRA, let alone Special Branch, which they never did. The journalist did not reveal in his programme that the star whistle-blower had stopped cooperating with him during the making of it. He did not disclose that he had encouraged the widow of Constable Meyer to wear a wire and try to get the whistle-blower to repeat his unsubstantiated evidence.

It took the ombudsman 10 years to get to the truth — the same ombudsman that complains about RUC investigations being slow. What made it worse was that a senior member of the ombudsman's office took part in the BBC 'Spotlight' programme and gave validity to Chris Moore's false allegations. Complaints were made to the BBC and the ombudsman; they were brushed under the carpet. Fresh complaints have been made against Chris Moore and the BBC. The programme should never have gone out. No due diligence was carried out, and there was no evidence or truth to it. The widow of Gary Meyer went to her grave waiting for the truth; she did not get it. There needs to be accountability and an end to the besmirching of the proud reputation of the Royal Ulster Constabulary.

Ms Finnegan: Molaim Gaelphobal Ard Mhacha Theas as an obair mhór atá déanta aige le linn Sheachtain na Gaeilge. Bhí imeachtaí ceoil, díospóireachtaí agus comórtais i measc na n-imeachtaí a d’eagraigh sé ar fud na ceantair. Ba mhór an onóir dom páirt a ghlacadh ina fheachtas ar na meáin sóisialta leis na himeachtaí sin agus Seachtain na Gaeilge a chur chun cinn. Spreag rath na n-imeachtaí sin mé níos mó úsáid a bhaint as mo chuid Gaeilge féin, rud a chuireann imní orainne nach bhfuil ach cúpla focal againn, ach, mar a deir an seanfhocal, "Is fearr Gaeilge bhriste ná Béarla cliste".

Chuala muid figiúr spreagúil eile an tseachtain seo caite: tá méadú 400% tagtha ar líon na bpáistí atá ag freastal ar an Ghaelscolaíocht le 25 bliain. Sin breis agus 7,000 duine óg atá ag foghlaim trí mheán na Gaeilge. Tá an Ghaeilge ag fás léi; tá sí faoi bhláth. Ní gá dúinn ach breathnú ar Sheachtain na Gaeilge agus ar na figiúirí sin mar fhianaise ar an bhláth sin. Molaim iarrachtaí gach duine atá ag obair lenár dteanga a chur chun cinn. Is mór againn a n-obair; tá sí thar a bheith luachmhar.

Mr Buckley: I make my statement in memory of all the innocent victims of IRA terrorism, whether they be Catholic or Protestant, security personnel or civilian. The blood-soaked pain, the inhumanity and the injustice continue to this very day. Gerry Adam's recent appearance at the High Court in London compounded that grief and pain. The case represented an opportunity — for some, perhaps, the final opportunity — for clarity, accountability and truth. Those victims and the many hundreds of others like them across Northern Ireland and beyond have lived for decades with loss, trauma and unanswered questions. They deserve their day in court. They deserve to have their claims fully and publicly tested. Instead, we are left, again, with uncertainty.

And so, I come to the central question. What and where precisely was Sinn Féin's president, Mr Adams, during the darkest days of the 1970s and the 1980s? The answer remains at large. For many, that question has never gone away. Despite countless security assessments and images, as well as countless first-hand accounts from those in the Provisional IRA, we and, indeed, the victims of terrorism are all left to somehow believe Mr Adams's repeated position that he was never in the IRA. I will not rehearse every claim and counterclaim, but I will say this: whilst Mr Adams appears to be embarrassed to say that he was ever in the IRA, he was never embarrassed to honour and give cover to the its murder and mayhem, whether that was through wearing the black beret of the Provisional IRA or carrying countless IRA coffins, including that of the Shankill bomber Thomas Begley, who had, days earlier, murdered nine innocent men, women and children. There were IRA funeral orations and the language of justification, yet we are told to accept that it never happened.

To this day, victims of paramilitary-sponsored terrorism continue to be failed. They account for 90% of all the murders during the Troubles, yet we watch as the state is endlessly persecuted whilst the IRA command, bombers and gunmen and gunwomen —

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Time is up, Jonathan.

Mr Buckley: — continue to evade the justice that they deserve.

Miss McAllister: As many Members will be aware, Endometriosis Awareness Month takes place in March. Today, Endometriosis UK is hosting a drop-in event in the Long Gallery to provide education on the realities of living with the condition.

The theme of this year's awareness month is "Endometriosis Doesn't Wait". As Endometriosis UK puts it:

Yet women still wait for years. In 2025, the average waiting time for women in Northern Ireland to receive a diagnosis following their first GP visit was a shocking nine years and 10 months. In addition, research shows that it took, on average, three and a half years following symptoms beginning to show for women to take that first step of reaching out to their GP. That means women are experiencing over 12 years of ever-worsening symptoms, including severe pain, chronic fatigue and heavy periods, before finally having their experience formally acknowledged with a diagnosis. That is simply not acceptable.

Last week, the Chamber agreed on the urgent need for a women's health strategy and the action plan that was promised over two years ago this month. The Health Minister has committed to commencing investment in specialist endometriosis care in 2026, but what does that mean, and what will the service entail?

The issue unites us all in the Chamber. We have all called for more acceptable waiting times, quicker diagnosis and treatment and, most importantly, for women to be listened to. However, we still have too many questions. How do the Minister and the trusts plan to reduce the unacceptable waiting times? Where are we with the pilot to transfer patients from secondary to primary care? Where are we with the ongoing work on the endometriosis clinical pathway? How will the plans for gynaecology ambulatory hubs work in practice? We ask those questions because we are talking about a condition that affects real life and has devastating consequences for the women and girls who live with it.

This month, women have been bravely sharing their stories online and in the media. They have been sharing how they have been stuck at home, unable to move due to the pain; how they have been unable to go to work; how they have crowdfunded for private treatment; and how they have waited for 14 years and had four surgeries just to get a diagnosis. We have even had clinical professionals say that, in Northern Ireland, women get a raw deal. I hope that many Members will join me in dropping into the event this afternoon and that they will continue to apply pressure and speak up for the women affected.

Mr O'Toole: In the past couple of hours, the price of Brent crude — the oil price that determines how nearly two thirds of the public in Northern Ireland heat their home — fell after the lunatic Donald Trump indicated that he had had "productive" conversations with Iran, which he began bombarding three weeks ago. Then, not long after that, the Iranian regime said that that was not the case. It said that Trump had backed down, which, as we know, he has done in the past, and that there had been no such negotiations. Now, as we speak, we are seeing the price of oil rocket, which will hit two thirds of our constituents, not only those in rural areas but those in my constituency and your constituency, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker, in Belfast.

Members of the House were in the US over the past week. We have just heard from the deputy First Minister, who lauded the engagement that she had there, and from Mr Buckley — not the only dramatically gifted Buckley seeking attention in North America last week — who was over in Washington getting photo ops. We heard from them how pleased and delighted they were with their engagement with the Trump Government. Our constituents are paying the price for Trump's insanity. We are seeing that today.

By the way, while people are struggling to heat their home, our Communities Minister flew thousands of miles across the world for, by my count, at least his third visit to America to talk about the 250th anniversary of the founding of America, the declaration of a republic and the role that the Scots Irish had in that. Let me say this to those who are celebrating, plámásing and praising Donald Trump and his Government: those Ulster Scots and Scots Irish would have had nothing to do with the lunatic — the crook — that is Donald Trump. They believed in a republic that was free from the Crown but with its citizens bound under law. People such as Ulysses S Grant did not believe in a vain emperor — a deluded fool such as Donald Trump. Mr Buckley is laughing. His constituents in Upper Bann are paying the price for Trump's madness and a war — an insane bombardment of Iran — that the DUP backed. It has nothing to do with people in Iran who want democracy. They are cowering in their homes and being bombarded by the US and Israel. Engaging with Donald Trump is a preposterous act. Some sovereign Governments have to engage with Donald Trump. They have a job to do. They have to engage with him diplomatically. You guys do not. Mr Buckley, you do not need to go over there and flatter him: it is not your job, but you have done it anyway. All the while, your constituents are paying the price of his unacceptable, reckless and meaningless bombardment of Iran, which is forcing up prices, destabilising the world and putting all of us at risk.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Time is up.

Mr Clarke: For Northern Ireland supporters of Rangers, and, indeed, Rangers themselves, Saturday finished up being an exceptionally good day, with a 4-1 win at home against Aberdeen. However, the day did not start so well. It was deeply disappointing to read on social media that a supporters' bus that had come from Northern Ireland was stopped and searched in Scotland. The first question that the police asked was not, "Are you visitors to Scotland?" but, "Are you football supporters?". Some will say that there are justifiable reasons for that, but I do not think that there are. If there had been any issues, or had there were materials that Police Scotland wished to find, they could have been easily accommodated when those people were entering the match. It reminds me of the debacle in Londonderry a few years ago, when the PSNI got on to buses with children on them, just as Police Scotland did at the weekend. Football, like every other sport, is a family sport. There were children on that bus on Saturday, who were disturbed by police entering the bus, making their way down it and searching bags. Some of the video stuff that I have seen shows small bags being searched. What exactly they were looking for, no one knows. The police did not indicate what, or who, they were looking for. It was very disturbing.

I wrote to the Chief Constable of Police Scotland, Jo Farrell, on Saturday night and am looking forward to a response. I also read at the weekend that one of the supporters, who has been travelling for 20 years to most matches, said that that was the first time that he had witnessed such an act. That shows the gravity of the case. I do not know why the police felt it necessary to act in such a way. It was an overreach of their power, and I am very disappointed by what they have done. I look forward to hearing an explanation, if one ever comes, from Police Scotland.

Mr McNulty: I rise to speak of a man who has brought unfathomable joy to countless people for over a generation. On St Patrick's Day, as we walked down Newry's Hill Street, we could hear the soothing tones of Irish traditional music. As we walked a little further, we could hear the steps and the taps, and, as we walked further, we could hear the clarity and direction of the céilí caller, Raymond Carroll. Raymond has been calling céilithe in Newry and all around the country on St Patrick's Day for 38 years. I note Raymond's mastery and expertise, and the joy and happiness that he has brought to so many dancers — from master dancers and virtuosi céilígoers to novices. He brings structure, organisation and joy to everyone involved, within minutes. Maith thú

, Raymond. Keep going.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Phillip, I will bring you in. You have two minutes.

Mr Brett: Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. On Thursday, Northern Ireland — our national football team — once again stands on the brink of history, and of writing yet another chapter in our proud history. It faces a giant of the game — Italy — in our World Cup play-off semi-final. Anyone in the Chamber who knows anything about our national football team will know that we do not fear history; we write our own and rise to every challenge. Over the years, we have gone toe to toe with the world's greatest, over-performed and written our name into the history books.

I pay tribute to the Amalgamation of Official Northern Ireland Supporters' Clubs, which has ensured that over 1,200 of us will travel on Thursday to support our national team. Those of us who were lucky enough to get tickets will be joined by those who, although not lucky enough to get tickets, will be able to watch the game in Italy thanks to the work of Gary McAllister, who has secured an outdoor screen for Northern Ireland fans. This is a history-setting moment for our team. It is an opportunity for people from all backgrounds to, once again, place the green shirt on their back and play for the team that we are all proud to call Northern Ireland. I hope that I speak on behalf of the whole House when I say, "Come on, our wee country" for Thursday.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Timothy, you have two minutes.

Mr Gaston: Thank you very much, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. That is grand.

Last week, the civil case against Gerry Adams collapsed. Anyone in the Building can go to the Library, lift Peter Taylor's book about the Provos and read that Gerry Adams was part of an IRA delegation that met a senior Northern Ireland Office official on 20 June 1972 in Londonderry. One attendee said of that meeting:

Six days later, an IRA delegation flew to London for talks with the Government, and, again, Gerry Adams was there. For 30 years, the IRA waged a murderous campaign across this land, leaving thousands dead and injured. Throughout those years, Adams remained at the centre of the IRA — a fact attested to by numerous journalists — so what were victims to think when the case collapsed? They see a system that cannot give them answers and a process that ends without resolution, and they see Gerry Adams emerge to address the press flanked by not one but two bombers: Pat Sheehan and Gerry Kelly. How crass and insensitive. Victims are told that that is justice. Is it any wonder that victims say that they have been failed by the law?

On a brighter note, there will come a day when Mr Adams and his cohorts will stand before a higher court, where justice will be satisfied. That is the only peace that victims will get. They have been denied justice in this life, but Mr Adams will meet justice in the next.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: That ends Members' statements.

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

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

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

Today, I seek the Assembly's approval of the draft Renewables Obligation (Amendment) Order (Northern Ireland) 2026. The statutory rule (SR), made under the Energy (Northern Ireland) Order 2003, seeks to change the index used to apply inflationary increases to the Northern Ireland renewables obligation (NIRO) scheme's buyout price from the retail price index to the consumer price index. The change is being implemented concurrently with that for the two renewables obligation schemes in Britain, namely the renewables obligation scheme in England and Wales and the renewables obligation Scotland scheme. It is appropriate and necessary that we implement the same approach here. There are no financial implications arising from the instrument. Moving to the consumer price index reflects best regulatory practice and provides a more accurate and stable basis for adjusting costs than the retail price index.

In summary, given the ongoing enactment of similar regulations in Britain, this is a necessary measure, and I welcome the Assembly's support for it.

Mr Brett (The Chairperson of the Committee for the Economy): As the Minister has outlined, this is an important motion to be passed by the Assembly today. The Committee was content to support the rule, as it will keep us in line with the rest of the United Kingdom and permit the industry in Northern Ireland to continue to enjoy the benefits of the scheme. I am therefore pleased, on behalf of the Committee, to commend the rule to the House.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: No one else has indicated that they wish to speak. I call the Minister to make a winding-up speech on the motion.

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

I thank the Chair of the Committee for the Economy for his contribution and members of the Committee for their consideration of the regulations. As has been set out, the regulations change the inflation index used for the NIRO scheme from the retail price index to the consumer price index, ensuring parity with the two renewables obligation schemes in Britain. I commend the motion to the House and thank Members for their support.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Members, will you take your ease, please? Thank you.

Mr McAleer: I beg to move

Mr Speaker: In accordance with convention, the Business Committee has not allocated any time limits to the debate. I call Mr Declan McAleer to open the debate on the Bill.

Mr McAleer: I welcome the opportunity to outline the key elements of the Areas with Natural Constraints (Payments) Bill at Second Stage. At its core, it is a straightforward but important Bill. It places a statutory duty on the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs (DAERA) to make regulations governing payments for areas with natural constraints (ANC) under powers in the Agriculture Act 2020. Its purpose is clear: to secure ongoing financial support for farmers in areas where natural conditions limit agricultural activity; to provide legal certainty and continuity of support schemes; and to ensure that payments are maintained and updated annually in line with inflation. Those areas face structural disadvantages, including poor soils, shorter growing seasons and challenging terrain. ANC payments, therefore, play a vital role in sustaining active farming, supporting rural communities and maintaining responsible land management.

The Bill contains two clauses. Clause 1 places a duty on the Department to make regulations within 12 months of commencement. It also requires that payments must be no less generous than those provided under the Areas of Natural Constraint Regulations 2018 and that payments must be updated annually and, at least, in line with the consumer price index. That would ensure continuity, fairness and predictability for farm businesses. Clause 2 provides standard legislative provisions. The Act would come into operation on the day after Royal Assent and may be cited as the Areas with Natural Constraints (Payments) Act (Northern Ireland) 2026. As a small farmer, I declare an interest in this and other farming items.

In my constituency of West Tyrone, almost 60% of land is classified as "severely disadvantaged". Over 90% of land in Fermanagh is disadvantaged land. The figure is over 50% for the East Derry constituency and over 60% for East Antrim. Those figures underline the scale of the challenge that faces our rural communities. Farming operates under a significant regulatory burden. Farmers must comply with cross-compliance requirements; machinery and safety standards; farm quality assurance schemes; Food Standards Agency (FSA) inspections; and unannounced checks. They also meet high standards in animal health and environmental protection. Those obligations increase cost and complexity, particularly in marginal areas. ANC payments, therefore, play an important role in helping to offset additional costs where production margins are already extremely tight.

Claims that an ANC scheme is not good value for money must be assessed against the full cost of removal, including the wider consequences of losing active land management and environmentally sensitive farming practices, and the associated social and economic impacts on rural communities. The evidence is clear: over the past decade, output from ANCs has been in steady decline. If that trend continues unchecked, the consequences will stretch far beyond upland farms and will, ultimately, threaten the long-term sustainability of the red meat sector in the North. Figures from the 2025 DAERA census paint a stark picture: the number of beef cattle has fallen by 21% over the past 10 years, with a particularly sharp decline since 2018-19, when the ANC scheme was discontinued. The North now has its lowest beef cattle numbers in 55 years. During consultation on the Bill, many stakeholders pointed to the end of the ANC payment as a contributing factor to that trend.

The importance of ANCs to the wider agricultural economy must not be understated. Of the North's 213,000 beef cattle, almost 100,000 are in severely disadvantaged areas (SDAs) or ANCs, and 64,000 are in disadvantaged land. In total, around three quarters of the region's essential breeding beef stock are in less-favoured areas (LFAs). The same is true for sheep farming. Of the North's 1·8 million sheep, over 1 million are in ANCs, with a further 400,000 in disadvantaged areas (DAs). Those flocks and herds are critical breeding stock that provides a vital supply chain for lowland farmers, who rely on upland producers to supply cattle and lambs for finishing. Farming is an integrated ecosystem in which all parts rely on one another.

Recent livestock trends underline the scale of the challenge. Over the past year alone, the total number of beef cattle has decreased by 5%, and sheep numbers have fallen by 7%. The sectors that dominate marginal land — beef and sheep — are precisely those that are experiencing the greatest decline. Farmers have told us that switching to alternative enterprises simply is not realistic in ANCs. The land, terrain and climate limit what can be produced. The DAERA census highlights that. Across the entire North, there are only 10 cereal farmers in ANCs.

When set against the public goods that ANCs deliver — landscape stewardship, biodiversity protection, flood mitigation and community resilience — the scheme represents a prudent and preventative public investment. There are also compelling environmental and ecological reasons to support farming in upland areas. Abandoned and overgrown land does not support biodiversity and increases the risk of wildfires during dry spells. In short, not doing the scheme represents a higher cost when it comes to environmental management and farm sustainability than investing in an ANC scheme.

The Department previously suggested that redistribution of the former pillar 1 payments could replace ANC support. However, I strongly feel that that suggestion does not stand up to scrutiny. The former pillar 1 adjustments could not replicate the targeted support that farms operating under severe natural constraints need. Many of those holdings face higher unit costs, lower yields and limited enterprise options due to soil quality, slopes and climate. The partial redistribution of area-based payments did not address those structural disadvantages or the additional cost of managing marginal land. It is also important to recognise that the previous trajectory of convergence was halted in 2020, removing a planned mechanism intended to smooth the transition for the most marginal farms. As a result, many farms are still exposed.

If we are serious about sustaining rural livelihoods and active land management, we require a targeted funding approach that reflects the real costs of farming in our most disadvantaged areas. The financial pressures are there for all to see. The farm business data for 2023-24 illustrates that farms in less-favoured areas, which include severely disadvantaged areas such as ANCs and disadvantaged land, recorded an average loss of more than £10,000. Remove direct support payments, and that loss deepens to around £17,000. Supporting ANCs is not only an agricultural intervention but an equality and community safeguard that protects families, skills and the social fabric of our most fragile rural areas.

The Bill is not only about financial assistance but about rural stability and environmental stewardship. For many households, ANC payments were a critical part of total income and provided the stability needed to remain in production, invest in their businesses and support local economies. Such targeted investment in disadvantaged areas has existed since the UK Agriculture Act 1947, and, today, Scotland and the South of Ireland continue to have ANC schemes.

It is also important to be clear that the Bill creates a statutory duty to make regulations. It does not allocate funding. Funding mechanisms remain a matter for the Department and can be addressed through the appropriate budgetary routes, including reallocations, Barnett consequentials or transitional arrangements.

The delivery of a statutory scheme requires political will and prioritisation.

With regard to farm support, I stress that the ring-fenced agriculture budget exists to provide stability and resilience for farm businesses. This is already overstretched due to a 17% cut to fund other schemes. Any further diversion of funds from that scheme will undermine that certainty. The ANC scheme is intended to complement existing supports, not to replace or compete with them.

Crucially, transparency and accountability will be built into the process. Draft regulations that will follow on from the legislation will be accompanied by full financial assessments, be subject to Assembly scrutiny via affirmative resolution procedure and be informed by a statutory public consultation in which farmers and rural stakeholders will have a say. The Bill creates a legal framework to establish the scheme.

The Bill provides the necessary legal framework to give vital support to farmers in areas of natural constraint, and it promotes rural viability, environmental stewardship and economic fairness. It gives the Department the duty and clarity to act. Most important, it recognises a simple truth: farming land is not equal, and policy must reflect that reality if we are serious about sustaining agricultural communities and the environment in our most challenging landscapes. I commend the Bill to the Assembly.

Mr Butler (The Chairperson of the Committee for Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs): On behalf of the Committee for Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs, I welcome the opportunity to speak in this Second Stage debate on the first private Member's Bill (PMB) of the mandate. I thank the member of the Committee for bringing it forward. He should have declared an interest as a member of the Committee, as well as having a small farm.

Committee members fully recognise the challenges facing farmers today, with increasing economic pressures and significant environmental demands. We also acknowledge the additional layers of difficulty experienced by those farming in areas of natural constraint, otherwise known as "ANCs". The Committee was first made aware of the proposal by the sponsoring Member, Mr Declan McAleer, in November 2024, and was formally notified in July 2025. An update following the public consultation was provided at the Committee's meeting on 6 November 2025. We received an introductory briefing on the details of the Bill at an extra Committee meeting on 16 March, and the Committee thanked the Member for that engagement, which was substantive. We heard that the aim of the Bill is to restore income from support payments that were previously vital to upland farmers in a range of ways that may be described as social, economic, environmental and financial.

Clause 1 places a statutory duty on DAERA to use its powers under Part 1 of schedule 6 to the Agriculture Act 2020 to make regulations for ANC payments, with subsection (2) requiring that to be done within 12 months. Clause 2 provides for commencement on the day after Royal Assent.

The Member advised us that the intention of the Bill was:

ease the burden of operating in challenging farming environments,

We heard that most stakeholders who responded to the Member's public consultation supported those objectives. We heard that those farmers could not switch to alternative enterprises due to the land and terrain in ANCs. For example, the Member advised that the DAERA census shows that there are only 10 cereal farmers in ANCs across Northern Ireland.

The Committee also heard that previous ANC payments helped to sustain hill farming, support low-carbon livestock production and maintain areas of outstanding natural beauty (AONBs). The Member advised that ANCs are important for our red meat sector and that, of the more than 200,000 beef cattle in Northern Ireland, 100,000 are in ANCs and 64,000 in disadvantaged areas. We heard that lowland cattle finishers require cattle bred in upland areas and that ANCs cannot support pedigree herds due to the cooler climate. We were advised that the same was true of the sheep sector, which has already been subject to cuts to fund other schemes, and that sheep farmers cannot access many of the schemes that are available to other farmers.

The Committee was informed that, over the past decade, beef cattle numbers in ANCs had fallen by 21%, representing the lowest number in 25 years, with broader environmental and ecological consequences such as an increased risk of wildfires due to reduced grazing and land management. We heard that ANCs are complex agricultural ecosystems that play a pivotal role in maintaining biodiversity. The Committee saw that at first hand on a visit to Glenwherry Hill Farm Centre.

The Committee then took the opportunity to question the Member on several issues, including the limited detail in the Bill, the source of funding and the possible implications for other farm support schemes. The Member advised that the proposal was introduced as a Member's Bill because the Department did not include ANC payments in its sustainable agriculture programme, unlike that in the Republic of Ireland and Scotland. We heard that the Agriculture Act 2020 contains powers to make regulations to provide for ANC payments.

The Committee queried the assessment of costs in the explanatory and financial memorandum (EFM). The Member advised that the scheme envisaged under the Bill mirrors the previous ANC scheme, which finished in 2018, as that was considered the most efficient basis on which to proceed.

The Committee raised concerns around the financial implications of the Bill for other support schemes, as the commencement of the Act is the day after Royal Assent. The Member advised that the Bill establishes the legislative framework to enable ANC payments to be made and that identifying funding and advancing the statutory regulations will commence once Royal Assent has been granted. The Member also stated that the payments should not come from a reallocation of the existing farm sustainability payment (FSP), as it has already been subject to several reductions and there would be strong opposition to further cuts.

The Committee further discussed the Bill's direct and indirect budgetary implications, its viability as enabling legislation and the Minister's confirmation that no funding for ANC payments is currently available.

There will undoubtedly be interest from the farming community in the proposals, and, should the Bill pass Second Stage today, the Committee will ensure thorough scrutiny and engagement with DAERA, farmers, producers and other stakeholders.

At its meeting on 16 March, the Committee agreed to reserve its position on the Bill. We look forward to considering it in further detail should it proceed to Committee Stage.

I will now make a few comments as the Ulster Unionist spokesperson on agriculture, environment and rural affairs. We have to accept that the Bill cannot be looked at in isolation from all the other events since 2017, and I put Brexit at the top of that list. The reality is that, since Brexit, farmers in Northern Ireland have not had access to established and specified EU funding streams that recognise the specific challenges faced by farmers in disadvantaged areas. That funding provided a degree of stability and predictability that is now sorely lacking. Meanwhile, in other jurisdictions, support has not only continued but, in some cases, strengthened. In the Republic of Ireland, the ANC scheme remains a central pillar for rural support. It provides hundreds of millions of euros annually with payments targeted specifically at those farming on disadvantaged and severely disadvantaged lands. In recent years, the Government in the Irish Republic have allocated in the region of €250 million a year into its ANC programme, with €180 million to €190 million of that coming from EU coffers. Similarly, in Scotland, the less-favoured area support scheme payments, now transitioning into the new support mechanisms, have contributed around £60 million annually to farmers operating in challenging conditions. Questions need to be asked. How can it be right that farmers in Northern Ireland facing similar if not greater natural constraints are left at a competitive disadvantage? It is not just an agricultural issue; it is an issue of fairness, economic sustainability and rural survival for some of those farmers.

We welcome the intent of the Bill; the Second Stage is about looking at the intent of the Bill. While it is commendable, there are areas to grapple with, and the Member who introduced the Bill will understand that. There are areas on which the Ulster Unionist Party requires significant clarity before it can move beyond conditional support. The first pillar of that is funding. Where will the money come from? Is it a reallocation of existing DAERA budgets, or is the Member proposing new investment? If it is the former, which programmes would lose out? If it is the latter, what discussions have been had, if any, with the Finance Minister to identify where the money could come from? We cannot simply shift pressure from one part to another. We saw that in the previous mandate when we brought forward legislation that simply did not stand up.

The second area is targeting and outcomes. The Bill refers to the role of ANC farmers in delivering environmental benefit but makes no requirement of those outcomes.

If the Bill is to move forward, there is a chance to do more. If public money is to be invested, it should be linked to public good, carbon sequestration, biodiversity enhancement and environmental stewardship. Organisations such as the RSPB have rightly pointed out that payments should be tied to measurable outcomes. That is not a barrier; it is an opportunity to strengthen the Bill.

We should also ask how the proposal aligns with our wider environmental ambitions. We talk about 30x30 commitments, restoring nature and increasing afforestation rates, but, across Northern Ireland, progress has been slow. Could the proposal be part of the solution? Could it incentivise land management practices that deliver farm viability and environmental gain? Those are questions that are worth exploring if we get to Committee Stage.

There is also a broader strategic question: is the Bill part of a coherent, long-term agricultural policy, or is it a piecemeal response to mounting pressures? In my time as Chair of the AERA Committee, the sheep task force and representatives of sheep farming have said that they have felt very much that they have been left behind. There is a need for a targeted sheep support scheme; perhaps the Minister will refer to that. The Bill may represent a step in that direction, because I know that sheep farm numbers could be particularly impacted by the Bill. We must ensure that the Bill is just one of a number of significant steps.

The Ulster Unionist Party supports the progress of the Bill to its next stage, but we do so with significant caveats and questions. We must ensure that, if funding is deliverable, it is credible and sustainable; that support is fairly targeted and outcome-driven; and that Northern Ireland farmers are no longer left behind their counterparts in Scotland or the Republic of Ireland, particularly those who farm near the border. If we fail to act properly, we risk not just the loss of farm incomes but the erosion of our ANC and rural communities.

Miss McIlveen: We are at a stage of the mandate similar to the situation in 2021, when Members brought forward poorly drafted pieces of legislation that were often vanity projects and raised expectations of change in the public sphere. In their eagerness to please, Members and parties in the House, who, frankly, should know better, rush through the Lobbies to approve legislation that has unintended consequences and, importantly, no business case, which means no budget. Do Members need to be reminded of the Climate Change Act (Northern Ireland) 2022 or, indeed, the Hospital Parking Charges Act (Northern Ireland) 2002? Of course not. Tomorrow, the Minister of Health will move the Consideration Stage of the Hospital Parking Charges Bill to defer its introduction again. Why? It is because the Department of Health cannot afford to fund it. In Westminster, if a private Member's Bill proposes spending public money on something not previously approved by Parliament, a money resolution must be agreed to. Perhaps a version of that needs to be considered by the Assembly moving forward; in fact, it is essential that such a mechanism be introduced.

I speak on behalf of the Democratic Unionist Party to oppose the Second Stage of the Areas with Natural Constraints (Payments) Bill. That is not because we do not want to support growth in agriculture or provide financial aid to farmers; rather, it is because we feel that the Bill does not deliver either and could adversely impact on both. It has been 10 years since we had a substantive debate on an ANC scheme. That came after the actions of the now First Minister. As we know, when she was Agriculture Minister, she continued with the ANC scheme, contrary to the advice of her officials. It did not meet the requirements of 'Managing Public Money', and a ministerial direction was given to proceed. When she acted to extend those payments, she did not do so permanently, because the business case did not support that, so should we really be surprised that Sinn Féin has introduced a Bill that would not deliver value for money? In fact, if enacted, any new scheme would not restrict support to the businesses that last received the grant when the old ANC scheme closed in 2018; it would be much more expensive.

At the end of 2016, when I was AERA Minister, I announced a one-year transitional scheme: the 2018 ANC scheme that is referenced in the Bill. At that time, there were budgetary pressures, and it was a challenge to fund the scheme. Fast-forward 10 years, and we can only dream of having those types of budgetary pressures. We were also working in an entirely different context for farm support. It is clear that much of the public support for the Bill that has been voiced to date is predicated on an expectation of additional funding that is not grounded in fact. While the Ulster Farmers' Union (UFU) appears to support the reinstatement of the payment, it has stated a clear caveat:

Indeed, when the sponsor of the Bill came to the AERA Committee last Monday, he said that the ANC scheme should not come out of the earmarked Department of Agriculture budget: if it is not to come from there, where will it come from? Let me be clear: there is no reference to ANCs in the Sinn Féin draft Budget. Those playing fast and loose with the truth on the issue are promising a false dawn for the farms affected and wrongly downplaying the concerns of those in lowland areas, who rightly fear for the future of their direct support payments. Not only would a mandatory ANC scheme have to be funded from within the existing Agriculture budget, reducing financial support for other farm businesses under the farm sustainability payment, but that disparity in treatment would deepen, as there is a proposal in the PMB to link ANCs payments to inflation. That link is not afforded to any other element of the sustainable agriculture programme. In essence, what is proposed is a hierarchy in agriculture, and where is the fairness in that? Is it Sinn Féin policy to move money from suckler cow and sheep farmers in lowland areas to large landowners in severely disadvantaged areas?

It is also important to address the misconception that farms in seriously disadvantaged areas are deprived of financial support or have found themselves in a worse situation than was previously the case. Since the ending of ANC payments, I understand, there has been no significant change to agriculture in LFAs relative to lowland areas in Northern Ireland either in livestock numbers or, indeed, in farmed areas. The move to a flat-rate, land-based payment has, in fact, seen more funding under the basic payment scheme moved from lowland areas and DAs to SDA land types, more than compensating for the loss of the old ANC scheme.

Mr McAleer: I thank the Member for taking an intervention. In 2016, there were 269,746 beef cattle in the North: last year, there were 213,744. That is a 21% drop. There has not been a transition towards a flat rate. We were in year 5 of seven when the scheme was halted.

Miss McIlveen: I thank the Member for his intervention, but we know that businesses can also access support through the beef sustainability package and the Farming with Nature package.

Between 2018 and 2020, only 705 of the 4,256 farm businesses in receipt of support through the environmental farming scheme (EFS) were exclusively in lowland areas, so how does that fit with the narrative that those in SDAs struggle to access funding streams?

Rather than seeing further regressive area-based payments that are not linked to productivity, we want to see programmes focused on efficiency and resilience in order to support profitable and sustainable agricultural activity across Northern Ireland. We support the need for a designated sheep scheme, for example, which would have a significantly positive impact on SDAs, where over half our sheep are located. Those farmers already contribute significantly to the environment and to rural communities, providing employment on farms and across the supply chain. The sector is also a multiplier for the Northern Ireland economy more generally. We want to see tailored support, building on previous work by the Northern Ireland sheep task force, to safeguard those family farms for the next generation, but that also means providing them with help to invest in infrastructure, equipment and technology, which will increase productivity and lead to improved animal health and welfare.

Next Tuesday night marks the closure of the first year of the suckler cow payment scheme. For the first time in 20 years, farmers throughout Northern Ireland will receive £100 per eligible cow as a direct payment. Surely, if Sinn Féin really wanted to maintain cow numbers, it would lobby for that payment to be increased. However, over the past few weeks, Sinn Féin has politicised the issue in carefully selected constituencies through posters and leaflets, so let us have a quick look at how Sinn Féin really supports farmers. Sinn Féin continues to refuse to engage in a conversation to amend climate change targets that directly impact on our farming community, placing on it unrealistic net zero targets. What about the farmers in West Tyrone, where farms are directly impacted by the A5? In the current mandate, those farmers have been treated shamefully by Sinn Féin. Their land was illegally vested, literally ploughed through and completely destroyed. Farmers throughout West Tyrone still have no certainty about the future of their land whilst the Department for Infrastructure, run by Sinn Féin, continues to progress shambolically with that project. It is absolutely disgraceful.

Reintroducing ANC support without additional funding would redistribute already limited support in the sector, create inequality between farm types and undermine confidence in the sustainable agriculture programme. It risks setting farm businesses against one another, in effect robbing Peter to pay Paul.

A Member: Will the Member take an intervention?

Miss McIlveen: I am coming to a conclusion.

Taking the Bill through to Committee Stage would not change that fundamental flaw, as the Committee has no role in allocating budget and certainly has no business raising unrealistic expectations. Therefore, I appeal to the Minister to work at pace to introduce a targeted package of support that is fair, effective and sustainable.

Mr Blair: I begin by recognising the effort and dedication of the Member who has introduced the private Member's Bill. I am going through the same process, so I fully understand how challenging it can be. I also acknowledge the real difficulties faced by farmers in upland and other constrained areas. Harsh winters, shorter growing seasons, poor soils, higher input costs and higher infrastructure costs are among the challenges that they face. Where we differ with the Member is not in recognising the pressure on farmers in areas with natural constraints but on how best and most responsibly that pressure should be addressed.

From the Alliance Party's perspective, all farmers should be valued and supported, whether upland or lowland; whether large or small; and whether they specialise in livestock, crops or horticulture. We have no business pitting one group of farmers against another. The underlying rationale for ANC support is to maintain agricultural activity in constrained areas and to prevent land abandonment. However, there is no evidence that sticks of significant land abandonment in Northern Ireland nor of a particular drop in productivity since the previous ANC payments ceased following EU exit. Indeed, ANC payments were previously provided under ministerial direction and, then, as explained today, phased out.

Furthermore, it is important that we consider the Bill in the context of what the Department already delivers. The Minister has made it clear that he does not intend simply to recreate an old, EU-style ANC scheme; instead, he has chosen to invest dedicated and ring-fenced funding of over £330 million a year in a comprehensive farm support and development programme. The new farm sustainability payment already provides support for agricultural activity across Northern Ireland, including in disadvantaged and constrained areas. Alongside that, there is the beef sustainability package, the emerging Farming with Nature package, the soil nutrient health scheme, the ruminant genetics programme, farming for carbon projects, the Farming for the Generations pilot, new knowledge transfer schemes, horticulture support, capital investment and supply chain initiatives. Together, those measures show that the Minister is already supporting farm businesses in constrained areas in a way that treats all farmers fairly and links public support to wider — I will give way to the Bill sponsor.

Mr McAleer: Thank you very much for taking an intervention. There are just a couple of points that I want to refer to. We, too, believe that all farmers should be treated equally, but, as I said in my introduction, all land is not equal. We are talking about farms in severely disadvantaged areas: the scheme creates something to help balance that.

John, you said that there was no drop in productivity: there has been a 21% drop in the number of cattle over the past 10 years and a 7% drop in the number of ewes in the last year alone. That is clearly a drop in productivity.

Finally, historically, from 2005, entitlements in ANC areas have always been lower than those in other areas. The transition to a flat rate was stopped, so it has not happened. Therefore, there is an historical imbalance, and we feel that restoration of the payment is a step in the right direction to rebalance things.

Mr Blair: As I indicated at the start, I understand some of the principle behind the Bill and the challenges facing farmers in areas of constraint. In summary, a number of the points raised by the proposer of the Bill can be addressed by reference to or checking of the existing schemes and environmental initiatives that I mentioned a moment ago.

All farmers should be treated fairly, and there should be links to public support of wider environmental and climate responsibilities.

Miss McIlveen: Will the Member take a question?

Mr Blair: I will not give way again so soon. I hope that Members understand that.

Those factors lead to the next fundamental difficulty that Alliance has with the Bill: its complete lack of environmental safeguards. The Member's explanatory notes highlight the potential environmental benefits of upland and constrained farms, but the Bill reflects none of that. In the current context, that is not acceptable. Climate change has already affected Northern Ireland agriculture with more frequent extreme rainfall, flooding and unseasonal weather, impacting on farm incomes and viability. We also face serious challenges with ammonia and phosphorus pollution, the health of Lough Neagh and wider biodiversity decline. In that situation, the environment cannot be treated as an afterthought. As a minimum, there should be clear conditions and standards around stocking densities, soil and peatland protection, water quality, habitat management and an explicit link to schemes such as Farming with Nature and to the new farm sustainability standards that the Minister intends to introduce in 2026. I am left wondering whether the Member was willing to work with the Minister to include some of those measures in the Bill in the first place. In the context of the climate and biodiversity crisis that I mentioned, we should help farmers in marginal, constrained areas to pivot towards maximising the delivery of environmental public good alongside sustainable food production, not locking in a blunt, area-based payment that simply recreates the old model.

That leads me to our next major concern: funding. Departmental budgets are already seriously stretched, particularly in the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs. The explanatory and financial memorandum acknowledges that an ANC scheme would cost around £11·4 million per year, with costs rising over time to keep pace with inflation. To put that into context, that is more than double the amount ring-fenced each year for the restoration of Lough Neagh, which stands at around £5 million per annum. The Bill provides no new funding, and the Minister would therefore have to find the money in DAERA's existing, highly constrained, budget; indeed, that is acknowledged in the financial memorandum provided with the Bill. It would be irresponsible to sign up to a new, inflation-linked annual spend on that scale without being clear about where the funding comes from. I note in that regard that the draft legislation provides for that inflationary uplift to ANC payments, whereas no other agriculture scheme enjoys a similar automatic uplift.

I am particularly concerned that funding might be diverted from beneficial and urgently needed programmes such as environmental improvement and animal welfare initiatives. Those are precisely the areas that we should be scaling up, not cutting. There is also, as I mentioned, the realistic prospect of a negative financial impact on other areas in the agri sector.

Opposing the Bill does not mean turning our backs on farmers in upland and constrained areas. I recognise the depth of concern among those farmers about their livelihoods, communities and the future of their family farms. However, the Alliance Party cannot support the Bill at Second Stage, because the Alliance Minister for Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs already supports farmers in constrained areas through initiatives such as the farm support and development programme and the others that have been mentioned and because there is little evidence of land abandonment or a drop in productivity since previous ANC payments ceased. Further reasons not to support the Bill are its failures to integrate environmental standards at a time of climate and nature emergency and to offer a credible, sustainable funding plan to a Department with budgets that are already under intense pressure.

Alliance will continue to work constructively with the Minister, farmers and stakeholders to ensure that all farmers — upland and lowland — are properly valued and supported and that our spending advances rural prosperity and environmental responsibility. For those reasons, the Alliance Party will vote against the Bill at Second Stage.

Mr Speaker: Mr McCrossan is next. We have four minutes, Mr McCrossan, before I would have to call on you to stop.

Mr McCrossan: I can make no guarantees, Mr Speaker. [Laughter.]

Mr Speaker: Yes. Historically, you have taken a little longer than four minutes. You may prefer to make your speech uninterrupted.

Mr McCrossan: Yes, I would.

Mr Speaker: That is fine. We will take our ease for a moment before Question Time and hear an uninterrupted Mr McCrossan post 3.30 pm.

Mr Speaker: Questions 1 and 6 have been withdrawn.

Mr Givan (The Minister of Education): Due to the current capital budget position and the number of major works projects that have been announced but are yet to be delivered, it is not my intention to make a fresh call for new major capital projects in the near future. A number of projects that are at the pre-construction stage cannot be progressed to construction at this time, due to funding availability. I have made and will continue to make the case for significantly increased and sustained investment in our schools estate.

Mrs Dillon: I thank the Minister for his answer. I say that I thank him, but, if I am being honest, I am not sure that I do. I acknowledge the work that your officials are doing to progress the new build at Gaelscoil Uí Néill. It is very welcome that you visited that school, and we look forward to seeing ground cut there very soon. I am also, however, dealing with St Joseph's Primary School in Galbally. Last week, a ceiling fell in there, and it has almost no outdoor space for its children. It amalgamated 50 years ago, when nobody was amalgamating, and there is nowhere for its overspill of children to go, because the nearest school is Donaghmore Primary School, which also has —

Mr Speaker: Will you get to the question, Mrs Dillon?

Mrs Dillon: — far too high a number of children. Will you give a commitment to meeting those at the primary school in Galbally to look at what is happening there from a health and safety perspective and at the access to outdoor space —

Mr Speaker: Minister.

Mrs Dillon: — for those children and young people in a growing community?

Mr Speaker: Minister.

Mr Givan: I understand the sentiment that the Member has expressed, and I share in the frustration with there being many schools across Northern Ireland that require significant investment. I can invest only what is allocated to my Department in capital allocations, and we are significantly underfunded. That has an impact on routine maintenance, which needs to be carried out in a planned and strategic way. Indeed, that is what the Audit Office (NIAO) report recommended, but we are still having to react and make emergency responses.

As part of the Budget process, I put in a significant bid for major capital schemes to be taken forward. I await the outcome of that Budget process. In the event that I get increased investment, I hope to be able to move forward on schools that are currently at the pre-tender stage, taking them to construction. That will, however, be entirely dependent on the available capital.

Mr Brett: One school that has been at pre-tender stage for a considerable time is Seaview Primary School in my constituency of North Belfast. The Minister is aware of my insistent and ongoing requests for him to move that along. Will the Minister provide an update and state his commitment to ensuring that that school gets the investment that it deserves?

Mr Givan: Mr Brett has campaigned for Seaview Primary School and for other schools in his constituency of North Belfast. I commend him on those ongoing representations. The Education Authority's (EA) asset management team has drafted the business case for Seaview Primary School, but that cannot be finalised until a site valuation report is received from Land and Property Services (LPS). It is anticipated that the business case will be lodged with the Department for its consideration by the end of April. Should the business case be approved by the Department, the preferred option will be progressed to design stage.

Mr O'Toole: Minister, there has been a challenge with the opacity of how decisions are made on prioritising schools that are in urgent need of maintenance. I can think of two in my constituency. The first is Rosetta Primary School, about which you wrote to me recently. It has a school hall that is not safe, and that needs to be addressed. The second is Botanic Primary School, which is in real need of maintenance. I ask for clarity on how prioritisation is done. I understand that you are operating within a constrained budget, but how is it prioritised?

Minister, will you also give a brief update on the construction of a new build at Forge Integrated Primary School? Have you had any conversations with the Minister for Infrastructure about moving along the construction of that new build?

Mr Givan: The necessity of maintenance works being carried out will be considered by the EA. Many MLAs have corresponded with me on the one in Rosetta, providing information in respect of it. I know that the church hall is being utilised to try to facilitate the delivery of parts of the curriculum, but a process is being followed to try to take through the works that would be required for that school. When it comes to the criteria, those are dealt with by EA. Often, the decisions are operational. There is a de minimis level of spend for those decisions that people are authorised to take. Decisions about what works should or should not be prioritised are very rarely escalated to ministerial level.

Mr Givan: With your permission, Mr Speaker, I will answer questions 3 and 9 together. I am grateful for the opportunity to update the Assembly on my proposals to improve the management arrangements that support controlled schools. The controlled sector encompasses half of all schools in Northern Ireland and is the most diverse sector, comprising a wide range of nursery, primary, post-primary, special, Irish-medium and integrated schools. It is therefore of considerable concern that the independent review of education found the management arrangements for the sector and the 150,000 pupils whom it serves to be "suboptimal".

Acting on the recommendations of the task force, I commissioned the bringing forward of proposals for improvement in management arrangements. I brought a proposal to the Executive in June last year to establish a dedicated body to support controlled schools. In the absence of agreement, I progressed a public consultation on the proposals, the outcome of which was published in January. Ninety-one per cent of respondents agreed that support for controlled schools must improve, and 84% backed the creation of a new dedicated organisation. Propelled by that powerful and unequivocal mandate for change, I wrote again to Executive colleagues, and I am pleased to advise that, at the end of February, agreement was reached to permit commencement of the drafting process that will legislate for the creation of a new organisation.

In the interim, whilst we work to progress the long-term solution, I am pleased that a discrete controlled schools unit has been established in the Education Authority to give focus to the authority's duty to provide a managing authority for controlled schools. Working with school leaders, the Controlled Schools' Support Council (CSSC) and other stakeholders, the dedicated team has developed a clear understanding of the specific needs of the controlled sector to tailor an offer that complements existing supports and service provision. It is clear from the public consultation that the unit has been positively received and is having an impact.

Mrs Dodds: Thank you, Minister. I am encouraged that things have progressed and that there is agreement to progress this important issue. However, this afternoon, I was disappointed to hear politicians in the House question the need for such a body. We are fortunate that that is not the position of the education sector. For the advisement of the House, will the Minister outline the views of the Council for Catholic Maintained Schools (CCMS) on the initiative?

Mr Givan: Not for the first time, the comments of some Members are out of keeping with where the education sector is. They often make politically motivated points despite the evidence, which is what they should be following. I am not surprised that the Member has reported that ill-informed commentary continues to be articulated by some.

The Member, rightly, highlights that the Catholic maintained sector has CCMS, which is of greater advantage than what controlled schools have at present. CCMS's response to the consultation was highly supportive of the proposal for a new dedicated organisation to strengthen management arrangements for the controlled sector. The CCMS submission articulated an authoritative and robust rationale. It stated the following:

That is a compelling and persuasive endorsement from CCMS. I welcome its approach to delivering equality of treatment for the controlled sector when it comes to education. That is why I welcome the Executive's agreement on bringing forward the legislation.

Mr K Buchanan: Minister, what were the views of the members of the independent review of education panel on the proposal?

Mr Givan: All members of the independent review of education panel were supportive of the proposal.

The panel was of the view that the establishment of a single managing authority to manage all schools, apart from the voluntary grant-aided sector, is the ultimate goal for which we should aim. However, it acknowledged that that would require agreement among numerous stakeholders and would likely take some time. The panel regarded the need to improve support for controlled schools as very urgent. Panel members considered that 'Investing in a Better Future' — the independent review of education report — strongly aligned with the establishment of a managing authority for controlled schools as a crucial stepping stone towards a broader, single managing authority for education. The panel members viewed the establishment of a managing authority not as an end point but as an essential interim measure on the path to a single, system-wide managing authority.

Mr Sheehan: The Minister has asserted on a number of occasions that the creation of a managing authority for the controlled sector will improve educational outcomes and that there needs to be equality of treatment for the controlled sector. Given those assertions, will he agree to setting up managing authorities for the integrated sector and the Irish-medium sector?

Mr Givan: The integrated sector has the Northern Ireland Council for Integrated Education (NICIE) — the body that represents its views. Interestingly, the majority of integrated schools are controlled integrated schools. We also have Irish-medium schools that fall within the controlled sector. Therefore, the proposition that the Member makes — that controlled schools are somehow exclusive and do not incorporate other aspects of our education sector — is false, given that the sector is inclusive of the integrated and Irish-medium sectors.

Mr Mathison: Minister, later today, we will debate your party colleagues' motion, which sets out an argument that there should be a presumption against the establishment of new public bodies. With that in mind, what will the new managing authority do that the already established and active directorate in the EA that you have established, which, you have said, is working well and which has been positively received, cannot do under the existing structures?

Mr Givan: I am glad that the Member raises that point, because he allows me to re-emphasise the evidence that I have just provided in response to the two questions. I trust that the Member listened to those responses. If he does not want to listen to me, I hope that he listens to the over 90% endorsement from the consultation. I hope that he listens to the overwhelming endorsement from school principals in his constituency and the constituencies of other Members, who are actively supportive of and campaigning for this, or is the Alliance Party ignoring the demands from the principals of the controlled schools in its Members' constituencies? That is the suggestion that, I infer, the Member is making. The evidence is there.

A controlled sector support council advocacy group already exists. That will be dissolved and merged into the managing authority, so a further body will not be created. There will be an efficiency. The controlled sector unit that has been established in the EA is giving much clearer purpose to the current functions that ought to be discharged by the EA, but all of the evidence shows it to be inadequate. Therefore, as that work is consolidated in that controlled sector unit, it will be able to be transitioned seamlessly towards the creation of the managing authority that the legislation will be able to take forward. I have no doubt that, in due course, the Member will be able to provide the relevant scrutiny as it appears before his Committee.

Mr McGrath: The adequate funding of all sectors of education is critical. The ring-fenced budget of the Youth Service is under severe threat. Does the Minister agree that the Youth Service is desperately important in our communities, that it needs to be funded and that a certain amount of protection came from that ring-fencing? Will he agree to meet me urgently to discuss some of the issues and to allow me to passionately explain the importance of youth work, having spent a career in it?

Mr Givan: I agree with the Member about the importance of youth work. I see it in my constituency. I have witnessed the increase of the community sector's ability to deliver that provision, rather than the statutory sector doing it. The community sector has made a significant contribution to outcomes in the constituency.

The EA is the decision maker on the criteria for the assessment of applications. The Department will continue to set the overarching policy and framework, but operational decisions sit entirely with the EA and do not come to the Department. The EA takes the decisions on applications, and it is therefore appropriate that it also take the decisions on the level of funding that will be allocated to youth services. In the past, the earmarked funding was often looked at as being a limit that would be spent on youth services. The EA will have the opportunity, if it decides to do so, to put more money into youth services. I certainly do not anticipate that it will put less money into youth services. Rather than regarding the previous policy of earmarked funding as a cap, the EA will be able to increase funding if it feels that that is where the priority lies.

Mr Givan: The Education Authority is responsible for managing the preschool admissions process and ensuring that sufficient places are available to accommodate all target-age children whose parents want a place. In doing so, the EA takes account of all provision across statutory and non-statutory settings. My Department plays no role in that process. The EA wrote to settings on 4 November 2025 to notify them of their provisional pupil allocation number (PAN) for the 2026-27 academic year and explained that those allocations may be subject to change.

The 2026-27 preschool admissions process is ongoing, and parents, I know, will have been advised of the outcome of stage-1 applications today. The EA has advised that the level of demand for provision in all areas will continue to be monitored. Where necessary, PANs will be adjusted to ensure that sufficient provision remains available. In each of the past 12 years, at least 99·8% of children whose parents stayed with the process to the end received an offer of a funded place in a setting of their preference. It is, however, important to remember that it is not possible, nor is it the aim of the programme, to accommodate every child in their parents' first-preference setting. Parents are encouraged to consider all preschool provision in their area, to list a number of preferences and to stay with the process to the end to maximise the opportunity for their child to be offered a funded preschool place.

Mr Buckley: The Minister will recognise that it is a very anxious time for parents, particularly as stage 1 completes today. He will also recognise that preschool, playgroup and nursery places are vital for the viability of many schools, particularly some of our rural schools, whose ability to be agile as numbers fluctuate in the years ahead has been frustrated, limited and made difficult. I ask the Minister whether he will seek to ensure that children, especially those in rural areas with more limited options, have access to the appropriate settings, which will help feed local primary schools and ensure their viability into the future.

Mr Givan: I can assure the Member that the EA's processes will continue to review preschool provision levels in all areas, including rural areas. The Member makes a compelling argument about the importance of preschool provision, particularly in rural settings. Where additional funded places are required, the EA will adjust allocations to those settings accordingly.

Last year, I asked the EA to review its admissions and PAN processes to bring about improvement and to provide better transparency for settings and parents. The report on the review is available on the EA website. That was done in response to concerns that were raised as a result of last year's process. I believe that it has improved the way in which the process has been carried out, but I am aware that a number of pupils and parents have been in contact with me today and will also have contacted colleagues in the Assembly. I will seek to provide more information to them on specific, case-by-case examples.

Mr Gaston: Minister, I have written to you to make the case for additional nursery places at Cloughmills Early Years and Taylorstown Cross Community Preschool, which do not have enough places to meet this year's demand. This morning, both preschool settings had to turn away children who live in those small villages, with the PAN having been based on the previous year's intake. How will you support non-statutory settings to allow them to grow and meet demand instead of continuing to penalise them because of one year's low intake?

Mr Givan: When it comes to PANs, the EA follows a process, and I know from my constituency that the experience last year was not satisfactory. Significant adjustments had to be made, not least in the Moira area of my constituency. We were able to do that. Where there are particular examples, I am happy for Members to raise them with me, and we can engage with the EA. However, I will also say this to the Member: increasing the allocation in some settings could lead to a reduction in other settings. My colleague Mr Frew made a strong case to me about the increase needed to the numbers at the nursery school adjacent to Kirkinriola Primary School. Having looked at the evidence on applications, we were able to move its allocation from seven, which would have meant that it would no longer function, to eight. It has been able to be retained as a result of the work in which Mr Frew engaged. I say this to Mr Gaston: yes, make the case for other settings — [Interruption.]

Mr Speaker: Order, Mr Gaston.

Mr Givan: Make the case for other settings

but be aware that, in making the case for other settings, where there is movement, that can also have a negative impact in particular settings. I certainly commend Mr Frew for his work in North Antrim.

Mr Givan: I recognise the importance of evaluating the implementation and impact of the Addressing Bullying in Schools Act 2016. While the Act does not require schools to share the data that they are required to record on bullying-type behaviour with the Department, significant work over the past two years has focused on addressing existing data gaps to support meaningful ongoing evaluation of the implementation and impact of the Act.

While a formal evaluation of the Act has not been conducted, officials have progressed work to improve access to reliable, region-wide data with a view to confirming the extent to which the Act is being implemented across schools; supporting a deeper understanding of the frequency, methods and motivations associated with bullying-type behaviours; assessing the impact of the Act and of the EA's addressing bullying in schools implementation team's work; and informing future policy and practice for both the Department and the EA.

The available evidence base includes information from the termly reports provided by the EA's addressing bullying team; questions on bullying-type behaviour that were included in the school omnibus survey for the first time in 2024; work by the Education and Training Inspectorate (ETI) to help to inform understanding of the implementation and impact of the Act; and learner questionnaire responses to provide further insights into pupils' perceptions of safety and anti-bullying efforts. I considered that the emerging evidence from those data sources on the implementation and impact of the Act was broadly very positive, while recognising that more can always be done.

Mr McNulty: I thank the Minister for his answer. No child or young person should ever have to endure the insidious distress and hurt that is caused by bullies.

The Addressing Bullying in Schools Act introduced detailed reporting requirements for schools. What analysis has the Department undertaken to ensure that the collection of data on bullying is translating into measurable improvements in pupil safety and well-being, especially in the new context of potential 24/7 exposure to cyberbullies?

Mr Givan: I agree with the comments that the Member has just made. I assure him that, following the introduction of the Addressing Bullying in Schools Act, the Department supported the establishment of an implementation team in the Education Authority in September 2022. That team was created and provides practical support to schools, educational settings, young people and parents, helping them to understand and meet the requirements of the Act and to embed cultures that eradicate bullying-type behaviour in schools.

We ought to do all that we can to address bullying. The Member highlighted the evolving nature of some of that bullying, particularly given the greater accessibility to smartphone devices and what can occur by way of messaging, WhatsApp groups, TikTok and so on. That is why I changed the policy in the Department to have a prohibition on smartphones in our schools. That is why I approved the smartphones pilot in nine of our schools; a pilot that the Alliance Party called a waste of money. Tell that to the children in those schools who have benefited. When I visited, they told me that it has made a positive impact in reducing the bullying behaviour that had been taking place. Tell them that it is a waste of money. Shame on the Alliance Party for scoring points on an issue related to those types of behaviours in our schools. Instead of doing that, I encourage Members to get behind the policy, and we should seek much greater effectiveness of it in our schools. That will go a long way to minimising that form of bullying, which often takes place.

Miss McAllister: I thank the Minister for his answer, although I point out that bullying that commences in school often takes place outside school hours. There is such a thing as a cardboard box that does not cost £20,000 a pop that can be used to hold phones.

The Minister talked about data gaps and where we might be able to see those. Has he considered collating anonymous data? If not, might he reconsider that, so that the Department can see the trends more thoroughly?

Mr Givan: I am always happy to take on board Members' comments about being more effective. The Member clearly has not engaged with schools about the challenges that there are with cardboard boxes. When it comes to smartphones and "off" buttons, I regularly encourage the Alliance Party Members to hit their "off" button and stop engaging in some of the activities that I have witnessed on their Twitter feeds. You do not need to have a cardboard box or a pouch in order to do that. If you were all to find the "off" button, you would do us all a favour.

Mr Givan: I am aware of the important role that schools, including those in rural areas, play in their communities. The sustainable schools policy (SSP) recognises the needs of rural communities, and that is reflected in a lower enrolment threshold for rural primary schools; an accessibility criterion that provides guidance on home-to-school travel times; and a "Strong links with the Community" criterion that recognises the central place that a school has for many communities.

The aim of the SSP is to ensure that all children, no matter where they live, receive a high-quality education that meets their needs and enables them to achieve their full potential in strong schools that are educationally and financially sustainable. Children in rural areas have the same right as their urban counterparts to access high-quality education, and the needs of children, as opposed to institutions, must always be to the fore. Ideally, I want to see all communities with vibrant, sustainable education provision that provides the best educational opportunities for all our children and young people.

Mr Gildernew: I thank the Minister for his answer and for placing value, as I do, on all schools and small rural schools in particular. Does the Minister recognise that there are some strategically important small schools, the closure of which would have social and community impacts beyond the impact on educational outcomes? Does he agree that, in those situations, we should look at measures that can support schools?

Mr Givan: I understand the Member's point; indeed, I will be in his constituency on Wednesday, I think, with Jemma Dolan and my colleague Deborah Erskine. We will visit schools in Belleek, which is a very remote area. During that visit, I will be in one of those schools. I share the views that the Member expressed around how strategically important some rural schools can be. That is why that is reflected in the sustainable schools policy criteria. We need to ensure that our schools are sustainable. Unfortunately, over the next 10 years, we will live with a significant reduction in population, and that will have a ripple effect on school enrolment. It is better to manage that process than to have to react in a way that I do not think would be planned. No decisions have been taken in respect of that. Part of the broader policy proposals for a more sustainable education sector is that a commission would look at the sustainability of schools. The Member makes a really strong argument about the importance of small rural schools to those communities.

Mr Wilson: A number of small rural schools in my constituency continue to provide a vital and welcome service to the community. Will the Minister outline how he would identify such schools and subsequently support them with meaningful action?

Mr Givan: I accepted the independent review of education panel's recommendation 20, which was to "Reconfigure the network of schools", in principle.

That panel determined that Northern Ireland has too many non-viable small schools and too many small sixth forms. To tackle that problem, which has educational and financial dimensions, the panel stated that we needed a new approach to area planning. Therefore, my Department set out its proposals for a five-year education budget strategy. Consultation on the strategy closes on 3 April. The strategy includes proposals that would restructure the schools estate. The details of how that will be taken forward are yet to be determined, and in any future work that my Department undertakes in that area, the SSP and rural issues will be key considerations.

Mr Speaker: We now move to topical questions. Questions 1 and 4 have been withdrawn.

Mr Givan: I addressed that question when Mr McGrath raised the importance of the youth sector. I shared his sentiment about the importance of the youth sector, particularly having witnessed it not just in my constituency but in many others. The remarks there were quite clear, namely that there was an opportunity for the EA, if it wished, to provide additional funding when it comes to youth services and not regard the earmark process as a cap on the amount of funding that should be provided to those youth services.

Mr McReynolds: I thank the Minister for his response. Minister, we regularly hear about the budget pressures facing the EA, so how do we ensure that these vital services do not get absorbed within those and that the most vulnerable children in Northern Ireland do not miss out?

Mr Givan: There is a financial challenge facing the entirety of the Department of Education when it comes to meeting the needs within not just youth services but special educational needs provision and the wider issues around routine maintenance. What the Department of Education needs is a significant increase in its allocation. That is why, as part of the Budget process, I have made the case that there needs to be hundreds of millions of pounds more put into education. The best way for all services to get additional funding will be for the Alliance Party to support me at the Executive to provide increased funding to the Department of Education, which will then benefit our constituents.

Mr Givan: I can confirm that no such allegations have been made against me in my Department.

Mr Baker: To reassure parents, pupils and staff across our education system, can the Minister categorically confirm that he has never been subject to any investigation, formal or informal, in relation to allegations of bullying within his Department?

Mr Givan: What I can say to the Member's remarks is that if any allegations of that nature were made, I would expect them to be thoroughly investigated. I am confident that in any such investigation, no such allegation, disgraceful as it would be to have made it in the first instance, would be substantiated or upheld.

Mr Givan: Any requests that come into a school for flexible arrangements are considered by the board of governors in the first instance, and I know that, where those can be accommodated, schools often accommodate such requests.

Ms D Armstrong: Thank you for your response, Minister. Do you agree that shrinking school budgets should never supersede women's rights in the workplace?

Mr Givan: I agree with the Member. As a father of three girls, I absolutely believe that women's rights ought to be upheld in workplaces and that there should not be any practices in any sector, but certainly not in the area that I am responsible for, that discriminate against women in the workplace.

Mr Givan: I have visited the school in my role as Education Minister, and I am aware of the issues. I have sought assurances from the Education Authority that it is giving it the priority that it merits and that it is working through the processes so that the relevant stages are completed and works can be carried out. I say to the Member's constituent — Lucy — that I very much want to see the school getting the proper facilities that it deserves. Interim arrangements have been put in place with the church hall, and the EA is working through a process to try to reach a resolution.

Ms Nicholl: I thank the Minister for his answer. Some children who are now in P2 and P3 do not even know where that hall is. I understand that work is being done. Can any time frame be given so that those children know whether they will get into the hall during their time at primary school?

Mr Givan: The EA will work closely with the school principal. It has engaged with the school to outline the works that it needs to complete to go through the process in order for the necessary business cases and so on to be completed. Then, the necessary funding needs to be made available for that.

I will make the point that I made earlier during Question Time. Many schools require significant investment, and the only way that we will be able to deliver that investment is for my Department to receive the appropriate allocation that it needs. The failure to provide funding to Education over many years is now being acutely felt in schools, not just in Rosetta but across the school estate. The estate is decaying and crumbling, and it requires significant financial investment for that to be put right.

Mr Givan: That is something that we have taken forward as a result of the UK Supreme Court judgement. The review of the syllabus is now firmly under way. As Members will be aware, I have agreed the terms of reference for the review and have appointed Professor Noel Purdy as chair and Mrs Joyce Logue as vice chair. The chair and vice chair have commenced a significant programme of engagement with key stakeholders, ensuring that the review is informed by a range of perspectives, with those early engagements shaping the work ahead.

In line with the terms of reference, I have established a Church consultative group to provide theological expertise and advice to the drafting group. The group comprises representatives from the four main Churches, and it has held its first meeting.

The chair and vice chair will be supported by a drafting group comprising practising teachers of religious education from primary and post-primary schools, with a breadth of experience. There was significant interest in those roles, and I expect members to be formally appointed this week.

Furthermore, my Department launched a call for evidence on 24 February, inviting views from the public to support the group of experts, teachers and school leaders taking forward the review. Over 1,000 responses have been received to the call, which closed on 20 March. That represents a vital component of the process and will complement wider engagement as the drafting group develops proposals for a revised syllabus.

As I have previously stated, the review represents a significant opportunity to ensure that the future RE core syllabus reflects the needs of learners now and into the future. I look forward to receiving the recommendations arising from the process in due course.

Mr K Buchanan: Thank you, Minister. Last week, Michelle Guy said that the Minister:

Would the Minister like to take this opportunity to point out the basic factual inaccuracy in that statement and why it is important that Members get their facts right when making a public statement?

Mr Givan: The Member is right to highlight the inaccuracy in respect of the comments that Mrs Guy made around RE. She went on to make a number of other misinformed comments, but I will respond to those later in the week.

The characterisation, as the Member described it, is completely inaccurate. My Department did not push the case to the Supreme Court, and my personal level of involvement in the legal proceedings is minimal. The genesis of the RE judicial review was in November 2021, well before my time in office. The case that was taken by a child and their father was heard by the High Court, with the judgement handed down in July 2022. At the time, the then Minister of Education, Michelle McIlveen, instructed the Department to appeal that decision. That appeal was heard in October 2023, and the outcome was handed down in April 2024. Whilst the High Court concluded that the impugned legislation was in breach of the applicant's rights, the Court of Appeal found that there was no breach because of the existence of the unqualified statutory rights of the parent to have their child excused wholly or partly from attendance at religious education, collective worship or both in accordance with their request.

Following the Court of Appeal judgement, which largely found in favour of the Department, it was the applicants, not the Department, who applied to the Supreme Court. The Department was a respondent in the case. The Supreme Court hearing was held in May 2025. In advance of the hearing and based on the views of counsel, I agreed to a cross-appeal in respect of issues not adjudicated on by the Court of Appeal in Belfast. That involvement falls well short of having:

Not for the first time, Mrs Guy is wrong.

Mr Givan: The Member would need to elaborate on exactly what it is that he is referring to. If the Member wants to make a specific allegation about a specific issue, I will be able to respond to him. At the moment, however, he is making a vague allegation, as was Mr Baker. If he wants to provide specifics, I will give him a specific response.

Mr Sheehan: There is absolutely nothing vague about the question that has been asked. The Minister knows that it is a very serious matter to come in here and tell a lie. I am giving the Minister one more chance: has he ever been investigated for bullying, or has he ever been accused of bullying in the Department?

Mr Givan: Again, he is not giving specific details. If he wants to make a specific allegation that relates to a specific individual, he is welcome to do so. All Members are subject to investigations by the Assembly Commissioner for Standards. I have been investigated often. There has been only one incident, which related to decisions around "North/Southery". None of the rest were upheld against me. I can say to the Member that, if he is referring to any other investigations, no allegation against me has ever been upheld. Indeed, I have only ever been vindicated in the approach that I have taken in my Department.

Mr Givan: I refer to the same comment that I made to other Members in respect of the issues that are being raised. On no occasion has any complaint been upheld against me. Indeed, I have only ever been vindicated in the approach that I have taken in my role as Minister of Education.

Mrs Mason: Minister, you are not giving us tranparency. Had there been an investigation, would it be right and proper and provide transparency for pupils, teachers and all the staff who work under the direction of your Department for you to stand up and clarify that? If there had been, would you apologise?

Mr Givan: If there is any such report in existence, it should be published in full so that the public will be able to have full transparency and accountability in relation to any issues that are raised with Ministers. That is why, when the Commissioner for Standards carries out an investigation, it is then made publicly available. In my view, any other such investigation, if it relates to a Minister, should be published and people should be held to account. If the Members wish to provide specific details, I am happy to give a response to a question that goes beyond the generic. I repeat that I have only ever been vindicated as a result of investigations — vindicated. I take it that Members can read into that the fact that they were found to have absolutely no substance.

The Members opposite talk about investigations, but there were investigations in which they were found guilty of crimes for which they went to prison [Interruption.]

Mr Speaker: Order.

Dr Archibald (The Minister for the Economy): Despite the US Administration's swing towards protectionism and the adoption of an "America First" policy, the North remains an attractive location for US investment, and engagement remains strong. An essential prerequisite for engaging with US companies and any prospective investor is that their privacy is respected and commercially sensitive information is protected. Breaching that trust would seriously compromise our ability to engage with such prospective investors. Members should also be reminded that investors or prospective investors do not appreciate attempts to drag them into political controversy or use them for political point-scoring. For my part, as Economy Minister, I will continue to make a positive pitch for inward investment, first and foremost on the basis of the talent and skills of our people and the positive business culture and supportive environment that companies experience here.

Mr Harvey: Minister, information surrounding the 300 potential jobs lost at Cantor Fitzgerald has had to be dragged from your Department bit by bit. The latest FOIs released to Mr Buckley are heavily redacted. Will you commit to publishing all information to ensure full transparency?

Dr Archibald: The company has indicated that it views releasing information about its strategy or decision-making as harmful to its commercial position, so it is not appropriate for me to do so.

Mr Burrows: Given the impact that the Economy Minister has on foreign investors, I am glad that Sinn Féin avoided Washington last week. Will she confirm whether, during the meeting with Cantor Fitzgerald, before it pulled its investment, there was any discussion about American foreign policy? Yes or no?

Dr Archibald: As I have outlined, meetings with prospective investors are conducted confidentially to protect commercially sensitive information and to respect all parties' privacy. Accordingly, it is not appropriate for me to comment on or disclose any details of my meeting with the company.

Mr Gaston: The Minister for the Economy's role is to promote Northern Ireland and bring jobs to our wee country. The loss of those 300 well-paid jobs with Cantor Fitzgerald exposes once again the toxic nature of Sinn Féin on the global stage. Minister, how many more jobs has Sinn Féin cost Northern Ireland because of your continued stance of always backing the oppressor and your continued glorification of terrorism in Northern Ireland?

Dr Archibald: The Member seriously misrepresents my party's policies. For his information, rather than losing jobs, we have been successful in securing jobs over the past year, such as the 100 jobs with Biller Genie that were announced in November; the 100 jobs that were announced by Napier Technologies last February; the jobs that were announced by SpiderRock and ControlSoft; and the jobs that were announced just last week by iVerify. We have been successful in promoting the positive offering that we have here in our skills, our people and, as I said, our positive business environment. That is what potential investors and investors who come, invest and reinvest here look for. Some 62% of investors who come here reinvest because of their experience here. That is what I go out to promote and offer to investors from around the world.

Dr Archibald: Prior to the onset of the most recent energy price crisis that has resulted from the Israeli/US attacks in Iran, I and my Department have been working to implement the reduction in electricity bills announced by the British Chancellor in the Budget last November. Despite our being excluded originally from the British Government's scheme, I secured approval to implement a similar scheme here. The necessary statutory instrument to provide legislative cover from Westminster was laid last Monday and is due to be in place in June. Subject to Executive agreement, my Department will be ready to go live with the scheme on 1 July. The Treasury has consistently insisted that the funding can be used only for a comparable scheme, meaning a £30 discount on every household’s electricity bill. That was confirmed in writing as recently as last Tuesday.

The current energy price crisis is a global energy shock, and the scale of the resources needed are beyond the means of an already underfunded Executive. Since the outset, I have engaged with my counterparts in the British Government to make the case for immediate support for those impacted, particularly by the home heating oil price hikes, but I have also been making the case that, as we continue to see gas prices spike, households and businesses here will need additional support. The support announced last week does not go anywhere near far enough, so I, alongside my Executive colleagues, will continue to make the case to the British Government for them to provide more funding to help businesses and households.

Mr Baker: I thank the Minister for her answer. While a reduction in electricity bills is welcome, we know that much more is needed. The misinformation that was peddled by many in the Chamber was not helpful. Will the Minister provide further detail on the efforts that are being made to get the British Government to provide more funding to help struggling families with energy costs?

Dr Archibald: When the conflict in the Middle East began, the reduction in electricity bills of around £30 a year had already been announced, with delivery being progressed by my Department. Many of our households and businesses are already under pressure from the cost-of-living crisis, and the new energy shock is compounding those pressures. I am particularly concerned about the impact on low-income and vulnerable households. Consumer Council figures show that the cost of oil for households has nearly doubled since 26 February.

I have consistently pressed the British Government for support, and I continue to do so. I spoke to Michael Shanks, Minister of State in the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (DESNZ), on 4 March to highlight the impact of the immediate rise in home heating oil costs. I subsequently spoke to and wrote to Martin McCluskey, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy Consumers in DESNZ, about the urgent need for support. The £17 million that the British Government announced is clearly inadequate. It is therefore important that whatever support is available or becomes available is targeted at those most in need. I am meeting Michael Shanks and Martin McCluskey regularly, and I will continue to argue for additional support should the conflict continue to drive up energy prices.

Mr Durkan: We all agree that the support that has come from the British Government falls woefully short of what is required to protect households here, particularly those on the lowest incomes. Will the Minister outline whether any assessment has been done of the cost of providing targeted support to the most vulnerable households? Will she detail what, if any, substantive discussions have taken place at the Executive table on how such support could be given locally?

Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for his question. As I indicated in my opening answer, the figures that the Consumer Council provided show the significant increases that people have immediately faced since the conflict unfolded. The figures really bring home the pressures that people are under. The Executive have been alive to those pressures. There was a discussion at the most recent Executive meeting on the matter, and it will be on the agenda again at this Thursday's meeting. We have a package of support in place, and we will work alongside the Minister for Communities to ensure that it gets out as quickly as possible. Unfortunately, it is not enough, as we have all indicated. We will therefore continue to make the case for additional support, but it is important that what we have available at the minute is targeted at helping those in most imminent need.

As I also indicated in my opening answer, the rises in gas prices are particularly concerning, because, if they continue, they will have an impact on people's gas bills and electricity bills. During the Ukraine energy price crisis, we saw the British Government move to implement support, and I have consistently made the case that we need to see something similar in this instance.

Mr Brett: If we are to take the Minister at her word that it was she who personally secured the inclusion of Northern Ireland in the scheme, which will mean a total of £81 million of support, was she as surprised as I was that her Department's permanent secretary and director of finance knew nothing about it?

Dr Archibald: I addressed those issues with the Chair at the Economy Committee last week. Anybody can have a lapse in the information at their disposal when they are being questioned. The framing of the question did not help with the understanding of the issue. We have since adequately laid out the facts. Over the past number of months, officials have worked diligently to ensure that consumers here receive benefits comparable to those in Britain. As I indicated, we are now in a position to move forward and ensure that that support is available at the earliest opportunity in July and again over the next two years. We will discuss that matter at the Executive this week.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Gerry Carroll is not in his place.

Dr Archibald: Although the loss of two years in the mandate has required us to work to an exceptionally tight timetable, the drafting of the employment rights Bill is now being finalised. The Bill is an ambitious and wide-ranging package of legislative reforms, and I recently secured the Executive’s endorsement of its policy content. When drafting is complete, I will bring the final Bill to the Executive for agreement. I trust that my Executive colleagues will join me in introducing the Bill, which will strengthen employment law and benefit workers and employers.

Mr Blair: I thank the Minister for her reply. I hope that she does not mind my asking for reassurance on the timelines. Given the significant range of policy area within the scope of the 'good jobs' Bill, what confidence can she give the House that there will be enough time in this mandate to introduce the Bill? Are there any draft timelines for doing so?

Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for his question. He confused me slightly, because he is usually on the other side of the Chamber.

I reassure the Member that work is progressing on the drafting of the Bill. I hope to have it with me in a short number of weeks so that we can refer it to the Executive for agreement. I intend to introduce the Bill to the Assembly before summer recess so that the Committee has it to scrutinise it over the summer months and into the autumn and ensure that we are able to pass it into law before the end of the mandate. The Bill includes many important protections. Some of them catch up with legislative changes that have taken place in Britain while the Assembly was not sitting, but there are important progressive changes that will make a real difference to the lives of ordinary workers here. I look forward to the Assembly's support in getting the Bill through.

Mr Buckley: The Minister must know full well the huge concern that there is among many businesses about the potential negative impact on jobs that that ham-fisted legislation may cause. Can the Minister name one major business that supports the so-called 'good jobs' Bill? Will the Bill force the likes of Gerry Adams's bodyguard to pay his staff at Stix & Stones properly?

Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for his continued engagement on the 'good jobs' Bill, because it is important that we get it right. That is why I have had such extensive engagement with representatives of workers and employers' organisations and with individual businesses. My officials have engaged consistently over the past number of months to ensure that what we introduce meets the requirements of workers and businesses. Far from being ham-fisted legislation, it is a set of progressive measures that will enhance the lives of workers and support good employers by enabling them not to be undercut by those who implement poor practices. It is incumbent on us all to ensure that the Bill progresses at pace and passes into law before the end of the mandate.

Mr O'Toole: Minister, we strongly support employment rights legislation and want to see it introduced. The problem is that it has not been introduced. Workers deserve to see it debated in the Assembly and to see it passed. With respect, however, your party has gone out with leaflets across the North saying that there is a 'good jobs' Bill: none of us in the Chamber have seen it. When will it be introduced? When Conor Murphy launched the consultation, he said that we had only two and a half years of the mandate left. That was nearly two years ago. Minister —

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Matthew.

Mr O'Toole: — please, when will the law be published?

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: OK. Thank you.

Dr Archibald: I similarly appreciate the support of the Member and his party for this important legislation. He will appreciate that the mandate has been shortened and that it takes time to craft legislation as comprehensive as the Bill. It is near completion, and we hope to have a full draft of the Bill in a few weeks so that we can get it to the Executive and, as I indicated, introduce it before the summer recess and pass it before the end of the mandate.

Ms D Armstrong: Minister, I have engaged with the agri-food sector, particularly the meat industry in Dungannon. I am told that there is limited knowledge of the 'good jobs' Bill and its implications. What engagement have you had with that sector?

Dr Archibald: As I indicated, we have had considerable engagement with all sectors. If the Member wants to bring a business or collection of businesses to our attention, my officials will be more than happy to ensure that there is engagement with them. It is important that people understand the measures proposed in the Bill rather than some version of them that is not entirely accurate. I am keen to continue to engage and to ensure that people are equipped with information and are able to be part of the process. Once the Bill has been introduced and passes to Committee Stage, the Committee will have the opportunity to engage widely with representatives of workers and employers.

Mrs Dillon: Minister, I heard a female entrepreneur and leader in the world of business say this week that the most important thing to her business was the contentment and happiness of her staff. Given that the 'good jobs' Bill is about ensuring that all staff are content in their work, will you outline how the Bill will benefit women in the workplace?

Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for that feedback. Many of our employers want to ensure that their workers are supported, which is why there is support for the measures. My Bill will provide many benefits for women by enhancing rights that support work-life balance. The right to request flexible working will become an employment right on day 1 rather than after 26 weeks, as happens at present. Employees will be able to make two statutory requests for flexible working within a 12-month period instead of only one.

We will introduce carer's leave, which will support the many women who are in caregiving roles for relatives. Eligible parents will benefit from improved neonatal care leave and pay, ensuring that, when a parent has a newborn who requires extended medical attention, they are better able to focus on their child and their own needs. We will make revisions to paternity leave that will afford families greater flexibility. We will extend redundancy protections for pregnant employees and those returning from family leave, which will further strengthen workforce participation by women.

Women will benefit from the full range of enhanced rights that my Bill will introduce, which include the right to move from a zero-hours contract to a banded-hours contract and enhanced trade union rights. It is often women who are in zero- or low-hours roles, so they will very much benefit from those provisions. Together, the provisions are designed to foster a more inclusive, supportive and adaptable workplace culture in which women are empowered to balance their professional and personal responsibilities with confidence.

Dr Archibald: Under its previous political leadership, the Department for the Economy did not have clear strategic objectives. It paid lip service to the need for regional balance, for example, and did not embrace the potential of the all-Ireland economy. Its key delivery agency, Invest NI, lacked proper oversight. Those issues have been tackled over the past two years. The progress delivered by my Department includes a 22% increase in the number of students at Magee; a significant funding boost for St Mary's University College and Stranmillis University College, both of which were previously in a financially precarious position; the extension of Ireland's Hidden Heartlands into Fermanagh; more affordable grid connections for rural households and businesses; and increased investment in InterTradeIreland and Tourism Ireland. The growth of the all-Ireland economy and our relatively impressive economic output and export statistics are positive signs of change.

Mr McReynolds: I thank the Minister for her response. Minister, following recent comments in the media by former senior staff from your Department, as well as several unsatisfactory briefings to the Economy Committee, what assurances can you provide that your Department will deliver on the legislation that you committed to bringing forward in this mandate?

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Minister, did you hear that all right?

Dr Archibald: Just about.

I base my assessment on what the Department delivers and the outcomes that we achieve. We see improvements in key areas, including our overall objectives of having more good jobs, improved productivity, greater regional balance and lower emissions. It is important that we see the culture coming from the top — the leadership of the Department. Every day, I work with officials whom I see as being dedicated public servants with a real focus on delivering for people here.

I also understand that the Department went through a programme of organisational development in the recent past, in which there was a clear focus on improving the culture and on efficiencies and leadership development. In the NICS people survey, my Department performed best in class across all nine Departments, including having the highest level of employee engagement. It is important, however, that we keep a focus on delivery and having a positive culture, and, in any Department, that has to come from the top.

Mr Kearney: Previously, DUP Economy Ministers delivered the renewable heat incentive scandal, which led to a black hole in our public finances, and a scathing report on the workings of Invest NI. With regard to your earlier comments, how systemic at a cultural, management and operational level are the reforms that you have introduced in the Department? How durable will they be to ensure continued success?

Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for his question. As I have indicated, the performance and culture of any organisation is likely to improve when that organisation has clear and strategic leadership, direction and a focus on delivering the things that matter most for people here. My predecessor, Conor Murphy, and I have provided that throughout this shortened mandate.

I have already pointed to some of the examples of our delivery. We are also pursuing an ambitious programme for the rest of the mandate, including an ambitious legislative programme — a once-in-a-generation reform of employment rights. We have already made significant and targeted investments to address priority skills gaps, and we continue to make progress on our long-standing commitment to the expansion of university provision at Magee, with more investment there in the past two years than in the previous 10. We have clear plans to grow our priority sectors, raise our productivity and better deliver regional balance. That all requires a continued focus, and that has to come from the top.

Ms Forsythe: Minister, you mentioned that the most senior officials in your Department had a lapse in knowledge, forgetting about £81 million being bid for by Treasury. We have seen delays in legislation and two years of your departmental accounts being disclaimed — it looks like a third year, as the Audit Office will not even put its name to the accounts. The Audit Office also published a scathing report on the energy strategy. Under your leadership, the Department's performance genuinely cannot be considered to be good. Will you look at it again and consider reviewing it?

Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for her question. A number of those issues stem from the previous leadership of the Department. We are working to address the issues that she has highlighted. For example, significant progress has been made on the accounts, as recognised by the Audit Office. As she will know, they are complex accounts, and a number of the issues that led to the opinion that was given by the Audit Office were outwith the Department. Those issues are being addressed, and a programme of work has been undertaken. Of course, there is always room for improvement. I will keep a focus on delivery, because that is what everybody wants us collectively to do for them here.

Mr McNulty: Given the focus on delivery, will the Minister update the House on the extension of tourism brands the Wild Atlantic Way and Ireland's Ancient East into northern counties?

Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for his question and his continued focus on tourism. He will know, because I have given the answer at previous Question Times, that Ireland's Ancient East is under review by Fáilte Ireland, which owns all the brands. Once it has evaluated that, I will be keen to engage with it. He will also be aware that there is a Shared Island project on the connection between the Wild Atlantic Way and the Causeway coastal route that I continue to keep a focus on. I continue to make the case to Fáilte Ireland that we should see better incorporation of those brands.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Before I call Claire Sudgen, I remind everyone that supplementaries need to be related, even thinly, to the primary question. Minister, you do not have to respond if they are not related at all.

Dr Archibald: I am very concerned about the impact of the rise in heating oil prices here following the Israeli-led attacks on Iran. It particularly affects our lower-income and vulnerable households. Approximately 60% of our homes — more than half a million — use home heating oil as their primary source of heating. In recent weeks, I have met representatives of the heating oil and natural gas sectors, National Energy Action (NEA) and the wider business community to understand first-hand what cost pressures are in the market and the impact that those are already having on our lower-income and vulnerable households and businesses.

I have consistently pressed Minister Shanks and Minister McCluskey for urgent support for consumers, and I will continue to do so, as the £17 million confirmed on Monday 16 March is clearly inadequate to help those struggling with rising energy prices. My officials and I have engaged with the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA). I welcome its review of the conduct of oil suppliers, intermediaries and brokers to ensure that pricing reflects genuine cost pressures and that behaviour is consistent with consumer protection law.

The Trading Standards Service plays a key role in protecting consumers from illegal trading practices, including unfair pricing, while supporting legitimate businesses. It also provides guidance to oil retailers on their obligations and advice to consumers on raising complaints. The Consumer Council provides invaluable information for consumers by monitoring heating oil prices and publishing weekly average prices. Consumers are encouraged to use its website to compare suppliers and find information on oil buying clubs and fuel stamp schemes.

Ms Sugden: Thank you, Minister. Given how volatile oil prices can be and given Northern Ireland's particular reliance on the oil market, are you exploring the opportunities within your remit for regulating the market in Northern Ireland, and have you spoken to the UK Government about a potential price cap?

Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for the question. I am on record as saying that I have ruled nothing out on the issue. However, economic regulation of the home heating oil market has never operated here or, indeed, anywhere in Europe. Around two thirds of the cost of what consumers pay is the wholesale cost. That is out of our control, and regulation would have no direct impact on it. Our heating oil market is very competitive. We have over 200 suppliers. There is a risk that any benefits arising from regulation could be outweighed by the cost of regulation itself. However, when I spoke to Minister McCluskey on 14 March, we discussed those issues and the study that the Competition and Markets Authority was, at that point, likely to undertake and, as it has confirmed, is now undertaking.

When I met its representatives last Thursday, we again discussed the issue. We have agreed that my officials will provide data to support its study. We will carefully examine any recommendations that come out of the study. Our oil suppliers make the case that they are price takers. I want to see transparency in that supply chain so that we can understand where costs are being applied. It may well be the case that regulation needs to happen at British Government level, but I am open to looking at the recommendations that come out of the CMA study.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: We now move to topical questions.

Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for his question. Keeping an open mind does not mean that I have ruled anything out. I want to ensure that any decisions that we take in that space will have a positive impact. We have had consistent engagement with our counterparts in Britain and the South to ensure that consumers here are protected. I have made the case consistently to the British Government that we need to see financial support, and that there needs to be proper engagement with officials and Departments here so that any schemes that are being implemented there can be implemented here as expeditiously as they are there, so that people here are not waiting for supports to come along at a later stage. Some of that is outwith my control, but we will do what is within my control as quickly as we can.

Mr O'Toole: I genuinely thank you for that, Minister, but a lot of what you have said is about engagement and making the case to other people. Tomorrow, the Irish Government will announce a package of support. Your party, south of the border, has roasted the Irish Government for not doing enough quickly enough, but it is not clear that, up here, you have done very much at all. You understood three weeks ago that you needed more financial support from London — I am not disputing that need — so why did you not ask your officials then to urgently design what a support scheme could look like? People here who are struggling with costs feel that the Executive are sitting on their hands.

Dr Archibald: I accept the Member's point to an extent, but, when British Ministers make decisions about schemes to be implemented in Britain, it is very often the counterpart Departments here that are responsible for implementing them. I have made the case that there needs to be engagement so that any schemes that are developed can be implemented here, in order to ensure that people here benefit as quickly as possible. The funding that was announced last week, for example, is being delivered through the household crisis and resilience fund in Britain. The direct read-across for that is the discretionary support scheme. That is why the Minister for Communities will lead on it, with the support of other Departments here. As I have said, some of it is within my control. We can look at supports that can be provided, but, when the funding comes across, it is very often tied to a particular funding pot or line within a Department, and we do not have the ability to switch things around.

Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for her question. We will be publishing the consultation on the aviation strategy within the next number of days.

Mrs Cameron: I thank the Minister for her answer; I appreciate it. Will you provide a definitive publication date? I know that you are saying that it will be within the next number of days, but certainty is really important for the aviation sector and regional connectivity.

Dr Archibald: It is a policy that has been developed in collaboration with the sector and our broader tourism sector. It has the support and buy-in of the sector. I am meeting representatives on Wednesday of this week, and publication will follow.

Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for her question. I welcome the latest trade statistics, which are for the 12 months ending December 2025. The latest figures show that goods exports from here have grown over the year and are up by 1·1% from 2024, with a notable increase of 4·3% in exports to the EU and continued growth in trade with the South. Trade with Britain is up by 0·7% over the year. Over the same period, Britain's exports to the EU declined. The statistics show that, despite a very difficult global context, our businesses and workers are resilient. The value of dual market access is evident in our exports statistics. There continues, however, to be a challenge with exports to the global market, given the headwinds that our businesses are facing.

Mrs Mason: I thank the Minister for that information. Will she explain how her Department is supporting local businesses to maximise the opportunities that have been highlighted in the latest regional trade statistics?

Dr Archibald: My Department is focused on ensuring that local businesses are well positioned to take advantage of the opportunities reflected in the figures. Supporting local businesses to take full advantage of our unique dual market access remains a key priority. Alongside Invest NI, my Department is working closely with local firms and industry partners to deliver targeted business support. That includes helping local businesses navigate export markets, diversify their supply chains and build resilience.

The benefits of having dual market access is also a key message when we are undertaking international engagements, such as my recent visit to the west coast of America. International investors show strong interest in that unique trading arrangement, which gives local firms and those that are investing here from a manufacturing perspective access to the British market and all 27 EU member states' markets. Alongside that, I continue to make the case for stability and certainty for local firms as geopolitical uncertainty continues to have an impact on businesses here. The latest data, however, from HMRC and from the statistics that NISRA published the week before, demonstrates what can be achieved when businesses are supported to grow trade and to compete confidently. We will continue to support businesses to navigate not only existing markets but new and diverse markets.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Question 4 has been withdrawn.

Dr Archibald: The tourism statistics that were published last week indicate a strong performance. I very much welcome the Central Statistics Office data, which reinforces the importance of tourism to our local economy, as well as the strength of the all-island market. The statistics show that there was a 15% increase in trips by visitors from the South to the North in 2025. Overnight stays increased by 9%, reaching 2·7 million nights. Visitor spending also increased significantly, up by 31% to almost £317 million. That growth is hugely positive for local businesses and communities right across the North, because tourism is one of the sectors that is truly regional. The statistics show that our tourism offering is resonating strongly with visitors from across the island, delivering real economic benefits and supporting growth in our hospitality sector at a difficult time, while doing the same in other sectors, including retail and the wider visitor economy.

Ms Ennis: I agree that the figures are encouraging, Minister. It is important that we capitalise on that growth. Will you outline what actions your Department is taking to make sure that we can build on that growth to ensure that tourism numbers continue to rise and that we continue to see the economic benefits of tourism in all regions across the North?

Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for her question. I agree that growing and sustaining our tourism sector across the North is really important. It is part of our economic vision. Last year, we published the 'Tourism Vision and Action Plan', which was co-designed with industry and published in partnership with Tourism NI and the broader tourism sector. One action coming out of the vision and action plan is the aviation policy that was mentioned earlier in Question Time. Work is under way to implement that action plan and build on the positive momentum that we see across our tourism sector. Over the past year, we have seen a number of really positive moments, such as the Open in Portrush last summer. Obviously, we look forward to the Fleadh coming in August.

Since the start of my party's stewardship of the Department, funding from Tourism Ireland has been increased. That has supported a really strong focus on marketing and promotion. Tourism NI's marketing activity is also delivering significant reach and showcasing the breadth of what we have to offer, from our fabulous landscapes and cultural events to our food, drink and accommodation. The recent announcement on the use of the Hidden Heartlands tourism branding is also a significant development for all-island tourism and one that I want to capitalise on and develop further. Having County Fermanagh as part of that regional brand will encourage more visitors from the South to come and see the beautiful waterways of the Erne and the wider Fermanagh region.

As I mentioned, we have a number of events coming up. Those new statistics show that investment in our tourism offering and product is delivering positive supports. I will continue to focus on that and ensure that tourism remains —.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Time is up, Minister.

Dr Archibald: Sorry.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: You have two —.

Dr Archibald: I will continue to ensure that tourism remains a powerful driver of growth.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: If you need an extra minute, Minister, you need to ask. Thank you.

Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for that question. As with all international engagements, my recent visit to the west coast of the US was an important opportunity to promote our economic strengths. I positioned the North as a competitive, innovative and strategically positioned economy. We have really strong capabilities not only across trade but when it comes to our tourism and screen sectors. There is huge potential there for inward investment.

The US remains one of our most significant international partners. It was vital to engage directly with decision-makers across those sectors. In San Francisco, alongside Invest NI, I met a number of major investors and industry leaders. I officially opened Invest NI's new office on the west coast, which strengthens our on-the-ground presence there. In Los Angeles, I was pleased to promote our world-class screen sector directly to senior figures from studios, including Netflix, HBO and Amazon MGM, to whom we had the opportunity to highlight our skilled workforce and cutting-edge facilities, such as Studio Ulster. We are promoting that sector as one of our priority sectors and ensuring that it has the skills to enable us to continue to encourage its development. The visit also delivered tangible outcomes, including the announcement that mobile security company iVerify will double its headcount in Belfast. That investment underlines international confidence in our talent base and innovation ecosystem. It demonstrates the economic value of proactive international engagement.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: You have 40 seconds for a supplementary, Declan.

Mr Kearney: That is very good news, Minister. Thanks for the update. Can you indicate how those outcomes will give us further resilience in continuing to attract jobs, improve the economy and expand those particular growth sectors?

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: You have 20 seconds, Minister.

Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for that question. Our strong offering continues to translate into high-quality jobs and sustainable growth across many of our key sectors. The announcement that I mentioned is one such example. That investment is providing well-paid and high-value roles and is being supported by Invest NI. The work that Invest NI does, supported by our universities and colleges, ensures that we have a pipeline of skilled people to continue to support our priority sectors.

Mr Speaker: That concludes questions to the Minister for the Economy.

Mr Speaker: I call Mr McCrossan, from whom we will hear a fulsome speech, I believe.

Mr McCrossan: Thank you, Mr Speaker.

When we talk about areas with natural constraints (ANCs), we are talking about some of the most challenging land anywhere in this island: hills, uplands and marginal land, where farming is not just a job but an everyday way of life for so many people, particularly my constituents in West Tyrone. Those landscapes are not simply natural; they have been shaped, maintained and protected by generations of farmers. Those farmers go out in all weathers. They work early mornings and late nights in the wind, rain and cold — standard Irish weather — and keep going when others simply could not. Yet, too often, those farmers feel forgotten. Farming in those areas comes with real structural disadvantages, such as difficult terrain, poorer soils, harsher weather, higher costs and less access to markets. All of that adds up to one thing: lower incomes. That is a difficult reality for so many. There is an inequality here that needs to be addressed.

The ANC payments were an important support mechanism for so many who relied on those payments but have not had the benefit of them in recent years. The removal of the previous ANC payments left a real gap in income, stability and confidence for so many of the farmers who were affected, so the principle behind the Bill, which seeks to restore that baseline support, is one that we support in principle. However, let me say this clearly: the Bill cannot be about just replacing the previous scheme that we lost in 2018. Through the Bill, we have an opportunity to do better.

Previous schemes were often blunt. They were not always linked to outcomes, and they did not always encourage long-term sustainability or innovation. As the Bill progresses, we must strengthen it and ensure that future support improves farm incomes, builds resilience, rewards environmental delivery and supports innovation and diversification, because, if we are serious about the future of rural Ireland, we must be serious about getting that right.

There are questions for Sinn Féin. There are questions around funding for the Bill, because it cannot just be about warm words; it must be about supporting farmers and ensuring that the funding is there to deliver what is intended by the Bill. I have a number of questions to ask the Member, and I make it clear that, in doing so, we widely support the intention of the Bill. Good intentions alone, however, are not enough. That is why there are questions for the Bill sponsor and, indeed, his party, which is in government, because it is their private Member's Bill, and it will require new and sustained financial investment that Members across the House have questioned. The obvious question is this: has the Sinn Féin Finance Minister committed to funding this important legislation? Have there been conversations with the Finance Minister about the Sinn Féin Member's Bill? Has any commitment been secured, or are we being asked to support a Bill for which the funding simply does not exist? It would be naïve — in fact, it would be foolish — to believe that no conversations have taken place in Sinn Féin on that. Surely Mr McAleer, a good constituency colleague of mine, did not just come out with the Bill, well-intentioned as it is. I assume that there was a conversation between him and the Sinn Féin Finance Minister about how it would be paid for. It would be reassuring if the Member could clarify that for the House in this debate.

There is real concern about being seen to act rather than actually following through. In the past, some Bills have been not just about delivering a solution but about delivering headlines. We have seen where that leads. In fact, it is a topical point, given the business of the House this week, because we saw that with the hospital car parking legislation passed at the end of the previous mandate. In fact, it was passed on the final day of the mandate. It was celebrated and campaigned for, but, ultimately, the legislation was unfunded and unaffordable, according to the Minister for Health, so much so that we now face delaying its implementation again. I am concerned that that is the risk with this Bill: that we raise expectations among genuinely struggling farmers, only to leave them disappointed when the funding fails to materialise, and that would be a failure of the Assembly again for those relying on us to do something to support them.

The position being taken by the DUP on the Bill is disappointing but not surprising, given that it was the DUP that removed the ANC scheme in 2018. It took targeted support away from farmers working the most marginal land — farmers who rely on that support not as a bonus by as a necessity. What has followed since? On those farms, beef cattle numbers have dropped by 21%, and, in the past year alone, we have seen a further fall of 5% in beef cattle and 7% in sheep. That is the real-world impact of decisions taken by this place. That is what happens when support is stripped away. I have to ask, therefore, what exactly is behind the DUP's position today? We see daily that the DUP supports farmers, but here we are talking about a vulnerable group in the farming community that is being directly affected by a decision taken by the DUP that the DUP is willing to double down on today. Indeed, my constituency colleague, Mr Buchanan, and, indeed, Mr McAleer, the proposer of the Bill, know full well how rural farmers in West Tyrone who are in these difficult situations are affected, because we hear from them every day.

I heard my colleague Ms McIlveen say that Sinn Féin has politicised this issue. I would argue that both lead parties in government have politicised the issue, first by removing it in the way that it was removed and now by bringing it back without any formal financial commitment. They have turned what should have been practical support for struggling farms into a political decision and, ultimately, a ping-pong match. Today, we see the doubling down on that mistake, because the Bill is about one simple principle: do we support farmers in areas with natural constraints? The answer to that is yes or no, and that will be determined by the vote today. They are not the easiest or most profitable of farms but farms that are under the greatest pressure, keeping rural communities alive in the most challenging of conditions, yet, when given the opportunity to restore that support, the DUP is stepping back. For a party that so often claims to stand with rural Northern Ireland, this is a moment that exposes a serious gap between rhetoric and reality. You cannot remove a scheme, watch stock numbers decline and farmers struggle, see pressure increase on family farms and then oppose efforts to put that right. That is not leadership, and it is not acknowledging a serious problem. You have a choice today, and you should support the Bill to the next stage, where it can be shaped.

We need to reflect on how it is that we are in this place. Harsh decisions have been made in the Assembly in relation to funding. When it comes to an election, we will see a load of these sweets appearing, dangled in front of the eyes of the electorate with no serious commitment to invest and no trace of the money. In fact, it is like walking into a car showroom and saying, "I think I'll drive away with that", but you have not got a pound to your name. There is a serious problem with that approach. The SDLP takes a different approach. We recognise that farmers are not the problem; they are part of the solution. They are central to food production, environmental stewardship, biodiversity, water quality and carbon management. However, none of that happens without viable farm businesses or if farmers are pushed to the brink.

The Alliance Party's position on the Bill tells us a lot, and none of it is reassuring for the farming community. Before the legislation even has a chance to be properly scrutinised, before it has gone to Committee formally, before any amendments can be proposed, Alliance is preparing to vote it down. Not to improve or shape it but to block it — and, let us be honest, with the DUP, it probably has a chance of doing that today. The argument that Alliance is putting forward does not stack up. It says that it has concerns about funding, delivery and the detail, but that is exactly what Committee Stage is for. That is what the scrutiny process is for. Second Stage is about one simple question: do we support farmers in areas of natural constraint, yes or no? That is the key question today. The Bill can be shaped, added to and amended. By opposing the Bill now, Alliance is effectively saying no, and it is saying no to the very farmers who need support the most: hill farmers, upland farmers and family farms working some of the most difficult land anywhere in these islands. They are not profitable businesses; they are the most vulnerable. They are essential to sustaining rural communities. However, what makes it worse is the contradiction at the heart of Alliance's approach today. It is quick to support more environmental regulation and to increase expectations on farmers, but, when it comes to providing financial support to help farmers meet those expectations, it steps back and sits down. You cannot have it both ways. You cannot pile pressure on farmers on one hand and then oppose targeted support on the other. That is not balanced. It is not equality; it is not fair; and it is very one-sided.

Mr Blair: Will the Member give way?

Mr McCrossan: I will not. The Member was not generous in giving way earlier, so I am not going to bother.

It feeds a growing concern across rural Northern Ireland. Alliance understands policy on paper, apparently, but it does not understand farming in practice. Anyone who speaks to farmers knows that support for areas with natural constraints is not a luxury. For many farmers, it is the difference between survival and going under, so let us be clear: Alliance can dress it up as caution if it likes, but it is a political choice. It could support the Bill today —.

A Member: Will the Member give way?

Mr McCrossan: I will not.

It could support the Bill today in principle, improve it and ensure that it is properly funded. Indeed, Mr McAleer could have a conversation with the Finance Minister to secure the funding for his Sinn Féin Bill. In doing so — by working together collectively in that aim — you could send a clear message to the farming community that, when crunch comes to crunch, we are on its side.

We support the Bill because it recognises disadvantage, acknowledges the value of upland farming and begins to address the real need. However, we will work to improve the Bill to ensure that it delivers not just income support but a sustainable future. Ultimately, it is about three things: viable farm businesses; resilient rural communities; and landscapes that continue to deliver for generations to come.

Our farmers are not asking for special treatment; they are asking for fairness and recognition. They are asking for support that reflects the reality of the work that they do every day. I believe that the Bill, with its good intention, is a step in that direction, but it must be backed with funding. It must be strengthened, and it must deliver. We will support the Bill if Sinn Féin puts its money where its mouth is and invests.

Ms Finnegan: I welcome the Bill. It is a practical step forward to support farmers in our most disadvantaged areas. It is about recognising the reality for farmers in areas with natural constraints and making sure that the support reflects that reality.

In my constituency of Newry and Armagh and other constituencies, we see many farmers working land that is more difficult to manage — it is higher, wetter and less productive — and that is not something that they can change. I have seen and heard that many times from local farmers who are disadvantaged by something that is totally out of their control. That is exactly why ANC support is so important and, in truth, why it should never have been taken away in the first place. Those farmers are dealing with low productivity, higher input costs and tougher conditions, again all outside their control. It is about fairness and equality. It is about recognising that and backing those farmers properly.

The Bill also recognises the positive role that such farmers already play. We talk about the future of farming, sustainability and biodiversity, but a lot of that is already happening in those areas. Those are low-intensity systems, with lower stocking densities, often in protected landscapes, and they are working within environmental constraints. In many ways, we want to see more of that kind of farming.

It is important to say clearly that the Bill is not about choosing between farming and the environment; it is about supporting farmers who are already delivering for both. We have seen that clearly in the role that upland farmers play in managing vegetation and reducing wildfire risks. When I raised that with the Minister two weeks ago, he acknowledged the role and described it as "fantastic", and he was right to do so. Without active management and grazing, land becomes overgrown, unmanaged and more vulnerable. We discussed that matter not long ago in the Chamber, and we have seen the consequences of that.

Supporting those farmers is not just about individual farm incomes. It strengthens our wider approach to environmental protection and land management, but it is also about the bigger picture. A significant proportion of our beef and sheep production starts in those areas. That is not separate from the rest of agriculture; it feeds into it. What happens in ANCs matters across the sector. We should not fall into the trap of setting one group of farmers against another. The reality is that it is all connected.

Some in the House have suggested that the support is not needed, but I do not accept that. Those farmers are starting with a clear disadvantage. Without targeted support, there is a real risk of decline not just for individual farmers but for rural communities, our landscape and the wider food systems. This is nothing new. Support like this existed before and exists elsewhere. It is a recognised and established approach. Importantly, there have been no fundamental objections to the principle of supporting farmers in those areas, and that is what today is about.

The passing of the Bill at Second Stage will allow it to move forward so that we can work through the detail and make sure that it is deliverable. We know that it is not about settling every issue today; that comes later. If, however, we do not allow the Bill to progress now, that opportunity will be gone. It really comes down to a few simple questions. Do we recognise the role that those farmers play? Do we want to support them to continue to do that? Do we want to protect rural communities and our landscape? Are we prepared to move this forward so that it can be properly scrutinised and strengthened? For me, the answer to all of those questions is yes.

Ms Murphy: I very much welcome the Bill that has been introduced by my party colleague. I want to focus not just on farming policy but on the broader sphere of rural communities. In County Fermanagh, 92% of land falls within areas of natural constraint. Farming in my county is not just another industry; it is the foundation on which entire communities and local economies are built and, indeed, sustained. Most of those farms are small, family-run operations, and many farmers work part-time, balancing full-time jobs with early mornings and late nights on the farm. They are working incredibly hard on tight margins, with little room to absorb rising costs, market pressures or policy change.

The reality is that farmers in ANCs face challenges that other farmers simply do not. Their land is poor, the terrain is steeper and the costs are higher. Unlike more productive lowland farms, such holdings are limited by the land itself. That is what defines an ANC, and that is exactly why financial support is necessary. When a farm becomes unviable, the consequences do not stop at the farm gate. We risk weakening the entire agri-food chain from local marts to hauliers, processors and, of course, suppliers. Each farm may seem small on its own, but, together, they sustain a much wider rural economy.

Beyond economics, there is something even more important at stake, which is our rural communities and our rural life. If those farms disappear, families move away, our schools struggle, local services decline and communities that have existed for generations begin to fade. Once that decline begins, it is extremely difficult to reverse. We also need to recognise the role that those farms play beyond food production. They are the custodians of our environment. Our upland biodiversity, carbon-rich soils and traditional landscapes exist because those farms remain active and manage that land. Without farmers, we often see scrub encroachment, increased fire risk and a loss of manageable habitats.

Mr Blair: Will the Member give way?

Ms Murphy: No, not at the minute.

The Bill is not only about providing additional financial support; it recognises the essential role that those farmers play in sustaining communities, protecting our environment and supporting the wider rural economy. Other regions understand that. In the Twenty-six Counties and in Scotland, support continues because representatives value farm communities and farm families. Continued failure to act will cause problems for our rural economies, for communities and for the long-term management of our land. At its heart, the Bill is about keeping people on the land not just today but in the future. It is about ensuring that rural families can continue to live and work in and contribute to the communities that they call "home". In that vein, we have the opportunity to deliver for our farm families, who have been overlooked for far too long.

With reference to comments that the Member opposite made, we will not take lectures from the DUP when it comes to developing policy. The Member talked about "playing fast and loose" with policy. That Member is from the party that delivered the renewable heat incentive (RHI) scheme and delivered Brexit, which has been detrimental to our farm communities. In that vein, it will not be lost on farm communities across Fermanagh, West Tyrone and East Derry that the DUP and the Alliance Party will go through the Lobbies this evening to vote against support for our farmers. My colleagues and I will stand up for our constituents who farm ANC land, and I ask others across the Chamber to do the same.

Mr McGuigan: I welcome the opportunity to speak on the Second Stage of the Bill, and I commend my party colleague Declan McAleer for introducing it.

The Areas with Natural Constraints Bill is fundamentally about fairness, certainty and long-term resilience for farms and farmers in our most challenging environments. The Bill will place a legal duty on the Department to design and maintain payment schemes that properly support areas facing significant natural limitations. As Declan said when he moved the Bill, land is not equal, and all farming land is not equal. The Bill can play an essential role in sustaining rural communities, where agriculture and small family farms are vital to the local economy and the social fabric of rural life. I represent North Antrim, and I can easily see how the Bill would bring real benefits to it and the neighbouring constituency of East Antrim. Whether it is the upland grazing areas in Loughguile, Cloughmills and the glens of Antrim; the coastal farmland in places such as Ballintoy, Carnlough and Glenarm, where farms are exposed to harsh Atlantic weather; or the remote hill farms where steep slopes restrict the use of machinery, the challenges are clear and unavoidable. In North Antrim, almost 32% of land falls within areas with natural constraints. In the neighbouring constituency of East Antrim, the figure is even higher at 61%. The Bill and the reinstatement of ANC support will therefore be hugely beneficial to the economic viability and long-term sustainability of farms in those and many other locations across the North beyond County Antrim.

It is widely acknowledged that farmers who operate in areas with poor soil quality, steep gradients, difficult terrain and, as I said, harsher weather face barriers that simply cannot be overcome through hard work alone. The Bill recognises that reality. The farms that the Bill recognises are absolutely essential. By restoring financial support and placing the framework for ANC payments on a statutory footing, the Bill will give farmers the certainty that they need to make informed, long-term decisions. Its commitment to maintaining an uplift in payments in line with inflation ensures that support remains genuine and effective and keeps pace with the rising economic pressures that we are all too familiar with, whether that is through the cost of fuel or other essential inputs.

Ultimately, the Bill is about safeguarding the future of hill farming. By recognising the additional burdens placed on the custodians of our land in constrained areas, it helps to secure the environmental and economic sustainability of such landscapes.

Mr Blair: I thank the Member for giving way. In addition to the fact that the financial memorandum tells us in paragraph 19 that the Bill will have no impact and then tells us that an £11·4 million commitment will be required, does the Member accept that, in relation to the environment, which Members from his party have referenced, there is absolutely no commitment in the Bill? Zero. Zilch. Although those Members continue to refer to the environment, there are no commitments here at all. Does he agree, and does he accept that there should be?

Mr McGuigan: I accept one thing, which is that, if farmers cannot make a profit from farming their land, the environment will be damaged. Farmers are the custodians of our land and are responsible for its environmental upkeep. As colleagues have stated, farming is particularly beneficial in rural uplands and in areas of natural constraint. The issue that the Member raises is not one for Second Stage. He is introducing his own private Member's Bill, so he knows full well that there are opportunities to amend legislation as it proceeds through the House, unless, of course, his party and the DUP get their way and this Bill does not get beyond Second Stage. It is a Bill like any other, in that Members' views can be taken on board, but that cannot happen if it is voted down at this stage.

Mrs Dillon: I thank the Member for taking an intervention. Far be it from me to say that the British Government have ever done anything positive, but, during Brexit, they said that the one group among all the farmers that they would support was those farming in uplands and areas of natural constraint. They said that there were automatic benefits to the environment from protecting those farmers. Nothing else positive came from the British Government, however, and we certainly never saw any benefits for those farmers. It was, however, a commitment that the British Government gave, yet they did not stick to it, and I think that the DUP may have had a little bit to do with that.

Mr McGuigan: It is clear that we need our farmers to ensure the upkeep of environmental practices on our land, because nobody else will do it. The Bill will contribute to supporting environmental practice. It will also support the rural way of life and help prevent land abandonment, which has a detrimental impact on the environment. The Bill will help protect biodiversity and ensure that unique areas continue to be preserved, while contributing to our wider food security. As I said, the Bill will help sustain local economies and our agri-food supply chain and help maintain our landscape and natural heritage.

I am pleased to support the legislation, given the positive impact that it will have on the farm families, farming communities and rural communities that I represent in North Antrim, those in East Antrim and those across the North.

Mr McGrath: There is something deeply honest about a family farm. It is a way of life that is passed from one generation to the next. It is about early mornings in the dark and late evenings in the rain. It is about a commitment to the land, to animals and to the community, and it is a commitment that is never switched off. It is often those very farms — small, family-run upland farms — that are left behind, however.

It is worth remembering how we got here. Areas of natural constraint payments were much reduced and then ended in 2018 under the DUP, apparently the great supporter of the local farmer. The cuts did not hit everyone equally, however; they hit small family farms in disadvantaged areas hardest. The DUP often claims to be the farmer's friend, but, too often, its focus has been on the wider agriculture industry and on supporting big business rather than on protecting the most vulnerable farms on the margins. If the Bill restores a degree of fairness by recognising the structural challenges that those upland farmers face, it is welcome and a necessary correction. The reality is that farming in areas such as the Mournes is not the same as farming on prime lowland ground. The seasons are shorter, the costs are higher and the margins are tighter. Without targeted support, those farms are at risk. If we are serious about encouraging young people into farming and sustaining rural communities, we have to make it viable. We have to show that there is a future there not only for large operations but for family farms, which are the backbone of rural life.

I will raise one issue that brings everything into sharp focus for me. I was contacted by a constituent family whose 13-year-old son is a wheelchair user and passionate about farming. He wants to be in the yard. He wants to do his share of the work. He wants to be part of a life that so many people take for granted. The barriers that he faces are with access. His family asked me this simple question: what support is there to make the farm accessible for him or for their business to be viable enough to allow them to have the money to invest in making it accessible for him? At the minute, the answer is, "Very little".

We all know that farming is one of the most dangerous professions, but when there is not even enough support to enable a family to have a good enough income to help their disabled child, we know that the entire sector is in real danger.

If we truly believe in the future of farming, that future must be open to everyone, regardless of their needs or where they farm. I recognise the DUP's concerns that the Bill does not provide any new money and that the money must come from DAERA's budget. Let us break that down a little bit: we have a Sinn Féin Member introducing a Bill that promises no new money, despite one of his own being the Finance Minister whose draft Budget offers no new money. That is all being done just ahead of an election. Something similar happened in 2022 in respect of hospital car parking charges, and, as we all know, after that election, we were back here having to defer their abolition, and we defer it again and again. I hope that we can get some comfort or assurance that this will not be a case of just promising things to a sector until we get to the other side of an election and, then, saying, "Sorry, there's no money to deliver this", and keep putting it back. Given that the Member's party has the Department that runs the money — the Finance Department — hopefully, we will get an assurance that funding will come behind this Bill to make its provisions a reality so that those small, rural farms are able to survive. That is what we want to see in constituencies such as mine, which has rural communities and upland farms that struggle to make ends meet. The payments that the Bill would deliver would greatly assist them in their work. However, if it is just a promise that gets cancelled after the next election, it is not much good. I hope that we get those assurances. We are happy to support the Bill's passage to the next stage and, with those assurances, make it a reality for our rural communities.

Ms Sheerin: I welcome the opportunity to speak in the debate. I congratulate my party colleague Declan McAleer and the team upstairs, particularly Bronwyn, for all the work that they have done to get the Bill to this stage. Contrary to what some others have said, I know that a significant amount of work has gone into the process, and I am delighted to see the Bill reaching Second Stage. I hope that it passes beyond that with the support of the House.

I declare an interest as someone who has family members who farm in ANCs and would benefit from the payment. As I have said in the Chamber before, I am the daughter of a sheep farmer from the Sperrins. As such, some of the commentary that I have heard today has been very disappointing. I take some of that personally, being a farmer's daughter who has seen at first hand how hard those people work.

At the very heart of the Bill is a concern about equality, so the remarks that were made about pitting one group of farmers against another were very unhelpful. I doubt that we would hear such a description were we to argue that any other disadvantaged group in society should receive support. You have to acknowledge that upland farmers battle the worst of all conditions: on the hills, there is a tougher climate, a shorter season and worse ground. As a result, farming there is more difficult.

We talk a lot about deprivation and poverty in the North. We often look at that through an urban, or city, lens. There is no denying that some of our towns and cities see huge rates of deprivation. However, rural poverty is often hidden in plain sight, is not acknowledged and does not receive the attention that it deserves. There are probably a number of reasons for that, but I contend that one of those is that, an awful lot of the time, our rural populations, particularly our farming families from the uplands, put their heads down, get on with things and suffer in silence. They should not be punished for doing that; they should be supported. There is no doubt that there is hardship in our rural areas, and our hill farmers certainly know hardship. I know that at first hand, because, as I have said repeatedly, I was reared on a sheep farm on the hills.

In recent times, we have had a number of agriculture debates in the Chamber in which we have heard DUP Members talk about farmers being custodians of the countryside. I am disappointed today, because it appears that the DUP does not stand with all farmers. I suppose that, deep down, I knew that. I notice that the Member opposite is tuttering again. She made barbed comments — I do not know what she was trying to imply — about Sinn Féin's poster campaign about this legislation.

We have a long-drawn-out history in this place, and it is a fact that the majority of people who work in ANCs are of a nationalist persuasion, but farmers across the board would benefit from the payment. As somebody who was reared on a sheep farm, in a house with a strong non-sectarian ethos, I say that farmers work with one another regardless of religion, background, political outlook, constitutional ideas or anything else: that does not come into the equation. As somebody who was reared on a farm with neighbours of all religions and none marching us, I know that that is not considered. It is really disappointing that the DUP has taken such a position. The Member can reflect on her comments and the rationale for them.

In County Derry, nearly 1,400 farms operate in ANCs, and those farmers need to be supported. It is not about creating wealth or supporting the landed gentry by any stretch of the imagination; it is about putting support into the pockets of people who work in difficult circumstances.

Reference has been made to environmental concerns. It is not possible, on most of the ground in ANCs, to overstock the land; it is physically impossible, and there would be no return from it. It is in the farmer's interest to work in an environmentally friendly way, because doing anything else would not provide a profit. That said, most of the farms do not naturally turn a profit anyway, because of the harshness of the conditions. Most of the people have other jobs, and they farm for the love of the land. They should be supported to stay there to do that, because research tells us that, when livestock leaves such ground, biodiversity suffers. That has to be seriously considered, because the long-term impacts of a loss of support for those farmers will ultimately lead to a loss of stock in the highlands. We have seen that in other places, such as Scotland, and we have seen it here since the loss of the ANC payment. My colleague referred to that.

We are talking about a group that has been the victim of policy directives down the generations. Several Members have referred to how the scheme would be funded, which is a matter for another stage in the legislative process, but it is important to note that, last year, the value of the Department's reduction in requirements was equal to what the scheme would probably cost. That should be considered.

We see wastage across Departments, but, historically, DAERA in particular — again, I say this as a farmer's daughter who heard it at the coalface — has carried out unnecessary actions and inspections.

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

Ms Sheerin: Yes, absolutely.

Mr Muir: Will the Member clarify exactly what she is querying when it comes to the Department's regulations and inspections?

Ms Sheerin: Any farmer could be reported multiple times in a year by somebody with a vendetta against them. Every one of those reports would incur an inspection, which would take the farmer away from their workplace for a day to go through a list of phoney complaints that, often, would have no basis in reality. My point is that this is a group of people who are already regulated to the nth degree.

Mr Muir: Will the Member give way?

Ms Sheerin: Yes.

Mr Muir: Does the Member understand that, if a complaint is received by the Department, it needs to be properly investigated? If we did not investigate it, many in the House would say that we had failed in our duty.

Ms Sheerin: I accept that. My point is that, when you refer to — I take umbrage at how often farmers are referred to as though they want to pollute, cause damage and harm the land —

Mr Muir: I am not saying that.

Ms Sheerin: Well, that is the inference that I take from some of the concern about environmental regulation. This is a group of people who are already regulated, and they already face inspection if they breach a regulation in any way. I say that as somebody whose father, at this stage, has farmed for north of 50 years and has therefore experienced that at first hand. That is the point that I am making. Instead of meeting these people where they are and trying to support them in what they do, which benefits all of us, we sometimes treat them, in a lot of this, as if they have poor intentions at heart. That is not the case, and I appreciate your acknowledgement of that.

I have found a lot of the debate quite disheartening. I feel that we need to be strong and steadfast in our support of all sectors of our workforce across the board, particularly our farmers, and to acknowledge that hill farmers are a disadvantaged group within that sector and are, as such, deserving of our support.

Mr Gaston: My remarks will be brief. I do not wish to speak for longer than it took me to read the Bill and the accompanying explanatory and financial memorandum.

I will be clear from the beginning of my remarks that the agriculture industry in Northern Ireland is the backbone of our economy. It provides thousands of jobs and, most importantly, feeds our nation with top-quality produce that cannot be matched anywhere else in the world — from farm to fork. It is important, therefore, that we take all the necessary steps to protect all farms and ensure that they continue to provide top-quality and affordable food on our doorstep.

This Bill is short, sharp and focused, targeting farmers who are located in areas with natural constraints. While I support the intention of the Bill, more clarity is needed on what it means for the industry as a whole. There is no point in taking money from lowland farmers to give it to hill farmers. The projected £11·4 million must be new money given to farmers, not simply money taken from a dairy man or a beef man to give to a hillman. From the Ulster Farmers' Union's support for the Bill, we have seen its understanding that this must be new money. That needs to be bottomed out before we go too much further. It is not fair to take from existing pots. In many cases, doing so will leave farmers not much better off, because what they stand to lose from one pot they might get put into the other hand, and vice versa. That is not the way that this place should do business: taking money off somebody to give it to another person. The Bill says that the money is to come from within the Department, even though it is being widely reported to the industry that it will be new money. If it has to come from within the Department, however, there needs to be clear guidance in the Bill that states that any future Minister must protect the money that goes to farmers who already enjoy money through other schemes and use revenue from elsewhere in the Department. I trust that the Minister will take this opportunity to update the House on the long-awaited and much-promised sheep scheme.

If the money has to come from within the Department, may I suggest that there is an obvious pot of money that is set aside every year from which to take it? It is about time that the Minister really got to grips with TB. That is the obvious pot of money to look at to subsidise the £11·4 million. We know that the Minister cares more for badgers than he does for cows, but, by getting the TB crisis under control, that money could easily be found, while protecting money that is going to the current schemes. We can rid Rathlin of ferrets, but we cannot do anything to control TB in Northern Ireland. Let me put it in perspective. In the projected spend for this year — the 2025-26 estimates — the total cost of the TB programme is £75 million, and £56 million of that is compensation that is paid to farmers. As I have said, I am content to see the Bill go to the next stage, but, before it comes back to the House, the Committee must bottom out a number of queries. We have to get to the bottom of whether it is new money. If it is not new money, will it impact on other funding schemes? Will payments be based on stock numbers? If a hill farmer currently receives money from another scheme, will they be penalised through ensuring that they do not receive payments from both schemes?

I am happy to give way to the sponsor of the legislation. If he wants to clarify any of those points, I open the Floor to him.

Mr McAleer: I thank the Member. I agree with a lot of what he has said. Sinn Féin takes the position that the agriculture pot of money for the farm sustainability payment has been stretched enough, particularly with the 17% cut, so there can be no more cuts to that pot. We believe that it is possible to budget and look within the Department for the £11 million. It is a substantial amount of money, but, in the context of the overall budget, it is not a mountain of money. Aoife touched on that point. In December, for example, DAERA had £11 million in reduced requirements. All or part of that could go towards paying for such a scheme in the future. We share the view and the concern. The single farm payment pot has been stretched enough, and it cannot be stretched any more.

Mr Gaston: I have some clarity, but it is certainly not enough to alleviate some of my concerns.

Mr Muir: Will the Member give way?

Mr Gaston: I am happy to give way to the Minister.

Mr Muir: The Bill sponsor cited easements. We have an overspend this financial year for which we had to get a reserve claim. Those are not exactly easements; they are pressures in-year. We have not managed to balance our books this year. That money has not been set aside for future years as new money. Will the Member acknowledge that, in the current Budget process, no money has been set aside for it?

Mr Gaston: On a number of occasions, the explanatory and financial memorandum states that the Bill sponsor

If the Bill passes its Second Stage today and before it gets to Committee Stage, a massive piece of work needs to be done to bottom that out between the Bill sponsor and his Finance Minister and, indeed, between the Bill sponsor and the Agriculture Minister. I certainly have concerns that, without that clarity, the Bill will never come out of Committee Stage. I say this to the Bill sponsor: a better way forward would have been for the Member to engage more widely with the agri sector in order to deliver a Bill that was much closer in content to that of the UK farm welfare Bill. That would have come at no cost to the Executive.

Mr Muir: Will the Member give way?

Mr Gaston: I am happy to give way.

Mr Muir: I understand that the farm welfare Bill that the Member referenced is sponsored by Farmers For Action (FFA). Does the Member understand that that would be contrary to the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020?

Mr Gaston: Hopefully, when we get to 2029, the next Government will ensure that there are no such limitations and no such meddling in our internal market by the EU. That is where my mind is firmly focused.

Those in the industry to whom I talk want legislation that will give and guarantee fair farm gate prices, not legislation that will take money from one pot and put it in another. I firmly support all sectors and family farms. Indeed, there are plenty of men and women throughout this country who put food on our tables. It is important that we acknowledge and support them in everything that we do.

If the Bill passes its Second Stage today, I hope that, by the time it gets to the Committee, we will have some of the answers, because, to be honest, they are not forthcoming today.

Mr Carroll: Mr Speaker, apologies for missing my question during Question Time. It will, I hope, never happen again.

I will speak briefly in support of the Bill. It is not a catch-all Bill, which the Member recognises, but it is certainly a step in the right direction. I met the RSPB today about the Bill. I encourage Members to also meet and talk to it about its views on the Bill and how it can be strengthened. It was a very illuminating conversation.

I heard some of the earlier conversation and debate. I have some sympathy with the argument that just giving money to farmers, regardless of what they do with it on the land that they own, may not be the best use of public money. I have some sympathy with that. It has the potential of discrediting green and nature-friendly initiatives in a general sense. Therefore, from my perspective, I am exploring an amendment that ties nature-restorative practices to the payment scheme. I hope that the Member can come back on whether he supports that or has considered that point of view. It has been said that farmers are the best custodians of the land: we should look at that to see what we can do to support them to maintain that role and to introduce good practices.

Many hill farmers and low-level farmers live in poverty. My understanding is that 50% of the priority habitat areas are in hill farming areas. How can the Bill be used to support farmers to re-wet bogland to act as a carbon sequester? How can it be used to ensure that heather is maintained at environmentally friendly levels to stop fires spreading on hills? How can it be used to ensure that other measures are taken?

The argument around financial prudence does not add up. We are in a biodiversity crisis. Lough Neagh is being strangled and killed, and we have the dumping of waste in Belfast lough, so time is of the essence. Hill farmers can play an important role in restoring nature.

I ask the Member to expand on what conversations he has had with the Finance Minister. I hope that he has been talking to him and pushing for support. I have some suggestions for the Finance Minister, if he is listening. Every year, £80 million in industrial derating goes out to large corporations, and a huge chunk of that payment goes to global corporations, such as Moy Park, Coco-Cola and Caterpillar, which have terrible human rights records and are terrible for the environment. That is around £15 million, at least, that could be got from those companies directly. The income and revenue of the largest companies are almost £2 billion. Rather than celebrating and cheering that, the Finance Minister and all Executive parties should chase that money down, regulate it, tax it through the rates system and put it into these types of processes and procedures. There are also the record surpluses in the South of Ireland and Britain. There is a state surplus of €25 billion in the South and £30 billion in Britain, and we are saying that we cannot afford £11 million to £15 million a year. Are we serious?

I hope that the Bill passes. Obviously, it needs to be amended. I have a lot of respect for the Member for South Antrim, but I do not understand the Alliance argument that it will not vote for the Bill to proceed. I do not understand the logic. It may be about protecting its Minister — it is not the only party that is guilty of doing that. The Bill needs to be amended and strengthened, so it has to go to the next stage. I do not want to be pre-emptive, because I do not know how the vote will go, but, if it passes, it looks as if it might be the smaller parties and the independent Member who will have got it over the line. Hopefully, it will pass.

Ms Sugden: I support the Second Stage of the Bill, primarily because it speaks directly to a large part of my East Londonderry constituency. Just over half of the land in my constituency is classified as being within an area with natural constraints. That means that a significant number of farms operate on land that is inherently more difficult to work, costlier to maintain and, in many cases, less productive. That is through no fault of the farmer, which, for me, is the core of the debate. Those farms are not struggling because of poor management or lack of effort; they are struggling because of natural limits such as poor soil, steep ground, shorter growing seasons and longer winters that shape what is possible on that land. Therefore, when we talk about support, we are not talking about propping up inefficiency; we are talking about recognising a structural reality. Once you accept that, the question that we pose today becomes straightforward. We recognise that some land is harder to farm than other land. Should there be targeted support to reflect that? In a region of the United Kingdom where agriculture is one of the main industries, that is a valid question. There is a strong case, given that the pressures in those areas are not theoretical but are being felt. They are being felt on the land, as it is worked every day, and they are being felt as people try to put food on the table. Those pressures are being felt by people in their day-to-day lives.

Hill farmers and sheep farmers are under particular strain. Livestock numbers are declining, and, in some cases, tightening margins are no longer sustainable. We see that. I am not a farmer, but I can see that. When that pressure builds, it does not stay contained within individual farms. As I said, it affects the wider agricultural system, and, in Northern Ireland, that means that it affects Northern Ireland. Upland farms feed on lowland production. They supply breeding and finishing stock and support the red meat sector as a whole. When activity reduces at the top of the chain, the effects are felt further down. It also affects rural communities. How often do we hear about the pressures that face rural communities? I live in a rural community and see the pressures every day. Farms in such areas are often central to local economic activity, so, when they come under strain and pressure, it impacts not just on the farm business but on the wider network of suppliers, services and families who depend on it.

There is a longer-term risk that we should not ignore. If farming becomes unviable in those areas, land will not simply pause and wait. We risk gradual withdrawal, the loss of livestock, the loss of skills and knowledge over time and a shift in how that land is used or, in some cases, not used. Once that happens, it is difficult to reverse. There is also a land management dimension. Active grazing plays a role in maintaining upland landscapes. It helps to manage vegetation and contributes to keeping land in a condition that is workable, productive and balanced. When that activity declines, there are consequences, as we have seen in recent years, for how the land behaves. The issue also matters for economic, social and environmental reasons.

The debate sits in a clear context. Support for areas of natural constraint is not new; it has existed before. It was removed for reasons that were set out at the time. I do not particularly understand those reasons, but they were to do with funding and the impact that redistributing support would have across the wider sector. I appreciate that margins and budgets are tight, but the Government need to do more than just meet their bottom line. They need to recognise that they are there to serve the public, and farming is a big part of that. As I set out, it is a big part of our agriculture. I am not naive enough to think that that money exists, but we need to find the money, which we will do by investing to save and making efficiencies. The next debate is about inefficiencies in government: we need to look at that seriously and start to put our money where it will have real value.

As others have said, no policy should set one group of farmers against another, undermine confidence in the wider support framework or create new problems while trying to solve an existing one. We have seen that happen since the support was removed a number of years ago. However, we also have to be honest about what has happened since. The context today is different from that when we previously talked about the issue. Costs have increased, and returns, particularly in sectors such as sheep farming, have not kept pace. There are clear gaps in the current support structures for upland and constrained land farming. Therefore, the question is not about whether those earlier concerns existed; it is about whether, in the current context, doing nothing is still the right approach, because, as we see, doing nothing has consequences, too. Other Members have talked about that in other aspects of farming.

Mr Carroll: I appreciate the Member's giving way, and I agree with her about the cost of doing nothing. Doing nothing will have a cost as well. Does she also have a concern that doing nothing will have not only a financial impact but a societal health impact on her constituents, my constituents and everybody's constituents across the House?

Ms Sugden: Absolutely, because, as I outlined, we will lose skills, lose that land and have fires. We already see the consequences of doing nothing playing out. This private Member's Bill has come about as a result of need. It does not exist just because of the Member's whims, or I certainly hope not. It comes from the needs of farmers and the pressures that they face. It is our job, as the Assembly and the institutions of Northern Ireland, to respond to that. It is a fair ask, and it is disappointing that there are some in the House who will not even let it get to the exploration stage at Committee and to Consideration Stage. That is what this process is about. It puts the issue into the public conversation and allows the public to grasp what needs to happen. We can then assess the feedback and see whether we want to take the Bill through every stage. I do not really understand the point of shutting it down at the principle stage.

I understand why the Bill has been introduced. It is not just because of the points that the Member has put across; it is because farmers tell us that they need something. We have an opportunity to support them. It is not insurmountable, because such support has existed before. If the only reason that we did not have it before is cost, we need to look at our other budgeting and costs throughout government and see where things are strategic and viable. When it comes to this issue, there has proven to be a need, and I certainly encourage the Minister and his successors — we do not know who they will be — to look at the issue. I appreciate that we are talking about this in the context of the current Budget, but, by the time that this becomes law and is implemented, we will be into a new mandate, and there will be a new Executive with their own priorities. This is about trying to set the direction of travel to support those who most need it.

The case for support is also being made by farmers. I understand the argument that targeted support should be considered again, and it is important to be clear about what the Bill does. It does not set out every detail of the future scheme, as others have alluded to. It does not answer every question about eligibility or design and does not resolve the funding issue, but it sets out a clear principle, which, at this stage — Second Stage — is what it is about: farmers operating in areas of natural constraint should have access to targeted support. That, essentially, is what we are agreeing on today. Do we want to support farmers who struggle because of the land that they farm? I think that the answer is yes. If we vote otherwise, what are we saying?

That does not mean ignoring the difficult questions, however. Rather, it means dealing with them properly and having the big conversation about funding. Someone suggested that around £11 million is required. That is not a small figure, but, in the context of our overall public spending, it is not beyond consideration either, particularly given the consequences that we are witnessing. We are not just about the bottom line but about services for the public. That needs to be included in the conversation as well.

As I said, we need to consider the cost of inaction and of the continued decline in livestock numbers. What is the cost if land falls out of active management? What is the cost to rural communities if farms become unsustainable? Those are real costs, and they do not always fit in a neat budget line. At the same time, we need to be careful, because support in one area cannot come at the expense of creating pressure somewhere else. Support has to be fair across the sector, workable in practice and sustainable in the long term. Those are not reasons to reject the idea but, rather, to get it right. We can do that during the Bill's next legislative stages. The worst outcome would be to ignore the problem entirely. We have a choice in the Chamber either to ignore the problem or to address it in a way that potentially creates a solution for farmers.

The Bill is an attempt to respond to a real and growing issue. It reflects the reality of farming in constrained areas. It reflects the pressures that those farmers are facing. It reflects the need to look again at whether our current approach is enough. I do not believe that it is. I am therefore content to support the Bill's passing Second Stage.

Mr Muir: I welcome the opportunity to speak to the private Member's Bill. The classification "areas with natural constraints" means land that is designated as being in a severely disadvantaged area, or SDA, in Northern Ireland and was established in the 1970s. Almost half of Northern Ireland's agricultural land — around 448,000 hectares — is in SDAs, which support upwards of 10,000 predominantly beef and sheep farms. Such areas, which are centred in the Mournes, the glens of Antrim, the Sperrins and most of County Fermanagh, are an integral part of our rural landscape. Farmers in SDAs make a vital contribution. They safeguard biodiversity, protect our natural environment and produce high-quality livestock that underpin the wider supply chain. As the agricultural census of 2025 makes clear, such areas account for 45% of suckler cows, 16% of dairy cows and 58% of breeding ewes.

The sustainable agriculture programme provides targeted support that is designed to meet Northern Ireland's specific needs, delivering environmental benefits while supporting the agri-food sector. The programme has been co-designed with agriculture and environmental stakeholders, including hill farmers' representatives, through the agricultural policy stakeholder group, thus ensuring a robust and inclusive development process. As part of the sustainable agriculture programme, or SAP, the farm sustainability payment, or FSP, was introduced this year, replacing the farm sustainability transition payment, or FSTP, which delivered £247 million in 2025, including approximately £100 million to farms in SDAs. The FSP is now the core support mechanism for all farm businesses, providing resilience against external shocks whilst encouraging improved environmental management and efficiency.

Farmers in SDAs also have access to additional support through the beef sustainability package, including the suckler cow scheme and the Farming with Nature package, which provide income support alongside environmental improvements, emissions reductions and productivity gains. With around 45% of Northern Ireland's suckler cows located in SDAs, the suckler cow scheme alone has the potential to deliver over £6 million in support for those areas. Although I recognise that there is currently no stand-alone support for the sheep sector, my officials have commenced work on developing evidence-based proposals under the sustainable agriculture programme for support for the sheep sector. A stakeholder working group, which includes industry and non-governmental organisation representatives, has identified key areas of need, which are now being taken forward for future development. I plan to announce more on the development of support for the sheep sector later in the year.

The Farming with Nature package will provide targeted support for farmland in designated areas, for priority habitats and for species. The proposed support will help farmers manage such areas effectively while delivering strong environmental outcomes. Activities may include maintaining vegetation through well-planned grazing regimes and suitable stocking densities, and reducing the risk of wildfire by limiting the accumulation of combustible materials.

The House will recall that an ANC scheme operated here in 2016 and 2017 under the EU rural development programme, supported by £20 million a year. It proceeded only under ministerial direction, because it did not meet the standards of 'Managing Public Money'. A review of the ANC scheme and subsequent consultation on future support to ANCs was carried out in 2016, with affordability being a central question. In 2018, the same exceptional approach was required, and there was a further ministerial direction, with reduced funding of £8 million. Crucially, despite the scheme ending, SDA farmers have not seen their support being diminished. The transition to flat-rate entitlements under pillar 1 shifted significant direct payment funding from dairy, lowland cattle and sheep and mixed farms into the SDA. Since 2018, incomes for SDA cattle and sheep farms have remained stable, and the distribution of livestock across regions has not materially changed. The £19 million annual shift, which was created through the flat-rate transition, remains a recurring and substantial benefit to SDA farmers.

The Bill would create a legal requirement on my Department to establish a new ANC scheme, regardless of affordability or competing priorities. If that were to be funded from the earmarked budget for agriculture, agrienvironment and rural affairs, it would force a further reduction in FSP entitlement values for all farmers, including those in SDAs. That would be on top of the £19 million that was already transferred to those areas through the move towards flat-rate entitlement values.

The Bill calls for funding to be based on, at least, that of the ANC scheme in 2018. A new scheme based on 2018 rates and the 2025 retail price index would cost approximately £11·4 million each year. With inflation-linked increases being mandated, funding would grow year-on-year, unlike any other agriculture support schemes.

The previous ANC scheme operated under the Northern Ireland rural development programme, as I outlined, and the common agricultural policy, and it was not funded from pillar 1. Under the sustainable agriculture programme, however, support comes from the Executive's earmarked agriculture and agrienvironment budget. Under the Bill as drafted, funding provision for the new ANC scheme would also come from that budget. It would therefore require FSP funds to be redirected, thereby reducing overall farm sustainability payments. There is no provision in the Finance Minister's draft Budget for new money for a new ANC scheme. On the contrary, we are due to overspend in this financial year, and we have an obligation in the years ahead to pay back the reserve claim that was required to deal with the pressures. Reference was made to this financial year. In this financial year, the focus of all Departments is on minimising the scale of that overspend. My Department seeks to do that.

Based on all the analysis that I have set out, my sincere advice is that there is no compelling value-for-money case for reinstating an ANC scheme. I understand that UFU support for the Bill is conditional on sourcing new moneys to fund it, but I am not sure how that can be assured.

Mr Carroll: Will the Minister give way?

Mr Muir: Yes.

Mr Carroll: If the Minister had an extra £15 million in his budget — I appreciate that that is an "if" — would he support the Bill?

Mr Muir: If I had an additional £15 million? There are a range of pressures in my Department. I want to support the agriculture community, and we are seeking to do many things, particularly around sheep support. There are pressures across the Department in relation to the environment, water quality and air quality.

The current draft Budget is dire for my Department. We will struggle to deliver statutory services. If we were to add pressures, more issues around the Department fulfilling its statutory functions would be likely to emerge. I need to be honest with people about that. Those are the pressures that we are sitting with. A draft Budget is out for consultation, but it does not take into account the overspend in this financial year, and it is not clear how that will be addressed. The Treasury is also doing an open-book exercise in each Department to understand the scale of the financial issues in the Executive.

At the AERA Committee session on 16 March 2026, the Bill sponsor stated that the funding for an ANC scheme should not be drawn from the Executive's earmarked budget for agriculture, agrienvironment, fisheries and rural development. I am not sure how the Bill's sponsor can make that statement. Does he, perhaps, intend to table amendments at Consideration Stage to legislate for that commitment? I would be grateful for clarity on that in his response to the debate.

As Minister, and I say this sincerely, it is important that we all take a responsible position on this private Member's Bill given the severe public expenditure challenges that we face, including the forecast overspend in this financial year. It would be irresponsible to pass at Second Stage a private Member's Bill that creates a potential new funding pressure of £11 million a year whilst, at the same time, the Assembly is passing another piece of legislation to defer hospital car parking charges due to the cost implications of £7 million a year.

With regard to drafting, I should inform Members that the Bill —.

Miss McAllister: Will the Minister give way?

Mr Muir: Yes.

Miss McAllister: Minister, as a member of the Health Committee looking at the Bill on hospital car parking charges, I agree completely with what you said. Would you also agree that doing this at this stage, close to the end of an Assembly mandate, is similar to what happened with the Hospital Parking Charges Act 2022, and it might be seen as disingenuous in terms of such a payment coming into existence?

Mr Muir: Thank you, Nuala, for your intervention. If the Bill passes Second Stage and completes its passage through the House, it will likely be for the Minister in the next mandate to take forward its implementation. The easiest thing for me to do as Minister would be to say that that will be for someone else to deal with. However, I am concerned about people's confidence and trust in these institutions, and we have to be conscious of future liabilities, the issues that I have set out and the fact that passing the Bill and getting Royal Assent is not resolving the issues. We cannot defer the financial liabilities that arise from the Bill, and we need to be debating and voting on this legislation in that context.

Mrs Dillon: I thank the Minister for giving way. What is disingenuous are the comments of the previous speaker. During the Domestic Abuse and Civil Proceedings Bill, I brought forward an amendment on Operation Encompass, which allowed for schools to be notified where children were involved in a domestic abuse incident. The Minister first tried to find it being outside the scope of the Bill, then said that it was not affordable, then said that it was an Education responsibility, and now takes credit for it being in the Bill. Sometimes, things have to be brought forward by Members because Ministers do not, will not, cannot — for whatever reason — do it. It is important, therefore, that private Member's Bills are brought forward.

Mr Muir: I will try to respond to some of that. It is outside the scope of what we are discussing, but I do believe in private Member's Bills. They have a significant role to play. However, I also have to outline my views sincerely, as Minister, on this Bill with regard to the range of support that we are already providing.

Ms Sheerin: Will the Minister give way?

Mr Muir: I will just finish.

For example, we are seeking to bring in support for the sheep sector as well. There is also the issue of the financial situation that we are in, which the Finance Minister is acutely aware of, and that, if there were to be any additional Barnett consequentials, it is likely that they would have to be used to cover the overspend in this financial year.

Ms Sheerin: I thank the Minister for giving way, and I appreciate everything that he has laid out with regard to budget and financial constraints. Is it disingenuous of the Alliance Party to say that it does not support the merit of the Bill when you previously supported a motion that my party colleague brought calling for the introduction of an ANC Bill in early 2020?

Mr Muir: We are considering a private Member's Bill. There are no environmental improvement conditions associated with the Bill, which is a matter of great concern for me, and that is what we are responding to now. We are also responding to the fiscal position that we are all acutely aware of. We are all conscious of the need for a multi-year Budget but a Budget that balances, which is something that the Treasury is very focused on. I am also conscious of the range of support that has already been delivered and that we are intending to deliver. I have set that out, and I will just continue to respond to this Bill.

With regard to its drafting, the Bill, as introduced, requires amendment to ensure that it is not defective and can be enacted if passed by the Assembly. The vires to operate an ANC scheme were obtained in assimilated law, specifically in articles 48 and 49 of EU regulation No 1307/2013 — the direct payments regulation.

However, those articles were revoked on a UK basis by the Rules for Direct Payments to Farmers (Amendment) Regulations 2020. If the Bill were to pass in the Assembly, my Department would need to introduce a statutory rule via the affirmative draft procedure process to reinstate articles 48 and 49 into direct payments regulation to provide the vires that my Department requires to establish a legal foundation to operate the scheme. Following on from that, a separate SR would need to be introduced via the negative resolution process to legislate for payment rates for an ANC scheme.

In closing, I acknowledge that SDA farmers are essential to Northern Ireland's agricultural and environmental future, but sentiment cannot replace sound policy. The Bill presents significant financial, legislative and budgetary risks without a strong evidence base to justify its introduction. Rather than establish a separate ANC scheme, I urge all farm businesses in severely disadvantaged areas to engage fully with the schemes available under the sustainable agriculture programme, namely the farm sustainability payment; the suckler cow scheme; the Farming with Nature scheme; and the soon-to-come sheep support scheme, to maximise support for the programmes that they offer in strengthening farm resilience and delivering positive environmental outcomes. I have set out the reasons why I sincerely believe that, in the interests of responsible government and sustainable public finances, I cannot support the Bill. It has been useful to discuss it, and I urge the Bill sponsor to engage with the Department if the Second Stage passes. It is important that, whatever we do here, when we pass legislation, it is good legislation.

Mr McAleer: I thank everyone for participating in today's wide-ranging debate. In most cases, it was conducted in a robust but respectful way. I will reflect on some issues raised during the debate.

I will start with Robbie Butler, who spoke on behalf of the Committee. He gave an assurance that, if the Bill proceeds today, the Committee will scrutinise it thoroughly should it reach Committee Stage. In his capacity as UUP spokesperson, he made the point that there is a Brexit funding shortfall. It is a fair point. Previously, the scheme was two thirds funded by pillar 2 of the EU's rural development programme. The Member made the point that schemes like this have continued in the South of Ireland and Scotland. We need to do our best to ensure that farmers are not at a significant competitive disadvantage, particularly in border areas. He also referred to the importance of environmental outcomes.

Michelle McIlveen spoke next. She opposes the Bill. She indicated that it is poorly drafted. Obviously, we worked with legal experts in the Bill Office for some time to make sure that the Bill was legally competent. Michelle indicated that it is a vanity project. It is a project that we have been working on for years and have been trying to bring in through a motion in the Assembly. When the Alliance Party backed our motion in 2020, we were hopeful that, when it got the Ministry, it would follow through on its commitments, but it did not do so when it got the chance. That was disappointing.

Mr Muir: Will the Member give way?

Mr McAleer: Yes, of course.

Mr Muir: Will the Member acknowledge the fiscal position that we are in? I have to sincerely outline that to the Department. We have set out the support that we are providing to farmers in SDAs, but we have to be realistic and make sure that we do not pledge to do something that, fiscally, we cannot deliver.

Mr McAleer: Yes, but it is important to recognise that farmers in ANCs are at a serious advantage. Some of the schemes that the Minister referred to, such as the partial transition towards a flat rate, are not a full transition. Even if they were a full transition, farmers would still be at a disadvantage in those areas, because the land quality is not equal. That is an important point. We also made reference to the various schemes. Farmer after farmer has told us that, in ANCs, the suckler beef scheme does not benefit them. They find it difficult to operate, and their view is that it benefits the finisher scheme better. I do not have the stats to hand, but that is what we were picking up in the consultation. We also have to consider the sheep farmers, who have had their farm resilience payment cut by 17% in order to fund schemes that they cannot access. Those farmers are in a serious situation.

The Speaker's recommendation was that Members' Bills had to be narrow and defined in order to get through in a shortened mandate. We had to come up with a narrow and defined Bill, which was about giving a legislative basis to re-enact the 2018 scheme, rather than starting a brand new scheme and negotiating rates and all of that. As the Minister knows, the regulations will follow in the new mandate. Members should also know that the regulations will be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure in the House. The Minister in the next mandate will bring those forward for debate to be passed by the Assembly.

I have stressed so many times that those farmers are the foundation of our red-meat industry and the custodians of our environment. They are in a most difficult situation, and we need to do what we can to support them.

John Blair made the point that all farms should be equal, and I agree 100%. I have said all along that we should not pit one farm against another. I did not want the debate to pit lowland farmers against ANC farmers or to pit the environment against farming. I did not want to be divisive, because that is not how farming works. I am from a farming background, and I know that that is not how we work. When the landslides happened in the Glenelly valley, where Emma's people are from, farmers from all sections of the community worked together to pull out their cattle, operate gates and deal with the devastation. When I started off on this journey, I did not want the Bill to pit one against the other, and I am determined that it will go through on that basis.

Ms Sheerin: Will the Member take an intervention?

Mr McAleer: Of course.

Ms Sheerin: Just on that point, the Member has already acknowledged that farmers in ANCs are at a natural disadvantage because of the conditions in which they operate. They are also disadvantaged because the transition to the flat rate did not complete, so they are being treated worse than other farmers as things stand.

Mr McAleer: Yes, that is absolutely right. As I said in the Committee meeting last Monday, this is about an ecosystem, and every part of the ecosystem is connected. If something goes wrong in one part of the ecosystem, that has a knock-on effect on down. There is a problem in the ANCs, with a 21% drop in beef production and a 7% drop in ewe production from last year. That will have an impact for the lowland farmers who need that livestock for finishing and further on down the food chain. That does not even take account of the environmental impact of that.

Mr Muir: Will the Member give way?

Mr McAleer: Yes, of course.

Mr Muir: A lot of figures have been quoted in relation to suckler cow numbers. Will the Member acknowledge that there has also been an increase in dairy production in Northern Ireland and that we need to take that into account in the wider picture?

Mr McAleer: Yes, absolutely. It is also important to point out that dairy farmers in ANCs are in a minority because of the quality of the land. Beef and sheep production are the predominant industries in those areas, but those are the sectors that are in the worst condition at the moment. When we look at the figures for last year, we see that poultry was up by 9%, pigs were up by 8% and dairy was up by 2% or 3%, whereas the figures for the two sectors that dominate the upland farms were dramatically down. I recognise what you say, but those are the two sectors that need most support.

Daniel McCrossan indicated that the SDLP will support the Bill in principle. He talked about the real-world impacts, and he knows it like I know it, because we live in and represent the same constituency. He said that there is an opportunity to shape the Bill at the next stage. That is good. There are lots of questions that I do not have the answer for yet, but, at the next stage, we will have the chance to get the stakeholders before the Committee to thrash it all out and shape the Bill.

Aoife talked about the importance of fairness and equality and said that farmers play a big role in supporting the environment. Áine spoke up in stout defence of Fermanagh, which, as she reminded us, is 92% ANC land. Philip, too, talked about fairness and resilience. He reiterated the point that all land is not equal, and he used County Antrim as an example of a constituency that has a lot of ANC land.

Colin McGrath spoke passionately about small farm families who have been left behind: that is the point. In the DAERA census from last year, of the approximately 10,000 farms in areas with natural constraints around 8,500 are designated as "very small", which means that they are between three hectares and 10 hectares. Those are very small farms. That is the overwhelming majority that we are talking about. They are little farms, in most cases at the top of a mountain, where the farmer has to go to work every day. As Emma Sheerin said, they farm for the love of the land and to preserve the tradition. They put their own money into keeping the farm going, because, in most cases, the farm is not sustainable. They really need our support. Emma highlighted rural poverty, being from a farming family herself.

Timothy Gaston said that it was important to protect all farm families and that he supports the intention of the Bill. He drew attention to the TB funding and made a really good point that I did not mention, which was that over £70 million of the Department's budget is spent on TB every year and that, if we could get to grips with that problem, the money saved would be an obvious source of funding for the ANC scheme.

Gerry Carroll is already actively exploring amendments to link nature restoration to the Bill when it reaches Committee Stage. Gerry, I hope that you will get a chance to do that.

Mr Carroll: Will the Member give way?

Mr McAleer: Yes.

Mr Carroll: I hope so, too. If the Bill were to reach Committee Stage — I do not want to be too presumptive — would the Member support such an amendment?

Mr McAleer: You are definitely bouncing me here, so you are, Gerry. Yes, of course: farmers who work in ANC are the most environmentally friendly farmers of them all. They cannot have a lot of stock because of the nature of the territory. Most of the farms are in areas of natural constraint. Under the 2018 scheme, like any farmer, you had to abide by and comply with environmental standards. As I said, farmers are already doing that. In correspondence, Ulster Wildlife, the National Trust and the RSPB made the point that there is huge overlap between ANC and conservation areas. Hopefully, we will get the chance to thrash out those matters at Committee Stage, and, hopefully, Gerry, we will have a chance to see you at the Committee.

Claire Sugden talked about the impact of the pressures on farm families and on the land in her constituency of East Derry. Support is important for upland landscapes. Claire helpfully reiterated the point that no policy should pit one farmer against another: I am determined not to do that. She also made the really important point that the Bill comes from the needs of farmers. It is not something that we have made up for political purposes; it is coming from the needs of farmers. We did not make it up on a whim; we have been banging on about it for years and have been getting it in the neck every time we have gone out. We did an extensive public consultation and have been out around the marts in different places, chatting to hundreds of farmers, so we know that the need is there.

The Minister made the point that there are 10,000 farms in SDAs, and he talked about how the transition had started to benefit those areas. He mentioned the suckler scheme, the Farming with Nature scheme and the previous ANC scheme, which operated under ministerial direction. He also talked about the budgetary constraints. There is nothing that the Minister or any Member talked about that cannot be discussed in Committee at the next stage.

Mr Muir: Will the Member give way?

Mr McAleer: Yes, of course.

Mr Muir: The Member made a statement to the Committee last Monday that the money should be new money. Does the Member intend to table amendments to require it to be new money? How does he intend to clarify the matter? There is a concern, particularly from the Ulster Farmers' Union, about that.

Mr McAleer: The point that I made was that the Bill is not about allocating money but about providing the legislative framework for doing so. The funding aspect would be thrashed out in regulations, which would now come forward in the next mandate. I said that my view, which you share, Minister, is that the farm sustainability pot is already overstretched, particularly given the 17% cut, so funding should not come out of that.

Minister, you have more access to information on your Department's finances and budgets than I do. I used the example of the reduced requirements in the December monitoring round. There was a reduced requirement of £4·9 million as a result of vacancies; a reduced requirement of £3·1 million from PEACE PLUS; a reduced requirement of £2·9 million from Windsor framework unfilled vacancies; a slippage of £0·8 million from the Larne facilities lease; and a reduced requirement of £2·7 million from NI council boundary regulations and inspections. You may wish to provide clarification, Minister, but I also presume that your Department's resource requirement for checks will decrease, particularly if there is a UK-EU sanitary and phytosanitary agreement.

Mr Muir: Will the Member give way?

Mr McAleer: Yes.

Mr Muir: The Member may not be aware, but that money comes separately. Funding for Windsor framework implementation is ring-fenced. On the £4·9 million from unfilled vacancies, will the Member acknowledge that a good element of responsibility for that sits with the Department of Finance and with Northern Ireland Civil Service HR? We have a situation in which it takes, on average, seven months for me to recruit people to my Department. That needs to be addressed, because it is affecting all areas of the Department.

Mr McAleer: I thank the Minister for his intervention. The point that I am trying to make is that there is headroom. It is not the case that every penny is spent. There is headroom, in the sense that there were reduced requirements in the notice that the Committee got this year.

Mr Carroll: I thank the Member for giving way. Does he agree that, in debates in the House, "cross-departmental working" and "non-silo mentality" are always trotted out by parties but those terms do not really seem to have been used in abundance today?

Mr McAleer: Sorry, will you repeat that, Gerry?

Mr Carroll: It will be harder the second time. Does the Member agree that "cross-departmental working" and "non-silo mentality" are always trotted by parties across the House but their use seems to have been in short supply during this debate? Hopefully you got that second time around.

Mr McAleer: Yes. Thank you for that, Gerry. Another interesting thing that we have achieved tonight is a bit of unity between the DUP and the Alliance Party, which are usually at each other's throats in the Chamber. That has been interesting.

To conclude, I thank Bronwyn McGahan, a Sinn Féin policy officer who has been working hard on the Bill for a long time. I thank the Bill Office team for getting us to this stage. Hopefully, the Bill will get the chance to proceed to Committee Stage. I thank all Members for a reasonably healthy debate today, and I commend the Bill to the House.

Mr Speaker: Members should take their ease for a moment.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): I have received notification from members of the Business Committee of a motion to extend the sitting past 7.00 pm under Standing Order 10(3A).

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): The Assembly may sit until 7.30 pm this evening, if necessary.

Ms Forsythe: I beg to move

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): The Business Committee has agreed to allow up to one hour and 30 minutes for the debate. The proposer of the motion will have 10 minutes to propose and 10 minutes to make a winding-up speech. As an amendment has been selected and is published on the Marshalled List, the Business Committee has agreed that 15 minutes will be added to the total time for the debate. Please open the debate on the motion.

Ms Forsythe: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. The DUP has tabled today's motion, as we face the extremely challenging task of trying to agree a multi-year Budget for Northern Ireland. In these most challenging financial times, there is a need to take practical action to tackle waste and inefficiencies in our government systems. Some have sought to frame the motion as an attempt to attack and vilify individual Ministers and parties, but that says more about them and their petty politics. Alliance is pushing selective and misleading claims instead of engaging with the real issue of waste and inefficiency in government that we raise today. I care about improving efficiencies in government systems and about safeguarding and improving the quality of front-line public services in Northern Ireland. That is the intention of the DUP motion.

Despite day-to-day spending by Departments rising over the past six years, the quality of many public services is declining. We have seen inflationary pressures, ongoing pay costs, changing demographics and a lack of progress towards public-sector transformation all contribute to a perfect storm in which rising demand outmatches available budget envelopes and Departments struggle to maintain even their current levels of service. One approach to that is to reduce the constraints on public spending, including making the case for a fairer and more responsive funding settlement from the UK Government. The DUP leader, Gavin Robinson MP, has long made that case, as have others across the House. It is important that we continue to do that. However, inefficiencies in how our available funding is allocated, how it is spent and how services are configured are also a major drag on delivering better outcomes. There needs to be strong leadership to drive efficiency and tackle wasteful spending across the public sector.

In recent months, some Northern Ireland Audit Office (NIAO) reports have been shocking. There is a projected £3 billion overspend on major capital projects. More recently, we had the follow-up report, 'Leading and Resourcing the Northern Ireland Civil Service'. There has been a renewed focus on the need to increase productivity and deliver better value for money in Northern Ireland's large public-sector workforce. In Northern Ireland, we have consistently had a higher proportion of public-sector jobs per capita than the whole of the UK. If the proportion of Northern Ireland public-sector jobs were matched by the proportion of public-sector jobs in the UK population, the figure would be 11·9%, which compares with 8·7% for the whole of the UK. That is disproportionate and needs to be investigated as to why and whether it delivers value for money here. When public-sector pay awards and the like of increases to employers' National Insurance contributions are applied, that high proportion means that the cost to the Northern Ireland public purse is significantly more than it is elsewhere.

Agency spend on staff across the board costs too much, and that money could be better spent on properly paying some of our Health and Social Care (HSC) workers. In December 2025, the Minister of Health indicated that £120 million less had been spent on off-contract nurses, midwives and health workers since May 2023. However, to put that into perspective, the total health agency expenditure between April 2022 and March 2024 was £770 million. The Audit Office report, 'Leading and Resourcing the Northern Ireland Civil Service', which was published in January past, identified a number of key findings. Some 97% of the Civil Service staff were in non-industrial roles; two thirds of the jobs were categorised as "general service"; there were 5,486 vacant posts declared across the Northern Ireland Civil Service (NICS); there was a greater reliance on temporary staffing solutions, with 4,939 agency workers employed as of April 2025, which is more than double the number recorded in April 2019; and we see an increase in sickness absence rates, with an average of 13·4 days lost per staff member and costs rising from £32 million in 2018 to £48·8 million in 2024-25. It was reported that the Civil Service does not routinely collect data on the underperformance of staff, and we see that HR Connect — the designated shared recruitment service — is unable to meet the scale and pace of recruitment demanded by some Departments. Workforce productivity is not formally measured across the Civil Service, and that limits the ability to assess performance.

We have seen recent developments in the public-sector reform strategy in Scotland that are worth learning from. The Scottish Government published a major public-sector reform strategy in June of last year. In that strategy, they committed to adopting a preventative, joined-up and efficient approach to the delivery of public services through their work streams. An important pledge was the application of a presumption against the creation of new public bodies by assessing and challenging any new proposals. We have too many arm's-length bodies (ALBs) in Northern Ireland — in excess of 120 — and new commissioners are created regularly and at a minimum cost of £1 million a year simply to exist. Some cost substantially more. That is unsustainable. An assumption against them, unless essential and fully costed, would be welcome.

Public spending priorities reflect the growing disconnect in our politics between ideology and the everyday realities facing our voters. We need to restore a primary focus on the day-to-day issues affecting the lives of the vast majority of people, and we need to be open to the arguments about scrapping net zero, protecting single-sex spaces and ending uncontrolled immigration. We see huge overspends and waste as a result of the culture of political correctness gone mad, and the Democratic Unionist Party has been a strong advocate of common sense over ideology in the Northern Ireland Executive and the Assembly. The costs that come with that need to be challenged. The DUP does not believe that public policy should place aspirational climate change targets ahead of investment in and advancement of the high-quality public services that our communities not only deserve but require. The cost of achieving those unrealistic climate change targets has been cited as being in the region of £90 million a year until 2050. Do Members really believe that that is the best use of public money?

Ending ideological spend also needs to be a priority. In recent years, significant sums of money have been directed towards equality, diversity and inclusion (EDI) initiatives across many Departments and arm's-length bodies, often with limited scrutiny and little measurable assessment of outcomes. For example, the Department of Finance continues to pay £2,500 annually for Civil Service membership of the Stonewall Diversity Champions Programme, despite serious and ongoing concerns about that organisation's role in political activism and its perceived influence on public policy development. Meanwhile, the Department for the Economy's arm's-length bodies, including Belfast Metropolitan College, other colleges and tourism bodies, are projected to spend over £64,000 on EDI-related activity. Worryingly, despite significant operational and financial pressures in the PSNI, it spent more than £1 million on EDI staffing between 2020-21 and 2024-25, which is a level broadly comparable to the annual spend in our health and social care trusts for the same purpose. While equality before the law and fair treatment in the workplace are principles that we strongly support, spending of that scale and nature must be subject to rigorous oversight. Where EDI initiatives risk straying into areas of political advocacy or where their benefits are not clearly defined and measured, public trust is undermined.

In proposing the motion today, we highlight the fact that we believe that an efficiency agenda for Northern Ireland that aims to eliminate wasteful spend across government is needed. Almost two decades have passed since Departments last committed to making cumulative efficiency savings as part of the Budget process. In particular, we support agreeing mandatory rolling targets for every Department to identify and deliver efficiencies in their day-to-day spending. That will hopefully include seeking to reduce corporate costs; Departments taking a more hands-on approach to efficiency savings from their ALBs; advancing ambitious Health and Social Care efficiency programmes; supporting an overhaul of the commissioning and delivery framework for major infrastructure projects; driving down legal bills across Departments; targeting better cooperation between Departments; exploring opportunities for estate rationalisation; exploiting opportunities provided by newly agreed arrangements on the transfer of surplus land between Departments and public bodies; and reducing ideological spending across government.

We in the DUP believe that this is the time to set those targets and that efficiency agenda as we move towards setting the Budget. Whilst everyone agrees that we need more funding in Northern Ireland to deliver better public services, we need to deliver better with the funding that we already have and tackle the waste in the system. I commend the motion to the House.

Mr Gildernew: I beg to move the following amendment:

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

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

Tackling the wasteful and inefficient spending of public money should and must be a key priority for the Executive at all times but even more so in the current fiscal climate. At a time when budgets are strained, there is an onus on all Ministers to stretch their budgets as far as they can go. That will require a concerted effort by all Ministers to minimise wasteful spending while protecting front-line public services. Whilst it is right and proper that the Executive strive for efficiencies, it must be said that making efficiencies alone will not solve our financial woes. The simple truth is that the British Government continue to underfund the North, and that is having a severely negative impact on our ability to maintain our public services to an acceptable standard. Only when the British Government end their policy of austerity and deliver serious investment in the North will our public services be placed on a sustainable footing.

We also need to transform the way in which we deliver our public services to allow us to improve outcomes for people whilst removing duplication and inefficiencies. We often hear the criticism that our public sector is overladen with red tape. Although I am sure that much of it is necessary, we should do anything that we can to remove unnecessary bureaucracy in the system. The review of arm's-length bodies, on which the Minister of Finance is leading, will be key to rationalising public administration. We hope to see a much more streamlined and efficient system going forward.

As a member of the Public Accounts Committee (PAC), I am concerned about the findings of the Audit Office report on the Civil Service, which shows that its transformation has been far too slow and that serious issues of capacity and capability remain. In particular, the over-reliance on agency staff to deliver services is of huge concern. I welcome the progress that has been made on that issue, such as the confirmation that the outsourced aspects of recruitment will be brought back in-house from March 2027. The Civil Service is, however, only one part of the jigsaw puzzle. Similar problems exist in all areas of the public sector, not least in health and education. Transformation there is equally, if not more, essential.

Although public-sector reform has been too slow to date, it is important to recognise some of the positive steps that have been taken, the benefits of which will be transformational in the long run. First, I welcome the progress that has been made on delivering fairer funding to the North via the interim fiscal framework. If we are to have any hope of transforming our public services, we need the upfront investment that will allow us to achieve that. More work, however, is needed in order to agree a final fiscal framework that will accurately reflect the true level of objective need in the North. Speaking as a member of the Communities Committee, I say that we also urgently need to see borrowing powers granted to the Housing Executive to allow it to build more homes.

Secondly, I welcome the recent confirmation of the open-book exercise that will take place in cooperation with the British Treasury. It will provide a much clearer picture of the unsustainable pressures that the Executive face. Thirdly, I welcome the establishment of the public-sector transformation board and the funding allocations that it has already made. The six projects that have received funding include £61 million to the Department of Health to enable the roll-out of multidisciplinary teams (MDTs) in GP practices and £27·5 million to tackle the unsustainable trajectory of special educational needs (SEN) spending by prioritising early intervention.

Further such opportunities for transformation will be made possible through the digitalisation of the public sector. Digitalisation is the future, because it will remove much of the administrative cost of running government and make it easier for the public to access services. The quicker we embrace technological advances, the quicker we will feel the benefits and potentially cut costs.

I have to say, however, that the level of hypocrisy that the DUP has exhibited in tabling the motion is truly staggering. It is the party that brought us the renewable heat incentive (RHI) or "cash for ash" scandal, which has cost the taxpayer millions of pounds. It did not seem to care too much about tackling wasteful spending when it signed off on that scheme; indeed, it encouraged participants to fill their boots at the expense of the taxpayer. The DUP is the party that, together with the Tories, brought us Brexit. We all continue to suffer the consequences of that act of self-harm daily. As we debate the motion today, community groups are issuing their staff with redundancy notices as a direct result of the underfunding of the local growth fund and the failure of the British Government to replace in full the funding lost as a result of Brexit, a Brexit that the DUP championed at every turn.

The DUP is the party that is involved in more legal cases than it can even count, consistently using taxpayers' money to block progressive change through the courts. It is the party that prioritises pet projects such as spending over £5,000 of taxpayers' money to prove JD Vance's Ulster-Scots heritage, which did not exist. Were it not so serious, it would be almost laughable that the Minister for Communities instructed officials to make that a top priority while failing to deliver on so many other issues of real importance. If the DUP is serious about tackling the wasteful spending of public money, perhaps it should start by taking a closer look at the actions of its own Ministers. It might then have some credibility when it seeks to pontificate to the rest of us.

Mr Tennyson: I welcome the opportunity to respond to the motion about the need to tackle waste and inefficiency in government. Whilst the proposer's remarks at times strayed into the Donald Trump playbook, with a bit of an imitation of the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) policies from across the water, the motion is useful in exposing a breathtaking lack of self-awareness from the DUP.

In the motion, the DUP tells us that the Audit Office has criticised the delivery of major capital projects, but the DUP makes no mention of the Education Minister's handling of the Strule Shared Education Campus, which, on his watch, is set to overrun by £220 million. It "expresses alarm" at the number of arm's-length bodies but makes no mention of the same Minister's proposal for a new arm's-length management body for controlled schools rather than consolidating the existing bodies. It criticises spend on legal costs, but there is no mention of the £50,000 of legal costs associated with the unlawful decision to halt Windsor framework checks or the £130,000 in costs incurred in appealing a decision on the need for inclusive RE in schools. That is before we even look at the costs associated with the Communities Minister's action against his Executive colleagues in relation to the Irish language.

The DUP tells us that it is concerned about the costs associated with hospitality, but there is no mention of the deputy First Minister's junket to Wimbledon to the tune of £1,000 on the taxpayers' dime; the Communities Minister's £40,000 trip to the United States, which included first-class flights; or the £13,000 St Patrick's Day breakfast. Ministers have found £250,000 for magnetic phone pouches; £135,000 for Christmas lights; and £5,500 for a genealogy study of JD Vance simply to conclude that he has no Ulster-Scots heritage.

Mr Brooks: Will the Member give way?

Mr Tennyson: I will, briefly.

Mr Brooks: Is the Alliance Party against engagement with the US and international markets in general or only when it concerns a president with whom it does not agree?

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

Mr Tennyson: No, we are not against it; we are against profligate spending associated with those trips. Alliance Party representatives have engaged in international travel to represent Northern Ireland's interests where we feel that that is appropriate. None of them flew business class. Other Members should take note and reflect on that when they spend public money.

That is all before we look at the £90 million in forgone tax revenues for the UK annually as a direct result of Brexit; the tens of millions of pounds of lost EU funding; the lost economic opportunities as a result of repeated collapses of these institutions; and the money that went up in smoke as a direct consequence of the "cash for ash" renewable heat incentive scheme that a DUP Minister launched without cost controls. Yet, DUP Members have come to the Chamber and told us that the reason that the Executive has no money is trans people: catch yourselves on. That speaks to an idea that people in Northern Ireland are so foolish that they will not see through a blatant attempt to fight a culture war and distract from the profligate and wasteful spending of successive DUP Ministers.

I agree with the thrust of the motion when it says that we need to tackle waste and inefficiency and prioritise spending where it matters most, but Members do not need a non-binding motion in the Assembly for that. Those who tabled the motion simply need a mirror. All parties need to get serious about efficiency; transforming our public services; delivering on the ambition of the Bengoa review and the independent review of education; and tackling the scandalous cost of duplication and division in our society. We need — some of these issues have been mentioned in the debate — a properly baselined funding formula to deliver more and better public services; an enhanced transformation fund to build on the progress that has been made under the public-sector transformation board; and, as Alliance has consistently called for, real effort and energy towards commissioning an independent review of the cost of division in our society so that we can finally bring those costs down and fund public services rather than segregation.

All of the conversation about reform and transformation in public services comes back to reform and transformation of these institutions. In 2019, the Confederation of British Industry (CBI) estimated that the collapse of the Assembly at that time had cost Northern Ireland almost £1 billion. The DUP's response was to collapse it again a few years later. We need stability to underpin our society, our economy and the long-term reform of our public services that is so desperately needed.

I will not support the DUP motion, which is a crass attempt at a culture war, but I will support the Sinn Féin amendment, which is a much more genuine attempt to start to deal with some of the issues.

Mr Burrows: It seems to me that this is a giant exercise of the pot calling the kettle black because the waste that is caused and role-modelled by this place is the cause of the waste throughout the public sector.

The past 20 years have not been good. The Executive and Assembly have overpromised and under-delivered. I will run through some examples, but, before I do, the Sinn Féin Member talked about welcoming the open-book exercise by the British Treasury. Open book? Special measures are what the Executive are in because of the waste and the continued blame being placed on the Exchequer in the United Kingdom. Of course, we should lobby for more money, but we get more than £18 billion to divide between two million citizens. That is a significant amount of money, but we waste it. One example is £40 million being spent on taxis to schools. Some special educational needs children need support to get to school, but I asked questions about that. The taxi companies very quickly said to the Education Minister, "Take £1 million back". That is how rubbish the contract was. I was in the back of a taxi coming back from Belfast one night. The man recognised me, and he said, "Mr Burrows, we waited for somebody to ask the question. I did not even have to do night work any more. I just worked nine-to-five". They were charging up to £83 a mile, yet we lecture others. It is totally unacceptable. There is also staggering waste elsewhere.

It is the same with procurement. I go to schools all the time, and the same happens throughout the public sector. If you ask how much it costs to paint a wall, the school principal will say that it could be done for £1,000, but they have to pay £4,000 because they have to go through procurement. Big projects would cost £20,000, but they pay £80,000 because they have to go through procurement. A simple trusted trader scheme could be set up, but we waste money because we do not treat it as our own.

There is no role-modelling in here, except from our Health Minister, who achieved unprecedented in-year savings of £300 million by properly stewarding money. I will tell you where that comes from. It comes from a culture of valuing taxpayers' money. When the Health Minister went to Washington, he got on the plane and turned right, like every other taxpayer, and got an economy seat. When we were out there, I stayed with him, and we stayed out of town. One day, I got on a bike, and I rode to Capitol Hill in an Uber, or whatever it is called. We used the cheapest transport that we could get because we treat public money well.

I asked the Minister of Finance, "Who is responsible for the performance management of the head of the Northern Ireland Civil Service?", but he did not know. It seems to me that no one is responsible for the person at the very top who gets paid as much as the Prime Minister. Then, we wonder why there is no accountability throughout the Civil Service. I asked "How many members of the Civil Service — and it is not a dig at the hardworking men and women in the Civil Service — have been classified as underperforming?". Wait for it, for an organisation that has performance issues, it is 20 out of 24,000. It is 0·09%. The rest of them are highly competent, yet the organisation is not. It does not make sense.

We see it again with agency contracts. They are up by 76%. The cost for the past two years has doubled from £65 million to £135 million. This entire place should be put in special measures, yet we bring a motion. It shows that we are bringing a non-binding motion to deal with waste. No matter how we vote tonight, nothing will change. How many people are we keeping here this evening to work in Hansard and to keep the lights running? It is just a waste of money. It is like a sixth-form debating society tonight. Look at the amount of legislation that we pass — virtually none. When we do pass legislation, it is often not very good, as we have seen with the A5 or free hospital car parking. We talk about wasting money, but we are role-modelling the greatest waste of money going. We sit and debate, for days at a time, the use of a word in the Chamber or a Committee while women are getting killed on our streets.

I look at the collective performance of the Executive, the attitude towards public money, the failure to grip performance issues in the Northern Ireland Civil Service and the fact that procurement is lacking any common sense. Then I look at the Health Minister, who was able to find £300 million, and I see that it is leadership that is missing, as well as competence.

I will go back to the nub of the story. When we went to Washington, we flew economy and we used the cheapest way to get into town. That is where you set the example.

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

Mr O'Toole: Listening to this debate this evening, I feel as if I have got into the back of a taxi while the cabbie is already in mid-rant, or I am in a pub and there is a boy on a bar stool saying, "And another thing —". I am sure that we have all had that while doing this job. A lot of Members have got up and ranted about a lot of things that are not entirely focused on what the motion is supposed to be about.

Of course, the motion itself is about a lot of things. It starts off with a commentary on wasteful spending in the public sector. To be clear, there is waste in the public sector. There is a profound need to reform the way the public sector works in Northern Ireland, including the performance and culture of the Northern Ireland Civil Service. That has been a clarion call from the Northern Ireland Audit Office, but it has been clear, not just for years but for decades, that we have significant structural issues in terms of how we deliver public services here and how our Civil Service performs. Those are inextricably linked to all of us in the political class, and particularly, it must be said, to the two big political parties, who are wont, for their own political purposes, to collapse devolution when it suits them.

Before we get into talking about how public servants and civil servants perform, we need to reflect on the ultimate responsibility, which is seeking election and putting yourself forward to authorise spending, which we do. We did that a couple of weeks ago via a Budget Bill and a Vote on Account. We authorise all the spending that is done and we, particularly Executive Ministers, are collectively responsible for the performance of civil servants. When we come in here and rant and blame others we, and particularly those who are in the Executive Office, including the party that moved the motion, need first of all to think particularly about the responsibility that we have to lead and to give direction.

I should say that some of the issues that have been dragged up in this debate thus far, whether it is about the class of aeroplane that Mr Burrows flew on, or his cycling —. That is quite an achievement; I am actually quite impressed by that, although it is slightly bizarre. He talked about the Health Minister flying economy. Some people will be genuinely worried and will have asked why the Health Minister needed to go. I can understand the argument for others, even in a political context, but anyway. Needed to go to Washington DC in multiple years. That is fine, but —.

Mr Gaston: Will the Member give way?

Mr O'Toole: I am happy to give way, yes.

Mr Gaston: I would like some clarity, because I am sitting here confused. Who is the Opposition, and who is in the Executive? It looks like the Opposition has morphed into the Ulster Unionists and the SDLP has taken its position in the Executive, propping them up and encouraging them to spend, spend, spend.

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

Mr O'Toole: I know that both you and Mr Burrows are desperate for my job, but let me tell you: we are the Opposition. If this is your audition, come back next year, lads, because you are not doing it very well.

In relation to what is in the motion, there is a legitimate debate to be had about efficiency in the public sector, but it is little or nothing to do with spending on issues to do with transgender people. That is a bizarre, inappropriate and weird crowbarring in of an issue that is so far from being responsible for wasteful public spending that it just seems absurd. Let me be clear: I care about the rights of trans people to be treated with dignity, but even if I was a hawk looking at every penny of public spending, that is such a trivial rounding error that it is absurd to insert it into this debate.

I want to see a target for efficiency savings. I hope that the Finance Minister will be able to tell us more about that. I also want to see a programme of meaningful Civil Service reform that improves and changes how we do government here. The Finance Committee is going to be looking at that; our inquiry starts in two days' time, when we will take our first evidence on that topic. We also need to incentivise public servants to transform the way in which we do government here. Let us be clear: we do waste money when it comes to the duplication of public services, as the Alliance Party has raised before. I hope that one or both of the amendments is made. We put down an amendment looking at the cost of duplication in public services.

By the way, to come back to Mr Gaston's point, I will come in here and be as robust, ruthless and theatrical as I like, and I do it all the time in opposition. However, constructive and serious opposition is also about being able to offer serious and robust scrutiny, which is what we do in the Chamber and what we will do in the Finance Committee. We will not be supporting the substantive motion, but we will be supporting the Sinn Féin amendment, which is a bit more sensible. However, I also say to the Minister of Finance, whose party moved the amendment, that we need clarity from him. Earlier, his colleague Colm Gildernew mentioned the Minister's great review of arm's-length bodies, which, I think, he said was urgent or key. If it is so key, why has it taken six years? In 'New Decade, New Approach', we agreed to hold a review of arm's-length bodies. In all sorts of ways, we have not had meaningful change. We have had more than half a decade of Sinn Féin Finance Ministers, but we have seen no meaningful step change in fiscal devolution, which was touched on, or in public service transformation.

The other day, the Minister referred to shroud-waving in relation to budgetary matters. Despite some of the slurs that he has thrown at me, I have never said that the UK Government fund this place to perfect need. I have never said that. What I have said is that those of us who want to build a new future on this island should take responsibility and not simply blame the Brits, who, we know, do not really care about us, and not simply blame the DUP, whose Members are at their work again tonight, as they usually are — yes — brazenly talking about wasteful public spending when their party was responsible for the biggest public spending scandal in the history of devolution. I say this to the Finance Minister: take responsibility. Come forward with a plan to improve public services and reform them.

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

Mr O'Toole: Do not simply shift blame to others. We support the amendment.

Miss Dolan: I welcome the opportunity to speak on the motion. At the outset, I highlight the importance of our taking the opportunity now afforded to us by agreeing a multi-year Budget. The Ulster University Economic Policy Centre has referred to single-year Budgets as being a straitjacket that prevents strategic planning. When meeting Departments, whether in a constituency capacity or in Committee meetings, I have been told by officials that it often feels as though they are involved in a sprint when, instead, they should be engaging in a marathon, with long-term strategic planning that would deliver better outcomes. I acknowledge the Minister's work on the development of five-year plans for Departments that aim to improve service provision while targeting resources where they are most needed and will prove most beneficial. I have spoken regularly in the Chamber about our underfunding by the British Government and the impact that that has had on our public services. However, it is also true that reducing public-sector pressures requires transformation and reform of our services, which is simply not possible without providing long-term direction with a Budget allocation over several years.

The motion highlights concerns about the Civil Service workforce but fails to acknowledge the work that is being undertaken through the people strategy 2025-2030, which seeks to address the challenges that the Civil Service faces. The strategy aims to move the Civil Service from reactive staffing to planned, data-driven workforce management, with stronger governance, shorter end-to-end process times and a single, reliable dataset for roles, skills and costs. Digital transformation will also enable the use of new, integrated HR and finance IT to streamline processes, improve workforce data and evidence value for money.

As elected representatives, we are responsible for delivering the best public services that we can with the limited financial resources available to us, and there is an onus on all Ministers to do that. However, implementing cuts across the public sector in staff or in estates, which the DUP seems to suggest in the motion by referencing the 20% reduction in Scotland, would only harm our public services. Protecting front-line services requires efficiency, and that can best be served through the ongoing work on longer-term planning by having a multi-year Budget and through initiatives in the Departments' five-year plans. It is also vital that, when talking about our Civil Service, we acknowledge the hard work that is being done to deliver front-line services while we recognise that improvements are required. The implementation of the people strategy over the next five years is needed to improve capacity and ensure that it has the capability, culture and leadership to deliver high-quality public services, adapt to changing needs and respond effectively to future challenges.

Mr Harvey: Households the length and breadth of Northern Ireland are increasingly looking at their own finances in light of the global context and the ongoing cost-of-living crisis. Against such a backdrop, it is all the more important that this place not only recognises the need to drive efficiency and tackle wasteful spending but moves to do something about it. In speaking to the issue, I will home in on what is, for me, the fundamental in the motion: Civil Service and wider public-sector spend. That is where, I believe, the greatest impact can be made and where the Finance Minister has sufficient vires to make a positive impact. The present situation is unsustainable, and recent efforts towards reform have, thus far, been paltry in effecting meaningful change.

As expenditure on the front-line delivery of health and education continues to grow exponentially, now is the time to tackle duplication, bureaucracy for bureaucracy's sake and general inefficiency across the sector and in its administrative functions in particular. Numerous reports by the Audit Office and others have identified a myriad of issues and listed many recommendations on the subject of Civil Service reform. The actions required could be broadly characterised as being in two principal areas: the need for evidence-led workforce management in the first instance and the robust performance management of that workforce in the second.

Ms K Armstrong: Will the Member give way?

Mr Harvey: I certainly will.

Ms K Armstrong: Thank you very much to Mr Harvey, my Strangford compadre. I agree with Mr Burrows about contracting issues. A number of years ago, we had the red-tape challenge, which was that we decentralise a lot of work to other providers. Does the Member agree that, even if we were able to crack the issue of contracting, centralisation in the Civil Service world may not be working and is costing a fortune and we should consider outsourcing — not privatising but outsourcing — to the community and voluntary sector and to our SMEs across Northern Ireland?

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

Mr Harvey: I thank the Member for her comments. I appreciate her making them in an intervention.

There is considerable evidence underpinning the Audit Office concerns that current workforce management is not sufficiently underpinned by evidence. The Comptroller and Auditor General noted recently that, in the absence of a robust, data-driven workforce plan that aligned business priorities with required roles, skills and existing talent, the Civil Service could not reliably identify genuine skill surpluses or deficits across the organisation. If we do not know what we have or what we need, it is little wonder that the Civil Service requires transformation.

Take the issue of reliance on agency work. The number of agency workers operating across the Civil Service doubled between 2019 and 2025. With no workforce plan, there is no framework to determine whether the rising demand for agency workers reflects a genuine requirement. In a similar vein, the lack of performance management is astounding. The Civil Service does not routinely collect data on the underperformance of staff, and workforce productivity is not formally measured. Obviously, that totally negates any ability to assess performance in order to identify concerns or to incentivise and acknowledge good performance at an individual or collective level.

It is evident that there is much low-hanging fruit ripe for the Finance Minister's picking when it comes to efficiency and waste across the Civil Service alone, not to mention other areas of the public sector, with addressing the lack of performance monitoring a logical first step. We can all call for efficiency. It is incumbent on us all to put feet to our words and action to our statements, and I trust that, in the time to come, we shall see action flowing from the motion.

Mr Dickson: My colleague Eóin Tennyson and, indeed, others in the Chamber have outlined their view that, while much of the motion's text is common sense, fine words are one thing, but actions are another.

The motion would, perhaps, have been better directed at the Executive Office — of which Committee I am a member — in which, of course, the proposer's party has two Ministers and numerous special advisers. Unfortunately, the record of efficiency there is extremely weak: a full 23 years on from the first election in which the DUP qualified for a ministerial role in the Executive Office or, as it was then called, the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister (OFMDFM) there is no evidence of improvement.

An obvious issue emerges when we look at the motion. Let us look at the Strategic Investment Board (SIB), which was set up in the first Assembly mandate precisely to provide expert guidance on strategy and investment. Its very coming into existence as a small but expert organisation was designed to ensure that the catalogue of blunders that we had seen in capital projects, as outlined by the Audit Office, would not occur. Bizarrely, however, the SIB has morphed into something quite different, and it rarely has much to do with strategy or investment. Indeed, the SIB seems to have a role in transformation. That is certainly prominent on its website. If capital projects have failed and transformation has stalled, as the motion clearly implies, what does it say about SIB? To be clear, I do not mean to be critical of the people carrying out their roles; I mean to point to the obvious systemic failure arising from fairly blatant mission creep.

The motion goes on to focus on the Civil Service. However, once again, it was a DUP First Minister who insisted that the Executive Office Ministers appoint the head of the Civil Service. The supporters of the motion should know that the Civil Service is structured to consist primarily of generalists and, therefore, necessarily has to engage outside expertise on specific issues. If they wish to change that, they need to take that up with the head of the Civil Service, whom their party had a role in appointing. On the units in the Executive Office that purport to bring effective delivery across all Departments, it was, again, a DUP First Minister who presided over the separation between the head of the Civil Service and the permanent secretary of the Executive Office. That has added to costs but reduced accountability. Let us look at Maze/Long Kesh as a prime example. Prime development land is being held to ransom by the actions of successive DUP First Ministers and deputy First Ministers and their failure to deliver solutions. Problem-solving, not problem-making, should be the mantra of the Executive and of the First Minister and deputy First Minister. Problem-solving should be at the heart of efficient government.

The supporters of the motion want to engage in 20% cuts, but, inevitably, that will mean cutting jobs. They should be clear about exactly who will be cut in that eventuality. In the meantime, my colleagues and I would much rather use the personnel whom we have more effectively and efficiently, with the goal of delivering for the public and making their lives better. After all, that is why we are here. It is certainly why I am here: to deliver for my constituents and make their lives better. Frankly, that means an end to the politics of blockage and a shift to the politics of progress.

Mr Gaston: I have certainly enjoyed the Executive parties cutting the tripe out of one another. It is going to be a long year, and, my goodness, it looks as though it will be enjoyable, with plenty of hurty words exchanged throughout the proceedings.

I will concentrate on one aspect of the motion to start with. The motion:

The wokery that has captured this place is a matter of deep concern to many members of the public. I think about the Civil Service inclusive language guide. On page 16, civil servants are advised that, instead of using words such as "Mum" or "Dad", they should use "Parents", "Adult" or "Caregiver". Think of it: Parents' Day? Adults' Day? Caregivers' Day? Are those the depths that this place has sunk to, where civil servants should not talk about "husband", "wife", "boyfriend" or "girlfriend" but, instead, "partner" or "spouse"? While the document was produced on the watch of a Sinn Féin Finance Minister, how did it get past the Executive on the watch of the DUP and Ulster Unionists?

A number of months ago, I asked officials working with the First Minister and deputy First Minister on ending violence against women and girls to list the genders to which money from that scheme goes. They told me that it was awarded to groups including men, women and other. Oh? When I pressed them on what that meant, they could not give me a definition. Likewise, a couple of weeks ago at the Committee, when we were talking about the feedback forms from events that have taken place in the community, they told me that the data was captured from men, women, neither — there is a new one — and people who prefer not to say.

Thankfully, my colleague on Belfast City Council, Councillor Ron McDowell, had more success in getting clarity on some of the issues, and he established that some of the groups receiving funding under that flagship scheme include in their number trans women. Put more clearly, money for ending violence against women and girls is going to men who want access to female toilets. Money is going to groups that include men who are pretending to be women. Let that sink in. Female-only spaces exist for a reason, and granting men access to female-only spaces is certainly not a step towards equality. That is being supported, however, and not just by the Sinn Féin side of the Executive Office. Remember that TEO is jointly headed by a DUP deputy First Minister. While I welcome the motion before the House, I would extend it a warmer welcome if its logic were being followed by Emma Little-Pengelly's office. I also add that, during the winding-up speech, the DUP should outline the steps that it is taking to ensure that the Assembly Commission stops the trans invaders from being able to use whatever toilet they want to in this Building.

For far too long, a blind eye has been turned to how taxpayers' money is spent. For far too long, Members in here have taken for granted the people out there. It is good to see the spotlight being shone on the issues. Think about the waste in hospitality, travel and procurement. Think about the amount of "North/Southery". We have bodies that produce nothing for the people of Northern Ireland. Think about the bloated Civil Service, and I do not leave councils out of that. There is plenty of money for back-room officials and office workers yet limited money for foot soldiers to deliver on the ground, which is what people see.

I welcome the motion. I trust that it is only the start of the energy that we will see now that MLAs have successfully got their £14,000. If we want to talk about waste in government or in the public sector, let us talk about how Members have just awarded themselves £14,200 each. The Assembly should be the last place to lecture anybody out there.

Ms Sugden: It is difficult to oppose in principle a motion on government inefficiency. There is inefficiency in how we operate, and that needs to be addressed. We duplicate, delay and, too often, revisit the same issues without ever properly resolving them. The Audit Office has highlighted real problems from workforce planning to the delivery of major projects, and those problems affect not just public finances but public confidence. What is particularly frustrating is that much of this is not new. We have had such conversations many times. We have had reports, recommendations and strategies over a number of years that point to the same issues, yet progress has been slow and, in some cases, very limited.

If we are serious about tackling inefficiency, we have to be honest about why it exists here. In Northern Ireland, inefficiency is not just technical but systemic. We have prolonged periods without a functioning Executive. With the Government down for years at a time, momentum is lost, decisions are delayed and reform is stalled. When things restart, we often do not move forward but instead pick up from where we left off or, worse, start again. That leads to drift, and that drift is our inefficiency. We also see it in how we plan or, more accurately, in how we fail to follow through on our plans. We talk about strategy. We produce action plans, but, too often, delivery does not follow. Only last week, I brought a motion to the House on a women's health strategy. There was talk of an action plan, yet we have waited two years only to see nothing happen.

There is not a lack of planning but a lack of delivery. We see the same pattern in workforce planning. The pressure on GP services, for example, is not simply about demand; it also reflects a failure to plan for that demand. We know that our population is an ageing one and that need is increasing, yet we have not matched need with the workforce required to satisfy it. The result is that people cannot access care when they need it. Pressure builds across the system, and the cost to services and individuals increases. That is inefficiency. Inefficiency is not confined to one service; it is a pattern. If we do not plan ahead, invest early and act on the strategies that we regularly produce, we will continue to spend more while delivering less. That is the deeper issue that the debate needs to address.

There is a legitimate conversation to be had about structures. We should challenge duplication and question whether bodies deliver value, but it cannot simply be about reducing numbers. The existence of an arm's-length body should be determined by need and by the value that it delivers. In some cases, that might mean reform; in others, it might mean recognising gaps. For example, there is a strong case to have a commissioner focused on women, not for the sake of creating another structure but because we do not adequately address issues that disproportionately affect women, whether in respect of health, safety or opportunity. That is about need and outcomes.

We have to be honest about how we treat the structures that we already have. There are organisations and statutory bodies that exist to provide expertise, oversight and advice, yet their work is too often not acted on. If we establish bodies but fail to listen to them — and we do; we fail to engage with them — or to act on their recommendations, of course they will be seen as inefficient. The issue in such cases is not those bodies' existence but our response, as elected representatives, to them.

Yes, we should tackle waste and improve efficiency, but, if we focus on structures or reducing spend in isolation, we will miss our bigger problem. Efficiency is not just about spending less; it is about doing things properly in the first place. It is about planning ahead, following through on decisions and aligning our services with the needs that we know are coming. If we do not do those things, we will continue as we are: drifting, reacting and spending more money without delivering the outcomes that people expect and elect us to deliver. That, more than anywhere else, is where the real inefficiency lies.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): I call the Minister of Finance to respond. Minister, you have 15 minutes.

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

The topic of the motion is wide-ranging. Nonetheless, I welcome the opportunity to engage in the debate. If we are to make real progress, our discussion must be grounded in facts, not headlines, and in practical, working solutions from across the Executive. Those who tabled the motion have again mistakenly given me, as Finance Minister, additional powers. As I have said before, I suspect that some of their party colleagues in the Executive would not be keen on me being given extra powers.

Let me be absolutely clear from the outset: I fully support the objective of delivering a more efficient and genuinely transformative public sector that is focused on saving, getting better value for money and, ultimately, delivering better outcomes for our citizens. However, that is the collective responsibility of the Executive and needs the agreement of every Minister. If responsibility for transformation is left to one Minister, Department or permanent secretary, the opportunities that it offers will not be realised. Transformation will need to be embraced by every Minister, working with the Civil Service, if we are to deliver the changes that, we agree, are necessary.

We should acknowledge, however, that civil servants undertake their jobs in increasingly challenging circumstances. While it is easy for some to criticise and lay blame, most Members, I believe, would want to join me in putting on record our recognition and appreciation of their work, which they do alongside us every day of the week. While some engage in simplistic sound bites, we should always remember that the people who deliver our public services are our greatest asset. The evidence from the World Economic Forum and the OECD, for example, is clear: organisations with inclusive practices and workforces outperform their peers in innovation, decision-making and employee engagement; and societies that promote equality, respect, inclusivity and protections for minorities have better socio-economic outcomes. If those in the Chamber who constantly attack minorities — they should not do so at all — want to ease themselves in some way, they should think of that: societies with protections for minorities have better socio-economic outcomes. Those principles are good for individuals and society.

I note that the motion highlights the Scottish Government's commitment to reducing operating costs by 20% by 2030. Over the five years to January 2025, the Scottish Government's staff headcount increased by close to 40%. In the same period, our Civil Service grew by a little over 7%. That contrast matters —

Mr O'Toole: Will the Minister give way?

Mr O'Dowd: — and we are not comparing like with like.

I will, yes.

Mr O'Toole: This is a genuine rather than a strictly political question. The Fiscal Council document on the multi-year Budget that came out a few weeks ago had some interesting comparisons. I think that I am right in saying that it says that our Civil Service employment is about 180% of that across the water. Does the Minister have a view on that? I note that we have a higher level of need and greater rurality, but does the Minister think that the sheer scale should be looked at? I am genuinely interested in the answer to that.

Mr O'Dowd: The Fiscal Council goes on to elaborate on rurality and state that a lot of services in England are privatised. We have resisted privatisation. When people compare like with like, they need to take a deep dive into the figures and look at exactly why the differences are there. I am comparing with the Scottish figures here. Those who want to start off with the Scottish example need to understand that the Scottish Government's workforce increased by 40%, whereas ours increased by 7%. All those things require a deeper dive to be taken.

I have answered questions for written answer on agency workers, and I have said this figure in the Chamber on multiple occasions, so the figure is out there, and people know it. People keep throwing up the figure of 4,939 agency staff, saying that there has been a dramatic increase over the past number of years. In doing that, they fail to mention the fact that 2,539 of those staff are employed directly by the Department for Work and Pensions in Britain, not by us. The funding for those staff members does not come out of the block grant. There is no cost to our public service: it is like a major multinational coming in and giving us jobs. Despite that, for their own reasons or using their own rationale, people keep using that figure, as if the Civil Service — or I, or somebody else — has done something wrong. Of those 4,939 staff, 2,539 are employed by the Department for Work and Pensions. Please factor that in when you quote that figure.

Mr Burrows: Will the Minister give way?

Mr O'Dowd: I will in one second; I just want to finish this point.

I ask the sponsors of the motion what they would do to mirror a 20% reduction in Scotland. To achieve a cut of that scale purely through staff costs would equate to 5,000 people in the Civil Service alone; across the wider public sector, it would be close to 47,000 job losses.

Go ahead.

Mr Burrows: Whenever questions for written answer are put to your Department, Minister, that is the response that we get back. No context is provided, and no explanation is given: we get just a direct, blunt answer. We do not know what we do not know, because we are not told.

Mr O'Dowd: No, no, no. I suggest that the Member goes back and reads the responses to his questions for written answer. I am the one who signs off on them, and I can assure him that those figures are included in the responses.

Based on a figure of 20%, the sponsors of the motion are proposing up to 47,000 job losses. They may be comfortable with that. Their former leader was comfortable with 40,000 job losses resulting from Brexit, and they may be comfortable with 47,000 job losses, but that is for them to defend. Do they suggest that we make redundancies on that scale across the public sector, removing jobs from our local communities at a time when demand for services, particularly front-line services in health and education, continues to grow?

Perhaps the Members opposite are suggesting that an alternative would be to pursue sweeping reductions in estate costs, meaning the closure of regional offices and public amenities and the limiting of local access to public services, with a disproportionate impact on rural communities. It is easy to talk, but it is much harder to deliver the painful cuts that the motion would require, or, indeed, for those Members to face their constituents, whose access to essential public services would be limited by those cuts. I would welcome clarification from the Members opposite on what practical actions they propose.

Let us turn to what we can do and to what is, in many cases, already being done. Ministers do not need a motion like this, or targets from me, to drive efficiencies in their Departments. It is their job to manage their Departments, including their finances.

On finances, I have argued consistently that the policies of previous British Governments and the current British Government have created this situation. They have consistently cut finances to public services in real terms. I have made the case and will continue to make the case for more funding for our public services. That may upset some in the Chamber and some in the media, but I will continue to do it. Let me be very clear: the best chance of successfully getting proper funding from the Government lies with everyone in the Executive and the Assembly working together to consistently send that message to the British Government. Sound bites, point-scoring and calling the Executive to bail out British Government-funded programmes does not cut it. Members have a choice between continuing to shadow-box and role-play and getting down to the real work of making politics work for all our people, giving leadership and hope in what is, at present, a very worrying world.

The work of managing Departments and driving effective, efficient government should be happening as a matter of course in Departments. If the Ministers in the party that tabled the motion support the scale of cuts suggested by their party members, I expect that they have taken steps to control spend and workforce numbers in their respective Departments. Perhaps the sponsors of the motion can spell out how that has been done. The reality is that the scale of bids that my Department received in the recent Budget process indicated that Departments wanted more money, not less, and more staff, not less. Indeed, when we look at the Education Authority, for example, whose workforce is more than double that of the Civil Service, we see an 18% increase in full-time equivalent staff over the five years to April 2025. That is an extra 8,900 people who have been employed in the last five years, which is a growth rate far above that of pupil numbers.

I am fully committed to Civil Service workforce renewal. In that regard, the people strategy 2025-2030 is my Department's key programme. Launched in April 2025, it focuses on three priorities: skills and capacity, experience and environment, and leadership and inclusion. The strategy will deliver clearer roles and career paths, faster targeted recruitment, stronger workforce planning, more consistent people management, better employee experience and well-being, and stronger leadership and inclusion, including rights for all employees based on our equality legislation. All those will, I believe, lead to better outcomes for public service delivery.

The multi-year Budget is an opportunity to provide the certainty needed by Departments for long-term planning and to create the conditions to drive transformational change. At its core, transformation is about changing how we work so that our services become more effective, more resilient and more sustainable. That means designing services around citizens, not organisational structures; cutting duplication and unnecessary complexity; planning our workforce better so that skills are used where they add the most value; using data wisely to guide decisions and support early action; focusing on prevention, not just managing demand; and making sure that every pound we spend delivers the greatest possible impact. That kind of reform is not optional. With pressures continuing to grow, doing more of the same is simply not an option.

The Executive recognise the need for transformational change across many of our public services and the need to fund that transformation. That is why I am seeking Executive approval to earmark a further £135 million in the multi-year Budget to continue driving forward the transformation of our public services and build a system that truly works. Delivering our Programme for Government priorities will require the Executive collectively, and individual Ministers, to take challenging decisions to prioritise the available funding in order to deliver the desired outcomes.

One key strand of my Department's transformative budget sustainability work is the development of five-year departmental plans to set out each Department's strategic direction over the medium term, outline the cost involved and identify efficiencies and other opportunities to reduce spending. My officials have provided and continue to provide support and guidance to all Departments as they seek to put in place their five-year plans. Departments are being encouraged to identify and set out clear proposals for efficiencies and transformation initiatives that can be taken forward over the five-year project, with the aim of driving down costs, improving service delivery and ensuring that resources are targeted where they are most needed. The implementation of mandatory targets, as proposed in today's motion, will not, however, necessarily deliver any additional efficiencies beyond those that are already being delivered or have been identified for delivery. In addition, it would potentially introduce a further layer of bureaucracy.

I note the concerns raised by the Audit Office and the Public Accounts Committee on cost overruns and delays in major capital projects here. Those issues are not unique to public-sector projects. We see examples of major projects across these islands that have been disrupted due to inflationary pressures, legal action, planning issues and other factors outside the direct control of the relevant Department or arm's-length body. Having said that, I believe that we have become too risk-averse and spend too much time on processes and bureaucracy rather than focusing on delivery. For example, many reports have outlined that we spend too much time developing a business case and submitting it to multiple layers of checking, which is not improving decision-making.

I am committed to driving efficiency and tackling unnecessary bureaucracy. I have already simplified procurement processes and reduced red tape and low-value procurement in grant funding. On the example that Mr Burrows used, I have changed the procurement process for schools. My concern is that that information has not been filtered down to schools. There is an urgency for the Department and the EA to ensure that schools are aware of the new procurement process, because it removes bureaucracy and has the potential to save schools significant amounts of money.

The motion raises concerns about the levels of spending by Departments on arm's-length bodies. Scrutiny in that space is not optional. It is essential, as ALBs represent 74% of our total resource budget and employ the majority of our public-sector workers. I encourage Ministers, where they have powers, to ensure that their arm's-length bodies are being run effectively and efficiently. Our arm's-length bodies spend the vast majority of our public funding, so they require careful scrutiny.

Efficiency is essential to protecting front-line services and ensuring that public money is directed to areas that matter most. Real and lasting reform will be achieved only if we embrace it together with a shared purpose and shared accountability to drive meaningful change.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Thank you, Minister, for your response. I call Pat Sheehan to make a winding-up speech on the amendment. You have up to five minutes.

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

Before I get into the main body of my contribution, I have to say that I was astounded that Timothy Gaston was able to speak for almost five minutes on his most unhealthy of obsessions: who goes into the women's toilets. The one thing that we should be thankful for is that it is no longer a case of, "No popery here": it is now "No wokery here". Good man, Timothy.

I almost choked on my cornflakes this morning when I read the motion. I genuinely had to read it twice, because I could not believe that the DUP — the party of RHI — was standing up to lecture anyone on waste and inefficiency. It is the party of the "Fill your boots" mentality and the party of economic and financial illiteracy. The successive Education Ministers from that party have made an art form of waste and inefficiency. Let me be clear: when the Minister of Education blows his budget, he does not pay the price. Do you know who Paul Givan wants to pick up the tab? He and the DUP want our rural schools to pick up the tab; they want children with special educational needs to pay the price; and they want to threaten the future of our classroom assistants to balance the books. Against that backdrop, what is the Minister proposing? At a time when the independent review of education has called for simplification and a move towards a single management authority, he wants to go in the opposite direction: more duplication; another management body; another layer of bureaucracy. How many more millions of pounds is that going to cost?

Mr Martin: I thank the Member for giving way. Will the Member acknowledge that the independent review of education also called for more support for controlled schools in Northern Ireland?

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

Mr Sheehan: A dedicated unit has been set up in the EA. Of course, the Minister's ideological crusades are more important than efficiency when it comes to the public purse. Then we are asked to listen to lectures about value for money.

I will give another small example of the DUP's cavalier attitude to public finance. The Education Committee is bringing forward a Bill that would give every pupil the right to wear trousers to school. The DUP has said that it is not going to oppose the passage of that Bill. Drafters do not come cheap. It costs thousands of pounds to draft a piece of legislation. With the stroke of a pen, the Minister could issue a statutory guideline to all schools to ensure that every pupil had the right to wear trousers, but the DUP is not interested in money that might be saved.

Look at the DUP's record, particularly in Education, where it has been in charge for a decade. The Audit Office found that, despite hundreds of millions being spent on SEN provision, neither the Department nor the Education Authority could demonstrate value for money.

Hundreds of millions have been spent, and there is no evidence of the DUP delivering. At the same time, we see hundreds of thousands of pounds spent on a phone pouch gimmick. The Minister was at pains earlier today to tell others that there is an "off" switch on their phone, but he is happy to spend £250,000 on a pet project. Millions have been poured into a regressive and harmful reform agenda that was lifted straight from a failed experiment in England.

Lucy Crehan, who carried out the Minister's curriculum review, was at the Committee last week. She was asked whether academic selection distorts and skews the curriculum in primary schools. Her answer was yes, yet she was not given a remit to look at the curriculum in primary schools. Again, it is about the Minister's ideological crusades. He is not really interested in the public purse or proper reform.

We have school buildings with roofs at risk of collapse and classrooms that are not fit for purpose, and we are told that there is no way to prioritise fixing them. Somehow, however, there is money for a state-of-the-art pitch at a school that is already awash with sporting facilities. Let us not forget that, as Mr Burrows mentioned, taxi operators were being given £83 a mile to bring kids to school, and, according to the EA, at least 30 taxi drivers are being paid over £1,000 a week out of the education budget. How can anyone take the motion seriously?

Our amendment brings the motion back to reality. It supports the need for efficiency but focuses on doing it properly —

Mr Gaston: No wokery, Pat. No wokery.

Mr Sheehan: — by reducing reliance on agency staff, strengthening internal recruitment and ensuring that reform is thoughtful, not reckless. Most important, it recognises this simple truth: if you are serious about tackling waste, you do not create more duplication and do not add more bureaucracy.

You do not have any wokery here, Timothy. Good man.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): I call Brian Kingston to make a winding-up speech on the motion. You have up to 10 minutes.

Mr Kingston: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker.

Whilst plenty of Members have tried to distract with party political attacks during the debate, there is, perhaps, to put a positive spin on things, some agreement on the need to prioritise efficiency savings. I remind Sinn Féin Members that their Minister John O'Dowd said that he was in listening mode and wanted to hear proposals and hear people pushing to make savings. The DUP will champion the need to make savings from the public purse so that we can deliver front-line services that matter to people, not have money spent on pet projects and ideologically driven projects.

I thank those who contributed to the debate.

A Member: Will the Member give way?

Mr Kingston: No, let me make some headway.

I thank those who have contributed to a debate that Diane Forsythe, Harry Harvey and I brought as DUP members of the Finance Committee. We want every pound spent on public services in Northern Ireland to be well spent, and we will continue to challenge where that is not the case. At the same time, I hope that all of us will campaign for a block grant settlement from His Majesty's Treasury in Whitehall that is larger than the £19 billion that we receive annually. We must also examine our own finances and see where we can make savings.

We have referenced the Northern Ireland Audit Office report, 'Leading and Resourcing the Northern Ireland Civil Service', which was published in January. That report sets out a range of serious concerns. We have addressed our motion to the Finance Minister, and his Department has to take the lead in getting a grip on the issues that were identified: weak workforce planning; a growing over-reliance on temporary and agency staff; rising costs; and a lack of strategic clarity about what skills are needed to deliver public services effectively. As others have said, there is no point in having such reports if we do not take action to follow up on them.

The report shows that, as of April 2025, almost 5,000 agency workers were employed across the Northern Ireland Civil Service. I will return to the Minister's comment about that. That figure is more than double that in 2019, at a cost over five years exceeding half a billion pounds. Posts that come at a higher cost to the public purse through paying an agency to employ people do not represent best value for money. That cannot continue.

A Member: Will the Member give way?

Mr Kingston: No. Let me make some progress.

A culture of efficiency must be led from the top. That is why we have called on the Minister of Finance to take the lead. I point out to him that our motion speaks of the need:

The word "agree" is important. Collaboration on the Executive will be needed, but the Department of Finance is the Department that holds the purse strings, so it must take the lead on the matter.

If Members around the Chamber were asked to name all the arm's-length bodies in Northern Ireland, I wonder how many we would be able to name and what total we would get to. At the Finance Committee, we recently received a report telling us that there are 140 arm's-length bodies across the nine Departments. I do not think that we would have got to that number. In various Bills that are brought to the Assembly, we see proposals to create more arm's-length bodies with, typically, a million-pound budget for each new commissioner or public body.

Mr O'Toole: Will the Member give way?

Mr Kingston: Let me finish my point. A new public body typically means extra costs for administration, staffing, public relations, human resources, publicity, office and IT costs and so on. We must therefore ask whether all public bodies are really necessary. Could some of them be combined? Could some of their functions be brought in-house by sponsoring Departments? Instead of creating a new one, could some new requests be tagged on to an existing public body ? That is why our motion calls for:

That is not a moratorium, if a strong case can be made, but we should push back against the creation of new public bodies and challenge why some of them cannot be merged or brought in-house.

I will give way briefly to the leader of the Opposition.

Mr O'Toole: I will be brief. I appreciate the Member's giving way. To pick a random example, can the creation of a managing authority for controlled schools be justified?

Mr Kingston: As I said, we have not called for a moratorium; we have asked for the case to be made. That education sector does not have the support that other education sectors receive. Rightly, in the interests of equality, the sector needs a supporting body to champion its case. We stand by that proposal from the Minister of Education.

I will respond to some of the comments that were made. Diane Forsythe pointed out how the deputy leader of the Alliance Party seemed to spend his time attacking the DUP. I wonder whether it is a smokescreen and that, in fact, his party likes to have all the public bodies and to see money going to lots of its pet projects. The Alliance Party likes to see money going to net zero proposals that have damaged our economy and prevented much-needed roads, such as the A4 and A5, being built. The DUP will very much continue to champion efficiency. We will not be put off by the Alliance Party's attempts to distract us from the need for efficiencies and savings to be made in how we deliver for Northern Ireland by turning the debate into a party political matter.

Colm Gildernew and Pat Sheehan from Sinn Féin also decided to turn the debate into a party political matter and attack our party. As I have already mentioned, that party's Finance Minister has called for cooperation on the matter. It is a task for us all and one on which we should all focus. I could talk about the £13 million that was spent on a new state-of-the-art kitchen and cafe at Magilligan prison, but that did not make it on to the Alliance Party's list. Mr Tennyson focused only on DUP Ministers. [Interruption.]

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Order, Members. Order at the back.

Mr Kingston: I come to Members from the Ulster Unionist Party. Again, Jon Burrows came up with a DUP-related list. He did not mention the maternity hospital at the Royal Victoria Hospital, which successive Health Ministers from his party have mismanaged. Its costs have doubled, and it will be at least four years behind date.

Mr Burrows: Will the Member give way?

Mr Kingston: Briefly.

Mr Burrows: The motion uses the phrase "to advance transgender ideology". If that is a reference to the Health Department, I should put it on the public record for my friends in the DUP that the gender services clinic was introduced in 2013 by a DUP Minister.

Mr Kingston: We have stood against puberty blockers being prescribed to children in Northern Ireland.

Mr Brooks: He knows that that is false. He knows that that had nothing to do with the Minister. It is nonsense — nonsense. It is lies.

Mr Kingston: The focus should be on psychological support. That is where it is needed.

Mr Brooks: He is wrong. He is fundamentally wrong.

Mr Kingston: I will give way if another Member who has the detail wishes to respond.

Mr Brooks: The Member who raised the issue knows that the Minister whom he mentioned was not directly involved in that decision. He knows that, and he is spreading mistruth in the Chamber.

Mr Burrows: Will the Member give way?

Mr Kingston: Time is moving on, so —.

Matthew O'Toole made the point that the debate was like getting into a taxi when a taxi driver is mid rant. It is not just taxi drivers who like to rant, in fairness to them; there are plenty in here who do. Jemma Dolan spoke about how multi-year budgets and five-year plans can help with greater financial planning, which is true. Harry Harvey spoke of the need to tackle duplication and bureaucracy for bureaucracy's sake. Timothy Gaston agreed with our concerns about funding being allocated to ideologically driven pet projects, such as trying to change common sense when it comes to how people speak and live their lives. He rightly raised the issue of the toilets in Parliament Buildings, which is a matter for the Assembly Commission that needs to be addressed.

Ms K Armstrong: Will the Member give way?

Mr Kingston: No, my time is running out.

I will finish with the Minister of Finance's remarks. He said that such a drive for efficiency and cutting out waste needs to be applied across the Executive, and he is right. I have already pointed out that our motion:

However, that needs to come from his Department, which should take the lead and be a champion. We in the DUP will be a champion for the people's money. It is taxpayers' money, and it needs to be well spent in Northern Ireland. We need to challenge where it is not being well spent.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Before I put the Question, I want to point something out to Members. The Member who said this knows who they are, and the Member who was on the receiving end will know the same. Normally, comments such as "untruth" and "mistruth" are challenged by the Chair. If the Member who received those comments wants to raise that issue, that is entirely a matter for them.

Mr Brooks: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. If you want me to withdraw that particular word, I am happy to do so. Nevertheless, I feel that things were said that were factually inaccurate.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Thank you. You have put that on the record.

Ms K Armstrong: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. [Interruption.]

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Sorry, will you wait until Members are seated and there is order?

Kellie Armstrong.

Ms K Armstrong: Thank you, Deputy Speaker. We have had a disappointing debate, especially with people who are transgender being used in such an unfortunate way. I ask the Deputy Speaker for a ruling under Standing Order 65, which concerns the approach that is taken in the Chamber. Standing Order 65 refers to "conduct": I remind everyone that one of the "Additional Assembly Principles of Conduct" is:

I feel that the language used in the House today has been appalling and that trans people have been used as scapegoats. I would like the Speaker's Office to make a ruling on whether that principle has been breached in the debate.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): The Member has made reference —.

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

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Hold on. The Member has made an actual point of order. That will be referred to the Speaker's Office, and the advice will be relayed to the Member.

I call Mr Burrows for his point of order.

Mr Burrows: I made a factual point that services were commissioned in 2013. There is correspondence signed by that Minister that shows that they were.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Mr Burrows, if you have an actual point of order, can you relate it —?

Mr Burrows: My point of order is —.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Sorry, you are to take your seat when I am on my feet. [Interruption.]

You are to resume your seat when I am on my feet [Interruption.]

Members, can we have some order?

I want to be clear about how this is conducted. If you have an actual point of order, can you tell me what Standing Order you are referring to? We will not be returning to the debate. If you have a point of order, relate it to a Standing Order.

Mr Burrows: There was nothing untruthful about what I said, Mr Deputy Speaker.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Mr Brooks withdrew that remark.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Order. [Interruption.]

Order, Members.

I have been advised by the party Whips that, in accordance with Standing Order 27(1A)(b), there is [Interruption.]

Could all Members, please, show some respect and maintain some order? There cannot be the possibility that the Members making the noise did not hear the word "Order" a minute or two ago. For absolute clarification, we will start again. I am in no hurry.

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