Official Report: Monday 20 April 2026

Mr Speaker: I have received correspondence from the Minister for the Economy to advise that she is unable to be in the Chamber today. The Minister for Infrastructure will move the relevant items of business on her behalf and will respond to the UUP motion on clean biomethane for Northern Ireland's energy, food and environmental security.

I will make a number of remarks today on issues that I have to deal with. First, in recent weeks, I have had to write to a number of Members about our sub judice rule. Standing Order 73 is clear that:

That rule exists to minimise the risk of prejudice to active proceedings arising from statements in the Chamber. It also ensures that the Assembly and its Members respect the distinct role of the courts in the constitutional settlement. Members will be used to guidance being given from the Chair at the start of a debate if a motion involves any active legal proceedings.

Should a Member wish to refer to a matter that is subject to active proceedings, they must inform the Speaker's Office in advance so that we can consider the extent to which that would be permissible. That is particularly important for Members' statements, but it applies to any intended reference. Advance notice allows the Speaker's Office to take a decision based on legal advice as to the extent that Members can make reference to a specific case without there being a significant risk of prejudice to the proceedings. I therefore remind Members that, if they intend to make reference to current legal proceedings, they should engage with the Business Office, which will consult legal colleagues and advise me accordingly. That will allow me to issue any guidance to Members, if necessary, in order to keep Members right and, most of all, avoid any interference with the role of the courts.

Secondly, I informed Members in February that I was engaging with officials and reflecting on a range of issues that arose from the last mandate to consider how Members can be given additional support to strengthen the legislative culture in the Assembly. I intend to communicate with Members in more detail in the coming weeks, but I am mindful that we have had some amending stages in recent sittings and will have in future sittings. I have made it clear to Members on a number of occasions that we have to learn lessons from the last mandate and manage things differently in this one, particularly in the context of the Mediahuis ruling and the Hospital Parking Charges Act (Northern Ireland) 2024. I am therefore ensuring that I take time to reflect seriously on my decisions in relation to legislation to do what I can within my remit to avoid subsequent issues.

Members will have entirely legitimate political objectives that they wish to pursue, but Members also need to carefully consider whether, how and when they are best addressed in legislation, including when tabling amendments. Our Standing Orders are clear that amendments have to be relevant to the Bill under discussion. That serves the aim of ensuring an orderly and coherent statute book and is an important part of the Speaker’s role. However, there is also a broader onus on Members to recognise that significant risks may arise if amendments seek to introduce complex new areas of law to any Bill at the amending stages, particularly when Committee scrutiny has already ended. At Consideration Stage and particularly at Further Consideration Stage, there are limited opportunities to return to tidy up and address any flaws in amendments that the Assembly has made. Therefore, Members have a significant responsibility to legislate with care and to get it right. That includes reflecting on the appropriate use of primary and secondary legislation. As I say, I intend to return to the matter in detail in future weeks, but I ask Members to reflect as much on how they legislate to achieve a political objective as on the objective itself.

Finally, I regret that I need to return to the issue of challenges to the authority of the Chair. There was an exchange last week between Deputy Speaker Aiken and David Honeyford. Sian Mulholland asked that I review it, but I would have had to return to it in any event.

One of the matters that the Deputy Speakers and I have to judge is whether Members are addressing the matter at hand. The scope of the debate is determined by the thrust of a motion. In this case, it was climate change. If Members address the central themes of a motion, the Chair will normally give some latitude. However, it is not a matter of Members seizing on one or two words in a motion to focus their contribution on other topics. In this instance, Deputy Speaker Aiken had, only moments before, given a Member guidance on the scope of the debate. Yet, despite that, within the first minute of Mr Honeyford’s contribution, he went beyond the ruling that had just been made.

The Deputy Speakers and I often reflect on our decisions. However, Standing Orders are clear that the rulings of the Chair are final and it is out of order for Members to challenge them. Once the Chair has made a ruling, whether Members like it or not, there is no debate to be had. Members should acknowledge that and simply adjust the focus of their remarks.

Deputy Speaker Aiken then dealt with the issue in a way that was fully in line with our procedures. He indicated that, if Mr Honeyford wished to continue speaking, he should focus his remarks as he had already been directed but that, if he had other views on that, he should not continue to speak. When he indicated that he would not, Deputy Speaker Aiken called the next Member. Mr Honeyford strongly and directly challenged the ruling of the Chair a number of times and stated that he was not here:

That was an unacceptable challenge to the authority of the Chair, clearly in contravention of the Standing Orders. His reference to having been elected from Lagan Valley does not change the Standing Orders for the Member for Lagan Valley: the Standing Orders apply to every Member of the Chamber. It is of concern that Mr Honeyford then posted the exchange on social media and, in comments, sought to make party politics out of the incident.

I have been clear previously that upholding the authority and indeed the impartiality of the Chair is an issue not only for the Deputy Speakers and me but for all Members. When the Deputy Speakers and I rule on scope, it is not about preventing Members from expressing their views; it is about ensuring that any debate remains focused on the topic of the motion. There will always be other opportunities for Members to express views that fall outside the scope of a particular debate on a particular day. In fact, the previous day, I had selected a Matter of the Day deliberately to allow Members to discuss the cost of living and rising energy prices, something on which Mr Honeyford took the opportunity to speak on behalf of his constituents, which was his right. The Deputy Speakers and I may at different times reach different judgements about scope, depending on the circumstances. However, it is essential to the business in the Chamber and the Chamber's good order that I uphold the authority of the Chair, regardless of whether it is me, the Principal Deputy Speaker or the other Deputy Speakers making those judgements.

There is a very clear precedent for how I have dealt with such matters in relation to a number of other Members. I am therefore very happy to give Mr Honeyford the opportunity to apologise to the House, and we can move on. If such an apology is not forthcoming, I will rule that Mr Honeyford will not be called to speak in the House today. I will leave Mr Honeyford to reflect on that, but I want to make it clear to all Members that the authority of the Chair is final.

Mr O'Toole: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. While not challenging the judgement of the Chair, I wish to ask under Standing Orders for guidance on why two specific amendments were not selected for debate on the Administrative and Financial Provisions Bill, which was drafted with a very wide scope. We submitted a number of amendments as the Opposition, but two were particularly critical and have wide consensus. One is on the creation of an independent environmental protection agency (EPA), and the other is on a provision for minimum unit pricing in Northern Ireland. Both have significant degrees of political consensus; indeed, there is a degree of urgency with both, particularly the EPA. Therefore, with respect to the Chair and while not challenging the judgement, it goes back to some of what you were saying earlier. It would be helpful if the Chair and the Speaker's Office, at some point, could offer more guidance on this. There will be real concern in the public about our inability in the Assembly to make those vital changes to deliver environmental protection. Thank you.

Mr Speaker: I respectfully advise the Member to consult the Bill Office, and the staff there will help him with amendments if he needs assistance. The amendments were clearly out of scope. I will say this only once because I do not get into how recommendations are made to me in the Speaker's Office. However, I will do it on this occasion. It was very clear that the amendments were out of scope, so there is nothing political about this. It was clearly a Member seeking to include something that was entirely inappropriate for the legislation ahead. I encourage the Member to engage with the Bill Office, which will give him the appropriate assistance if he looks to table amendments to legislation in the future.

Mr Honeyford: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I respect the ruling that you have given, and I apologise. I want to move forward. Thank you.

Mr Speaker: Thank you very much, Mr Honeyford.

Mr Carroll, were you —

Mr Carroll: No.

Mr Speaker: OK.

Mr Speaker: Kate Nicholl has been given leave to make a statement on potential job losses at the University of Ulster that fulfils the criteria set out in Standing Order 24. Members will be aware that urgent and important issues that fall within the remit of an Executive Minister are normally dealt with in the form of a question for urgent oral answer, and that is what I would have chosen to do. However, as the Minister for the Economy is unavailable today, I have selected this as a Matter of the Day, as I thought that it was an important matter that Members from a number of parties had asked to raise in both formats.

I call Ms Nicholl, and all other Members who are called to speak with have three minutes.

Ms Nicholl: Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. I appreciate your selection of this important matter.

On Wednesday, the announcement of the loss of 450 jobs at Ulster University came as an enormous shock, and, in the days that have since passed, I have been contacted by many people. That is where I want to start with my statement: with the people who are impacted on. They are people who are worried about their jobs, their mortgages and what the future holds. During a cost-of-living crisis, when people are already struggling, the prospect of not having employment has come as a huge concern. What they say to me is not just about their jobs and their worry for their future; they are worried about the workload for the staff who may still have their jobs. They are worried about the impact that this will have on the student experience, on the skills pipeline and on our economy. The ramifications are enormous.

In Ulster University's statement, it said that it will engage with trade unions and staff representative bodies. That is the right thing to do, but we have to be really honest about how we got here. Higher education institutions in Northern Ireland have been under severe and growing financial pressure for a number of years.

The Department for the Economy knows that, and a review of higher education funding has been initiated, but let us be honest: it has not moved with the urgency or ambition that the crisis demands. It lacks ambition and long-term vision. Critically, it seems to lack the buy-in, trust or confidence of the very stakeholders needed to make it work. A review that does not bring people along with it will not be successful. We need a thriving higher education sector. It is critical to the delivery of our Programme for Government commitments, and it cannot keep going on with less year-on-year.

To fulfil our ambitions for the economy, we need to take a generational perspective on the role of higher education and avoid being caught up in annual budgetary shortfalls. That is not a sustainable position for our higher education institutions, staff or students, and it does not support a strategic approach to the future investment required to fuel the research and innovation that the economy needs. My colleague David Honeyford and I have been pushing for real progress on that, and we will not let up, because our universities, staff and students cannot be left behind. They deserve a clear vision and fair funding.

There will be various perspectives on who is to blame. There will be fault across the board. I have written to Ulster University requesting a meeting. I will meet the University and College Union (UCU) tomorrow. Any Members who wish to join that online call will be welcome. Gerry Carroll and I have been engaging with the union, and it is important that we hear workers' voices. It is really important, however, that the Assembly ensure that the Department for the Economy is doing everything that it can.

Mr Speaker: Time is up, Kate. Thank you.

Mr Brett: Like the previous Member, my first thoughts are with the staff of Ulster University who have been impacted by the announcement and their families. Behind every post at risk is a person, a family and a future now placed in doubt. They deserve our support at this time. More important, they deserve answers, and the search for those answers leads directly to the Sinn Féin-controlled Department for the Economy.

The party opposite cannot plead ignorance on the issue. It was warned repeatedly that failure to deal with higher education funding would lead to exactly this outcome. Universities, their staff and representatives from across the House have raised concerns. The warnings were clear; the risks were known; and the consequences, unfortunately, were entirely predictable, yet the Minister chose inaction. She chose delay and spin over solutions, and hundreds of workers are now paying the price for that. Sinn Féin cannot blame anyone else for this. The Minister owns this. The Department for the Economy is under the control of Sinn Féin. The responsibility for supporting ministerial direction in universities lies with Minister Archibald, and she cannot now point fingers at anyone else.

Let us be clear: the impact will not be felt just by those 450 members of staff. Students will feel the impact through reduced services not just in my constituency of North Belfast but in East Londonderry, Coleraine and Foyle, with the Magee expansion now clearly at risk. Those are not my words; they were the words of the permanent secretary of the Department for the Economy just three weeks ago. It is disappointing, therefore, that we have not heard from the Minister on the issue. I hope that, when she recovers, she will be able to come to the House, because this matter is of serious consequence. It points to a litany of mistakes and failures in the Department for the Economy: 300 jobs at Cantor Fitzgerald lost by the Minister; legislation from the Minister that is opposed by every major business organisation in Northern Ireland; and a Department that does not even know that it has £81 million.

Northern Ireland needs strong leadership in the Department for the Economy. Our institutions need strong leadership. Unfortunately, this is not the first announcement of jobs that have been lost under Sinn Féin. The House needs to hold the Minister to account. She is failing the people of Northern Ireland.

Ms McLaughlin: As other Members said, this is a really serious issue. A university is about to shed 15% of its workforce, and we will have to deal with the impact that that will have on staff, students and the wider economy, particularly in the north-west.

What makes the situation so concerning is the contradiction at its centre. The Department's own financial needs assessment, which the Minister commissioned, states that Ulster University:

yet there is now the possibility of hundreds of job losses. The same report states:

That report was given to the Committee just a couple of weeks ago, but it is so out of date that it needs to be put in the bin.

That raises the obvious question of how we reached this point. Either the assessment does not reflect the reality facing the sector or the warning signs were not identified and the necessary actions taken in time. Universities have raised concerns about the assessment, but, even taking it at face value, it is clear that the pressures did not arise overnight but have instead been building over a number of mandates, with funding under strain and costs increasing.

The potential job losses matter particularly to the north-west, where Ulster University plays a vital role in economic development of my constituency by providing opportunities. We continue to hear about the commitment to expand Magee to 10,000 students, alongside the other ambitions set out in the city deal for Derry city and Strabane. It is vital that we deliver on its ambitions, but, at the moment, it is difficult to see how that can be done if the workforce that we need in order to expand — additional workforce is needed, be that administrators or those looking after the faculties and new builds — is reduced on the scale that has been suggested. Growth and expansion depend on people, and to say otherwise is simply incorrect.

There is also a wider issue. Too often, Ministers seek the powers of office, but, when difficult decisions are required or when problems are identified, they have a tendency to delay any necessary action. Action was needed on the issue a long time ago, but —

Mr Speaker: The Member's time is up.

Ms McLaughlin: — nothing came forward.

Mr Carroll: I declare that I am a past pupil of Ulster University — there may be some of its students in the Gallery today — and a former sabbatical officer of its students' union.

We have to say unequivocally that Ulster University management's proposal to sack 450 workers is a mistaken, ill-thought-out and regressive move. I hope that others will support my call for Ulster University's management body to reverse that disgraceful decision, which will cause untold harm to students and communities across the North. As has been said, they are already facing a cost-of-living crisis, with the price of fuel going through the roof and food prices skyrocketing. What are those 450 workers expected to do? Where are they expected to go for work?

Unfortunately, the decision is predictable. It is what happens when universities and other institutions become more wedded to marketisation than to educating. Universities are being treated as factory lines rather than being about lifting up communities and educating people about history and the world around them more generally. The management of Ulster University seems to be more concerned about shiny new buildings, international flights, celebrities and balancing budgets than about students and workers on campus.

It says a lot about the type of society in which we live that Ulster University, or any other institution, can, with Stormont's acquiescence, overspend on a building until it ends up costing £350 million but, at the same time, issue hundreds of P45s to the people who will work in that building: those who make education possible for people across our constituencies. What is the point of having shiny new buildings if hundreds of staff are to be laid off and those left, who will be forced to do the jobs of two, three or four people, are overworked and stressed to the max?

I am concerned. Like the Member for South Belfast, I have been contacted in recent days by people who are appalled at the decision. I have also been contacted by staff who are scared to speak out. That says a lot about the culture that is in place not just at Ulster but at many places across the North. They are scared of speaking out and of what the ramifications will be if they raise their heads above the parapet.

Our assessment is that the blame for the debacle lies with Ulster University's management as well as with the Executive, who have taken a head-in-the-sand approach to properly funding higher education. They have failed to invest in higher education and have forced students to pay more for education year-on-year when it should be free.

I extend my solidarity to the University and College Union and to the students who will be fighting the decision and pushing back against it. This situation may have been predictable, but it certainly was not inevitable. With the coming together of the will of students, workers and people in the House, we can defeat the decision.

Mr Delargy: I declare an interest as a former student of Ulster and because a close family member was employed by Ulster.

My thoughts, like those of other Members, are, first and foremost, with the staff of Ulster University at this incredibly difficult, challenging and upsetting time for them. I extend our solidarity to them, their union colleagues and their families.

The Executive have consistently made the case to the Treasury in London for proper, secure funding. Its failure to provide that has resulted in financial uncertainty across our education and community sectors as well as our wider society. Aligning tuition fees with those in England is not the answer, because further and higher education institutions in England also face job losses, redundancies and cuts to their funding; they also face a number of the challenges that we see here today, with 13,000 roles lost in the past year alone. That has been the case for many years.

We need to look at the review of higher education funding to try to alleviate some of the pressures that universities face. Under the leadership of Caoimhe Archibald, the Department for the Economy has invested significantly in Ulster University over the past number of years and in the past two years in particular. The difficult financial situation that that university and all other third-level education institutions are experiencing has been experienced for many years prior to this. The North cannot be a mudguard for cuts made by the British Government. We need a consistent and collaborative approach from all parties and sectors, demanding better — demanding stability and proper funding from the Treasury.

Ms D Armstrong: The news that Ulster University is considering up to 450 job losses is deeply concerning. I urge all parties involved to do everything possible to avoid compulsory redundancies. If the cuts proceed, it will represent a bitter blow not only for the dedicated staff and the families affected but for the students and for the wider higher and further education sector across Northern Ireland.

The current situation has not arisen in isolation, and it must prompt much wider and more honest conversation about the long-term sustainability of higher education funding in Northern Ireland. Ulster University has made it clear that the failure to uplift tuition fees in line with inflation, combined with the real-terms erosion of the block grant, has left institutions to operate with little financial flexibility. The UUP believes that the current cap on student numbers actively limits our universities' ability to grow, innovate and diversify their income streams. Those structural pressures simply cannot be ignored, and the Economy Minister must seriously consider how our universities are funded and supported in the future. At the same time, we believe that universities have a responsibility to manage their finances prudently and transparently. They must demonstrate to staff, students and the public that every possible avenue has been explored before posts are placed at risk, including a clear examination of expenditure and financial decisions such as those associated with the greater Belfast campus.

One of the most significant challenges is the Stormont-imposed cap on the maximum number of students that our universities can enrol. That policy not only restricts growth but actively contributes to brain drain, driving many of our brightest students to study elsewhere. We believe that the Minister should urgently review the cap, explore additional funding options and take responsibility for delivering solutions, rather than deflecting blame.

The figures speak for themselves: our universities are becoming increasingly dependent on higher fees from students from Great Britain and overseas simply to remain financially viable. Non-domestic student numbers have risen sharply in recent years. While internationalisation has its place, it cannot be the foundation on which our higher education system survives. Universities should be centres of learning and opportunity, not institutions that are forced into unsustainable financial models. You have only to look at our universities' social media to see their determined push to attract international students.

We continue to see large numbers of local students leave Northern Ireland to study in Great Britain, many of whom do not return. At the same time, we are filling places with international students who are equally unlikely to remain here after graduation. That is not a sustainable approach to building our workforce, strengthening our economy or securing our future prosperity. The student number —.

Mr Speaker: The Member's time is up.

Ms D Armstrong: Thank you, Mr Speaker.

Mr Gaston: Regardless of what some Members in the Chamber may claim or how they try to spin it, the public know the uncomfortable truth for the Executive: higher education has always been a devolved issue. It therefore simply will not wash for Stormont to try to pass the buck to Westminster on the matter.

For years, nationalist politicians have campaigned for the focus of attention to be on Magee, resulting in Coleraine being neglected. Let us look at the facts. Even in the aftermath of the devastating news for Coleraine's Ulster University, a spokesperson for the Department said that the expansion of the Londonderry campus remained "a clear ministerial priority". That is something that the whole Executive cannot wash their hands of. It is a Belfast issue, not a London issue. The Sinn Féin Minister cannot blame the Brits when this has happened on her watch.

In the current Programme for Government, the Executive committed to working:

By way of contrast, there is a vague commitment to support Coleraine. I ask this of all the Executive parties today: where is that support? You cannot blame London when the reality is that that power is devolved. Prioritising the expansion of one campus has left Coleraine as the poor relation. Rather than washing their hands of the matter, the Executive must provide the funding required by Ulster University. Last week's news was the result of policies pursued by the Executive. This is not about a funding crisis at Westminster; it is about a political choice taken at Stormont.

Mr Bradley: I support Ulster University. My thoughts are with the staff who are under threat of redundancy at the minute. Ulster University has now confirmed the 450 redundancies across its campuses. It said that it tried to:

However, it now says:

I ask the Minister whether she removed £7 million from the higher education budget and, some months later, allocated £7 million to Magee. I would like clarification on that.
At the same time, the Minister presents the expansion of Magee as a flagship priority. In January, she said:

However, her Department said in evidence to the Economy Committee that the current year's spending on the Magee expansion was £7 million and that getting Magee to 10,000 students by 2032 would require either increased student fees or an additional £40 million a year in resource funding. Ulster University's accounts show a 2025 operating deficit of £20·2 million. It says that there has been no inflationary growth in the teaching grant for almost two decades and that the funding model has not properly reflected the added cost of operating a multi-campus university.

Will the Minister level with the House? Where is the fully funded plan for Magee? What assurances can she give that the pressure created by the underfunded model will not fall on Coleraine through drift, contraction or managed decline? For the past two or three years, colleagues and I have been meeting the university to try to ensure that a scenario such as this did not arise. Unfortunately, we are where we are. I blame the Minister for poor planning, including poor financial planning. She should come here to address the issues.

Mr Honeyford: Universities are not just places of learning. They are vital to our economy. They are the engine of our economy and the catalyst for so many businesses that we are rightly proud of across Northern Ireland that create jobs, drive innovation and build prosperity. Their intellectual property is owned here, and that increases our export and viability. That is why it is deeply concerning that Ulster University has put 450 jobs at risk. Behind that number are lecturers, researchers and support staff — people who have dedicated their careers to educating the next generation to help build our economy. We, and they, deserve better than uncertainty; they deserve a system that works.

This is not a one-off issue. We have heard repeatedly from both universities here that funding is not working. In recent years, the Department has come to the Committee repeatedly, and it has been simply more of the same as the decade before: there is no long-term, clear strategic plan. At a time when we talk about growing our economy, building skills and attracting inward investment, we cannot afford to undermine the institutions that deliver the skills and deliver all three. If we are serious about opportunity, we must be serious about our universities and the opportunities that they create for our economy. That means a sustainable future, and it means giving our young people, and those who go back in later life to reskill, real and accessible pathways into good jobs. This has got to be about more than just the balance sheet. It has to be about protecting those opportunities and protecting and backing our local talent. It is about the future of this place and the region and about building lives, careers and businesses here that can excel. We need less talk as we move forward, and we need more delivery.

Miss McAllister: When the Ulster University campus was relocated from Jordanstown, where I attended and studied — anyone in the Chamber who studied there will recognise the stark difference between that and what is now at the Belfast campus — we in north Belfast were promised a reinvigoration, a revitalisation and a connection to our communities in that part of the city. For years, we looked on with anxiety and stress at the new build coming on and the stalling of it. However, when it finally happened, we were thankful that it was relocating to the north part of the city, and we were thankful for the opportunities that it could bring for local people, also opening gateways to connect north Belfast with the rest of the city. Unfortunately, when we hear about the 450 job losses, my thoughts are with the people who are affected, but it will also affect the wider community that is concerned about what it means for the future of the campus.

To the particular people from Ulster University who have been in contact: our thoughts are with you. We are concerned for your future. We have to be realistic here. Northern Ireland has only two universities. There are not many opportunities for people in academia or at university management level. We will lose people to across the water again; we will also lose students, because there is no doubt that, as we lose staff, courses will be cut. Therefore our students and people in Northern Ireland will, again, look across the water. I echo the comments of my colleague regarding the fact that this is happening in universities across the UK, but we have specific issues here in Northern Ireland that have not been addressed. Where is the review of higher education funding? Why have we not seen the Minister be forthcoming with what the Department can do in that respect? We need to deliver for people here who will drive the economy. People who work in academia at Ulster University collect data not only to enrich policy here but to drive legislation, to drive changes that can be made and, ultimately, to drive the economy. We have students here who will be applying for university in the next few years and are now wondering whether that will affect them too. We need clarity on that. Whilst our thoughts are with the staff at Ulster University, our thoughts and actions should also be about sustaining our higher education system across Northern Ireland so that our people here can benefit.

Mr O'Toole: I was not going to speak on this matter because my colleagues have covered it all fairly comprehensively, but I want to reflect for a couple of minutes on where we are with the situation at Ulster University. First and foremost, my thoughts are with those directly affected at the institution, the first being staff who are worried about their jobs and livelihoods. I stand in solidarity with them. I know that the University and College Union will campaign hard to try to establish the position, to defend against compulsory redundancies and to give those staff the maximum help.

My thoughts are also with the students. I met a group of Ulster University students from the student council when they came to Stormont just last week. I sponsored them to have their student council meeting here. They talked about a range of issues, including their own prospects. They are very passionate, brilliant young people, and, if we can, we want to keep them here to grow our economy, contribute to public services and grow this society. Some of them are perhaps thinking about leaving for onward education or employment. Everything about the announcement from Ulster University goes against those priorities and what the Minister and her predecessor have said about the priority being placed on higher education here in Northern Ireland, both in relation to the expansion of Magee and, more generally, when it comes to building a high-skill economy here in the North.

The problem is the failure to take responsibility. We have had successive Ministers claim credit and take photo opportunities when it suits, whether that is at the Ulster University campus in Belfast or when progress has been made at Magee. Although we welcome that, those Ministers then fail to support higher education when it matters. As the Member who spoke previously said, we have been promised a review of the funding of higher education, but that still has not arrived. We do not know where it is. You can add that to a long list of other things at the Executive and at Stormont that we have been promised but that have not been delivered, including a plan for NI Water so that houses can be built and Lough Neagh can be defended; and an investment strategy to set out to the public and private sectors the infrastructure and investment priorities of the Executive over the next number of years. The list goes on and on.

Prime among that list is the multi-year Budget. All the things that we want to build in the long term when it comes to our public services and our economy cannot be done without a multi-year Budget, but the Executive have failed. The Minister has not stood up and accepted responsibility, because the culture in this Executive is to shift responsibility to someone else. The students, staff and faculty at Ulster University and, indeed, our economy more broadly deserve better than that. They deserve proper accountability, and we in the Opposition will be pressing for that.

Ms Sheerin: I rise this afternoon to speak about something that troubled me all weekend: the CNN investigation into the so-called rape academy, which is an international rape ring and online forum where men shared tips and tricks on how to drug and abuse their wives and partners whilst they were most vulnerable and were sleeping, oftentimes filming the footage and sharing it with others. Everything about that story is vile and disgusting and should sicken the stomachs of everyone who encounters it. Some of the reaction to it has been equally troubling.

I have seen the phrase "not all men" used liberally in response, and I can understand the rationale for that, because it is not all men. Most men are good. I consider myself lucky. I grew up in a loving home with a mother and father who loved and respected each other and who demonstrate partnership every day. I am blessed to have a dad who made it his life's work to protect and provide for me and my sister, and I know that I am lucky that I can say that. I am a member of a movement that cherishes men and women equally. I work with good men every day. I know them and call them my friends, and I trust them. However, even with that said, I have not been sheltered from the worst of men, and that is true for every woman. That is what we all have to consider.

While most of the 62 million hits in February and 81 million hits in March might have come from the United States and places other than here, none of that happens in isolation. This is the most dangerous place in Europe to be a woman. It is those disgusting videos that glamourise violence and normalise the abuse and assault of women that plant the seed in our young people that leads to women being murdered. We see that abuse and bullying even in the Chamber. Not long ago, we had tributes in this place to a woman who had been murdered from a man who had spent the previous weekend circulating souvenirs of his own abuse of a female colleague. It is not appropriate. It has to be challenged and called out. I call on everybody in the Chamber to think about what we endorse and to think about our behaviour. It is not all men, but it is some men. As women, we do not always know the difference. If you are not part of the solution, you become part of the problem. I urge everyone to consider that and react to those events holistically.

Mr Clarke: Many of us on these Benches, when we watch the debacle in Westminster, will hope that today is the last day for the current Prime Minister, given his handling of the affairs of his Government, particularly when we look at Lord Mandelson's appointment to the high office of UK ambassador and how that has unfolded over the past number of weeks and months. From what we read now, it seems that protocols that were put in place to protect our Government, including the interrogation demanded by the high security requirements of that position, were set aside to allow their pal to hold such high office.

Of course, one might wonder why we are speaking about that. I want to bring us back to the House. Many of us will be aware that, when the previous Police Ombudsman was appointed to office — of course, many of us will also be aware of how it went for that particular individual — that appointment took place at a time when there was no devolution in Northern Ireland, meaning that the appointment process rested solely with the Northern Ireland Office. Following the necessary procedures and departmental clearances, including by the Department of Justice, the decision rested with the then permanent secretary, Mr Peter May. Concerns have now been raised with others and me about the integrity of that appointment process. We should all be concerned about that. Mrs Anderson was, nevertheless, deemed suitable and was subsequently appointed to the role, which carries access to highly sensitive information on senior policing personnel — a matter that alarmed us then and should alarm us more now. If such claims are accurate, they raise deep and serious concerns about the robustness of the vetting process, the safeguards that were put in place at the time and the decision-making that led to her appointment.

Later today, my party leader will raise the matter in Westminster and seek answers from the Northern Ireland Office on whether Mrs Anderson successfully passed all the security requirements of the vetting processes prior to her appointment in May 2019. If the concerns raised during vetting have now been assessed and addressed, given the sensitivity of the Office of the Police Ombudsman and the importance of maintaining public confidence, its independence and, of course, its integrity, it is essential that full transparency be provided on the matter. As a party, we on these Benches will continue to push until we get all the answers to all those questions.

Mr Honeyford: I have stood in the Chamber many times to celebrate my constituents' success in their clubs and sports clubs, and to remember those whom we are here to serve. That has to be at the heart of what we do. I want to take a moment to place on record my sincere congratulations to Lisnagarvey Hockey Club on its outstanding achievement, at the weekend, of winning the EY all-Ireland hockey league for the fifth time in the past 10 years. The league sat in the balance going into the final week of the season, but Saturday saw "Garvey" come through and take the incredible win. The club is, as I said, no stranger to success or silverware. However, to keep that remarkable success going year after year is a testament to the dedication, talent and hard work right across the club, from players and coaches to the volunteers and supporters who give so much of their time behind the scenes.

For me, there is a personal element. My daughter started to play hockey at "Garvey" way back.

Like so many families, we have great memories of being at the club. It is a club that develops not just sporting ability but confidence and teamwork. It has built a really brilliant community spirit in Hillsborough.

I have also really enjoyed being able to support the club practically with grant applications and by working alongside the people who are involved there. It is genuinely so encouraging to see that commitment and investment translated into success through getting results at the highest level. "Garvey" continues to set the standard not just through its results but in how a club can be rooted in the community while striving for excellence. I wish the team every success at the EY Champions Trophy finals weekend in May. I have no doubt that I will be back in the Chamber celebrating more silverware.

Mr Burrows: On Friday, I met Kenny Bradley, a businessman and the owner of Kenny's garage, along with other business persons and local people, to discuss Kilrea Bridge. Kilrea Bridge is a historic bridge that has served the people of Northern Ireland since before the French Revolution. In fact, it had been standing for 120 years before the first car drove over it, but the bridge has not been properly inspected and maintained. Last September, it had to be closed suddenly, and it remained closed for three months. The bridge's closure caused devastation in the area. It delayed public services from doing their important work and children from getting to school. Crucially, it decimated local businesses, which lost hundreds of thousands of pounds.

The bridge is vital, as it really connects the people of that region of Antrim, Londonderry and Tyrone. I spoke to one farmer who lost £10,000 in the three months that the bridge was closed. There is now real demand that the Executive get their act together and sort out a new bridge for Kilrea. The people of Kilrea are proud of their historic bridge, but, alongside it, they need a new bridge. A new bridge needs to be commissioned and a feasibility study done. Progress needs to be made on getting that bridge in place.

I call for three clear actions. First, there should be a better inspection and repair regime for the existing bridge, which, I am glad to say, is open again, to ensure that it stays open for as long as is needed until there is a new bridge. Secondly, the Department for Infrastructure should start to develop a contingency plan now to scope out what a temporary bridge would look like should the bridge have to be closed again for unforeseen reasons. Let us plan for a temporary bridge now so that the Department is shovel-ready. Thirdly, the Department for Infrastructure needs to take immediate action to begin a phase 1 feasibility study on a new bridge.

People across Northern Ireland see the Executive dither and delay, unable to agree a multi-year Budget and arguing about all the wrong things. The Executive need to listen to local businesses, local citizens and local farmers, who rely on them to pull their finger out to get a bridge sorted out and to start delivering for the people of Northern Ireland. I therefore call on the Minister for Infrastructure in particular to visit Kilrea and speak to the people to whom I spoke. Let us get the bridge built for Kilrea.

Mr McNulty: Mothers and families can rest assured that their babies will be born in Daisy Hill Hospital, the hospital in which they and generations of their family were born. I warmly welcome the confirmation from the Southern Health and Social Care Trust that elective caesarean sections are not due to be ceased at Daisy Hill Hospital. That confirmation was provided to 'Armagh I', amid rumours of proposals to end such provision at our hospital's brilliant maternity ward. Especially in the context of birth rates in Newry and Armagh and South Down being higher than birth rates anywhere else in the North, that rumour caused considerable worry and concern.

Over 800 caesarean sections were performed at Daisy Hill Hospital in 2025, which further demonstrates how important it is that we protect that vital life-saving and life-giving service. The news will be reassuring for the dedicated and extremely professional maternity teams not only at Daisy Hill Hospital but at Craigavon Area Hospital. The service that is provided in every ward and department at Daisy Hill Hospital is extraordinary, despite the resourcing challenges often faced by teams in our brilliant hospital. I thank all the hard-working midwives and maternity staff at Daisy Hill Hospital and Craigavon Area Hospital, who have always demonstrated a powerfully positive esprit de corps and extraordinary expertise, along with genuine care and support for expectant mothers and their families.

I recently spoke to the Southern Trust board about the importance of improving staff recruitment numbers to ensure that maternity teams experience the highest possible level of support in their jobs. I hope that the trust will implement plans to bolster staff recruitment.

I again express my sincere thanks to all the maternity workers at Daisy Hill Hospital for all that they do to care for mothers and babies. The importance of the work that they do and the expert care that they offer is felt by everyone who walks through the doors of the maternity ward. They are worth their weight in gold.

With the news that elective caesarean sections will continue at the maternity ward at Daisy Hill Hospital, mothers and families can be assured that their babies can be born in the same hospital where they were born and where generations of their families were born.

Mr Sheehan: Last Friday, 17 April, was Palestinian Prisoners' Day. There are nearly 10,000 Palestinians in Israeli prisons, and among them are 350 children. Some 3,500 of those prisoners are on remand. A similar number are in prison as a result of what is called "administrative detention". We know that better here as "internment", where people are thrown into prison without any due process. The rest are, by and large, called "unlawful combatants" who have been captured in Gaza and thrown into prison, again without any due process.

Israel and its supporters often claim that it is the only democracy in the Middle East: of course, that is not true. Israel is a genocidal state, as we have seen in recent times, whose leaders are wanted by the International Criminal Court for war crimes and crimes against humanity. It is also an apartheid state, and we saw evidence of that recently when the Knesset introduced a law that gave Israel the right to execute Palestinian prisoners, not Israeli prisoners or Israelis who are serial killers or have been found guilty of some of the most heinous crimes, such as killing children: it is just Palestinians. One wonders why they even need it, when 87 Palestinian prisoners have died in Israeli custody in the past year. Two who died were raped. One of them had the muzzle of an M-16 rifle shoved into his rectum, which tore his intestines to shreds, and he died not long afterwards. Another prisoner had the nozzle of a fire extinguisher forced into his rectum and set off. He died shortly after that. In another incident, CCTV cameras caught a number of Israeli prison guards raping a Palestinian prisoner. What happened to them? They were let off and feted in Israeli society as celebrities and heroes.

Genocide has not just been a graveyard for thousands of Palestinians; it is the graveyard of international humanitarian law and human rights law. Why should we be surprised when the Israeli Minister for National Security, Itamar Ben-Gvir, was seen recently going into the prisons with TV cameras to berate, humiliate and verbally abuse Marwan Barghouti, who has been imprisoned for 23 years and is known in Palestine as the Palestinian Nelson Mandela. He has not been broken in 23 years. He continues to resist, and Itamar Ben-Gvir could not lace his boots.

Mr Brett: People across Northern Ireland are being squeezed from every direction, and the sad reality is that too many in politics are making the situation worse. Families are being punished every time they go to the petrol pumps. Small businesses watch as costs spiral, and farmers are being hit by soaring costs and tighter margins. It is no wonder that, across Northern Ireland, people are out protesting.

When hard-working people feel ignored, anger grows. The police must be cautious, proportionate and focused on keeping people safe while respecting a fundamental right of our democracy: the right to protest. However, those people are not asking for sympathy; they are asking one simple question: how can they survive? That is why it was important that, last week, the Executive supported Minister Gordon Lyons's proposal to provide £100 of direct support towards fuel bills for over 300,000 households across Northern Ireland, including families who earn too much to qualify for help but nowhere near enough to keep up with the rising cost of living. There is much more to do, but that is an important first step.

We will continue to hold our national Government's feet to the fire and demand action on a UK-wide basis, but responsibility also rests with those in the House to act in the interests of the people whom we represent. Sadly, too many here are playing the same game by voting for things in the House that, they know, can never be delivered. Last week, parties backed a proposal for free school meal payments for some children over the summer period at a cost of up to £30 million a year. Let me be clear: everyone wants to support those in need, and that is a noble cause, but, when the Bill sponsor was asked how it would be funded, we were met with silence. When other parties were asked who would pay for it, we were again met with silence. They know the truth that, when money comes from the Education budget, that means less support for children in the classroom. The same fantasy economics happens with regard to net-zero politics. Targets are announced and motions are passed, but, when the question is asked as to who pays for them, again there is silence. The life-saving A5 project, which was blocked as a result of votes in the House, has been met with silence. That is gesture politics, and ordinary people pay the price.

People are fed up with this charade. We need common sense in politics, and this party will continue to stand by that principle.

Ms Nicholl: I will speak on the topic of artificial intelligence (AI), which is something that I talk about a lot. About a year and a half or two years ago, I attended a number of economic conferences, and I realised that they always had a panel on AI. It was something that I did not really understand, but I realised that I needed to. I started to speak to experts in academia, business and safeguarding, and it became clear to me that we needed an AI strategy. A draft strategy was worked on and was given to the Executive Office in December 2025, but we are still waiting for its publication.

In Scotland, they are on the second iteration of their strategy. They have issued specific guidance to schools in relation to AI. Down South, they are on their second or third iteration, but we still wait. We are already world leaders in medical software and cybersecurity. When you look at our skills and the links that our universities have with business, you see that we are primed to be world leaders in the AI space. Businesses tell us that, with strategy and support, we could lead the way in so many areas. The opportunities are enormous. The Northern Health and Social Care Trust has had success with its fracture clinics, and Queen's University is looking at how to cure motor neurone disease.

There are amazing opportunities, but we also know that AI comes with serious risks, and we see the darker side of that in so many ways with ChatGPT and some of the awful things that have been happening. We need to understand that, and we need to have a strategy and a vision. We cannot put our heads in the sand. I feel as though I am one of the few people who talk about this constantly, but it is so important.

Our young people will have to imagine a completely different future in a world that we do not know. They do not need software development skills; they need critical thinking skills. When we are looking at a new curriculum, we will have to take advances in AI into consideration.

We have enormous potential in Northern Ireland, but, so often, we lack ambition and drive.

We need to ensure that we can be world leaders in the ethical and responsible use of AI. That requires having an AI strategy from the Executive Office. There needs to be a specific strategy in Education and real, meaningful work in Economy. I welcome the meeting of the AI advisory panel with the Minister last week, but that was too slow. If we are really to capitalise on AI and ensure that people are upskilled and able to utilise AI and mitigate its risks, we need to have a plan. It is important that the Executive act with urgency on that.

Mr McHugh: Mí na Feasachta ar an Strus an mhí seo. Tugtar deis dúinn lena linn sos a ghlacadh agus ár machnamh a dhéanamh ar na gnéithe is strusmhaire inár saol agus aghaidh a thabhairt ar bhainistiú na strus sin. Is é téama mhí na feasachta i mbliana "Déan thusa an tAthrach". Spreagtar daoine le laghdú ar an strus trí theorainneacha a shuí, sosanna a ghlacadh agus nósanna sláintiúla a bhunú. Molaim do gach duine aird a thabhairt ar na céimeanna sin agus úsáid a bhaint astu. Tá sé tábhachtach againn, sa tSeomra seo, mar lucht déanta beartas agus mar ionadaithe tofa, a aithint gur féidir linne bheith mar chuid den athrú sin.

Is minic struis airgeadais na struis is troime a chuireann ar dhaoine. Goilleann an ghéarchéim sa chostas maireachtála ar gach duine, agus tá go leor teaghlach ag streachailt le greim a choinneáil faoin fhiacail. Ba mhasla é an t-airgead a thairg Rialtas na Breataine an mhí seo caite do theaghlaigh atá ag streachailt le díol as ola téite baile. Ní riarfaidh sé ar riachtanais na ndaoine ná ar leath a riachtanas. Is ionadaithe tofa sinn. Mar sin de, caithfimid a bheith ag obair i gcomhar, leis an ualach atá ar ár dtoghthóirí a éadtromú.

Ní mór dúinn bheith aireach ar ár struis féin fosta, pé acu struis phearsanta, struis oibre nó struis airgeadais iad. Caithfidh gach duine againn an t-am a ghlacadh lenár struis féin a aithint agus le dul i ngleic leo sa dóigh is go dtig linn bheith ar theann ár ndíchill.

Mr K Buchanan: On Thursday last, at the Court of Appeal ruling on the Coagh inquest, the Lady Chief Justice, Dame Siobhan Keegan, confirmed that the coroner was right to find that the actions of the SAS soldier known as soldier B had been justified when responding to an IRA attack in 1991. The court was clear that he acted proportionately in what was a deadly and fast-moving situation. The decision highlights why so many veterans are deeply worried about the current legacy process. These cases have been allowed to drag on for years, placing huge pressure on veterans and their families. The Lady Chief Justice also made it clear that the arguments used in the challenge were not what judicial reviews are meant for. Put simply, the legal system is being used in ways in which it was never designed to be used.

We need to be absolutely clear about one thing: the terrorists who set out to murder that day in Coagh had one objective, which was to kill and terrorise. They were not out to make a citizen's arrest. Some people have the mindset that you can somehow have a chat with and then arrest a terrorist who is heavily armed and has carried out murder in the past. That does not happen. That day, as always, the terrorists thought that they could murder innocent people and run back to their safe house, but that did not happen. Was the attack filed under "Coagh" in the IRA filing cabinet for all to see in the future? No, it was not. Those terrorists and supporters thought that they were at war when they were successful with their murdering campaign but innocent men when killed by the British Army. A terrorist is a terrorist, whether at Coagh, Westminster Bridge or the Manchester Arena bombing. Was that justified? Was there no alternative?

Please do not try to dress raw murder, here or anywhere, in some form of glorification. It does not wash. There is no comparison between the men and women who were sent to uphold the law and those who tried to destroy it through violence. It is high time that some people in Northern Ireland and across the world understood right from wrong. When you drive into a village to murder innocent people, that is wrong, and it has consequences.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: I call Timothy Gaston. Timothy, you have two and a half minutes.

Mr Gaston: Thank you very much, Principal Deputy Speaker.

The fuel protests that we have witnessed over the past week did not appear overnight. Tension has been building for many months as a reaction to government overreach. For many ordinary working people — the alarm clock workers who keep our economy moving — enough is enough. The rising cost of fuel is the final straw, adding to the already significant pressures on businesses, with the UK's having the highest industrial energy price and endless red tape. Today, working men and women are watching closely to see whether the Labour Government and the Executive are prepared to take action to ease those burdens. There is a growing belief that the Government want to save the planet for future generations but fail to realise that they are killing this generation in the process. That is why we saw such strong public support for last week's protests. Anyone who spent a few minutes on social media would have seen the level of appreciation and support for those taking part.

Farmers are the backbone of our rural and wider economy. Time and time again, they go above and beyond, responding to the needs of their economy. They clear trees after storms, they clear roads after heavy snowfall, and they help during flooding. They work long hours, often for below minimum wage, to produce high-quality produce that feeds our nation. The police response last week to the Sydenham bypass protest was heavy-handed and excessive. Think of it: driving on a dual carriageway with no minimum speed limit merited the police visiting the homes of the drivers that evening to impose £100 fines and three penalty points. That over-the-top response from the police was what created the two nights of protest seen at Ballygawley roundabout. I have no doubt that, unless action is taken by those in Westminster and here in Stormont, those protests will grow —

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Time is up.

Mr Gaston: — in number in the weeks and months ahead.

Mr Clarke: I beg to move

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Before I put the Question, I remind Members that the motion requires cross-community support.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: With Ayes from all sides of the House, I am satisfied that cross-community support has been demonstrated. We can sit beyond 7.00 pm, if needed.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: I call the Minister for Infrastructure, Liz Kimmins, on behalf of the Minister for the Economy, to move the First Stage of the Bill.

Ms Kimmins (The Minister for Infrastructure): I beg to introduce the Utility Regulator (Support for Decarbonisation Preparation) Bill [NIA 32/22-27], which is a Bill to confer functions on the Northern Ireland Authority for Utility Regulation to assist the Department for the Economy in developing plans for the decarbonisation of the energy sector.

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

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: In accordance with convention, the Business Committee has not allocated any time limit to the debate.

Mr O'Dowd: I am pleased to move the Second Stage debate on the Bill. The changes that it includes will be beneficial for our citizens and make important reforms to the current law on marriage and civil partnerships.

The first of those changes relates to the age at which a person can marry or form a civil partnership. Our law, as it stands, permits 16- and 17-year-olds to marry, subject to the relevant consent, usually parental, being in place. In the previous century — indeed, well into it — it was not that unusual to see marriages take place where one party, or sometimes both parties, were aged under 18, but times have changed. It is important that we reform our law, not only to reflect modern life but, even more importantly, to safeguard children. The first aim of the Bill will therefore be to raise the minimum age of marriage and civil partnership to 18.

The second change proposed relates to non-religious belief marriage, more commonly referred to as "belief marriage". A belief marriage is a marriage ceremony for people who follow a particular non-religious philosophy, such as humanism. The Marriage and Civil Partnership Bill will amend the law to place belief marriage on an equal footing with religious marriage, giving statutory recognition to the temporary arrangements currently in place. In doing so, it delivers equality between religious and non-religious believers. I want to set out why I, along with the two previous Finance Ministers, Conor Murphy and Caoimhe Archibald, and my Executive colleagues believe that those changes are necessary.

The current marriage law dates back to 2003, which is when it brought in several important innovations, notably the creation of a single preliminary process for civil and religious marriage. In my view, the 2003 marriage law has worked well. It has allowed couples much greater choice and freedom over how and where they can marry, but it is more than 20 years old, and, over that time, there have been changes in the way that we live. As I mentioned earlier, teenage marriage was common at a time when young people moved quickly into adult life. Today, the teenage years are more about preparation, education, training, work experience and personal development. We actively encourage 16- and 17-year-olds to stay in education or training or to enter work that develops their potential, and we support those who are not in work or learning.

Allowing marriage or civil partnership at such an age now sits uneasily with that approach, particularly given the respected strong and evidence-based international opinion on permitting marriage under the age of 18. I will give one high-level example: the UN Committee responsible for the Convention on the Rights of the Child has long advocated that all jurisdictions set 18 as the minimum age for marriage. It has advised that 16- and 17-year-olds are children and that, if they are legally entitled to marry, that is child marriage. The UN also says that where under-18s are allowed to marry, there is a risk that they may be forced into marriage or become trapped in a marriage that they regret. Moreover, even if there is no direct coercion or regret — even if under-18s marry entirely of their own volition — a 16- or 17-year-old who marries may, by the very fact of being committed to an official, long-term relationship, miss out on opportunities, particularly in education and training, or they may simply miss out on the final years of childhood. Those missed opportunities can adversely affect the rest of a person's life.

It is also the case that, where people under the age of 18 are permitted to marry, more girls than boys marry. That is certainly the case here. Every year, decade after decade, markedly more girls than boys marry. In 2024, for instance, 37 girls married here compared with just seven boys. That was in step with all the previous years. That is one of the reasons why the risk of potential adverse consequences of child marriage falls disproportionately on girls and why there is a greater equality aspect to the changes that we wish to make to the minimum age.

When we consulted on reforming marriage law in 2021-22, it was interesting to see how much support there was for increasing the marriage age to 18 and how diverse that support was. Virtually everyone who responded to our consultation online wanted to see the minimum age raised. Most of the written responses were also supportive. Support came from faith groups, the Commissioner for Children and Young People and other children and young people's stakeholders, the Youth Assembly and legal specialists.

Relatively few people here marry at the age of 16 or 17. To date, no civil partnerships have involved people of that age. Most marry in their thirties. Only a few dozen each year are aged under 18, but even a few dozen a year add up to hundreds over time, and, each year, we tolerate the risk that some young people may miss out on the opportunities that could shape the rest of their lives.

We tolerate the risk that some people will be coerced into relationships that they do not want. We tolerate the risk that some people will end up in a relationship that they soon regret. By raising the minimum age to 18, we immediately reduce those risks. Those are the principled reasons behind clause 5, which raises the minimum age for marriage to 18, and clause 7, which does the same for civil partnerships.

I draw Members' attention to clause 6, which amends the Human Trafficking and Exploitation (Criminal Justice and Support for Victims) Act (NI) 2015 by extending the forced marriage offence to make it a criminal offence for a person to cause a child — someone under the age of 18 — to enter into a marriage here. Many jurisdictions have already raised the minimum age to 18. In the South, the minimum age for marriage was raised from 16 to 18 in 2019. In England and Wales, that was done via legislation in 2022. Scotland is consulting on the issue. With this Bill, we are bringing our law up to date.

In the past five years, most of the 16- and 17-year-olds who got married here came from outside the jurisdiction. The majority of them came from jurisdictions on these islands that had already increased their marriage age. It is likely that they came here to get the marriage that they could not get closer to home. I am not comfortable that people from jurisdictions that have ended child marriage can come here and marry because we have not ended child marriage. The Bill will close that loophole. In doing so, it will affect the plans of only a few young people who live here. The way in which it will affect them is that they will have to put off their marriage plans for about 12 months on average. That is a small inconvenience, given the wider and long-term benefits of increasing the minimum age.

I turn now to the second change that the Bill will introduce. As I said earlier, my view is that the marriage legislation from 2003 has been operating well in the two decades since it became law. Its principal drawback and the only aspect of it that motivated a successful legal challenge is that it permits two forms of legally binding marriage: civil marriage and religious marriage. The statutory framework has not catered for belief marriage. That has meant that humanists and others who have deeply held but non-religious beliefs could not have marriage ceremonies that reflected their beliefs until the courts intervened a few years ago. The 1991 census was the first to enable people in this jurisdiction to state that they had no religious belief. In 1991, there were about 60,000 people or around 3% of the population with no formal religious beliefs. In the most recent census, in 2021, that total had increased more than fivefold to more than 330,000 or 17% of the population. In other words, there is a large and growing community of people who have no religious beliefs. The current marriage law does not take proper account of that community and does not give it the same opportunity that it gives to religious believers. The opportunity to have a marriage ceremony reflects their particular and sincerely held outlook on life. While not all of the 330,000-plus people in the 2021 census who stated that they had no religious beliefs will want a non-religious marriage, it is likely that some of them will. Given that, it seems reasonable and proportionate that the law be amended to give them that option.

Nearly 10 years ago, the inequality in our marriage law was brought home to us. In 2017, a humanist couple successfully challenged it in the courts. They wanted a humanist wedding ceremony: a ceremony that reflected their humanist views and that was presided over by a humanist celebrant. They claimed that, because humanist ceremonies were not permitted as a result of the 2003 marriage law, which recognised only civil and religious marriage ceremonies, their rights under the European Convention on Human Rights had been breached. The courts took the view that a humanist celebrant should be able to conduct the marriage, paving the way for further belief marriages. Since 2017, we have therefore been permitting belief marriages but always on a temporary basis. That was the only way in which we could address the issue raised by the courts until we were in a position to legislate. Temporary arrangements were put in place on the clear understanding that legislation would follow to create a more permanent and satisfactory solution. The Bill does just that.

There have been more than 5,000 belief marriages since the temporary arrangements were put in place. The 5,000th was in October 2025, which means that more than 5,000 couples have been able to have the type of ceremony that they wanted — a type of ceremony that was not available prior to 2017. It is clear from those numbers that a sizeable share of the population wants that type of marriage. Additionally, in my view, and despite concerns raised by NI Humanists, the main humanist body in the North, about other smaller groups, our temporary arrangements have been running smoothly. The ongoing temporary inclusion of belief marriage has not disrupted the functioning of marriage law; in fact, belief marriage has slotted into it easily. With the Bill we are now making formal and official the temporary arrangements that have operated successfully for several years. That is what clauses 1 to 4 of the Marriage and Civil Partnership Bill set out to do.

One change that, some said, they would like to see is a stricter system of approving belief groups to perform marriage ceremonies. It was suggested that a group should, among other things, have a minimum number of members or have been inexistence for a specific number of years before it can be allowed to conduct marriage ceremonies. If we did that, we would have to apply it to belief and religious groups. That would be major change to a system that has been working well for more than 20 years. That is one reason why I am not currently minded to introduce it.

I recognise that NI Humanists, the largest of the local humanist groups, has articulated concerns about how the system is likely to operate. I believe, therefore, that it is prudent that our statutory framework can reflect an agile manner if the evidence shows that practices are getting out of hand. The Bill, in several relevant places, allows my Department to bring forward regulations to set qualifying requirements that would apply to both religious and belief groups. My officials are already undertaking early preparatory work, engaging with colleagues in the General Register Office (GRO) and taking note of current consultation on the issue in Scotland. I will reflect on that work as the Bill proceeds.

I want to touch on the issue of independent celebrants, which was consulted on during the process. Independent celebrants provide marriage ceremonies that are not legally binding for people who, for whatever reason, want a ceremony. They are typically profit-making sole-trader businesses that provide ceremonies for a fee and, sometimes, offer in addition a wedding planning service. During the consultation, some stakeholders suggested that we legislate to enable independent celebrants to provide legally binding ceremonies. To do so would require a lengthy consideration of the current arrangements, in particular the part of the 2003 legislation that prohibits marriage with the sole aim of making a profit. The question of independent celebrants and the implications of any change to current law that might benefit them are things that we will keep in view. However, I do not wish to delay progress of the current changes, and, among other things, the impact on civil marriage and the role of registrars would need to be considered carefully.

In conclusion, I commend the two main changes that the Bill will make. Amending the law to put non-religious belief marriages on the same legislative footing as religious marriage is essential for equality. The courts have pointed to that, and a clear majority of the organisations and people we consulted agreed that it was a necessary change. As for minimum age, international opinion is that, as long as we allow people aged 16 and 17 to marry or form a civil partnership, there is a risk of forced marriage, of coercion within marriage and of young people losing out on key opportunities in areas such as education. Once again, a clear majority — close to 100% — of a diverse group of stakeholders agreed.

There is clear and diverse public support for the changes, a legal imperative that we make the change in respect of belief marriage and a strong ethical case for making the change in respect of minimum age. I ask, therefore, that you support the Bill, and I commend it to the Assembly.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Minister.

Mr O'Toole (The Chairperson of the Committee for Finance): Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. I will speak first as Chair of the Finance Committee and then make few remarks in a party capacity.

Let me thank the Minister for his comments. I welcome the fact that we are debating the Second Stage of the Marriage and Civil Partnership Bill. The Committee looks forward to scrutinising the Bill in detail, and I thank the Minister for giving the Committee advance sight of the explanatory and financial memorandum. I hope that, as with three Bills thus far in the mandate, constructive engagement between the Committee and the Department will continue on the legislative process.

The Committee notes the importance of the Bill and has been regularly kept up to date on its progress. Officials from the civil law reform division, which is a small but busy team in the Department — I acknowledge them; they are in the Box today — first briefed the Committee on 17 April 2024. That briefing focused on the proposed Bill, which, as the Minister said, would see the minimum age of marriage raised to 18 and would put into law temporary arrangements for non-religious belief marriages, putting them on the same footing as civil and religious marriages. The worldwide campaign against child marriage is now well known to most of us, including all in the Assembly, and is of the utmost importance. The Bill needs to deliver that change and to provide clear, robust and enforceable protections to prevent child marriage in all circumstances. The Committee noted that, in the Department's consultation, approximately 70% of online respondents and all written respondents who commented on the development regarding belief marriage supported it. None of the three Churches that responded to the proposal raised any objection. As for increasing the minimum age of marriage to 18, 97% of online respondents supported the potential change. Members also discussed the potential sanctions for breaking the law, assuming that it passes, and the enforcement of the minimum age of marriage. When we discussed them with officials in April 2024, they indicated that the sanctions would be broadly similar to those in GB legislation on forced marriage that deals with minimum ages of marriage.

The Committee received a further briefing on 23 October 2024. During that meeting, the Committee was informed by officials that they hoped that the Bill would be introduced prior to summer 2025. The Committee is, obviously, disappointed that it has taken nearly a year since that indicated date for the Bill to be introduced, but, in broad terms, we welcome its contents. We look forward to our meeting on Wednesday, when departmental officials will brief Members on the contents of the Bill, including the two broad parts that the Minister has talked about today. The Committee has noted interest in the Bill from Church groups, humanist bodies, the Children's Commissioner, the Equality Commission and the Human Rights Commission and, assuming that the Bill passes at Second Stage, will seek their views.

In broad terms, Committee members support the principles of the Bill and its passage at Second Stage and referral to the Committee for detailed scrutiny. Members look forward to working with the Department and other stakeholders and to undertaking in-depth scrutiny of the Bill. I look forward to hearing other members' contributions during the debate.

I will make a few remarks in a political capacity, as leader of the Opposition. In that capacity also, I welcome the introduction of the Marriage and Civil Partnership Bill. As the Minister said, there are two broad parts to it. There could and should have been three broad parts, but I will come to that.

The first part is about changing the law on cases in which one of the partners is under the age of 18. As the Minister, said, there is now a broad and, in a sense, overwhelming consensus that the law needs to be changed to make it illegal, in effect, for 16- and 17-year-olds to marry. That is a welcome development. The Minister talked about the UN convention and the widespread global work on reducing and ending child marriage and the various kinds of exploitation and inequality that are furthered by the existence of that form of child marriage. Societies move on, understandings of what is appropriate in a marital context move on, and it is welcome that, albeit somewhat belatedly, the Assembly is now moving to end that.

As the Minister said, there are a relatively small number of people in Northern Ireland who are in that category in 2026 in any case, but that does not mean that the law should not be changed to make it properly illegal. The Committee will want to see precisely how that is going to be managed. I do, however, welcome the fact that that change is being made.

The next part of the Bill relates to putting belief marriage on a legislative footing. At this stage, I will declare an interest as someone who, 10 years ago, just before the temporary arrangements were put in place — my wife and I were still living in London, but we explored the possibility of having a belief marriage in Northern Ireland in 2016. That was not possible, but we had a registrar marriage, which went very well. It is 10 years on from that, and she has not kicked me out yet. That is proof that —.

Mr O'Dowd: She deserves a medal.

Mr O'Toole: She certainly does, and much more than that, Minister.

Over the past nine years, those who have wanted to have a belief marriage have been able to seek one in the North, but the Bill puts that on a proper statutory footing. I welcome that; it is overdue. I congratulate those who had to litigate to address that anomaly. The truth is that, too often, people have had to litigate, campaign and pressurise in order to get social change and reform in Northern Ireland. It is welcome, however, and the Committee will understand all the various impacts and hear from the various people affected. I welcome the bit of progress that is represented by that being formally enshrined in law.

One slight drawback — an issue with the Bill — is the absence of no-fault divorce. It would have been very welcome to see progress on no-fault divorce and its inclusion in the legislation. Almost exactly two years ago, there was a debate in the Chamber, secured by the Minister's party, in which the then Finance Minister, Caoimhe Archibald, indicated her broad support for including no-fault divorce in the Bill, although she said that there would be ongoing work with officials. This is the only part of these islands where fault divorce persists. It is a fairly archaic system that perpetuates certain problems. One such problem is that it can create an adversarial situation during what is often a sad and regrettable situation.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Matthew, my understanding, from reading the guidance, is that this is not about no-fault divorce. I understand that you are making the point that it should be there, but you cannot go into it substantially.

Mr O'Toole: I think that this is vital and germane. At one point, there was an expectation that it would be included in the Bill, and it is important that I am able to bring that point up. I am not talking about something that is utterly irrelevant. No-fault divorce is critical, because it has the possibility of making divorces less adversarial when assets and, particularly, the custody of children are being dealt with. It can make for much less difficult and adversarial situations. It can also be a vital tool to ensure that women who are in situations of domestic abuse can be freed from very difficult marriages without having to go through the difficult, adversarial, exhausting and often traumatic process of a fault divorce. It is highly regrettable, when we are trying to prioritise ending violence against women and girls, that we have missed the opportunity to include no-fault divorce in the Bill. I appreciate that the Finance Minister's predecessor wanted to make progress in that area, and it would be helpful to have an update on why it is not in the Bill. I simply make the point that we are now the only part of these islands —.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Matthew.

Mr O'Toole: We are the only part of the UK and Ireland —

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Matthew.

Mr O'Toole: — without no-fault divorce.

Those are the only points that I wanted to make on that, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. It is critical stuff. We support the Bill —

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Matthew.

Mr O'Toole: — but we are —.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Matthew, take your seat, please. I let you make your point. I gave you a lot of latitude. Do not tell me that you are going to make a point because you feel that it is important. It is up to me to allow that point to be expanded on. I gave you a lot of latitude, and I ask you to return to the substance of the Bill. Thank you.

Mr O'Toole: I will return to the substance of the Bill. It would have been a much stronger Bill had we been able to include no-fault divorce in it. A majority of Members of the Assembly supported that. This is the obvious legislative opportunity to do that, and I think that people will reflect on this as being another failure of the Assembly to deliver timely progress.

We are supportive of the Bill and everything that is in it, and we look forward to scrutinising it. It is regrettable that no-fault divorce was not included in it, but we otherwise look forward to scrutinising it and will support it at Second Stage.

Miss Dolan: I welcome progress on the legislation. As the Minister said, it will raise the minimum age for marriage and civil partnership to 18 and make it a criminal offence for anyone to be involved in causing a child to enter into such an arrangement. That aspect of the Bill is particularly important, as it will provide a safeguard for children who are at risk of being exploited and forced into marriage, which the United Nations has consistently reported as being a violation of an individual's human rights.

The other power in the Bill will provide equality for couples who wish to have a non-religious belief marriage with those who have a religious marriage. It puts on a legislative footing temporary arrangements that have been operating for several years and saw thousands of marriages conducted successfully. The legislation has equality and human rights at its core and is therefore a positive development.

Ms Forsythe: I thank the Minister for giving the Committee advance sight of the Bill. I also thank his officials for their continual updates on the Bill's progress and for being available to the Committee.

This is serious and important legislation, and it should be approached with that in mind. As we work through it, I hope that a solemn and dignified tone remains throughout. As has been said, the Bill has two main purposes: first, through clauses 5 to 7, it raises the minimum age for marriage and civil partnership in Northern Ireland from 16 to 18; and, secondly, it seeks to formally include non-religious belief marriages within the legal framework of the Marriage (Northern Ireland) Order 2003.

Raising the minimum age for marriage and civil partnership in Northern Ireland from 16 to 18 reflects the evidence that child marriage can be harmful and recognises the strong public support for reform. The Bill removes the possibility of under-18s being able to marry or enter a civil partnership, even with parental consent, and introduces a new criminal offence relating to actions that cause a person under 18 to enter into a marriage here in Northern Ireland. Given the worldwide campaign against child marriage that is known to all in the Assembly, it is very important to see that progress. Ninety-seven per cent of online respondents to the consultation on the legislation were supportive of the change that will increase the minimum age to 18. Now that we have the Bill, it will be good for the Committee to hear more evidence on that. We have the opportunity to consider any sanctions or tariffs as part of the enforcement of the minimum age for marriage in a future Act and to consider the Great Britain legislation on forced marriage that deals with the minimum age for marriage.

On the move to make the current temporary arrangements permanent by including non-religious belief marriages within the legal framework of the Order, it is important that we review the details of the legal case that led to the arrangements that are being formalised through the Bill. The definition of an "organised group of people" needs to be scrutinised, and we need clarity on that.

In the Department's consultation, approximately 70% of online and written respondents were supportive of amending marriage law to put belief marriage on an equal footing with religious marriage. None of the three Churches that responded submitted an objection. The legislation is described as formalising in law practices that are already happening on a temporary basis, and I look forward to scrutinising the detail of that further at Committee.

I speak on an ongoing basis to the Christian Institute about the legislation and will continue to engage with it, the Churches and all those interested in the Bill. As the Bill, which will formalise and future-proof marriage law, moves forward, I am keen to explore options to strengthen aspects of it, too. I am keen to see amendments that would, if made, strengthen the message of what marriage and civil partnerships mean and legislate for a requirement for a dignified and solemn ceremony to be defined and carried out. I welcome the Minister's comments in his opening remarks about the fact that it gives us an opportunity to bring forward an amendment to remove the ability to profiteer from the solemn aspects of the ceremony. Inclusion of the option to bring forward a requirement for those officiating to complete a qualification is welcome, as there is a clear need to define and remind people of the serious and solemn nature of the ceremony and all that it means. I look forward to exploring that further during the Committee's scrutiny. This Wednesday, which is when departmental officials are scheduled to attend the Finance Committee, we will commence the briefing on the contents of the Bill.

Scrutiny of the Bill is extremely important, as is the scrutiny of all Bills. A wide range of stakeholders, including Church groups, humanist bodies, the Children's Commissioner, the Human Rights Commission and the Equality Commission, has expressed interest. It will be important to hear from all of them in setting definitions that are firmly scrutinised as the Bill progresses. As has been said, the Bill has two main objectives, but it also has the potential to strengthen marriage law here in Northern Ireland. We support the opportunity to bring it forward, scrutinise it further and make the best legislation possible.

Mr Tennyson: On behalf of the Alliance Party, I support the Second Stage of the Marriage and Civil Partnership Bill. I look forward to supporting the Bill through its legislative stages over the remainder of the mandate. The Bill has been a long time coming, given that it was first consulted on in 2021 and 2022, albeit an abeyance of the Assembly delayed proceedings. I place on record my thanks to officials in the Department who have been working throughout the period. It is a small but mighty team with lots of work streams, and it has put in an incredible shift to get the Bill to this stage.

It is overwhelmingly clear from the consultation responses that there is widespread public support for raising the minimum age of marriage to 18. It is a step that is overdue and that will, undoubtedly, strengthen protections for children and young people against forced marriage and pressured marriage, in particular, as well as bring us into line with the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child's recommendations and our obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights. There are multiple reasons for raising the age. We know that, before the age of 18, younger people are much more vulnerable to coercion from family members, peers or their partners. Given that marriage is a lifelong commitment, it is right that we raise the age to 18, in line with the generally accepted age of adulthood, to ensure that young people are making a fully informed and independent choice.

It is also significant that the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights has described child marriage as a "form of gender-based discrimination" and violence, because evidence suggests, first, that it is more common that it is young women who are being married under the age of 18, and, secondly, that those young people are subject to unequal power dynamics, more susceptible and vulnerable to domestic abuse and more likely to become economically dependent as they are much more likely to leave school early and, as a result, miss out on a raft of economic and career opportunities. Significant evidence also exists to suggest that people who are married in childhood are more likely to experience mental health challenges throughout their lives. Therefore, I support the steps that are being taken to raise the minimum age. I am also supportive of the steps that the Minister is taking to criminalise those who would arrange child marriages.

The second element of the Bill relates to placing belief marriage on the same legal and permanent basis as religious marriage. That is a long-overdue and important step forward for equality. It is regrettable, as the leader of the Opposition mentioned, that progress in that space had to be secured initially through the courts rather than the Assembly. Today, however, there is an opportunity to remedy that position and to legislate for the outworkings of the 2017 case. This is not about elevating one world view over another. It is about treating people of religious belief and non-religious belief equally in law. For the Alliance Party, that is a no-brainer. We believe in an open, respectful, plural and inclusive society where the state does not privilege any one group over another.

I also support the Minister's approach to registration and eligibility. It is a delicate balance, but the more pragmatic approach that the Minister has taken to dealing with it and the flexibility to deal with it through regulation are welcome.

On the challenges facing independent celebrants, I am keen to hear from the Minister in his winding-up speech whether the ongoing review in England and Wales has informed his thinking and whether he has any plans to come back to that issue in future mandates. From the contact that I have had with independent celebrants, I am conscious of the fact that some couples do not fit neatly into the belief marriage or the religious marriage space. Couples can come at life with different religious views or perspectives. Some wish to have ceremonies that incorporate non-religious and religious elements, and they find that independent celebrants are often the only route that they can take to allow them to get married in accordance with their own values, including a ceremony in which the views of both partners in the relationship will be respected.

If, in the next mandate, the Minister therefore has any plans to make independent celebrants more accessible to people so that they do not have to visit the registry office before having a ceremony that reflects their values, that would be a really welcome development. Like the leader of the Opposition, if no-fault divorce is not to be part of the Bill, I am keen to hear when we are likely to see progress made in that space.

I absolutely welcome the Bill. It is an important step forward, and I look forward to supporting it during its remaining legislative stages.

Miss Hargey: I echo what everybody else has said and welcome the Second Stage debate on the Bill. It is important that our legislation be routinely updated in order that it is fit for purpose. Sinn Féin supports the changes that the Minister is making. I thank him and his team of officials.

It is important that we raise the minimum age for marriage and civil partnership to 18. As Members and the Minister have said, that will bring it into line with international best practice and be consistent with the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, which also recommends setting the minimum age at 18. As the Minister said, the changes are supported by the majority of respondents, so the Bill is in line with where society is at on the issue. It is important that our laws empower young people, but it is also important that they protect them from coercion, inequality and decisions that may lead to lifelong negative consequences. Such concerns arose during the engagement process. The change to the law will ensure that such protections are in place.

There is also a clear equality dimension, on which Eóin touched. We know that under-18 marriages disproportionately affect girls, and, as Matthew said, given that we are looking to end violence against women and girls, that is a really important aspect of the legislation. We support the measures in the Bill that strengthen rights and protections, and we also welcome the provisions in clause 6 relating to forced marriages. The clause extends the offence of forced marriage to here. That is important for tackling human trafficking and exploitation and is an area of concern that has been raised by communities here.

We also support the changes being made concerning belief marriages. The Bill will put us on a correct footing by addressing an inequality that was highlighted in the courts back in 2017. We believe that treating people who are humanists or have non-religious beliefs with the same respect with which we treat those with religious beliefs is an issue of fairness. It is important that we are now putting those rights on a firm legal footing through the amendments to existing legislation that the Bill will make.

Although there are broader issues that we will need to consider in the future, it is right that we move ahead with the changes in the Bill and do not delay progress, because, as many Members have said, it has been 10 years since the most recent court judgement. The Bill is a step in the right direction. It protects our young people, advances equality and, importantly, modernises our legal framework in a fair and inclusive way. On that basis, we are pleased to support the Minister's approach to the legislation, and we look forward to the rest of the Bill's legislative stages.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Timothy, you are the next Member to be called. Before you take to your feet, I inform you that I may need to cut you off before Question Time if your contribution has not concluded by then.

Mr Gaston: I think that it is safe enough to say that I will be finished within the seven minutes, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: That is great.

Mr Gaston: I will make a number of general points about the Bill and seek further clarity from the Minister on why it was introduced.

At a surface level, there is much in the Bill that will find favour with the House. There is a degree of common sense in clause 5, which raises the minimum age for marriage from 16 to 18. We arrive, however, at the curious position in which a 16-year-old is deemed sufficiently mature to be able to vote in elections yet insufficiently mature to enter into marriage. Northern Ireland is well behind Great Britain in making that change. The Minister confirmed in his opening remarks that the Commons' legislation reached this legislative stage back in 2022, with the law being changed in England and Wales in 2023. Regarding Part 2 of the Bill, paragraph 13 of the Department's consultation document from November 2021 states:

If that is the rationale, what assessment has the Department made of the scale of forced marriages involving under-18s in Northern Ireland? Is that issue concentrated within any particular section of our community? Has the Department identified specific cultural or societal contexts in which that problem arises? If the draft legislation is being driven by identifiable patterns, whether cultural or otherwise, the House is entitled to clarity. We know that child marriage is a feature of Islamic countries. Has the growth of the Muslim community here in Northern Ireland seen the problem increase in the Province?

In his opening remarks, the Minister raised concern about people coming to Northern Ireland from countries that have changed their marriage age from 16 to 18. All legislation should be grounded in evidence, not assumption. It is on that basis that I ask him whether arranged marriage within the Muslim community in Northern Ireland is a concern for him and his Department.

I also note that, with the passage of the Bill, the age of consent for sexual activity and the marriage age will — for the first time, I believe — diverge. The law will permit a 16-year-old to consent to sexual activity but prohibit them from entering into marriage. That represents a significant shift and a departure from the historical Christian understanding of marriage in our society. I regret that development. That brings me to a broader point. Marriage, as a lifelong union of one man and one woman, has historically provided not only personal stability but social stability. It has been the foundation upon which families have been built and the environment in which children have been raised. In all the Executive's strategies and policy documents, I would like to see a greater willingness not merely to regulate marriage but to recognise and promote its value as a union between one man and one woman and a stabilising force —

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Timothy.

Mr Gaston: — within society.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Timothy, can you take your seat?

Marriage, as it is referred to in the Bill, is not defined as being between men and women, women and women or men and men; it is just "marriage". I ask you to return to the substance of the Bill. Thank you.

Mr Gaston: Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker.

I want to comment briefly on the fact that the Bill creates scope for "belief marriage" as distinct from religious marriage. That is not my own world view, but I have two points to raise on the issue. A marriage is a solemn occasion on which individuals make lifelong commitments to each other. I do not see anything in the Bill that is designed to preserve the solemnity of the marriage ceremony. Does the Minister have any plans to address that concern or would he be broadly supportive of an amendment that did so? Finally, is there anything in the Bill to ensure that marriages do not become a profit-making exercise for those who perform the ceremony? I trust that the Minister will pick up some of those points, if not them all, in his next comments on the Bill.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Timothy. Your timing is much appreciated.

As Question Time will begin at 2.00 pm, I suggest that the Assembly takes its ease until then. The debate will continue after Question Time, when the next Member to speak will be the Minister to make a winding-up speech and conclude the debate.

Mr Muir (The Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs): I am committed to ensuring that appropriate steps are taken to protect water quality and the environment, and to that end I have moved as quickly as possible to complete the public consultation on the draft remediation strategy for the Mobuoy site. The summary report on consultation responses was published on 12 March 2026, and, taking account of responses on what the revised strategy should be, it should be with me later this month.

Overall, the Northern Ireland Environment Agency's (NIEA) review and assessment of responses have not indicated any need for fundamental changes to the proposed integrated remediation techniques. However, there are areas in which further clarification and refinement will strengthen the strategy. That work is being progressed to ensure that the strategy is robust, and it will provide the necessary basis for considering the overall financial requirements for the remediation of the site. Consideration will then need to be given to the next steps and realistic timescales in line with the Department’s responsibility to protect water quality.

I plan to meet the Member, other Foyle MLAs, the local MPs, the Mayor and the chief executive of Derry City and Strabane District Council, along with NI Water and DFI officials, in May, and that will be an important opportunity for a discussion on the way forward. It is vital that the environmental monitoring programme continues to be delivered, and I am committed to ensuring that it remains in place until a long-term solution is delivered.

Ms McLaughlin: Thank you, Minister, for your answer and your engagement on the matter to date. There are serious issues and concerns about the Mobuoy site. What financial proposals have you submitted for the Finance Minister and the Executive's consideration? A concerted effort by all is needed to correct the damage.

Mr Muir: I share in the Member's concern and the collective desire to see the remediation of the site. To date, my Department does not have a cost estimate that has been assessed and approved through the required public finance processes, such as an approved business case, in order to inform a financial bid. There are several reasons for that. There is no agreed preferred option, and there will not be until an updated draft strategy, further to the consultation, is adopted, a cost estimate is completed and decisions taken on next steps. A range of approval processes must also be carried out to ensure that any remediation proposals are technically sound, cost-effective and affordable. Those processes can only move forward once the final draft remediation strategy is complete. I look forward to that discussion with the Member on the matter.

I remind Members that the Mobuoy site is one of the reasons why I have been seeking agreement on an independent environmental protection agency for Northern Ireland. I am absolutely gutted that that has been blocked by the DUP. Mobuoy is a clear example of why we need stronger environmental protections in Northern Ireland.

Mr Delargy: I thank the Minister for his engagement with us and the public in Foyle on the issue. My issue is about water quality. The Minister has already given some assurance that there will be engagement from NI Water and other bodies on the matter. Will the Minister clarify specifically what metrics will be used and how they will be evaluated on an ongoing basis to ensure that the water in Derry and the wider area remains at a high quality and that any variance is monitored and picked up on as quickly as possible?

Mr Muir: I assure the Member that safeguarding public health and ensuring that we have safe drinking water is paramount. That has to be the first thing that we consider in regard to the issue. My Department is committed to protecting the water quality of the River Faughan. We are working in partnership with NI Water to safeguard drinking water in the north-west.

My officials have put in place a comprehensive environmental monitoring programme at the Mobuoy site, which includes site and riverbank inspections; detailed monitoring, using international quality standards; and the use of on-site groundwater and surface water monitoring, together with daily laboratory testing of water quality at the Northern Ireland Water drinking water abstraction point. NI Water monitors the water that is abstracted from the River Faughan, the water at various stages of treatment and the final water that is supplied from the Carmoney water treatment works.

Monitoring data is shared and interpreted by the NIEA and NI Water. The monitoring data is used by my Department and NI Water to continually assess any changes in risk to water quality in the River Faughan and the quality at the water abstraction point. Water quality reports are regularly published on the DAERA website, and, to date, there has been no adverse impact on the safety of drinking water being supplied from the River Faughan. It is important that I set out the action that we are taking. That has to be of paramount importance, and it is.

Mr Blair: Given the uncertainty around the budgetary demands on the Mobuoy issue and the constraints on budgets more generally, can the Minister give us any information on his Department's financial outlook under the proposed three-year Budget and how that relates to those issues?

Mr Muir: Thank you, John. The concern from many Members in the House is around when the remediation of the site will occur and how it will be funded. We are working on finalising that strategy, and I will engage with local elected representatives on that.

The other issue relates to funding for that. I have already set out the process that we are going to follow, but I have been on the record previously stating that the costs associated with remediation could be between £107 million and £700 million. Those are significant costs. That is why it is important that the UK Government realise that the cost of that to the Northern Ireland budget is a very difficult amount for us to bear. That is why I continue to support the Finance Minister in his engagement with the UK Government in regard to the issue. We need financial support not just for that but for other issues that are affecting our budget around that.

The position on the draft Budget that was consulted on is very significant for my Department. There is a very grim financial outlook for the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs. It is no secret that we are carrying more than 800 vacancies. I asked for compensation for bovine TB to be prioritised at monitoring rounds. That is not in the current documentation. In relation to capital support, I need support for the sustainable farm investment scheme. I also need support for new campuses at Loughry and Greenmount, and I will continue to engage with the Finance Minister on that. It is important that we deliver for all communities in Northern Ireland, particularly rural communities that benefit from the services that we deliver.

Mr Muir: On 2 April, I launched the wildfire action plan to accompany 'Wildfires in Northern Ireland: Strategic Framework 2025-2030'. The action plan contains time-bound actions for each of the 35 key areas of development identified in the strategic framework, covering strategic objectives of wildfire prevention, preparedness, response, recovery and enforcement. The actions will be delivered collectively across a range of wildfire stakeholders. Key actions in the plan that will assist with land management in the Mournes include developing wildfire management and response plans for the eastern Mournes area of special scientific interest (ASSI) and special area of conservation (SAC); developing guidance about land management practices that would reduce the likelihood and impact of wildfires; and ensuring that wildfire awareness and management courses are available.

Some of that work has already been initiated. For example, my Department recently appointed a consortium of international wildfire experts to deliver a range of wildfire mitigation and management work across Northern Ireland, including wildfire management and response plans for the eastern Mournes. The project will involve engagement with local landowners and a range of stakeholders, including the Fire and Rescue Service, the Ulster Farmers’ Union, Northern Ireland Water, Forest Service and other stakeholders and NGOs. To further assist the landscapes of the Mournes, my Department is supporting a range of projects to restore its peatlands, control erosion, repair paths and assist with wildfire recovery from previous fires. Alongside land management, I am very keen to enhance enforcement for rural arson, and I advise and urge that if anyone sees someone lighting such fires in the countryside, they should report it immediately to the police.

Mr McMurray: I thank the Minister for his answer. What difference will the wildfire recovery project, led by the Pau Costa Foundation, make to the Mournes?

Mr Muir: Thank you, Andy. The project will produce plans that will lead to increased resilience to wildfires in the Mournes and reduce the risk of significant wildfire spread. That will provide benefits for the biodiversity, landscape, land managers and recreational users of the Mournes. Specific outcomes will include detailed wildfire management plans for the eastern Mournes ASSI and SAC, based on the ecology of the Mournes, the wildfire risk assessment and wildfire spread modelling, which will inform interventions. That will be combined with a complementary emergency response plan to assist with wildfire response should such incidents occur. Similar work will be undertaken in the Western Mournes and Kilfeaghan Upper ASSI to advise on interventions. An investigation will also be undertaken to gain insights into the drivers and causes of wildfires across the Mournes.

Mrs Mason: I thank the Minister for that information, and I acknowledge the work that is being done in such an important area. Does he agree that the introduction of an areas with natural constraints scheme could support improved land management in the Mournes and help to reduce the risk of wildfires through better grazing practices and sustainable upland maintenance?

Mr Muir: I am conscious that a private Member's Bill is going through its scrutiny process, and I know that the AERA Committee will actively engage in that regard. There is a case for conditionality to be associated with those payments in order to drive towards the desired outcomes. The key intervention that will assist with the issues that the Member outlined is the Farming with Nature package. We are continuing to roll that out in Northern Ireland, and it is important that we do that.

Ms Forsythe: I thank the Minister for his update. Hardly a year goes past without a serious wildfire incident in the Mournes, and those are devastating. I want to ask the Minister about the response plan that he mentioned. Quite often, when wildfires start, we see them in the distance, and they do not appear to be that big, but the rate at which they progress is fast and difficult to contain. The Minister talked about the response plan and other emergency services. When I have seen fires as I have been driving along, I have called 999, but the response from the call handler and the police is to ask where the incident is, what road it is on, where they will connect to water and how the fire engine will get to the location. However, members of the public do not know that. Is there something in the response plan that will feed that information back down, so that, when members of the public see a fire, someone can explain it, get connected to water and deal with the incident earlier?

Mr Muir: Thank you, Diane. That is a constructive comment, which I will take back to my colleagues and to the Fire and Rescue Service. A key element of the wider action plan is a community response, because the community will know the situation on the ground, and, collectively, we can be much stronger in how we turn a situation around. I will take that back.

The weather is starting to improve, and that is when worries arise about the risk of wildfires in Northern Ireland. We are all united in our message today, which is to urge people to be cautious in the countryside. If anyone is aware of someone deliberately setting malicious fires, I urge them to report that to the police. That behaviour harms our environment but also puts people, their houses and their businesses at risk.

Mr McGlone: Minister, you published the wildfire action plan earlier this month, and there is a pledge to look at existing legislation to deal with those who start wildfires. You touched on enforcement: what measures are you considering, and are you going to be harsher on those who are found guilty of engaging in and starting wildfires? Secondly, do you have a timescale for the overall work?

Mr Muir: Thank you, Patsy. The action plan, which is on the Department's website, sets out the various actions that we are going to take forward. We can take those forward at a faster pace if we have the resources to do so; that links to budget and resourcing. There are two fundamental actions that can be taken on enforcement. First, where people are aware of cases that could result in enforcement action, it is about them reporting those promptly and being prepared to give witness statements. Secondly, we have committed to looking at the relevant legislation, and we will review its effectiveness. We need to ascertain whether the legislation needs to be changed or whether we need to do more to encourage people to come forward to give evidence, so that we can bring cases to trial.

Mr Carroll: The Minister will be aware that there have been wildfires in the Black Mountain area in my constituency over the past few years. How will his strategy and action plan take that area and other mountainous locations into consideration?

Mr Muir: Good work is being done in the Belfast hills by environmental organisations, and I thank them for that, because that helps us with the management of those areas. It is important to say that a number of the actions in the wildfire action plan cut across the whole of Northern Ireland. I am very conscious of the impact that wildfires have had. They have been in the news, they have affected local communities, and we need to build resilience.

The issues that are associated with wildfires in Northern Ireland are not unconnected with the issue of climate change. Weather patterns are changing, and places are more susceptible to wildfires. That is why we also want to take action in relation to climate change, and it is why we have published a climate adaptation plan for Northern Ireland.

It is the first one in the UK that involves non-governmental organisations working with government. It is a collective approach. We also need to take action through the climate action plan for Northern Ireland. It is important that we recognise that.

Mr Muir: Mr Speaker, with your permission, I will group questions 3 and 12.

Since becoming Minister, I have had regular engagement on coastal management issues, including meetings with stakeholders, briefings from my officials and discussions with the Minister for Infrastructure.

The coastal forum is a collaborative partnership involving local councils, the National Trust, my Department and the Department for Infrastructure, supported by an effective working group that continues to deliver the agreed work programme. Key achievements include a £2·5 million investment by my Department in coastal evidence gathering, resulting in complete coverage of the coastline. Building on that collaboration, partners have also secured €9·6 million from the PEACE PLUS programme for the coastal monitoring and adaptation planning project.

As witnessed again this winter, coastal communities and infrastructure are already experiencing the impacts of climate change. Those impacts underline the urgent need for action that is set out in the third Northern Ireland climate change adaptation programme (NICCAP), which was published last month. The programme includes actions on coastal resilience that take account of the Climate Change Committee's (CCC) recommendation that the Executive consider introducing legislation on coastal change and the designation of responsibility to a Department.

The climate change adaptation programme also outlines the role that nature-based solutions can perform in coastal areas, where blue carbon habitats such as salt marsh, seagrass, kelp forests and mussel beds not only store carbon but improve coastal resilience by reducing wave energy and help to limit erosion and storm impacts. More broadly, actions to restore peatlands, woodlands, grasslands and healthy soils reduce flood risk by slowing and storing water, while nature-based solutions in urban areas, such as sustainable drainage systems and urban greening, help to manage surface water and reduce heat impacts.

Mr Speaker: I have to say, Minister, that I find the grouping somewhat tenuous. Nonetheless, I will let you off with it this time.

Mr Martin: I thank the Minister for his answer. Minister, I asked your co-chair, the Sinn Féin Minister for Infrastructure, about some of the key developments over the past two years. She replied by telling me that £2 million — you referenced that figure — had been invested in "establishing the baseline". As I said, you made reference to that. Is it acceptable that, for the past two years, £2 million has, in effect, been spent on research and little has been done practically to protect the north Down coastline or, in fact, any other coastline in Northern Ireland?

Mr Muir: By way of a response to the Speaker, I am happy to take question 12 separately, if that is so desired.

I find it a bit rich for the DUP to lecture me on climate change when the actions that I am trying to take to address the impacts of climate change have been stymied by its Department again and again. The climate change adaptation programme sat in the Executive for months before I could get agreement to publish it.

We are seeking to take action on the issue. The institutions did not sit for two years, so I am seeking to catch up on the progress that should have been made. We are clear about the impact of climate change around Northern Ireland. We seek to take forward the climate change adaptation programme and deal with the issues associated with coastal erosion. The most fundamental thing that we can do, however, is to acknowledge that there is a climate change problem rather than continue to deny it.

Ms K Armstrong: Thank you, Minister, for the update on the nature-based solutions and the role that they will play in the third climate change adaptation programme. I should declare an interest: I am a member of the Ards peninsula coastal erosion group, and I have been out at Anne's Point, Mount Stewart, where people can see how nature-based solutions are solving some problems of flooding.

You mentioned that the climate change adaptation programme sets out the requirement for a lead Department. Will you provide the next steps in designating the lead Department that will oversee coastal management?

Mr Muir: Steps are set out in NICCAP for the designation of that Department. It is important that that take place. It will also require legislation, which will have to be taken forward in the next mandate. A number of actions need to be taken forward, and we seek to do that collaboratively across government and with stakeholders.

Mr McGrath: Whilst the Minister mentioned lots of investment in preventative work and the mapping exercise, there are still examples in constituencies such as mine of South Down where people fear that they will lose their gardens, their homes and roads.

As well as looking to the future, is there any way in which finance could be made available where something of that nature is perilously close to happening to help people with the imminent issues?

Mr Muir: I am conscious of the impact that coastal erosion has on local communities. As the Member knows, it is a cross-cutting issue, and that is why we need to designate a Department and legislate for that. In the existing framework, responsibility for infrastructure such as sea walls, roads and harbours sits with the Department for Infrastructure, which manages and maintains those assets and carries out repairs and assessments, such as those in Donaghadee, where damage occurred recently. I highlight the need for everyone, including councils, to work together. We have to take a holistic approach, part of which involves nature-based solutions. We are conscious not only of the costs associated with hard infrastructure but of how it potentially moves the problem down the coast.

If there are particular issues in the Member's constituency, I am happy to consider them in correspondence and follow them up with the relevant Ministers.

Mr Muir: Jubilee House currently has 358 workstations available. They include 187 for DAERA staff; 145 for Department for Communities staff, who occupy the second floor; and a further 26 that are provided in the Department of Finance's Connect2 hub, which is located on the ground floor and is available to all Northern Ireland Civil Service (NICS) staff.

Daily occupancy is not monitored by DAERA, as workstations are allocated to DAERA business groups and managed in line with the hybrid working policy. A workstation booking app is available to assist that process. While its use is encouraged, it is not mandatory. Occupation levels therefore cannot be confirmed using the booking app data. The booking app data indicates, however, that, on average, 51% of available workstations were booked by DAERA staff each month. DFC has an average weekly occupancy of 77% for its accommodation, while monthly occupancy averaged 17% between March 2025 and February 2026 for the Department of Finance's NICS Connect2 hub.

Mr Robinson: I thank the Minister for that response. Has he looked at basing more staff in Ballykelly, either those in his Department or, via conversations with other Ministers, those in other Departments?

Mr Muir: I am conscious of the resource that we have in Jubilee House and its importance for achieving regional balance. As for increasing occupancy levels in the building, with the implementation of hybrid working it is a requirement for staff to attend the workplace for 40% of their contractual working hours each week. That reduced the space that my Department needed in Jubilee House. Consequently, my Department implemented arrangements with the Department for Communities and the Department of Finance to maximise building usage. We are seeking to make sure that everyone is able to use the building. As the Member knows, the Department for Communities is on the second floor, which will enable it to deliver a wider creation of jobs in the services that it delivers on behalf of the Department for Work and Pensions in Great Britain. That is a good relationship. We have flexible working arrangements in Northern Ireland for Northern Ireland Civil Service staff, and I am glad that Jubilee House is part of that.

Mr Dickson: Minister, in general terms, how are vacancy rates in your Department affecting your ability to deliver?

Mr Muir: Vacancy rates in my Department is the biggest issue inhibiting me from fulfilling statutory services and delivering on many Members' priorities. We have over 800 vacancies in the Department. It is important that they be filled. The Northern Ireland Audit Office (NIAO) report on Civil Service resourcing is relevant. I have no doubt that the Public Accounts Committee will pick up on the fact that the average time taken to fill vacancies is seven months. That needs to be addressed so that we can ensure that we have the right people in the right posts to deliver for the people of Northern Ireland.

Mr Muir: Work is well advanced on finalising Northern Ireland's first climate action plan, following the completion of the public consultation and recent publication of the summary of responses on the DAERA website. Responses highlighted strong support for climate action, alongside clear expectations of fairness, affordability and deliverability. The climate action plan is a significant, cross-cutting statutory document that will provide clarity on how we will cut emissions, improve our environment and achieve sustainable growth in a way that is just and fair for all. It is therefore my intention to bring the climate action plan to the Executive for consideration before the summer recess. Whilst work continues to finalise the first climate action plan for publication, it is important to note that work on a more ambitious second climate action plan is already under way, reflecting the scale of the long-term challenge, as set out in the Climate Change Act (Northern Ireland) 2022. A low-carbon future will bring multiple benefits that will be achieved only by working together.

Mr McReynolds: I thank the Minister for his response. It is also good to hear the positive response that there has been to the climate action plan. Minister, what is your assessment of the recent report by the Climate Change Committee on the cost-benefit analysis of the seventh carbon budget?

Mr Muir: The Climate Change Committee's cost-benefit analysis reinforces the message that early, well-planned action is economically preferable to delay and that the cost of inaction would be significant and rising for households, farmers and businesses. In particular, the report highlights that a single fossil fuel price shock can cost as much as delivering the recommended route to net zero, underscoring the economic risk of continued exposure to volatile fossil fuel markets.

Not acting on climate change will cost the UK between £10 billion and £20 billion per year by 2050, and, for every pound invested in climate action, the benefits outweigh that by 2·2 to 4·1 times. Those findings are relevant for Northern Ireland, because inaction would increase our exposure to climate impacts, such as more frequent and extreme weather; increased flooding; and risks to food and energy security. Delay also increases the risk of higher future costs. By contrast, taking forward a planned route through the climate action plan supports a fair and just transition, enabling people and business to adapt in a manageable way. The benefits of acting now are lower energy bills over time; improved energy security; new green jobs and skills; and greater resilience in farming and rural communities. It helps to ensure that the transition delivers economic, social and environmental benefits for Northern Ireland, including protection for the most vulnerable.

Mr McAleer: Minister, can you give an assurance that the climate action plan and the actions that flow from it will be underpinned by the principles of just transition?

Mr Muir: I can, because the issue of just transition runs through the Climate Change Act, which was passed unanimously by the House in 2022. I believe in a just transition. We are setting up the just transition commission to ensure that those voices are heard and no one is left behind. It will be the first time that such a commission has been set up in law in the UK and Ireland.

Mr Wilson: Minister, you are aware of your wide-ranging role in the climate action plan and the fact that that work is cross-departmental, as you have stated. The climate action plan does not come without cost. In wider society, people are becoming more aware of the great expense associated with overambitious emissions targets.

I note that your colleague conveniently referred to the Climate Change Committee's reports. Sadly, those initial reports were, of course, rejected by the majority in the House.

Mr Speaker: Is there a question, Mr Wilson?

Mr Wilson: Yes. I will get to the question.

Minister, will you today commit to task every Department and arm's-length body with conducting a cost-benefit analysis of all net zero-related climate policies and funding streams within their remits?

Mr Muir: As I set out in response to the supplementary question from Peter McReynolds, there are clear benefits associated with climate action. The Climate Change Committee consistently reports on that. Requirements are also in place in 'Managing Public Money' for any expenditure in government, as everyone well knows.

The issue here with people pushing the mantra that climate action can be deferred and is something that we should not take defies belief, frankly. We are seeing, yet again, a fossil fuel crisis, where people are being pushed into fuel poverty. We are at the behest of dictatorships for the supply of oil and gas. We want to take climate action so that we get off that fossil fuel roller coaster and have a decarbonised society that everyone benefits from. That is what I intend to do, rather than parrot the Trump playbook that the DUP is obsessed with.

Mr Gaston: Minister, your draft climate action plan stipulates a reduction by 2030 of 18% in dairy cattle, 17% in beef cattle and 18% in sheep, pigs and poultry. Can you give the agriculture industry·— remember: that is the one that you are meant to champion — a commitment that your action plan will not include stock cuts?

Mr Muir: If the Member cared to read the climate action plan, he would realise that it does not; that we are not following the advice of the CCC; and that we are working with farmers to give that thriving, resilient and environmentally sustainable future. That is what we are doing. It is important that we recognise the course that we are following on that. We are committed to climate action, and we are committed to a just transition.

We are also not going to jump on the bandwagon of rejecting science and evidence, which your party does daily.

Mr Speaker: We move to topical questions. Question 1 has been withdrawn.

Mr Muir: Thank you, Kellie. The fisheries and water environment Bill is a key piece of legislation. It is being drafted, and I hope to be able to bring it to the House for its Second Stage before the summer recess, allowing Committee Stage to then commence. The legislation is important because we are operating on outdated legislation from 1966. It is important that we bring the legislation in line with modern operating practices and that we modernise fines and penalties and standardise those in line with our colleagues in Great Britain. It is important legislation, and many stakeholders are asking for it. Hopefully, we will get it to the House before summer recess and that scrutiny can take place because the delivery of legislation is what the House should be focused on, particularly for our inland fishing sector.

Ms K Armstrong: Thank you very much, Minister. Can you outline for the House and for those watching how the legislation will benefit the fishing industry?

Mr Muir: Part of it will be a requirement to publish an inland fisheries policy statement, and that will be really important so that we are able to look at the challenges facing the fishing sector today and in making sure that there is a level playing field for everyone. That is why we are standardising fines and penalties and bringing ourselves in line with our colleagues in the rest of the UK. It is long-awaited legislation, and, hopefully, it will get to the House as soon as possible so that we can complete the associated scrutiny.

Mr Muir: I am very conscious that this matter is in front of the courts, as I set out in last week's debate. I will have to be careful in my response because I want to respect the legal process that is under way.

I am very clear about the benefits associated with climate action. I do not want to see Northern Ireland left behind. We now have a situation where China, for example, is the largest exporter of EVs. We are also very conscious of the benefits of clean local energy for citizens in Northern Ireland, and that is why it is important that we give certainty to businesses. The legislation was passed unanimously in the House back in 2022, and it is important that we respect the democratic mandate of the House and continue to take action on climate change, which is what I am seeking to do.

Mr Brett: As the Minister knows, there is no consensus around the level of those targets. The best way to provide assurance to business is to deliver projects that the business community wants. It wants to see an investment strategy from the Executive. We cannot have one whilst the road projects are going through the courts and are being shelved. Those targets are costing lives daily, and they are also costing millions of pounds in undelivered projects. When will the Minister wake up to the folly of those targets?

Mr Muir: The question back is this: when will the DUP admit to the folly of climate change denial? People are suffering the consequences of Northern Ireland being subject to the fossil fuel roller coaster and the impact that that has on fuel and gas prices for the citizens and businesses of Northern Ireland. We need to get off that roller coaster and take climate action and let people benefit from it.

Mr Muir: Thank you, Kate. In my oral statement on waste water regulation, delivered to the House at the beginning of March, I set out a number of key interventions to strengthen the regulation and enforcement of waste water activities and to reduce pollution across our water environment.

Those interventions include introducing the fisheries and water environment Bill to strengthen fines and penalties; reviewing the sentences for environmental offences through the Department of Justice's planned sentencing review; a proposal for the Northern Ireland Environment Agency to withdraw from the statement of regulatory principles and intent (SORPI) administrative arrangement with Northern Ireland Water; seeking Executive agreement to designate the shellfish water protected area as a sensitive area under the Urban Waste Water Treatment Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2007; reviewing and updating standards within discharge consents; and introducing waste water regulatory reforms to improve compliance and compliance reporting.

The situation that is occurring in Northern Ireland, where we are having sewage pumped into our waterways, is wrong. It is a disgrace, and it is important that people back me in the actions that I am trying to take to strengthen regulation enforcement around sewage pollution.

Ms Nicholl: I thank the Minister for his answer. This is an issue that residents in South Belfast raise with me on a regular basis, and I know that he is passionate about tackling it. Is the Minister able to quantify the impact of waste water pollution on Belfast lough and our waterways?

Mr Muir: The situation is stark. Our rivers, lakes and loughs are under mounting and unacceptable pressures. Only 29% of our surface water bodies now achieve good ecological status, which is a deterioration since 2011. Northern Ireland Water has reported that more than 20 million tons of untreated sewage and waste water spill into waterways every year, with storm overflows discharging over 24,500 times annually. Waste water and sewage discharges have significant environmental consequences that extend into the wider economy, affecting new development, public health, fisheries, industry, recreation and tourism. The impacts of excess nutrients are already evident, including three successive summers of blue-green algae blooms in Lough Neagh and the likelihood that that will occur again this year. Evidence is demonstrating a deterioration of water quality in Belfast lough. Nutrient contamination in Belfast lough is damaging the shellfish water protected area, reducing both the quality and the market value of local shellfish, and posing risks to the sustainability of the shellfish sector.

Mr Muir: Thank you, Gareth. I am aware of the concerns around that, and I am glad that you were able to have that constructive engagement last week. If you want to have a chat with me about that later today, I am happy to do so, because the safety of pedestrians and park users must always be paramount.

Mr Wilson: Thank you, Minister. Given that the park is a DAERA asset, will you commit to encouraging and resourcing your Department to work in a collaborative way with stakeholders to conduct a technical study for the creation of a footbridge?

Mr Muir: I will engage with you and get a bit more information about that. We need to scope it out. If actions are required, we will not be found wanting. We need to follow proper process, but safety must be paramount.

Mr Muir: Thank you, David. That is an important issue, and it has been raised with me regularly. That is why it is part of the animal welfare pathway. The expert review is finalising its work. That report will come to me soon. I will consider it and then publish it in the next few weeks. Once the report is published, we will have to give consideration to the implementation of its recommendations and the prioritisation that comes with that. We will want to engage with stakeholders on that and get their views on a key issue on which I get regular correspondence.

Mr Honeyford: Thank you, Minister, for your response. What further actions will you then be delivering in this mandate to improve the welfare of our pets?

Mr Muir: The animal welfare pathway sets out a number of actions that we are seeking to take, largely in relation to companion animals. Actions are also taking place, not just within the pathway but in addition to it, in relation to farmed animals. It is important that I give an assurance that that is a priority for me and my Department in relation to TB but also in relation to, for example, the issues associated with bluetongue, avian influenza and other areas where we need to take action on animal welfare and managing disease.

Specifically in relation to companion animals, we are taking forward legislation associated with Lucy's law. That will be coming to the Committee very soon. We will be commencing a consultation to get views on the issue. Correspondence on that will be going to the Committee very soon. It will include a ban on specific aversive training devices, the regulation of rescue and rehoming organisations, strengthening microchipping requirements for dogs, a call for evidence on the mandatory microchipping of pet cats, and dog licence fees. A lot of action needs to be taken. We lost two years of the mandate but we are seeking to catch up on legislation around that.

Mr Speaker: Topical question 7 has been withdrawn.

Mr Muir: There is lots that we can learn from it. First, we should recognise the importance of working together and thank the RSPB in particular for its work in conjunction with the community. It has been a collective effort, and I am proud of the community in Rathlin for what it has managed to achieve. It is also about understanding the importance of biosecurity, which has been elevated. It is important that we keep it at that level to ensure that we do not have any further incursions.

This is a positive moment for Northern Ireland. It is something that we should be proud of and that shows what we can achieve by working together.

Ms Mulholland: Thank you, Minister. Given that the puffins arrived on Rathlin a couple of weeks ago, can you give us an update on the seabird conservation strategy, given that it links so much to the work of the LIFE Raft project?

Mr Muir: The seabird conservation strategy — I checked this before I came here — is on its way to my desk, so it should be here imminently. I will promptly consider it, and, hopefully, we can then publish it. It is a good piece of work, and it is important that we get it out and deliver actions on it in conjunction with our stakeholders, particularly the RSPB but also more broadly, because a wide range of people are committed to the same goal that we seek to achieve, which is a thriving environment.

Mr Muir: As the Member will be aware, we deliver support through the food programme. He will also be aware of our budget situation and the challenges associated with that and with previous decisions that were taken to ensure that we manage our budget appropriately. I am very aware of the benefit that rural shows have for the rural community in Northern Ireland. It is important that we recognise that in future rural policy for Northern Ireland and that all Departments have a role to play. The agricultural shows that take place across Northern Ireland enable the rural community to get together, and it is important that other Departments consider their role in that.

Mr Frew: I thank the Minister for his answer. Given that farming communities and families are under so much pressure, what message will he send to the people who attend the agricultural shows? What solace can he give them, given the cost of diesel, the cost of fertiliser and the heavy burden placed on farming families by his net zero policies?

Mr Muir: The action that we are trying to take on climate change is about getting off the fossil fuel roller coaster so that people are not subjected to those price increases. The message that I would send to everyone in Northern Ireland, particularly our farming community is this: we are with you. It is important that the UK Government step up. They have the fiscal firepower to deliver support, particularly with fuel and energy, and it is important that they step up.

As Minister, I am committed to continuing to deliver our sustainable agriculture programme and to working with the farming community to deliver a thriving, resilient and environmentally sustainable future. The challenges that the agriculture community in particular faces with fertiliser prices are of concern to me, and we will continue to work with stakeholders on that. This week, we will convene a round table of relevant parties to consider the issues in more detail and the practical supports that we can deliver. It is important that we do that.

Mr Muir: Thank you, Trevor: you have raised an important issue. I have had significant engagement with officials on the issue. They are coming to a conclusion on the future of slurry stores and how to get into a situation in which, hopefully, permitted development rights are associated with them: that is where we need to get to.

What we are talking about, particularly when it comes to the challenges associated with ammonia, is a policy issue first. Alongside that, but separately, significant effort has been undertaken by the Northern Ireland Environment Agency to improve response times. I was briefed about that again this morning: a submission was sent to me about ensuring that people are given more timely and detailed updates on that and that we improve the turnaround times. A planning performance improvement plan is in place, and it is important that we continue to deliver on it.

I get the issue about the need for us to be able to have a more agile response on slurry stores. We are seeking to deliver on that.

Mr Speaker: We will move on to questions to the Minister for Communities.

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

Mr Speaker: There are no points of order during Question Time.

Mr Speaker: Question 2 has been withdrawn.

Mr Lyons (The Minister for Communities): I remain firmly committed to providing practical assistance to those most at risk of fuel poverty. I am pleased that the Executive have agreed to my proposal to provide targeted support for families and others across Northern Ireland who are feeling the pressures of increased home heating oil costs. To support the delivery of the scheme, £36·4million will be allocated to my Department. That means that assistance of £100 for oil will be offered to over 340,000 households in Northern Ireland, covering a range of vulnerable groups including those with disabilities, older people and those who are on a low income. The scheme goes beyond people who are on benefits and recognises the fact that many working families struggle with heating costs. It targets public support to the households that need it most, including people who are in low-paid work.

This is about helping the right people in the right way on the basis of real household pressures. While I recognise the scheme’s role in providing short-term assistance to households that use home heating oil, my ambition is to move beyond that and deliver meaningful and lasting support.

Alongside the new measure, I will reform my Department’s discretionary support scheme to ensure that grant assistance is available to those in need, regardless of the type of home heating that they rely on. In parallel, I am actively focused on long-term solutions for families. I will seek financial support from the Executive for proposals for a warm healthy homes fund, as part the implementation of our warm healthy homes strategy, to make cold, damp homes a thing of the past.

Mr O'Toole: I welcome the fact that an announcement was made last week, following weeks of the Executive bickering and shifting blame. We will, however, want to hear more, and I welcome the fact that the Minister has indicated that more is to come. The scheme also needs to properly help people who use gas, particularly those who are on lower incomes.

There are many reputable providers of home heating oil, and I am not in any way saying that all providers will profiteer, but, given that home heating oil is entirely unregulated in Northern Ireland, there is nothing, legally, to stop home heating oil providers simply jacking up the price of 500 litres of home heating oil before the Minister's scheme starts. What conversations has the Minister had with home heating oil providers to ensure that the benefits of the scheme will be passed on properly and that there is no profiteering?

Mr Lyons: We have not yet had those conversations, but we will engage with a number of stakeholders. That is a valid concern that many people will have. If we are to provide direct support to people, however, it needs to be done in the right way. We will look to have a list of suppliers, therefore, so that people can get support out to those who need it most for that particular reason.

This scheme should be welcomed. The Member talked about how long it has taken for one to be put in place. I make no apology for that. The reason why it has taken time is that it has not simply gone to those who are on benefits. We wanted to extend it to others who are on low incomes. That is where the added time and complexity came from, but, as a result, 70% of households in Northern Ireland that use home heating oil will get that benefit. The Member said that, for a long time, we were not doing anything. That is wrong, and we will have to file it under, "Things that Matthew O'Toole gets wrong". That is a pretty big file. We have been working hard, and we will now deliver.

Mr Speaker: I call Deborah Armstrong.

Mrs Erskine: I thank the Minister for delivering on this. While others take part in talking shops and come up with sound bites for the media, the Communities Minister is delivering for homes across Northern Ireland, and I thank him for that. As he knows, given the nature of living in rural areas, rural areas feel this issue most acutely. Will he commit to ensuring that those homes receive support as well?

Mr Speaker: Apologies, Mrs Erskine — as if proof were needed that I —

Mrs Erskine: No problem. I was an Armstrong once.

Mr Speaker: — live in the past.

Mr Lyons: The Member is absolutely right to highlight the challenges that many people face across Northern Ireland. That is why we are doing what we can with what we have by putting the scheme in place. I and others have been saying, however — in fact, it was raised by our party leader in Westminster six weeks ago — that there is a need for help to come to everybody who is in need at this time. The most simple and straightforward way in which the Government can do that is by reducing the tax and duty on fuel. That would not just provide immediate relief to those who are filling up the tank of their car, their tractor, their lorry or whatever or those filling their tank with home heating oil but help them with everything that comes from that. It would help with inflation and help pare down the increases that will come as a result. We are doing what we can, but the Government must step up and deliver real relief to help people in the Member's constituency of Fermanagh and South Tyrone and beyond.

Mr Lyons: Further to my answer to the Member's previous question on the issue, I can advise that the Housing Executive wrote to my Department on 24 February seeking approval for an extra-statutory payment of approximately £2,500 per property for up to 88 properties, up to a total cost of £220,000. That payment would enable the private homeowners to proceed with the works and ensure that remediation could be progressed for the scheme as a whole.

My Department has referred the request to the Department of Finance for approval. I am happy to announce — this is fresh off the press; I have just been handed the information — that the Department of Finance has now provided its approval to allow the Housing Executive to make the extra-statutory payment. My officials will now write to the Housing Executive to advise it of that approval, which will enable the Housing Executive to proceed with the replacement of the Finlock gutters. That is some good news for the Member's constituents.

Mr Kingston: Minister, you have answered my main question. With the news that there is now a clear pathway for the replacement of the Finlock gutters on blocks of houses in mixed ownership, there will be celebrations in Ballysillan tonight. I thank the Minister for his attention to the matter. I ask him to continue to lobby for the works to proceed post-haste and thank him again for his good work on the matter.

Mr Lyons: I am grateful to the Member for his comments and for bringing the matter to my attention in the first place. It is good news. That essential work needs to be done, and I am pleased that we now have the approval from the Department of Finance. I will make sure, through the Housing Executive, that the work proceeds as soon as possible.

Mr Lyons: I undertook a total of 15 engagements during my visit to the United States. They were wide-ranging, and I engaged with key partners in Savannah, Georgia, and in Washington DC across the political, cultural, business and tourism sectors. I spoke at an event in Savannah hosted by Georgia Southern University alongside my Irish Government counterpart, Patrick O'Donovan TD, to highlight the influence that the Ulster-Scots community and its values had in the development of the region. My officials are exploring several promising opportunities for collaboration.

I welcomed the opportunity to build on existing relationships and to explore further collaboration with the National Archives and the Library of Congress within the framework of the memorandum of understanding (MOU) that my Department signed with the America250 commission. Those relationships have borne tangible results, and I am pleased to confirm that I have secured the loan of key historical records that will come for the first time to Northern Ireland.

One of the highlights of the visit was undoubtedly the special reception that was jointly hosted with the America250 commission on Capitol Hill. Over 250 distinguished guests attended, including senior politicians from both parties in the House and Senate, business leaders, cultural figures and representatives of the diaspora. I strongly believe that personal connections and relationships matter. Our shared stories and experiences build trust and mutual respect that help open doors and create lasting opportunities. In an increasingly global world, Northern Ireland must seize those chances to tell our story, which is one of resilience, creativity, innovation and deep historical links.

Mrs Cameron: I thank the Minister for that detailed answer and for giving us details on what was clearly a busy and worthwhile visit in which he represented not just the unionist community but all of the community in Northern Ireland. Will the Minister outline the cost and what he sees as the value of the visit to the US?

Mr Lyons: The total cost of the visit, including flights, accommodation, advertising and catering at the event, along with entertainment, commemorative coins, books, pop-ups and displays, was £39,727.

With regard to value, we were able to promote the Ulster-American connection in a way that we have not done before. During the St Patrick's Day parade, we got exposure to the New York media market — a media market of 8 million people. We told them about the historical links between Northern Ireland and the United States and invited people to visit Northern Ireland. As I have outlined, we have also received material for loan from the Library of Congress. It will be of value, especially to the Public Record Office and its responsibilities and objectives. If the Member wants to know more, I encourage her to speak to the business leaders and groups from Northern Ireland who were there and who greatly valued the opportunity to engage with so many people in the United States.

Mrs Mason: Minister, at a time when people are struggling to heat their homes and fill their cars — issues that you have been raising here today — you have been able to find hundreds of thousands of pounds for the US250 project, but you have yet to demonstrate value for money. It is OK to tell us what, you think, was good about your trip, but will you outline the projected return on investment from those projects and confirm how your Department assessed value for money before proceeding with all of them?

Mr Lyons: First, the Member will be aware that businesses cases have been carried out for the work: for the visit and the funding pots that I have put in place. It is important that that is considered. Secondly, yes, I completely understand that we are living in a difficult period and that people need support. I have brought forward that support, but we should not do that at the expense of arts and culture in Northern Ireland. We got those budgets in order to help elsewhere. We can do both, and we will continue to do both.

The promotion of Northern Ireland — getting more people to visit and be aware of Northern Ireland — is a good thing. It is something that we should all want and celebrate. I hope that we get visitors who were watching the St Patrick's Day parade on NBC in New York and will say, "I want to visit Northern Ireland", or "I want to visit south Down" or "I want to hear more and see more about this place". It is worthwhile. It is something that we should do. I encourage the Member to look into some of the projects that have been funded. Many people applied. We were not able to fund everything that we wanted to. Local communities see the value in it; our museums see the value in it; and Tourism Ireland sees the value in it. I hope that she will find out more and understand the value that can come as well.

Mr McGrath: I represent the Downpatrick area — the resting place of three patron saints but particularly St Patrick. Will there be an opportunity next year for a Minister to visit Downpatrick on St Patrick's Day and help sell that wonderful area, which is the true home to St Patrick, and make sure that as many people as possible know about that?

Mr Lyons: Of course, Slemish will be coming into my constituency soon. It is important that we do not forget Slemish and its connections to St Patrick. This is something that we should do throughout the year, not just on St Patrick's Day: tell our story about who we are, what we have done, where we have come from and why this is such a good place to visit. We have also been pushing the historical and family connections and the research that can be done at the Public Record Office. The Open was an incredible opportunity for us. The Public Record Office was full of people who came for the Open and explored more about their history and heritage, and we have had people come back. This is a good investment. We need to continue to do it. I will happily promote the story of St Patrick, his Christian values and his connection to Downpatrick.

Mr Lyons: I am keen to ensure that supported living accommodation is available where it is needed. This is not just about increasing provision but ensuring that the right services are being provided in the right places. Given the budget constraints that we face and the significant spend by my Department annually on the Supporting People programme, decisions must be based on where there is evidence of need. Any increase in supported living provision requires not only capital investment through the social housing development programme but adequate Supporting People funding to resource the additional or expanded support services needed.

In 2025-26, I allocated a total of £83·7 million to the Supporting People programme. That included £1 million for additional or expanded services, resulting in 124 units of new and expanded services for seven Supporting People providers. The programme now provides approximately 800 services, which help to support almost 20,000 individuals.

The Housing Executive is finalising its strategic intent for the programme, which will guide its future direction. That includes a strategic needs assessment, which will provide evidence of current and future need for housing support services and highlight any gaps in supported living provision. The Housing Executive will draw on that assessment to inform future commissioning decisions, including re-profiling and expansion of services, where need is identified.

Mr McGlone: Thank you, Minister, for your answer. This is invaluable work, and I entirely support it. Many people require supported living, and many come from institutional care and require reintegration into the community. I will refer to a constituency issue. What duty of care do the organisations responsible for the placement of individuals, some of whom have severe mental health problems and are bordering on being high risk, have to others who live nearby? What responsibility and duty of care has the likes of, let us say, Praxis to individuals living in close proximity to those who have those high-risk behavioural problems?

Mr Lyons: We have the Supporting People programme in place because we recognise that the individuals concerned have additional needs. Of course, there needs to be support and help for those who are availing themselves of that sort of accommodation, and that should be right for their needs. I do not know whether the Member has a particular case in mind. He says that he does, in which case I am more than happy for him to come to my office so that we can raise that directly with the providers to try to make sure that we sort out those issues. This is a complex area and often involves difficult needs. We need to be sensitive to that and we need to help those who need it, but we also need to make sure that we are helping others in that situation as well, whether that is members of the public who have no connection, apart from proximity, to the service or those who may share that accommodation with the individuals whom he is describing.

Mr Bradley: I remind the Minister and the Member opposite that St Patrick established his church in Cúil Rathain

. That is worth noting.

Does the Minister accept that there are areas of Northern Ireland that lack sufficient supported accommodation?

Mr Lyons: I will certainly note the Member's first comment. If anybody else has any other connections to St Patrick, I am happy to note them and put that information into the Assembly Library.

On his question, we recognise that need varies across locations and client groups, and the investment required, not only in the physical accommodation but in the housing support services, means that the Housing Executive's commissioning decisions must be based on evidence, and that must be informed by how needs have changed over time. The purpose of the strategic needs assessment is to provide robust data to help inform future commissioning decisions that are informed by levels of need.

Mr Lyons: First, I thank Mr Robinson for his invitation to visit Limavady in March, when I was able to see first-hand the benefits of my Department’s recent £150,000 investment in the revitalisation scheme, which benefited 35 properties in Main Street and Irish Green Street. My officials are engaging with Causeway Coast and Glens Borough Council on its next regeneration priorities for Limavady following the 2024 review of the Limavady master plan.

Limavady includes several key opportunity sites, which my Department will progress in partnership with the council and other strategic stakeholders, subject to priorities agreed by elected Members and the availability of funding.

Mr Robinson: On behalf of the traders whom the Minister met, I certainly thank him for that visit. They pass on their very sincere thanks for the interest that he has shown.

What action is his Department taking to tackle dereliction?

Mr Lyons: To explore ways in which my Department can support addressing vacancy, particularly in urban centres, I have asked my officials to conduct a review of successful vacancy initiatives that councils have taken forward to date. To inform that work, my officials have been engaging with all councils, over the past number of months, to agree the parameters of upscaling that type of intervention to enable more schemes to be taken forward. I have tasked my officials to explore how we can roll out the Vacant to Vibrant scheme across all councils following the very successful pilot by Belfast City Council. I am pleased to say that officials are drafting guidelines on the Department's approach to funding future Vacant to Vibrant projects. Once that is finalised, officials will work with councils to develop projects, subject to necessary approvals and budget availability.

Mr Robinson is very passionate about Limavady and the area as a whole, and he wants to see something done about those high rates of vacancy. Unfortunately, it is not just something that he is experiencing in his constituency, which is why we want to take that approach to help urban centres right across Northern Ireland.

Mr Lyons: I am very aware of the significant rise in private rents over recent years in Belfast and across Northern Ireland. While Northern Ireland continues to be regarded as one of the more affordable regions of the UK, the rate at which rents have risen has outpaced wage growth by around 16%, meaning that many renters are now spending a greater share of their income on housing costs. To help address affordability challenges, in April last year, I introduced legislation to limit rent increases to once every 12 months, with a three-month notice period. Ultimately, the root cause of rising rents remains the imbalance between housing supply and demand. Increasing supply across all tenures is essential to improving long-term affordability. That is why we now have a 15-year Executive supply strategy for housing. Shortly, I will bring out the first detailed action plan to support its delivery.

I remain focused on increasing the supply of affordable homes across Northern Ireland. That includes building substantially more social homes. That is why, last October, I set a grant rate that challenges housing associations to deliver more homes per pound of public funds. It is why I am introducing new homes at an affordable rent and why I continue to support Co-Ownership to help people to achieve affordable home ownership.

Miss McAllister: I thank the Minister for his answer. I think that he, like many others, would agree that the fact that rents have outpaced wages by 16% is just mad. In my constituency of North Belfast, rents are increasing in areas that have never seen the likes of those increases before. People who cannot get onto the property ladder turn to the rented sector, but the rental price is much more than any mortgage would be. It is absolutely infuriating. The Minister outlined some rent control measures, such as the third-generation control measure. Is there anything else on his agenda that he is going to look to, either in this mandate or commencing work in the next mandate —

Mr Speaker: Minister.

Miss McAllister: — that might be able to help our constituents more?

Mr Lyons: Of course, any further work in this mandate on the sort of legislation that the Member might be talking about would not be feasible from a practical point of view. However, I do not think that those sorts of controls ultimately help to achieve what we think that they might achieve. In fact, nearly all the evidence that we have collated shows that they have a severely negative impact on rents. Ultimately, as I said in my original answer, this comes down to supply and demand. That means that we need to do everything that we can, and to stretch ourselves, so that we can build as many homes as possible. We are trying to do that in a number of ways. I have set those out already. I am committed to doing everything that we can to increase the supply of homes because, ultimately, that is the only way, in the long term, that we can actually deal with the level of rent.

Mr Carroll: A 53% increase in private rents is disgusting but not surprising. It is something that I, and many others, warned about years ago. The truth is, Minister, that you have allowed landlords to run riot and rip people off. When are you going to introduce rent reduction and rent caps? It should not fall on my shoulders to bring forward a private Member's Bill on the issue, but I am doing so because —

Mr Speaker: Minister.

Mr Carroll: — you have failed to act on this really important issue.

Mr Lyons: I understand that the Member is passionate about the issue, and he is bringing forward what he thinks is the solution. However, as I have said repeatedly, his solutions will make things worse —.

Mr Carroll: That is not true. Rents are going up.

Mr Lyons: It is true, because unless we deal with the issue of demand and the lack of supply, we will never be able to tackle the issue. In the past, I have provided, and I am happy to do so again, to the House the information, research and evidence that show that it simply will not work for people. Our focus needs to be on what has been proven time and time again to work, which is an increase in the supply of housing across all tenures in Northern Ireland. That is what I want to do.

Mrs Dillon: Minister, will you outline what, if any, plans you have to give further assistance to Women's Aid, particularly when it comes to refuge provision, given the fact that the cost of rent means that women in really dangerous positions are unable to leave their homes? Such a place should be their home, but it is the most dangerous place for them and their children right now.

Mr Lyons: Absolutely. The Member is right to raise that issue. Many factors affect those who leave their home as a result of domestic abuse. We need to make sure that we cover all bases and do what we can to provide assistance. The Housing Executive has been key in doing that work and has its strategy. I am happy to look again at some of the figures to see where there is particular demand, but, if the Member has particular concerns, I am more than happy to hear them, because we absolutely need to be receptive and responsive to that issue. I will certainly work with the Housing Executive to make sure that we are doing everything that we can to help those who are most in need. We often talk about the vulnerable in our society; few are more vulnerable than those whom she described. I have worked with Women's Aid in the past at both a constituency and Northern Ireland-wide level, and I am happy to do so again to make sure that we provide the support that is needed.

Ms Forsythe: Minister, the increasing cost of rents has a huge impact on family finances. I welcome the Minister's work on addressing that so far. What more can be done to ensure that we have more housing in Northern Ireland?

Mr Lyons: As I said, we need to make sure that we have more supply, so how do we manage that? Our housing supply strategy is now in place, and the action plans will follow from that. We need to make sure, however, that the funding is in place first of all so that we can build more social homes. I have done what I can by stretching the money that we have and asking housing associations to stretch themselves more so that we can deliver more homes. That is the right thing to do, and we will see the benefit of that, but we need to make sure that the Executive properly fund housing as well. The Programme for Government says that housing is a priority and sets a target, so the money needs to follow that. I understand that a very difficult Budget situation is ahead of us, and capital funding is no different from other money, but, when you make a pledge to build so many homes, you need to see the money follow that pledge so that we can do it.

It does not just come down to funding for housing, however. We need to make sure that the right infrastructure is in place as well, including waste water infrastructure. We also need to make sure that the correct planning policies are in place, that our councils have local development plans and that we have properly zoned land in the right places so that we can build more homes. Some of that rests directly with Ministers — for instance, waste water rests with DFI — but there is a collective responsibility on the Executive. I am bringing proposals to the Executive, some of which are with them right now and others will come forward shortly. We all need to make sure that we are doing everything that we can to build more homes. There is also a responsibility on our councils to make sure that our local development plans are fit for purpose and allow us to build homes where they need to be built.

Mr Lyons: I am pleased to confirm that the preparation of public consultations for each policy in my heritage, culture and creativity programme is now at an advanced stage. I expect the first consultation in respect of the museums policy to launch next week. My officials are finalising practical arrangements for that. The public consultations on the libraries, arts and historical environment policies will follow in sequence, and I expect the majority of the process to be complete before the summer. That approach will see consultations for each policy being launched in a staggered fashion to ensure that those with overlapping interests have adequate time to provide a response to each one in turn, should they wish to do so.

Final policies will be published once consultation responses have been analysed and fully considered, and a collated heritage, culture and creativity action plan will follow when the suite of policies is finalised.

Mr Speaker: Ms Mulholland, briefly.

Ms Mulholland: Minister, many in the arts sector say that you talk the talk, but they are still waiting for you to walk the walk. This has been going on for so long. They have waited for so long for the policies. What is the hold-up? Why is your Department not bringing forward these policies in a timely manner?

Mr Lyons: We are bringing them forward. As I said in the initial answer, public consultations will follow in sequence, and the majority of the process will be completed before the summer. We want to give that time so that people who have an interest in the overlapping policies have time to respond. I want to make sure that it is done, and I am driving it forward.

Mr Speaker: We move on to topical questions.

Mr Lyons: That is the difficulty with having a policy in place that does not have the necessary infrastructure right now to support people. I have said that it will take at least three months before we can get that out to people. Further consultation will be required with some of the key stakeholders and those who will assist us in the work that we are doing. There will also be a process for the Committee. I want to make sure that it is done as quickly as possible, but it is far from perfect. It does not target everybody who needs help or is struggling. However, we are doing what we can with what we have.

Again, I will impress the point on Members that a very simple, straightforward way to provide relief to those in need, a way that targets everybody and helps with some of the inflationary pressures that we are facing, is to see a cut in fuel duty and tax on home heating oil. That would provide not just immediate relief but help in the longer term with so many of the other issues that we face.

Mr Durkan: I am trying to digest that information or work out when the money will become available to those who need it. My colleague Matthew O'Toole asked about engagement with oil distributors here. I will come at it from a different angle. Perhaps the Minister can tell me whether he will engage with oil distributors to make sure that the card can be used with local distributors in all our towns, villages and cities, rather than having one or two big suppliers providing right across the North. That is extremely important.

Mr Lyons: I assure the Member that that is not the intention. We want to make sure that the card covers everybody and anybody who can supply. We will do work over the coming months to make sure that that is the case. One of the reasons why it will take longer is that we do not currently have that distribution list.

Mr Lyons: That was raised with me briefly, and I know the concern that many have expressed. The Member will understand where we are with the budgetary situation and that we are unable to provide all the certainty that we might otherwise like to. However, I am more than happy to take any specific examples of pressure that people are under that she has, and I will see whether we can find a way to help with that. It is creating an additional layer of difficulty, so, if there is a way that I can help, I am happy to do that.

Ms K Armstrong: I thank the Minister very much for his answer. All MLAs representing Ards and North Down have been invited to a meeting on Friday with those groups. I hope that the fair funding principle, as outlined in the partnership agreement with the community and voluntary sector, can be followed and that those groups are not asked to go into their reserves and other areas that would take them outside of the Charity Commission's rules. Does the Minister agree, therefore, that it is important that those groups are still sustainable and that they can continue to deliver their work under the small pockets of deprivation programme?

Mr Lyons: Very important work is being done, and we want those groups to be sustainable. I ask the MLAs or whatever political representatives are going to be there to write to me jointly after the meeting with any suggestions as to how we might be able to help out. If there something that we can do, we will, of course, do it.

Mr Lyons: I have considered the work of the co-design group on the draft strategy in depth over recent weeks. I have to say that I have some concerns about what is in there. It portrays itself as a document of inclusion, but I am concerned about its ideological nature. In particular, I do not believe that it has been evidence-led. Rather, I believe that it has been activist-led. I therefore have a number of concerns, in particular with what is proposed on some of the transgender issues. I do not think that the work that has been done properly respects those who take a different view of gender ideology or takes account of parental views, sex-realist views, biological reality, free speech, the protection of women and girls, safeguarding issues or any evidence-based policy at all.

The group itself has said that there is a notable lack of available data, yet it makes sweeping commitments in the draft strategy, and that is of concern to me. I have already had an engagement with some of the interested groups and was due to have another one last week that had to be postponed because the Executive meeting ran on. I am, however, prepared to sit down with the groups to see whether there is room for us to make sure that we help people. I want to be in a position in which we are providing help, but, unfortunately, the work that has been done does not come anywhere close to what would be acceptable to the Executive.

Ms Ennis: At a time when LGBTQI rights are under attack across the globe, it is vital that we have a strategy in place here that will, for example, help us progress the ban on harmful conversion practices and improve non-discrimination and equality legislation. Minister, why are you continuing to fail LGBTQI people by refusing to bring forward the strategy?

Mr Lyons: I do not think that the Member listened to what I just said. Perhaps she had her supplementary question prepared before she listened to what I had to say. That is the problem when people are driven by ideology. They do not care about evidence or alternative views, nor do they care about facts or having a proper debate. I have concerns with the work that has been done. I do not think that what is in there will get agreement at the Executive.

The Member mentioned conversion therapy in particular. The reason that the UK Government and the Scottish Government have not been able to pass any legislation on conversion therapy is because so much of what people want to see outlawed is already outlawed in legislation. What is left is in the area of free speech and debate, and it would not be appropriate for us to get into that area and place limitations on what people can think or what they can say to other people.

I am therefore not prepared to bring forward something that is not right and that does not work for Northern Ireland. I am happy to engage with anybody who wants to engage. I am happy to have the debate. Some people just say, "Give us a strategy". What is in the strategy, however? What do we want it to do? Unfortunately, far too much of the debate has been driven by ideology. What is in the draft sexual orientation strategy right now simply will not fly.

Mr Lyons: I am grateful to the Member for her question. I am pleased to say that work on the dedicated armed forces liaison pathway is well advanced. My officials are finalising the design of the single-point-of-contact model, including referral routes, support processes and staff training requirements. Once those elements are completed, the pathway will move to the implementation stage. Although I am keen to see the phone line in operation as quickly as possible, it is vital that we invest time in ensuring that the appropriate operating principles and guard rails are in place so that we can build veterans' trust to enable them to engage with our services with confidence.

Raising awareness is also a key priority. My Department will promote the pathway through veterans' roadshows, jobs and benefits offices, veterans' champions and partner organisations such as the Veterans Commissioner for Northern Ireland and the Office for Veterans' Affairs. None of that work was done before I came into office. None of those preparations had been made. Our veterans should be treated on an equal basis, and their service should not be held against them. This is one of the ways in which I will make sure that that happens.

Ms Brownlee: That is incredible news and says loud and clear that our veterans will no longer be left behind. Minister, will you provide a time frame for your work and indicate when it will start to be implemented?

Mr Lyons: I expect to confirm a launch timetable shortly, with the intention of ensuring that the service becomes available as quickly as practicably possible for veterans, transitioning personnel and their families. For too long, our veterans have been taken for granted. I am proud to have been able to use resource in my Department to deliver the service, and I look forward to launching it in due course.

Mr Lyons: I am grateful to the Member for raising that issue. It is absolutely right that we have that support in place. The Housing Executive has a policy on the matter so that support can be provided and people can understand the unique nature of the challenge that is faced by those who are contending with domestic abuse and help them. We know the control that is exerted on them and the impacts and difficulties that that creates. That is why we have a plan in place through the Housing Executive. I will certainly do everything that I can to support that.

I also acknowledge Linda Dillon's question earlier. If there are issues of concern, I am happy to chase them up and make sure that we put in place what needs to be done so that we can help those who, I truly believe, are vulnerable.

Mr Burrows: I thank the Minister for his answer. It is shocking that some perpetrators deny their victim the ability to build up a credit rating, which means that they cannot get private housing either. Would a statutory duty on the Housing Executive to provide priority access for victims of domestic violence be beneficial?

Mr Lyons: That is one of the reasons why we made the changes that we have to intimidation points. It was wrong that certain groups of people who are under threat of violence or other threat had priority over other groups. The Housing Executive will carry out that work to make sure that the policies are right, are up to date and ensure that those who are in need get support and that their circumstances are taken into consideration.

Mr Lyons: I am pleased to say that, on Wednesday, I will make an announcement about those who were successful in applying to the Northern Ireland community infrastructure fund. It is often the case that, in the Chamber, we get a hard time and get accused of not delivering or not getting things done. Oftentimes, that may be justified, but the Northern Ireland community infrastructure fund is a prime example of where we have been able to deliver against a need, and the significant oversubscription to the fund demonstrates that need acutely.

The importance of the timing of the fund is also not lost on me, given the recent impact on the voluntary and community sector of the reduction in the local growth fund. The community infrastructure fund is a good example of two Departments working together. I put on record my thanks to the Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs and his team for ensuring that additional funding will be put in place so that we will maximise delivery for rural communities. It is right that we reflect on the fact that a need was identified, I put in place a system, it is being stepped up and, on Wednesday, we will hear about the communities that will be transformed by the funding that is made available.

Mr Robinson: I very much thank the Minister. All of us in the House will look forward to Wednesday. Can the Minister advise on any future roll-outs of the fund?

Mr Lyons: Ensuring the long-term delivery of the scheme is vital. One of the key bits of feedback from the voluntary and community sector was that the schemes are too few and far between, so I am working to ensure that the scheme is baselined in my Department and will continue to deliver for those sectors. It is also important to give reassurance to those who will have invested in making their application.

I am also pleased to say that it has been opened to faith groups and churches, which play an incredible role in our local communities. I look forward to seeing the churches that will benefit from the fund. It is important that they be supported. Under my leadership, the Department for Communities has been a faith-friendly Department. It is right that we recognise the incredible work that churches do, along with other organisations. I look forward to revealing more on Wednesday.

Mr Speaker: Danny Donnelly has given notice of a question for urgent oral answer to the Minister of Health.

[R]

Mr Nesbitt (The Minister of Health): The Royal College of Emergency Medicine (RCEM) report, 'The State of Emergency Medicine in Northern Ireland', highlights the serious risks associated with prolonged waits in our emergency departments (EDs). Those associated risks include avoidable harm and death. The report estimates that long waits could be associated with 1,032 excess deaths in 2025. While my officials would point out that that is a slight reduction compared with the figures for 2024 and 2023, the level of preventable harm remains unacceptably high, and the reduction is not a trend.

I am very conscious of the concerns raised in the report about the clinical risks linked to prolonged waiting times. Although it is difficult to establish direct causality between waiting times and outcomes, there is clear evidence that extended delays in EDs increase overall clinical risk. The Getting It Right First Time (GIRFT) review of emergency medicine here highlighted the significant patient safety risks associated with ambulance handover delays and prolonged waits in EDs.

In response, my Department is working with the health and social care trusts, including the Ambulance Service, to implement Release to Rescue guidance to try to ensure that no ambulance wait is longer than two hours for a handover at an ED. My officials have briefed the Royal College of Emergency Medicine on that guidance, and we hope to begin to implement it from 27 April. Alongside that, my Department has worked with trusts to improve flow through the unscheduled care system, contributing to a small improvement in category 1 ambulance response times in the Belfast area. While that is welcome, performance remains below the required standard.

My Department continues to act to improve hospital flow, reduce ED congestion and ensure that patients receive timely, safe and effective care. Urgent care centres, minor injury units and Phone First services are fully operational across the region, helping to divert appropriate demand away from EDs. Funding has also been provided to expand hospital-at-home and same-day emergency care services, alongside additional support for the Ambulance Service, strengthening Hear and Treat and See and Treat pathways.

Mr Donnelly: I thank the Minister for that answer. Over 1,000 excess deaths a year being associated with overcrowding and long waits in A&E is a catastrophe. In previous responses to questions for written answer about excess deaths in A&E, the Minister pointed to urgent care centres, Phone First, minor injury units and additional emergency medicine consultants. Those steps are welcome, but the Royal College of Emergency Medicine is clear that attendances at EDs have barely changed, while long waits and associated deaths have risen sharply. Does the Minister accept that, unless patient flow improves across the wider system, particularly through tackling delayed discharge and strengthening capacity in our communities, those measures will not be enough to reduce dangerous waits and the harm associated with them, and what will he do about that?

Mr Nesbitt: I agree with the Member, and I have made the point several times in the Chamber. It is about flow through the hospitals. On many occasions, the focus of the media and the House has been on the front door, including delays in ambulance handovers and delays in getting patients, about whom there had been a decision to admit in the emergency department, into a bed in an acute hospital.

However, the problem is at the back door. It is about — the Member has used my phrase — community capacity. What are we doing about it? We are looking at a long-term solution, because you cannot flick a switch and fix it. The Member is well aware that the first thing that we need to do is get to a point where we can introduce the real living wage — something that I wanted to do last September. I stand ready to do that and to backdate it to 1 April. However, to do it, I need a budget, and, as yet, the Executive have not yet come to an agreement on a Budget for this year nor, indeed, on the much preferred multi-year Budget.

Mr McGuigan: Minister, people go to hospital emergency departments because they are sick and need help. They do so in the belief that our health system is supposed to care for them and that it should function to save lives. I differentiate between the health system and healthcare staff, who go beyond care. For the health system scenario, this is a damning report. The Royal College of Emergency Medicine details what it describes as a "catastrophe" unfolding in our hospital emergency systems. As Mr Donnelly said, there were 1,032 excess deaths in 2025 associated with 12-hour emergency department waits. Minister, do you accept the report, its eight recommendations and its conclusion that emergency department overcrowding is a result not of growing demand but of system failure? More importantly, on the actions that you have outlined, when will our population in the North see measurable changes?

Mr Nesbitt: I accept that it is about the flow, as I said to Mr Donnelly. I cannot give you a timeline for the fix, because it will require investment. The more investment that is put into it, the quicker the fix will be realised.

You said that there were 1,032 excess deaths last year. The year before, the number was 1,122. The year before that, it was over 1,000 again, at 1,063. That was in 2023. So there is a trend there, although we have not introduced a trend of reducing that number. I looked at the last report that I am aware of from the Royal College of Emergency Medicine on the NHS in England. In 2023, 1·5 million-plus people waited for over 12 hours in emergency departments in England. That led to nearly 300 excess deaths per week. The situation is not right in England, it is not right here, and we are struggling to find the fix.

Mrs Dodds: Minister, this is a catastrophic situation for our community in Northern Ireland. The Royal College of Emergency Medicine indicates that the number of people attending ED has been relatively static since 2016, yet the number of patients who waited 12 hours or longer was 26 times greater in 2025 than it was in 2016 — 132,606 compared with 4,955 — and that more lives are being lost: almost 20 per week. It is clear that care packages and the lack of domiciliary care in the community are some of the most significant issues in trying to resolve this problem. The winter plan was threadbare on that, and you only talk about increasing the living wage. You need to increase capacity within the community. If you do not increase capacity, lives will continue to be lost and more families will be plunged into grief.

Mr Speaker: Is there a question, Mrs Dodds?

Mrs Dodds: Will you increase capacity?

Mr Nesbitt: If I have the budget to increase capacity, of course I will increase capacity. If I was not clear, let me say that when I talked about introducing the real living wage, that was the first step that I was referring to. I want to make that clear. It is not the be-all and end-all, but with budget, it will be the first thing that I can do with relative ease. Yes, we need to increase capacity. We need more people providing care at home — so-called domiciliary care — and we need more beds in care homes within the community. That will take time, but it will also take budget and commitment.

Mr Chambers: Minister, what other urgent care services are available that can safely manage non-emergency demand outside of emergency departments?

Mr Nesbitt: There are several. When you factor in the number of people who visit those centres, that maybe talks to what Mrs Dodds referred to: the fact that the number of people presenting at EDs has not radically increased. One of the reasons for that has to be the fact that we are providing so many alternative pathways for them. Approximately 40 rapid-access clinics have been either established or enhanced across all the geographic trusts. The pathways offer around 100,000 appointments per annum, and those can all be scheduled. Therefore, they offer timely access to specialist opinion and investigation, and they are fundamental to providing ED alternatives, with referrals from GPs, Phone First and our urgent care centres. Urgent care centres offer treatment to patients with urgent medical conditions that are not immediately life-threatening but require face-to-face assessment and/or timely access to diagnostics within a 24-hour period. That is a viable alternative to ED attendance. In the absence of a physical structure that is capable of accommodating one or more urgent care services or streams, those are individually referred to as streams that sit within or alongside other units of our healthcare services. My Department has successfully commissioned urgent care centres and streams in all trust areas. We also have same-day emergency care, and we have a number of alternative pathways.

Mr McGrath: Minister, the RCEM report recommends ensuring that:

It is really difficult to find a solution when nobody is prepared to accept responsibility for the problem. Is it you who is not fixing the problem or is it the Executive not giving you money to fix the problem that is the actual problem? Until we know what it is, we are never going to find a solution and are just going to continue to go round and round.

Mr Nesbitt: I am not sure that we should be posing an either/or question. Certainly, I am working within my brief and my responsibility, and, on health and social care, the buck stops with me. How you fashion the delivery and the improvements that are required depends on certain aspects that can be provided by the Executive, and one of them is budget. We are currently in a financial year, which started on 1 April, with us facing, by the current estimate, a shortfall of £760 million. Something that would be very important in EDs would be to increase the number of hours in the day when there are senior decision makers in the ED because that really helps, as we know from previous periods of industrial action. When you have senior decision makers making those decisions, that helps the flow in an ED. That is on me, but being able to afford to put in more senior decision makers depends on budget, and you can argue that that is on the Executive.

Mrs Dillon: Minister, on the back of the previous question, everybody has already mentioned the need for additional domiciliary care. First, can we get a guarantee that the real living wage will be implemented if and when a Budget is agreed? Do you agree that the Executive do not have the capacity? You have just said that there is a shortfall of £760 million. The Executive do not have the money. We pay our taxes. People here work hard. The people whom we are talking about — domiciliary care workers, healthcare workers and nurses in the district — are all paying their taxes. The British Government are not giving them back their taxes in order that they are able to put diesel in their cars. We need to increase the mileage payment as well, which is ridiculously low.

Mr Speaker: Question.

Mrs Dillon: It was already low, but, considering what they are facing now at the petrol pumps, it is out of anybody's ability to be able to cover it. Will you agree that the British Government need to step up here —

Mr Speaker: Minister.

Mrs Dillon: — and that we need to be united on that?

Mr Nesbitt: I agree with the Member that we need to ask the United Kingdom Government to look again at our Budget provision, because, if you look at Scotland, you will see that it is being funded above assessed objective need. Wales is also being funded above and beyond assessed objective need, and we are arguing that we are not. That, clearly, is not fair, because, as the Member says, we pay our taxes, the same as the Scots and the same as the Welsh. We as an Executive have not given up.

The Member will, I think, be aware that a letter was sent to the Prime Minister asking for a meeting with the four parties of the Executive so that we could eyeball the ultimate decision maker and make the case that it is not fair. The shortage of money plays into the public perception that devolution is not delivering. For anybody who values the peace process, the 1998 agreement and the subsequent agreements, it should be a matter of the utmost concern that the public are losing faith in the devolved process, which is the only way to go in this place.

Mr Robinson: There is a lot of focus in the report on the large number of deaths, and rightly so. Minister, how are staff in emergency departments being affected by current pressures, and how is the Department supporting ED staff, given the reports of stress, poor mental health and unsafe working environments?

Mr Nesbitt: The staff, particularly those working in emergency departments — I have visited emergency departments a lot in my time as Minister — suffer a moral harm, in that they have been trained to a high level to deliver world-class healthcare. Whether it is a nurse, doctor or allied health professional, they find themselves in such a pressurised position that, often, although they know exactly the best thing to do for patient after patient, because of the pressure and the environment in which they are operating, they are not able to deliver the best that they know they can deliver; rather, they are making decisions on the basis of what the least worst option is for the patient. For example, you may have four resuscitation beds in an emergency department, but five or six patients needing resuscitation, so you are making a horrible decision about which one or two patients can be left in the emergency department and outside the resuscitation unit. I do not believe that those nurses and doctors are trained for that. When I am in emergency departments, I ask the nurses and doctors whether they were trained to expect such situations, and the answer is no.

Miss McAllister: I thank the Minister for coming to the Chamber. However, so many times you come to the Chamber, Minister, agree with Members, and say, "Yes, it's bad, it's really bad, so it is", but, in case you have forgotten, you are the Minister. Do something about it. We have heard time and again how things are getting so bad and crippling in our health service. Since sitting on the Health Committee, I have come to the realisation that the question has to be asked: if the Health Department had 100% of the Executive's Budget, would things be any better? Since you have been in office — this also applies to your predecessor — we are yet to see a prioritisation of what it is that you want to work efficiently to make savings that will actually make changes. We had the winter plan, which was, essentially, services that already existed dressed up in different clothes, and it did not deliver for people. You said that you could not implement the real living wage. You had a budget last time and did not implement it. That is what we were talking about last time, so what will change so that we do not see in excess of 1,000 deaths again this year?

Mr Nesbitt: When I invited Professor Rafael Bengoa to come back in 2024 and reboot his report, 'Systems, Not Structures: Changing Health and Social Care', he gave me a valuable piece of advice. He said, "Be really tight on what you want to achieve, and articulate it clearly so that people understand, but be very loose about how you achieve it, because you are not a nurse, domiciliary care worker, GP, surgeon, clinician or hospital administrator. Go and ask the people who understand how the system works how we make it better". That is what I did with the Big Conversation: we had four workshops that led to the winter plan for the winter just past. If the Member wants to say that those experts do not know what they are talking about, she can fill her boots.

Mr Gaston: My office was contacted recently by a constituent whose family member had two spells in the South West Acute Hospital. In spite of being in hospital for over a week and a half, the lady was never admitted to a ward, spending the entire stay either on a trolley or in a chair in A&E. In the final few days, she was in a ward corridor.

The family are clear that they have no criticism to make of the staff: quite the opposite. I simply ask this: how can a relatively new hospital have been overwhelmed to such a degree?

Mr Nesbitt: I am not aware of the circumstances of the particular case. I very much regret that that happened to the individual and her family. Unfortunately, the case is probably not an outlier. I am sure that many if not all Members have similar stories of constituents who do not get the service that we would want them to get. I am frequently contacted by people who make the point that Mrs Dillon made, which is that they are taxpayers and pay their National Insurance and that they have done so not just for years but for decades. They therefore believe that they are entitled to a better service, and I do not disagree with them.

I do not know the specifics of the challenges that the South West Acute Hospital faced that meant that it was over capacity on that occasion. We have a growing population and an ageing population, however, and, if anybody can crack how to better deliver care for the elderly, they will crack most of the problems in the health and social care system.

Mr Carroll: The figures are completely shocking. The underfunding of our NHS and the waits in ED are leading to mass deaths. There has been a desensitisation to that in some quarters. In 2016, 60 people died in EDs; since then, 6,000 people have died. That is shocking. Who will be held accountable for that? Whose head will roll because of that shocking figure?

Minister, you talk about solutions. In the past five years, £60 million has been spent on private ambulances. Do you not think that that is an extortionate spend by our health trusts? If you do, will you commit to putting that money back into the NHS — into the NIAS — and ensuring that we have capacity to look after and treat sick people?

Mr Nesbitt: In an ideal world, I would be with Mr Carroll in saying that the delivery of health and social care would be done entirely by Health and Social Care (HSC). We are far from being in an ideal world, however. For example, to tackle waiting lists through the initiatives that we began with last year's budget and that we hope to continue when we get a budget for this year, we will inevitably have to go to the independent sector, because we would otherwise not have the capacity in the HSC. Yes, I get what the Member says. His argument would be, "That is because you are putting money into the independent sector rather than investing it in building capacity", but, if we were to do that, tackling waiting lists would slow down and people would suffer, and the logic of that is that more people would die.

Mr O'Toole: Minister, I want to be absolutely clear about something. Your permanent secretary has said that, without a multi-year Budget, healthcare transformation, which would include tackling what, Gerry Carroll correctly says, are the shameful levels of excess deaths because of emergency care issues, cannot be tackled. In the Chamber earlier, your party leader lambasted the failure to set a multi-year Budget. You, on the other hand, have now said that, in effect, we cannot set one in the current context because of a lack of funding. Is it your position that a multi-year Budget is required, and do you support the proposals for such a Budget that the Minister of Finance made earlier this year?

Mr Nesbitt: A multi-year Budget would be much better than a one-year Budget, but a one-year Budget would be much better than the position that we are in. I am not unique among Ministers in saying that the budget allocation that the Finance Minister has proposed is not enough for me to do everything that I need to do, never mind everything that I want to do. I am not an outlier in saying that. It just happens that my quantums are a lot bigger than anybody else's, even those of the Department of Education. As with last year, however, should we come to a position in which the question, "Do you support this allocation, even though it leaves you hundreds and hundreds of millions pounds short of what you think you need?" is put to me, my answer will be "Yes, but", and the "but" will refer to the fact that my budget is short of what I need and that something will need to happen between now and the end of the financial year or there will be an overspend.

Last year, as the leader of the Opposition knows, what happened was the loan on the Treasury reserve. I got the thick end of £200 million from that. Had I not got it, we would not have been able to balance the books by that amount. It is worse this year. I am hoping for a Hail Mary pass — some sort of miracle — along the way, but I am not for walking away, because challenges should not be viewed as insurmountable obstacles that justify inaction.

Ms Flynn: At its meeting on Thursday of last week, the Health Committee had a discussion with the Royal College of Psychiatrists on the pressures that it faces with its workforce and waiting lists. Importantly, we had a discussion about vulnerable people who are left waiting without the live-saving care and support that they need.

We are speaking today about the same types of issues for people presenting at emergency departments. Does the Minister have any sense of how many people present to emergency departments in mental health crisis and, in many instances — I am sure that Members all know of examples from their constituencies — leave without support and end up worse or, potentially, dead?

Mr Nesbitt: I do not have that number, but I am sure that it exists and will certainly try to get it for the Member.

On the issue that the Member spoke about, my focus is on the desire of the Police Service of Northern Ireland to move at pace — I think that it wants to move more quickly than before — towards a system called "Right Care, Right Person". The Police Service says that its officers are not trained in mental health matters, so they need to withdraw, and that they should not be spending many hours sitting in EDs with patients. I get all that, but I remain concerned that there may be a hiatus between the police withdrawing and the health service being able to fill the gap. All we need is one patient to leave an ED and self-harm or harm somebody else and we will have another crisis and another moment at which people describe the health and social care system as "broken". I do not think that it is broken. Many of the pathways into it are badly damaged, hence the long waiting lists, but I believe that, once a person gets to the point at which care is administered, it tends to be world class. There are exceptions, of course, where things go wrong, but, by and large, it tends to be world class.

Mrs Cameron: Minister, one line stands out in Royal College of Emergency Medicine's press release, which is that Northern Ireland:

It further states that almost 20 lives are lost each week because of long waits in ED. That is a catastrophic situation. The fact that the winter plan was threadbare has been outlined to you. What will you do to ensure that other families are spared such grief and that no more lives are lost?

Mr Nesbitt: We are working on the Release to Rescue initiative to try to improve ambulance waiting times. There is a proposal that we start to roll that out on 27 April, which is only a week away. I have engaged with stakeholders, trade unions, the Ambulance Service and, more recently, the chief executives of the trusts. We are a little shy of certainties and reassurances. One thing that we need to do is to start to discuss how we might perform Release to Rescue emergency department by emergency department and hospital by hospital. To be clear, the intent of Release to Rescue is that no patient will wait for more than two hours in an ambulance before being handed over to the trust.

Mr McNulty: Last week, we heard the disturbing news that there were over 1,000 excess deaths in emergency departments in the North in 2025. Corridor care was referenced as a contributory factor, with staff, medical teams and patients often overwhelmed by overcrowding and long waits. Will the Minister commit to working towards the report's recommendation that corridor care be eliminated by the end of the decade?

Mr Nesbitt: That is certainly an ambition. Corridor care is not unique to Northern Ireland. I think that I have said that I was in a brand new build in Washington DC — a new wing of the Georgetown University Hospital — that cost in the order of $700 million. It has a very large emergency department, compared with ours, in terms of its physical size and its capacity.

There was corridor care throughout it, with trolleys head to toe. I asked the clinician, "Has something happened? Is this unusual?", and he said, "No. This is a day-to-day occurrence, to the point where we have corridor care teams. We have doctors and nurses, and all they do is corridor care". That illustrates how difficult this will be. I do not want anybody to be waiting in a corridor, on a chair or on a trolley, so, yes, there is an ambition to see the back of it as soon as possible.

Mr Durkan: I asked the Minister some questions for written answer on this issue a number of months ago, and the answer I got back was, "The Department does not retain the data to be able to answer this question". That begs the question — this is not my question here; I will come to it — about whether there is an issue with collating data or sharing data. There is a real question about transparency.

I caution the Minister about pointing to a minuscule reduction in the number of deaths compared with the previous year as some measure of success. The sad fact is that there are people who, despite being really sick, do not want to go to an emergency department for this very reason. Given the links with overcrowding and long waits — I have raised the issue of Altnagelvin ED many times —

Mr Speaker: Mr Durkan, we are already out of time. This item was allocated half an hour, so do not take another half an hour to ask a question.

Mr Durkan: Do we have a geographical breakdown of those deaths?

Mr Nesbitt: I do not have a geographical breakdown, but I can certainly ask whether one can be made available or whether we can do the research to provide the Member with one. To be clear, when I said that there has been a small decrease, I said clearly that that was not a trend. It is not good enough. Yes, we say that those figures are shocking, but they are very similar to those for last year and the year before. In one sense, they should not be shocking, but they are shocking because of their scale.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: That ends questions to the Minister on the question for urgent oral answer.

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

Mr O'Dowd (The Minister of Finance): Go raibh maith agat, a Phríomh-LeasCheann Comhairle. I thank Members for their welcome contributions to today's debate on the Marriage and Civil Partnership Bill. As I said at the outset, the Bill has been developed through a process of research, analysis and public consultation. Its proposals on the minimum age for marriage and civil partnership reflect the recommendations of respected specialists and local and international opinion and have been overwhelmingly supported by those who replied to our consultation. Its proposals on belief marriage reflect the judgement of the courts in 2017 and temporary arrangements that have been working well for close to a decade.

I will now turn to the points raised by Members today. I welcome the support outlined by Matthew O'Toole and look forward to my officials working with him, as Chair of the Committee, during the Committee scrutiny stage. Matthew asked about no-fault divorce. To clarify, that was never part of the proposals in this Bill. No-fault divorce was to be introduced through a separate Bill in this mandate. He will know that we have consulted on no-fault divorce. Around the same time that I brought a policy paper on this legislation to the Executive, I also introduced a policy paper on no-fault divorce. I have not got agreement from the DUP yet to table that Executive paper. Time is running out for the Executive to deliver legislation in this mandate. If we are to deliver that legislation, agreement needs to come forward very quickly in order for the no-fault divorce paper to move forward. I support the principle and outlines of moving that forward, but we require DUP agreement to have it tabled at the Executive.

I welcome the comments from the Deputy Chair of the Finance Committee, Diane Forsythe, including those about the points that she will raise during the scrutiny of the Bill. Consideration will be given to the issues as they arise.

I welcome the comments from Jemma Dolan and Deirdre Hargey. I fully agree that the Bill will bring us into line with best practice on child marriage and provide the necessary equality for belief marriages.

Eóin Tennyson, on behalf of the Alliance Party, raised the issue of independent celebrants. England and Wales have only consulted on independent celebrants. We are keeping an eye on those proposals, but, as yet, concrete plans have not been put forward, and they remain proposals. As I said in my opening remarks, I do not have a closed mind on it, but I believe that it would require carefully thought out policy, and it could have unintended consequences if we removed our law on profit and gain. I do not want to delay the progress of the Bill to do that, and there was a mixed message from stakeholders on the issue in the consultation.

Timothy Gaston raised a number of points that I will deal with in turn. First was the disparity between the age of voting and marriage age — why should children be able to vote at 16 but not be able to marry at that age? That is not comparing like with like. It is not unreasonable that different types of decisions have different minimum ages. There is talk of lowering the voting age, but no formal policy proposals or draft legislation have been introduced, as far as I am aware. Deciding to marry is a different type of decision from deciding who to vote for in an election. It is much easier to change who you vote for than it is to change who you are married to, although both have lasting repercussions.

The next issue was whether the rationale for raising the age of marriage was linked to cultural practices and the issue of forced marriage. There is very little evidence that forced marriages are an issue here, and the Bill is not being driven by that. It is a much broader issue. I refer to my opening remarks on the potential for a 16- or 17-year-old who marries to miss out on such opportunities as education, training and the final years of childhood. Of course, forced marriages in any culture or capacity are wrong, in my opinion.

There was also the question of why the Bill is not raising the age of consent from 16 to 18. There is no necessary connection between the age of consent, which is a criminal law matter, and the minimum age for marriage, which is a civil law matter. There was a time in the past when the age of consent was 17 and the minimum age for marriage was 16. The age of consent is 16 because it is the age at which a person is deemed sufficiently mature to consent to sex. There is no requirement to seek parental consent to that decision as there would be if they wanted to marry. In any case, the age of consent is a matter for the Justice Minister.

The final issue relates to marriage not being for profit or gain. That is already covered in the Marriage Order 2003, and there is a power in the Bill to bring in qualifying requirements, which we may introduce.

I welcome the comments that have been made today by Members, including the Chair of the Finance Committee and Committee members. I commend the Bill to the Assembly.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: That concludes the Second Stage of the Marriage and Civil Partnership Bill. The Bill stands referred to the Committee for Finance. Members, take your ease before we move on to the next item of business.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): I call the Minister for Communities, Mr Gordon Lyons, to move the Further Consideration Stage of the Sign Language Bill.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Members will have a copy of the Marshalled List of amendments detailing the order for consideration. The amendments have been grouped for debate in the provisional grouping of amendments selected list. There is a single group, which contains eight amendments that deal with sign language classes and the definition of "deaf community".

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

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): We now come to the single group of eight amendments for debate. Members may wish to note that amendment Nos 1 and 2 are paving amendments for amendment No 3 and that amendment No 4 is consequential to amendment No 3.

I call the Minister for Communities to move amendment No 1 and to address the other amendments in the group.

Mr Lyons: I beg to move amendment No 1:

Mr Lyons: I will start by acknowledging the Assembly debate at Consideration Stage and the amendments that were made. During that debate, I spoke about moving beyond symbolic recognition and delivering practical, meaningful change for British Sign Language (BSL) and Irish Sign Language (ISL) users. I spoke about active promotion of sign languages and deaf culture and ensuring that recognition is reflected in how services are delivered every day. Now that the Sign Language Bill has reached Further Consideration Stage, we are closer than ever to achieving those aims. We are ever closer to passing legislation that tells people in the BSL, ISL and deafblind community, "You matter, and you have rights".

With the support of the House today, I hope to schedule Final Stage at the earliest opportunity. I am sure that that will be welcomed across the Chamber but, more importantly, by the deaf community, which has shown remarkable patience, for which I am very grateful. I can tell you that the deaf community is already engaging with my officials in the planning of an event to mark the final stage of the journey towards the Bill's enactment. That will mark the realisation of that community's long road to statutory recognition of its languages and culture.

The Bill has been scrutinised, refined and changed following Committee scrutiny, with 19 amendments agreed with the Committee and approved by the House at Consideration Stage. I will now address my eight amendments before the House today. The amendments have been drafted to deliver on the three amendments approved by the Assembly at Consideration Stage: amendment Nos 4, 5 and 22, which were tabled by Kellie Armstrong MLA. The House will be aware of my concerns that those amendments, to varying degrees, can be considered to impact on the nature of the Bill. My officials and I have been contacted by members of the deaf community and its representatives, who highlighted the fact that they share those concerns. My officials subsequently engaged with the Office of the Legislative Counsel (OLC) to assess whether some further amendments were necessary. Before us today is the OLC refinement, which aims to better accommodate those amendments. Today's amendments do not seek to interfere with the agreed Assembly position but, rather, seek to address some drafting inconsistencies and align an issue of procedure.

I will address my amendment Nos 1 to 4. They make technical changes to improve the structure of clause 2 following the amendments made at Consideration Stage. At Consideration Stage, amendment No 4 to clause 2 added provision for classes for adults who become deaf aged 25 or over and their families and carers. It also dealt with the matter of charging for the classes and outlined that the regulations in that respect should be by negative procedure. Amendment No 5 was consequential to the approval of amendment No 4. Members will note that the amended wording changes the fee-paying regulations from negative procedure to affirmative, and I understand that Ms Armstrong took the point about consistency across the Bill. Therefore, my amendment Nos 1 and 2 pave the way for the rewording of clause 2.

My amendment No 3 is mainly a restructuring of clause 2(2) so that the whole clause flows neatly together from the headline promotion duty as outlined in clause 2. However, the issue of whether fees can be charged or not is tied expressly to the particular category of classes. As I have stated, the issue of the statutory rule procedure change from negative to draft affirmative, as trailed in the Consideration Stage debate, is also dealt with in amendment No 3.

My amendment No 4 is consequential to amendment No 3 in that it omits duplication of text that is dealt with in amendment No 3. As I stated at Consideration Stage, work has continued with deaf organisations on the development and launch of a pilot programme of classes for adults who have become deaf aged 25 or over and their families and carers. Subject to demand, those classes will be available in BSL and ISL.

I will now move to my amendment Nos 5 to 8. At Consideration Stage, amendment No 22 had the effect of changing the definition of membership of the deaf community at clause 12 from:

to

Members will be aware that that amendment has been the cause of unease across the deaf community. My officials have been contacted by various deaf people and organisations, including the British Deaf Association (BDA), which outlined its particular concerns on the matter. The amendment has caused confusion amongst some who struggle to be clear on its reference to people who will, or will potentially, benefit from using sign language in future and how that will be assessed and/or assured. The Bill was drafted to accommodate people who are already deaf and who use and rely on sign language. For example, under "Department's manner of engagement" at clause 9(1)(a), it states:

That is factual. It does not refer to persons or groups who appear, or who will appear, to the Department for Communities to be representative or cognisant of the views or interests of the deaf community; it is grounded in those who are deaf at that moment in time. In future, if that changes, the wording remains relevant and appropriate. I refer to the BDA's concerns. It states that the amendment presents an:

and continues:

That is what the BDA had to say.

During Consideration Stage, some Members suggested that they would welcome some refining of the wording of the amended clause. On that basis, and to allay concerns from the deaf community, my officials sought the view of the Office of the Legislative Counsel (OLC) on whether it was possible to revisit the wording of amendment No 22 while fully respecting the Assembly's intent in approving amendment No 22. That is reflected in my amendment Nos 5 to 8.

My amendment No 5, which inserts after "who" the words "at any time use, or", addresses normal present and future use. My amendment No 6 leaves out "will" as my amendment No 7 inserts "ever" before "benefit", which accommodates that future "use of" as referenced in my amendment No 8. I am sure that everyone is following along with me and understands entirely what I am saying. I believe that my amendment Nos 5 to 8, which reword amendment No 22 from Consideration Stage, provide a sound way forward that ensures that rights under the substantive provisions are provided to people who have actual needs for the time being; rights that may have been perceived to have been removed or diluted. The references to those who, at any time, use or will ever benefit from use of BSL or ISL also fully reflect the intent of amendment No 22, which was carried by the House. Therefore, for the reasons that I have set out, I ask the House to support my amendments.

I thank Members for their time and for the work that was done to ensure that the Bill could proceed to this point. I commend my amendments to the House.

Mr Gildernew (The Chairperson of the Committee for Communities): As Chair of the Committee for Communities, I will speak on the Sign Language Bill. I welcome members of the deaf community to the Assembly, as well as those who are watching online. I thank all those who gave evidence on the Sign Language Bill.

On behalf of the Committee for Communities, I acknowledge the early notice that the Department provided of its intention to table a number of amendments at Further Consideration Stage, which was helpful to us. As I outlined at Consideration Stage, the Committee has not had an opportunity to consider the amendments that are under consideration today, and it therefore has not taken a position on them. I will, however, speak to the amendments from a party perspective in due course.

Before the Bill's Final Stage, I want to check with the Minister whether there has been any further consideration of the Committee's recommendation to update the explanatory and financial memorandum (EFM) to make explicit in clause 2 what is meant by the term "promote". The Committee suggested wording that would convey the fact that promotion goes significantly beyond just the provision of sign language classes. That point came across strongly and consistently from stakeholders during the Committee's evidence sessions. I take the opportunity to seek assurance from the Minister during his winding-up speech that the EFM will be updated following Further Consideration Stage. It is really important that we collectively make the Bill, the supporting EFM and future guidance as good as they can possibly be for the deaf community here.

I will now make a few brief remarks as Sinn Féin spokesperson for communities. I welcome the opportunity to speak at Further Consideration Stage of the Sign Language Bill, as it represents another step forward in the passage of this hugely important Bill. Only a small number of amendments were tabled, and the Minister has helpfully outlined the detail of the amendments that he and Kellie Armstrong tabled, so I will keep my remarks brief.

Sinn Féin supports amendment Nos 1 to 4, which the Minister and Kellie tabled and which tidy up the drafting of the amendments that were made to clause 2 at Consideration Stage. We were happy to support the amendment that Kellie tabled at the previous stage, which allowed "people aged 25 and over" to access sign language classes, with the potential to charge for those classes. I am content that amendment Nos 1 to 4 do not alter the content of clause 2 but instead tidy up its drafting.

Sinn Féin also supports amendment Nos 5 to 8, which the Minister tabled. Although we supported in principle the amendment to what is now clause 12 that Kellie tabled at the previous stage, which widened the definition of the deaf community to include those who may "benefit from using" sign language in the future, there was some concern that that broadened the definition too widely and risked undermining the Bill. We must remember that, at its core, the Bill must be about supporting those people who rely on sign language in the here and now, not necessarily those who might do so in the future.

Following Consideration Stage, I was pleased to be able to meet members of the deaf community, and they were keen to stress that they also had concerns that the definition of "deaf community" had become too broad. They indicated their support for the Minister's amendments. The greatest strength of the Bill is that it has been fully co-designed from the beginning. As Chair of the Committee for Communities, I strived to carry that co-design process into the Committee Stage and beyond.

It is only right that we should take our lead from the deaf community once again and ensure that its concerns are addressed. I am satisfied that amendment Nos 5 to 8, brought by the Minister, have the endorsement of the deaf community. On that basis, Sinn Féin is happy to support them.

Mr Carroll: I thank the Member for giving way. If I have picked him up correctly, I think that he is talking about amendment No 22.

Mr Gildernew: Amendment No 12.

Mr Carroll: In recent days, some concerns have been raised with me about amendment No 12 regarding widening the scope of the deaf community. Have there been any discussions on the Committee about increased funding and increased support from the Minister or the Executive to those organisations so that they can supply services, classes and the like to meet some of that demand if the definition has been broadened out?

Mr Gildernew: It is inherent in the Bill that support right across the range will increase. There is also an acknowledgement that other people will be included in it. There will be a potential for some charges. Those charges will not exceed the cost of classes, but it is very apparent that there will be a huge need and requirement to see additional interpreters and classes and respect for the promotion of the culture of the deaf community. That is all very important. It will be transformative. It is a landmark Bill in that sense. I acknowledge the work of the Department in bringing the Bill to this stage. I also acknowledge the Department's very strong co-production with the deaf community.

I once again thank the deaf community for its support and advice throughout the passage of the Bill. I have absolutely no doubt that the Bill that we have ended up with will deliver real and tangible changes to the lives of many people in the deaf and deafblind communities. It is clear to see from the huge level of excitement and interest in the Bill that its final sign-off is eagerly awaited by so many. In that spirit, I look forward to coming back to the Chamber in the coming weeks to vote in support of this transformational Bill at Final Stage.

Mr Durkan: A truly inclusive society is not measured by parroting slogans or by words alone. It is measured by whether children have the support that they need in the classroom or whether adults have the support that they need in their place of employment, in their GP surgery or at a hospital appointment. The Bill helps to create that.

At Consideration Stage, I spoke in favour of and voted for amendments brought by my Committee colleague Kellie Armstrong. During that debate, I urged or encouraged the Minister and his officials to go back, given his misgivings, which I accept entirely, to work up a sensible compromise. What we have before us today represents that reasonable compromise.

The amendments tighten the criteria by clearly defining two eligible categories but do so without creating restrictions or barriers. They recognise the distinct needs of younger deaf people and their families, guardians and carers, while recognising those who become deaf later in life and the support that they and their families may require.

Just as importantly, the amendments protect free access for those in the first category while allowing a framework for fees for those in the second. That, to me, strikes a fair balance between accessibility and, importantly, sustainability going forward. I am, therefore, content to support the amendments in their entirety. I thank the officials for their efforts on the Bill and the many campaigners, organisations and members of the deaf community who have brought us to this point. Progress like this does not happen overnight, nor does it happen by accident. Those voices and those actions have helped to shape the legislation, and those people deserve enormous credit. They have made good and well-intentioned legislation even better. I support the amendments.

Mrs Cameron: I welcome the opportunity to speak at the Further Consideration Stage of the Sign Language Bill. I place on record my appreciation for the engagement that has taken place throughout the passage of the Bill.

Deaf people and their representative organisations have played a key role in shaping the Bill, and that engagement has, of course, strengthened it. It is important that that approach continues as we move beyond today and into implementation.

I also acknowledge the work of the Minister and his officials in bringing the Bill to this stage. In particular, I recognise the effort that has gone into tidying up and integrating the amendments, including amendment No 3, which deals with amendments made at the previous stage. That work has helped to ensure greater clarity and coherence in the Bill. It is important in making the legislation more workable as it moves towards implementation.

Amendment No 3 deals with eligibility categories, and I strongly welcome the focus on early access to sign language, particularly for children, young people under 25 and their families, guardians and carers. Early and free access to sign language for that grouping is critical. When children have meaningful access to language from the outset, outcomes improve across education, communication and wider development. It is, of course, a practical, evidence-based measure that will make a real difference to people's lives.

As the Bill has progressed there has rightly been careful consideration of how it is framed and how it will operate. In that context, I want to reflect concerns raised by the deaf community organisations, including the British Deaf Association Northern Ireland, that the Bill could be unintentionally diluted. The concern is that the changes to the definition of the deaf community risked weakening the Bill's focus. The recognition of British Sign Language and Irish Sign Language is rooted in shared language, culture and lived experience. If that focus becomes too broad or unclear, there is a genuine risk that the Bill's core purpose is undermined.

There are also practical concerns that the Bill places duties on public bodies to make services as accessible to the deaf community as they are to others. If the definition of the community is widened too far, limited resources, such as funding, specialist expertise and the provision of information in sign language, risk being stretched too thinly. That could reduce the support available to those who rely on sign language as their first or only language, and that is really important. Those concerns are not about excluding anyone from learning or benefiting from sign language; they are about safeguarding the intent of the Bill and ensuring that it delivers meaningful change rather than becoming diluted in practice.

The amendments that are before us today make the best of what was passed at Consideration Stage. I completely understand that some people in the deaf community are anxious about opening up the Bill. It is important that the focus remains on those who need the legislation most.

I fully recognise that many people become deaf over time. I and my family live with a hereditary condition that means that we are likely to experience increasing deafness as time goes on. In those circumstances, it is more likely that we will rely on hearing technologies and other forms of support. I share that to make an important distinction: while many people experience hearing loss and will benefit from accessibility measures, the Bill's primary intention is to support the deaf community, those who have been completely shut out for too long and for whom sign language is their first or only means of communication.

It is vital that we hear from and prioritise those whose only method of communication is sign language. We must continue to listen to and act for those who are most directly impacted by the decisions that we make. In that context, as the Bill progresses beyond today, I want to ask the Minister and the Department to commit to continued meaningful engagement with the deaf community organisations on the development of the statutory guidance that will follow. That guidance will be critical. It must make it clear that, when the duties under the Bill are being fulfilled, priority is given to those for whom British Sign Language or Irish Sign Language is a first language and an essential means of communication. For those individuals, sign language is not an added benefit but is fundamental to equality of access. Clear, co-produced guidance will help to ensure that public bodies understand their responsibilities and that limited resources are directed where they are most needed and that the intent of the legislation is protected. Ongoing partnership with deaf organisations will be essential to achieving that aim.

The Bill has the potential to make a real and lasting difference. It will improve access to services, strengthen inclusion and ensure that the needs of the deaf community are better recognised across Northern Ireland. As with all legislation, delivery will be key. Proper resourcing, clear guidance and sustained engagement with those who have lived experience will determine its success. Today marks an important step forward. It is a good Bill, a necessary Bill and one that can deliver meaningful change. I am pleased to support all the amendments before us today.

Ms K Armstrong: Today is a good day for the deaf community. I declare an interest, as I am a Member with a hearing impairment and a member of the deaf community.

Until the amendments were made, I was not going to be a member of the deaf community, so I am delighted that we did that at the previous stage. Today, from the OLC, we have better defined and tidied-up legislation that includes the group of people that I belong to.

I am absolutely delighted to say that I will support all the Minister's amendments. I have no issue with any of them; in fact, I went to the extent of having my name added to some of the amendments, as I agree with the tidying up. Some of the amendments are fantastic and make the Bill completely clearer to read and easier to understand. I wish that, as an individual Member, I had not had to table amendments at Consideration Stage. I wish that the Department had listened a bit more. We now have clause 12, which defines members of the deaf community as:

— I know that there are some changes there —

like me, and

To be honest, it is wonderful. Today is a good day for the deaf community.

What I will say, to reiterate what Mrs Cameron said, is that this is only the start of the work. There is a lot more to be done. The deaf community has an intrinsic role to play. That will not just mean deaf people taking part in helping to write the guidance and potential regulations; we also need to accept that they are professionals. They know about the deaf community and about BSL and ISL and should, therefore, be funded appropriately to take part, moving away from tokenism to being an integral part of how the Bill will go forward when it becomes an Act.

I am delighted that we have got to this stage. I am delighted that the House saw fit to agree the amendments at Consideration Stage. At Further Consideration Stage, we have a Bill that is workable, and I thank the Minister and all the officials for tidying up the wording of the amendments before us now. Those in the deaf community, of whom I have met quite a few, including the BDA recently, have spoken about the importance of recognising the whole of the deaf community — that all of us matter and that all our needs will be taken forward. That is why, in whatever my position may be in the future, I hope to help the Minister and the Department in devising and bringing forward guidance.

We have to remember that 26,000 people in Northern Ireland are sitting on a waiting list for up to seven years for an audiology appointment. That will be their first test to see whether they have damage to their hearing. Ten years ago, when I went to my first appointment and finally got to see an audiologist after many years, I was told that my hearing had gone down by over 40%. That is now closer to 50%. I will have to rely on sign language as I go forward in life and get older. As I get older, I would have missed out under the Bill if I was a child, because I would not have had it. It came along only when I was in my 30s. After speaking to Caroline Doherty of the BDA, I believe that there is a growing number of people who, through illness, age or trauma, are losing their hearing and will need access to sign language, particularly to engage with public services and to not be isolated and left lonely. We have seen some TV programmes that have talked about that.

We have a huge opportunity here. I thank the Minister and the Department, because the Bill builds in a requirement for deaf people to be engaged with as the process moves forward. As I will say again at Final Stage, we need to ensure that deaf people can take part. That means ensuring that there is transport and payment, if necessary, so that those people face no barriers when taking part in the legislation or the regulations.

I believe that a celebratory event sponsored by the Minister and the Department is coming up on 28 April. I wish everyone well with that. I have written to the Minister's private office about the potential of a play coming to Stormont about Francis Maginn, who was one of the first people to push sign language. I would love to see that coming forward, if possible, from the Minister and the Department, because that would be another step towards the delivery of BSL and ISL across Northern Ireland.

Having met the BDA and Caroline, I was delighted to hear that Northern Ireland already leads the way across the United Kingdom and these islands in the work that has been done by those in the Bill Office who have been involved in the development of the Bill and by the staff in the Committee and the Department and all the organisations and groups. I consulted many people in the deaf community on my amendments, including friends, family and others, to ensure that what I was bringing forward was wanted. In fact, when I met Caroline last Friday, she confirmed that she knew from her previous work with older people in the deaf community that that was a vital provision to add to the Bill. Northern Ireland is doing something wonderful, and I thank the Department for Communities for bringing that forward. I know that it is a difficult time, given the legislative programme that we have for the end of the mandate.

Like the Chair of the Committee, I am keen for areas in the explanatory and financial memorandum to be updated to ensure that we have all the best guidance sitting in the background, so that whoever the Minister for Communities is — it may be the same Minister — has clear intentional guidance so that, when they take forward the issues in the Sign Language Bill, which will become the Sign Language Act, they know what to follow.

Often, the first language of a number of people in the deaf community is not written English, so, to be clear, today we have Further Consideration Stage, with the last of the amendments. I am delighted that it looks as though there will be unanimous agreement on them. The next stage is Final Stage, and that is it in the Assembly. The Minister will bring that forward soon, which is fantastic. Hopefully, just after that, the King will sign off on it, and it will become an Act. Members of the deaf community have been asking me, "Why are there so many stages? We've already agreed all of this". It is coming. We are almost there. It is fantastic and inclusive legislation. It is good that the Assembly will be included because quite a lot of the regulations will have to be brought back to the House to be agreed, which means that the deaf community will be consulted through the Assembly.

I say, "Thank you very much" to all those who have been involved. I now feel that I am part of the deaf community; that I am not excluded from that community; that my hearing impairments are considered; and that my communications and those of other people like me — there are thousands of us in Northern Ireland — will be considered when we need to depend on sign language for communication.

Mr Allen: Amendment Nos 1 to 4 make things clearer, so we support them. As the Minister set out, amendment No 1 removes the earlier general provision for classes to be free of charge and replaces it with a more structured approach that retains free access for those under 25, and amendment No 2 replaces previous wording with a reference to "two eligible categories". As was mentioned, those are paving amendments to amendment No 3, which sets out the aforementioned categories clearly. Amendment No 4 finishes that off by removing the earlier subsections to avoid duplication.

The amendments will result in two groups being set out in the Bill: those under 25 who are deaf and those aged 25 and over who have become deaf, along with their close families, carers and, for under-25s, guardians. That keeps the original intent, but it lays it out in a better way that is easier to follow and, hopefully, easier to deliver. Amendment No 3 maintains the intent of the original amendment, allowing fees to apply for the second group, retaining the safeguard that income cannot exceed the cost of provision and changing the regulations from negative to affirmative procedure.

Overall, the amendments set out clause 2 more clearly, but, as before, the issue is not entirely one of structure; it is also one of delivery.

The framework will not mean much if the support is not there when people need it. If fees are to apply in some cases, that needs to be handled carefully. Even if they make sense on paper, they cannot become a barrier in practice. The point is simple: the Department needs to ensure that the Bill is properly resourced and that it works in practice. Otherwise, what is set out here will not match what people experience on the ground.

In clause 12, amendment Nos 5 to 8 propose some targeted changes to the wording following what the Assembly agreed at Consideration Stage. We did not support that change at the time, and those concerns remain. We will support the amendments that change the definition so that it now covers those who, at any time, use or will ever benefit from the use of British Sign Language or Irish Sign Language for communication. It is clear that those amendments aim to add a bit more clarity while staying within what the Assembly has already agreed. That matters because the definition shapes whom the Bill is aimed at and how it will work in practice. If it is too broad, as we previously highlighted, there is a risk that the focus will be lost, particularly when resources are under pressure. If it is too tight, people get left out. At the minute, it still feels as though that balance has not quite been struck, but we appreciate that the Department is constrained by the Bill as agreed so far and the need to stay true to the will of the House. That does not mean that the Bill will not work, but it means that how it is interpreted and applied will matter.

It is also important that the Department make sure that the resources are in place to support delivery. What matters now is delivery, whether people can access support when they need it, whether the provision is consistent and whether it makes a real difference in their day-to-day lives. That is what the Bill will be judged on.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Thank you to all who have spoken. I call the Minister for Communities to make a winding-up speech.

Mr Lyons: Thank you very much, Mr Deputy Speaker. I thank everybody for their comments today and for their commitment to the aims of the Bill. Throughout the progression of the legislation, the tone of debate and scrutiny has been collaborative. Even though we had a divergence of views at Consideration Stage, it was done in a respectful way, which reflects the importance of the issues that we are discussing.

The Bill was developed through co-design with members of the deaf community to improve their lives and ensure access to public services. However, through dialogue with the community, I realised that it is actually more than that. Sign language is how members of the deaf community interact within their own community; how they interact with a largely hearing society; and how they socialise, work, laugh, learn and mourn. By recognising their languages — British Sign Language and Irish Sign Language — we finally get what that community has, for decades, been telling anyone who would listen: these are languages of need. It is not simply one of a number of options that are available to them for communication.

Recognising and promoting BSL, ISL and their culture — deaf culture — is our way of saying, "You matter, and you are equal to your hearing peers". Promoting their languages and their culture is also a way for the deaf community to share their rich heritage and fascinating history, one that often featured systemic unfairness. Many deaf people will know of the infamous Milan conference in 1880 that outlawed the teaching of sign languages in schools across Europe and the US. They will tell you that that was a decision taken by a hearing establishment. Therein lie the roots of the establishment of the British Deaf Association and, from that, many organisations for the deaf in Northern Ireland: the Foyle Deaf Association, Action Deaf Youth and Hands That Talk, to name a few.

I am conscious that this place is viewed by the deaf community as a largely hearing establishment. I am also certain that, due to the progress of the Sign Language Bill and the progress made across many Assembly processes through its embracing of the use and facilitation of BSL and ISL, it is now viewed as a more welcoming place for the deaf community.

Although I recognise the concerns across the deaf community about the change that was made at Consideration Stage to the definition of "deaf community" in clause 12, which now includes people who have hearing loss who wish to learn sign language, a change that I opposed, I am sure that it was not Kellie Armstrong's intention to cause offence or concern. As a result of the amendments that we make today, however, I think that we can confirm that the deaf community encompasses deaf people who use sign language as well as accommodate the amendment to include those who become deaf and wish to learn sign language. It is important that we make that distinction and that we understand that the experience of someone who has progressive hearing loss is very different from that of other members of the deaf community. There are additional needs involved. There is a different culture in place. There are not the options that are available to others. Indeed, there are not the languages that are available to others, and that has been highlighted during the debate. The two are therefore not the same. Sign language is not simply signed English or signed Irish. Rather, BSL and ISL are separate languages altogether, and there needs to be respect for them.

I agree with Mr Allen. I fear that the changes that have been made to the Bill dilute that distinction. That is a concern that members of the deaf community share. We are, however, doing what we can today to resolve some of the issues that the amendments that were made at Consideration Stage created. In doing so, I believe that we will get the Bill to its Final Stage on time, by the end of the month. Doing that has not been easy, and I thank the office —.

Mr Allen: Will the Minister give way?

Mr Lyons: Yes, I will give way to the Member.

Mr Allen: I am sure that, like me, the Minister has engaged with the wider community, but some of the concerns that were raised with me were, as I mentioned in my remarks, about resourcing. Can the Minister state clearly that he will leave a directive in his Department that, if he is not the Minister in the next mandate, resourcing will not be an issue?

Mr Lyons: It would be a great idea if I could leave instructions for the next Minister. I will certainly see what I can do on that score. The legislation will certainly be resourced during my time in office, and I hope that I can establish a precedent that we help those who are most in need and that we support that particular community, which exists because of the unique circumstances in which those people find themselves. That community needs to be protected, but doing that will require resources.

I say again that I do not think that it was Kellie Armstrong's intention to cause offence or concern. I think that she tabled the amendment in good faith. I think that she saw her own circumstances and wanted to make sure that they were taken into consideration. I put on record, however, the need to support the deaf community as originally defined and that there are issues with our changing the provision without having given proper consideration to doing so. That is why we have the amendment today.

I could give so many examples of how so often in the House we — in good faith, I am sure — vote for things because we think that it is the right thing to do, because it sounds as though it is the right thing to do or because it sounds as though doing so could be positive or popular. The point of being in the Chamber is to scrutinise issues, to explore the arguments that others are making and to take on board what others are saying. I think that it was a mistake to make the amendment at Consideration Stage. We are not able to undo that mistake completely today. I hope, however, that we are able to make a little bit of a distinction. I can assure Mr Allen that I will do what I can to ensure that the funding goes towards the communities that need it most.

Ms K Armstrong: Thank you very much, Minister, for giving way. I appreciate what has been said so far. Having held over 50 meetings with members of the deaf community in advance of tabling amendments and having listened throughout the Bill's Committee Stage as a member of the Communities Committee, I know that the issue had been raised by a significant number of people who have hearing loss and who are left out of both the deaf community and the hearing community. I agree that scrutiny is very important. I just wish that the Department had been able to understand that a little more during Committee Stage. It then might have been able to table an amendment at Consideration Stage. However, we have got to a stage where we have an inclusive Bill that accepts the whole of the deaf community, and for those of us — the thousands of us — who will need sign language, that there have been programmes about, and older people, that will come forward. That includes people who have had chemotherapy, people who have lost their hearing through meningitis, and veterans who have lost their hearing because of the noise and bangs that come from shooting ranges. There are a lot of us out there.

Mr Lyons: With respect to the Member, it is not a case of me not understanding or listening to different groups. It is simply a matter of disagreeing with what she proposed based on the representations that were made to me — and not to just me — over my time in office. Indeed, this is an issue that I had an interest in long before I came into office. I was the first, along with Mrs Cameron, long before we were in this position, to lobby the then Speaker to make sure that there was provision for those who were in need.

It was not just that. It was the work of my officials, who have been engaged on the issue, in some cases for longer than a decade, to make sure that we got it right. I understand the argument that she makes that everybody within the deaf community should be treated equally. Whether you are hard of hearing or whether that hardness of hearing has progressed to full hearing loss, you should be considered in the same way as those who have, for example, been deaf for the entirety of their lives.

I take a different approach because I believe that we are talking about different languages and different cultures. That is the mainstream view of most people. That is the point and the case that I made at Consideration Stage. The Member — and the House — decided to go against that. What we now have now is an opportunity to steer that a little bit more in the right direction. When the Member includes the language of inclusivity, she is taking the focus away from those for whom sign language and deaf culture is not a choice. She is shaking her head. That is the case, that is what the representatives said. I have expressed my view on that. She has taken a contrary view. I do not think that we are going to come to an agreement on that. However, I welcome the fact that she accepts that there is value in the amendments that I am making, and will support them. I simply make the case to the House that sometimes things require a little more consideration and understanding of what we are actually doing.

Let me just comment on some of the other speeches, and on one point in particular by the Chair of the Committee, who asked whether the EFM will be updated. I can assure him that it will. I think that that was a concern of other Members as well. Pam Cameron and Andy Allen talked about the need for ongoing engagement and resourcing. I can assure them both that that is absolutely something that we need to make sure that we do. I do not see Royal Assent of the Bill being the end, that we pack up our bags, dismantle the unit and all go home. There is work that needs to be continued, and we will do that. We also need to continue to listen because we need to make sure that the legislation is doing what we want it to do. Members will be aware of the reviews that take place as well, so we will need to make sure that we are liaising. Other issues were raised through amendments that we need to keep an eye on as well.

I thank all who have been involved. I thank the OLC for its engagement, advice and support to my Bill team in getting us to this stage through some tricky drafting issues. I also thank the Speaker's Office and the Bill Clerk and her team. Most of all, I would like to thank the deaf community, which has campaigned for many long years for the Bill. I applaud the dedication and commitment of the deaf community to maintain its language and culture.

Finally, I was reminded by one of my officials of a piece of advice given to them by a deaf professional many years ago on how we should interact with each other, hearing or deaf. He said:

I encourage Members to make that choice to listen to the deaf community and to support the amendments before the House today.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): That concludes the Further Consideration Stage of the Sign Language Bill. The Bill stands referred to the Speaker.

Members, take your ease for a moment before we move to the next item.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): I call the Minister for Infrastructure, Liz Kimmins, to move the Further Consideration Stage of the RHI (Closure of Non-Domestic Scheme) Bill on behalf of the Minister for the Economy.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): As no amendments have been tabled, there is no opportunity to discuss the RHI (Closure of Non-Domestic Scheme) Bill today. Members will, of course, be able to have a full debate at Final Stage. The Further Consideration Stage of the RHI (Closure of Non-Domestic Scheme) Bill is, therefore, concluded. The Bill stands referred to the Speaker.

Members should take their ease to allow for a change of papers.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): I call the Minister of Finance, John O'Dowd, to move the Consideration Stage of the Administrative and Financial Provisions Bill.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Members will have a copy of the Marshalled List of amendments detailing the order for consideration. The amendments have been grouped for debate in the provisional grouping of amendments selected list. There is a single group, which contains three amendments and opposition to clause 20 stand part. Members should note that amendment Nos 2 and 3 are linked. Amendment No 2 removes negative resolution as the Assembly procedure for regulations made under clause 17, and amendment No 3 inserts draft affirmative resolution procedure in its place. If Members wish to make that change, they should therefore vote in favour of both amendments. I remind Members who intend to speak that, during the debate on the group of amendments, they should address all the amendments on which they wish to comment, including the opposition to clause 20 stand part. Once the debate is completed, any further amendments in the group will be moved formally as we go through the Bill, and the question on each amendment will be put without further debate. The questions on stand part will be taken at the appropriate points in the Bill. If that is clear, we shall proceed.

Members, I intend to remain seated for the first batch of these. There are many more of them than there were in the previous Bill.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): We now come to the single group of amendments for debate, which concerns opposition to clause 20 stand part and three amendments. I call the Minister of Finance to move amendment No 1 and to address the other amendments in the group.

Mr O'Dowd (The Minister of Finance): I beg to move amendment No 1:

Mr O'Dowd: First, I thank my Executive colleagues for their contributions to the Bill and their agreement that I bring forward my proposed amendments. I also thank the Finance Committee and, indeed, the other Committees that have undertaken detailed scrutiny of the Bill. I believe that it is worth taking a moment to recognise that, as it has been no small undertaking. The previous Financial Provisions Bill was in 2014 — some 12 years ago. The Bill is well overdue, which is reflected in the number of diverse clauses that have been sought by Departments. Indeed, there are some 20 clauses in all, which is significantly more than the seven included in the 2014 Bill. I appreciate that that has brought with it a degree of complexity to the workload of Committees — a challenge that they have risen to meet.

I now turn to the first amendment that I have tabled. Minister Givan wrote to me in October 2025 detailing a new policy initiative — the initial teacher education bursary scheme — that is to be implemented by the Department of Education. The new bursary scheme aims to increase applications and enrolment in subjects that are experiencing the most acute post-primary teacher shortages in key subjects such as mathematics, chemistry, physics, ICT, and technology and design and in Irish-medium education. The Department of Education has the necessary legal cover to establish bursary programmes through article 66(2)(a) of the Education and Libraries Order 1986, which gives the power to pay grants for the training of teachers. The clause will provide a bespoke power, with express provision for bursaries covering tuition fees and living costs, and will therefore further strengthen DE's position. Minister Givan therefore requested that this amendment be accommodated in the Administrative and Financial Provisions Bill. I and my Executive colleagues were content to agree the request, and, as such, I bring forward the amendment. I understand that Mr Givan intends to begin a pilot of the initial teacher education bursary scheme in September. It is an important scheme, and I trust that Members will lend their support to the amendment.

On amendment Nos 2 and 3, clause 17 proposes to provide the Department for Infrastructure with the power to introduce a fee for SmartPass applications, renewals and replacements, with the details of the fee scheme to be set out in regulations. The fee will help to recover the costs incurred by DFI in administering the scheme. As currently drafted, the Bill provides that those regulations will be made by the negative resolution procedure. Both the Finance Committee and the Infrastructure Committee indicated a strong preference for the regulations to be instead subject to affirmative resolution. In light of those views, Minister Kimmins wrote to me on 4 March confirming that she is content that the affirmative resolution procedure should apply and asking that I table the necessary amendments to give effect to that change. I and my Executive colleagues are content to support the Infrastructure Minister with her request. I trust that the Members here today will also lend their support to those amendments.

I draw Members' attention to clause 20, which I now intend to oppose. Clause 20 concerns the appointment of the external auditor for the Audit Office. My Department originally proposed the clause following previous Audit Committee recommendations that the responsibility for the appointment of the external auditor for the Audit Office should transfer from the Department of Finance to the Assembly's Audit Committee. Following the introduction of the Bill, the current Audit Committee wrote stating that it does not have the capacity or the resources to take on that responsibility. The Audit Committee recommended that my Department retain responsibility for approving the external auditor for the Audit Office. I have considered that advice and am content to proceed according to its wishes. I will now oppose the Question that clause 20 stand part of the Bill. I trust that Members will support the advice of the Audit Committee on the matter and will likewise oppose clause 20.

I have no further comments at this stage.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Thank you, Minister. I call Matthew O'Toole, who will speak as Chair of the Finance Committee and leader of the Opposition.

Mr O'Toole (The Chairperson of the Committee for Finance): Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I thank the Minister for his comments on the amendments. I will speak on behalf of the Committee in relation to our scrutiny of the Bill, including the amendments, albeit the Committee has not reached a final view on them.

This is the first Bill of its kind in 12 years. It has a wide-ranging scope, and it was originally drafted to bring together administrative and financial provisions from seven Departments. Normally, those provisions would have been legislated for in separate Bills or on more regular occasions. I think that I am right in saying — the Minister may be able to correct me — that it started life as a financial provisions Bill to tidy up the provisions of the sole authority of the Budget Act or, as it is sometimes colloquially referred to, the "black box", but it then took on other provisions that were more administrative than financial and became a much broader Bill. The Committee led the detailed scrutiny of the Bill. It sought written evidence from key stakeholders, carried out a public survey, commissioned research and took oral evidence from officials from the Department of Finance, the Department for Infrastructure and the Executive Office. On behalf of the Committee, I thank all of those who provided written and oral evidence. Their input was greatly appreciated.

While public engagement was limited, perhaps predictably with a relatively technical Bill, the Committee is confident that detailed and appropriate scrutiny was carried out in view of that technical nature. Despite the relatively technical and, at times, legalistic nature of the Bill, the measures are extremely important and required detailed scrutiny. I am confident that our Committee undertook that and did it insofar as we were able.

As a number of clauses fell within the remit of other Statutory Committees, the Committee for Finance requested that those Committees provide additional scrutiny of provisions relevant to their remit. I will not be so bold as to rate other Committees on how well they engaged with our legislative process. Suffice it to say, the Committee for Finance has completed exhaustive scrutiny of the Bill, despite the fact that it took in provisions relating to the remits of other Departments and relatively limited direct responsibility changes for the Department of Finance itself. Committee Stage provided an exemplar of cross-Committee working and scrutiny. Although the Committee for Finance was ultimately responsible for the scrutiny of the Bill, I record the Committee's thanks for the engagement of other Statutory Committees.

I will speak to the main groupings of clauses considered by the Committee, if that is OK, Mr Deputy Speaker. Clauses 1 to 4 relate to economic and financial support powers. The clauses confer powers on the Department of Finance and the Department for the Economy in relation to investment funding, economic assistance, higher education loans and employment and training provision. The Committee paid particular attention to ensuring that the powers were appropriately framed to regularise existing practice and to address issues identified by the Northern Ireland Audit Office (NIAO). The Committee consulted the Committee for the Economy, and neither Committee had objections to the clauses being part of the Bill.

Clause 5 and clauses 15 to 17 relate to fee setting, charging and powers for Tourism NI in marine licensing activities. The Committee acknowledged the rationale for improved cost recovery, while also acknowledging the importance of proportionality and transparency in the operation of such powers. Again, neither the Committee for the Economy nor the Committee for Finance objected to the clauses.

Clause 17 provides the Department for Infrastructure with the power to charge a fee for the issuing or replacement of concessionary travel passes. That received considerable scrutiny. Members considered thoroughly the potential impact of any fee on vulnerable users, the level of Assembly oversight and the importance of clear communication that the charges were for the recovery of administration costs and were not revenue raising. In consultation with the Committee for Infrastructure and following a briefing from Infrastructure officials, the Committee felt that the regulations in the Bill should be agreed via the affirmative resolution procedure in the Assembly. The Committee welcomed the Minister's agreement to amend the clause to increase Committee oversight of the policy. The Committee commends the Finance and Infrastructure Ministers for their approach to making that amendment. We will vote on that today. It is a positive step forward that the Finance Committee was able to contribute. Any future change to how the administrative costs of SmartPass fares are recovered via a fee will have to be voted on by the Assembly. In future, that will not be able to be done simply via a pen stroke from the Infrastructure Minister. Subject to that amendment, the Committee was content with clause 17.

Clauses 6 to 10 and clause 14 relate to Executive Office provisions giving statutory authority for services in relation to victims and survivors; asylum and immigration integration support; the development of public appointments; the delivery of the ending violence against women and girls strategic framework; and flexibility in the appointment of the Commissioner for Survivors of Institutional Childhood Abuse. The Committee considered carefully the breadth of certain powers and the safeguards in place, and members recognised that many of the clauses place existing expenditure on a clearer statutory footing, replacing reliance on annual Budget Acts. In light of the evidence received, the Committee for Finance and the Committee for the Executive Office raised no objections to the clauses standing part of the Bill. It is important to say that we interrogated the provisions in the relevant clauses considerably. On first reading, they contain expansive powers for the Executive Office, particularly on spending to tackle violence against women and girls, which, rightly, is an Executive priority. Those powers are then constrained in further clauses later in the Bill. There may be those who read the Bill and think that the language is a little too expansive, but the Committee was assured that the powers are subject to sufficient checks and balances in further clauses.

Clauses 11 to 13 relate to Education and Communities provisions. Clause 11 addresses funding for postgraduate educational psychology training. The Minister's amendment No 1 addresses funding for bursary schemes for teacher shortages and school leadership development. The Minister touched on that in his opening remarks. The Committee received a written briefing from the Department of Education on that amendment, as well as a further amendment to the provision. Both the Finance and Education Committees were content with the clause and for the amendment to be made.

Clause 12 enables the Housing Executive to undertake tenancy fraud investigations on behalf of a housing association on a cost-recovery basis, while clause 13 transfers responsibilities for setting councillors' basic pay allowance from councils to the Department for Communities. I am sure that that subject will attract significant commentary in the future. The Committee considered the provisions alongside additional scrutiny undertaken by the Committee for Communities and was content with each of the clauses.

Clause 18 relates to increasing the limit on advances from the Consolidated Fund from 2% to 4%. The Committee undertook scrutiny of the justification for that increase and recognised the Department's commitment to notify the Assembly and the Committee when advances are made, and we were content with the clause in light of the additional information provided. It is extremely important to underline during the debate and put it on the record that the Committee's agreement to the clause relating to increases in advances from the Consolidated Fund was, it is fair to say, contingent on getting timely information from the Department of Finance before those claims are made, where that is practical. In some cases, it will happen suddenly, but we need timely information on the use of the power. We do not want to hear about it weeks or months later.

Clause 20 relates to the transfer of responsibility for appointing the external auditor of the NIAO from the Department of Finance to the Audit Committee and was subject to significant scrutiny by the Finance Committee and the Audit Committee. While the Committee supported the principle of strengthening Assembly oversight, it recognised concerns raised by the Audit Committee about capacity, resources and governance. As a result, the Minister has given notice of his intention to oppose the Question that clause 20 stand part of the Bill. We thank him for that. Indeed, some of the debates on clause 20 were useful cross-reference points in our scrutiny of the Northern Ireland Fiscal Council Bill.

Having completed its scrutiny, the Committee was content with the Bill's clauses, subject to the aforementioned amendments. The Committee views the Bill as important tidying-up legislation that regularises existing practices and improves transparency while maintaining appropriate Assembly oversight.

I will now make a few comments in a party capacity, as leader of the Opposition. We welcomed the arrival of the Administrative and Financial Provisions Bill in part because, as someone who has been on the Finance Committee when the Assembly has been sitting for most of the past six years, I know that there has been consistent frustration at the use of what is termed the "black box", which is effectively a catch-all term that allows large amounts of spending to happen in a legally unusual way. We should have had more regular updates to financial provisions legislation, so the Bill is welcome. The Bill was added on to in a slightly kind of lean-to, granny-flat way with administrative provisions, so it is unwieldy. I suppose that it is fair enough of the Minister to make the Bill available for various administrative provisions, lots of which are necessary, sensible and uncontroversial.

Other provisions required more interrogation. There were meaningful and real questions around SmartPasses. Lots of people wanted to understand whether the Bill meant that SmartPasses were, effectively, no more: it does not mean that. It means that there will be a power in the future to bring forward secondary legislation allowing for a limited, small charge for the cost of processing, should an Infrastructure Minister wish to do so, rather than charging for the cost of journeys. Were such a regulation to be brought forward, it would be voted on in the Assembly, and Members could give their views. That important change happened after Finance Committee pressure. There are other really important measures that will hopefully strengthen the ability, for example, of the Executive Office to do work on integration and violence against women and girls. It is our hope that those legal changes will make it easier for civil servants and Ministers to make positive change in that area.

Without challenging any judgement made by the Speaker's office, as the Opposition, we had hoped to make meaningful change using the Bill, in part because there is deep frustration in Northern Ireland about the slowness of change here. The Bill is full of very — very — modest changes that are mostly technical. You would be hard-pressed to go out and tell your constituents that it will achieve dramatic change. It is legal and technical tidying-up, important though all that is. We know that both the creation of an independent environmental protection agency, which is hugely important to people in this society, and, indeed, minimum unit pricing have not been allowed. We had attempted to table an amendment: it was not allowed. That is deeply unfortunate. I am not, in any way, challenging the judgement of the Speaker. However, as the official Opposition, we will use every opportunity open to us to table amendments and make change in this society, because the public are frustrated and crying out for that. I make absolutely no apology for that.

We welcome the Bill's main provisions, so far as they go. We support them and look forward to the Bill's progress today.

Miss Dolan: The Bill helps to address several issues across several Departments. It includes clauses that provide clarification or new powers to Departments and public bodies to deliver funding, support services and other administrative duties. The oversight of the investment fund to utilise financial transactions capital (FTC) naturally sits within the Department of Finance. Therefore, providing it with the power to issue loans though clause 1 will remove the need for those to be issued through the Strategic Investment Board (SIB), an arm's-length body of the Executive Office, and will improve overall accountability of that scheme.

Clause 2 focuses on the ability of the Department for the Economy to be proactive in taking initiatives that provide financial assistance to support the local economy, which the Audit Office highlighted as something that was missing during the pandemic. The ability to create companies is a further intervention that the Department for the Economy could use in the future as a result of the changes being made in the Bill, rather than having to rely on Invest NI to do that.

The Executive have prioritised tackling violence against women and girls in the Programme for Government. I am pleased that a clear focus will remain on that as clause 9 provides the Executive Office with the statutory authority for implementing the strategic framework in the coming years. As a society, we need to continue to be proactive in that area and do all that we can to bring an end to the scourge of misogyny and to protect women and girls.

The Bill will also enable TEO to coordinate integration and support for asylum seekers and refugees locally, thus permitting TEO to utilise funds that have been provided to it by Whitehall for those purposes rather than having to rely on the sole authority of the Budget Act.

Improving financial stability is another aspect of the Bill. Clauses 15, 16 and 17 will enable DFE, DAERA and DFI to have additional fee-raising powers. I welcome confirmation from the Department for Infrastructure that the fee for replacing SmartPasses is not intended to raise revenue and that any income generated will be limited to administrative costs and will be used to protect concessionary travel in the future.

I support the Bill, as it will close legislative gaps that have been identified and raised by Members as well as strengthen the overall accountability and functions of several Departments.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): As we move forward, I ask Members to refer to the amendments about which they are speaking in their address, please.

Ms Forsythe: I thank the Minister for his comments. I am pleased to speak on the Bill.

As Members have outlined, the Bill is somewhat unusual, and, following a range of somewhat smaller and routine legislation, it is the first quite substantial piece of legislation that has come before the Finance Committee in the time that I have sat on it. Maybe it is because my predecessor, Paul Frew, was on the Committee before, but I really enjoyed working through the detail of the legislation, so his legacy in the Committee lives on.

As has been said, with 20 substantive clauses that deal with a whole range of issues, interpretation and commencement, and involve some seven different Departments, the Bill is wide-ranging. I am grateful to the Department of Finance officials, other Committees and other officials who came to us at the Finance Committee to work through it. One of the main aims of the Bill is to remove items from the black box, so it is good to see that progress.

As has been outlined, financial provisions Bills have been brought at semi-regular intervals in the past. There have been so many issues. We have got financial provisions and administrative provisions. You can see how they could have been kept separate, but grouping them has allowed for a lot of things to happen.

The leader of the Opposition referred to some amendments that were not selected, but I feel that the creation of five new corporate bodies was quite beyond the scope of the Bill, which is trying to help Departments operate administrative processes and move with their finances.

The clauses are wide-ranging, so it was great to get into the detail of them. They have been outlined at length. They cover powers for the Department of Finance and the Department for the Economy and marine licensing through DAERA. I, like the previous contributor, am really pleased to welcome the power to do with the spend on ending violence against women and girls. It is important to note that moving the immigration spend from the black box across to TEO does not bring any extra powers; it just moves the regularisation of the spend. Immigration policy remains with Westminster.

I turn to the amendments. As the Minister said, the amendment concerning the training of teachers came through from the Minister of Education on the back of his scheme to bring forward a way to provide the bursaries that he had previously announced. The Education Committee looked at it, and we were pleased to see that it can be activated through the Bill in this mandate, as it would have been difficult to activate that policy intention had it not been able to come through in this way. We are happy to support that amendment.

I turn to the two amendments to clause 17, which relates to travel passes. When the Bill was introduced, I was quite concerned about that clause. On first reading the Bill, I thought that it was a move to bring in charging and remove the travel passes completely. I appreciated the opportunity to scrutinise the intent of that clause. As a party, we were very pleased when the travel passes were introduced, and we think that they are really important for people in Northern Ireland, especially older people. We were concerned, but when we saw the evidence, it was quite clear that the power was about changing the administrative process, that no decisions had been made and that it was a consideration for the future.

We brought forward a proposal because we did not like the fact that it was subject to negative resolution. We felt that, to be fully transparent, any regulation needed to come to the House to be explained and costed. We were grateful that Infrastructure officials came to talk to us about it at the Finance Committee and agreed the amendment with the Infrastructure Minister and the Finance Minister. We support the amendment and the fact that, when changes are being considered, they will be fully costed, explained and brought to the Floor to see what exactly they mean. That will give Assembly Members an open and transparent place to speak about them to the public.

Finally, I turn to clause 20. I am also a member of the Audit Committee, so I scrutinised that clause from both sides. It was not a conflict of interest; at times, it helped to have it explained in both places. When the Audit Committee got the legislation, clause 20 looked like a good process piece on paper, but when we got into the detail of it, it was very clear that a Standing Committee that meets once a month does not have the capacity to take on the full operational tasks, such as those in the Bill. The Audit Committee recommended that that not be accepted, and the Finance Committee agreed with it on that piece. I am pleased that the Minister has also agreed with that. Again, we support the Minister's opposition to the question that clause 20 stand part of the Bill.

As I said, the Bill is wide-ranging and comprehensive. We have looked at each clause in detail at the Committee and through cross-cutting work with other Committees. I worked with my party colleagues who lead in each Committee area to understand what each clause means. We will support the clauses as they progress, and we will support the amendments.

Finance is not often a Department that most people would pick to work in by choice, but some of us did it as a career at one point. In many ways, that is what always happens: the Department of Finance is the catch-all. It comes along, tidies up the admin and signs off the piece to give you the power to spend the money, but it is important that all the i's are dotted and the t's are crossed. This legislation is really important, and we support it today.

Miss Hargey: I thank the Minister for the legislation. As other Members have said, it is a wide-ranging Bill with 20 clauses across a number of Departments. Obviously, good work has been done at the Finance Committee, and also engagement across the other Committees that are impacted on and have been feeding into the process and into our deliberations.

I take on board Matthew's point that it is seen as quite a technical Bill, but when you look at the implementation of it, it is about looking at strategic investment funding to build our economy and job creation. It is around economic support and giving the Department for the Economy the power to look at financial support for our local businesses. It is also looking at greater flexibility and the ability to extend the scope of existing funding for victims and survivors, particularly those pertaining to the impact of conflict, mother-and-baby homes, the laundries and the workhouses, and also looking at the emerging issue of ending violence against women and girls. Therefore, while it is technical, the outworkings of this work are having an impact across many of our communities, particularly those with vulnerabilities and those that are often left out of such support, such as women and victims and survivors.

On the amendments beyond the main scope of the 20 clauses, we support the first amendment, which is the provision to enable teacher training and education bursary schemes. We are all aware of the huge challenges in our education system, particularly in STEM and Irish-medium education. Therefore, anything that can address some of the challenges that those two areas of work face is positive, and I believe that the amendment can help to do that.

Amendment Nos 2 and 3 relate to clause 17. Sinn Féin supports applying the affirmative resolution procedure. As the Chair said, there has been some discussion on the issue more broadly. I am glad that the Minister for Infrastructure recognised that and asked the Finance Minister to take the amendment forward.

While there were some initial concerns about charges, and parties may have had a difference of opinion, one of the key issues that came out of the consultation and engagement was that dealing with an administration charge would allow the scope of the scheme to be extended to other protected groups that do not fall under the SmartPass scheme at the moment. Therefore, if we can broaden that scheme through these provisions, that is positive for those communities as well.

I reiterate our support for not approving clause 20. As others have said, we will continue to look at scrutiny.

Mr Carroll: I will be brief. I will speak to amendment Nos 2 and 3, which relate to clause 17. I raise my concern and opposition to that aspect of the Bill, as I have consistently done throughout the Committee Stage. As has been discussed, the proposal gives the Department the power to set a fee for issuing or replacing SmartPasses. My concern, as I have stated already, is that charging a fee for a service that should be free is a wrong policy. It is about revenue raising, as we were told at the Finance Committee a few months ago. I am also concerned that it is likely to be passed as the Bill commands the support of the House in the weeks ahead towards the Final Stage. I am concerned that there will be nothing to stop the Department, save for a proposal through the House, from increasing the cost of the SmartPass fee. It is worth noting that the Law Centre has stated that a payment to register for the SmartPass would create a barrier, particularly for people on low incomes, to accessing it. That is bad policy. It is also worth mentioning that the majority of responses to the DFI consultation on paying a fee for a SmartPass opposed any fee being levied. There is a question as to how the Department for Infrastructure and the Department of Finance can stand over that proposal.

My concern is that fewer people will apply for the SmartPass, which may be the intended consequence of the clause. A figure of £12 is being bandied about by the Department as the cost of a SmartPass. I am concerned that, when departmental officials last appeared before the Committee, it appeared that no work had been done to determine whether, if the number of people who were applying for a SmartPass were to drop, the SmartPass fee would go up. For talk's sake, let us say that 100,000 people applied for it last year at a cost of £12: if 50,000 people apply for it the year after that, will the cost go up to £24 or more? That has not been worked out by the Department.

The Department for Infrastructure officials who presented to the Finance Committee talked about people living longer. For the most part, that is the case, but people in my constituency of West Belfast and elsewhere are dying 10 and 12 years younger than people in the wealthier parts of Belfast and across the North. That needs to be factored into the Department for Infrastructure's policy considerations, because I do not believe that it has been to date.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): I call the Minister of Finance to make his winding-up speech.

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

I thank the Members who have contributed to the debate. I also put on record my thanks to the Committee for Finance and the other Committees that were involved in the scrutiny of the Bill. It is worth noting that, although we, as legislators in this Chamber, are criticised for not bringing forward enough legislation compared with other legislatures, that comparison does not stack up. Today, we have a piece of legislation that covers 19 areas of public policy and allows interventions in areas that are very important to our society. The Bill's title may be a bit dry and certainly does not reflect the importance of the legislation and the impact that it will have across many areas of public policy and expenditure, as well as on providing services to the general public.

There is general agreement on the amendments to the Bill's clauses. Some Members have concerns about the issues in relation to concessionary fares. The DFI Minister has moved to, hopefully, allay most people's concerns about that, by bringing any future decisions back to the Assembly for final decision. It is worth noting that the DFI Minister has protected concessionary fares and has allowed free travel for a wider range of people in this society than exists anywhere else in these islands. I do not think that there is any justification in suggesting that there is an attempt to undermine that. The fact of the matter is that those fares have been greatly protected.

When it comes to the famous "black box", those who remember the debates in the Chamber between Mr Allister and one of my predecessors, Mr Murphy, will understand the significance of those debates. The Bill removes significant black boxes from the budgetary process on the sole authority of the Budget Bill. From that point of view, the accounting and administrative processes are much improved by what we are doing today.

I have nothing further to add to my comments, other than to commend the amendments and the amended clauses of the Bill to the Assembly.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): I remind Members that amendment No 2 removes negative resolution as the Assembly procedure for regulations under clause 17, and amendment No 3 inserts draft affirmative resolution in its place. If Members want to make that change, they should vote in favour of both amendments.

Some Members: Aye.

Mr Carroll: No.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): There are Ayes from all sides of the House and only one dissenting voice.

Mr Carroll, I will ensure that your dissenting voice is recorded.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Before I put the Question, I remind Members that we have debated the Minister of Finance's opposition to clause 20 stand part, but the Question will be put in the positive, as usual.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Members, that concludes Consideration Stage of the Administrative and Financial Provisions Bill. The Bill stands referred to the Speaker. Please take your ease for a moment while we prepare for the next item in the Order Paper.

Mr O'Toole: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. For the record, I agree with the Minister's position on opposing the Question that clause 20 stand part of the Bill. I will have a tutorial with some of my party members, whom I lecture about the legislative process, and will remind myself to pay attention as clauses are worked through.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): All of that is noted, Mr O'Toole.

Mr O'Dowd: All that I heard was that he agrees with the Minister. [Laughter.]

Mr O'Toole: Do not get used to it.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): It has been recorded.

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

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

Mr Nesbitt: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. Today's Final Stage debate concludes the legislative process for the Hospital Parking Charges Bill in the Assembly. I thank all Members for the contributions that they have made to the process.

The purpose of the Bill is to defer the abolition of hospital parking charges, as provided for in the Hospital Parking Charges Act (Northern Ireland) 2022. To be clear, it is not a reversal of principle, nor does it reflect any lack of readiness on the part of the health and social care trusts to implement the 2022 Act. The Act was agreed with the best of intentions to reduce the financial burden on staff, patients and visitors. That remains a legitimate and compassionate aim. Members will be acutely aware, however, that the financial context facing the health and social care sector has changed significantly since that Act was passed. In response, the purpose of the deferral is to protect front-line services from the immediate and unmanaged loss of income that the abolition of parking charges would have entailed. Their abolition would have removed approximately £7 million each year from trusts' budgets. In the current financial environment, that loss would inevitably have to be offset through making reductions elsewhere, which would directly affect the services provided to patients and families. That is the context in which we are working: unprecedented wider financial challenges facing Health and Social Care (HSC).

The projected deficit facing my Department is approximately £760 million in the current financial year, and that deficit is expected to grow further in subsequent years. Although we pride ourselves on having a national health service, the reality of the Budget proposals published by the Minister of Finance is that the funding available for health services in Northern Ireland in the coming years will be relatively lower than that in England, Scotland or Wales, even though it has been confirmed time and time again that need here is higher. That means that difficult and responsible decisions are unavoidable. In that context, proceeding with the abolition of parking charges at this time would simply be unaffordable.

I reassure Members that the deferral is not being sought because the trusts are unprepared; on the contrary, the trusts have worked responsibly to prepare for the implementation of the 2022 Act. Significant investment has already been made in traffic management systems designed to control parking, protect blue-light routes and safeguard designated spaces once charging is removed. That investment will not be wasted. The new traffic management systems will be required when charges are eventually abolished. In the meantime, they will provide valuable data to help trusts improve the management and efficiency of car parks.

I turn briefly to the details of the Bill. Rather than specifying a single new commencement date, the Bill provides for the date to be set subsequently by regulation subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. That will ensure that the Assembly retains oversight and has the opportunity to debate and improve the timing of implementation. It will be informed by the reports to be prepared on the cost implications of the 2022 Act and its delay. That follows an amendment that Mr Colin McGrath proposed that was accepted at Consideration Stage. The Bill allows for deferral for up to three years, with May 2029 acting as the backstop.

Importantly, if financial sustainability is achieved sooner than expected, the legislation allows the 2022 Act to come into operation at an earlier date. During the deferral period, staff parking permits will remain free of charge, and a needs-based system will continue to operate to ensure that those with the greatest need have access to on-site parking. The deferral of the Act means that staff will continue to be able to access the public car parks, which I know was a concern.

On the impact on the most vulnerable, the Department's current car parking policy already provides for free and concessionary parking for patients on specific care pathways. A regional eligibility matrix applies free parking not only to patients but also, where appropriate, to next of kin, partners and visitors for those receiving radiotherapy, chemotherapy, renal dialysis and critical or high-dependency care. Trusts are given discretion to extend those exemptions in other circumstances, particularly where the frequency or duration of visits would otherwise result in significant parking costs.

In response to concerns expressed by Members at the Second and Consideration Stages, departmental officials wrote to the trusts' operational leads on 14 April to reinforce the need to monitor uptake of exemptions, target areas where uptake is low and ensure ward-level staff actively advise patients of their entitlements. Eligibility information should be clearly communicated through leaflets, posters and trusts' websites. While I appreciate the desire to further extend the eligibility criteria, that would result in a loss of income and thus defeat the purpose of the Bill. Similarly, hypothecating the income from car parking charges for a new service, however beneficial, would simply mean that less funding is available for existing services that are already under severe pressure.

I hope that Members will appreciate that the timetable for the passage of the legislation has been extremely tight. Executive approval was secured later than anticipated, making accelerated passage necessary to avoid the 2022 Act coming into force on 12 May without appropriate financial safeguards. Officials are working closely with trusts to ensure that contingency arrangements are in place should there be any short transitional period.

Being in Government requires making decisions that are not always popular but that are necessary and responsible, particularly in times of severe financial pressure. The Bill does not abandon the Assembly's original intent. However, it does recognise the current reality and seeks to strike a balance between fairness and financial sustainability. On that basis, I urge Members to support the Bill.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Minister, thank you. I call the Chair of the Health Committee, Philip McGuigan.

Mr McGuigan: Today, I speak as my party's spokesperson on health. At the beginning of my contribution, it is important to correct, once again, the narrative that is being portrayed by some Members, who are trying to misinterpret the Bill that is before us today and trying to change the narrative around the original private Member's Bill to end hospital car parking charges that was brought forward by my party colleague almost four years ago. That private Member's Bill passed with the support of all the main parties. There were no ambiguities then. There was a clear, united position that charging patients, families and staff to access health care was wrong. That is why we in Sinn Féin voted against the current Bill at the previous stage and will do so again today. We are opposed to any further delay to abolishing hospital car parking charges. The reason is simple: the Assembly has already made its decision. We cannot have a scenario where we refuse to implement agreed legislation by supporting delay after delay. As I said previously, the Health Minister himself supports the intent of the abolition of car parking charges, and he said that again today. However, supporting the principle means very little if, when the moment comes to act, we are told that it must be postponed yet again.

There will also be talk of cost if we do not support the Bill today, but delay is not neutral. Delay also has a cost: a cost felt by patients attending appointments; a cost felt by families sitting at bedsides; and a cost felt by staff turning up day after day to keep our health service going.

Mrs Dillon: I thank the Member for taking an intervention. Does he agree that that was highlighted again last week in the conversation around access to appointments for children with cancer and the cost to their parents of not only the parking charges but the transport to and from the appointments?

Mr McGuigan: The Member must have been reading my speech because I am going to make that point next. I welcome that intervention, and it is a point well made.

In the previous debate, I spoke about a similar scenario of the real-life impact on families of children and young people with cancer. Despite repeated references to exemptions, research from Young Lives vs Cancer shows that 62% of those families are still paying to park at our hospitals. The Minister has since stated and has said again today that the Department has written to the trusts and expects them to review their existing car parking concession policies in light of the proposed legislation. Concerns have been raised, which I share, that a trust-led review alone will not be sufficient.

Our current system of parking charges is a patchwork of concessions that look good on paper but not in reality. It is inconsistent, at times it is unclear, and it leaves out far too many people, creating yet more health inequalities. The Minister has suggested that the trusts will review those, but I do not think that we need other reviews, and we do not need more variation between trusts. What we need is a clear, fair, North-wide decision to abolish the charges and to implement the original legislation.

We also come to the argument of revenue, and the Minister has outlined clearly that the rationale for introducing the legislation to delay the original Act is the precarious situation that our health service is in. I agree about the budget, but the health service can, at times, be inefficient, and we can see wastage. Just last week, for example, at the Health Committee, we heard from the Belfast Trust about major capital projects, including the maternity and children's hospital developments, running significantly over budget to the tune of tens of millions of pounds. There is no clear end point and no certainty on final costs. Those are capital projects that, as I said, are costing the public purse substantial amounts of money. I think that, if the Health Minister were to look deeply into the budget, he would find other examples of where costs can be cut. Millions can be lost to delay, overruns and mismanagement, yet the solution offered today through the Bill is to keep charging families to park at our hospitals. I do not think that that is credible, and I do not think that it is acceptable that patients, staff and families are being asked to plug gaps created elsewhere in our health system.

Being honest about what is in front of us today, the Bill does not stop charges but prolongs them. It asks people to keep paying for longer despite the Assembly's already having agreed that those charges should go. Sinn Féin will not support that, because, if we believe that the policy of charging at hospital car parks is wrong — the Assembly has already made that decision — the answer is not to delay action.

Mr McGrath: Well, well, well. Here we are again. We are at the Final Stage of the Executive undoing the last piece of legislation that was passed in the previous mandate. I will say that again. It is the Executive's Bill that is going to be passed. The original Bill promised so much and delivered only confusion, frustration and anger. Free car parking for everyone at all our hospitals — staff, patients or visitors — and here we stand today to hit a further pause button on that process.

We know that the Bill is likely to have the numbers to pass today. With it, the promise made to patients in 2022 will be delayed yet again. While it is true that every party supported the Act in 2022, it is also true that every Executive party supported this Bill's getting to the Floor of the Assembly to be debated. Sinn Féin can say many things about opposing delaying the removal of hospital car parking charges, but the Bill will end up being passed today because it has been able to get here today. It has been able to get to the Assembly as an Executive Bill.

Mrs Dillon: Will the Member take an intervention?

Mr McGrath: Yes, of course.

Mrs Dillon: Would the Member mind clarifying for me whether his party believes that Bills should come from the Executive to the Floor or whether they should be blocked at the Executive and not come to the Floor? On a number of occasions, it has been said by your party that Bills and policy should not be blocked at the Executive and should come to the Floor to go through the democratic process. I am just wanting a wee bit of clarity around that.

Mr McGrath: I will just go back to my earlier sentence: a Bill that promised so much and delivered only confusion, frustration and then anger. The confusion bit comes because we were all promised stuff in a private Member's Bill at the end of the previous mandate. We all supported it, and then, as soon as we came back into this place, the first thing that happened was that it was undone. Now we are here, and it will be undone once again.

We have said that we voted for it. We supported it at the end of the previous mandate, and all that we have had in front of us since have been Bills to delay that, and we voted against the delaying in this Bill. That is truly the definition of speaking out of both sides of your mouth: "We are happy for this to go down on to the Floor but we are not going to support it". That does not mean that it is not going to pass. When it comes to the transparency that is needed with Bills, the SDLP was the only party to ensure that there was openness and transparency. The amendment that we tabled at the previous stage, which was supported, because it passed and is in the Bill, ensures that where money is going to be spent through the Bill, the public will be told. If there is one thing that the Executive do not like, it is scrutiny. If the delay is going to cost money, we want to make sure that people know that.

I will follow up on some of the correct remarks that the Chair of the Committee made. It is good to see that we are having the discussion, because we have all been lobbied about children who have been diagnosed with cancer. We are told that there are 135 such children and young people every year. Part of the quid pro quo was that those people would be sorted out. When it came down to trust level, they would be able to get assistance and not have to face those charges. What we are being told by the charity that represents them, however, is that they are still facing those charges. That is now. So there is no guarantee that children with cancer can be protected from the charges, yet we are being asked to support the delay on the basis that people such as those children will be helped, but the evidence at this stage is to the contrary.

I ask the Executive, through the Minister of Health, what specific, measurable protections will be in place during the delay to ensure that every child with cancer and their family can access free car parking. That is not just a policy; that is the practice. I do not want to hear that trusts "should" or trusts "might". What measurable items will be put in place to ensure that those protections are there so that we can protect them? If we cannot protect them, all we are doing is prolonging a situation where families already under immense strain are asked to shoulder costs that they should never have had to face in the first place. That is not something that we should be comfortable with. That is why we in the SDLP have acted to try to bring some transparency to the Bill. We have made our thoughts known. It should have been brought in and implemented at the start of the mandate as per the agreement of the Assembly in its previous mandate. We should stop messing about with the public, because they really know when people are talking out of both sides of their mouth, because it is blindingly obvious when you do that.

Mrs Dodds: Thank you to the Minister for his remarks on the Bill. Minister, you explained that the deferral in the Bill is due to the precarious position of Health Department finances. I do not think that any of us is going to argue with that, particularly those who sit on the Health Committee week in and week out and hear of so many issues that cannot be resolved because of a lack of money.

I agree with the Chair of the Committee in saying that, at last week's Health Committee meeting, we heard of enormous waste of health service resources. One media outlet counted almost £40 million in wastage: money already spent by the Belfast Trust on the maternity hospital, the mental health unit and the energy unit. All of that makes the appropriate use of public finances a very important issue. I supported the SDLP amendment, and I believe that transparency is extremely important.

Minister, I will make two points on what you said in opening the debate. You said that saving money would not mean that we could introduce new services. I know that you met representatives of the Stroke Association this morning, and I was keen to hear good news from them as they came down the stairs from the meeting. With the savings from the Bill, we could introduce a 24/7 thrombectomy service — 24 hours a day, seven days a week — for Northern Ireland. That would be transformative for stroke patients. It would mean the difference between stroke patients walking out of hospital and their living with huge disabilities. I ask you this again, Minister, as I have asked you in every debate on the issue and will continue to ask: when will we see that transformative service commissioned?

In every one of these debates — I am glad that others have caught up with this issue — I have also asked you about exemptions. I must say that your responses on that are less than convincing. That speaks to some of the reasons why some of the public, who know that we are in dire financial straits in Health, are sceptical, to say the least, about what happens here.

Others have said, and it is worth saying it again, that Young Lives vs Cancer indicated last week that 62% of young cancer patients and their families pay for parking despite the concessions. Minister, you have said that it is up to the trusts to resolve that issue; to look at their exemptions and to hear what can be done. However, the House would be much more reassured if you indicated that you will ensure that that is done. That would be an important step forward in keeping faith with people.

Young families with a child who has been diagnosed with cancer go through an enormously traumatic experience. They spend their lives devoted to that child in hospital, and their income suffers remarkably as a result. We should not add to their burden. I hope that, in your reply, Minister, you will do more than say that a letter on the issue was sent to trusts on 14 April.

Mr Donnelly: I speak as the Alliance health spokesperson. At the outset, I acknowledge plainly that this issue has caused real frustration and distress for healthcare workers and for patients and their families across Northern Ireland. The initiative was, in theory, a positive one. It sought to bring greater fairness and consistency to hospital car parking. It reflected a legitimate concern about how parking operates in certain trusts. We are not where we want to be.

It is important to note the impact of the issues that have come to light, such as parking capacity, transport infrastructure and how staff, patients and families are, practically and realistically, expected to access hospital sites. Those issues need to be addressed so that this does not become a permanent deferral process.

That said, the financial reality is that the removal of parking charges would cost around £7 million a year. In the current circumstances, that is not an insignificant sum.

Although there are other issues to raise around how sustainable and fit for purpose the budgeting models of the current system are, I understand that difficult decisions have to be made, of which this, clearly, is one. It is not lost on me that, earlier today, we were discussing the pressures on our A&Es and the harm that results from that because of the inability to build capacity in our community. We need to focus on ensuring that we are in a position to implement this at the right time and work towards it in a meaningful way, rather than treating May 2029 as a default. In the longer term, we need a system of action, not reaction. Otherwise, we will continually end up in this position, and we cannot let this happen again.

Mr Chambers: I welcome the opportunity to contribute to the debate on Final Stage of the Hospital Parking Charges Bill. Like other Members, I recognise that this has been a constructive and, at times, challenging legislative process. It has highlighted just how deeply the issue resonates with not only our constituents but the staff and patients who rely on our health service every day.

I acknowledge the original intent behind the Hospital Parking Charges Act (Northern Ireland) 2022, which was to ease the burden on those who already face significant pressures. That principle remains sound, and it is important that we do not lose sight of it. We must deal with the reality that is in front of us, however, not the circumstances of three years ago. The financial position facing our health and social care system is stark. Members will all be well aware that the scale of the deficit and the pressure on front-line services are unlike anything that we have seen in recent years. Against that backdrop, the question before us is not whether abolishing parking charges is desirable — it clearly is — but whether that can be delivered without causing greater harm elsewhere in the system. The loss from trust budgets of approximately £7 million a year could not simply be absorbed; it would have consequences, and those consequences would be felt directly in patient care, with reduced services, longer waiting times or further strain on an already overstretched workforce. That is not a trade-off that the Assembly should make lightly.

The Bill represents a pragmatic and responsible step. It does not abandon the objective of abolishing charges. Rather, it recognises that timing matters. By deferring implementation, we create the space needed to stabilise finances and protect essential services. I also welcome the flexibility built into the legislation. The use of regulations, subject to affirmative resolution, ensures that the Assembly retains control over when the Act is commenced. Equally, the provision for earlier implementation, should the financial position improve, is sensible. Importantly, protections remain in place. Free parking for staff will continue, and a needs-based approach will ensure that those who depend most on access to hospital parking are not disadvantaged. I am confident that the Minister will bear that in mind.

In conclusion, this is not an easy decision, but it is the right one in the current circumstances, reflecting the need for responsible governance that is grounded in financial reality. My party and I support the Bill.

Mr O'Toole: I was not going to speak, since my colleague Colin McGrath covered the issues fairly comprehensively, but I felt the need to do so, given that a particular area of the Bill has not yet been reflected on. There were comments made by some Members earlier that can be contextualised by a document that was published in 2024.

We were fairly scathing of the Bill when it was introduced and when it was debated at its Second Reading. That is not because we think that the Health Minister is being cynical. I appreciate the position that he has been put in. The other day, however, I was at home watching a television programme with my eight-year-old son. I was trying to get him not to watch YouTube. We were talking about something, and I managed to convince him to watch an old comedy. We watched an episode of 'Fawlty Towers'. Sometimes what goes on in this place makes 'Fawlty Towers' look like a documentary, because the situation is well and truly Fawltyesque, Pythonesque or, perhaps, Kafkaesque. We have arrived at a preposterous situation. The last thing that we did in a previous mandate was make a promise to healthcare workers, staff of all kinds — medical staff, porters and ancillary staff — and people suffering from illnesses and their immediate families that they would not have to face the burden of parking charges. The final legislative act before we left the Chamber in 2022 was to pass that Bill, and the first act when we came back, other than to pass a routine Budget Bill, was to delay its implementation. That is preposterous: it is not acceptable, and it needs to be called out, and that is what the official Opposition have done. I am not 100% sure that there would have been a Division or that Sinn Féin would have voted against the Bill at Second Stage had we not forced a Division.

It is important that we challenge some of the remarkable statements that have been made today. The Bill could not have made it to the House had the First Minister and her party not agreed to it in the Executive. That is a fact. I am happy to take an intervention if someone wants to correct me, but that has been established as fact. The First Minister and, indeed, the junior Minister who sponsored the Bill in the previous mandate agreed to this Bill. Their party are now saying, "This is awful. How did this awful Bill make it to the House?". We have a credibility problem in the Assembly. That credibility problem gets worse when we say such things and when we claim that we are not responsible for our actions. That is part of the reason why the public have such low trust in us. There is a question not only about how the Bill made it to the Floor —

Mrs Dillon: Will the Member give way?

Mr O'Toole: I will in one second. There is a question about previous statements that have been made. The previous Finance Minister, Caoimhe Archibald, published a document in October 2024 after the Executive restoration settlement in February 2024. Part of that agreement with the British Government concerned revenue-raising options. Some Members here who were on the Finance Committee then and who are on it now will know that the Department of Finance published a document entitled 'Budget Sustainability Plan'. It was the then Finance Minister and the broader Executive's plan to raise revenue as per that agreement. By the way, that is still live Executive policy. If Members go to appendix D of the document, which, as I said, the Department of Finance, under the then Finance Minister, Caoimhe Archibald, published, they will see that it sets out detailed tables on revenue-raising options. That is the Executive saying, "This is the revenue we're raising to meet our commitments under the Executive restoration package". If one scrolls down, one gets to a line that states "Car Parking Charges", and there is a figure of £6 million attached. In the comments, it is stated:

That is from the Department of Finance, which has been led by two successive Sinn Féin Finance Ministers, who are scoring that revenue from delaying the Bill. Do not therefore come into the Chamber and discredit politics and devolution by saying, "Nothing to do with us. We have nothing to do with this. We deplore this awful Bill, which we allowed on to the Floor, and whose revenue we have already scored in a document published by the Department of Finance", because it is not serious and it is not credible. People who were promised the change deserve honesty and responsibility from our politicians. I am now happy to give way to Mrs Dillon.

Mrs Dillon: Thank you. I would like you to provide clarity and perhaps a straight answer, because one did not come from your colleague, on whether you think that Bills should be blocked at the Executive or should come to the House for them to be subject to the democratic process. We discussed minimum unit pricing, which is one of the issues that was being blocked at the Executive and not being allowed to come to the House. Either you support Bills coming to the House or you do not. A straight yes or no answer would be great.

Mr O'Toole: The straight answer is yes, but, of course, there is always context and there are always circumstances. My answer is a yes, but, since I allowed the intervention, let me explain in detail what I mean by that. I think yes, but, of course, it is then disingenuous to come to the House and act as through you had nothing do with this, that your party has no awareness of it, that you are not leading the Executive and that you do not have the First Minister and the Finance Minister, who have not dissented from this, and —

Mr McGuigan: Will the Member give way?

Mr O'Toole: — pretend that you have no responsibility for it. I will give way to Mr McGuigan in a second.

You cannot never take responsibility for the power that you have. That is part of the reason why our politics are in the state that they are in. There is a particular challenge for those of us who are trying to advocate for a new Ireland, because we need to be credible. We are putting forward a proposition for change on this island. That requires credibility and taking responsibility, not this kind of Monty Python behaviour.

I give way to Mr McGuigan.

Mr McGuigan: Sinn Féin is taking responsibility for its part in the hospital car parking charges issues. This was a Sinn Féin Bill. Sinn Féin proposed that we ended car parking charges for patients and staff across the North. That was our responsibility, and it was supported by everybody in the Chamber. The Member talks about taking responsibility for where we are today. We are opposed to the delay. We did not need the SDLP to tell us that we were opposed to it at the Second Stage debate, and we do not need the SDLP to tell us that we are opposed to it at this stage. I know that the SDLP has a mad obsession with Sinn Féin, but the subject of your angst, today, should be those who are supporting the Bill that is delaying what Sinn Féin proposed — the ending of car parking charges — not Sinn Féin that, today, put on record, that we are voting against the Minister's Bill. We want to see the end to car parking charges, which we brought to the Chamber, implemented.

Mr O'Toole: People will draw their own conclusions about the situation. Sinn Féin leads the Executive jointly with the DUP. We hold every Executive party robustly to account. That is our job, and I make no apology for it; we, collectively, make no apology for that. That is why Colin McGrath put down an amendment to improve transparency around the Bill. I know that it makes people uncomfortable, but it is our job.

For the record, you said that it was a Sinn Féin Bill, which was brought in in 2022 and which then became an Act. It certainly was, but it was also a Sinn Féin Finance Minister who counted the savings from not implementing it in the revenue-raising plan, which they submitted to the British Treasury. You cannot, on the one hand, say that you introduced it and, on the other hand, declaim the revenue that you claim to have saved from it. People require us to be honest with them, be they healthcare workers or family members who are, perhaps, experiencing severe medical issues, going to an oncology ward or have a terminal illness. We would much prefer to have seen this implemented years ago, but it is going to be delayed again. It is incumbent on us to finally grow up a bit in our politics and reflect on why people have such low levels of trust in this institution.

Mr Carroll: If you look up "hames" in the dictionary, you will see a picture of this Bill and an account of how it has been handled by this Minister, the previous Minister and the Executive as a whole. From the start of the process, those who could have availed themselves of free parking have been messed about, taken for granted and made mugs of by the Assembly. They were promised free parking at hospitals, but one of the first things to be done by the Assembly when it was reconvened was the reversal of that decision. It seems like patients and health workers are only good when it comes to photo ops for Executive parties in the Building.

In previous debates, the Department talked about public transport for healthcare appointments and people using public transport for healthcare appointments. To use words that the Minister used in response to me in the question for urgent oral answer, "in an ideal world", it would be wonderful to see people use public transport, and they should, if they can. I remind the House that, just a few moments ago, the House backed a piece of legislation that will charge people to apply for their SmartPasses. It is a contradiction and a sign of one hand not knowing what the other is doing. It is also the case that there is insufficient, to put it mildly, public transport provision in many areas of the North, never mind the fact that people who have cancer are being told that they have to get a bus or train. Do we expect people with cancer and other serious ailments, diseases and illnesses to sit on a bus or train? To be frank, that is disgusting. The Minister talked about the Bill not being about reversing the original decision that was made in 2022. That is exactly what the Bill is doing. It is reversing the original decision.

Young Lives vs Cancer corresponded with me and, I am sure, others, ahead of the debate. It said that, on average, families in which there are young people with cancer are paying £700 every month. If the Minister has the power to reduce that cost, he should go ahead and do that speedily. However, he is doing the opposite: he is lumping an extra payment on to those families. Even for that sole reason, Members should vote against the Bill today. Waiting for free parking at hospitals to come through from the Assembly will be like 'Waiting for Godot'. It will never come, especially if we pass the Bill today.

We hear a lot of talk about people working together, non-silo mentalities and all those kind of buzzwords. Hundreds of millions of pounds were spent on Grand Central station, which opened one or two years ago. To my knowledge, there were no extra bus transport services put in place for people to get to those hospitals and healthcare sites. I am happy to be corrected on that, but I do not believe so. Therefore, although there is all this talk about using public transport, the investment is not being put in place at all.

The Minister talked about finance and said that it has been a financial issue. At least he is being honest, I suppose, but I would throw that back and challenge him by saying that trusts have spent £60 million on private ambulance services over the past five years, and the Department, through the trusts, is spending hundreds of millions of pounds every year on private healthcare as well. Money can be found when it is needed, and it should be found in this case.

The Minister usually refers to England in debates, usually to say that things are bad in England so we should be less angry about things being bad here. However, I will let the Minister know — I am sure that he knows this already — that, in England, there is a £10 million travel fund for people with cancer, but there is no suggestion of anything like that being put in place here.

In conclusion, I ask the Minister, through the Speaker, this question: was there a vote at the Executive on this? There has been some back and forth between Sinn Féin and the SDLP, but I presume that this went through by consensus at the Executive, and I presume that the Executive parties supported it. I also remind Members that MLAs still get free parking at this Building while we are telling other people to pay for parking outside their place of work. The leader of the Opposition talked about transparency. Indeed, I am all for that. I remind him that his party had the chance to vote against accelerated passage of the Bill but refused to do so.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): All Members who indicated that they wish to speak have done so, so I call the Minister of Health to conclude the Final Stage.

Mr Nesbitt: Thank you, Deputy Speaker.

There are a few matters arising from Members' comments. I emphasise that the £7 million is not additional money or new money. It is simply a question of saying that we currently forecast a shortfall this year of £760 million. That prevents it from becoming £767 million.

I share Mrs Dodds's desire to see 24/7 thrombectomy care for stroke patients. We are talking about up to 160 people a year who miss out because the service is not 24/7, and they live the rest of their lives with the impact of that stroke, whereas, with a 24/7 service, up to 160 people could be in and out of hospital on the day, undergoing a 15-minute procedure and leaving with no side effects. I assure Mrs Dodds that I have a very long shopping list of things that I would like to introduce over the rest of the mandate, and thrombectomy services —

Mr Donnelly: Will the Minister give way?

Mr Nesbitt: — are very much towards the top of that list.

Mrs Dodds: Will the Minister give way?

Mr Nesbitt: I will give way to Mr Donnelly and then to Mrs Dodds.

Mr Donnelly: I just want to pick up on that point about the thrombectomy unit. I think that the cost would be £5 million a year, but, as a result of that investment, a lot of suffering would be alleviated and lives would be saved, and a lot of disability could be avoided, which would result in money not having to be spent on care. Therefore, it would make financial sense, as well as alleviate death and suffering.

Mr Nesbitt: I appreciate Mr Donnelly's intervention, but he will have to concede — I am sure that he knows this — that there are a lot of rules around how we spend money in Departments and a lot of legal obligations. If you do not have the money, you cannot spend it. It is very hard to justify the spend when you are saying that we are £760 million short of what we want. It is impossible to bring in a 24/7 service without the budget, and we do not have the budget now. As I give way to Mrs Dodds, I say to her, as I say to all Members from the four Executive parties: let us get the Budget done so that we can at least make those things possible.

Mrs Dodds: Thank you, Minister, for giving way. Mr Donnelly actually covered the point that I was going to make. It makes no sense not to spend £5 million when we will spend many, many millions more on lifetimes of disability and the services etc that will be required for people who cannot avail themselves of a 24/7 thrombectomy service. It is kind of nonsensical to say that we are making a saving by not having the 24/7 thrombectomy service, because we will actually spend a lot more money and cause a lot more suffering, pain and grief for families.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Minister, if you do not mind, before you continue: I have given some latitude due to the seriousness of the debate. However, I am sure that Members, being reasonable, will see that we are getting into the minutiae of other service areas and straying somewhat from the Hospital Parking Charges Bill. Can we confine our comments to that, please?

Mr Nesbitt: OK, Deputy Speaker. Just to finish that off, though, thrombectomy is not, by far, the only area where there is a compelling case to invest to save.

To keep to the subject of the Bill, as the Deputy Speaker, quite rightly, insists, when it comes to concessions, it would be a very poor Minister who made up policy, or made promises, on the hoof. I have heard what Members have said about what they do not want to hear me say, so I will just park it there. Mr Carroll's final question was whether there had been a vote on this at the Executive. Mr Carroll is perfectly entitled to seek the minutes of Executive meetings.

This completes the Final Stage of the Bill's progress in the Assembly. As we know, it does not become law without Royal Assent. I hope that that will be secured in the next 14 working days, so that we can avoid the potential disruption from car parking charges being abolished temporarily on 12 May. To try to avoid that, I have written to the Secretary of State, the Attorney General and the Advocate General requesting that they provide the necessary assistance in their respective roles to expedite Royal Assent's being secured. I am very grateful for the positive response that I have received. I hope that that bodes well for the next, and very final, stage of the legislative process. However, in the event that car parking charges are abolished temporarily, I ask Members to support the trusts as they seek to minimise the inevitable disruption that will follow. For those reasons, I commend the Hospital Parking Charges Bill to the Assembly and ask Members for their support at Final Stage.

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

Mr Butler: I beg to move

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: The Business Committee has agreed to allow up to one hour and 30 minutes for the debate. The proposer of the motion will have 10 minutes in which to propose and 10 minutes in which to make a winding-up speech. All other Members who are called to speak will have five minutes. The Minister for Infrastructure will respond to the debate on behalf of the Minister for the Economy.

Robbie, please open the debate on the motion.

Mr Butler: Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. We may have set a world record with the length of the motion. That is not by luck but by design, because this is a really important topic that we must grasp. It is an opportunity for Northern Ireland, because Northern Ireland is tied up. It is being held up not in some abstract way but in a way that people feel every day. They feel it in their heating bills, on their farms, particularly, and in the pressure on our shared environment. For too long, Northern Ireland has been exposed. It has been exposed to global energy shocks, to supply chain disruption and to decisions made far beyond this place that we cannot interfere with. We have got used to being price takers. That is the reality, but here is the thing: at the exact moment that energy security is becoming one of the biggest global issues, Northern Ireland is, in fact, sitting on an opportunity. It is not imported, and it is not theoretical; it is right here.

I will be clear from the start. I am not suggesting in any sense that anaerobic digestion (AD) is a silver bullet. It will not fix everything, but it will be part of our solution if we treat it like a tool. Like a penknife, if used carefully and properly, it can do a lot of good. Used badly, it can cause harm. Used well, it can genuinely help to transform Northern Ireland, because this is not just about energy. It is about how everything connects: food security, energy security and environmental protection. Farming does not sit in isolation, and we should not pretend that it does.

I cannot think of a better example of a workable circular economy. Look at what we already have. Every year, we produce around 10 million tons of slurry, poultry litter and food waste. For years, we have viewed and treated that as a problem — something to manage and limit — but, if we flip it, it is a resource that can produce biomethane, which is a gas that we can put straight into the network that we already have. That bit matters. We have already invested over £1 billion in that network. It is there; it works; and it can take renewable gas without people needing to change boilers or even lift a finger. That puts us ahead of the rest of these islands.

I am sure that many hear and see the seemingly trendy strapline of "Drill, baby, drill", but those who chant that mantra need to accept that drilling will not manage our waste, reduce our nutrient pressures or protect our farmers. If we are serious about resilience, we need solutions that do all three. To do that, we need to be honest, clear and accurate.

Let us think about the scale of what we are dealing with. We have in the region of 1·6 million to 1·8 million cows or cattle, around 1·8 million sheep, around 26 million chickens and poultry and around 1·6 million pigs, but we have only around 1 million hectares of agricultural land. That adds up to some pressures. We are dealing with a phosphorus surplus running into the thousands of tons, and a significant number of farms are operating at or above the 170 kg nitrogen limit. Farmers are being squeezed. They are being threatened with reductions in stock and are being asked to find more land, which simply does not exist. Our exports are coming under significant pressure.

None of those pressures is easy. They are real, everyday pressures for our farmers. Anybody working in that sector will understand that our farmers are under significant pressure. The biggest issue that we have to deal with is not energy; it is how we deal with food waste. Anaerobic digestion gives us a way to process it, stabilise it, reduce emissions and, critically, move nutrients to where they are needed. That is not theory; it is practical, and it is working today.

Let me be really clear, because people, including farmers in particular, are rightly concerned: this cannot become a land grab, and we will not let it. Around a third of our land is farmed under conacre, which involves short-term land agreements. That alone puts a natural limit on large-scale crop growing. Beyond that, the policy direction must be clear: this is about waste, slurry, manure and food waste. It is not about growing crops for profit at the expense of food production. If we get that bit wrong, we will create a new problem instead of solving the one that we have.

As we know well at the moment, Northern Ireland is exposed when it comes to energy. We rely on imports and a single interconnector, and we rely heavily on heating oil. When prices spike globally, we feel it immediately. There is no buffer. Farmers feel it three times over: in the price of fuel, the price of fertiliser and the price of feed. Biomethane does not solve all three, but it helps because it is indigenous — it is produced here. It keeps value in our economy, including, crucially, our rural economy, which really matters. The potential is real. Research suggests that we could significantly offset and potentially match current gas demand. We could deliver around 3·5 terawatt-hours of energy, which is a major share of what industry and businesses use. That is not small or insignificant; it is meaningful.

What matters most is that that connects energy and food. If farming is not viable, we lose food security; if nutrients are not managed, we lose farming; and, if energy is not stable, everything becomes harder. It is one system, and there is a real opportunity for rural communities. It is not about outside companies coming in. It works best when it is local, by which I mean farmer-led cooperative models that would keep the value where it is created and give farmers another option, rather than adding another burden. There would be real day-to-day benefits, including less pressure on slurry storage, less risk of pollution and less reliance on trying to catch that one perfect day to spread the stuff. As we have seen this year with our incredibly wet winter, being too wet or too dry is not just frustrating; it adds significant stress.

We need to do it right. There needs to be strong regulation, clear rules and proper oversight, and support that is stable and sensible. It cannot repeat past mistakes; it has to build trust, and it has to be joined up. Energy, agriculture and environment have to work together, because that is the reality of the problem that we face.

The choice is pretty simple: do we stay as we are, exposed to global and political volatility and reactive and dependent, or do we take a step forward to something that is more resilient and indigenous? Even if biomethane were to deliver part of the answer — 10%, 15% or 20% — it would deliver far more than energy; it would help the environment, support farming and strengthen rural economies.

As I have said, it is not a silver bullet, but it is a tool. If we use it properly, it could make a real difference. We can keep reacting to the world around us, or we can start shaping our own. This is our chance to do it. I urge Members around the Chamber to support the motion. Let us not shrink from it or talk it down.

Mr McGlone: I thank the Member for giving way. We have had a few debates in the Chamber on the nutrients action programme (NAP), some of which were not particularly productive. During those debates, ideas were put forward, including one from my party, to address and alleviate the problem and support the farming community so that it can see a better future in a similar way to what has been done south of the border. They are good, innovative ideas that need to be supported.

Mr Butler: I thank the Member for his intervention. He is absolutely right. In fact, the birthplace in the Assembly was around 2021 with Minister Poots as Minister of Agriculture, through the sustainable use of livestock slurry (SULS) programme. It was probably the genesis of the biomethane programme. However, we need to learn from what has already happened and improve, then use and accelerate that research and development to ensure that we extract every benefit of everything that is within that circular economy.

It is really important, given the topics of debate over the weekend. I listened to my colleague from Fermanagh and South Tyrone, Diana Armstrong, on the radio about the shrinking rural economy. This is a real chance to rebuild that and ensure, as we should as legislators, that our rural communities have that voice and that farmers are central to any development. I commend the motion to the House.

Mr McAleer: I welcome the motion. It is timely and appropriate. There is strong merit in the direction set out in the motion, particularly in recognising biomethane as a reliable and indigenous energy source that can support the North's energy security, strengthen our agri-food sector and contribute meaningfully to environmental protection. Given the volumes of slurry, poultry litter and food waste that we produce, anaerobic digestion presents a practical opportunity to turn what has traditionally been a nutrient and waste challenge into a strategic asset for energy and agriculture. The timing is good, because those of us from rural areas know that this has been a very long and wet winter with the cattle being inside. Farmers need to get out for the slurry, because the tanks are nearly full. It is timely that we start looking strategically at how we can look at the likes of slurry as a resource and an opportunity as opposed to waste or a by-product.

Biomethane offers clear advantages. It reduces our reliance on imported fossil fuels, helps to insulate households and businesses from global price volatility and contributes directly to decarbonisation targets by displacing natural gas in the energy mix. In addition, the circular nature of anaerobic digestion means that waste streams are converted into renewable energy, while digestate can be returned to the land. With fertiliser prices now in the region of £700 a ton, it is a good opportunity to look at that circular economy and how those prices can also be cut. That would support more sustainable nutrient management, as Patsy said a while ago, and overall soil fertility. Biomethane has real potential to strengthen both energy and food security in a joined-up way.

A scaled and well-designed biomethane sector could also provide significant benefits for rural economies. Farm businesses supplying slurry, silage and other organic materials could develop new income streams, while improved nutrient-recovery systems could also address environmental pressures such as phosphorus and ammonia surpluses. Most of us on the AERA Committee had the opportunity to go to see the small business research initiative, funded by DAERA, in action just up the road at the Blakiston Houston Estate. It showed that innovation in slurry processing and nutrient separation is already under way. That could play an important role in unlocking a more efficient and environmentally responsible use of agricultural resources.

Mr Butler: Will the Member give way?

Mr McAleer: Yes, of course.

Mr Butler: Just on that, does the Member recognise the fact that what has happened out of this is that a lot of land has come back into the animal feed space? There was a fear that it would all be grass-fed, but it is not. We are looking at food and manure wastes, and the knock-on effect is that we can reclaim a lot of that land for producing food.

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

Mr McAleer: I agree with the Member. I was going to come to that later in my contribution. It is important that we look at waste and slurry, because we do not want the situation where farmers compete with large-scale AD plants for silage. That needs to be managed.

If the opportunity is to be fully realised, it must be delivered in a way that is regionally balanced and economically fair. Large anaerobic digestion plants and corporate operators are naturally best positioned to benefit from economies of scale and access to finance and export markets. Many of the facilities are concentrated east of the Bann, while key feedstocks such as silage are more abundant west of the Bann. I should point out that, certainly as of 2024, according to the ministerial response to a question that I asked, there are no AD plants in County Fermanagh. Without careful policy design, there is a risk that that imbalance could widen, leaving smaller rural and community-based projects at a disadvantage.

It is also important to ensure that farmers and small producers are not displaced in their own supply chains. Increasing demand for grass, silage and slurry as feedstocks could place upward pressure on land rental values and alter traditional agricultural practices. That underlines the importance of ensuring fair pricing mechanisms and maintaining the viability of livestock farming alongside biomethane development. In addition, while export opportunities for biomethane and associated certificates may increase revenues for larger operators, we must ensure that the primary objective remains strengthening local energy resilience and delivering value in the North's rural economy.

For those reasons, a rural impact assessment is essential to understand how different regions, particularly west of the Bann, will be affected by changes in feedstock demand, infrastructure investment and market access. Alongside that, an equality impact assessment is necessary to ensure that policy design does not unintentionally favour larger corporate operators over smaller farms, community projects or rural enterprises and that opportunities are distributed fairly across scale and geography.

Finally, we must also look at questions around long-term affordability and viability. Current evidence suggests a gap between production costs and proposed subsidy levels, which raises important considerations about how the sector will be supported sustainably without placing undue pressure on consumers or taxpayers. Those issues do not undermine the case for biomethane, but they reinforce the need for a careful, structured, stable and long-term support framework.

Biomethane represents a genuine opportunity to deliver energy security, environmental responsibility and rural economic development. With the right policy frameworks, safeguards and impact assessments in place —.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Time is up, Declan.

Mr McAleer: We support the motion.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Thank you. Much appreciated.

Mr Brett: I welcome the opportunity to once again contribute to a debate in the House on the issue of energy security. For these Benches and for this party, when we discuss the issue of energy, energy security and price control must be the top priorities. Today's debate allows us to have a discussion of the role that biomethane may play in a wider, realistic green energy proposal.

It is important to note the House's record and that of the Department when it comes to realistic and proportionate proposals on energy. Renewable energy consumption in Northern Ireland is falling and continues to fall. The dispatch down rate, which is the rate of renewable energy produced in Northern Ireland that cannot be used, continues to rise and has almost hit a record 30%. We need only to read the comments of the Audit Office on the Department for the Economy's energy strategy, which show that £100 million has been spent to date, with only 1% of our targets met.

Biomethane may be part of an overall wider solution, but we need to see evidence-informed proposals from the Department. The issue has been part of a wider delay and malaise in the Department for the Economy, particularly in energy division. In 2022, the Department undertook a call for evidence on the production of a biomethane strategy. What have we seen since 2022? In those four years, we have seen absolutely nothing [Interruption.]

Does the Member want in? No? OK, no problem.

In January 2025, I raised the issue with the Minister in an Assembly question asking for an update on the publication of the strategy. I was told that that would take place in 2026. One year later, I asked the same question, and the answer was:

— of a strategy —

It is clear that work on a biomethane strategy by the Department for the Economy is not going anywhere quickly. That speaks to the wider piece in energy. The renewable energy price guarantee scheme, which was meant to be delivered almost a year ago, is nowhere to be seen. Offshore wind policy, which was meant to be introduced in this mandate, has now been shelved by the Department for the Economy in this mandate.

Grid connectivity policy is nowhere to be seen, and, as I said earlier, dispatch down rates continue to rise. That is where the focus of the Department for the Economy and the entire House should be. We do not need a piecemeal approach to energy. We need an overall strategy that deals with those fundamental issues.

Mr Butler: I thank the Member for giving way. I will not argue with anything that the Member has said, because a small element in the Department for the Economy's energy division is working on a biomethane strategy. Does the Member recognise, however, the value of the circular economy here and the weight of the role that it plays when our farmers are under immense pressure to deal with the phosphorous and ammonia surplus? Does he recognise that this is really a good story for Northern Ireland, if we can get it right?

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Phillip, you have an extra minute.

Mr Brett: The vital point is that we need to get this right. I had hoped to hear from the proposer of the motion on what the "support mechanism" mentioned in the motion would look like. There is an opportunity, given that funding will soon become available as a result of the forthcoming closure of the RHI scheme and the unused annually managed expenditure (AME) there.

Importantly, the words of the motion are what we are voting on, and the House needs to have some detail on what a support mechanism will or should look like, yet, when Members come here, they are asked to vote on proposals. The settled will of the Assembly could be that it wants a support mechanism, but we have no detail of what that would look like, how much it would cost and how it would move forward. The Member for West Tyrone rightly outlined the issue of competition for silage, particularly in more rural communities.

The focus of the Assembly should be on a complete energy piece that finally brings together the issues that the Member for Lagan Valley, who sits on the Committee with me, continues to raise. We need deliverable, ambitious and structured energy proposals across all sectors of our economy in Northern Ireland. I commend the motion's sponsors for bringing forward one issue within that energy strategy, but we had hoped to hear from the Department and the Minister, and from her able replacement, that there will be a focus on a deliverable action plan. As with Lemony Snicket, a series of unfortunate events has meant that the Minister cannot be here, but there is an important role that the Minister for Infrastructure may wish to highlight in her remarks: the possibility that biomethane could be used in public transport. Rather than looking at the electrification of some of our train provision, particularly on the Belfast to Dublin corridor, there might be an opportunity in her Department to use biomethane.

We will let the motion go through today, but I encourage Members to focus on a wider, all-encompassing energy delivery plan that will ensure lower prices and energy security for the people of Northern Ireland.

Mr Honeyford: I cannot believe that I am going to say this: I agree with a lot of what Phillip said, and I commend the motion.

I talk a lot in here about energy, and we need to produce more of our own and transition to renewable. Energy costs, as Robbie said, are spiking because of war, and we have to protect people. Biomethane must be part of that wider transition. It has the potential to be part of the jigsaw, but it is, a Phillip said, just one part of a much wider energy transition.

We have to proceed carefully, as has been said, and do this right, and it must be evidence-based. There is no reason, however, why we cannot strengthen our energy security through AD and support businesses in meeting decarbonisation and sustainable targets as well as creating economic opportunities in rural communities and helping to deliver real environmental benefits. However, it has to be properly regulated, managed and scaled, because environmental protection has to be fundamental as well. Minister Muir has already taken forward a plan-led approach to that. We have seen investment of £12·5 million in biomethane and wider bioeconomy innovation, and I put on record my thanks to him for that.

Yes, we have the resource: the slurry, food waste and organic material that have been mentioned. I agree with the motion that there is the potential for every unit of biomethane that we produce to displace natural gas that we do not then have to import. We need to act in the long-term interests of people.

Mr Gaston: Will the Member give way?

Mr Honeyford: Yes, go for it.

Mr Gaston: I have listened intently to what some Members have said, but is this not the same argument that we heard for hydrogen, which is that it could be used as a blend for natural gas? Is this the new hydrogen? Is this the new way in which the Assembly wants to head?

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: David, you have an extra minute.

Mr Honeyford: I will come to that in a wee second, because biomethane is part of the solution, as is hydrogen. I sit on a Committee of the British-Irish Parliamentary Assembly (BIPA) that has looked at their use. There is therefore a wider work piece of work to be done on each individually.

I will talk about something that was raised earlier. I want to manage expectations, because we need to be honest with people. Biomethane carries a much higher cost than natural gas — the cost today is approximately five times as much — and we cannot ignore that reality. The case for expanding its use must therefore rest on long-term reasons for its use. Those reasons are energy security and the importance of moving away from our dependency on fossil fuels, but we must invest in research and development, because if we look at the potential of all renewables, we see that costs are being driven down over time. That can happen.

There is a place for biomethane, and we have to look at its potential, but we have to be honest with people rather than oversimplify things. This morning, I watched the social media clip to promote the motion. I have heard many energy experts talk about biogas at the Committee for the Economy, and I sit on the BIPA Committee on Climate, Energy, Science and Technology, but I have never heard anybody explain why it should be how we power our power stations for electricity generation. The reason for that is simple. Through the UK and Europe, we are part of the marginal pricing arrangement for energy generation. Our electricity generators are brought online in order, from the cheapest to the most expensive. The last, most expensive generator sets the pricing for all electricity on the grid. Using biogas would therefore dramatically increase everyone's bills. I have never heard anybody explain why, in the short term or the long term, we should do that.

Developing biogas to displace gas on the grid is where we need to focus to be part of the wider energy transition, but, at this stage —.

Mr Butler: Will the Member give way?

Mr Honeyford: Very quickly, Robbie, yes.

Mr Butler: Does the Member accept that that already happening? An element of biomethane is already being injected into our grid, so it is tried and tested — it works — and, through R&D, the price will come down.

Mr Honeyford: I absolutely agree, but it should not be used to supply our power stations. The clip that came out this morning was about its being used for electricity generation, which would put our prices through the roof.

The motion does not talk about this, but we need North/South collaboration. We cannot do it in isolation. Coca-Cola in my constituency trucks biogas, some of which comes from Donegal, and there is no legislative framework to enable it to be connected and to count towards net zero targets. We therefore need to take an all-island approach to developing biomethane policy and infrastructure that supports injection to the grid, be it North or South, and interconnection with Donegal. That is a practical thing that the Assembly can do.

Phillip said that we need a master plan from the Department that gives us a plan-led approach to energy on the widest scale that sits alongside that all-island collaboration. I talk about that all the time, and it winds me up that we do not have one.

We have an opportunity to decarbonise in order to protect people from price shocks. We have to move towards using renewables. Biomethane is absolutely part of that, but we have to invest in research and development on biomethane alongside doing work on hydrogen, as was mentioned. Hydrogen is used for trucks and trains in particular. We need to look at solutions and start delivering for people.

Ms McLaughlin: The SDLP will support the motion, because, at its core, it speaks to something that we cannot ignore, which is that Northern Ireland is at a turning point. We face rising energy costs, pressures on our farming sector and a growing environmental crisis, particularly around nutrients, water quality and waste. Too often, those challenges are viewed in isolation. I also found myself nodding at Phillip Brett's remarks, as, indeed, I did at David's. We need a big plan. It needs to come together, and very quickly. We and our constituents are being let down by the failure to deliver it. Not only do we not have a plan but we are falling back on the progress that was made in the past.

It offers a practical way to turn waste into value. Slurry, poultry litter and food waste — materials that are currently a problem — could instead become a source of energy, income and sustainability. That is a compelling proposition. Biomethane is not theoretical; it already works elsewhere. It is actually working here, too, so it is about expanding and supporting it. It can be injected into the existing gas grid, used by businesses without major change and produced here at home. That matters, because energy security matters. We all know that we are too exposed to global shocks: we live with it every day and have seen it repeatedly in recent years. That will occur in the future as well, unless we grow our supply of and support for renewables here, when we can. A home-grown energy source produced in rural communities would help to stabilise prices and keep value in our local community.

That matters to farmers, too. Farmers are under pressure, economically and environmentally. If this is done right, biomethane can provide a new income stream, while helping to manage slurry nutrients more effectively. As others have said, however, it must be done right. Biomethane, while part of our arsenal, is not a silver bullet. We have been warned clearly that, without powers and safeguards —.

Mr McGlone: I thank the Member for taking an intervention. You were taking me into a vein of thought, given the current international crisis, the price of oil and the way in which things have been handled in the Middle East, particularly by President Trump. That has been a salutary lesson to many Governments across the world about total reliance on fossil fuels. Biomethane is yet another alternative that we have in our pack to try and ease the heavy reliance on fossil fuels, and it should be tested, particularly in our rural areas.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Sinéad, you have an extra minute.

Ms McLaughlin: Thank you.

It is not often that we have solutions to such major global problems, but we actually have some of the solutions, here at home, to support us in these times of crisis. The unfortunate piece is that what is occurring now will occur again, so we need to prepare and plan for that future.

I go back to the issue of safeguards and doing it properly. We have been warned clearly that, without proper safeguards, anaerobic digestion can create new environmental problems rather than solving existing ones. If it drives more intensive farming, increases nutrient spreading or diverts land use away from food production or supporting nature, we will simply replace one problem with another, which we will have to look to solve at a later date. That cannot happen.

We support the ambition of the motion, but ambition must be matched by responsibility, which means having a strategy that is genuinely cross-departmental; clear environmental safeguards from the outset, not as an afterthought; and a focus on genuine waste streams, rather than creating demand that distorts farming practices. It means getting the basics right: planning, grid connections and a support mechanism that gives investors the confidence to invest and to act. Without that framework, that opportunity will simply pass us by and investment will go elsewhere.

This is one of the rare areas in which economic growth, environmental protection and energy security can align, but they can only do that if Government lead properly, plan properly and listen to both industry and environmentalists. We support the motion, not as a blank cheque but as a call to get this right and to build a biomethane sector that works for farmers, protects our environment and delivers real energy security for the people whom we represent.

Ms Murphy: I welcome the opportunity to speak in support of the motion and about what it means to our rural communities. As has been highlighted by many Members who have spoken in the debate, we face a convergence of pressures across our rural areas on farming incomes, our environment and our energy security. Farmers are under increasing pressure to adapt, whilst rural communities are always asked to absorb the additional pressures and impacts from environmental change and infrastructure demands.

Too often, those issues are treated in isolation, but for rural communities, they are connected. What are needed now are practical, joined-up solutions that work for rural areas, not against them. Biomethane has the potential to offer some of that solution. If developed properly, it can help farmers manage slurry, poultry litter and organic waste more effectively, which means reducing nutrient pressures and overload, whilst creating an additional income stream for rural areas. That is the opportunity that we have, but we have to be cognisant of the associated, and potential, risks. The last thing that any of us wants to see is a replay of the RHI and the unintended consequences that flowed from it.

We cannot afford to repeat mistakes that have been seen elsewhere, where productive agricultural land has been diverted from food production to grow crops purely for energy production. In rural communities, food production is not optional: it is fundamental. Any biomethane strategy must be based on treating waste and by-products, not distorting our agricultural system.

There is also a need for consultation and co-production at local level. A lot of the time, consultation and co-production on a number of policy decisions taken here do not happen or properly bed down in grassroots rural communities.

Many rural people have a number of concerns about the risks associated with hosting infrastructure, especially about odour and planning issues. If systems were not properly managed, poorly regulated development would very quickly undermine confidence in those communities. That is why we need strong planning, robust environmental regulation and proper oversight in place.

Mr Butler: Will the Member give way?

Ms Murphy: Yes.

Mr Butler: The Member makes an excellent point, and I will not argue with it. However, this is unique in that around 85 AD plants are already operating. Therefore, we have history and evidence from which to learn regarding what, perhaps, went wrong and how we might improve it. It is not a blank canvas.

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

Ms Murphy: I agree with Robbie. It is about using the knowledge and best practice that we have already built up. On Friday, I spoke with a local man about the motion. He made a number of valid points around that space, which I was unaware of, about the odours that emanate from AD plants. He said that if an odour is emanating from an AD plant, there is an issue with the plant infrastructure. I concur, Robbie.

It is paramount that rural communities see the benefit of biomethane and AD plants. Too often, they are asked to carry the burden of development without sharing fairly in the reward. Many of the areas that are expected to host the infrastructure still lack basic energy infrastructure, including access to the gas grid and network. If rural communities are to support the transition, they must benefit from it directly through local investment, improved infrastructure and fair access to the energy that is produced. Ultimately, it is about getting the balance right. Supporting agriculture, protecting our environment and strengthening energy resilience should not be about competing priorities. They have to go hand in hand. The motion recognises the need for a more joined-up approach. It is a step forward to delivering practical solutions for our rural communities. For that reason, I am pleased to support the motion.

Mr Blair: I am pleased to speak as Alliance AERA spokesperson to support the motion on clean biomethane for Northern Ireland's energy, food and environmental security. I welcome the motion, especially following the backward-looking motion from the DUP, last week, on climate. That motion sought to cling to climate denial, but this motion looks ahead to how Northern Ireland can secure our energy future, support our farmers, protect our natural environment and build real resilience into our economy.

The motion states:

Whilst we have treated much of that as a problem to be managed, we need to see it as a resource to be harnessed. Therefore, Alliance sees that Northern Ireland lacks a clear cross-departmental strategy to bridge the gap between where we are and where we need to be on biomethane and anaerobic digestion. However, any strategy must be adequately funded and must help farmers meet their environmental obligations in a practical and realistic way. It must be grounded in scientific evidence and shaped by innovation, not by short-term thinking. The AERA Minister has always been open to new and innovative ideas that are guided by scientific evidence. That is why the Minister has supported research on anaerobic digestion through the small business research initiative on the sustainable utilisation of livestock slurry. As with any developing method, the research and evidence must be there to ensure that it can deliver and that it is sustainable and economically viable.

Successful bidding companies for that project have been awarded £4 million over three years to help Northern Ireland's agriculture sector reduce excess phosphorus from livestock slurry as part of the Lough Neagh action plan. When visiting an AD plant near Dundonald, not far from here, Minister Muir described it as a "significant milestone" in delivery. He also noticed its potential to radically change the way in which nutrients are managed by the farming community, provide a sustainable future for our agri-food sector and offer an excellent example of green growth in action through emissions reductions, environmental improvements and green job opportunities. That is exactly the kind of practical science-led innovation that we should be backing in the Assembly. That work is already producing tangible progress. To date, the farm-to-export project has reportedly removed more than 10,000 tons of organic solids from farms, reducing the need for imported feed and nitrogen fertiliser and producing more than 6 GWh of renewable gas.

However, this is not just about energy and economics; it is fundamentally about protecting our environment and honouring our climate commitments. Northern Ireland has already seen far too clearly what happens when we ignore our natural environmental limits. The crisis at Lough Neagh is a well-known example in my constituency of South Antrim of what happens when we fail to manage nutrients properly, when we fail to protect our waterways and when we allow short-term thinking to trump long-term sustainability.

Of course, the motion is also, in some respects, aspirational in nature. That is not intended to be a criticism of the motion. The workload and resources required to develop such a strategy would fall on Departments that are already under severe pressure. Resource and budgetary constraints are real and ever-present, and we hear about them here daily. Executive support will also be required, as will effective interdepartmental working, which we all know has too often proved challenging to achieve.

A more sustainable and resilient Northern Ireland is within our reach if we choose to grasp it. That means trusting the evidence, backing the businesses and organisations with the expertise to deliver, and creating the policy framework that allows innovation to flourish rather than stifling it. Therefore, I thank the Ulster Unionist Party for bringing the important motion to the House today. I support its call for action on biomethane and anaerobic digestion as a strategy for Northern Ireland.

Mr Delargy: I welcome the opportunity to speak on the motion and on the role that this plays in supporting energy, food and environmental security across the North. There is no doubt that we will continue to face significant challenges. High energy costs are still placing real pressures on households, businesses and farms, and our agri-food sector is dealing with rising inputs and uncertainty. In that context, it is right that we explore local and sustainable options that help to reduce our dependence on imported fossil fuels. Biomethane presents one such opportunity by using agricultural by-products, slurry and food waste to produce renewable gas that can contribute to heating industry and emission reduction.

It is important to acknowledge the policy work that has already been undertaken in the area. Dr Caoimhe Archibald has continued to engage with industry and regulators, and major energy transition success will depend not only on ambition but on careful implementation and cross-party cooperation. There are already examples that illustrate both the potential and the complexity of biomethane. In parts of Tyrone and Armagh, anaerobic digestion plants are providing additional income streams for farmers while helping to manage farm waste. Companies such as Encirc in Derrylin are examining biomethane as a lower-carbon alternative in industrial processes, highlighting the possible links between agriculture, manufacturing and energy security. Those developments show what may be possible. However, they also underline the need for proper planning, regulation and oversight.

Looking beyond the North, biomethane is being developed in the South as part of a national energy policy that is supported by targets and investment frameworks. That presents an opportunity for greater cooperation on an all-Ireland basis, particularly around infrastructure and market development. A more coordinated approach could strengthen rural economies and energy resilience. However, it must be approached with realism. Crucially, we must be honest about the concerns that exist. Methane is a highly potent greenhouse gas. Any leakage during production, storage or transport can undermine climate benefits. There are also valid concerns, which have been mentioned, about land use, feedstock sustainability, biodiversity and local environmental impacts, as well as the additional transport and logistics that are required in rural areas. Those are real issues. They must be addressed through regulation, monitoring and community engagement.

If biomethane is to play a role in our energy future, it must be done in a way that protects food production, safeguards the environment and maintains public trust. That means resisting unrealistic targets, ensuring transparency and placing communities at the centre of decision-making. As with all climate change measures, the scaling up of biomethane must be based on just transition principles. In real terms, that means recognising that, for some farmers, the impact of AD can create pressures. When purchasing grass for cattle feed, they are now competing with AD plants. It is crucial that such issues are considered so that we can scale up AD while supporting the small farmers who may be impacted on by it.

The debate should not be about presenting biomethane as a silver bullet, as has been mentioned, nor about dismissing it outright. It should be about taking a balanced, evidence-based approach. If we are serious about building long-term energy resilience, supporting our rural communities and meeting environmental responsibilities, that balance is essential.

Mr Gaston: Last week, the Assembly failed to support a motion to cost the net zero madness that each Department is chasing. One week later, we have the Ulster Unionist Party, which wants to simply tinker with the climate change targets, now pushing the debate to create the most expensive form of green energy.

I cannot help but cast my mind back to the NAP consultation event that was held in Greenmount in May 2025. The clear impression that I had on leaving that meeting was that the solution that was being peddled by the Department was the creation of new large-scale anaerobic digestion plants, with farmers expected to pay to have their solids separated and transported to those plants. We have not yet received the outcome of the NAP consultation, yet here we are debating a motion that appears to be pushing support for building new "super" AD plants.

Everyone needs to take a step back, remove their environmental tinted glasses and look at it from a farmer's perspective. A well-established and highly organised lobby is seeking to establish AD plants right across Northern Ireland. I support cost-effective green energy. However, if that is truly the answer to our agrienvironmental challenges, we must ask ourselves a very simple question: why does it require such a heavy subsidy to be currently viable? Currently, those plants rely heavily on renewables obligation certificates (ROCs), which are due to end in the next five years. When ROCs disappear, what then? Will we simply rename the subsidy and carry on, perhaps under the banner of "sustainable utilisation of livestock slurry" — otherwise known as "SULS"? I hope not. Any credible green scheme must stand on its own feet; otherwise, the taxpayer foots the bill to build it and then to run it. To operate at scale, AD plants require energy-dense feedstock. Slurry alone does not provide that. That means growing grass and crops to feed it alongside 15% to 20% of slurry solids.

Every acre taken out of food production and diverted to feeding an AD plant is an acre lost to producing food for our nation. Farmers who live close to existing digesters find themselves competing for land with AD operators who can afford to outbid them, not because of their efficiency or productivity but because, in some cases, up to 75% of their income comes from subsidies. That is not a level playing field. It risks fundamentally changing land use in Northern Ireland, moving away from feeding livestock and people to feeding digesters.

At a time when food security is rightly being recognised as a serious issue, pushing the most expensive form of renewable energy as a solution makes me deeply uncomfortable. It speaks more to pursuing the net zero ideology than producing cost-effective, sustainable energy. That is what happens when ideology replaces evidence.

The direction of travel appears to be that farmers will be forced to separate their slurry and pay to transport those solids to the nearest AD plant. Those solids then become free feedstock for the digester. The AD operator then profits again by selling the gas that is produced. Farmers take the cost of separating, and a foreign investor takes the reward, unless those plants are to be farmer-owned and farmer-led.

Earlier today, I raised with the Agriculture Minister the issue of his draft climate action plan 2030 targets, which include a reduction of 18% in dairy cattle, 17% in beef cattle and 18% across sheep, pigs and poultry. If we continue down that pathway, believing that more ADs are the answer, it will reduce stock levels and our capacity to produce food, not least because grass — .

Mr Butler: Will the Member give way?

Mr Gaston: I am happy to give way, as long as you are quick and let me back in before my five minutes are up.

Mr Butler: I am not one to stick up for the Agriculture Minister, but you are evidently not listening. He has said numerous times that it is not about stock reduction. We are talking about securing herd numbers here. If you had listened to the motion, you would also know that it is not about land-grabbing; a fact that has to be central to this. There is no point in making stuff up just for a TikTok.

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

Mr Gaston: I am certainly not making stuff up for a TikTok, Mr Butler. In your opening remarks on AD, you said:

That, indeed, is what the farming community is fearful of. We can bring in food scraps; that is OK. However, if you are to create more anaerobic digesters, where will the feedstock come from that goes with the slurry?

Mr Butler: Will the Member give way?

Mr Gaston: Yes.

Mr Butler: If the Member had listened to the motion —

Mr Gaston: I did.

Mr Butler: — he would know that it is not about creating AD plants; it is about dealing with our slurry and food waste.

Mr Gaston: Absolutely, and how do you plan to do that without creating more AD plants? That is what you are doing here. You are creating more AD plants —.

Mr Butler: Biomethane

energy security.

Mr Gaston: No, because they already have feedstock.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Through the Chair.

Mr Gaston: I fear that, if we continue down that road, in a number of years, it will be RHI mark 2, and it will be traced back to the Ulster Unionists as the ones who first pushed it in the Chamber.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Thank you. I now ask the Minister for Infrastructure to respond to the debate on behalf of the Minister for the Economy. Minister, you have 15 minutes. Thank you.

Ms Kimmins (The Minister for Infrastructure): Go raibh maith agat, a Phríomh-Leas-Cheann Comhairle.

I will focus my remarks on the elements that are within the remit of the Minister for the Economy, whilst also acknowledging the importance of compatible agriculture and environmental policy, on which our colleague the AERA Minister leads.

Decarbonisation is integral to the Economy Minister's economic vision. Reducing carbon emissions is vital if we are to meet legislative targets, remain competitive in a rapidly changing global economy and leave a positive legacy for future generations. It is an economic, environmental and moral imperative.

Recent global events have reinforced the need for us to take greater control of our energy future. Continued exposure to international fossil fuel markets leaves our economy vulnerable to price volatility and geopolitical shocks. That is why the Economy Minister is focused on delivering the Executive's energy strategy vision of affordable, renewable energy, paying a fair price for the energy that we produce locally and disconnecting our energy costs from volatile global commodity prices. The strategy recognises that biomethane could play an important role in that journey by providing a locally produced, sustainable and secure energy source to decarbonise heating and industrial processes.

Our region has strong foundations when it comes to biomethane. We have a modern gas network, experience with anaerobic digestion technologies and clear legislative drivers to increase the share of renewable energy in the system. The motion highlights how biomethane cuts across energy, agriculture and environmental policy. Effective policy development in that area therefore requires close collaboration across Departments. That is why the Department for the Economy is working with DAERA and the Utility Regulator through the interdepartmental biomethane group (IDBG).

The group was relaunched last year to provide a renewed focus and renewed coordination on the issue. It works to bring together expertise across energy, agriculture and environmental policy and is key to the Department's developing a holistic biomethane policy. Some Members talked about the need to consult on the support mechanisms that may be considered. I can confirm that a consultation on a cross-departmental biomethane policy is planned for later this year. As well as that, the IDBG is analysing potential support mechanisms for biomethane producers across the North.

Although locally produced biomethane can displace the need to import natural gas, it is important that biomethane production be done in a way that protects our environment. For example, it is important that biomethane production do not increase waste production here for anaerobic digestion feedstock or, worse still, import waste for processing here. One of the unavoidable by-products of how we do anaerobic digestion here is liquid digestate, which is rich in phosphorous and other problematic nutrient content.

We have all seen the impact of liquid digestate on our waterways, caused in part by run-off issues, so we must be realistic about the volume of biomethane that can be produced here in an environmentally sustainable way. That emphasises the importance of collaboration between DAERA and the Department for the Economy to establish the right biomethane policy.

The core focus of the energy strategy is on delivering self-sufficiency and affordable renewable energy for our homes and businesses. We are all aware of the effects that energy price volatility has had, and is continuing to have, on household living costs and business competitiveness. Paying a fair price for the energy that we produce locally, including biomethane, will protect the most vulnerable in our society and help end fuel poverty.

Locally produced biomethane can play a role in our energy future but only as long as we can produce it at the right cost for consumers and manage the waste inputs and digestate outputs in an environmentally sustainable way. Given those challenges, it is important that we do not exaggerate the sustainable volume of biomethane that can be produced locally. Instead, we must grow its use in an environmentally sound way.

In conclusion, the motion highlights the opportunity that biomethane presents in the wider context of our energy transition and economic development. We must be realistic, however, about the volume that can be produced in an economically and environmentally sustainable way. The Minister for the Economy remains committed to working constructively with our ministerial colleague in DAERA and others to ensure that the potential role of biomethane is properly considered as part of the delivery of the energy strategy and in a way that supports economic growth, protects consumers and is environmentally sustainable.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Minister. I call Diana Armstrong to conclude the debate and make a winding-up speech on the motion. Diana, I advise you that you have 10 minutes.

Ms D Armstrong: Thank you very much, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. I thank Members for their contributions to the debate . It is encouraging to hear the almost unanimous support in the Chamber for the motion.

All around us, we are fully aware of the external shocks being felt in the energy markets. Our energy system is under immense pressure, and our continued reliance on imported fossil fuels leaves households and businesses exposed to global shocks far beyond our control. We have seen the consequences of that volatility in recent years: rising costs, uncertainty and real pressures being placed on working families and employers alike.

We cannot allow Northern Ireland to remain at the mercy of international brinkmanship. That is why diversification is essential. Biomethane offers us a clean, reliable energy source. It presents a solution to nutrient surplus by taking farm by-products such as animal and food waste and stabilising them to improve nutrient management. That solution, which also applies to poultry litter and food waste, is rooted here in Northern Ireland, not dictated by global markets or geopolitical instability. Instead, it keeps economic value circulating in our economy, strengthening local supply chains and supporting regional prosperity.

What makes the opportunity even more compelling is its practicality. Biomethane can directly replace natural gas without requiring costly changes to be made to existing infrastructure or boilers. That means rapid deployment, minimum disruption and a cost-effective pathway to strengthening our energy resilience.

As was mentioned by Pádraig Delargy, Encirc, with which I have engaged on many occasions, is a leading glass container manufacturer and bottler, based in Derrylin in my constituency of Fermanagh and West Tyrone. Encirc supports biomethane injection into the gas network via anaerobic digesters as a key route to decarbonisation. It is uniquely suited to heat, transport and industry. Encirc has said that its furnaces would burn just as effectively on biomethane as they do today on fossil-derived energy sources. Using biomethane would significantly lower the carbon intensity of its fuel supply and would support the decarbonisation of drinks bottles and jars across the UK and Ireland.

Were it to be scaled up as a model for industry for the entirety of Northern Ireland, biomethane could reduce Northern Ireland's carbon footprint, provide a reliable and dispatchable renewable energy source and contribute to energy price stability. It is not just an energy policy but an economic strategy. Supporting biomethane unlocks a pathway for growth, particularly in our rural economy. For too long, rural communities have faced decline, job losses and the pressures of the cost-of-living crisis. Biomethane offers a chance to reverse that trend, creating thousands of jobs, attracting investment and giving farmers the opportunity to diversify their income. It places them at the centre of economic renewal and not on the margins of it.

This is a chance to build a more secure and self-reliant economy, to reduce costs, support industry and revitalise our rural communities. It is a chance to link up to biogas development throughout Northern Ireland. Let us move forward with confidence, seize the opportunity and deliver an energy system that works not just for today but for the long-term economic future of Northern Ireland.

Some Members: Aye.

Mr Gaston: No.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Mr Gaston, your No has been noted.