Official Report: Monday 27 April 2026

Mr Speaker: Before we commence today's business, I advise Members that the Minister of Justice is unable to be in the Chamber today. Her oral ministerial statement on the review of the Katie Simpson case has therefore been rescheduled for Tuesday 5 May.

Mr Speaker: Timothy Gaston has been given leave to make a statement on the car bomb at Dunmurry police station that fulfils the criteria set out in Standing Order 24. He and all other Members who are called to speak will have three minutes. The usual arrangements for Members to remain standing in their place apply.

Mr Gaston: It will be lost on no one that the bombing of Dunmurry PSNI station took place just days after a debate in Belfast City Hall about the statue of a convicted bomber. One cannot with any credibility defend furniture shop bomber Bobby Sands and then condemn the PSNI station bombers just days later. Both actions were reckless and evil. Indeed, the car that was used in the Dunmurry bombing was hijacked in Twinbrook, where the illegal Bobby Sands statue is located. The self-styled "First Minister for all" tells us that there was no alternative to the bombings by Sands and his colleagues, so we should not be surprised that terrorists continue to use the tactics from the Sinn Féin/IRA manual to carry out attacks on officers in 2026. Terrorism is a moral absolute: it always was and always will be wrong. That, however, is something that many on the Sinn Féin Benches cannot say.

On 'The Nolan Show' this morning, the Chief Constable appealed for unconditional support for the PSNI: are all the parties in the House happy to offer that support? I remind Members that the Sinn Féin Member for South Antrim, Mr Declan Kearney, made it clear only a few years ago that Sinn Féin support for the PSNI has always been conditional. Perhaps the Members opposite would like to clear up that matter and disown Mr Kearney's previous comments, or is that still the Sinn Féin position here today: justifying the violence against police officers in the past and conditional support for police officers in the present? To be blunt, the response from Sinn Féin to the Lurgan bomb at the start of the month and the Dunmurry bomb on Saturday night simply has not been good enough.

I pay tribute to the brave officers stationed in Dunmurry, who selflessly risked their own lives to evacuate the homes of those close to where the bomb went off on Saturday evening. That brings us back to the fact that the bomb attack at the weekend is yet another reminder of the unseemly —

Mr Speaker: The Member's time is up.

Mr Gaston: — and immoral sham that passes for a Government in the House led by Sinn Féin.

Mr Speaker: I call Trevor Clarke.

Mr Clarke: Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. As has already been said about that attack in Dunmurry, many people either knew about it late on Saturday night or awoke to the news on Sunday morning. Clearly, there was shock in that community and the wider community of Northern Ireland on how the attack was premeditated and carried out. Our thoughts first go to the police officers who could have been affected in such a tragic way and to the families affected.

We heard from the Deputy Chief Constable over the weekend how those police officers risked their own lives to help their communities, as they do regularly, by escorting families and young children from their homes when the bomb was detonated. "Despicable" would not be a strong enough word for the actions carried out by the individuals responsible.

We are all too aware of the press commentary in the past couple of weeks around the illegal memorial to Bobby Sands in west Belfast. Some of us wonder whether the bomb corresponds to that. Is it some sort of a nod to the time that he bombed a furniture shop in Dunmurry? Nor can we forget, of course, how Sinn Féin continually romanticises violence across Northern Ireland on every occasion that it can, glorifying people who carried out similar acts and, indeed, worse, when they took people's lives.

The First Minister came out at the weekend and condemned this attack but has yet to condemn all of the previous attacks carried out by the then IRA. She talks about there being no alternative: everyone or most people on this side of the House appreciate that there were alternatives. The Chamber has been the alternative. Democracy has been the alternative. It is the only show in town. Violence has stood for nothing; it only destroyed people's lives, families, homes and much worse, of course. When I listen to Sinn Féin glorifying terrorism at every opportunity, I think, "Shame on them" because the people who are coming behind them now look at what Sinn Féin said in the past and what it is doing now.

Mr Burrows: The attack on Dunmurry police station was reckless and reprehensible. We are fortunate that we are not dealing with the death and murder of a man, woman, child or, as it transpired, a baby.

We should keep the level of threat in context. Dissident republicans have been heavily infiltrated and highly degraded in their capability, but there is no such thing as complete security and no such thing as total intelligence. There are occasional gaps. Whilst they have in their heart the desire to murder and some capability, they remain a clear and present danger. It is incumbent on us all to condemn terrorism completely and encourage people to support the PSNI to plug the intelligence gaps. As I look at the Minister Muir, standing in for the Justice Minister, it is also incumbent on us to ensure that we get full resourcing of the PSNI, which is both trying to deal with normal policing today, including domestic violence and child abuse images, and tackle a threat that is principally lined up against it.

I join other unionists in challenging Sinn Féin, because the dissident republicans are the latest in a continuum of republicans who have justified using death and destruction for political ends. You give them legitimacy when you say that it is OK in principle, if the time is right, if the circumstances are right, to kill people for a political objective.

They are following your ideology, and they are following your textbook. Violence was not wrong because you said that it was wrong, and it was not right because you said that it was right.

The most powerful thing that you could do is, at some stage, stand up and show leadership and say to the entire republican community, "It isn't right, it won't be right and it is never right to blow people to smithereens, to murder people, to injure people, to bereave people, to orphan people and to widow people in the name of politics". If you did that, you would remove the legitimacy that those people cling to. Remember the moral responsibility: it was your party that wrote the manual for what those people do now. The difference between the dissidents and the Provisionals is that you were, hard as it is to say, better at it. Patsy Gillespie was made into a human bomb and made to drive to a checkpoint. His only crime was to work for the security forces in a canteen. That is the legacy that you have left. I am glad that you no longer support violence today, but, if you really want to make a contribution to people in the years and decades ahead, stand up and say that it is never right and that it was never right and call on your entire community to turn their backs on dissident republican terrorism, to turn their backs on the narrative that terrorism can be OK and to fully support the PSNI and give it the intelligence that it needs.

Miss McAllister: Waking up to the news on Sunday morning of the disgraceful attack in Dunmurry was not just shocking but so disheartening as to how far we have come in Northern Ireland. The overwhelming majority of us here do not condone such violence, and it must be said that the majority of us never condoned it. The action of the thugs who believe that threatening the life of someone who was just going about their job and providing a service to the local community, forcing them to bring a life-threatening device into a residential area to threaten not only their life but the lives of many in that community and of police officers is simply unacceptable. Furthering any political cause by using violence is unacceptable. Alliance has never equivocated on the issue of political violence, not now and not then. It is not OK in 2026; it was not OK in 1969 and 1980; and it will never be OK.

My thoughts are with that delivery driver, who was put in the horrendous position of being hijacked and was very brave in his actions. That bravery meant that the PSNI officers could step in to protect lives. My thoughts are with those brave officers. All of us run with our families when there is danger, but they run towards the danger. For that, I thank them for their service. To the residents in the Kingsway area — in particular, we have heard this morning from the very young family who witnessed the scenes on Saturday evening — I say that my thoughts are also with them, and I hope that all of the victims receive the care that they need. I pay tribute not only to the local police team but to the entire leadership of the PSNI in showing resilience over the past few days — resilience that the police have had to show over the past 50 years in Northern Ireland when it comes to protecting our community.

To those behind the attack, I want to be clear: your success has been only in unifying voices against the violence and unifying wider political opinion and the community as a whole in condemning your actions. Such attempts to drag Northern Ireland back to the days of using violence will not succeed.

Ms Flynn: I welcome the matter being raised in the Assembly Chamber today. I spent yesterday afternoon in the Dunmurry area along with some of my colleagues in Sinn Féin, speaking to the police and to the local residents who, disgracefully, were forced out of their homes in those circumstances. Sinn Féin cannot be any clearer, and we have been clear and consistent in our response to the incident at the weekend. The people behind the absolutely horrendous attack on Saturday evening have nothing to offer our society. It is as clear and as simple as that. Their attack was horrendous, and they have nothing to offer. They represent no one, and they are completely devoid of support.

It is clear, as has been said, that the overwhelming majority of people who live in this part of Ireland reject such actions. They understand that they achieve absolutely nothing but disruption. Whoever was behind the attack, the only thing that they achieved was disruption, fear, annoyance and distress to local families, young children and babies — to the Dunmurry community and wider afield. Families and young children were being evacuated from their homes when the device went off. Some elderly residents could not even leave their homes and were terrified. We are very lucky that we are not dealing with a more serious outcome this morning.

The Dunmurry community and the local delivery driver went through a terrible ordeal. They were left shaken and scared, and whoever was behind that incident must leave the scene now. You have no vision, no support and nothing to offer our communities. Our communities deserve to live in peace. They continue to move forward into a better future; everyone here deserves that. Sinn Féin will engage with the community in the days and weeks ahead and provide any support needed to local residents, who deserve to live safely in their homes and in peace.

Mr O'Toole: The scenes that we saw in Dunmurry at the weekend will have made people ask this: what decade are we living in in this society? What decade have we woken up in to see scenes of an explosive device set off in a car in front of a police station, putting at risk the lives not just of the police officers who serve in that station but of people in the nearby community, including children and babies? That incident needs not only to be called out and condemned but to be challenged for the illegitimate, idiotic and immoral attack that it was. People in Dunmurry were not just inconvenienced; they were scared on Saturday because — let us be clear — someone attempted to take life outside Dunmurry police station. It was not simply an attempt to create a spectacle — even if it was that, it would have been grotesque and illegitimate — it was an attempt to cause death and destruction. It cannot — cannot — be equivocated about, and the SDLP, as we always have, roundly condemns it.

I say to the people involved in dissident republicanism, "Genuinely go away; don't just get off the stage. You are illegitimate; you represent nobody; you have nothing to offer". I say to people who want to deliver a new and united Ireland, as I do — I respect the fact that others in the Chamber do not want that — that I and my party are working to deliver that. If you want that, do not plant bombs and do not try to cause death and destruction. Join a political party, hand out a leaflet, stand for election and persuade your friends and neighbours of a hopeful future. Do not try to drag us back into a hopeless, violent past.

I want a united, new Ireland. I want to deliver that democratically by inspiring people about that vision. Bombing, explosions and shooting will not work and are not the way to achieve it. They were not the way in the past, are not the way now and will not be the way in the future. Stop. Go away. Your actions are illegitimate and have no support. Leave those of us with mandates who want to build a hopeful future on this island to do it.

Ms Sugden: Rightly, all of us find these events deeply concerning. That was the second such attack in a matter of months, and that alone should give us all pause for thought. They are not isolated incidents; they suggest something more deliberate and sinister that we, as elected Members, cannot afford to ignore.

For many people across Northern Ireland, this will be a disturbing reminder of the past. The nature of the attack and the fear that it was designed to create will resonate far beyond the immediate incident. People recognise what it looks like, and they understand the damage that it can do and continues to do not just physically but to confidence and to their everyday lives. There is no place for such violence in our society. It was a clear attempt to create fear and instability and should be recognised as that. We cannot allow those responsible to drag us back. It serves no one, least of all the community that they claim to represent. It is a manipulation for their own selfish aims.

This incident will also have had a very real impact on those closest to it: the officers who serve at the station and the staff who work there. Local residents in Dunmurry — families, mothers and children — will have been deeply affected. Such an incident affects people's sense of safety and normality, and that should not be underestimated. It will have created a trauma for which people will undoubtedly need support, but, sadly, it is not there. It is also a reminder of the reality of policing. The police are often criticised, but they serve to keep us safe, and they should be able to carry out that role without facing threats of this nature.

Sadly, those threats have continued for the police and for others on the front line. They have not gone away. Whilst we seem to be in peaceful times in Northern Ireland — thankfully, we have come such a long way from where we were — those threats continue, and those officers and their families and communities live with that every day.

The overwhelming majority of people want a safe community and a stable future. That is what people expect and deserve, not least after years of the Troubles and violence.

Those responsible for these events seek to create fear, division and uncertainty. They should not and will not succeed in doing so, because the direction of travel in Northern Ireland is forward. It is shaped by the many people who have chosen peace and stability every day.

These events are serious and should be treated as such, but the future of Northern Ireland will not be shaped by those who carry out attacks such as this, and we, as elected representatives, must ensure that it is not.

Miss Hargey: I concur with what my colleague has said. Obviously, what happened in Dunmurry at the weekend is not reflective or representative of the wider community there. Indeed, we know exactly what this is like because one of our offices was attacked with a viable device in recent months. Sinn Féin has been the focus of such actions as well, yet I have not heard one other person mention that. We understand completely what that is like.

Our Sinn Féin reps were out on the ground over the weekend, as Órlaithí said, engaging with the police. The police, along with other first responders, responded to the incident. They rapped doors and evacuated many people, including young children. We have been out engaging with that community, which, I am sure, is shaken up, along with the driver whose car was hijacked.

The attackers do not represent the wider community; a community that is looking forward, not back. That is what we have here: sections within the community. It is not unique to one community. We can see it with loyalists and other groups as well. There are those in the community and, indeed, some in the Chamber who want to drag us backwards. They want to go back to days that, thankfully, were 28 years ago. It is in moments such as this that we have to refocus our energy and look forward. We should not allow those outside or inside the Chamber to drag us back. We could all look across the Chamber and try to score points. What about Ulster Resistance and the red berets? Members of other parties in the Chamber put on the red beret. If you are going to look at things in history, look at the facts: the red berets and the creation of a sectarian state that had inbuilt discrimination in jobs and housing. That is the legacy of conflict that we have come from. There is a legacy of torture. My family member was tortured by the RUC's Special Branch, and there were plastic bullets and a shoot-to-kill policy.

We are 28 years after the Good Friday Agreement. My family and the community that I come from were impacted on by conflict, killings, torture and the sectarian discrimination that was built into the statelet that was formed here over 100 years ago. [Interruption.]

Mr Speaker: Order.

Miss Hargey: However, we signed up to the Good Friday Agreement 28 years ago. We signed up — [Interruption.]

It is the Good Friday Agreement, which you did not sign up to. We signed up to the Good Friday Agreement —

—

Mr Speaker: Order.

Miss Hargey: — because we believe in bringing society forward and moving forward as a society under the terms of that agreement. Sinn Féin believes in power-sharing. Others may not or do not see us as partners —

Mr Speaker: The Member's time is up

Miss Hargey: — but we believe in power-sharing and in building this society.

Mrs Little-Pengelly: Like the vast majority of people right across Northern Ireland, I was utterly appalled when I woke on Sunday morning to the news of this terrorist attack on Saturday night, an attack targeted at the PSNI.

I utterly condemn these attacks: that of Saturday night and that in Lurgan a few weeks earlier. I also condemn all those behind them. It is vital that we send the clear message this morning that we stand shoulder to shoulder in condemnation of the attack. Sinn Féin should reflect on the previous speech, because we need to send that clear message today.

I pay tribute to the brave police officers. Faced with a very challenging or frightening situation, so many of us would seek safety; those police officers ran towards the danger to support others and, indeed, potentially to save lives. That is why it is so important that we show leadership by sending the message of our full support for the PSNI.

Yesterday afternoon, along with my DUP colleague Frank McCoubrey, I went to Dunmurry to speak to residents, who were understandably deeply upset and apprehensive. When I was a child, I was evacuated from my primary school because of such attacks, but so many younger people in Northern Ireland have never experienced that. We do not want to return to those days. Let me be clear: Northern Ireland rejects that behaviour outright. Those people will fail. That is not our future; it is the worst dregs of our past.

Let me also be clear that acts of terrorism such as the one on Saturday night are just as wrong today as they were in the past. They demonstrate that there are still those who want to drag us back when others look to the future. We need to send that clear message and to show that clear leadership. We on these Benches clearly condemn all terrorism: in the past, now and in the future. Whether it came from loyalists or republicans, there was never justification for it. It was always wrong; there was always an alternative. Let us have that clarity of message.

My message to the terrorists still partaking in it today is clear: you are not wanted. Go away. Get off the stage. Violence, terrorism and criminality have no part to play in the brighter, better future that we are building in Northern Ireland for everyone across every community.

Mr Muir: The car bomb at Dunmurry police station on Saturday night was a reprehensible and evil attack not just on our brave Police Service of Northern Ireland officers but on the entire community. I thank the police and the other emergency services that responded to the incident with courage in helping to evacuate the area. It is only by the grace of God that no one was killed or seriously injured in that disgraceful terrorist attack.

It is incumbent on all of us here today to be united in condemnation of it and in urging anyone with any information that might help to apprehend the perpetrators to contact the police or Crimestoppers. It is clear that the people of Northern Ireland do not want that. Communities do not want that. We do not want to go back. What happened on Saturday night was evil — it was wrong — and we need to stand together against it.

Ms Brownlee: The scenes that we witnessed in Dunmurry on Saturday night were nothing more than a cowardly terrorist attack by the so-called New IRA, whose sole intention was to murder police officers and to spread fear throughout our communities. As the Chief Constable has been unequivocal in saying, it was reckless; it was dangerous; and it could easily have resulted in multiple deaths. That we are not dealing with a funeral today is down only to sheer chance and the bravery of the PSNI.

It was an attack not just on the police but on all of us: residents living nearby, families going about their daily business and anyone who happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. We fully support the individuals who were caught up in that horrific incident, many of whom will have been deeply shaken by what they experienced.

Those responsible are not activists — they are not patriots; they are criminals intent on destruction — and offer Northern Ireland absolutely nothing. There can be no excuses, half-justifications or looking the other way from anyone who attempts to minimise, justify or provide political cover for that type of violence: they must speak with one voice on the issue.

That is why the hypocrisy that we have seen in recent days cannot go unchallenged. Only last week, Sinn Féin defended the unauthorised erection of a statue of Bobby Sands. Bobby Sands was involved in bombings: that is clear. A bomber is always a bomber. There never was and never will be justification for violence. Sinn Féin needs to stand with the PSNI every day. That means supporting the police, encouraging cooperation with the police, promoting police recruitment, encouraging school engagement and unequivocally backing officers as they uphold the rule of law in order to protect every person in Northern Ireland. To do anything less is to undermine the political structures that keep our communities safe.

The attack cannot be viewed in isolation, as it is the second attack in just four weeks. That pattern is extremely concerning and underlines the real and ongoing threat posed by dissident republican terrorists. My party stands firmly with the PSNI. Northern Ireland's future will not be decided by bombs, by threats or by those trapped in a failing past. As we continue to build a thriving Northern Ireland, it will be decided by democracy and consent. There is no appetite for violence, no support for it and no future in it. Northern Ireland will not tolerate, excuse or be intimidated by such actions. Those days are over, and they are not coming back.

Mr McGrath: What we saw in Dunmurry was not just reckless but utterly indefensible. A vehicle was hijacked, and a terrified civilian was forced to drive what was effectively a bomb. That device was planted in the middle of a residential community. By any measure, it was an attempt to kill. It was not some abstract act against the system; it was carried out in a built-up area, beside homes in which families, including those with young children, were present. It placed ordinary people in immediate danger and risked lives on a scale that is hard to comprehend. What makes what happened even more disturbing was the sheer recklessness of using such a device, which senior police have described as unpredictable, dangerous and a crude weapon that could have caused devastation well beyond its intended target.

As a member of the Policing Board, I record my admiration for the officers on the ground. Their actions were decisive and brave. They prevented what could have been a catastrophic loss of life. While others chose to spread fear, those officers chose to protect the public, evacuating residents, managing a live threat and putting themselves directly in harm's way. That is policing at its best.

I also recognise the human cost involved. A delivery driver's vehicle was hijacked, and that delivery driver — an ordinary worker — was forced into a situation that must have been utterly terrifying. That is the reality. Those responsible prey on civilians, exploit fear and drag innocent people into violence in which they wish to play no part. Those responsible have nothing to offer society: no mandate, no support and no future. They have shown a willingness to endanger the lives of police officers, civilians and families without consequence in their own minds. In response, we must show unity in backing the police, rejecting violence and defending the peace that the vast majority of people across this island value and want to protect.

I will end by saying that I am not so sure that we have seen that unity in the Chamber today. That is disappointing. Was some of what has been said amplifying political disdain or being used for political gain? I hope that it was not the latter.

Mr Brett: The depraved and deranged actions of a bunch of cowardly terrorists at the weekend stands in stark contrast to the bravery displayed daily by police officers across Northern Ireland. Each morning, they wake up and put on their uniform, not to protect one section of our community but to serve, without fear or favour, everyone who has the privilege of calling Northern Ireland "home". While the terrorists ran from danger under the cover of darkness, our proud public servants in the Police Service of Northern Ireland ran towards it. This should be the joint message from the House today: we are blessed to have men and women who will serve, without fear or favour, every section of our community. In our most difficult times, it is they whom we turn to to defend us. If the House cannot unite to defend them when they are under attack, shame on us.

I must say that the remarks by the Member for South Belfast were nothing short of an absolute disgrace. I condemn without equivocation any wrongdoing that was inflicted on her family. However, for her to try to say that Members on these Benches supported loyalist paramilitaries — men of violence who inflicted murder on my family — I take as a great insult. Unlike the Member opposite, I can condemn all forms of violence, and I hope that, one day, her party colleagues will condemn the violence inflicted on the community of North Belfast, be it the Shankill bomb or anything else.

This action should be a wake-up call about the doublespeak by some in the House; indeed, it is disappointing that some cannot even be in the House today when this message is being read. Once again, our First Minister is AWOL. Let that sink in. What could be more pressing for the First Minister than to be in the Chamber and send a united message that that action was wrong? She is nowhere to be seen.

The Members on the Benches opposite cannot be surprised: they said last week that there was no alternative to violence, and then violence was carried out at the weekend. They cannot celebrate last week a bloodthirsty sectarian murderer — Bobby Sands — and then say, this weekend, that those actions are wrong. They cannot say last week that rules do not apply to republicans and then be surprised when people try to blow up police officers. On behalf of the vast majority of the people of Northern Ireland, I say that it is time for Sinn Féin to put up or shut up.

Mr Speaker: I have three other speaking requests, but, unfortunately, time is up, so I apologise to those Members.

Mr Sheehan: Ós rud é gur sinne an páirtí agus an ghluaiseacht pholaitíochta is mó ar an oileán, ní raibh áit níos fearr ná Béal Feirste ann leis an ard-fheis a óstáil i mbliana, nó tá an chathair s’againn i gcroílár imeachtaí na nGael i mbliana. D’óstáil muid Oireachtas na Samhna agus ard-fheis Chonradh na Gaeilge, agus beidh Fleadh Cheoil na hÉireann againn le linn an tsamhraidh.

Agus an ard-fheis s’againn á reáchtáil sa chathair s’againn, bhí deis agam mo mhachnamh a dhéanamh ar an méid a d’athraigh ó bhí 2018 ann, an uair dheireanach a d’ostáil muid an ard-fheis. D’athraigh stáid na polaitíochta go mór ó shin. D’fhás an páirtí ar an dá thaobh den teorainn. Michelle O’Neill ina Céad-Aire ar an fhoras seo an cruthú is fearr air sin. Má d’athraigh cuid mhór, tá cuid mhór atá gan athrú. Níor athraigh ár dtacaíocht do athaontú na hÉireann; níor athraigh ár ndlúthpháirtíocht idirnáisiúnta le pobail atá faoi chois ar fud an domhain; agus níor athraigh ár dtiomantas do lucht oibre na hÉireann. Ba léir ó na himeachtaí agus na rúin ag an deireadh seachtaine an tiomantas atá againn dár bpolaitíocht, nó vótáil an ard-fheis d’aon ghuth i bhfabhar rúin inar daingníodh an tiomantas againn chun athaontú na hÉireann, chun tacú le muintir na Palaistíne agus muintir Chúba agus chun tacú le pobail mhionlaigh anseo in Éirinn; agus rúin i dtaca leis an Ghaeilge.

Tá mé thar a bheith bródúil as ionadaíocht a dhéanamh ar son Shinn Féin sa tSeomra seo. Tá mé thar a bheith bródúil as ionadaíocht a dhéanamh ar son mhuintir mo thoghlcheantair a chuir a muinín inár bpáirtí, agus tá mé thar a bheith bródúil as an dul chun cinn atá déanta againn, agus a leanfaimid orainn a dhéanamh sa tSeomra seo, i gcomhairlí agus i dTeach Laighean.

Mr Dunne: There is ever-growing frustration across Northern Ireland about the persistent inaction of the Infrastructure Minister, Liz Kimmins, on the delivery of projects that are both long overdue and totally essential for Northern Ireland.

Take the York Street interchange as one recent example. That strategically vital project would transform our connectivity, ease chronic congestion and drive economic growth across Northern Ireland. Yet, despite over £27 million being spent on the project, there is absolutely nothing to show for it. It is time for accountability. Just weeks ago, the Sinn Féin Infrastructure Minister told me that officials had presented their findings on the project and that she was "taking the time" to consider the next steps. The Minister has been taking her time from day 1 in office: taking her time to fix our roads, fix the infrastructure and waste water crisis and deliver much-needed infrastructure projects across our country. For years, communities have waited for the A5 project to finally get moving. Yet, despite the repeated empty promises, including most recently from Michelle O'Neill at the weekend, who stated that they:

If you live on the planned route, you will know that there is no want of stones but certainly not much sign of tarmac.

With zero progress on key infrastructure projects, we have seen zero interest in recognising the impact that unrealistic and unaffordable climate targets have on those projects. Under this Minister for inaction, it seems that vital investment in our roads and economic development will continue to be delayed, and all we will see delivered is excuses. Our road network continues to be in a state of real crisis, with wheel-wrecking potholes lining urban and rural roads in every corner of Northern Ireland, costing the public thousands in vehicle damage daily and compromising the important road safety messages that come out from the Department. Does the Sinn Féin Minister recognise the pothole pandemic? To date, it seems that she certainly does not. The Minister has also ignored the role that utility companies play in the poor reinstatement of road openings. She has ignored the recent Northern Ireland Audit Office report on that subject and the findings of the Public Accounts Committee, with zero enforcement and even less accountability.

Compounding those failures, of course, is the ongoing waste water crisis, which is blocking housing and economic development, growth and regeneration across Northern Ireland, with no solutions. Infrastructure is not a luxury. The people of Northern Ireland deserve decisive leadership and actual delivery, not endless delays, consultations or sound bites. Minister, words are no longer enough; it is time for urgent action and delivery.

Ms Nicholl: I draw the House's attention to a petition that has recently been launched in Carryduff, calling on Lisburn and Castlereagh City Council to deliver a new and modern Lough Moss leisure centre. Residents across Carryduff, Newtownbreda and the Four Winds have come together to make it clear that the current facility is no longer fit for purpose. The demand has simply outgrown the capacity, and people are being turned away from classes and the gym due to oversubscription. Earlier, I talked to my colleague, Councillor Jamie Harpur, and he said that there is often a queue of people waiting in the reception to use the gym equipment. The classes come online at 8.00 am, and they have all gone by 8.01 am because there is a serious demand.

The situation is made particularly pressing by the absence of a local swimming pool. There is only one in the entire council area, and that is wholly inadequate for a growing and active population. I passionately believe that swimming is a life skill. I have been doing work on this, and I believe that every child should have the opportunity to learn to swim, not as a luxury but as a basic part of growing up safe and healthy. When families in Castlereagh South have to travel significant distances to access a pool, we are putting unnecessary barriers in their way. We should be making it easier for families, not harder.

The residents whom I represent contribute a significant amount in rates, and they deserve to see the investment reflected in the facilities available to them, yet Castlereagh South continues to be underserved. This a community issue. It is not political, and the strength of the campaign lies in residents speaking with one voice. I appeal to elected representatives in the area to get behind the community-led effort, rather than fragment it. At the recent community meeting, it was agreed that parties would work together on this, and it is important that they do so. When we work together across party lines, we are more effective, but, when we put politics first, it is the community that loses out. The people who have signed the petition are not asking for anything unreasonable; they are asking for a leisure centre that will meet their needs, with a dedicated swimming pool at its heart. I urge the council to listen to those voices, act on the petition and commit to proper investment in Castlereagh South.

Dr Aiken: Last week, the Windsor Framework Democratic Scrutiny Committee held a series of meetings in Brussels. The Sinn Féin, DUP and UUP members met representatives from our excellent Northern Ireland Executive Office in Brussels and members of the European Parliament Committees for both agriculture and competitiveness. We also met representatives from the UK and Irish missions.

The main topic of discussion was the forthcoming UK-EU meeting on the reset. There are three clear issues within the reset, the first and second of which were part of the UK's main asks.

The first issue is the sanitary and phytosanitary (SPS) agreement, which most believed was largely on track, although some derogations have yet to emerge from the tunnel. The second issue relates to carbon adjustment mechanisms. Members will have noted the imposition of the emissions trading scheme on the maritime sector, which will add up to 6% on our shipping costs from 1 July. That was seen by the European Union as a mark of faithful implementation, despite its impact on costs within Northern Ireland. As is the case with the SPS agreement, the carbon adjustment mechanism was largely seen as being a done deal. Finally, the main EU ask from the UK is on youth movement. It is being seen as much more problematic to deliver, and concerns over it, especially on dynamic alignment, may delay any formal agreement, this summer.

It was unfortunate that our Alliance members were not there to hear the concerns about the Union Customs Code, aka the catchily named "Alliance tax", which is a duty that will be paid on all non-GB or EU parcels, with an administration charge added later in the year. Much like with the implementation of the Irish Sea carbon tax, the EU fully expects the implementation of the Alliance tax to be made as a matter of good faith by the UK, although there was no answer to questions on where the close on €100 million of duty and administration tax will go. Across the EU, the administration charge will go to funding new EU customs organisations, something that we currently have no oversight of.

One thing that I did have oversight of was an 'Emily in Paris' anti-fashionista movement. France has pre-empted the imposition of the Union Customs Code by charging €2 per item rather than per parcel. The Document Administratif Unique (DAU) Francaise 2026 means that, if Emily or Mindy, or even Sylvie, secretly, wanted to order from Temu or SHEIN — other brands are available — on an order of three quarters of matched items, it will cost them a minimum of €8 in duty. If that formula is used here, it will not just be fast-fashion teenagers who will be up in arms.

This July, the combination of the Union Customs Code and the maritime carbon tax are going to add substantially to the costs for the Northern Ireland consumer. Faithful implementation has a direct cost — one to which the people of Northern Ireland did not sign up.

Mr McCrossan: There is growing frustration in my West Tyrone constituency at the delays to the A5 project. People are anxious for its future. No matter how much reassurance is given from the SDLP and others who advocate daily for the delivery of the A5, the actions, or lack thereof, from those in power in the Executive tell a different story. The A5 project is vital not just for ensuring the safety of people who travel on that road but as an economic lever to bring some equality to the part of the island on which I reside. People are desperate to see it.

When watching the Sinn Féin ard fheis, at the weekend, you struggled to believe that it is a party that has led in government for over 20 years. Its members stand at the pulpit, year in, year out, making and rehashing promises. What featured this weekend was the A5. The First Minister said that no stone would be left unturned, and the Minister for Infrastructure talked about how much of a priority it is. Equally, local representatives were at the pulpit. People are not falling for that rehashed, regurgitated, false promise any longer. Sinn Féin has the power to deliver the A5; it has been in power for 20 years. The only problem is that it does not seem to realise that with power comes responsibility. It has the ability to deliver the road but seems to struggle. You have to question whether Sinn Féin has what it takes to do what is right when it comes to the A5. The fingerprints of failure are all over the A5, and they are the fingerprints of Sinn Féin.

The message that I am getting from the electorate across West Tyrone, regardless of what has been said at the pulpit by the First Minister, the Infrastructure Minister or others, is that, if Sinn Féin does not deliver the road, the people of Tyrone, Fermanagh, Derry and Donegal will not forgive them. Sinn Féin is in a prime position to deliver the project. We do not want to hear the same regurgitated messages about how it supports the A5 project; we want to see Sinn Féin put its money where its mouth is and get it done. The mistakes surrounding the A5 could have been avoided: they were entirely avoidable. Unfortunately, it comes down to incompetence in government, a lack of proper and meaningful leadership and too much talk and not enough action. The A5 is a priority for the SDLP — I talk about it every day — for reasons that are well rehearsed, but it is time that Sinn Féin actually delivered something. This weekend, I did not hear one thing that Sinn Féin has delivered after 20 years in government in the North.

Mr McAleer: I am delighted to take this opportunity to commend the organisers of the Mid Ulster Drama Festival for their outstanding work in hosting last weekend's all-Ireland confined drama finals in Carrickmore. Since its beginnings, the Mid Ulster Drama Festival has grown into something truly incredible. Hosting those all-Ireland finals was no small undertaking and was delivered with true professionalism, warmth and pride.

The Patrician Hall is an excellent host venue, and it welcomed nine drama groups from eight counties to the stage. Over the course of the festival, audiences were treated to performances of exceptional quality, complemented by a venue that impressed performers and spectators alike. The standard of drama was second to none, and visiting groups echoed that message. They were struck by the friendliness and warmth of the local community. From the Patrician Hall itself to the shops, accommodation and local bars, a lasting impression was made. The sense of community is something truly special and reflects great credit on Carrickmore. With thousands of visitors travelling from across the island, the event was a celebration not only of drama but of culture, hospitality and local pride.

To the organisers, volunteers and the wider community, I say "Maith sibh".

I hope to see the festival return to Carrickmore again in the future.

Ms Forsythe: On Saturday evening, it was devastating to see the scenes of widespread fires emerging from the Mourne Mountains once again. It really was soul-destroying to sit there in the heart of our local community with our children looking up at the mountains as the huge flames got closer to our homes. It is terrifying and reckless, and it endangers lives and destroys our nature and habitats.

When we see the glorious weather coming along, it is great to get out and enjoy the countryside and welcome visitors to the Mourne area, which boosts tourism. Saturday was a beautiful and very busy day, but then the fires started across three sites in a very confined area from Slievenaman Road to Bloody Bridge. The fires were huge, fast-moving and came right down — I am sure that everyone saw the images — to the back of people's homes on the coast road from Kilkeel to Newcastle, with many people evacuated. Panic spread as everyone hurried to locate their loved ones, who may have been out camping or walking, as is normal on pleasant evenings. That should not be what local people in the Mourne area are subjected to every time there is good weather.

Those who are starting the fires maliciously need to feel the full force of the law. Too often, we see these fires and the reports of intentional crimes but with no consequences. Last year, there was an arrest at the fires towards the Hilltown area, and I believe that the case will be heard in the weeks ahead. We need to see justice served, and we need to set an example for people to see.

Over the weekend past, our Northern Ireland Fire and Rescue Service, the Mourne Mountain Rescue Team and the local PSNI have been excellent, supported by Sky Watch NI. Their outstanding coordination and bravery in face of the most treacherous conditions kept us all safe. I think of their families, who will have been so concerned when looking up at the giant flames engulfing the mountainside and thinking of their loved ones up there facing off those fires. I sincerely thank everyone who attended, many of whom are still working to contain those fires, which are still burning. Huge amounts of smoke were still coming out of the mountains as I drove here today.

The local community has also been incredible and has rallied to support, with many local businesses providing food and water to those working in the mountains. People have been asked to avoid the area, and I ask that that request continue to be respected whilst the firefighting continues.

It has been reported that this incident was not a result of recreational activity and that the fires were started in areas that are hard for the public to access. Rural arson is a crime, and, if anyone has any information on these deliberately lit fires, which are malicious attacks on our countryside, they should come forward and contact the police. I urge them to call 999 immediately at the sign of any fire and, if they have any information, to please come forward.

Mr Mathison: We are currently in the middle of Global Intergenerational Week. I take the opportunity to pay tribute to the work of Linking Generations Northern Ireland, the only organisation that leads on intergenerational work in Northern Ireland, having done so since 2009. Any Member who has engaged with Vicki Titterington, who heads up that organisation, will be familiar with her passion and drive to support intergenerational work in Northern Ireland and her commitment to embedding intergenerational approaches across our society and at every level of government here.

Linking Generations coordinates a network of over 1,700 members and, crucially, is the Northern Ireland lead for work associated with Global Intergenerational Week. The week runs from 24 to 30 April, and it celebrates and promotes all the excellent intergenerational activity in Northern Ireland. That international week is an opportunity to set out a vision of the sort of society that we want to see in Northern Ireland for our children to grow up and grow old in.

I am particularly pleased that Twinkl NI is promoting a range of intergenerational resources for use in our schools and that Public Health Agency funding continues to support a number of schools across Northern Ireland in delivering intergenerational activities in their local communities. There is a great track record of embedding intergenerational work in our schools in Northern Ireland, with the age-friendly agenda and action plans in our councils and the fact that intergenerational approaches are referenced in the Programme for Government.

Unfortunately, however, there are threats to that work. Following the winding-up of its former host charity in England, Linking Generations has found itself in a very difficult and challenging financial position. It is now a stand-alone charity in Northern Ireland, and, aside from a small pot of Public Health Agency funding to help to retain some daily operations, it is without sustainable funding. That means that it will be unable to deliver work at the scale that we have seen before and that retaining staff to drive that work will be impossible. I encourage all Ministers, councils and arm's-length bodies in Northern Ireland to look at any opportunities to maximise investment in Linking Generations and intergenerational work more broadly in Northern Ireland. It is a key aspect of a healthy society, and it is vital that it is allowed to continue.

Mr Gildernew: I will speak in Irish this afternoon. Members may wish to use their headphones.

Dhiúltaigh breitheamh Ard-Chúirte d’agóid in aghaidh bheartas Gaeilge Chomhairle Cathrach Bhéal Feirste an tseachtain seo caite. Theip ar iarracht na seachtaine seo caite cosc a chur ar an dul chun cinn. Teipfidh ar iarrachtaí le cosc a chur ar an chomhionannas, agus teipfidh ar iarrachtaí muid a tharraingt ar gcúl. Glacadh an cinneadh ceart, agus is geal liom an cinneadh céanna. Caithfear comhionannas don Ghaeilge a chur i bhfeidhm; níor chóir bac a chur leis.

Tá an Ghaeilge ag borradh léi ar fud an oileáin, agus caithfear reachtaíocht agus beartais bheith i bhfeidhm le tacú leis an bhorradh sin agus leis an Ghaeilge a chothú. Is féidir le Comhairle Cathrach Bhéal Feirste an beartas nua Gaeilge aici a chur chun feidhme anois agus a chinntiú go dtabharfar cothrom na Féinne don Ghaeilge mar theanga oifigiúil na comhairle agus go ndéanfar í a thaispeáint agus go mbeidh sí le sonrú i seirbhísí agus i gcomharthaíocht ar fud na comhairle. Tá mé ag tnúth lenár dteanga a fheiceáil in úsáid agus á taispeáint sa chathair seo in aicearracht.

Bhí díomá orm gur idirghabh an tAire Pobail sa chás úd, i ndiaidh go bhfuil sé de dhualgas air tacú leis an Ghaeilge a chur chun cinn agus a fhorbairt. In ionad iarracht a dhéanamh an Ghaeilge a chur faoi chois, ba chóir don Aire a aird a dhíriú ar straitéis Gaeilge a chur i bhfeidhm gan a thuilleadh moille. Tá coicís ó shin sa tSeomra seo, chomhaontaigh muid le Bille Gaelscolaíochta a chur ar aghaidh tríd an Dara Céim, Bille a thug mo chomhghleacaí, Pat Sheehan, isteach; Bille lena chinnteofar go mbeidh na múinteoirí agus an fhoireann ann le tacú le fás na Gaelscolaíochta.

Mr Buckley: At the weekend, Sinn Féin, the party of bluff, spin and distraction, held its annual conference in Belfast. Just like a scene from North Korea's Central Committee, the faithful clapped on cue in response to totally unfounded claims.

It was a clear attempt to cover up the complete disaster that has been caused by the Sinn Féin Ministers who currently occupy office, be that the Minister for Infrastructure, who is overseeing a complete disaster in her Department as a result of the roads nightmare and the blocking of key infrastructure projects such as the A5, the A4 and the A1 because of climate change targets to which her party's Members were co-signatories, or the Minister for the Economy, who is more intent on losing jobs for here than creating jobs. You could not make it up.

As sure as day follows night, however, the biggest bluff and distraction was put back on the table by Michelle O'Neill when she said that we are to have a border poll by 2030. That is not something new for a Sinn Féin ard-fheis. It is not something new for Sinn Féin Members in the Chamber. In 1974, we were told that it would be the year of victory. Mystic Meg-like Gerry Adams predicted that we would have left the union by 2016. With his crystal ball, he then corrected that to 2024. It is a common tactic: the tactic of distraction.

At the weekend, Sinn Féin presented itself as the party of progress. I argue that it is the party of stagnant decay, because, let us face it, it is not progress in 2026 to say that men can be women. It is not progress in 2026 to say that men can partake in women-only sports. It is not progress in 2026 to say that young people should have access to dangerous drugs such as puberty blockers. It is not progress in 2026 to say to the young people of today that there was no alternative to the violence of the past.

There is a leadership issue at the heart of Sinn Féin, and the party is very keen to distract from it. When asked whether Mary Lou will continue as leader, Michelle O'Neill was quick to say that the party is full of talent. Where is it? It does not sit in the Assembly. Eulogising the terrorism of yesterday breeds the terrorism of today. We have to be very aware of that.

Mr Speaker: The Member's time is up.

Mr McMurray: I will also speak about the wildfires that swept across the Mournes on Saturday. Although the word "wildfires" is in common parlance, and it is useful to a certain degree for conveying the image of what is taking place, they are not spontaneous combustion events. Any fire that takes hold in the Mournes begins with a deliberate act. Whether a fire is set with malicious or malevolent intent or through wilful ignorance and neglect, the end result is the same: destruction.

I thank all those who were called on to respond to the fires. It is no exaggeration to say that, through the efforts of all the blue-light organisations, of voluntary and statutory bodies and of members of the public, no lives and no properties were lost. The Northern Ireland Fire and Rescue Service was on the hill for as long as it remained safe for it to do so and then returned at first light to continue to tackle the blaze. It worked tirelessly along the boundary wall of Donard Forest to ensure that the fire did not take hold in the area. Should we continue to see such fires being lit, I fear that a tragedy will befall us.

I spoke to the residents who watched as the flames came within metres of their properties. I understand that motorhomes and caravans were evacuated from a site and that residents were told to have a bag packed should they be asked to leave. In the aftermath, I spoke to those who saw an ingress of trails of scorched earth at their properties. That is just the human element, however.

I know that I am not allowed props, Mr Speaker, and I do not have any with me, but I keep a jam jar of ash from a previous fire. The fires have become so prevalent that I cannot even remember the exact year from which it comes. I keep it to remind me of the devastation that such incidents cause.

I am not an expert botanist or an ecologist, but spring should be a time of renewal, nature and wildlife. Instead, we have devastation across swathes of land. Every year, after a dry spell in April, fires are lit, which then spread across our upland areas. The AERA Minister and his Department have brought forward a strategy and a plan to deal with such incidents. Work enabled by the strategy will go some way towards educating on behaviours and practices that will end these devastating fires.

Should anyone have any information that is of relevance to the investigations, they should pass it on to the PSNI or Crimestoppers. That will allow the Northern Ireland Fire and Rescue Service, the PSNI and the NIEA to complete their investigations into the incidents.

Mr O'Toole: I want to echo some of the remarks that were made earlier by my constituency colleague and friend Kate Nicholl, who has just returned to the Chamber, about an urgent question that has been left waiting for far too long not only for the people of Carryduff but for the people of BT8 and Castlereagh South more broadly, and that is the failure to build a new leisure centre at Lough Moss. I am pleased to say that there was cross-party support for a petition that was launched by my colleague Councillor John Gallen. The petition calls for something that people in BT8 have not had for years, if not decades, and certainly not under the auspices of Lisburn and Castlereagh City Council since it was formed, which is proper investment and focus on that area.

A few years ago, the SDLP established that, despite contributing the largest total of rates by district electoral area to Lisburn and Castlereagh City Council, Castlereagh South has historically had the lowest level of investment. The people there have to put up with all the traffic that flows down to Forestside. It is a great shopping amenity, but the traffic and congestion that is created affects air quality for people all the way down the Saintfield Road from Carryduff to Newtownbreda. They would expect and deserve proper investment in amenities in their area, but they simply have not had that. The failure to invest in Lough Moss is another example of that.

As was said earlier on, Lough Moss is overcrowded and simply not fit for purpose. I am sure that it was a great facility back in the 1990s. Recently, there has been investment in 3G pitches there, which are used by Carryduff Colts, which is a great soccer club, and Carryduff GAC. However, the leisure centre itself needs to be properly upgraded. As you will be well aware, Mr Speaker, it needs a pool. People who live in Carryduff and rely on public transport either have to get multiple buses into the centre of Belfast and out to Lisnasharragh or Olympia, or they have to get on a bus and go all the way to Downpatrick to get to a swimming pool. That is not good enough for people in BT8.

The SDLP have been saying for years that the people of Castlereagh South have been getting a raw deal from that council. I am afraid that others supported the vast investment in the replacement of Dundonald Ice Bowl. On its own terms, there is nothing wrong with that, but it means that there will be a lot less investment in other parts of Lisburn and Castlereagh. BT8 and Castlereagh South, once again, have been left without proper investment. It is an area where people pay really substantial rates. They make their home in that area, which has great community assets. I mentioned Carryduff Colts and Carryduff GAC, and there is Bredagh GAC and the Carryduff regeneration forum. Those are brilliant local community and sports groups, formed by people in the community, but they do not get the backing of the council in that area.

The council needs to properly invest there and needs to start with a new leisure centre at Lough Moss, with a swimming pool and proper facilities for people in that area. While we are at it, let us also get proper investment in the public realm in Carryduff and more road safety measures, as well as, ideally, at some point, the Glider.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Matthew. I ask Members to take their ease for a moment.

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

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: In accordance with convention, the Business Committee has agreed that there should be no time limit on the debate. Minister, please open the debate.

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

The Petroleum Exploration and Licensing (Repeal) Bill has a very clear objective, which is to bring a permanent end to onshore oil and gas exploration and production in the North of Ireland. The House previously agreed to the direction that we are travelling in. Through the Climate Change Act 2022, we are legally committed to achieving net zero by 2050. The Bill simply ensures that our petroleum licensing framework is consistent with that commitment.

For decades, the Department held powers under the Petroleum (Production) Act 1964 to license oil and gas exploration. Exploration took place, but, despite multiple licences being issued over many years, no commercially viable oil or gas was found. The last licence was relinquished in 2020. Since then, the context has changed significantly. Climate obligations have tightened, public expectations have shifted and the economic case for onshore petroleum in the region is not supported by the available evidence. In 2020, my Department began a full review of the existing licensing regime. Independent research was commissioned to assess the economic, social and environmental impacts. Its conclusions were clear: onshore petroleum exploration and extraction are unlikely to deliver significant economic benefits, would not enhance our energy security and would not reduce energy prices. Public views were equally clear. A full public consultation was carried out in 2024, and there was strong support for a moratorium followed by a legislative ban. Respondents pointed to our climate commitments and raised concerns about environmental and community impacts. There was also a strong and consistent message about priorities, which was that we should focus our efforts on renewables, not fossil fuel development.

Taken together, the evidence, the consultation outcomes and our legal obligations point consistently in the same direction. That is why, in December 2024, the Executive agreed a clear policy position, which was to have a temporary moratorium followed by legislation to put a permanent ban in place. The Bill gives effect to that decision. It removes the Department's power to issue petroleum licences; it removes the right to search and bore for and get petroleum under the 1964 Act; and it closes the door on all forms of onshore oil and gas exploration and production, including fracking.

The Bill is consistent with the Climate Change Act, the Executive's energy strategy and the evidence. Continuing to allow for petroleum licensing would create uncertainty for communities and send the wrong signal about the future direction of our energy system. The Bill removes that uncertainty and allows us to focus fully on building a clean, secure and sustainable energy future. I therefore commend the Bill to the Assembly.

Mr Brett (The Chairperson of the Committee for the Economy): I will speak on behalf of the Economy Committee at the outset and will then make some remarks in my individual capacity.

This is the third Economy Bill that has got as far as Second Stage. The Department briefed the Committee on a related consultation in 2024, and officials briefed again on the legislation just before Easter. As the Minister indicated, the Petroleum (Production) Act (Northern Ireland) 1964 grants the Department powers to license exploration, boring and extraction of petroleum. The Committee understands that around 30 applications have been made in Northern Ireland since 1964 and that there are currently no active exploration or extraction licences. However, a further two applications had been received in 2016 and are subject to an ongoing moratorium. The Bill introduces a ban on issuing licences for all forms of onshore petroleum exploration and production in Northern Ireland by removing the licensing provision from the 1964 Act and revoking related regulations. The Bill stops any of the ongoing applications and provide a refund for those two applications.

The Bill follows a review in 2020 that found that the licensing system did not appear to give sufficient weight to societal or environmental issues compared with economic benefits. The Department had previously commissioned research by Hatch, which identified limited benefits associated with petroleum exploration and production in Northern Ireland. The report stated:

of petroleum extraction and development were "shown to be relatively low" and

that would be required to lower energy prices in Northern Ireland as a result of exploration.

The Hatch report also indicated that key information gaps persisted in respect of hydraulic fracturing, which is also known as "fracking", relating to the potential pollution of groundwater and, as a result, the long-term failure or deterioration of well integrity, as well as pollution in our community. Other information gaps related to:

Furthermore, in respect of fracking, the report referred to:

It also indicated that some of the impacts of fracking will be:

The Department previously argued that its approach to fracking was supported by the British Geological Survey desktop report, which indicated that there is not enough information on the current stress regime and state of the faults in Northern Ireland.

To be clear, the Bill goes beyond banning fracking as a method of petroleum exploration or extraction; it bans all forms of onshore petroleum exploration or extraction and retains petroleum resources as being vested in the Department for the Economy. If the Second Stage passes today, I expect that the launch of the Committee Stage will generate a considerable response to our call for evidence and that the Committee may come back to the House to seek an extension to the Committee Stage.

I will now make some remarks from my party's perspective. We will support the legislation moving to Committee Stage to allow the Committee to undertake its important work of testing the evidence that has been provided to it to date. We will ensure that a wide public consultation is carried out, so that the views of all the people of Northern Ireland can be heard and listened to. At the heart of the wider energy strategy required from the Department for the Economy are the issues of energy security and bills. The Member for Lagan Valley who will speak later will, no doubt, highlight that the Department needs to undertake important work to produce a master plan of how we will deliver energy security on these islands.

With that pretext, my party will support the Bill's moving to the next stage.

Ms McLaughlin: Today marks a welcome and important step forward in placing a statutory prohibition on onshore petroleum exploration and licensing. As Members from all parties will know, that is not a new argument in the Chamber; we have spoken about it many times. In fact, in 2015 — over a decade ago — my party colleague Mark Durkan ensured that a ban on fracking in policy was taken forward through his strategic planning policy statement. We have been pleased to support previous private Members' Bills on the topic. Outside the Chamber, the message from communities, campaigners and experts has been consistent and clear: they have raised the alarm about the risk of petroleum extraction and the need for a statutory ban. Their voices and the public pressure that they have created deserve the credit for the debate and even the action today at this stage of the legislative process.

We know, of course, that the evidence backs up those campaigners. Research has consistently shown us that it is communities, not companies, who truly pay the price for the effects of fracking. The consequences are not only environmental but can be seen in the long-term health impacts and the wider social effects that are inflicted on local people by the practice. Moreover, the 2021 Hatch report was clear that Northern Ireland is unlikely to achieve the economies of scale that would make the industry viable to a point where it could lower costs for consumers. In other words, any continuation of fracking could risk significant environmental damage and social consequences for, at best, a very modest economic return. I am glad that we are united in opposing that trade-off. It is a conclusion that should be particularly heeded by anyone who wants to defend the practice on the basis of economic interests. The evidence simply does not support them.

It should go without saying that ending the practice also aligns with our obligations under the Climate Change Act and our wider transition to a sustainable energy system. Ending that extraction practice is a necessary step if we are serious about meeting those commitments. Continuing to profess loyalty to those targets without ending the practice would undoubtedly ring rather hollow. Let us be honest: there is no meaningful case for the continuation of fracking licences. There is no compelling environmental or economic case.

The legislation is welcome and overdue, but it is just catch-up legislation. Six years ago, we passed unanimously, across parties, a motion calling for this move. I remember speaking about it two years ago during a debate on a Sinn Féin motion. Then, I said that the question was no longer whether a ban would happen but how long it would take for the Economy Minister to progress to that legislation. Ireland legislated for the ban back in 2017. Across the UK, a moratorium has effectively halted the practice. Our political dysfunction — the in-out politics here— has frustrated efforts to act at the same pace. While I welcome this process and the Second Stage today, it should also prompt us to reflect on how we ensure that the necessary action is not postponed in the future and that it is part of wider energy planning as well, as was mentioned by the Chair of the Economy Committee.

The real task ahead is not simply to prohibit what we should not do but to accelerate what we must do. That means investing in clean, renewable energy and building a sustainable energy system that delivers for our economy and our environment. The Bill is a step in the right direction, and I look forward to engaging further at Committee Stage and examining its provisions in greater detail.

Mr Delargy: I welcome the opportunity to speak on the Second Stage of the Bill. At the outset, I acknowledge the work of the Economy Minister, Caoimhe Archibald, in introducing the legislation. The Minister has taken a clear and strategic approach to one of the biggest economic questions that we face: how do we build a modern, resilient economy while managing the transition from fossil fuels? That approach has been supported by evidence from the public and evidence taken from stakeholders, as well as other key policy on it.

The Bill meets the Minister's economic vision. It is an environmental measure as well as an economic intervention. It recognises that continued petroleum exploration no longer matches the direction of travel in global markets, where capital is increasingly flowing towards renewables, clean technologies and energy efficiency. Clinging to outdated models risks leaving our economy exposed, not protected. We need to be honest here about the future of growth and where that will come from. The global shift to decarbonisation is not a distant prospect and already shapes investment decisions, supply chains and job creation. By removing the legislative basis for petroleum exploration, the Bill gives investors clarity and certainty. It sends a clear message that this region intends to be a part of and leader in the emerging low-carbon economy. That certainty matters because it reinforces the Minister's work on this, and it is already attracting investment in renewable, green manufacturing and innovation.

Energy security is, of course, pivotal to any such discussion. As we emerge in 2026, energy security cannot be viewed only through the lens of fossil fuel extraction. Real security comes from diversification, resilience and reducing our dependence on fossil fuels and volatile energy markets. The Minister's work in supporting an all-Ireland energy framework is also critical, in that it helps us to maximise the renewable opportunities, reduce costs for consumers and build a more resilient system. That is good environmental policy as well as good and smart economic policy.

We should be clear about the economic risks that can come from continued petroleum exploration, particularly in sectors such as tourism. In some places, environmentally damaging extraction can put at risk the natural assets on which the local community and economy depend. For example, the European Commission has highlighted the environmental risks associated with hydraulic fracturing or fracking, including potential impacts on water quality and on landscapes. Tourism bodies, including Fáilte Ireland, have also been clear that Ireland's tourism offer rests heavily on its reputation for unspoilt natural environments. In the past, when fracking was proposed in places such as County Fermanagh, concerns were raised about how it could change perceptions of the area among visitors. The fear was that industrialising rural landscapes could deter tourism, and that matters in regions where tourism is a key economic driver and jobs depend on protecting environmental quality.

Of course, the transition must be managed properly. A just transition means investing in skills, real support for workers and targeted regional development. The Minister has been clear that the benefits of that change must be felt across all communities and that no area is left behind. I support the Bill at Second Stage, and I look forward to its continued progress through the House.

Mr Honeyford: Alliance fully supports the Bill, and I am glad to speak in favour of it. The debate is also an opportunity to highlight the fact that the Department needs to match the ambition of the legislation with the pace of transition to renewables as we go into the future. Repealing petroleum licensing is absolutely the right call, but, in practice, it has already been happening, and it simply brings the legislation up to date with the day-to-day. Removing fossil fuel exploration is one side of the issue of transition, but we urgently need to fill the other side of the space with clean, affordable and home-grown energy.

The Bill removes the Department's statutory powers to issue licences for petroleum exploring or extraction, but, as has been said in the Chamber, we need to be honest about this. This is a tidying-up exercise, as licences were not being issued anyway, and it simply brings the legal framework up to date with what has been happening in practice. That is long overdue. Alliance has been calling consistently for that, and we welcome it. We have called for a ban on the licensing of drilling and extraction for years, and I am glad to finally debate the legislation to deliver it. I thank the Minister for bringing the Bill forward, but I hope that it is only the start of what we need to see.

Tomorrow, we are debating another piece of legislation, again on transition. However, we are not seeing coming through to the Committee the ambition on energy policy from the Department. We need to see a master plan that takes a plan-led approach to all of the policy areas and gives communities confidence about what is happening in the area. For transition, we urgently need a firm legislative timetable for a renewable electricity price guarantee (REPG) scheme Bill. If the Minister can outline today a timetable for that and can give a categoric commitment on when that full option will be delivered, that would be really useful. We need to bring energy security in Northern Ireland and across this island, working together to deliver for everybody. More home-grown renewable energy means that families and businesses are less exposed to the shocks in global volatility that we have seen in recent weeks. Consumers do not see the difference. They only see their bill going up; they never seem to see it coming down.

We do not need the backwards step of moving towards the GB energy market at a time when GB is moving towards Europe. We need to see a sustainable way to drop prices for people and get more renewable generation online quickly in Northern Ireland. We need that plan-led approach from the Department; we need the interconnector built with the South; and we need direct interconnection with Europe and the Celtic interconnector, which is coming online in the next year or so. We need to share on this island and work together in the long term for the people who live on it. Offshore planning needs brought together, and every delay costs households in their pockets. Ending petroleum licensing is the right economic call, but the economic dividend flows only if we accelerate the alternative. Closing one door is progress, but leaving the other door stuck is not good enough.

Alliance supports the Bill unreservedly; it is long overdue. I am happy for the Bill to progress, but I want to make the point to the Department that closing the door to petroleum is only a fraction of the job. The work that matters to ordinary people outside the Building is what comes next.

There is a year left in the mandate, and people need to see delivery. We need legislation that improves their lives and that transitions us to using renewable energy. The legislative timetable is tight, but all parties have signed up to at least 80% electricity consumption from renewable sources by 2030 and to the 2050 targets. The same cross-party consensus can ensure that the REPG goes through at the same pace, unlocking investment and delivering energy security.

We have led on renewables before, and the potential is there for us to do so again. We need to get on with delivery and then see it through for people on the ground. I appreciate that it is in the Minister's inbox, but some sort of timetable would be helpful. I am happy to support the Bill's Second Stage.

Ms D Armstrong: The UUP supports the Bill at its Second Stage and the clear direction that it sets for Northern Ireland and its energy ambitions. At its core, the ban on all forms of petroleum exploration and production in Northern Ireland recognises the importance of protecting our environment and of investing in renewable energy to provide energy security and sustainability. The risks associated with onshore petroleum exploration and extraction are well documented: groundwater contamination; biodiversity loss; threats to tourism, as Pádraig mentioned; and long-term environmental uncertainty. It is right that we take such concerns seriously and act decisively.

The Bill provides certainty. It moves beyond temporary measures and establishes a clear and consistent position, bringing to an end onshore petroleum licensing. In doing so, it removes ambiguity and ensures that environmental standards are not subject to shifting positions in the future. The Department has listened to the findings of the 2024 consultation, in which 95% of the 382 responses supported the preferred policy option of an eventual ban on all forms of onshore petroleum exploration and production. The Northern Ireland Executive approved that as the preferred policy option in December 2024.

It has been recognised through Committee scrutiny that the transition will be managed responsibly. The two existing applications will be withdrawn, and appropriate reimbursement will be provided. That is a correct and fair approach to take, as it provides clarity not only for communities but for those directly affected. Although some have pointed to the potential economic benefits of petroleum exploration, the evidence to date has shown those benefits to be limited and commercially unviable.

Set against the environmental risks and the strength of public concern, the Bill reflects a balanced and proportionate judgement. More broadly, it is about the kind of economy and society that we want to build. Northern Ireland's future prosperity will be defined not by onshore petroleum extraction but by sustainable investment and sustainable energy and by meeting climate targets through innovation and the responsible use of our resources. The Bill aligns with that vision. Our approach should be balanced and responsible, supporting sustainable development, encouraging innovation and ensuring that robust safeguards are always in place to protect citizens. By doing that, we can achieve long-term prosperity that is economically sound and socially just.

By supporting the Bill, we are choosing clarity, environmental responsibility and a long-term approach to economic development. The Bill is a measured and necessary step, and I look forward to examining it further in Committee.

Ms Murphy: I support the Bill and welcome its Second Stage. For many people in County Fermanagh, the legislation has been a long time coming. As Members may know, I introduced a private Member's Bill in the previous mandate to ban fracking. Unfortunately, we ran out of time to get it through Committee Stage.

For years, people in rural communities, especially in County Fermanagh and County Leitrim, have lived with the fear of what fracking could mean for their environment, for their health and for the future of communities that have been there for generations. Those communities, however, did not stay silent. Instead, they organised, campaigned and made it clear that they would not accept damage being inflicted on their area, and they were right to do so. This is about environmental justice, public health and the right of communities to have a say on what happens where they live. We cannot talk about a just transition while leaving the door open to harmful practices from the past.

The Bill is an important step forward. It reflects the determination of communities who refuse to be ignored. It recognises the power of local campaigning and shows what can happen when people stand together. I commend my colleague Caoimhe Archibald for introducing the Bill. It sends a clear message to communities that the Assembly listens. I urge all Members to support the Bill.

Mr Gaston: Two weeks ago, the Assembly voted against costing the net zero lunacy in Stormont Departments. Last week the House supported the idea of creating new anaerobic digesters in Northern Ireland, which will deliver the Minister's vision for stock cuts by stealth if we continue down that route. Now, this week, we have a Bill in front of us that will remove any potential for helping to secure our own energy market in the future.

The Bill is presented as merely technical legislation, but it is nothing of the sort. It is a deliberate, permanent policy choice to close down an entire sector of potential economic activity in Northern Ireland. When one reads the explanatory and financial memorandum, that reality is inescapable. Clause 1 talks about repealing key provisions of the Petroleum (Production) Act (Northern Ireland) 1964.

Mr Delargy: I thank the Member for giving way. I hear what he says. He talks about closing down opportunities, but the evidence points clearly to the fact that any economic opportunity is not feasible and not viable, so will he revise his remarks on that basis?

Mr Gaston: Absolutely not, because the Member will hear in my speech that, while current viability has not been found, producing the Bill and pushing it forward will close down any future opportunity. On that basis, if no economic activity comes from this, why the need for legislation? Why the need to close it indefinitely? Why not let it stay open and run its course?

Mr Buckley: I thank the Member for giving way. I share many of his concerns, albeit very few licences have ever been granted, and there are very few at present. There is no categorical evidence to suggest that the amount of exploration has proven explicitly that there is no potential source of home-grown energy in the future.

I note that most Members' comments today have focused on the fracking aspect of the legislation, and there are legitimate arguments for that. However, the Bill contains a provision for a complete ban on all petroleum exploration. Does the Member agree that, given that the reports suggest that considerable gaps in information remain, perhaps the Minister could have explored option 3, which was to ban the fracking aspect and leave petroleum exploration for the future?

Mr Gaston: That would have been a more sensible way forward. If you have a problem with fracking, you should look at it solely. However, what we have today is a blanket ban, which will mean that, in future, if evidence is produced that we have a natural resource that we can utilise and would help to secure our energy future, this place took the decision in 2026 that it knew best. It could see into the future and did not want to utilise any of that because it would have meant setting aside our green ideology. The tentacles of this place come up now and again that it knows best. If it is anything to do with climate change, we can have nothing to do with it. That is why the blanket ban is coming in, because this place thinks that it knows better and is trying to ensure that nobody has the opportunity to do further exploration in the future.

Go back to the 1964 Act. Why did we have those provisions? They were introduced to permit the Department to grant licences for the exploration and production of oil and gas. The Bill removes the legal ability for Northern Ireland even to consider developing our oil and gas resources. All we have to do is look around at what is happening in the world today. We have talked about the cost of living and debated what is happening in Iran. If we could play our part — if we were to discover such natural resources in Northern Ireland — why would this place move to a point at which that could not even be explored? We have that position in the North Sea. The British Government will not drill — they will not utilise that — but they are happy to go to Norway, which drills the oil from the North Sea, to get it and bring it to Northern Ireland. It just does not make sense.

Mr Buckley: I thank the Member for giving way. Whilst the Bill does not preclude offshore drilling — it is important to draw that distinction — does he agree that what is needed for an energy-efficient and energy-secure future is a healthy mix of renewable and fossil fuels? Does he also agree that, despite what some in the House have suggested, renewable energy sources, whether wind or solar, do not necessarily mean lower bills for our consumers?

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: I remind Members that interventions are meant to be brief. While the aim of the Second Stage of the Bill is to move it into Committee and the scope is quite wide, you are straying into areas that are not part of the Bill. I just remind Members of that.

Mr Gaston: Thank you very much, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. I will respond briefly to Mr Buckley. As we have seen, it is a cert that using renewable energy will drive our energy costs up, because everybody in Northern Ireland will have to pay for the infrastructure.

The purpose of the Bill is not to regulate, to control or to restrict but to abolish the opportunity for us to do further exploration. Why? Is it because of economics or evidence? We have already heard that there are gaps in the evidence. Not a bit of it. Paragraph 5 of the explanatory and financial memorandum makes it clear that the policy is driven by the need to align climate change commitments and the transition to net zero. My goodness, that is what it is: the ideology of constantly going after green targets and the foolish lunacy of net zero. Paragraph 6 plainly states that petroleum exploration is considered to be incompatible with those climate objectives — the same climate objectives set by this place. Those climate objectives mean that we cannot even build the A5, but that is what the Bill is founded on. It is based on flawed decisions taken in this place that have been found to stifle much-needed infrastructure safety upgrades.

This Bill is not being advanced because the resources are not there or because they have been fully explored and found to be inadequate; it is being advanced because the Executive have decided, because of the green ideology, that those resources must never be developed. That is despite the fact that paragraph 5 of the memorandum admits that there would be economic benefit to Northern Ireland. Yes, it says that that would not be significant, but that is hardly grounds for bringing in what is before the House today and banning any further exploration of the possibilities. It may come as a surprise to some in the House, but it is not unknown for Departments to get things wrong. All that we have to do is look at the Department that is advancing the Bill today. What if the House had legislated in such a way as to make it impossible to change the renewable heat incentive (RHI) scheme? The Bill seeks not to regulate but to permanently shut the door on oil and gas exploration in Northern Ireland. There is not much thought in the Bill for the energy security of tomorrow.

Paragraph 4 of the memorandum acknowledges the wider energy context that resulted in licences being introduced in the 1960s. Yes, the last licence was handed back in 2020, but who is to say that new discoveries will not be made in the future? The licences were introduced because, as paragraph 4 tells us:

We will not get that —

Mr Delargy: Will the Member give way?

Mr Gaston: — with wind or solar, because they change, whereas oil and gas are reliable; they can be depended on.

I am happy to give way.

Mr Delargy: I thank the Member for giving way again. I note the point that he made about RHI. He will note the fact that the Minister has taken decisive action to fix the mess that the DUP made of RHI. The Minister has taken decisive action on that.

Mr Gaston: The Member has completely missed the point that I was making. What mess would we be in now if a law had come in that meant that RHI could not be changed? Yet today we are being asked to put through to the Committee a Bill that would mean that the door would be entirely shut and that fresh legislation would be required for such measures to come back in. Why on earth would someone looking at the world today think that we would want to remove the possibility of servicing and securing our energy market in Northern Ireland?

At paragraph 7, the Department relies on consultation responses, noting that a large majority of people supported a ban. My goodness, public consultation is not a substitute for strategic responsibility. Leadership is not about simply counting responses and legislating accordingly, because of the views of organised and motivated green activists.

What about the long-term consequences of the Bill? They are clear: the Bill will create a permanent legislative barrier to accessing resources that may lie beneath our feet. That is not to say that those resources are there; it is about leaving the door open so that, if we were to explore and find something, we could utilise it. The Bill firmly shuts that door, and fresh primary legislation would be required to reverse its consequences.

We are witnessing something wider than petroleum policy. We are seeing the continued embedding of the climate-driven approach that we have taken to legislation here, whereby entire sectors are ruled out, regardless of our needs or of potential future opportunities. The Bill does not future-proof; it takes the green ideology that has already resulted in the A5 being torpedoed and other road infrastructure projects being put back. It builds on that lunacy —

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Timothy, get back to the Bill, please.

Mr Gaston: — and shuts the door on an entire sector. That will put at risk, rather than positively impact on, future exploration in Northern Ireland. Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Timothy.

I call the Minister to conclude the debate and make a winding-up speech.

Dr Archibald: I thank Members for their contributions. I am encouraged by the support from around the Chamber. I anticipate that, when the Bill goes to the Economy Committee, it will be fully scrutinised. I thank the members of the Economy Committee for their contributions to the debate.

As I set out in my opening remarks, the Bill is an important step in supporting our decarbonisation journey. It aligns with our legislative obligations, the energy strategy and the conclusions of independent research. Exploration for oil and gas would run contrary to those commitments and be unlikely to bring meaningful benefit to the local economy or to consumers.

I will pick up on some points that Members raised in the debate. A number of Members spoke to the broader need for plans for energy security and affordability. I know that Members recognise the ongoing work in that regard and that we continue to pursue that in order to ensure that we have more affordable and secure energy. I note Mr Brett's commitment, as Chair of the Economy Committee, to scrutinise the Bill fully while reflecting that there were 382 responses to the consultation, the vast majority of which were very supportive of the Bill. I believe that only one response supported outright the continuation of licensing, but the Committee will get into the detail of that.

Sinéad and David referred to the need for longer-term planning for energy security and stepping up the pace of transition. On the plans for the renewable electricity price guarantee scheme, a Bill is being drafted, and it remains the intention to get that introduced before summer recess. Obviously, we have a tight time frame now, so everyone is working at pace to progress things as quickly as possible before the end of the mandate.

I note the comments of Diana and Áine about the impact in County Fermanagh, where licences were most recently applied for, and the concern of communities about all of that. One of the things that the Bill does is provide a level of clarity and certainty for those communities that we have a long-term position on this.

Mr Gaston set out clearly his objections. The reality is that we have climate obligations in legislation that we are obliged to deliver on. It has been clearly set out, through independent research, that economic benefit is unlikely to be delivered through exploration. There has been an ability for nearly 62 years to grant licences, but commercially viable oil or gas has yet to be identified. Given the direction of travel on the transition to net zero, we want to invest in renewables. We want to send a signal to the markets that we want to have renewable investment here, and the Bill very much helps us to progress all of that.

Mr Buckley: I thank the Minister for giving way. She, of all people, will know that the energy context of today is not the same as it was six months ago, never mind a year ago, and that it will perhaps change in the future. She will know my concerns about energy security and, indeed, affordability. Notwithstanding the comments that have been made across the House about fracking — we know that the Bill does much more than address that — why did the Department not consider going forward with option 3, which would have banned fracking but allowed other petroleum exploration, given not just the number of people who supported that in their response to the consultation but the wider energy context that we live in today?

Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for his contribution. I know that he will play a full part in scrutinising the Bill once it gets to Committee Stage, which, going by the comments around the Chamber, seems likely.

My response to his question is that it sits in the same context of sending a strong signal about being a region that wants to invest in renewables and giving clarity and certainty around all of that. I take his point about the energy circumstances that we are in right now, but the fact remains that, if, in some different world, we found oil or gas here and explored for it, it would still be traded on the global markets and would still be subject to the volatility that we see in those commodity markets today. The direction of travel that we clearly want to pursue is greater self-sufficiency. That will take time to deliver, but it is important that we have a clear position on it, and the Bill helps to underpin that. I am sure that all that will be debated at the Committee as well.

I hope that I have addressed most of the points that have been made. I am grateful to everyone who has contributed to the debate on the Bill today. I look forward to it progressing through its next stages.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Minister.

Some Members: Aye.

Mr Gaston: No.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: I note your objection, but the Ayes have it.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: That concludes the Second Stage of the Petroleum Exploration and Licensing (Repeal) Bill. The Bill stands referred to the Committee for the Economy.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Minister, I will just give you a heads-up that I will start this item of business, but I may need to break off for Question Time. Is that OK?

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

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

Minister, if you want, I can set this aside until after Question Time, or do you want to make a few remarks now?

Mr Muir: I will make a few remarks now, and you can cut me off.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Fair enough. I will cut you off, no bother. I do not want to cut you off, but go ahead.

Mr Muir: I am grateful for the opportunity to move the motion today. Before I start, I will set the context for the debate. We are debating it as a result of the issues that are facing not just Northern Ireland but the world as a result of climate change. I was at an event this morning that was organised by Ernst & Young (EY), and I commend its leadership and the wider leadership shown by the business community on climate action in Northern Ireland. The event was about profiling the science and evidence that we are aware of on the realities of climate change. Lots of inconvenient truths are being told, and it is imperative for us to act. This morning’s event set out the four scenarios, and we owe it to the people of Northern Ireland to take action to ensure that many of those scenarios do not play out. We are seeing the realities of climate change in Northern Ireland, and it will get worse if we do not take action in response to those issues. There are also opportunities for green growth and the decarbonisation of our society, and it is vital that we grasp them.

We must ensure that our actions are just and fair and that nobody is left behind, and that is why I am bringing the just transition commission regulations to the House today. I look forward to the debate and to the support associated with it. The Assembly's approval of the Climate Change (Just Transition Commission) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2026 will be an historic moment for the House. The establishment of the just transition commission is a legal requirement under section 37 of the Climate Change Act (Northern Ireland) 2022. It also delivers on a key commitment in the Programme for Government 2024-27, and I am pleased to bring the legislation to the Assembly to implement the Act and establish that important body. As Members are aware, reducing emissions across our economy requires collaborative action across all the Departments. The Act is explicit that the transition must be just, fair and equitable. To support Departments in meeting that legal requirement, the Act places a duty on my Department to establish an independent just transition commission for Northern Ireland and for the regulations to be put in place to establish the body.

I will briefly outline the statutory role of the commission under section 37 of the Act. First, the commission has an essential oversight function. It will assess whether Departments have properly applied the just transition principle when developing emissions-reduction policies for inclusion in climate action plans, sectoral plans and any agriculture or just transition fund. Secondly, the commission will have an important advisory function. It will provide expert guidance to Departments on how proposed policies, strategies and plans align with the just transition principles and objectives set out in the Act.

I thank those who passed the Act and ensured that a just transition was a core principle. At its core, a just transition is about ensuring that as we move from a high-emission to a low-emission economy, workers, communities, vulnerable groups and regions are supported and enabled to benefit from the changes. Section 30 of the Act makes that a statutory consideration with 11 just transition objectives, including the creation of quality jobs, support for affected communities and tackling social and economic inequality.

I turn to the membership. The Act requires representation from seven sectors, including academia, agriculture, civic society, environmental groups, fisheries, trade unions and youth groups. The Act also allows for additional representation, and the regulations have been developed within that framework. There has been a high level of public interest in the just transition and the role that the commission will play. The need for a just transition is raised at every public engagement event that my Department or I have held on climate change, which demonstrates its importance to people, communities and stakeholders across Northern Ireland. While it was not legally required, I considered it essential to engage widely, given the high level of public interest in the topic. My Department undertook a 10-week public consultation supported by targeted engagement events with the groups required to be represented on the commission by the Act.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Minister, thank you. You were tearing through that, but Question Time begins at 2.00 pm, as you will appreciate.

Members can take their ease until we get the Speaker in to chair Question Time. The Minister will continue the debate after Question Time.

Mrs O'Neill (The First Minister): Engagement with the European Union remains an important priority, given our unique situation under the Windsor framework. In the past year, the deputy First Minister and I have represented the Executive at the Withdrawal Agreement Joint Committee at its meetings in April 2025 and, most recently, in February 2026 to ensure that our views are presented to the EU and the British Government on the implementation of the Windsor framework.

We engaged directly with senior EU representatives, including the EU ambassador, Pedro Serrano, alongside ambassadors from several EU member states, during a visit in late 2025. Through the Interministerial Group on UK-EU Relations and bilateral discussions with the Minister for the Cabinet Office, we have engaged with the British Government to ensure that our interests are represented in the ongoing negotiations with the EU. Through our Brussels office, we maintain strong working relationships with EU institutions and member states, ensuring that relevant developments in EU policy and legislation are fed back to our Departments.

During St Patrick's week, our junior Ministers travelled to Brussels to raise our profile with key EU partners, including the chair of the European Parliament delegation to Britain, Sandro Gozi MEP.

Finally, Members will be aware of the Executive Office's role in supporting delivery of the EU PEACE PLUS programme, which continues to make a difference to communities here.

Mr Blair: I thank the First Minister for her reply. We are still awaiting not only an international relations strategy but the promised Europe strategy. Given evidence that the UK is pivoting closer to the European Union and its economic area, should those strategies not be addressed urgently rather than be left on the shelf?

Mrs O'Neill: There is obviously a lot of global volatility. In our international relations strategy, we need to take account of all the changes that are happening. The Member is, however, right to say that it is clear that the British Government plan to introduce and enact new UK-EU arrangements. We need to play our part, and we then need to ensure that any new arrangements are reflected in our future international relations strategy. We have engaged with Nick Thomas-Symonds on the substance of the legislation that is to be introduced, because we want to have early sight of it so that we are able to influence it. All of what I have mentioned will keep resulting in changes to our international relations strategy, so that piece of work needs to be done in order to allow us to produce our strategy, which we are committed to doing.

Ms Ní Chuilín: I thank John Blair for tabling the question. Does the First Minister agree that strengthened cooperation, particularly with Europe, in order to maximise opportunities for people here is the only way in which we will see tangible benefits?

Mrs O'Neill: I do agree, particularly given that we continue to deal with the outworkings of what was a divisive Brexit and with the post-Brexit reality in which we all now operate. There is no escaping the fact that Brexit has had long and lasting negative impacts on our economy, our businesses, our farmers, our students and, of late, our community and voluntary sector. To mitigate some of those impacts, we have to take every opportunity that we have to rebuild relationships. As I said, I welcome the fact that enhanced discussions are taking place at British Government and EU level to improve relationships, to provide stability and to iron out barriers, where they occur, for businesses and consumers alike.

Alongside doing that piece of work, we have dual market access, which is a unique selling point for us. Caoimhe Archibald continues to drive forward our strategy. She has travelled across Europe to try to drum up interest in this place as being a great place in which to invest, which, in turn, will grow our economy. We therefore have to maximise that opportunity, because it is a strength, and, at the same time, we have to minimise all the negativity that there is about the post-Brexit trading reality.

Mr Kingston: It is clear that the protocol and the Windsor framework continue to provide considerable challenges to businesses across Northern Ireland. Does the First Minister agree that tinkering around the edges is not enough and that we need the Government to act decisively to protect trade between Great Britain and Northern Ireland?

Mrs O'Neill: I want to maximise all our opportunities, but the reality is that, sponsored by the Member's party, we now have a post-Brexit trading reality. The rest of the parties of the Assembly and Executive have worked to try to find mitigations for the worst impacts of the outworkings of Brexit and to reach into dual market access. There is no doubt that there are barriers to trade, and I do not want to see barriers to trade across this island or between our islands. I want there to be maximum opportunities for all our businesses to tap into some of that economic growth, but the reality is that there will be ongoing changes in this post-Brexit world.

However, we will continue to raise those issues, as we have done the whole way through. I outlined in the initial answer some of the engagement that we have had with all the relevant Ministers, which we did because we want them to hear the challenges that our businesses are facing and we want to find solutions. The legislation on the new strategic partnership at British Government and EU level will hopefully deal with some of those things. Let us keep trying to find answers to the problems that arise in the post-Brexit world.

Dr Aiken: First Minister, last week, the Windsor Framework Democratic Scrutiny Committee was in Brussels and had briefings from the excellent Office of the Northern Ireland Executive, which is not the most catchily named office. It came out that the additional staff there are only there on a year-by-year basis. If we are serious about, as you say, making the opportunities work, can we move those staff on to a permanent employment structure rather than a year-by-year arrangement, which does not speak to the permanence of relationships or improving long-term relationships?

Mrs O'Neill: The Member has visited the office in Brussels and knows that it is there to support the Executive in our relationships with the EU. I do not engage with individual HR matters. However, it is important that, if we are to build good relationships, which have been very much damaged during the whole Brexit debacle, it is a good thing to have permanent staff to build those relationships and get things done. I am sure that the Member follows this, given his role on the Committee, but there is also a quarterly report to the Assembly on the work that is happening in our office in Brussels so that we are transparent about what is happening. Hopefully, that is helpful to Members. The ongoing staffing issue is an issue for the Civil Service more widely.

Ms McLaughlin: First Minister, the Irish presidency of the EU is coming up. That is very significant and is an opportunity to help us build relationships. Have you made any contacts in order to strengthen those relationships during that period?

Mrs O'Neill: Yes, I have raised that directly with the Irish Government. It is important that, when Ireland has the presidency for six months, we are part of that. Across all sectors, there will be a huge amount of engagement during that six-month period, and we want to have a part in that. I have made that representation directly to the Taoiseach, the Tánaiste and to Helen McEntee in her role as Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade. I look forward to seeing how that unfolds when Ireland takes the presidency in June.

Mrs O'Neill: Mr Speaker, with your permission, I will answer questions 2 and 3 together.

We recognise and share the significant concerns that many people have about rising energy costs, which are compounding the existing cost-of-living pressures. We met the Prime Minister on 12 March and raised those concerns. We have since written twice to Keir Starmer to highlight the disproportionate effect that higher energy costs have on local constituents and businesses, and we have called on him directly, as all parties of the Executive, to bring forward a package of measures to support those under pressure. We have also requested an urgent meeting to discuss the escalating budgetary challenges that we face.

As you know, fuel prices are largely set by international markets and taxation, so there are clear limitations on what the Executive can directly control. Whilst we are pleased that the Executive have agreed to provide £100 fuel vouchers to those who are most in need, we recognise that a much more comprehensive approach is required, and that is what our engagement with the Prime Minister is about. We are determined to do all that we can locally to ensure that we are fully informed about all potential impacts and mitigations. We have also established a cross-departmental strategic policy group to report to the Executive, which will help to facilitate a coordinated and effective policy response across government.

Mr McGuigan: First Minister, I thank you for that answer and the work that you and your Executive colleagues are doing to impress on the British Government the need for help for citizens here with the rising fuel and energy costs. Further to that, last week, we saw the British Government seeking to deflect from the Executive's effort to secure a fair and adequate Budget for the North, when they challenged your assertion that funding here would be significantly higher if we were treated on the same basis as Scotland and Wales. Will you set out broadly and put on record how you came to those figures?

Mrs O'Neill: Thank you for that question and for creating that opportunity, because it is really important. Public services here have been systematically underfunded for generations, and the British Government's austerity politics and policies have really constrained our ability to invest across all our public services. They have compounded the problems that we see in Health, Education and Infrastructure. The figures that I referenced are certainly not arbitrary; they derive from established work by Professor Gerry Holtham as part of his review and from subsequent analysis by the Fiscal Council. That work assessed relative need across the devolved Administrations. Broadly speaking, when you directly compare us with Scotland and Wales, you see that it is just over 100% in Scotland and 115% in Wales, yet they both have been funded above their identified level of need. We are asking for the same thing, because it would make a hugely significant difference in what we could invest in our public services. The Treasury should go back to the drawing board and look at its own published figures, because we draw on those figures as well.

The reality is that, because of underfunding and our population's identified needs, our current allocation is unfair based on direct comparisons with Scotland and Wales. The Executive are one in saying that we want fairness for people here and a proper funding model that allows us to support our public services and deliver for families who are getting it really tight right now. We will continue that conversation, but last week's efforts by the Treasury were more about distraction and deflection from how it has failed people here.

Mr Wilson: Farmers, hauliers and care workers are struggling to cope with the soaring costs of petrol and diesel, so the First Minister will be well aware that only the Government at Westminster have the financial power to cut fuel duty and scrap harmful net zero taxes, yet, unfortunately, the MP for Newry and Armagh — her Sinn Féin colleague — refuses to turn up to the House of Commons to debate those issues. First Minister, how can you stand over that blatant and repeated abdication of duty, and when will you end the "stay away, but take the pay" abstentionist policy?

Mrs O'Neill: Good party lines. The DUP attack lines in advance of the election are well noted. Let us focus on what the public at home want to hear from the Chamber. They want to hear that you and I are working together on their behalf. They want to hear that every Executive party has their back. They want to know that we will challenge for proper funding for our public services and work together to try to deliver for them on a day-to-day basis. That is what I am here for. That is what I continue to do.

Mr Wilson: You have said that you want to continue the conversation.

Mrs O'Neill: You asked me a question. I am on my feet right now.

Mr Wilson: Those conversations are continued at Westminster.

Mr Speaker: Order.

Mrs O'Neill: The reality is that the Executive have sent a letter to the British Prime Minister and asked for an urgent meeting to discuss the issues in a twofold way. Our current Budget allocation is insufficient, as your party agrees. Also, what does a proper cost-of-living package look like for people? How are we going to support our farmers? The deputy First Minister and I met representatives from the Ulster Farmers' Union last week and talked about the challenges that farmers face when it comes to fuel costs. Again, that lever sits with Westminster. I want to know what Keir Starmer is going to do to support our local farmers.

We want a proper cost-of-living package, because people are going to get it really hard, and we do not know where it will all end. From day 1, when your party was cheerleading for that illegal war, we said that it would have real-life implications for households.

That is what is happening now. People see it in their weekly bills; they see it in their food shops; and they see it when they put diesel in their cars. I say this to you: stop the nonsense. Work for people, and work with the rest of the Executive parties to get a proper package for people.

Ms Nicholl: Recently, at the Economy Committee, we had presentations from Community Energy Northern Ireland, and it struck me that, at this time of cost-of-living crisis, with the need for greater emphasis on energy security, what is happening in communities is not just about energy security; it is about anti-poverty and what is better for the environment. First Minister, could your Department take a more active role in supporting community energy in Northern Ireland?

Mrs O'Neill: The Member will know from her work on the Committee that we have an energy policy. There is so much volatility in the world. If you even chart the recent years since Brexit to where we are today and everything that has happened, you see that all those international events have an implication on people's lives. The best thing that we can do is try to cushion people from some of those big shocks. One of the tools that are open to us is around having a good energy policy, looking at wind independence and at how we can buffer people from some of the worst excesses of it. That is already there in the energy brief in the Department for the Economy. I will work with Caoimhe to do everything that we can to cushion people against all the economic shocks. That is an area of work that we should all work on together.

Mr Durkan: We in the Opposition agree that we need more from the UK Government, but can the First Minister update us on or give us any insight into the conversations going on across the Executive about what interventions or actions can be taken now to alleviate the stress of the situation on people, businesses and public services?

Mrs O'Neill: As I said in my initial answer, we are coming at it in a holistic way, with a dual-track approach, to see what we as an Executive can do in the here and now to support families. Just the week before last, we announced the £100 oil voucher scheme. We will also have the £30 electricity scheme. Those are the things that the Executive can do.

Alongside that, we have stood up structures. We have civil contingency arrangements in place to plan for the winter ahead because we do not know what it will look like. We do not know where the war will end. We do not know how long it will go on, and we do not know what it will mean for fuel charges, food charges and everything else that might happen. We have asked the head of the Civil Service to establish a strategic policy group with all the permanent secretaries. That will look at the whole gamut and at every potential challenge that might come down the tracks. It is about getting ready to be ahead of how we can respond to some of that. It is important at that level because we need to ensure that, as an Executive, we continue to chart our way through it and plan for some or all the eventualities that will potentially come our way. The lessons to be learned from COVID really ring true when you are planning for what could be such a devastating time further into the winter for people.

Mrs O'Neill: With your permission, I will answer questions 4 and 10 together.

The Executive are focused on delivery, improving lives, supporting economic growth and ensuring that our infrastructure meets the needs of our people. A significant amount of work has already gone into shaping the draft investment strategy and progressing a range of enabling actions needed to tackle some of the barriers to delivery. That will ensure that we are well placed to realise the ambition that will be set out in the strategy.

We are confident that the substantial work that has already been completed, together with the progress on the enabling actions, sets a very clear direction. There are still some key considerations to be worked through. The remaining work is focused on ensuring that the strategy is robust, evidence-based and capable of delivering real and lasting outcomes for people here.

Once the strategy is finalised, the timeline for approval and publication will be a matter for the Executive.

Mr O'Toole: First Minister, you said that there has been "a significant amount of work" and that there has been "progress on the enabling actions": that is simply not good enough. In early 2024, just after the Executive were re-established, in response to a question for written answer from Paula Bradshaw, you and your colleague the deputy First Minister said that the final draft of the investment strategy had been presented. In answer to my colleague Colin McGrath this time last year, you and the deputy First Minister said:

It is more than two years on from the restoration of the Executive. Your party and the DUP are good at blaming each other and quick to shift blame to London, but you, collectively, have not published an investment strategy: that is shambolic. Where is it?

Mrs O'Neill: I could say that you are quick to let London off the hook. The reality is that we are working our way through it. I have, I believe, said to you before in the House that that is not happening as quickly as I would like. We are working towards the final version of the strategy. We have to understand what our Budget allocation looks like before we can finalise the strategy. We are talking about a significant plan — a strategic vision for the next 25 years, along with a 10-year infrastructure investment plan. We are talking about investing £32 billion, so it is really important that we get that strategy right.

I am sure that the Member will understand that there are other things at play, such as the implications of the A5 judgement, which will be important for infrastructure projects. Further refinement work has taken place at official level. We are not quite there yet, but, if we can get to the other side of a finalised Budget position, we will be able to move to publish a draft investment strategy.

Mr McGlone: Gabhaim buíochas leis an Chéad-Aire fosta.

What specific targets, timelines and accountability measures are contained in the draft investment strategy to ensure that it does what, you say, it is anticipated to do, which is to deliver measurable private-sector investment, good jobs and regional balance across all parts of the North?

Mrs O'Neill: As someone who also represents a rural constituency, I will absolutely ensure that regional balance is built into the infrastructure plans. That is a must, and, since the Executive returned two years ago, we have demonstrated that regional balance is a core principle of what we are trying to achieve across all policy areas. The investment strategy will recognise the need for regional balance and the need to consider the specific requirements of rural communities, which have particular challenges that do not occur in urban settings. The strategy identifies the need to enhance our built and rural environments and highlights the role that improving transport links and continued investment in digital connectivity can play in helping rural communities to thrive. We have also done a rural needs assessment. The core of the strategy has a lot built into it. When we launch it, you will be able to see all of that for yourself.

Mr Gildernew: My question is linked to that answer. Historical underinvestment over very many years has resulted in a reduction in opportunities and prosperity in areas west of the Bann. Does the First Minister agree that, in order to succeed, the strategy must tackle that and reverse that underinvestment?

Mrs O'Neill: Yes. That very much chimes with what I have just said. We have to ensure that prosperity is felt across the board. We cannot have communities being left behind. The reality is that, after the first two years, people can see that things are changing. That is really visible in Derry and the north-west, with the Magee expansion and the money that has been invested in the city deals. Those numbers are increasing. One of the projects that go to the heart of people feeling that they are getting their fair share is the A5, which has been caught up in the courts. Similarly, the Enniskillen bypass and many other big infrastructure projects are all now in growth deals, and there is cross-party commitment to those. It is now about making those happen, which means getting a finalised Budget and putting an investment strategy in place.

Mr Brooks: The First Minister has said that the public want to see parties working together. I believe that, in a speech at the weekend, she also said that she would leave no stone unturned in the delivery of the A5. I presume that that applies to other infrastructure projects. Does she agree that, in order to create that welcoming environment for investment, we should make sure that climate change legislation does not stand in the way and delay large infrastructure projects in Northern Ireland?

Mrs O'Neill: I see that you were tuning into our ard-fheis

at the weekend; well done, you.

Unfortunately, you and your party have tried to pit one thing against the other. I believe that we can deliver really well for our climate and protect our future generations' world whilst delivering our infrastructure projects. We will leave no stone unturned when it comes to the A5. You are trying to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Do not forget that your party voted for the climate change legislation as well. The thing here is this: how can we do well by our environment and deliver infrastructure projects? That is the challenge for all of us. We are not unique in that struggle: Scotland, Wales and elsewhere have similar challenges, as do the Dublin Government.

Let us find ways to protect our environment and build our infrastructure projects. I am certainly in that solution-focused mode; you should get into that space too.

Ms Bradshaw: First Minister, I will stay in the space of striking the balance between climate change and delivering the investment that all our communities deserve. It is over a year since the regulations allowing for the appointment of a Climate Commissioner came into force. Will you provide an update on the appointment of the commissioner?

Mrs O'Neill: I do not have the intended date for that. However, we passed the Bill, which means that we are obliged to bring forward the commissioner's appointment. I will write to the Member to provide a bit more detail on the timing of that.

Mr Speaker: Alan Chambers is not in his place.

Mrs O'Neill: We have been clear that we want to realise the immense economic, historical and reconciliation potential of the site and are committed to working with the Maze/Long Kesh board to maximise those opportunities for the benefit of all. We recognise that that will require us to move with consensus and sensitivity, and we are committed to working with the Maze/Long Kesh Development Corporation to achieve that. We are considering advice from officials on short- to medium-term priorities and options for the board. Discussions are ongoing at official level, and, over the coming weeks, we expect to receive further input to help frame our consideration of the way forward. We can assure the Member that the future of the site very much remains a live issue that we are committed to resolving.

Mrs Guy: Thank you, First Minister, for the response. We all know that political differences between the DUP and Sinn Féin are the barrier to progress on the site. What are you doing to make progress, and when will you meet the board of the Maze/Long Kesh Development Corporation? You last met in July 2024.

Mrs O'Neill: We will meet the board in the very near future. I do not have the date in front of me. You are right that there needs to be political agreement for the site to move forward. I want that. We can strike the right balance to have the site's historical, economic and social inclusion aspects delivered on, but that requires political will across all parties. Unfortunately, that is not there, but that is not to say that I accept that or give up on it. I will continue to try to move it forward.

Imagine if we could bring in the likes of National Museums to curate the site. There are ways of doing it that are respectful and dignified and that preserve the historical nature of the site but also allow us to open up its economic opportunities. I hope that we can get to that juncture. It has been a long time in the making, but I commend the people on the board for keeping things in a state of readiness, so that we are able to go for protecting the listed and retained buildings. Clearly, we need a political agreement in order to step forward and develop the site.

Ms Murphy: First Minister, I welcome your comment that the future of the site remains a live issue. Do you agree with me that fully regenerating the site would be transformative socially and economically and that it is time to move forward on that without delay?

Mrs O'Neill: Yes. I restate my commitment to delivering on the site. The people of Lagan Valley and across the North would really benefit from a political agreement that allows the site to be opened up, retains the listed and historic buildings, reaches for the economic potential and provides the opportunity to create thousands of jobs. We have to keep raising it in this forum; we have to keep talking about it; and we have to find a way forward that maximises the social and economic benefits of a fully regenerated Long Kesh site, which is what people really want to see. It is certainly what I want to see.

Mrs Cameron: The 108th anniversary of the formation of the Royal Air Force was marked on 1 April this year. The Ulster Aviation Society celebrated it with the handover of a Harrier jet from the Chief of the Air Staff. I am sure that the First Minister will demonstrate our working together by joining me in commending the work of the Ulster Aviation Society as an example of how listed buildings can be utilised and preserved.

Mrs O'Neill: As a charitable organisation, the Ulster Aviation Society plays a really important role in protecting and promoting our aviation heritage through saving, restoring and exhibiting heritage aircraft for public benefit.

It is a good example of something that is working well on the site. Imagine what we could do if we were to work together in the same vein to open up the site in its entirety to maximise its benefits and its historical nature. There is a lot there for everybody, so we just need to get political agreement.

Mr Speaker: We will now move on to topical questions.

Mrs O'Neill: There is no agreement in the Executive Office on the issue of reform, so, when I spoke at the weekend, I did so in my capacity as vice president of Sinn Féin about our proposals for reform. We will speak about those proposals over the next couple of weeks. It is not a matter for the Executive Office.

Mr O'Toole: It may not be a matter for the Executive Office, but it is a matter for this place, so, although I appreciate your indicating a rhetorical commitment to moving forward that agenda, the public out there will be somewhat sceptical. We are 20 years on from the St Andrews Agreement, in which the DUP and Sinn Féin, along with the British Government, undermined core principles of how this place works. We are two years on from the restoration of the institutions, yet there has been no progress made on the A5 or on Casement Park. The Executive cannot even set a Budget. As I said, I welcome the fact that there is now a rhetorical commitment to reform, but will you tell us what reform you want to see happen to make this place work? I say that because it is not working.

Mrs O'Neill: I follow with interest some of the work that is happening on the Assembly and Executive Review Committee. It is very clear that the people who have come before the Committee are not interested in window dressing, and some of your suggestions amount to window dressing. It has to be about how politics can work better. It has to be about how this institution can work better. I have told you repeatedly that I want to get to a place where I can announce my party's reform proposals. I will say more about them over the next number of weeks. As I said, however, that is not a matter for the Executive Office. I am sure that you will await that announcement with anticipation and that, after we make it, we will chat about our reform proposals.

Mrs O'Neill: I think that all of us condemn the attack on the PSNI station in Dunmurry at the weekend. Earlier today, the deputy First Minister, the Chief Constable, the chair of the Policing Board and I stood shoulder to shoulder to say that the people who engage in such activity have no support out there in society and no vision for the future. Anybody who has any information about what happened should give it to the PSNI.

Mr Harvey: There was always an alternative to violence. Will the First Minister take the opportunity to condemn all other bombings in Dunmurry during the IRA's terrorist campaign, including those perpetrated by Bobby Sands?

Mrs O'Neill: It is unfortunate that your party has decided to try to make some noise out of something that was such a harrowing event for the people of Dunmurry on Saturday night. Those people went through a horrific ordeal, as did the person whose car was hijacked and who was made to drive to the station. My thoughts are very much with them.

The alternative to conflict is the Good Friday Agreement. I believe in the Good Friday Agreement in all its parts, including the fulfilment of constitutional change through the question being put to the people. I am very much focused on that, as well as on the fact that, in two years' time, we will celebrate the 30th anniversary of the Good Friday Agreement. Over those 30 years, our society's transformation has been absolutely immense. We have moved away from conflict towards peace. There is nobody out there in society who is going to drive us backwards. We are interested only in going forwards.

Mrs O'Neill: I absolutely do. I am sure that everybody in the House has spoken to a young constituent who, after getting their licence and being really excited about getting out on the road, has purchased a car, only to find that the cost of insurance may be triple the cost of the car. I have spoken before about speaking to young people who were charged premiums of £4,500. I have heard that someone was charged up to £8,000. How is that fair for any young person, particularly a rural person? How will a young person get on the road if they cannot afford to pay that? I do not know too many young people who have just turned the age at which they can get their driving licence who can afford that kind of money for car insurance. We need to call out those insurance companies over those extortionate premiums and do everything that we can to get them brought down.

Ms Ennis: I totally concur with the First Minister. It is outrageous and unfair that our young people have to face those high insurance premiums. I know that the First Minister and the Infrastructure Minister are doing great work and have had conversations around how we tackle that. Will the First Minister outline what work is being done to tackle those huge insurance premiums?

Mrs O'Neill: I am keen that we try to do something about that and to steer insurance companies in the right direction. Many Members have spoken about it in the House. The Infrastructure Minister, Liz Kimmins, and I have been working together to try to take on some of those high insurance premiums. We have spoken directly to the industry body to try to challenge that. For example, Liz, in her Department, is introducing road safety schemes and the graduated driver licensing scheme. That, in itself, will be transformative for new and young drivers. Our young drivers should be rewarded with reduced insurance premiums for actually taking that approach. It is time to end the rip-off insurance premiums for young people and allow young people to get on the road safely and in a way that is affordable to them.

Mrs O'Neill: We have had debates in the past around the commitment to older people. I can say to the Member that we absolutely are taking action. We have an ageing population, and we have to plan for that across our health service and every other public service.

Last week, in particular, at our Executive meeting, when we were thinking of the cost of living and the cost of surviving right now, we were very mindful of the fact that many pensioners are feeling the impact of that. We do take them into consideration for every decision, but you are right about future planning for our health system, for making sure that we have a sufficient number of carers in the communities. You focus a lot on loneliness and how we can support people. I like to think that every decision that we make takes into account the needs of older people in all our policies.

Ms Sugden: First Minister, will you give a commitment that, before the end of the mandate, we will look into strategic planning for our ageing population? You referred to older people and how we have to be effective for them. Absolutely: they are as much part of society as any other age group. However, all public services will be impacted on — we see it already in the health service — if we do not start planning for the impact of an ageing population. It is irresponsible of the Government not to have looked at it before now. It was irresponsible 10 years ago. We need to do it, not today, not tomorrow but yesterday. Can I get that commitment from you?

Mrs O'Neill: Genuinely, a lot of that work is happening. It may be piecemeal: I am not too sure how consistent it is across the board, but I am happy to ask those questions to get a better understanding. For example, when it came to reviewing health and social care and how we support people who need home care packages, that was part of the strategic consideration. I am happy to ask all Ministers for their plans thus far.

Mrs O'Neill: Again, the Member will not be surprised to know that there is not a shared view of independence in the Executive Office. However, I did see the comments from John Swinney, the First Minister. Scotland will go to the polls in the next number of weeks. It looks as though the SNP will be returned to the First Minister post, and potentially, for the first time, there will be a nationalist First Minister in Wales also. That tells a story in itself. It tells you where people are at. It tells you that people are fed up with the shackles of Westminster. It tells you that people want to take control of their own destiny and have all the levers at home that are available to any of us who are elected to take control of their own self-determination and destiny. That is where the common ground sits, and I will absolutely be up for working with First Ministers who have the same view as we all reach for what we all want at the end of the day, which is a better life for the people whom we represent.

Ms Ní Chuilín: Unlike the Budgets in Scotland and in Wales, the North is funded well below need. Therefore, will the First Minister commit to continually putting the case for a fairer and better Budget to fund public services in the North?

Mrs O'Neill: Yes. The one thing for sure that the public want from us is that we work collectively and get a properly funded Budget that allows us to invest in our public services, whether in health or education or to help people with childcare or to help them get through the cost-of-living crisis. The reality is that the Budget, as it stands, is completely inadequate. That will be the case year after year if they do not identify the needs that we have and meet us in being able to deliver for the people here.

The collective job of our Executive right now — we are unified in this — is making the case for a proper and fairer funding model. It is something that is appropriate and right. I really dislike it when people talk about begging bowl politics. This is not a begging bowl; this is about our people and how we invest in the health service and in education, including in special educational needs, and how we help people through the cost-of-living crisis. Those are the things that are really important to people.

Mrs O'Neill: Yes, I do, and that is why I made the point about window dressing. Window dressing does not cut it. We need to see reform that actually helps politics to deliver better and that helps us to make a difference to people's lives. Despite the challenges of this place and the fact that it is a difficult arrangement, my approach has always been one of partnership. We need to try to find ways to work better, smarter and more effectively without blockages and vetoes. The reform conversation needs to be about how we do things better, deliver better politics for here and create a better partnership arrangement.

Mr McGuigan: I thank the First Minister for her answer. Following on from that answer, First Minister, do you believe that it is time for the Justice Ministry portfolio to be selected in the normal way, just as all other Ministries are?

Mrs O'Neill: I absolutely concur with that. It would be a healthy and measured step forward if that were to be resolved and be one aspect of the reform proposals that deliver something tangible. The days of "no nationalist need apply" are long gone and are not to return. Twenty-eight years on from the signing of the Good Friday Agreement, with everything that we have achieved and the transformation that we have achieved, including the fact that I am First Minister in a place that was designed to ensure that that would never be the case, we need to ensure that every role is open to everyone in society. It is a sign that the times have changed that we cannot have any position, including Minister of Justice, locked out for nationalism. That cannot be the case, and I know that that is the view of the wider public whom we represent. I want to look at reform in the round in a meaningful way and at things that will make a difference. We will talk more about that, but I hope that we can come at the conversation with openness, fairness, honesty and a real desire to try to improve how we do business here.

Mrs O'Neill: You see, there is a sensitivity to all of this, and I am very mindful of not playing your game. [Interruption.]

I am very mindful of not playing your game. [Interruption.]

There was much suffering — [Interruption.]

Mr Speaker?

There was much suffering and trauma, and much suffering and trauma still persists as a direct result of conflict. I regret every single loss of life. The whole of my adult life has been about bedding in peace. The whole of my adult life has been about cementing the Good Friday Agreement. I look towards a brighter and better future. I try to find ways to heal the wounds of the past, not score points across the Chamber, so let us not be selective. I regret every single loss of life. You cannot say the same.

Mr Givan (The Minister of Education): The REACH programme, delivered by the Education Authority (EA) Youth Service, is a valued service. It uses youth work methodologies to support young people's emotional health and well-being, and it works directly with children and young people aged from six to 19. The programme is delivered on a regional basis and is available to all schools in Northern Ireland. It is funded by my Department as part of the emotional health and well-being in education framework.

My Department commissioned an independent strategic review of the framework, and that is nearing completion. Interim findings suggest that the framework remains fit for purpose and aligned with wider strategies. Once the review is complete, I will consider its recommendations and findings. It is likely that the findings will inform a new action plan to replace the original implementation plan. The future of all projects will be considered in that context, along with the wider departmental budgetary process.

Mr McAleer: I thank the Minister for his response. Minister, I have spoken to a lot of young people and families who highlighted the importance of the REACH programme in helping young people with examination stress, school refusal, anxiety and many other issues. In recent correspondence, the EA said that it had ceased the programme because of a lack of funding from the Department of Education and would re-evaluate that in the future. Might you also re-evaluate the decision to fund the REACH programme?

Mr Givan: I have not removed funding for that programme. An interim allocation was provided to the EA for the programme to continue. Obviously, the EA has taken a particular approach, but I have instructed my officials to work with it in order for the programme to continue, at least until the end of June. Hopefully, that will allow the Executive to reach a position on the final budgetary settlement, and decisions can be taken thereafter. As I said in answer to the substantive question, decisions can be based on the findings of the framework review and the most effective delivery model, considering value for money, sustainability and affordability.

Mr Robinson: Will the Minister highlight how much money is provided to the EA for REACH?

Mr Givan: The funding in 2021-22 was £899,000. That figure has remained relatively consistent, and an interim allocation of £240,000 was provided to the EA. Over the past five years, there has been a total investment of nearly £5 million, in recognition of the importance of the issues being dealt with in that area.

Mr McGlone: Will the Minister elaborate on how he intends to deliver the objectives of the REACH programme when the greatest concentration of youth services at risk of funding gaps are in Derry city, west Belfast and north Belfast, which also have the highest levels of need?

Mr Givan: I outlined that my Department commissioned a review of the framework. Decisions on how best we can provide support will be taken based on that review. Obviously, the EA will take its own operational decisions, based on the budget envelope that it receives, on how it can best meet the needs of those young people. It is important for us to recognise that it is vital to support the emotional well-being and health of young people. How best we do that needs to be kept under review. That is why we had the review, which will help to inform future decisions in that area.

Mr Givan: The Education Authority is responsible for the delivery of school transport for eligible pupils, and Translink is responsible for the timetabling of its bus services. I understand that the EA is aware of the Hazelwood Integrated College's proposed change to its school finishing time and that it met with the school, Translink and party representatives on Friday afternoon. A solution was agreed, and transport services will be adjusted to accommodate the school's new finishing time from September.

Miss McAllister: I thank the Minister for his answer. I am glad that the Education Authority got involved last week. It is deeply frustrating that it was not until elected representatives got involved that we saw movement. I commend the vice principal, Ms Jackson, on really pushing this issue. She has been working hard to facilitate all the students. Will the Minister ensure that, in the future, Translink tries to accommodate, alongside the Education Authority, any changes that are made, especially if principals are going out of their way to facilitate what is best for Translink?

Mr Givan: I thank the Member for her work in this area and for making representation on behalf of the school. It should not take MLAs to get involved for these decisions to reach the right outcome. On occasion, however, that is necessary. It speaks to the wider point that, ultimately, schools have the autonomy to determine their start and finish times. There is a process for them to do that in the minimum requirements that are set out in the relevant departmental circular, but we need to find ways to coordinate with Translink on the delivery of public services and with the EA on its school transport bus services. That, at times, can present challenges. Certainly, in my constituency, schools try to take into account how best Translink's public services can be provided for when they are timetabling. There is flexibility, but there also needs to be pragmatic timetabling by schools. I am pleased that, in this particular example, there has been a successful outcome.

Mr Martin: The Minister referenced a departmental circular in his answer. Is there guidance already in place for schools that are considering changing their start and finish times?

Mr Givan: It is laid out in a relevant circular, but that speaks to the minimum requirements when it comes to when schools should be open. Obviously, school governors can take those decisions, but cooperation with Translink and the EA on service provision is important.

That is why we have been communicating with schools, as they have been setting their new timetable for the next academic year, that there are services that the EA will provide — the likes of catering services — and that there will be some days when schools are open but catering services are not available. I appeal to schools to work with the EA to ensure that, when they are open, all services can be provided. If you have one or two schools deciding to take a different approach to how they timetable their schools, it can have an impact on their own children and young people. That is something to bear in mind when it comes to the opening hours on which schools decide.

Mr Givan: The Curriculum Taskforce Advisory Committee has played a central role in advancing the ambitious programme of curriculum reform. The committee has worked at pace and with great diligence, providing strong strategic oversight since its appointment in the autumn. Members of the committee have worked alongside the 13 subject working groups to guide the drafting of a series of curriculum frameworks. They have ensured that the new curriculum aligns with the principles that were established by the strategic review carried out by Lucy Crehan and are firmly grounded in evidence and professional expertise. The committee is completing its review of the final subject frameworks, which marks a significant milestone in the programme of reform. I expect to receive the draft overarching curriculum framework shortly and hope to launch a full public consultation before the summer.

I place on record my sincere thanks to all those involved — the task force members, subject experts and local practitioners — for their professionalism, commitment and willingness to work at pace in the best interests of children and young people across Northern Ireland.

Mr Sheehan: Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire as ucht a fhreagra.

Is the Minister aware that many principals, teachers and others in our education system are at the end of their tether on account of the level and speed of change that is being imposed on our system? Does he also accept that there is widespread suspicion that curriculum reform is based on ideological foundations rather than being for pedagogical reasons?

Mr Givan: It is all based on evidence-informed practice. I thank the over 70 professionals from across Northern Ireland, including principals and school leaders from every sector — Catholic maintained, controlled, integrated and Irish-medium — who have provided their expertise in the 13 subject working groups. I am delighted that that work is coming to a conclusion, which will allow a public consultation to take place.

That work has been carried out at a very high level. Its implementation — how it will roll out in our schools once the consultation is complete and we have a finalised curriculum — needs to be carefully timed . It has very much been led and owned by people who are involved in education locally. International experts have been able to assist. It is important to look at best practice internationally, including in the Republic of Ireland, which has helped to shape some of the proposals that we are taking forward.

I was very much assured — and rebuked — at a school that I visited recently. The principal commended the work on curriculum reform and then chastised me for not moving fast enough. She said, "Our children cannot afford to wait. We cannot allow a generation to continue with the current system in Northern Ireland", and she pushed me to do more and to do it more quickly.

It is appropriate for people to challenge me, but they also need to ask themselves what the basis is for their questions. It is not about ideology. I did not have an ideological agenda when I came into this role, and I did not pursue a particular approach. Instead, I was open to information and evidence, which is what informs that work. It has been led by people from various perspectives on the political spectrum. It is not beholden to any particular ideology; it is evidence-informed.

Mr Mathison: A recommendation of the curriculum review was that a 0-6 early years framework be developed. Will the Minister provide an update on when that work will be taken forward?

Mr Givan: The draft early learning and childcare strategy refers to there being a curriculum framework for the early years from nought-to-six. While recognising the importance of the curriculum from primary 1 through to year 14, which is completed at the age of 18, we see how we can also help with the curriculum for children aged nought-to-six. That is why I included the matter in the draft strategy. It has been consulted on, and we had nearly 500 responses. We are analysing those. I intend to bring forward a final early learning and childcare strategy to the Executive for their agreement and endorsement. Included in that will be work to take forward a curriculum for those aged nought-to-six.

Mr Brooks: Mr Sheehan has been flogging the dead horse that this is all about ideology for quite some time. I thought that he would have drawn back, knowing that, at the Committee, when accused of going along with Michael Gove's agenda, Lucy Crehan and her colleague told him not only that they were both left-leaning but that one of them was a signed-up member of the Labour Party.

Minister, you will have heard the same concerns from teachers as I have about some of the new things that are coming forward. What reassurance can you give teachers that the revised curriculum will support them in their practice rather than increase their workload?

Mr Givan: I reassure teachers that the revised curriculum is intended to support their practice, not to add to their workload. The reason why so much of teachers' workload is overbearing and overburdening is the failed framework in which they are operating. The only way of working our way out of the current challenges is through reform and transformation. That is what I am providing and that is what the practitioners in the education sector are delivering with the revised curriculum.

One of the weaknesses of the current curriculum is that it is too vague. It disproportionately leaves teachers to make decisions about content, sequencing and coverage. We will provide clearer expectations about what should be taught and when, and the revised framework will reduce uncertainty and duplication. That will make planning more manageable.

It is not about telling teachers how to teach, and professional judgement will remain central, but teachers will have a clearer foundation on which to build and greater clarity at a system-level that will help to reduce workload by ensuring that teachers do not reinvent the curriculum or fill gaps that have been left by a lack of specification.

As I said, implementation will be phased and supported, including through guidance and professional learning, so that the change is manageable and sustainable for schools. What I am taking forward in TransformED is a way through the current workload challenges that teachers face.

Those who advocate retaining the status quo advocate the retention of a failed system that overburdens our teachers and contributes to their workload and to burnout.

Mr Givan: The 14-week public consultation period on the draft early learning and childcare strategy ended on 24 March of this year, with 468 responses received. My officials are undertaking a comprehensive analysis of the responses received to the consultation survey and additional written responses, along with the findings from public consultation events. The findings from the consultation will be published in due course. During the consultation period, it became clear that some school-age childcare providers and representatives were concerned that their part of the sector was not as visible in the actions in the strategy as they would have liked and nor was their important role clearly represented in the strategy.

I fully recognise the valuable contribution of school-age childcare provision and have already extended the Northern Ireland childcare subsidy scheme to school-age children in September of last year, acknowledging the important role that school-age providers play in supporting working parents. As my officials complete the analysis of the responses to inform a final version of the strategy, they will continue to work closely with school-age childcare stakeholders to refine the terminology, enhance the visibility of school-age provision and ensure that the final strategy document appropriately recognises the role that school-age childcare plays in supporting parental employment and positive outcomes for children.

Ms Mulholland: I thank the Minister for his answer. As he said, there is a real fear among registered school-age childcare providers that the draft strategy simply places greater emphasis on non-health and social care trust-registered provision in school estates. Settings such as Loughgiel Community Early Years in my constituency have been in touch with the Department to express their concern about that.

Minister, how will you ensure that quality, staffing ratios, workforce qualifications and meaningful play opportunities are protected and not diluted in the new strategy, while acknowledging the work of non-statutory providers?

Mr Givan: I thank the Member for her question. I spoke about the concerns that were articulated in the consultation responses. We are reflecting on and assessing those concerns. I have outlined how we will do that before I bring a final strategy to the Executive.

On non-statutory settings, by which I mean the providers, often in schools, of wrap-around services, I say to the Member that I benefited from such a wrap-around service for my children. The primary school that they attended offered a very affordable way to provide that additional care before school started and after it ended. I am concerned that we could dilute that provision, because it is often a cost-effective and convenient way for parents to have their children supported.

I appreciate that there are tensions in the sector around how to best deliver childcare, but it is best to inform parents by giving them all the evidence so that they can decide where to send their child. We ought to be careful not to be so prescriptive as to say, "You can send your child only to provider x, and you will not be supported if you use alternative means". There is value in the current non-statutory settings and in the wrap-around service that is provided in our primary schools, and I would be wary about undermining that provision.

Mrs Erskine: I thank the Minister for the work that he is doing on childcare, because it is a major issue for parents. Parents in my constituency have been in touch with me. While they welcome the expansion of the Northern Ireland childcare subsidy scheme, they have seen providers' childcare costs rise. As the Minister, do you recognise the impact of that? What discussions are taking place to ensure that families see the impact of the money being delivered by your Department?

Mr Givan: I thank the Member for her questions and for her comments. The affordability of childcare is a real issue for many families. That is why we introduced the childcare subsidy scheme. We stood it up at pace. We linked it to the tax-free system in the United Kingdom, because that provided the appropriate assurances and vetting to make sure that people were eligible. That has delivered significant financial savings, yet costs have continued to rise. The reality is that providers face additional costs through increased National Insurance contributions and inflation. Those costs are then often passed on. I increased the subsidy cap by 10% after the first year to recognise the inflationary pressures. We continue to increase that to reflect the inflationary pressures, so, when it comes to the subsidy, a 15% reduction is still a 15% reduction.

Costs are rising. We seek to provide the best possible support for families through the scheme. I know that more fees will be communicated to parents in the next weeks. We are now able to collect significant data. We know what is being charged, and there is a high level of variance associated with that. We need greater transparency on that and greater information for parents, both of which will help inform their decisions about where to send their child.

Mr Givan: The Education Authority has appointed an external architect-led design team to address the roofing issues at Rosetta Primary School. Additional toilet provision will also be included in the project. Extensive condition surveys have been undertaken, and the design team has provided an updated feasibility report. It is anticipated that business case development will begin this month. A timeline for the work will be determined when the business case has been completed and the preferred option identified.

In a separate project, a planning application has been submitted for a bespoke stand-alone modular toilet block and storage provision at the school. A licence agreement is in place with the neighbouring church to enable the school to use the church hall, with the Education Authority covering the cost. A gate has also been established in the boundary wall to facilitate pupils' access to the church hall. Those measures will help mitigate the impact of the ongoing closure of the assembly hall on the pupils' education. The Education Authority continues to liaise closely with the school, and I can confirm that another meeting is scheduled for 7 May.

This situation is, regrettably, another example of the consequences of underinvestment in the education estate. We have over 1,100 schools, many of which are aged buildings and in extremely poor condition. Years of limited budgets and underinvestment have forced the Department and the EA to focus on the most basic priority of keeping schools open and children safe. I remain committed to improving the condition of the schools estate, and I will continue to call for urgent cross-party support to secure the investment that is needed to ensure that every child in Northern Ireland is educated in a safe, modern and inclusive environment.

Ms Bradshaw: Thank you, Minister, for that update. It seems that work is under way to address the issue, but, as you have outlined, it has been two years since the assembly hall was usable for pupils, and the school has been calling for the investment for nine years. I pay tribute to Mr McGarrigle, the incoming principal, for his work in highlighting the concerns.

Minister, can you ensure that funding will be available for all the works that are required to bring the school up to its design purpose?

Mr Givan: Where we have prioritised health and safety, that is where the first call of funding has gone. We need to expedite all the processes: planning, the business case, feasibility and design. All that needs to get to the point where finance is the requirement. We are not at that stage. Let us — I have engaged on this and have encouraged the EA — expedite all the work that we are doing, because I want to get to a place where Members in the Assembly are able to say, "This is just subject to finance. We just need to get the funding". That allows me to look at the resources in my Department or to seek external support for that from the Department of Finance. Let us move through the process as efficiently as we can and then to the place where it is subject to finance. The fact that education has been underfunded and that our schools estate has a huge maintenance backlog has been well articulated by me in the Assembly. We need to see prioritisation afforded to Education when it comes to its allocation of the Budget.

Mr O'Toole: As Paula Bradshaw said, parents, pupils, the school community and teachers have not been able to use the hall at Rosetta for years. I live in the area, and I know how distressing and frustrating that is for the school community. You talked about the business case and the processes that are being worked through with the EA. Mr McGarrigle, the principal, has done a huge amount of work, but there has been frustration that they have had to chase and chivvy the EA. You talk about getting to a place where the final question is finance: can you and the EA give a commitment that, when you get to that stage, the finance will be found to reopen the Rosetta school hall and do the works necessary so that the school community can use the whole building?

Mr Givan: I visited the school at the Speaker's request. I have seen at first hand the challenges that it faces. I would love to be in a position to say that it is unique: unfortunately, it is not unique. There are a series of challenges reflected in many schools across the Province, and that is why I have made the case for funding to be provided. Let us get to the point where it is subject to funding, and then it becomes a different area where we need to seek the resource. Of course I want Rosetta Primary School to be given the funding to allow the works to take place to restore the facilities that it requires.

Mr Kingston: Can the Minister confirm the capital budget position for his Department for 2026-27?

Mr Givan: Obviously, a Budget has not been agreed. Indeed, version one of the Sinn Féin Budget was wholly inadequate for Education, and version two of the Sinn Féin Budget is wholly inadequate for Education, and that is why it will not get my support. Significant work needs to be carried out to get to a point where agreement can be reached. Ultimately, once a decision is taken on the Budget, that is the envelope of funding that I am left with. Members on the Benches opposite chastise me for not being able to invest in schools, and yet it is they who hold the purse strings. We will not be in a position to sign off on the Budget until it properly reflects the priority that Education ought to be afforded. When we get to that stage, hopefully we can make progress and invest in our school estate, because that is what we need to achieve.

Mr Givan: Schools in Northern Ireland have a statutory duty to consider making provision for wider community use of their premises when they are not otherwise required for education purposes. My Department has published a community use of schools guidance toolkit to share good practice and provide guidance on the key issues that schools may wish to consider when deciding whether and how to open their premises for community use. My officials are working with their counterparts in the Education Authority to update the guidance.

Mr Harvey: I thank the Minister for his response. He will be aware that the local school is central to many rural communities, and it is often the only community facility. What more can practically be done by the EA and/or your Department to support school principals to overcome the practical hurdles involved in opening their facilities for external use?

Mr Givan: Nearly 80% of schools provide community use, and it is something that is available to communities. There is a toolkit for schools, which is currently under review and will hopefully be finalised shortly, and it will enable the processes to be more seamless. However, decisions on whether school premises are made available for community use rest with each school's board of governors or the principal. I encourage them to make provision for community use, but it requires that certain criteria be met. However, we ought to make sure that we ameliorate any existing barriers and make sure that our school buildings are widely usable for the whole community, because they are an important asset, and I very much encourage making good use of them.

Mr Givan: The EA is responsible for managing preschool admissions processes and ensuring that sufficient places are available to accommodate target-age children. In doing so, the EA takes account of all provision across statutory and non-statutory settings. My Department plays no role in that process. The admissions process is still ongoing, but already 98·8% of children have been offered a place in a setting of their parents' preference, and 92·4% have been offered their first-preference setting. I appreciate that settings are naturally keen to attract as many funded places as possible, especially given the continuing decline in the birth rate, which is placing all settings under pressure, and that must be managed fairly by the EA.

The pupil allocation number (PAN) review carried out by the EA at my request last year included a range of measures to improve the process in both the short and longer term, many of which have already been implemented. Details of that are available on the EA website. I believe that there may be scope to further improve the manner in which the EA takes account of parents' preferences while still balancing its relevant statutory duties. The PAN review includes an action to consider alternative PAN allocation models that will enable a range of options to be fully explored with stakeholders and thoroughly tested to ensure effectiveness before any changes are made.

My officials are supporting the EA in carrying out initial modelling to inform workshops to discuss alternative allocation models. That work is at an early stage, but it is intended that the first workshop will be held before the end of this academic year.

Mr Speaker: We move to topical questions.

Mr Givan: I will speak to that issue in more detail tomorrow, when I make a ministerial statement on teacher workload. In the course of reaching a settlement on teachers' pay, one of the issues that was brought to the fore was workload. I proposed that an independent body look at that. I commissioned Paul Sweeney, a former permanent secretary in the Department, to chair the body, which had school leader and trade union movement representation. As part of its work, the body considered a lot of the information that the Member has referred to. The report, which has been published and is in the public domain, contains 27 recommendations. I will respond to that formally, tomorrow, and outline how we will take forward the recommendations.

In order for us to deliver the transformation that the teaching profession requires, we need to be able to work our way through that process. I deeply value the contribution that teachers make to education. We need to ensure that they are not unnecessarily burdened with responsibilities but are able to focus on what they came into the profession to do: to teach. That is what I intend to deliver.

Ms Hunter: Thank you, Minister. Teachers with whom I have spoken recently also said that they feel weighed down and stressed by the number of upcoming changes in education, such as TransformED, SEN reform and many more. This week, some schools are closed to facilitate that training, which leaves parents having to find childcare. Last week, in a letter, the Children's Law Centre and many others voiced their concern about the pace with which those changes are taking place. Minister, are you comfortable and, most importantly, confident given the level of disruption that is ongoing in our education system?

Mr Givan: As things stand, the implementation of a lot of the changes has not hit at school level, because it is being taken forward at a very high strategic level. The implementation at school level needs to be carefully managed. That is why I communicated with school leaders and provided them with that assurance. Our education system is facing challenges. I do not deny that there are significant challenges and pressures on our teaching profession, but they are a consequence of the current frameworks in which the profession has to operate. We can move beyond those challenges only by changing our education system. That change is being led by practitioners and professionals, so I am confident that, as we work through the process, we will see the positive changes that the Member seeks, and which, I know, many in the teaching profession want to see . That requires commitment to work through that change. I am determined to deliver that not just for the teaching profession but, ultimately, for the children and young people. We cannot continue with the status quo. It is failing a number of our children, particularly children from the most disadvantaged backgrounds. If we believe in equality, let us get behind the transformation and close the attainment gap. That, with the right support for our teaching profession, will deliver more for the working-class people of the Province than any other measures that we can take. I am delivering on that. Let us keep at it.

Mr Givan: We often revert to our default positions on this issue if we do not want to engage on the wider reform of our education system. As I have said before, there is no consensus on how to deal with academic selection. We have debated it in motions, and we have divided the House on it, but there is not a universal approach to how we are going to deal with it. That is a challenge for all of us. Is this where we would be if we had a clean slate? I think that the answer is no. If we were to start with a blank canvas, I do not think that we would have academic selection in Northern Ireland. I think that we would be able to find a better way, but we have to deal with the systems that we have, and, until there is a different approach that people can argue is the better way to do it, we have to work with the current system while seeking to make improvements. My changes will benefit every single child in every single school, regardless of whether there is academic selection.

Miss Hargey: I think that the Minister's answer to my question is no. He mentioned trying to impact on working-class children, and I agree. I still live in a working-class community and can see the damage. The reviewer whom the Minister selected to carry out the curriculum review, Lucy Crehan, said at a recent meeting of the Education Committee that academic selection distorts the curriculum in primary schools. Taking on board what the reviewer said, what changes will the Minister make to look at that? The situation is damaging, particularly to working-class children.

Mr Givan: I am glad that Sinn Féin is now quoting and supporting comments from the reviewer of education. I trust that Sinn Féin will give the same weight to every other aspect of the independent report that Lucy carried out.

The Member is right to raise the point about distortion of what children learn in school being based on the test that they have to sit. I have often referred to "teaching to the test". That is why our reform of qualifications needs to align with the curriculum. Otherwise, we will teach only according to what you get a GCSE, A level or vocational qualification in. My reform is not just about the curriculum; it is also about qualifications. There is a valid question about the Schools' Entrance Assessment Group (SEAG) transfer test, and those who operate the SEAG test need to see how it reflects the curriculum that will be required to be taught from P1 right through to P7. That test should align with the curriculum that is being taught in our schools. Notwithstanding whether one supports academic selection, the test should very much align with what is being taught in the class and should not distort the curriculum. The Member raises a valid point that should be considered.

Mr Givan: We reviewed the process last year, and, whilst it is no comfort to parents who did not get their first-preference choice this year, 92·5% is an improvement on last year in accommodating first-preference choices across those settings. In my view, there is always room for improvement. There is a very transparent process that the Education Authority (EA) follows to ensure the efficient use of taxpayers' money in provision but also that there is maintenance of provision in certain areas. Whilst I totally understand that some settings want to increase their number, if that number is increased to the detriment of an often small rural setting, you will not have any provision for that local community. There is an element whereby the EA is seeking to balance the competing requirements that it has to navigate. There will be a further review of the process this year and workshops to engage with the sector. Where we can refine the process and facilitate higher levels of parental choice, we should seek to do so.

Mr Stewart: I thank the Minister for that comprehensive answer. Minister, will lessons be learned by officials who are advising parents? Parents who received no offers for their first preference might, because it is the same council area, be offered a place in Ballymena when that family lives in Carrickfergus. Can any offers that are made be truly local and not 45 or 50 minutes away? That is not much for those parents to ask.

Mr Givan: There are various stages in that engagement, and we have had stage 1. The EA is working through situations in which offers were not made to parents or where parents had not expressed a second preference. Often, there will be those who do not put down a second preference because they think, "If I do not get my first preference —". The EA will seek to accommodate that. I encourage parents, during the process, to put down various preferences and express those so that they can be taken forward as part of that process. However, ultimately, if parents choose to make only one choice, that can, at times, be difficult for the EA to accommodate.

I want to see improvement in the process. There has been improvement, but it is still not without challenges, and that speaks to a wider challenge for all of us in our society, namely a declining birth rate. A consequence of a declining birth rate in our society is that settings are struggling to fill their numbers. That impacts not only on nursery settings but on primary and post-primary schools. Often, people then have to compete in a very challenging area, where there are fewer people to fill the existing places. That is a real challenge for all of us in delivering public services.

Mr Givan: Decisions were taken on the regional aspect of that issue, and the position has been outlined that the schemes are to go ahead. Funding is not an issue, nor was it ever an issue. The Department of Health has said that the appropriate nursing care will be made available. The Education Authority (EA) has taken that forward with all the individual schools that are involved. Ultimately, the ability to deliver the schemes will be a decision at school level, but there is no inhibitor at a departmental level, in either the Department of Education or the Department of Health, in wanting summer school provision to take place. I accept and acknowledge that individual schools might be influenced to an extent when it comes to deciding whether summer schemes will go ahead in that particular setting.

Mr Honeyford: I thank the Minister. Beyond the requirement for nursing provision that he mentioned in relation to the Department of Health, is he confident that enough adequately trained staff are available for the schemes to proceed?

Mr Givan: I am confident that the overwhelming majority of the schemes will be able to take place, albeit the planning for them has happened very late in the year. I responded to that issue in the Chamber when we debated a motion on it. Different staff will deliver the schemes. A lot of them are different staff from those who are there during term time. Therefore, there is a need to provide the appropriate training. The enhanced medical complexity of some pupils meant that the issue crystallised this year. That issue has been overcome, because the Department of Health has made available nursing provision. We do not want to see a repetition of those issues, but long-term planning is required to ensure that there is the appropriate training, capacity and resourcing when it comes to staff to enable the summer schemes to continue not only this summer but in future years, as, I think, we all want to see.

Mr Givan: The legislation that I seek to introduce is central to the Department's work to ensure that children and young people receive the education that they deserve. My Bill to require young people to participate in education or training for an additional two years beyond the compulsory school age has been fully drafted and is ready for introduction to the Assembly, subject to Executive agreement.

The school inspections Bill has been drafted and is awaiting Executive approval. That Bill strengthens the inspection framework. It includes provisions to improve cooperation with inspections and remove the current exemption from inspection for religious education. That Bill has been able to deal with some issues that were raised by Executive colleagues effectively, and those issues are no longer there. It includes a response to the UK Supreme Court's judgement on religious education. The Bill has been drafted and is sitting with colleagues to take forward.

Finally, the Executive have agreed that primary legislation will be brought forward to establish a new organisation to support controlled schools. Such a Bill is now included in the Executive's legislative programme, and I intend to bring forward a draft in the coming months.

Mr Martin: I thank the Minister for his answer. Minister, unless I am mistaken, you mentioned three pieces of legislation, one of which is moving forward. I refer to the first two Bills that you mentioned. When did you first raise those issues at the Executive?

Mr Givan: I thank the Member for that question. It is notable that Sinn Féin talked about "blockages". If Sinn Féin wants reform, it can start with itself. It can start by removing the blockade on my legislation, some of which has sat for months with the Executive. It can start by removing the veto that it is exercising by blocking my legislation from appearing on the agenda. If Sinn Féin is serious about reform and ending the blockade, let it start with itself, because it is Sinn Féin that is blocking the work of the Executive on a number of issues, not least in Education.

Overcoming some of the most minor issues with the Bills that I have brought to the Executive has taken an unreasonably long time. Nine months after I announced the SEN capital programme, Sinn Féin allowed it on to the agenda for discussion — not for agreement, but for discussion — at the Executive. It is therefore not serious about reform, because all that it is doing is blocking a high number of education-related Bills and proposals that would benefit the children of Northern Ireland.

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

Mr Speaker: I call the Minister to conclude his remarks.

Mr Muir (The Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs): Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. I will start from where I left off.

The Department undertook a 10-week public consultation on the draft just transition commission regulations. That consultation was supported by targeted engagement events with groups that are required by the Climate Change Act (Northern Ireland) 2022 to be represented on the just transition commission. The response was overwhelmingly positive, with strong support for the establishment of the commission and for the proposed approach to its operation.

Through the consultation, we heard from the following: trade unions; the agriculture and environment sectors; rural communities; young people, including young farmers; people with a disability; older people's representatives; consumer groups; regulators; councils; academics; and the wider public. I thank all who engaged so positively with my Department. Their input helped shape the regulations before the Assembly today.

Respondents strongly supported the establishment of the commission but wanted to see membership broadened in order for it to be more inclusive. There was strong support for representation from the energy and transport sectors, reflecting their importance to achieving decarbonisation. The green finance sector, although not an emissions sector in itself, was considered to be a key support and an enabling sector. Alongside strong views on biodiversity and the rural economy, there was also clear support for including the built environment sector.

Given the different issues facing rural communities and the different impacts on them, many respondents also proposed that there should be a dedicated rural representative on the commission, distinct from and in addition to a representative of the agriculture sector as already mandated by the Act. I have listened to stakeholders and expanded the membership of the commission to include those specific sectors and groups.

There was also a high level of support from respondents for some sectors, owing to their size and diversity, benefiting from having more than one representative on the commission. That view came across strongly from the environment and agriculture sectors. As a result, the draft regulations provide for mandated representation across 12 sectors, with 16 members, including a chair, while also allowing flexibility for future expansion, up to a maximum of 20 members. That strikes a balance between breadth of experience and effective governance.

To ensure that the commission remains agile, the draft regulations also allow for the establishment of ad hoc committees and work groups to support it. That will enable wider expertise to be brought in when required without making the commission unwieldy. The commission is also empowered to request information from experts and public bodies, including local authorities and those that represent consumers.

My Department has sought to establish best practice to ensure that the approach to a just transition and any lessons that can be learned from other regions in the UK and Ireland are taken into account and used to inform the draft regulations. To that effect, my Department has engaged closely with counterparts in Scotland and Ireland, where just transition commissions have already been established, and has reviewed just transition policy in other countries. National and international best practice have been factored into the draft regulations to determine how commission members will be recruited and how the body will operate once established.

As is required under section 56(2) of the 2022 Act, my Department sought advice from the UK Climate Change Committee (CCC) on the proposals to make the regulations. The CCC published its advice on 2 June 2025, welcoming the establishment of the commission and noting the important role that it will play. The CCC recognises that the commission will enable strong collaboration between government and industry, enable meaningful engagement with workers and local communities and assist Departments in delivering net zero in a way that is fully aligned with the just transition principle. The CCC also emphasised the importance of the commission in being able to provide formal advice and recommendations to government. The draft regulations explicitly provide for that role.

The commission is required to publish and lay its reports before the Assembly, thus ensuring full transparency and accountability. In addition, the CCC recommended that the commission's work should focus on those sectors that are most relevant to achieving decarbonisation in a fair and just way, and that its core membership should be clearly defined.

The regulations respond positively and directly to that advice. They strike a careful balance between broad, inclusive representation across key sectors and the flexibility that is needed for the commission to operate effectively, including provision for membership of up to 20 individuals. In line with the requirements of the 2022 Act, I laid a written ministerial statement before the Assembly, at the same time as I laid the draft regulations, to provide Members with further detail on the approach that has been taken and on how the CCC's advice has been reflected.

Costs have been carefully controlled. The commission will be funded by my Department at an estimated cost of around £150,000 a year to deliver its statutory duties, supported by a small secretariat. The regulatory impact assessment, along with equality screening, a full child rights impact assessment and a rural needs impact assessment all identified positive impacts.

A just transition is not simply a procedural requirement but is a social, economic and generational responsibility. The regulations put in place the structure that is needed to ensure fairness, accountability and expert oversight as we decarbonise our economy. I look forward to Members' contributions, and I encourage the Assembly to support these important regulations so that the public appointments process can begin and this important commission can become operational.

Mr Butler (The Chairperson of the Committee for Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs): I thank the Minister for moving the motion and providing some detail. On 12 February, the Committee for Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs noted the SL 1 for the draft regulations and agreed to issue a call for views, which closed on 26 February. A total of eight responses were received, as well as an additional written response.

By way of background, the Committee has been particularly interested in scrutinising progress towards the establishment of a just transition commission, with the aim of ensuring that, during the transition to a net zero society, no one is left behind or disproportionately affected.

On 7 November 2024, the Committee first received a written paper on the steps that were being taken to establish the commission. The Committee was provided with an illustrative draft of the regulations, but it was not until 23 May 2025 that we considered a paper on the outcome of DAERA's consultation on the draft regulations. On 12 March 2026, we held an evidence session with officials and heard that DAERA intended to make a draft statutory rule (SR) to deliver on the requirements of section 37 of the Climate Change Act (Northern Ireland) 2022 to establish a just transition commission for Northern Ireland. The 2022 Act requires that all Northern Ireland Departments must have regard to the just transition principle when developing and delivering emission reduction policies included in sectoral plans and climate action plans. The Committee heard that the SR would be laid before the Assembly under the draft affirmative procedure.

Officials highlighted that the just transition objectives included supporting and growing jobs that are climate resilient and environmentally and socially sustainable, contributing to a resource-efficient and sustainable economy and ensuring that the needs of the present are met without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. The Committee was advised that the just transition aims to promote fairness during the transition from high emissions to a low emission economy and to ensure that no workers, communities, sectors, vulnerable groups or regions are left behind as our economy is decarbonised.

The Committee also noted that the draft regulations provide that the commission will be an independent advisory non-departmental public body, comprising 16 members, including a chairperson, covering 12 sectors to ensure broad sectoral representation. The Committee was pleased to note that the commission will include two members from the environmental sector and three members from the agricultural sector and that, following the consultation, the Department included a recommendation for a separate representative of the rural community. That latter addition was welcomed as, during the mandate, the Committee has heard from a range of rural networks and support groups who told us, time and again, that the needs of rural communities must be carefully considered in a just transition and, indeed, in any sectoral plan.

The Committee was pleased to hear that officials had engaged with counterparts in other just transition commissions, as well as the sponsoring Departments in Scotland and the Republic of Ireland, in order to learn from their experience. Members expressed concerns that the commission should reflect the specific challenges in Northern Ireland, particularly those faced in our rural communities. Officials responded that the commission will be focused not only on Northern Ireland as a whole but on a specific regional basis in order to face up to the challenges in urban and rural areas. The Committee was pleased to note that engagement with all Departments had demonstrated strong support for the commission, recognising that the delivery of the just transition is dependent on effective inter-departmental cooperation and collaboration.

Having agreed on 12 March to support the draft regulations, we were content on 16 April, at our first meeting after recess, to note the correspondence from the Department regarding the date of this debate and saying that there had been no changes to policy content since the Committee agreed to support the draft regulations. In conclusion, the Committee agreed to recommend that the draft Climate Change (Just Transition Commission) Regulations (NI) 2026 be approved by the Assembly.

I will make some comments as the Ulster Unionist AERA spokesperson. It is key that, at its heart, this conversation should not just be about carbon targets on a page. Rather, it must be about people and about how we can create opportunity for prosperity and promote equitable access to it. It must be about whether the transition that we are embarking on delivers equality, prosperity and balance across every part of Northern Ireland or whether it deepens the divide and imposes burdens to achieve targets that we are already, sadly, struggling to achieve. We have to look at the evidence. The evidence is clear: if the transition is not fair and not deliverable, we will not succeed. The Climate Change Act set ambitious goals, but ambition alone is not a strategy, and it is certainly no guarantee of justice. Right now, too many people are already carrying heavy burdens. Families face fuel poverty, rural communities feel left behind, small businesses are under pressure and key sectors such as agri-food and farming families are staring into uncertainty over a range of pressures.

The Ulster Unionist Party cannot and will not break the backs of our people in pursuit of targets that feel unachievable, are unaffordable or are unfair in delivery. That would not be a just transition; it would be a policy failure waiting to happen. A truly just transition must begin with a different premise, which is that climate action and societal progress go hand in hand. It must be about lifting people up, not about weighing them down. That means tackling inequality head-on, not as an afterthought but as a core objective. It means recognising that the costs and benefits of change are not evenly shared, and then acting accordingly. We need to get it right first time. If the costs fall on those least able to pay, public support will also disappear. We are already seeing the warning signs of that, albeit when global catastrophes happen, as we are seeing in the Strait of Hormuz. People support renewable energy and climate action, but they do not support policies that make their lives harder or, indeed, more expensive. The question for the commission, therefore, will be simple: will it design a transition that works for people or one that happens to them?

If we get this right, there is enormous opportunity. The legislation points the way. It says that we will create good, well-paid jobs; that we will support industries in transition; that we will invest in infrastructure; and that we will build a more resourceful and efficient economy. We must go further, however. We must prioritise growing indigenous industries rather than outsourcing our future. We must ensure that investment flows into our local economies, rural and urban alike. We must support farmers, manufacturers and small businesses to adapt, innovate and thrive. This is not just an environmental transition; it is the potential for an economic transformation. If we do it properly, we can rebalance our economy, strengthen communities and create opportunity for our next generation, but that will not happen by accident. It will require leadership at every level. It will require coordination across Departments. Crucially, it will require genuine partnership with our communities. The message coming through strongly today is that people want to be part of the solution, but they also want to have a say. They want to see real, tangible benefits where they live. They want policies shaped with them, not imposed on them. That means embracing a more democratic approach that involves our citizens; listens to our communities, particularly our rural communities; recognises that innovation already happens at grassroots level; and builds on that success. We have seen international examples of where communities directly benefit from renewable energy and where local people see lower costs, better services and real community ownership. That is a model that we should scale. When people see the benefit, they will support the change, but when they do not, they will resist it.

We also need honesty about the scale of the challenge. There is already a gap between our targets and our current policy delivery. Closing that gap will require significant action across every sector. That ambition must also come with absolute realism.

Targets must be accompanied by credible pathways, proper investment and practical support; otherwise, we risk undermining trust and setting ourselves up to fail.

Let me be clear: the commission must not become a talking shop; it must be an enabling force that equips people with the tools that they need, empowers communities to shape their own futures and enables industries to transition successfully, rather than struggling alone. Success will come not from government acting in isolation but from collective effort — government, industry, communities and, crucially, our citizens working together. Above all, it must be grounded in fairness between regions, between the sectors and between generations. Without demonstrable fairness, without people seeing that the transition works for them, there will be a backlash, and, if that happens, we will not just fail on climate; we will fail the people whom we are here to serve. Let us be clear about the purpose: it is about building a Northern Ireland that is more equal, more prosperous and more resilient; a place where communities are supported, services are strengthened and industry is given the confidence to grow; and a place where we meet our environmental responsibilities not by placing the burden on those who are least able to carry it but by bringing everyone with us. That is what just transition would truly mean, and that is the standard that the commission must meet.

Mr McCrossan: I support the regulations. The SDLP believes in a just transition. Quite simply, it means fairness. If we are serious about tackling climate change, we also need to be serious about how we bring people with us on that journey. The reality is that not everyone will feel the impact of climate action in the same way; it will affect everyone differently. Some workers will feel more exposed; some industries will face bigger changes; many farmers will face uncertainty; and a lot of families will come under more pressure because of the cost of living. If we get it wrong, we risk asking those who can least afford it to carry the heaviest burden, which people will not accept. That is why the commission matters and is important. People do not want to hear about targets or strategies; they want to know what it means each day for them and their job, their farm, their business, their future or their family.

The commission is responsible for helping to answer those questions and bringing clarity where there has been none. Just as important is that it has to make sure that the people most affected are part of shaping the answers. However, let us be honest about it: it cannot become another body that meets occasionally, produces reports and then disappears into the background.

Mr McGlone: I thank the Member for giving way. Does he agree that, when it comes to the likes of a just transition, which is dealing with innovation and the future, not least the future of the planet, the commission must be sufficiently resourced in finance, experience and innovative methods, as must any report that it produces, so that those of us who live in rural areas and our economy and society are sufficiently supported and developed as we move into the future?

Mr McCrossan: Absolutely. As a representative of a rural constituency, I wholeheartedly agree with the points made by my colleague Mr McGlone. It comes back to the point that this cannot be simply about producing another report for the sake of it; tangible action and outcomes are needed to ensure that that is the case. Any plan needs to be duly resourced in order to ensure the best possible outcomes for those affected. It also goes without saying that resources must be put in place to ensure that any recommendations from such reports can be implemented. We also have to be conscious that local government, the planning system and others are often the greatest blockage in any transition.

As I said, the commission cannot become just another body that meets occasionally or produces reports and then disappears into the background; it must be active and visible. It needs to engage properly with people on the ground. That means listening to workers who are worried about their livelihoods; listening to the rural communities for which my colleague Mr McGlone advocates daily; listening to rural dwellers who feel that decisions are often made without them being considered; and, of course, listening to small businesses that are trying to do the right thing but need clarity and support and to be met halfway. We often talk about people having to make the necessary change and transition. Unfortunately, as I have said, the frustrations that I hear on the ground are about the planning process and about the Northern Ireland Environment Agency (NIEA ) and, often, other government structures being the blockage to any purposeful and meaningful change.

Mr Muir: Will the Member give way?

Mr McCrossan: I will indeed, yes.

Mr Muir: Does the Member acknowledge that there is a planning improvement plan in place for those response times but that we have to understand our environmental responsibilities and the Northern Ireland Environment Agency has an important role to play in that?

Mr McCrossan: Yes, it certainly does, Minister. I am always happy to give way to you. However, you will also understand that there is great frustration with the NIEA. We are well aware of what its responsibilities are. Whether it is carrying out its responsibilities in a timely fashion or responding to people in a timely fashion is entirely another question.

Mr McGlone: Will the Member give way?

Mr McCrossan: I will indeed, yes.

Mr McGlone: The Minister knows that I have made multiple representations about the NIEA. We are veering slightly off topic, but it is an important body that will have a functional role — a functional role — in a just transition. However, it, too, needs resource. It also needs to improve its turnaround times in order that the communities that will have to adapt and respond to just transition are best empowered and best placed to do so, especially isolated rural areas such as ours, which will be faced with the consequences if just transition is not got right.

Mr McCrossan: Absolutely, Patsy. That is a well made point. I also note that the Minister referenced the planning improvement plan. Whilst a plan is important, planning improvement action would be much more appreciated. It is a major blockage to people and really needs to be resolved; in fact, a lot of people would be achieving their own targets if some of those hurdles were removed much more swiftly.

We also need to listen to small businesses that are trying to do the right thing. They need a lot of clarity and support. I declare an interest as a company director of a hospitality business. It is not an easy time for anybody in business. There are huge pressures, many of them external and beyond our control. However, there are also things that we can do to assist those at the coalface in our community who do a difficult job. We should remember that small businesses in our communities are the largest employer in Northern Ireland. Unless people feel heard, they will not buy into the changes that are needed. People need to feel that their views are being considered and understood.

We also need to recognise that there is opportunity here. We are clear on that. If done properly, which the Minister is absolutely dedicated to doing, the transition to a low-carbon economy can create good, secure jobs — jobs that we would all like to see — drive innovation, as my colleague pointed out, and strengthen our economy for the long term. However, that will not happen by accident. It requires clear thinking, proper planning and a commitment to fairness. That includes making sure that every region benefits, not just some. Too often, places such as west of the Bann, my constituency of West Tyrone and Patsy's constituency of Mid Ulster feel like an afterthought. A just transition means that that can no longer happen.

At its core, it is about trust: trust that government will act fairly; trust that people will be supported through the change; and trust that no community will be left behind. That is where the Executive and the Department must do more than set targets; they must show clearly how people will be supported in real, practical terms. If that trust is not there, no strategy, no matter how well written, will succeed.

Mr McGlone: I thank the Member for giving way again. Does the Member agree that the current crisis being imposed on the world by, principally, President Trump will lead to a re-evaluation of the reliance on fossil fuels, which will have a major impact on all our communities, not least our rural communities, farming, transportation, heating oil and suchlike? Therefore, the thrust of the just transition committee and its workings and dealings will, as of itself, be readjusting to a different type of agenda, an agenda imposed on us by world prices, by heavy reliance on fossil fuels and, probably, by the need for additional impetus from the Executive to address issues such as renewables and EV, issues that other countries, including Norway, have addressed, to find that they are the countries that are least reliant on fossil fuels.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): I thank the Member very much for his prolonged intervention. Patsy, you have an opportunity to put your name down to speak fully.

Mr McGlone: Thank you. That is kind of you.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): I am more than happy for you to do so.

Mr McGlone: It was kind of my colleague to let me intervene.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): I thought that he might. Daniel, back to you.

Mr McCrossan: He is passionate about the subject, as Members will know. He points to a fundamental concern that people have. A lot of what is happening today that is affecting the cost of living, including energy prices, is beyond our control because individuals in the White House — one in particular — are on a reckless agenda. We are all paying the price for his madness. The world is in a strange place. It is in a state of flux, and, unfortunately, that is being felt daily in the homes of people across our society.

It is important — we could be world-leading in this — that we look at ways of becoming self-sustaining where we do not have to reverse into greater reliance on fossil fuels and undo a lot of the great work that has been done on moving our community away from them. That said, we need to be realistic about where we are today. The majority of homes across Northern Ireland rely on oil heating, so a huge number of issues need to be resolved. Hopefully, this will set out a clear pathway, but it must be fair. For it to be fair, it has to be realistic, and the plan has to bring people with it.

We will support this important motion because climate action matters. Many climate deniers should recognise that climate action is absolutely necessary. Fairness also matters just as much. If we are going to ask people to adapt to change and to play their part, we have a responsibility to make sure that that transition is properly supported, is realistic and, above all, is just.

Ms Finnegan: I welcome the opportunity to speak in support of the regulations. Sinn Féin has consistently called for a just transition commission and rightly so. We also need to be clear that it cannot simply be a well-intentioned idea that sounds good on paper. It must deliver real, tangible change for the people whom we represent. When we talk about a just transition, people rightly ask what that means for them, for their job and for their community. At its core, a just transition must be about fairness and equality so that it can protect workers, families and communities, particularly those in rural areas, who are all too often expected to shoulder the burden of change. Farmers, agri-food workers and those in transition and in haulage are the people who keep our economy moving, and they cannot be left to pay the price for climate action. If people feel that they are being penalised rather than supported, we will lose public confidence quickly. Without public buy-in, no climate strategy will succeed. The transition must be one that brings people with us and must certainly not leave them behind. That means investing in people; it means supporting skills and retraining; and it means ensuring that new opportunities, particularly in green industries, are accessible to working people and rural communities.

There is real opportunity here, and, done properly, a just transition can mean good, secure jobs. It can mean revitalised local economies, and it can mean a fairer, more resilient society. For that to happen, the commission must have real substance; it cannot be advisory for the sake of it. It must have teeth; it must have influence; and it must be properly resourced to do its job effectively. Otherwise, there is a real risk of it becoming little more than a talking shop, and that is not what is needed at this critical moment.

Representation will be key, and I was glad to hear the Minister mention that in his remarks. We need to have voices from across society around the table: workers; trade unions; rural communities; young people; and those already experiencing the impacts of climate change. A just transition cannot be designed in isolation. Rather, it must be shaped by those whom it affects most.

From our perspective, there is a clear all-Ireland dimension involved. Climate change does not recognise borders. We therefore cannot operate in silos. There must be alignment and coordination across the island if we are serious about delivering meaningful climate action. Already, we can look to examples in the Twenty-six Counties and in Scotland of where steps have been taken to embed just transition principles in policy. There is learning to be had from there, and we should be building on it.

We support the draft regulations, but support must come with ambition. We have an opportunity not just to respond to climate change but to reshape our economy in a way that is fairer, more inclusive and more sustainable. We have an opportunity to protect livelihoods, create jobs and ensure that no community is left behind. That is what just transition must mean in practice.

Miss McIlveen: Let us be honest: the draft regulations are somewhat of an afterthought, given that the Minister and the Assembly were content to press ahead with interim targets and carbon budgets that continue to shackle Northern Ireland to net zero, all in the absence of any meaningful focus on a just transition.

The DUP's position has remained clear and consistent, and it is that net zero in Northern Ireland in unachievable and unjustified at a time of profound upheaval for businesses and households across our Province. Families are grappling with rising costs, key industries are facing mounting pressures, and our infrastructure is crying out for investment. The draft regulations are inextricably tied to a target that is simply pie in the sky. Sadly, what is perhaps most concerning is that other parties in the House choose to press ahead with the draft climate action plan while refusing point-blank to agree to quantify properly and assess fully its costs and impacts. That was a moment when realism should have prevailed. Instead, climate ideology won out over evidence and common sense.

It is easy to sign up to ambitious targets, but it is far harder to explain to our constituents how those targets will be paid for or what they will mean for jobs, competitiveness and living standards. What has been signed up to is not just ambitious targets but unachievable targets. Without making decisive and radical legislative changes, the current emissions targets cannot be sufficiently mitigated. Two weeks ago, there was no support in the Chamber for our measured motion. We will therefore not agree to regulations that simply raise expectations of a fairness that, frankly, is unrealistic and undeliverable.

On the structure of the proposed commission, the requirement for a minimum of 15 core representatives deviates from the expert advice of the UK Climate Change Committee. That is something that we have seen happen before. How can businesses and communities have confidence in there being coherent decision-making when so many sectors and voices are to be gathered around the table, all of which will be attempting to interpret a just transition principle that is in itself so broad as to be almost meaningless in practice. Even more concerning is that, beyond those 15 representatives, the Minister retains the power to appoint additional members without there being any guarantee of sectoral balance. That is a recipe for further conflict and confusion. All of that is set against a backdrop of numerous other bodies already offering their tuppence worth on the very same issues. Moreover, there is no assurance whatsoever that any concerns that the commission raises will be heeded not only by the Minister but across all Departments. This raises a fundamental question: what is the point of creating yet another body if its advice can simply be ignored?

In summary, the regulations do little to address the fundamental flaws in the wider climate framework that is being imposed on Northern Ireland. They do not provide clarity, certainty or the realistic, balanced pathway that our economy and people deserve. For those reasons, we cannot support the regulations.

Mr Blair: I am pleased to support the Climate Change (Just Transition Commission) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2026. They are an important and necessary step in delivering on the commitments set out in the Climate Change Act. It has just been made clear that some of us will see those in different terms, but I will come to that before I close.

In brief, the establishment of the just transition commission for Northern Ireland will play an important advisory role in overseeing and informing how we implement the just transition provisions for the climate legislation that was agreed unanimously in the House. In other words, it is about helping to ensure that, as we move towards decarbonisation and net zero, we do so in a way that is fair, balanced and inclusive and that protects the most vulnerable from change by creating new opportunities, particularly when it comes to building a greener, more sustainable economy.

Before I go further, I place on record my thanks to the Minister and his officials for all the hard work that they have put into developing the regulations and for all the queries that they answered, whether to Members individually, to Committees or to other structures along the way as this progressed. Establishing a body of this nature requires significant preparation, consultation and engagement, and it is clear that a considerable effort has been made to get us to this point.

I want also to acknowledge the engagement that took place during the consultation process, some of it hosted by external organisations. It is welcome that there is strong support for the commission's establishment and for its role as an advisory body, bringing together voices from a wide range of sectors. That matters because, if a just transition is to mean anything in practice, it must be shaped by those who will be most affected by it.

I cannot speak to the regulations today without expressing my disappointment at the delay in getting them, and many other matters linked to the environment, through the Northern Ireland Executive. The commission is not an optional extra; it is a key commitment that flows directly from climate legislation passed in the Chamber. Progress on its establishment should never have been held up. My frustration is only deepened by the fact that the delay comes on top of the delay already caused by the stop-start nature of government in this place. Climate change and its effects do not pause when our institutions pause.

At its heart, a just transition is about making sure that the path to net zero is one that carries public confidence and support. That is essential if we are to achieve the scale of change required in the years ahead and to meet our climate targets. In that regard, I refer to some of the comments made just a moment ago by the DUP spokesperson. We hear all this Trumpian denial on a weekly basis. It is not something that is widely recognised, endorsed or embraced by the developed and developing economies that are trying to seize the opportunities presented by greener environmental outcomes and better economic outcomes closely related to them. There was almost a suggestion from the person who spoke for the DUP that there should not be sectoral involvement in these conversations. That is absolutely staggering. It is to some of us unthinkable that the sectors so heavily dependent on movement on climate and economic opportunities should not be at the table shaping and participating in the conversations around how we move forward. An example of that is the Ulster Farmers' Union, which is supportive of the establishment of the commission, and many other sectoral representative bodies are also supportive of it.

The Alliance Party welcomes the regulations, and I am hopeful that we will finally start to see the urgency, cooperation and political will that the issue demands.

Mr Wilson: I rise to speak on the regulations with some concern. It feels as though the cart is being put before the horse. The Assembly has pushed on regardless with interim targets and carbon budgets, yet the detail on what a just transition means or, indeed, looks like in practice is still unclear. People and businesses need realism. They need confidence and support, not aspirations that outpace delivery. Let me state our position plainly: the DUP does not believe that net zero as currently set out for Northern Ireland is achievable, particularly at a time when our farming industry, our households and our employers are under real pressure and when the scale of investment that is required in our infrastructure is plain for all to see.

The regulations are not a technical tidying-up exercise; they are tied to an overall direction of travel that risks locking the Province into commitments that cannot be met without major upheaval and significant cost. That is why we cannot support measures that promise that fairness will automatically follow when the policy does not demonstrate how that will actually be delivered. If expectations are raised and then, inevitably, disappointed, public trust will be the casualty, and that helps nobody.

There are also problems with the commission's proposed model. A minimum requirement of 15 core representatives risks creating a body that is simply too large and cumbersome to reach timely agreement, especially when the just transition principle is defined so broadly. After the minimum membership requirement is met, discretion to make additional appointments will remain. Without clear safeguards to ensure a proper balance across sectors, that invites queries and concern about representation, priorities and accountability, rather than providing a clear, focused mechanism for progress. Indeed, there are other bodies that will inevitably duplicate work on these matters. Sequencing also matters if we are serious about a transition that does not leave people behind. Key supports, especially where agriculture is affected, should be up and running before we constitute a commission that is tasked with advising on how those supports should operate. As I said, doing it the other way around suggests that the process is being built in reverse.

There is no meaningful assurance that the commission's concerns will be acted on, not just by the Minister but across Departments. Providing advice without a clear commitment to follow through risks becoming an exercise in what ultimately could be costly paperwork rather than a clearly thought-out road map with practical and, crucially, deliverable outcomes. For those reasons, we will not support the regulations.

Mr Muir: I thank Members for their responses. This is an important moment for the Assembly and for Northern Ireland. It is the important moment when we affirm the importance of the journey of decarbonisation being just and fair and of ensuring that nobody is left behind. I assure Members that, on the passage, hopefully, of the regulations, we will move swiftly to the public appointments process. I encourage people to apply for the positions available.

The principle of just transition runs through the climate change legislation and is integral to my vision, as Minister, of ensuring that our decarbonised society is fair and that nobody is left behind. As I have set out, the commission will initially comprise 16 members, including a chairperson, and will represent 12 sectors, with the flexibility to expand. I do not intend to use that flexibility in the current mandate or in the process going forward. The Act requires the membership to include seven sectors: academia, agriculture, civic society, environment, fisheries, trade unions and youth groups. Five sectors that were identified as a result of public consultation are also included. It was important that we listened to the feedback on the proposals in the consultation. The sectors that will be added are built environment, energy, green finance, rural communities and transport.

The draft regulations propose making it a legal requirement that the commission's representation include two members from the environment sector and three from the agriculture sector, given the size and diverse nature of those sectors, to ensure that their voices are heard. It is also considered important to have a rural representative on the commission, because it is important that rural views are heard and that all communities are included in the discussion. Whilst reducing emissions will deliver long-term financial benefits, it requires upfront investment. Including a representative from the green finance sector will provide access to expertise on private-sector green finance initiatives that may help to support decarbonisation.

The regulations make provision for the commission to establish ad hoc committees or invite external experts. It is expected that the commission will utilise that power whenever it requires specific expertise that is not already held in its membership.

To assist with transparency, the regulations create the requirement that all reports produced by the commission be laid with the Assembly. The regulations also provide for the commission to request information from public bodies to assist it in its functions. The strength of views from the consultation focused on the sectors the representation of which has now been added in as being mandated. To ensure that the commission can function effectively, it is important not to make it unwieldy or overly administrative. I recognise the wide range of voices that must be heard, and the commission will undertake extensive engagement in fulfilling its advisory and oversight role. It also has the ability to bring in other voices and skills in the form of expert advice, observer roles or working groups and committees.

The consultation made it clear that there was overwhelming support for the just transition commission across all sectors and stakeholders. That was clearly evidenced during the time that we were holding the consultation and in our evaluation of the responses. I thank everyone who took the time to engage on the development of the commission through that process. Their input has been key and is reflected in the regulations. Given that the commission's work will be long-term, the regulations have been framed carefully to ensure that it can operate effectively while remaining flexible and carry out its work transparently.

As Minister, I am firmly committed to a just transition. The commission is a welcome and important step in ensuring that our decarbonisation is fair and that no one is left behind.

Mr Kingston: Will the Minister give way?

Mr Muir: Yes.

Mr Kingston: Does the Minister support climate change targets that mean that no major new roads can be built in Northern Ireland?

Mr Muir: The Member may be touching on a case that is before the courts at the moment, and I would be conscious of that. I am very clear, however, that climate action and infrastructure investment are not incompatible. That is very clear. It is also very clear that history will not judge the DUP well when it comes to some of its contributions to this debate and to other debates on climate change.

This morning, I was at an event at which business leaders

business leaders set out very clearly to the attendees the realities that the science and evidence on climate change present to us. We owe it to communities around Northern Ireland to take climate action. I will not consign people to the devastation that will be on the journey ahead if we do not take action. Climate change is a reality in Northern Ireland.

Ms Ennis: I thank the Minister for giving way. It is a bit like the twilight zone in here sometimes.

The Minister knows that the just transition commission is an outworking of the Climate Change Act. I remind the DUP that it supported that Act. Not only did it support it, but it claimed credit for it in its 2022 Assembly election manifesto. Maybe that slipped its Members' minds. The DUP told people then that it would:

Does the Minister agree that the DUP is all over the place on the issue? As usual, the DUP is loud on grievance but quiet on credibility.

Mr Muir: It is correct that the regulations that I am presenting today arose from the climate change legislation passed in 2022. It was passed unanimously at Final Stage. It is important that we respect the democratic mandate of the House and the reality of the advantages that Northern Ireland can get from decarbonisation.

Unlike others in the House, I will not mimic the Trump playbook, which perpetuates reliance on fossil fuels. We need to get off the fossil fuel roller coaster, decarbonise, move to clean local energy and let people take advantage of that. The journey that we must travel has to be fair. It has to be just, and it has to make sure that nobody is left behind. That is why we are establishing the just transition commission. That is really important to me and to the people of Northern Ireland, and, as was clearly evidenced by the consultation, there is strong support for it. I present the regulations —.

Mr Kingston: Will the Minister give way?

Mr Muir: I will continue to make my winding-up speech.

I present the regulations because it is important that we take climate action. We have already published a climate adaptation plan for Northern Ireland, and I will be seeking Executive approval for the Northern Ireland climate action plan, on which we have consulted. Some of the nonsense that is being said here distracts from reality. It is very clear that climate action is not something that we can wish away; it is action that we must take. I will not turn my back on the opportunities to lead on decarbonisation that we in Northern Ireland have and that businesses are grasping.

I commend the regulations to the House and urge Members to endorse them. We must travel the road of decarbonisation so that all our citizens can benefit from climate action.

Mr Frew (The Chairperson of the Committee for Justice): I beg to move

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

Mr Frew: I begin by placing on record that the Committee welcomes the engagement that it has had so far on the Bill with the Department of Justice. Our pre-legislative discussions began as early as March 2025, when the Minister of Justice gave evidence to the Committee and provided a brief outline of the Bill's intended remit. Departmental officials provided a more detailed breakdown of its content in November 2025. The Committee was advised that the intention behind the Bill was to build on work started as far back as 2016, when Claire Sugden initiated a review of sentencing provision during her tenure as Minister of Justice. The fact that the Bill has been at least 10 years in development demonstrates its complexity and the level of consideration that will be required at Committee Stage.

Sentencing is not a straightforward area of legislation. I think that all Members will acknowledge that it is a complex, detailed and important aspect of law. Not only is it technical and complex, but the Bill deals with some sensitive issues that have a real-life impact on victims and their families. The Committee Stage of the Bill formally began on 18 March 2026, but, even before that, the Committee had begun to receive correspondence from members of the public about the Bill's content and, indeed, about what is not included. It is of clear importance to us all, and it is important that we get it right.

The Bill deals with many different areas related to sentencing, and each one is significant in its own right. I will not go through each one in detail but will highlight some of the key provisions that the Committee will examine.

Part 1 of the Bill sets out the purposes and principles of sentencing and seeks to improve awareness and understanding of how sentencing decisions are made. That is a vital element of the Bill. We have all heard about the lack of transparency and the apparent mystery that surrounds sentencing decisions, which has, on occasions, led to a public outcry. Measures that improve transparency and help the understanding of how sentencing decisions are reached are to be welcomed. It is the Committee's responsibility to make sure that the provisions are sufficient and meaningful and will achieve their stated aim.

Part 2 relates to suspended sentences. They can be a key part of a bigger picture in trying to reduce reoffending and providing restorative justice and alternatives to custody. Suspended sentencing must balance the need for the punishment of offenders with the delivery of justice for victims, who remain paramount in the Committee's thoughts and considerations. It must also provide for rehabilitation and restorative or reparative justice to seek to prevent reoffending and to provide the offender with the ability to make amends for their crimes.

The Bill also sets out the starting points for mandatory life tariffs, which can be adjusted by considering aggravating or mitigating factors. It also clarifies and expands the arrangements for referral of certain cases when sentences are considered to be too lenient. Again, I am sure that Members will have been approached by their constituents about those issues when they have felt that the sentence given to an offender has been wholly inadequate. The Bill also includes provisions to deal with sentencing where an offender has failed to disclose the location of a victim's remains or how a victim's remains were disposed of. We will all be fully aware of the horrific cases that have affected families in Northern Ireland. Those provisions are therefore hugely impactful, and the Committee needs to make sure that they are the best that can be delivered.

Part 6 deals with aggravators to sentences for crimes committed against certain groups and includes race, religion, sexual orientation, disability and vulnerability, as well as introducing a new offence and new aggravators for attacks on public workers. We have already received representations questioning whether the right categories are included, whether the aggravators are sufficient or whether there is anything missing. Those are all questions that the Committee will wish to consider and that we will, no doubt, hear evidence about.

Part 7 deals with road traffic offences and stiffer sentencing for causing death or serious injury through driving whilst under the influence of drugs or alcohol, as well as careless driving or driving while distracted, and tougher sentencing for repeat offenders. I suspect that every Member in the Chamber will be familiar with the case of Enda Dolan, whose family has campaigned tirelessly on the issue and fought with such dignity and decorum on the need for greater deterrence in cases like his.

There is then what is not in the Bill. The Committee has already had correspondence from several individuals and other stakeholders about issues relating to sentencing that, they feel, are missing from the Bill. New offences and additional aggravators are proposed that will require consideration by the Committee, including consideration of whether the Bill is the right vehicle to take those issues forward.

Mr Deputy Speaker, I have tried to be brief, but, as you will recognise, it is not a simple or straightforward Bill. The Committee therefore needs the appropriate time to make sure that the Bill is fit for purpose. The timing of the Bill's introduction means that the Committee Stage began just before Easter, and the Committee wasted no time in issuing its call for evidence. While an extension until 27 November may seem long, it must be remembered that it covers not only the Easter period but the summer and Halloween recess periods. We will start to take oral evidence in the coming weeks. I should point out, though, that our consideration of matters relating to the Justice Bill is ongoing, but we will do our best to manage the knock-on effect that that may have on our consideration of the Criminal Justice (Sentencing etc) Bill.

Mr Butler: I thank the Member for giving way. I find this fascinating, given that we passed legislation in the previous mandate that Justice Humphreys found issues with. I think it was sections 12 to 16 of the Justice (Sexual Offences and Trafficking Victims) Act (Northern Ireland) 2022. Will the extension give the Committee more time to listen specifically to victims' groups, which held us accountable for the shortcomings in the previous legislation?

Mr Frew: The Member raises a valid question and a real reason why we need the extension: so that we can give time to the victims, victims' groups and families who have suffered at the hands of perpetrators. The Assembly should give us that latitude in dealing with and scrutinising the Bill so that we afford victims the right to be heard by the Committee.

The Committee recognises the importance of prioritising legislation and ensuring that it is scrutinised robustly. We also recognise that there is not a lot of time left in the mandate, so we have tried to balance what, we feel, is necessary and proportionate against that. If we can complete our scrutiny before 27 November, we will do so. Legislation like this must be fit for purpose. Legislation on some of the matters that the Bill covers has been a long time coming, and it is welcome that we now have it in front of us. We have to get it right so that victims and survivors, their families and all those involved can have greater confidence in the justice system.

The Committee's aim is to conduct effective scrutiny to ensure that what is added to the statute book is clear and coherent and delivers for the public. That is especially important with a Bill such as the Sentencing Bill. I therefore trust that the Assembly will support the extension of the Committee Stage of the Sentencing Bill to 27 November and support the Committee for Justice in its scrutiny of the Bill. I commend the motion to the House.

Mr Blair: I beg to introduce the Hunting with Dogs Bill [NIA Bill 33/22-27], which is a Bill to prohibit hunting wild mammals with dogs; to prohibit trail hunting; to prohibit terrier work; and to set out exemptions from these prohibitions.

Mr McAleer: I beg to move

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

Declan, please open the debate on the motion.

Mr McAleer: Go raibh maith agat.

The motion is on an issue of immense importance to the agriculture community. It goes far beyond animal health and strikes at the heart of our rural economy, environment and public health. I will begin by stating that we tabled a similar motion in the House in November 2024, and it is unfortunate that, a year and a half later, we are still having the same debate.

Today's motion recognises that high levels of disease, including bovine tuberculosis (bTB), undermine environmental sustainability by increasing resource use per unit of food produced and contributing to higher greenhouse gas emissions. That is not an abstract theory; it is borne out by evidence. Research, including findings highlighted in 'Acting on methane: opportunities for the UK cattle and sheep sectors', shows that premature culling driven by bTB policy is not just an animal health failure but a climate failure. By shortening the herd longevity and forcing higher replacement rates, early removal of cattle increases methane emissions.

The Department has acknowledged that bTB-related culling undermines lifetime productivity and can worsen greenhouse gas outcomes, particularly where stocking rates remain high, yet policy continues to prioritise short-term responses over long-term disease control measures that would better serve farmers, the environment and our climate commitments.

The scale of the economic burden is stark. A major independent study commissioned by the Ulster Farmers' Union (UFU), the Livestock and Meat Commission and the Dairy Council found that the indirect cost to farmers is estimated at £96 million a year, with a total economic cost rising to approximately £156 million annually when departmental spending is included. That underlines the truth that bTB is not just an animal health issue; it is a major economic crisis for our farming sector.

More than half of those costs occur in herds that have not even experienced a breakdown. That tells us that the disease creates a constant baseline burden across the entire industry. Farmers are dealing with production losses, additional labour, cash flow pressures, increased biosecurity costs and environmental inefficiencies, even when they are not directly affected by an outbreak.

The failure to tackle bTB is also reflected in the growing cost to the public purse. The Department estimates that bTB will cost between £65 million and £66 million in the 2025-26 financial year, which is an increase on the £60·1 million spent last year. A substantial proportion of that is compensation for culled animals. Year after year, costs rise, cattle are culled, and farmers pay the price while the underlying drivers of the disease remain unresolved. That is not a sustainable strategy; it is an expensive cycle that we can no longer afford.

We also cannot ignore the human impact. The stress, uncertainty and emotional toll on farming families are very real. It is a long-term structural problem not a short-term issue, and it affects not only farm profitability but mental health, family life and the sustainability of rural communities.

Earlier this year, I asked the Department to outline the economic cost of rising bTB levels, and the response was stark. In 2025, more than 20,000 cattle were culled from farms as part of disease control measures. That level of loss disrupts breeding programmes, reduces milk output, delays sales and cuts farm income. Compensation alone is projected to exceed £55 million this financial year. That is an unsustainable trajectory for farmers and the public purse. The impact extends far beyond individual farms; it affects livestock marts, processors, rural employment and the wider agri-food supply chain. It also has implications for domestic food security and the competitiveness of our export.

Despite all that, there is a growing perception that action is not matched by the scale of the urgency of the problem. On the issue of wildlife intervention, there has been considerable focus on the judicial review. It is important to be clear that the case was not whether a badger cull should or should not take place. Rather, it was about the process of consultation. The court found that the Department had breached the Gunning principles by failing to provide sufficient information and failing to carefully consider consultation responses. Crucially, the judgement made no comment on the merits of the policy itself. What is required now is a lawful, transparent and robust consultation process without any further delay.

If we are serious about eradication, as we must be, we need a coordinated, eradication-focused approach that tackles all drivers of the disease. That includes cattle measures, strengthened biosecurity and targeted, science-led wildlife intervention to reduce breakdown risks. The TB eradication partnership's blueprint provides a pathway forward, and additional funding through the Shared Island initiative is very welcome. The regional cooperation programme, which is backed by €6·4 million in additional funding, is a practical step towards a coordinated cross-border approach. However, concerns have been raised, including by the Ulster Farmers' Union, that the pilot area may not reflect the full reality of the disease across the North. That must be addressed if we are to have confidence in its outcomes.

The reality is that the status quo is not working. Costs are too high and the burden on farmers too great. The impacts on our economy, our environment and public health are too serious to ignore when dealing with a disease that affects every part of our rural fabric. It is time for decisive, coordinated action.

Miss McIlveen: I beg to move the following amendment:

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): You will have 10 minutes to propose and five minutes to make a winding-up speech. All other contributors will have five minutes.

Miss McIlveen: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I thank the Members who tabled the motion. As we have heard, bovine TB is a serious and persistent challenge. It has implications for public health and animal welfare and, perhaps more significantly, for the livelihoods and well-being of our farming families. While we recognise the problem, we also need to ensure that the Assembly is grounded in the realities that are facing Northern Ireland and that a response is shaped by the best available evidence.

The motion references the increase in human TB cases. We know from the Public Health Agency that there were 86 notified cases in 2024. However, it is important to place on record that the risk from bovine TB remains very low, with just three cases identified in Northern Ireland. That context matters, and it allows us to respond proportionately whilst still taking the issue seriously. While the direct public health risk may be low, the impact on our farming community is profound and increasing. Members will be aware of the recent report from the Andersons Centre, commissioned by industry bodies including the Ulster Farmers' Union, in which the true scale of the burden that is being placed on the farming community as a result of bovine TB is laid bare. The report is not just timely with regard to this debate but provides us with invaluable information to understand the true cost of bovine TB, including on the mental health of our farmers.

What we learn is that there is an annual economic cost of approximately £156 million to Northern Ireland's agriculture sector. Importantly, however, and a fact before now unknown, is that over £96 million of that figure is borne directly by farmers themselves through indirect costs. For every £1 that it costs the Government, it costs farmers over £1·60. What is particularly striking is that over half those costs arise even in herds that have never experienced a TB breakdown. The cost of bovine TB is a burden that is being carried across the entire sector, not just by a small number of farms.

The Andersons Centre report is clear that bovine TB is not a short-term or isolated issue. Rather, it is a structural constraint on livestock farming in Northern Ireland. It is embedded across the sector, cumulative in its impact and acts as a persistent drag on farm profitability, efficiency and sustainability. Those are not abstract costs; they include production losses, additional labour demands, increased biosecurity costs, cash-flow pressures and environmental inefficiencies. They are felt day-in, day-out by farmers who are already working long hours in a challenging economic climate.

Behind every statistic is a real farm family who are dealing with uncertainty. Individuals are feeling the stress and emotional strain every day. Herds that have been built up over generations are being placed at risk. Livelihoods are at risk, and farms that have been handed down from generation to generation are facing ruin. There is an inescapable and significant emotional toll. The report highlights stress, anxiety and even social withdrawal as common experiences during TB breakdowns. Those pressures persist long after restrictions are lifted. They mean that farmers no longer want to farm and the next generation looks elsewhere. Some 50·9% of farmers state that they have considered leaving farming because of bovine TB. That is over half our farmers.

The impact does not stop at the farm gate. Local marts feel it when throughput declines, supply chains are disrupted and export opportunities are constrained. Our TB status limits access to certain international markets, placing Northern Ireland at a competitive disadvantage compared with other regions. When we talk about bovine TB, we are talking not just about an outbreak on a farm here and there but about a structural issue that affects the entire agri-food economy. It affects rural employment, food production and our ability to compete globally.

Why, after all this time and all the rural policy, are we still here? In its 2018 report, the Northern Ireland Audit Office (NIAO) made it clear that, despite significant public expenditure, the eradication programme has not delivered the desired outcome. The cycle of testing, removing and compensating for animals has not succeeded in eradicating the disease. Continuing with the same approach will not change that. Of course, compensation, while necessary, addresses only a fraction of the problem. There are farmers who do not recognise it as compensation. It reflects the value of animals lost, but it does not cover productivity losses, the disruption to work on the farm or the ongoing financial strain on the business. We need to move beyond simply managing the consequences of bovine TB and, instead, focus on tackling the underlying drivers of disease persistence. To do that, we need to introduce a truly comprehensive disease eradication strategy.

We welcome the work of the TB partnership group and the publication of its eradication blueprint, but having a blueprint is not enough. It must be implemented in full and with urgency. To do that, the Department needs to address all three pillars: cattle, people and wildlife. That unavoidably includes a wildlife intervention. We know that that is not a straightforward issue. No one in the Chamber takes it lightly. Badgers are an iconic part of our countryside, and there are strong views on all sides. In saying that, however, we cannot ignore the growing body of scientific evidence. Peer-reviewed research, including the 2024 analysis by Birch and colleagues, shows that, where a comprehensive package of measures that includes wildlife intervention, enhanced testing and strengthened biosecurity is implemented, TB incidence reduces significantly over time. Reductions of up to 56% have been seen by the fourth year. The evidence also shows that progress is not immediate but builds over time. That reinforces the need for a sustained, balanced and integrated approach if we are serious about eradication. That is the approach that the DUP has consistently supported. There is a need for robust, evidence-based policies, including targeted wildlife intervention alongside a long-term ambition to move towards vaccination where possible.

We also recognise the allocation of funding through the Shared Island initiative and the intention behind the regionalisation pilot. Cooperation can, of course, play a role. However, it is important that we listen carefully to the concerns raised by the Ulster Farmers' Union, which has warned that the chosen pilot area is not representative of the wider Northern Ireland TB picture. If the data that we gather is not representative, the conclusions that we draw will be fundamentally flawed. That risks setting policy back rather than moving it forward.

Farmers want solutions that work in the real conditions that they face every day. They want us to grasp that this is urgent. Across Northern Ireland, herd breakdowns remain far too high. In many constituencies, they are a regular and disruptive reality. Each breakdown brings financial strain, operational disruption and emotional stress.

Farmers are playing their part by complying with testing regimes, investing in biosecurity and adapting to changing requirements. They now need decisive action from the Department that matches their commitment. Our amendment reflects that reality. It recognises the full economic burden of bovine TB, acknowledges who is bearing that burden, highlights legitimate concerns about current approaches and calls clearly for immediate, evidence-based action, including wildlife intervention.

Doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results has been described as the definition of insanity. If we keep doing the things that we have been doing, costs will continue to rise. The burden will grow, and, unless decisive action is taken, our farmers will continue to pay the price financially, emotionally and socially. If we are serious about eradicating bovine TB, we must be willing to act. The action that we take must be guided by evidence and be focused on outcomes. We must be committed to delivering real change. At present, we are failing to deliver for our farmers and our rural communities. I commend the amendment to the House.

Mr Blair: I thank those who have moved the motion and the amendment. I will address the motion in my capacity as a member of the Committee for Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs, but I am also mindful of my role as chair of the all-party group on animal welfare in the Assembly.

The statistics, some of which are in the text of the motion, continue to speak for themselves. Bovine TB remains at an unacceptably high level in Northern Ireland. As Members have said, it is not solely a cattle issue; it affects the rural economy, food security, the resilience of agri-food supply chains and the welfare of livestock and wildlife. It also has a profound impact on farmers' mental health and well-being, as well as that of their families. For farming families, we know that the issue is deeply personal. Behind every statistic is a farmer who is dealing with uncertainty, stress and financial loss. In many cases, they are seeing animals that they have bred and cared for being removed from their herd. Even for those not currently facing a breakdown, the constant fear of one arriving at the doorstep takes a real psychological toll.

That is why it is important that action move towards a more structured and evidence-based approach, and that is exactly what the Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs has undertaken since taking office. The publication of the TB Partnership Steering Group's blueprint for eradication is a significant development that has already been welcomed in the Chamber today. The blueprint is based on three core pillars: people, cattle and wildlife. That emphasises how no single solution can address the issue. The Department is also progressing a bovine TB eradication transformation programme that supports the blueprint's implementation and the broader strategic effort to control the disease. Those steps are welcome, as is the recognition that the issue requires partnership working across government, industry and science. The additional all-island focus, including support through the Shared Island initiative, is also important, given the cross-border nature of disease risk and the benefits of cooperation on research, surveillance and eradication measures.

Those plans and programmes must now be matched by decisive delivery. If we are serious about eradication, we need action that is science-led, evidence-based and proportionate. That includes strengthening biosecurity, improving cattle controls where necessary, supporting farmer awareness and addressing wildlife intervention in a way that is effective, responsible and informed by the best available evidence. For Alliance, any response must also be mindful of animal welfare and ethical standards. We must avoid making false choices between protecting cattle, supporting farmers and safeguarding wildlife. A serious strategy should be capable of doing all three.

The Alliance Party supports the need for urgent and effective action on bovine TB. The intent and sentiment behind the motion and the amendment are therefore entirely understandable. The common enemy is bovine TB. Farmers, policymakers, veterinarians and all others involved must work together to deliver an eradication strategy that is credible and science-led and is capable of reducing disease, protecting livelihoods and improving outcomes for public health, animal welfare and environmental sustainability. We are therefore happy to support the motion and the amendment.

Mr Butler: There are things that we do in the Chamber regularly, and this is one of them. As the proposer of the motion initially said, this is a topic that has come up time and time again. Wildfires are another issue that we have been talking about. We really need to get to grips with many of the things that we just rinse and repeat every year. I support both the motion and the amendment, and I commend both Sinn Féin and the DUP in that space. As the Member from the Alliance Party has also outlined, it is an ambition that each of us has, and we need to get serious about the actions.

I record the Ulster Unionist Party's thanks to the Andersons Centre for the report that it compiled, which makes for stark and, frankly, sobering reading. For years, in the Chamber, we have talked about bovine TB in terms of compensation, reactors and headline figures. However, the report, which many of us have read, clearly and powerfully moves the conversation beyond the visible costs and shines a light on the true burden carried every day by our farming families. I have to be clear: that burden is immense. We already know from DAERA's figures that bovine TB will cost the public purse in excess of £60 million this year. We know that tens of thousands of cattle — around 20,000 animals annually — are slaughtered as reactors or direct contacts. We know that herd incidents continually sit stubbornly high at around 10% or more in recent years. However, those are only the headline numbers.

The Andersons Centre's report tells us that, behind those figures, there is a much deeper, much more personal cost — one that is largely hidden, largely unmeasured and, until now, too often overlooked. The March 2026 assessment makes it clear that farmers bear the largest share of the total economic cost of bTB, not the Department, not the system but the farmers. The report highlights that, for many farm businesses, the indirect costs of such things as loss of productivity, extended calving, disrupted breeding programmes, additional feed, additional labour and movement restrictions can run into tens of thousands of pounds per breakdown. In some cases, those hidden costs can be equal to or even exceed the compensation that the farmers receive. So, when we talk about the £60 million-plus problem, we are only telling part of the story. The real cost, the true cost, is significantly higher, and it is being absorbed quietly, relentlessly and invisibly by farm families across Northern Ireland, and that matters. It matters not just economically but environmentally.

The motion rightly recognises that high levels of animal disease undermine sustainability. A herd under restriction is an inefficient herd. More inputs are required per unit of output, more feed, more time, more emissions — all for less productivity. If we are serious about climate targets and about sustainable food production, we must also be serious about eradicating bovine tuberculosis. It matters for animal welfare. As Mr Blair, the chairman of the all-party group on animal welfare, and I, as vice-chair, say, we have to care about all animals equally. Michelle McIlveen talked about the public love and understanding for the badger, but we have to look at them in the same way as we in the farming family look at cows.

It matters for public health also. That was picked up in the amendment to the motion. The figure of three human cases locally adds a wider context of concern for all of us. Crucially, it matters for mental health, because, behind every statistic, there is a farmer lying awake at night, a family dealing with uncertainty and a business under pressure with no clear end in sight. When that news drops onto a farm, it does not disappear overnight; in fact, it extends into weeks and months of worry and leaves an indelible scar. The Andersons report also gives voice to those experiences and confirms what many of us already knew but could not prove. We have the evidence now, and we cannot ignore it.

The amendment strengthens the motion, and we support it. It rightly recognises the broader economic impact not just on farms but on agri-food supply chains, rural employment and local livestock marts. It acknowledges the blueprint from the TB Partnership Steering Group and welcomes funding through the Shared Island initiative, whilst it also reflects genuine and valid concerns from the Ulster Farmers' Union about whether the pilot area is truly representative of the problem that is facing Northern Ireland. That point should not be dismissed lightly, because, if we are to succeed, any intervention must be evidence-based, regionally appropriate and delivered with the confidence of the farming community.

That brings me to the central issue of action. The time for reports alone has indeed passed. We do not lack understanding; we do not lack evidence; we do not lack recommendations; and we do not lack Adjournment debates, Members' statements or motions tabled by parties. What we have lacked consistently is decisive implementation. The Andersons report is clear that compensation alone is not enough, and farmers know that. What is required is a comprehensive, science-led eradication strategy that includes all necessary measures, including wildlife intervention. As I have said, that does not come without its controversy, so we need to step in line with that.

To sum up, our farmers are not asking for sympathy. They would rather not ask for compensation. They are asking for leadership and for a plan that works, for timelines that mean something and for partnerships and not platitudes from us.

Mr McCrossan: Bovine tuberculosis remains a serious and persistent challenge facing our farming community. It costs in excess of £60 million a year. It puts pressure on family farms, strain on livelihoods and real stress on those working day and night to keep their business going. Behind every breakdown is a farmer dealing with uncertainty, financial loss and, too often, a serious toll on their mental health and well-being.

To be clear from the outset, it is an issue that demands urgency, seriousness and a response that is grounded in evidence and will work in practice. We will support the motion, but it is important that we also recognise the complexity of the challenge that is front of the Assembly. There is no single cause of bovine tuberculosis, and there is no single solution. The evidence is clear that the disease is driven by a combination of cattle transmission and wildlife factors. That means that the response must be equally comprehensive. We need to see progress across a full range of measures. That includes stronger and more effective testing regimes; better biodiversity on our farms; movement controls that are workable and proportionate; and continued progress towards vaccination both in cattle and in wildlife. What farmers need is not one headline measure but a strategy that is coordinated, sustained and capable of delivering real reductions in the disease.

It is also important that we acknowledge the concerns being raised by the farming community. It has been referenced that the Ulster Farmers’ Union has highlighted serious issues with the current regionalisation proposals. It has pointed out that the proposed pilot area may not be representative of the wider Northern Ireland picture. If that is indeed the case, there is a real risk that we end up with results that are skewed and not applicable across the region. That is a legitimate concern that the Department must heed and address. Farmers need clarity. They need to know in advance what measures will be compulsory, what will be voluntary and what the practical implications will be for their businesses. In particular, there must be clear communication on how movement in and out of any pilot area will operate. We cannot have a situation where farmers are being asked to sign up to a scheme without fully understanding the impact that it will have on them. Confidence in the process will be built only through transparency, clarity and engagement.

On the issue of wildlife intervention, I want to be careful and considered. There is a role for intervention, but it must be guided by evidence, properly designed and proportionate. This is not about lifting one approach and assuming that it will work here; it is about ensuring that any measures taken are effective and sustainable and command public and stakeholder confidence. There are a range of interventions that can and should be considered, including vaccination and other measures. The key point is that decisions must be based on sound science and evidence and the clear understanding of what will deliver results in our context.

Ultimately, what farmers want is progress on this. They want to see a plan that reduces the disease, protects their herds and gives them a future. They also want to know that the significant cost to the taxpayer is being used effectively and that we are moving towards a system that is sustainable in the long term.

Whilst we support the motion and the amendment, we do so on the basis that this must be part of a wider, coherent strategy; one that brings all the necessary measures together, one that listens to the farming community, and one that is focused, above all else, on delivering real and lasting reductions in bovine TB.

Ms Finnegan: I support the motion, because bovine tuberculosis is not just an agriculture issue; it is an environment issue, a public health issue and, fundamentally, a livelihood issue for farming families across our rural communities.

We cannot ignore the reality that high levels of disease in our herd increase emissions and costs and undermine the stability of our food production. When animals are lost, herds are restricted and farmers are left in limbo, that has a real and lasting impact not only on the agri-food sector but on the people whom it leaves behind. Let us be clear: our farmers are carrying a heavy burden. We are talking about a disease that is costing over £60 million every year. That money could be invested in the rural economy and sustainability measures and used to support farm families. Instead, it is being drained by a problem that we have yet to get fully under control.

Yes, action is absolutely needed, but it must be the right action. It is not simply about one measure or one headline. It is about the integrity of the process and ensuring that any intervention is based on just transition, fairness and proper consultation. Farmers deserve to have confidence in the approach being taken, and they deserve transparency. They deserve to know that decisions are being made with them not done to them. We have to be honest about the complexity of the issue. Wildlife intervention is part of the conversation, but it cannot be the only conversation. If we are talking about exceptional measures in one area, how we apply standards across the board must be consistent.

Animal welfare, environmental protection and disease control must be considered together, not in isolation. When we see 1,200 to 1,300 cattle being culled monthly as a result of bovine TB, does that not meet exceptional circumstances? If there are animal welfare measures in place, and rightly so, for badgers, why does the same not apply to cattle? Crucially, we must not lose sight of the opportunity that exists through cooperation. The Shared Island approach and the work of the TB partnership group show that progress is possible when we take a coordinated, evidence-based and all-island view. That is where real change will come from.

The motion sends a clear message that we recognise the scale of the challenge, support farmers, and are calling for urgent, effective and fair action to finally tackle bovine TB. Doing nothing is not an option, but doing the wrong thing would be just as damaging.

Mrs Erskine: I support the amendment, and I welcome the opportunity to speak on an issue, namely bovine tuberculosis, that weighs heavily on farmers and families in the rural community that I represent in Fermanagh and South Tyrone.

This is not an abstract policy debate where I come from. In 2025, in Dungannon divisional veterinary office (DVO), nearly 10 out of every 100 herds became newly infected. In Enniskillen, that figure was 12 in every 100. That represents thousands of cattle. Therefore, this is real, relentless and devastating. Across my constituency, farm after farm has faced the consequences of bovine TB. Entire herds built up over generations have been lost in a matter of weeks. Livelihoods are shaken, and the emotional toll on farming families is profound. We must be clear: it is not just an animal health issue. It is an economic problem, a component in creating bad mental health in farm families, and an environmental concern all rolled into one.

In Fermanagh and South Tyrone, the most immediate impact is felt in the farmyard. Farmers are carrying the heaviest burden of this disease. They are the ones who face repeated testing, movement restrictions and the financial uncertainty that comes with breakdown after breakdown. The stress of not knowing whether your herd will be next is constant. It affects sleep, family life and mental well-being. We must not underestimate the human cost: behind every statistic is a family just trying to keep going.

The financial implications are equally stark, with costs exceeding £60 million a year. This disease drains the public purse and the agriculture sector. That is money that could be invested in growth, innovation and sustainability. Instead, it is being spent on managing a problem that has persisted for far too long. The ripple effect, as we heard today, goes beyond the farm gate to livestock marts, hauliers, processors and rural businesses, all of which feel the impact of this disease. In constituencies such as mine, where agriculture underpins the local economy, TB threatens jobs, supply chains and, ultimately, our food security. Whilst we welcome the work that has been done to date — the blueprint to eradicate bovine TV provides a framework, and additional funding through cross-border initiatives is a positive step — let us be honest: progress has been too slow, and farmers are losing patience.

There is also a clear concern that pilot schemes, such as those discussed in the Chamber this evening, do not fully reflect the reality on the ground in constituencies such as mine, Fermanagh and South Tyrone, where prevalence of the disease is high and persistent. Any strategy must be representative, practical and capable of delivering real results across all areas.

Today, as often before, we call time on bovine TB. Delay is no longer acceptable. We call for immediate and decisive action. That includes addressing one of the most difficult but unavoidable aspects of the issue, which is wildlife intervention. We cannot continue to ignore the fact that wildlife plays a role in the spread of bovine TB. Other regions have taken action. While it is not without controversy, it is part of a comprehensive approach to eradication. Farmers in my constituency understand that it is not about quick fixes or single solutions. However, I point out that the eradication of bovine TB became a departmental policy in 1964. Over 60 years later, incidence of the disease remains high. What farmers in my constituency want most is certainty. They want to know that there is a clear plan that will be implemented and that will deliver results. Today, therefore, I urge that we not accept just another consultation or review but that we act on what we are hearing from farmers on the ground, who feel the impact of this most severely. Farmers in Fermanagh and South Tyrone cannot wait any longer.

Mr McMurray: I welcome the motion and the debate. Bovine TB is one of the most pressing issues facing our agriculture sector and community. It is by no means the only factor, but the emotional toll that it takes on our farmers cannot be overstated. I will touch on that later.

I will start with some numbers highlighted in the recent report by the Andersons Centre: the indirect costs borne by farmers. Bovine TB costs the taxpayer £60 million every year, which is money that could make such a difference elsewhere if the disease were eradicated.

I am not a farmer, but, like many, I am only a few generations removed from a farm. As a child, I spent many years on farms and, until other distractions got in the way, loved doing that, so I have nothing but empathy for the farmers who have to deal with the trauma that comes when bovine TB hits one or many of their herd. Some are visibly upset, some more stoic, but all are affected when this happens. Of course, there is a practical cost to the farmers, not least to dairy farmers. They are losing a breed line, losing production and incurring overheads for keeping cattle that could otherwise be sold. The dairy farmer gets it hard. Indeed, the Andersons Centre report highlights the fact that indirect costs can be as high as £96 million.

During the week, I spoke to one farmer about bovine TB on his farm. The issue has not arrived in the past two years that the Minister has been in post. It was not dealt with by the previous Minister, and, as was referenced to me, it has been 30 or 40 years in the making. The mistake of not dealing with the issue led to delays that were further compounded by the DUP's decision to walk away from the Executive and to shut down the Assembly for two years. As with a lot of things, we could be two years further down the road in developing a response to eradicate bovine TB, but we are not.

Alliance will remain open-minded and await feedback on wildlife intervention and the associated evidence. However, Minister Muir has learned from his predecessors' mistakes. I am glad that he is approaching the issue with the urgency and rigour that it deserves to ensure that any measures that are brought forward will stand on solid legal ground.

I welcome the TB stakeholder body that the Minister established on the recommendation of the Chief Veterinary Officer. It has produced a blueprint for tackling bovine TB that includes actions on people, cattle and wildlife; it is important that we tackle all three. I am grateful that the Minister has endorsed the blueprint and is putting in place a TB transformation programme to advance progress as quickly as possible.

There is also an innovative pilot, supported by the Shared Island Fund, that adopts a regionalisation approach to tackling TB on a cross-border basis. That makes sense, because diseases such as bovine TB do not respect borders. I hope that the pilot will be a success and that it will continue.

It is important that we all work together to tackle the disease. For the sake of our farmers and our rural communities, we need to set aside narrow party political interests and support the Minister in his endeavours.

Mr Gaston: The latest figures published by DAERA expose the fact that the strategy being deployed by the Minister to tackle bovine TB is failing, and failing miserably at that. Whose future is being put at risk due to that chronic failure? Is it those who champion the protection of the disease-ridden badger? Is it the Department? No. It is the hard-working farmer who sees their livelihood put at risk every time a reactor goes down on their farm. When I engage with the agri-industry, I hear that TB is the greatest concern on any family farm, due to the financial and mental health impact on it of there being reactors.

Let us look at the figures for the past five years to familiarise ourselves with the extent of the bTB problem in Northern Ireland. In the past five years, 89,281 cattle have been subject to compulsory removal due to reacting to the skin test, and 7,997 cattle have been subject to compulsory removal due to a positive blood test. That means that 97,278 cattle have destroyed since 2021 due to TB. Having no problem with killing cattle, which impacts livelihoods, but being happy to protect badgers, which are the most common carriers of TB in animals, is certainly not a policy that I can support.

The only data that we have to rely on to estimate the percentage of badgers infected with TB is based on roadkill. The most up-to-date figures show that 21% of the badgers killed on the roads in 2024 tested positive for TB, which, I believe, underestimates the scale of infection.

The motion puts the cost to the Department of bTB at £60 million. A recent report launched by the UFU estimates the indirect costs borne by farmers at £96 million per year. That is a total cost of £156 million to the Northern Ireland economy.

If we want to address the elephant in the room, we need to address the badger. We can eradicate ferrets on Rathlin Island, but we cannot even bring bTB under control. If the Assembly and the Minister are going to get serious about addressing bovine TB, he must introduce a badger cull.

The evidence is clear. Farmers can do all that they can through taking preventative measures, but if 21% of the badgers killed on our roads had TB, they are fighting a losing battle with an arm tied behind their back. An analysis of a badger-culling intervention in England estimated that there had been a reduction of around 56% in culled areas. The report states:

If solely culling is not an option, what about vaccination? Research from the University of Cambridge found that vaccination not only reduces the severity of TB in infected cattle but reduces its spread in dairy herds by 89%. Even if we were to have a vaccination programme, however, we would need to run a culling programme alongside it in order to bring bTB under control finally.

I have been speaking to a family who are taking part in the pilot scheme. They have not been updated on the scheme's progress since its launch. Perhaps the Minister can provide an update in his response. How many badgers caught in Northern Ireland have been put down as carrying TB? How does that figure differ from that for roadkill figures? I trust that the Minister will take note.

I am surprised that the DUP amendment welcomes the allocation of funding from the Shared Island Fund to tackle bovine TB. It made no effort to remove the same reference in the motion from its amendment. The TUV's position is clear: TB must be eradicated and farmers supported, but —

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Timothy, will you draw your remarks to a close? Thank you.

Mr Gaston: — that must be done at Stormont, paid for by, and interacting with policy from, this place, rather than by piggybacking on a foreign jurisdiction to give the Minister cover to say that he is doing something about it.

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

Mr Muir (The Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs): Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I thank the Members who tabled what is important motion, and I thank Members for their contributions to the debate.

Bovine tuberculosis is not simply an animal health issue but one of the most persistent, complex and emotionally draining challenges facing our agri-food sector. Members are correct to highlight the very real burden that the disease places on farmers and their families. The TB breakdown does not end when the last animal is tested and removed. Its effects on farm viability, family life and mental well-being can linger for months or even years. The disease also has a wider impact on our rural communities, resulting in unsustainable costs to industry, farm families and government.

The financial cost of delivering the Northern Ireland bovine TB control programme is well documented, and it is clear that the current trajectory is not sustainable for the public purse. It is important, however, that I state that departmental expenditure tells only one part of the story. Just two weeks ago, the Ulster Farmers' Union, working with the Livestock and Meat Commission and the Dairy Council, published a valuable and timely study by the Andersons Centre on the indirect costs to farmers of bovine TB. The report estimates the wider costs of lost output, extra labour, disrupted breeding plans and the impacts on cash flow at £96 million a year. When those indirect costs are set alongside the £70 million that is borne by the taxpayer, it becomes clear that bovine TB is exerting an unacceptable strain on public finances and the farming economy. It is vital, however, that we maintain a credible and internationally respected bovine TB control regime. Our trade in bovine products — meat and dairy — now approaches £3 billion annually. Market confidence, consumer trust and access to expert markets depend on the integrity of our animal health systems. That is why reforming and strengthening the bTB control programme is not optional. Rather, it is essential in order to protect farmers, taxpayers and the wider economy.

I will return to talking about the concrete steps that we are taking to effect reform. First, however, I will respond on some of the important issues that the motion and amendment raise. The motion refers to the recent increase in human cases of tuberculosis in Northern Ireland. Although only a small number of those cases are attributable to bovine TB — three out of 86 cases that have been notified to the Public Health Agency, as was set out during the debate — they nonetheless serve as an important reminder that bovine TB is a zoonotic disease. Our TB eradication efforts have their origins in public health. The pasteurisation of milk, meat inspections and the compulsory surveillance programme have, thankfully, removed the widespread risks from bovine TB that were seen in the early 20th century. However, farm families and those working closely with cattle in affected herds must be mindful of the risk to their health.

Alongside a physical risk is the very real toll on mental health. I have spoken directly to farmers who have described the strain of living under prolonged restriction, the uncertainty, the repeated testing and the effect on their immediate family. The UFU's recent study reinforces those experiences, showing that stress and anxiety often peak during testing and breakdown periods but do not simply disappear afterwards. I was particularly struck by the finding that 14% of calls to Rural Support relate specifically to the impact of bovine TB. That is a stark statistic, and it should make us all pause and reflect on the adverse wider impact on farm families. Let me say this clearly to farmers and their families: no one should face this alone. Support services such as Rural Support do vital work, and I continue to encourage anyone who is affected, emotionally or mentally, to seek help early.

The motion also draws our attention to the environmental consequences of bovine TB and animal disease in general. While the impacts are not well quantified, there is little doubt that the premature slaughter of around 20,000 cattle each year carries a significant environmental cost. Evidence from farmers, including in the UFU report, shows that herd owners often retain surplus stock to mitigate production losses, particularly in dairy herds. To address that, my officials are working closely with the TB partnership steering group on new criteria for alternative control herds — both finishing and rearing units — that could alleviate overstocking pressures whilst remaining fully compliant with the legislative requirements. I expect to see further advice on that shortly.

Despite the challenges, I appreciate Members' recognition of the progress that has been made. Since becoming Minister, I have been clear that meaningful reductions in bovine TB must be science-led, evidence-based and grounded in partnership. As has been set out in the debate by other contributors, no single measure and no single stakeholder can resolve the problem alone. That is why, in January last year, I established the TB partnership steering group and tasked it with considering, at pace, the Chief Veterinary Officer's recommendations on the next steps for our TB programme. Just three months later, in April last year, I was pleased to endorse the group's agreed blueprint for eradication. The blueprint represents a new, clear step forward for government/stakeholder cooperation. It is not a theoretical document; it is a practical, jointly owned road map for action. It demonstrates what can be achieved when government, farming organisations, vets and environment and industry bodies work together in good faith. Real progress is already being made, but I acknowledge that more needs to be done.

We have increased the use of supplementary interferon-gamma testing in breakdown herds from 17,000 tests in 2024-25 to 24,000 tests in 2025-26. Subject to funding, I would like to increase that to a further 30,000 in the coming year. The test is an important tool, allowing us to detect infection that is missed by the tuberculin skin test. Working with the partnership steering group, my officials are considering the criteria under which its use should be mandated, bringing Northern Ireland into closer alignment with practice elsewhere.

We are also improving transparency for farmers. To date, officials have highlighted the risks associated with cattle that have previously recorded inconclusive test results. Further work is under way to allow herdkeepers to access their detailed TB testing history online through the Northern Ireland food animal information system, empowering farmers with better information to manage risk.

The motion, rightly, recognises the regionalisation research pilot that is now under way in the north-west. That five-year initiative, which is being taken forward in partnership with the Irish Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine (DAFM), represents a genuinely innovative approach on this island. Funded through the Republic of Ireland's Shared Island initiative and UK Government transformation funding, it is the first time that a structured, regionalised approach to TB control has been trialled on a cross-border basis. The pilot includes enhanced cattle testing, strengthened movement controls, improved biosecurity and, subject to licensing, further research on the test and vaccinate or remove approaches to wildlife intervention.

I take issue with the assertion in the amendment that the area chosen for the pilot in Northern Ireland is somehow not representative of our overall bovine TB picture. Although a border area was chosen to align with DAFM’s preference for north-east Donegal, herd incidents in the selected regionalised area in 2024 was marginally higher, at just over 11%, when compared to the average for Northern Ireland of 10·7%. The chosen region also benefits from a number of natural boundaries, such as the River Foyle and the Sperrins. In addition, the area experiences more cattle exports than imports, both of which are important factors in supporting the successful delivery of the pilot. Indeed, I am already greatly encouraged by reports that the sett survey work is progressing extremely well and by the high levels of farmer engagement in the area. I am confident that the evidence generated through the work will prove invaluable in shaping future policy decisions, North and South.

Good progress has also been made in delivering several other key priorities in the blueprint, which include work to introduce movement testing, while procurement is due to begin shortly for the roll-out of Northern Ireland-wide, on-farm biosecurity assessments. Around 700 farms per year are expected to benefit from that important initiative, and they will receive two visits, most likely from their own trusted veterinary practitioner.

I note that today's motion refers to the impact of bovine TB on animal welfare. Perhaps the most pressing TB-related welfare matter is the inability to move stock out of broken-down herds. Consequently, as highlighted, my officials have engaged closely with the TB partnership steering group to agree new criteria for alternative control herds — both finishing and rearing units — which could help alleviate some of the pressure of overstocking, whilst also being compliant with the legislative requirements. I will receive an update shortly on their progress.

The motion also calls for immediate action on wildlife intervention. Since becoming Minister, I have been consistently clear that all elements involved in bovine TB transmission and spread must be addressed, and that remains the case. Members will be aware that a judicial review decision in October 2023 quashed my predecessor's decision to proceed with a non-selective badger cull in certain areas. As a result, I am legally required to consult again. I can only take a lawful decision on the way forward after I have considered responses to a fresh consultation, alongside updated scientific advice. Significant progress has been made in preparing the consultation, which will be issued once the necessary environmental assessment work is completed. Given the legal history, I am determined that the process will be robust, transparent and defensible.

Efforts to control and eradicate bovine TB now span more than 60 years. The blueprint rightly acknowledges that reversing long-term trends and progressing towards eradication will take time and, realistically, more than one Assembly mandate. However, I conclude on a note of cautious but genuine optimism, without underestimating the impact that bovine TB has on farming families in Northern Ireland and the journey that we need to make. Our latest figures show herd incidents at 9·66% for the 12 months to the end of February, which is the lowest rate since the summer of 2022. Whilst my epidemiologists quite rightly urge caution in interpreting short-term trends, and they are right to do so, that improvement matters. It shows that, when we act collectively and decisively, we can make a difference. We have to do it together. My commitment to farmers, rural communities and the House is that tackling bovine TB will remain a top priority. We will continue to pursue science-led solutions, listen to those most affected and work in partnership to reduce the burden of the disease. Farmers deserve a future with less uncertainty, less stress and greater confidence that the system is fair, effective and moving in the right direction. I am determined to work towards that future in partnership with everyone.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): I call Gareth Wilson to make a winding-up speech on the amendment. Gareth, you have five minutes.

Mr Wilson: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I welcome the opportunity to make a winding-up speech on the amendment, which addresses an issue that is of real concern to many of my constituents. A TB outbreak can have a devastating impact on a farm, leading to uncertainty, sleepless nights and the obvious financial impacts. Earlier this month, as has been mentioned, the Ulster Farmers' Union, together with the Livestock and Meat Commission and the Northern Ireland Dairy Council, launched an independent report that revealed that TB costs farmers over £96 million a year. Those are eye-watering costs for an industry that is already at breaking point and has recently had to absorb the rising costs of fuel and fertiliser. It is simply not a cost that the sector can continue to absorb when profit margins are so tight.

In addition to the cost and mental toll of the out-of-control TB crisis, we must consider the growing cost of TB compensation to the taxpayer. In my constituency, for example, the cost of TB compensation in 2021 sat at around £2·2 million for the Armagh DVO area. As of 2025, that cost had risen to £4·7 million — a staggering increase of more than 109%. That figure does not demonstrate the fact that the cost of compensation does not include the loss of future income for the farmer from milk production and genetics, for example.

The amendment rightly notes the wider economic impacts on agri-food supply chains, rural employment, domestic food security and export competitiveness, and it specifically includes local livestock marts. Marts, such as Markethill mart in my constituency, are much more than just sales rings; they are crucial rural institutions that support competition, transparency, cash flow and community. When bTB restrictions choke movement, marts and the ecosystems around them — hauliers, local service providers, processors — feel the consequences.

It is clear that the current situation benefits neither taxpayers nor farmers. The obvious question then is this: what is the solution? The DUP's position has been consistent. We support robust and integrated eradication policies, but "integrated" must mean just that. It cannot be cattle measures alone while the wildlife aspect is left unaddressed. The Minister must look at all viable options, including the role of wildlife in the spread and persistence of the disease.

We welcome additional funding through the Shared Island initiative because cooperation can help, but the amendment is right to reflect UFU concerns that the pilot area is not representative of the Northern Ireland bovine TB picture as a whole. If we want farmer confidence, the Department must show how lessons from the pilot will translate to our higher-incidence areas and larger cattle populations.

Bovine TB is crushing confidence, draining profitability and damaging well-being. Farmers are not asking for sympathy; they are asking for decisions and delivery. The time for managing the disease indefinitely has passed. Nobody denies the difficulties in delivering the effective eradication of the disease, especially given previous legal challenges, but it is the role of the Minister to work constructively with the relevant stakeholders to meet the challenges. Our rural communities deserve that.

I will spend some time reiterating some of the commentary made during the debate. Mr Blair agreed with comments on the severity of the impact of TB and its many impacts on farms and farmers. He outlined the AERA Minister's efforts and said that reports and recommendations needed actions and outcomes. He also said that the common enemy is bovine TB. Mr Butler urged avoidance of rinse-and-repeat treatments to such issues as bovine TB and the wildfires. He spoke of the immense burden on farmers. Daniel McCrossan spoke of the realities of the strain on farming families, the complexity of the disease and the fact that interventions need to be capable of delivering meaningful outcomes. Aoife Finnegan stated that it was a wide-ranging issue dealing with livestock, the health of our farming families and the economic realities of a £60 million bill for compensation. Deborah Erskine gave details on cattle infection rates in her Fermanagh and South Tyrone constituency. She spoke of the toll of bovine TB on the farming family and of its human cost due to the associated uncertainty that severely impacts on mental health. Andrew McMurray said that, whilst he is not a farmer, his empathy and sympathy are with the farmer. He said that he was struck by the significance of the losses for the farmers concerned and that he welcomed any measures that effectively drive down disease incidence rates. Timothy Gaston said that the current statistics point to a failure of the Department and outlined the impacts on the farmer from a financial and mental health perspective.

The Minister referred to the realities of the cost of the disease. He spoke of the human TB —.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Gareth, will you draw your remarks to a close, please?

Mr Wilson: I will. The Minister spoke at length. I apologise for not being able to cover all of it in my commentary. I commend the amendment.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): I call Áine.

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

I thank everybody for taking part in the debate. It was a useful debate. Declan referred to the fact that we had brought a similar motion to the Chamber in November 2024.

In my constituency, as is the case in many rural areas across the North, bovine TB is not just something that farmers read about in reports; it is something that families have to live with. It is a threat that hangs over every farm family. Many of us in the Chamber have spoken directly with farmers who are at their absolute wits' end because of TB. They have told us about the stress and the sleepless nights that they have leading up to testing. They have told us about the heartbreak of seeing cattle removed from herds that they have spent years, sometimes decades, building. They have told us about the frustration of doing everything right and still finding themselves trapped in an ongoing cycle that seems never-ending. For those families, it is not just about cattle; it is about their livelihoods, family farms that were built generations ago and the fear that another TB outbreak could be the one that pushes a farm family beyond the brink. The financial cost is serious, and we simply cannot afford not to get to grips with the issue. However, the emotional cost is often harder to measure. The stress that bovine TB places on farmers and their families can be enormous. It impacts on mental well-being, affects family life and creates a level of uncertainty that no family should have to carry year after year without seeing any meaningful progress.

The wider impact on rural communities must also be recognised. It is not just an animal health issue but, as has been referenced by nearly everyone who has spoken today, a rural economy and rural family issue. Many farmers feel that they have carried the burden while government has moved far too slowly.

If we are serious about eradicating the disease, we must be honest about what is required. The Minister must now move forward with the wildlife interventions that are necessary to bring the disease under control. That can be controversial, but tough decisions have to be made and cannot be avoided for ever, given that the current situation is causing so much damage to farming families and the wider rural economy. Any wildlife intervention must, of course, be evidenced-based, properly planned and proportionate, and it must command public confidence, because farmers need to see that all sources of infection are being addressed if we are to have any realistic chance of getting to grips with and controlling the issue.

Just as important, any long-term strategy must be organised in collaboration and cooperation with the Republic. Disease does not recognise borders; wildlife does not recognise borders; and cattle movements certainly do not stop at the border. An island divided by two different approaches cannot effectively tackle one shared disease. If eradication is the goal, as it should be, coordination between the North and South is not optional; it is absolutely essential. That means sharing data, aligning strategy, working together on wildlife management and recognising that only an all-island approach can deliver the lasting progress that our farmers and their families deserve.

Our families do not need or want any more reports or any more delay, and they do not want any more promises that lead us nowhere. They want action and leadership and to know that the Assembly understands what the disease is doing to rural farm families.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Thank you, everybody, for taking part in the debate.