Official Report: Tuesday 01 October 2024

Mr Speaker: I remind Members that there will be a second Question Time today at 2.45 pm to include questions to the Minister of Health, which had to be postponed last week. The ballot order for listed and topical questions remains as selected.

Mr Sheehan: Lá Idirnáisiúnta Feasachta ar Chur Amú agus ar Chailliúint an Bhia a bhí ann Dé Domhnaigh. Nuair a chuirtear bia amú nó nuair a chailltear é, is amhlaidh a chailltear na hacmhainní uile go léir a úsáideadh leis an bhia sin a tháirgeadh sa chéad dul síos. Cur amú uisce, talaimh, fuinnimh agus saothair atá ann fosta. Is olc a théann cailleadh agus cur amú an bhia ar an chomhshaol, ar shlándáil bia agus ar infhaighteacht bia, agus is siocair iad leis an bhia a bheith ag éirí níos daoire. Tá líon na ndaoine atá faoi ocras ar fud an domhain ag ardú ó bhí an bhliain 2014 an, agus i rith an ama, cailltear agus cuirtear amú na céadta tonaí bia gach lá.

Cailltear thart ar 13·2% de bhia an domhain idir a bhaint agus a dhíol gach bliain. Déanann teaghlaigh agus miondíoltóirí 19% den bhia a tháirgtear ar domhan a chur amú gach bliain. Níl sin inbhuanaithe, agus, nuair nach bhfuil, níl teacht aniar i gcóras an bhia s’againn. Beidh bearta le déanamh ar bhonn áitiúil agus domhanda le húsáid is fearr a bhaint as an bhia lena shábháil ar a chur amú.

Dar le Friends of the Earth gur féidir cur amú bia a laghdú ach: díriú ar shlabhra an tsoláthair agus an chailliúint bia a laghdú ag an phointe sin; eolas a thabhairt do chustaiméirí faoin dóigh le cur amú bia a sheachaint; agus trí bheith ag obair le carthanais sa chruth go ndéanfar farasbarr bia a roinnt ar na daoine atá ar an ghannchuid.

Thig linn uile go léir ár bpáirt a dhéanamh leis an chur amú a laghdú trí bhéilí na seachtaine a phleanáil, trí bhia a reo de réir mar is gá agus trí bheith eolach ar an difear idir dáta ar fearr roimhe agus dáta dulta ó mhaith. Má dhéanaimid sin, ní hé amháin go mbeimid ag sábháil bia, is amhlaidh a bheimid ag sábháil airgid fosta.

Mr Martin: This morning, I want to highlight community pharmacies in Northern Ireland, their core importance for primary care and some of the challenges that they face. For transparency purposes, I should declare that my wife, Melanie, is a pharmacist. However, these issues were raised by Community Pharmacy NI at a meeting that I recently held with it.

Our local pharmacies are a vital service at the heart of our communities. They are where we go for medicines, advice, vaccinations and a variety of additional services that they now provide through Pharmacy First. If we were to quantify the output of that service, we would find that it procured, financed, stored and dispensed half a billion pounds' worth of medicines in 2023-24 and provided more than 190,000 emergency supply items in the same period. That is a phenomenal achievement.

We know that our health service is under considerable pressure, with growing waiting lists and sometimes frustrating repeated attempts to access appointments with GPs. It therefore comes as no surprise to learn that pharmacies have become critical in alleviating some of the current burden on our healthcare system. The fact that professional advice and support can be accessed in community pharmacies, with no appointment needed, is a very rare commodity in our health service these days. However, I have to point out that some of our local pharmacies are struggling. There have been 17 permanent local pharmacy closures since January 2023, and the health trusts did not intervene to ensure that those pharmacies remained viable.

One of the key challenges that pharmacies face is how they are funded. The fees and payments that they receive often do not fully cover their business costs and overheads, such as wages, insurance, rates and rent. At times, there is a disparity between the actual cost of drugs that the pharmacy dispenses and the drug tariff that regulates the reimbursement price. That has the effect of the pharmacy having to wait to see whether a temporary drug tariff increase will be applied that month and whether it will cover the cost of the drugs that were dispensed.

The Department of Health needs to recognise and value the importance of our community pharmacies. They are, effectively, the front line of primary care in Northern Ireland. Therefore, I urge the Health Minister to, first, provide relatively modest investment to stabilise the sector and, secondly, to provide the platform for development to enable our pharmacies to do more.

Ms Bradshaw: On International Day of Older Persons, I rise to make a statement on the importance of tackling ageism, and I do so after attending an excellent event at Stormont last week run by Age NI where it talked about the results from its lived experience survey.

The World Health Organization notes that ageism can have harmful effects on the well-being of old people and can lead to outright social exclusion. Too many assumptions are being made about how to plan for an ageing demographic without involving older people in that process. Across the UK, older people report feeling sidelined, forgotten about and dismissed by the health service, despite the fact that we are supposed to be transforming the service so that it better meets the needs of that ever-growing share of the population. Most notably perhaps, older people report that they are not given the time that they need to make decisions and that assumptions are made about their capacity to make choices about their care and treatment without adequate consultation.

Members will know that the Committee for the Executive Office is carrying out an inquiry into gaps in equality legislation, looking particularly at what happens here versus what happens in neighbouring jurisdictions. There is a specific issue here regarding ageism. In Northern Ireland, age discrimination law is outdated, as it applies only to employment, training and vocational education. It is already over a decade since the Equality Commission advised that that law must be extended to cover goods, facilities and services. Indeed, over the past year alone, 34 people have contacted the Equality Commission about age discrimination in the provision of goods and services, and they were told that there was nothing that can be done as there are no relevant laws here.

The Equality Commission's functions include not only overseeing equality duties and promoting good relations but, specifically, keeping equality legislation under review. The commission has clearly stated for many years that our current equality legislation is inadequate. Therefore, the gaps in the law are not just technicalities; the failure to modernise equality law creates a significant and particular disadvantage that is directly and specifically felt by older people in Northern Ireland. When we tie that specific disadvantage to the experience that older people feel, we see that action is needed urgently to update our equality laws so that our older people are not placed at a disadvantage versus their peers elsewhere in the UK and Ireland.

Dr Aiken: Members will be aware, first from the media last week and from the Northern Ireland Office (NIO) yesterday, that our Government have confirmed their decision not to proceed with the introduction of UK-wide "Not for EU" labelling from October 2024; today, indeed. Members may or may not be reassured by our Government's commitment to safeguarding the supply of goods within our own country and their intention to protect consumer choice. Obviously, in light of the commitment that was made and then broken to city deals, that is something that we should all monitor closely.

The commitment that was made by the NIO to monitor the UK internal market to track and, if necessary, intervene to protect the availability of goods in Northern Ireland is something that we should also monitor. Frankly, however, we have no details to work to or to allow us to assess the level of trade disruption that that might engender. The NIO has also stated that it will publish statutory guidance to stop public authorities overzealously operationalising the implementation of the Windsor framework to the detriment of the UK's internal market. We have no idea of what is in that guidance, where it applies, whom it applies to or any degree of legal compliance. That is something that you would expect our Northern Ireland Executive and Assembly to monitor.

I have, regrettably, remarked on far too many occasions how remarkably incurious the Windsor Framework Democratic Scrutiny Committee is here on everything from obligatory motions to any desire to horizon-scan the Windsor framework for how it would have any significant impact on life in Northern Ireland. That we should be proactive is something that our constituents, business community, farmers and consumers expect us to be. After several weeks of no notification and examining our travel plans to Brussels, this week, at the Democratic Scrutiny Committee, our Northern Ireland public can watch us examine cats' and dogs' traceability and further details on our visit to the EU Commission. I will write to the Chair of our Committee today to ask, under any other business, for us to, again, stop being incurious and examine all elements of significance of the Windsor framework and how it affects Northern Ireland, but I strongly expect that, yet again, our Sinn Féin and Alliance members will decide that that is outside our remit. As an Assembly that should be dedicated to doing what is best for Northern Ireland, that lack of curiosity should be a matter of concern for us all.

Mr McGrath: I will discuss today the lack of activity to manage the causes of flooding that occurred in Downpatrick last year; flooding that, local people feel, could happen again. Why do we feel that that might happen again? Put simply, it is because nothing much has been done since to address the issues. Our Department for Infrastructure and its Sinn Féin Minister spent massive amounts of public money to produce a comprehensive report that, essentially, told us that the county town flooded last year because there was lots of rain. That will not cut it with local businesses, which faced a difficult time last year. Some of them still have not received the promised financial assistance nearly 10 months on.

I think of the effort that was made last year, when we had no Executive, to raise the issues with the Northern Ireland Office and of how some local political representatives brought NIO officials into the town to seek help and then complained because that help was not forthcoming.

Now that their colleagues are in charge of ministries, however, we hear nothing from them and see nothing of them, and there is no road map to facilitate the necessary help.

Local people often refer to Downpatrick as a forgotten town. The council does not appear to be too interested, and neither are the Executive knocking down the door to provide help and support. With traffic congestion, empty premises and businesses not being properly supported, one cannot help but agree with the locals.

Given the Infrastructure Minister's remarks yesterday, there is, apparently, plenty of activity happening in Newry, but what about Downpatrick? Numerous small things could have been done to try to help. We could have had emergency access set aside for the bales of hay that were used to create a barrier against the water. We could have had emergency access to sandbags. We could have cut the dense and sprawling overgrowth along the River Quoile's edge, and the plank drain could have been desilted. Those small measures could give people peace of mind, a sense of security and a belief that the Executive parties care about them, but do we see that? No. We have a Minister who insists that only his officials can provide him with advice that he will take and that the views of people in Downpatrick do not count. It does not inspire much confidence or instil us with much hope. To keep the Minister happy, let us hope that it does not rain much this winter.

Mr Gildernew: D’fhoilsigh Coiste Saineolaithe Chomhairle na hEorpa a shéú tuarascáil mhonatóireachta ar chomhlíonadh na Cairte Eorpaí do Theangacha Réigiúnacha nó Mionlaigh an tseachtain seo caite. Dhaingnigh Rialtas na Breataine codanna a dó agus a trí den chairt maidir leis an Ghaeilge in 2001 mar thoradh ar ghealltanais a tugadh i gComhaontú Aoine an Chéasta chun gníomh dionghbháilte a dhéanamh leis an Ghaeilge a chur chun cinn.

Cuireann muid fáilte roimh an tuarascáil, agus gabhann muid ár mbuíochas leis an Choiste Saineolaithe. Is áis úsáideach í an tuarascáil dúinn chun aghaidh a thabhairt ar mhórcheisteanna na Gaeilge. Ar an drochuair, áfach, tá cáineadh déanta sa tuarascáil agus is léir ón cháineadh chéanna nach bhfuil go leor déanta ó thaobh fhorbairt na teanga de. Tá 12 mholadh sa tuarascáil mhonatóireachta ba chóir dúinn a thabhairt dár n-aire.

Is iad príomh-mholtaí na tuarascála: go dtabharfaí isteach straitéis don Ghaeilge agus go gcuirfí na hacmhainní cuí ar fáil chun gur féidir í a mhaoiniú; go gcuirfí i bhfeidhm ina iomláine an tAcht Féiniúlachta agus Teanga 2022 gan a thuilleadh moille; go bhforbrófaí agus go gcuirfí i bhfeidhm straitéis maidir le hearcú múinteoirí i gcomhairle leis an phobal, go háirithe maidir le soláthar múinteoirí do phaistí a bhfuil riachtanais speisialta oideachais orthu laistigh d’earnáil na Gaelscolaíochta, agus go ndéanfaí Coimisinéir Gaeilge a cheapadh.

Tá Sinn Féin tiomanta stádas na Gaeilge a dhaingniú go buan inár sochaí, agus tá muid tiomanta an tuarascáil a úsáid mar uirlis forbartha teanga agus ár ngealltanais teanga a chomhlíonadh.

Miss McIlveen: I congratulate the Belfast battalion of the Boys' Brigade (BB), as it celebrates 100 years of Ganaway training and activity centre, which is located on the picturesque Ards peninsula in my constituency of Strangford. On Sunday, I was privileged to attend a thanksgiving service to mark that significant milestone.

Camping has been a key part of the BB since its formation in Glasgow in 1881. After the first company was formed in Belfast in 1892 and after its first camp in Ballywalter in 1904, there was a desire to have a battalion campsite. In 1923, 12 acres of land at Ganaway were placed on the market, and the property was purchased by the battalion for £1,250, which is about £75,000 in today's money. The first camp took place in 1924. The land had been purchased using battalion funds, money from anonymous donors, a £500 interest-free loan from Reverend Cooper, who was the battalion president, and a house-to-house collection, which raised a further £200.

The campsite proved incredibly popular, with more than 1,000 boys and officers attending one camp in the 1930s. The boys arrived by train at Donaghadee and paraded through the town towards Millisle. From Millisle, they marched on to Ganaway. From 1977 until the early 1990s, the BB and Belfast Education and Library Board operated a joint usage scheme.

Over the years, there has been continual investment in Ganaway, from the bare fields that were initially purchased in 1923. It is, of course, more than just a campsite. The site includes two modern log cabins, a sports hall, indoor and outdoor climbing towers, abseiling facilities, a zip line, an artificial caving complex, low- and high-level rope courses, an anchor-buoy trail, crazy golf, games facilities and so much more. Importantly, it also celebrates the history and heritage of the BB with a museum and an education centre. It still contains a large campsite for people who love to sleep under canvas, as well as three camping pods for those who need some level of comfort.

The range of people who come to use the facilities at Ganaway has also developed. It is not just BB members who come but young people from a vast variety of organisations and communities. During 2023, around 18,000 young people and adults attended the centre: school groups, the Scouts, Girl Guides, church groups and statutory youth groups.

All that is from a vision of a BB camp started 100 years ago. It is a place that offers so much opportunity. This is a fantastic achievement, and it is a fantastic facility.

Ms Forsythe: In the past year, prisoners in Northern Ireland have received £1,445,283 of tuck money: that is, pocket money for privileges or "sweetie money". To be clear, the Department of Justice, on top of providing meals and facilities, gives prisoners in Northern Ireland one and a half million pounds of pocket money for privileges every year. I find that shocking.

Who does not get one and a half million pounds a year for privileges? The children in our schools. Parents are regularly asked to contribute towards basic school supplies; PTAs are under pressure to fundraise; and teachers are paying for stationery supplies, tissues and other things. One and a half million pounds would go a long way in enhancing our children's schools' budgets. In Health, one and a half million pounds would employ 40 nurses a year. In policing, just recently, the Chief Constable of the PSNI was so exasperated over the lack of policing budget that he appealed to our UK Government and was criticised by the Department of Justice for doing so. I am sure that the £1·5 million pocket money for prisoners would be welcomed in the policing budget by the Chief Constable.

Just a couple of weeks ago, it was established that the Department of Justice was spending more than £13 million on a new prison kitchen and cafe for criminals, whilst, up and down the country, schools struggle with substandard canteen facilities. They are outdated, there are no counters, and children wait outdoors in all weather. Yet, the Justice Department has prisoners in brand new canteen facilities. Criminals are in prison for a reason. I do not believe that many people would appreciate prisoners being treated better than children in our schools.

The Justice Minister was quick to criticise a mobile phone pilot scheme brought into schools by the Education Minister at a cost of £250,000, despite it being a proven issue with need. Yet, here we are exposing the fact that she spends six times as much every year on pocket money for prisoners' privileges. It is shocking. I did not quite believe the scale of this until I uncovered the details. The people of Northern Ireland deserve to know where public funds are being spent, especially in times of such extreme budget pressure, and to challenge the priority of others. The Alliance Party needs to clarify its priorities. Does it prioritise prisoners over the children in our schools, our health workers and even our police? It is outrageous, and that question needs to be answered.

Mr Gaston: I rise to highlight His Majesty's Government's decision to drop plans for UK-wide "Not for EU" labelling. The issue has become a live one today because 1 October is the day when a new aspect of the protocol becomes real in Northern Ireland. The first time that "Not for EU" labelling appeared on the shelves in this part of the UK was 1 October last year. Today sees the beginning of a new phase of that labelling roll-out.

A key aspect of the Command Paper 'Safeguarding the Union', which, I remind the unionists sitting to my right, was the basis on which they attempted to sell to the unionist people their return to this place, was the assurance that such labelling would be introduced UK-wide. The previous Government could have introduced legislation to give force to that following the end of the consultation in March, but they, like the successive Labour Administration, were never serious about it. Consequently, "Not for EU" labelling is being imposed in Northern Ireland by our colonial masters in Brussels while it does not appear anywhere else in the UK.

The DUP promise of UK-wide legislation has proven worthless. The practical consequences are that many manufacturers will simply cease to service Northern Ireland, meaning reduced choice for consumers, and that will result in Northern Ireland becoming even more isolated within the UK.

Significantly, 1 October was also due to see the imposition of a partial border in the Irish Sea. Two weeks ago, that was delayed until the end of March. Why? It was done because the Government were concerned about the impact that it would have on people in the run-up to Christmas. It would not exactly be helpful to the protocol fanatics in the House to have headlines about that when they will be tripping through the Lobbies to give a veneer of democratic legitimacy to Brussels dictating to us to follow 300 areas of law. Additionally, the green lane, which some in the House sought to dress up as the internal market lane to justify their return to ministerial limos, was due to come in today. That has also been postponed until the end of March. Why? It has been done because it would cause such devastation to our links with Great Britain that doing it so soon would simply be unworkable.

A single market for goods is needed within a country. It is one of the basic features of a nation state. The dropping of "Not for EU" labelling on a UK-wide basis severs yet more links between here and the rest of our nation. It also helps build the all-Ireland economy, something, I remind the Chamber, that the DUP claimed that it had removed from the protocol, only for the current Secretary of State to hail its benefits just a few days ago.

I appeal to unionist colleagues in the Chamber. If you believed any of your own words about the Safeguarding the Union deal, you now know that you were sold a false bill of goods by your former leader —

Mr Speaker: The Member's time is up.

Mr Gaston: — the Tories and, now, the Labour Government.

Mr Buckley: In the early hours of Sunday morning, Portadown lost one of its national assets: not a celebrity sports star or a celebrity businessman but a unique, warm and loveable character in Tony Kennoy.

Tony came to Portadown many years ago, through the care system. He brought with him a smile and a laugh that very few people can bring to a community. Following his passing, there has been an outpouring of love and grief over the impact that that special man had on so many people. Protestant, Catholic, neither, young, old: Tony loved them all.

At times like this, I am very proud to be a Portadown man. Tony was a vulnerable adult, and the manner in which the people of Portadown took him in as a member of their family, fed him, looked after him and kept him safe is truly incredible. As we lay him to rest later this week, I, on behalf of the Portadown people, give thanks for his life. It is true that some people do shine too brightly ever to be forgotten. Thank you, Tony Kennoy.

Mr Carroll: One thousand killed and one million displaced over the past few days. I am not talking about Palestine this morning. Once again, Lebanon is being targeted and bombed by Israel. Once again, the biggest proponent of terror in the Middle East — Israel — is blowing up infrastructure and killing civilians on a mass scale. It is worth thinking about and worth posing this question: "If any other state in the Middle East — any other state — engaged in that kind of slaughter, what would happen?". It is nauseating to think that any other state would be met with condemnation from the US, Britain and other Western states, and perhaps even sanctions, but, because it is Israel and because Israel plays a pivotal role for imperialism, particularly for America, in the region, it is hands off and a case of, "Work away, lads. We will find you whatever bombs or weapons you want".

When it comes to discussion about the latest war, it is always "Iran-backed Hezbollah" but never "US-backed-and-supported Israel". Funny that.

Whatever people's views about Hamas or Hezbollah, those groups did not exist for a lifetime. Israel's actions, particularly its occupation of Lebanon, brought about the formation of Hezbollah. The massacres of the PLO and of Palestinians and others in the Sabra and Shatila refugee camps, backed by Israel, gave an impetus to the rise of Hezbollah. In other words, it is Israel's actions — its provocation and its stirring up of hatred, occupation and launching of war — that are causing more instability, death and destruction in the region.

After coming up to a year of genocide in Palestine, Israel, rather than listening to the peace and anti-war movement across the world and on this island to stop the slaughter and stop the killing, actually wants to expand the wars, if you think about it, in Lebanon, Yemen, Iran and who knows where else. It is up to us in this country to continue to isolate and condemn Israel and its actions and condemn the political ideology that drives and funds the apartheid state. Whilst Israel's actions are, of course, barbaric and devastating, Israel may have bitten off more than it can chew, and it could indeed provoke a region-wide uprising against it and against America's interests in the Middle East.

Mr C Murphy (The Minister for the Economy): Today, I am announcing a new strategic approach to economic development. It is an approach that is locally led and places regional balance at its heart.

The need for greater regional balance is clear. Employment rates range from a high of 79·5% in Mid and East Antrim to a low of 65·4% in Derry City and Strabane. Productivity, a fundamental driver of overall living standards, is 31% higher in Belfast than it is in Derry City and Strabane.

To date, the Department for the Economy has not had a coherent strategy for delivering regional balance. The Department did not set regional targets for its economic development agency, Invest NI. As confirmed by the independent review, Invest NI's decision-making was centralised in Belfast. The review also observed that regional offices were underutilised, not integrated into the organisation and too modestly resourced.

An important shift took place in 2015, when councils assumed greater economic responsibilities. That acknowledged the value of local areas leading their own economic development. However, councils cannot be expected to transform economies on their own. To turn the dial on regional economic performance, we need everyone pulling together as part of a coherent ecosystem, and I intend to establish that ecosystem.

The new approach to economic development starts with local communities identifying their own priorities. Councils will be asked to establish local economic partnerships, bringing together central government, the business community, universities, colleges, local enterprise agencies and civil society. To minimise bureaucracy, existing partnerships can be modified to fulfil that new remit, and councils are free to come together to tackle common concerns and to pool resources and expertise. Partnerships will identify the main barriers to economic development and the priority interventions that will build the region's value proposition. Those priorities will continue to be updated as circumstances change over time. Interventions could involve, for example, support for local clusters; skills programmes tailored to local businesses; preparing more land for business expansion; the development of new start-up and follow-on units; the regeneration of empty buildings for business use; and key infrastructure projects. My Department will recalibrate its programmes and budget to help meet those priorities. For example, my Department is in the process of taking responsibility for the funding provided by the local council to City of Derry Airport.

In addition to recalibrating mainstream funding, I intend to support local economic partnerships with dedicated funding of £45 million over the next three years. Invest NI will put a new focus on regional balance and will be a driving force in local economic partnerships. Staff numbers in regional offices will be increased by an initial 40%. Regional offices will assume responsibility for managing local clusters and businesses with a turnover of up to £2 million.

A lack of available land for commercial and industrial use is a major barrier to development in a number of council areas. Invest NI will therefore deliver and finance a new regional property strategy that will be delivered through regional offices. Property specialists will be recruited to develop land and property for business use. Invest NI's headquarters will support regional offices, providing specialist advice and expertise, and coordinate with key public bodies such as NIE Networks and NI Water to ensure that local needs are articulated and met. Consequently, the whole of Invest NI, not just its regional offices, will be reorientated towards developing local economies.

Crucially, I am setting a clear and ambitious bottom-line target for Invest NI to promote regional balance. Fifty-eight per cent of the population is outside the greater Belfast area, yet the area outside greater Belfast makes up 48% of the economy, as measured by gross valued added (GVA). In order to help redress that imbalance, within three years 65% of the agency's investment should be outside the Belfast metropolitan area. Delivering that target will require changes in organisational structure, decision-making processes, policy, practice and culture. The chief executive of Invest NI has informed me that reaching the target will be challenging, but he, his staff and his board are committed to serving the entire region, and they will do everything in their power to deliver it.

The approach that I have outlined today involves a profound change in how we deliver economic development. It starts with local communities working in partnership to define their priorities. It then builds an ecosystem to deliver those priorities. The new structure will be operational from the start of the next financial year. This is a challenging timeline, given the extent of change involved, so I ask everyone to get behind this approach in the spirit of collaboration, because it is only by working together that we can reverse historical imbalances and deliver prosperity for all.

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

We very much welcome the statement and the direction of travel outlined in it, particularly the setting of targets for Invest NI to promote regional balance. That is something that my party and people in my city have called for over many years. Something that is not mentioned in the statement but is certainly in the document is recognition of the role of further and higher education. The Magee task force has done sterling work. We need to grow numbers at Magee, not just to or up to 10,000 students but to at least 10,000 students. There should be no ceiling to our ambition.

Will the Minister expand on the process, which he alluded to in his statement but is not in the document, of his Department taking responsibility for the funding of City of Derry Airport, which is currently provided by Derry City and Strabane District Council? Will the Executive take the burden of funding the airport from the ratepayers of that council area?

Mr C Murphy: We have not been overly prescriptive on the make-up of local partnerships, because that is best worked out locally. Of course, that will include not just the university at Magee but other regional colleges across different council areas. As I said, we are not being prescriptive. The one prerequisite is that they are genuine partnerships. It will work only if people genuinely come together to articulate the economic priorities in an area and work to deliver them.

On Derry airport, we have been in dialogue and working through the arrangements with the Department for Infrastructure for some time, and we have been talking to the airport and Derry city council. As the Member will know, there has been a bit of ping-pong on the issue for too many years. That particularly came to light during COVID, when the Department of Finance ended up supporting the airport.

Given the airport's strategic and regional economic presence and what that means for the north-west generally, it is our intention that the Department for the Economy will assume responsibility for it. We need to work through the arrangements for that. That would lift the burden that Derry City and Strabane District Council ratepayers have been carrying on their own, even though the airport serves other council areas and geographical areas. Of course, that will, in turn, allow the council to use that money for other purposes to, hopefully, develop economic prosperity in the Derry city council region.

Mr Brett (The Chairperson of the Committee for the Economy): As Chair of the Economy Committee, I thank the Minister for meeting me and the Deputy Chair at 10.30 am to give us somewhat advanced notice of his statement. Clearly, this is a significant policy announcement by the Minister. The Committee will take some time to look at the details of what is included.

In the Minister's statement, he was clear that he wants everyone to get behind his approach in the spirit of collaboration. In that regard, I encourage the Minister to bring it to the Executive so that all parties can work together on the important issue of regional balance.

The Belfast metropolitan area plan (BMAP) is the issue on which the Minister will judge regional balance.

Members will be aware that it includes Belfast City Council, Antrim and Newtownabbey Borough Council, Ards and North Down Borough Council and Lisburn and Castlereagh City Council. According to the Minister's figures, labour productivity and the median wage in Ards and North Down are the second lowest, and subregional economic employment rates in Belfast are the second lowest. Clearly, work needs to be done in those. Will the Minister explain to the House why he has chosen BMAP to judge regional balance in the economy?

Mr C Murphy: I welcome the Chair's statement. I also thank him and the Deputy Chair for the discussion that we had earlier. Of course, the Programme for Government, which the Executive have released in draft form and which is, with Executive agreement, out for consultation, commits us all to work to address regional imbalance. I expect that that will follow through with other Departments' engagement. The BMAP that the Member mentioned was, I think, a 2004 construct, but, obviously, we have talked about the four council areas, including Belfast, in proximity to it.

The BMAP is for the purpose of measurements. There are clear issues of deprivation in that. I have engaged with Belfast City Council and its group leaders on how they would use some of the resource that might come from this to tackle issues of deprivation in some of those urban areas. On the measurement of Invest's activity, which was clearly criticised in the Lyons report for being too Belfast-centric, this is about measuring Invest's actual activity outside that area and increasing its level of activity in supporting businesses to grow. We want to see businesses and economic prosperity grow right across the region, but we have a direct responsibility to try to tackle imbalance. If we do that by measuring it in the way that I described, we can get a sense of how the dial is shifting outside the greater Belfast area.

Mr Gildernew: I thank the Minister for his statement and, particularly, for his commitment to delivering a coherent strategy to address regional imbalance. Minister, given that that is a commitment in the draft Programme for Government, do you expect other Departments to contribute to achieving greater regional balance?

Mr C Murphy: As the Member said, the Programme for Government says:

That is a clear commitment from the Executive as a whole. It is obviously in draft form, but Executive colleagues support that commitment, so I expect it to be held to. In the outworking of all this, what we have identified around resources is really about supporting local economic voices to come together, articulate their needs and, perhaps, pump-prime specific interventions that they want to be made. All the Departments are spending money in all the areas, and, if there is a very strong voice saying, "These are the key issues in our area that need to be addressed", I expect Departments to respond to that. It would make sense for them to make the most efficient use of their limited resources by spending on what will have the most impact on the areas in which they spend the money.

Mr Honeyford: I thank the Minister. I love the ambition, and I welcome the statement today. The Minister mentioned working across other Departments, and the plan talks about net zero, green energy, inward investment, business growth, development zones and so on, and I welcome all of that. The fundamental problem with all that, however, for our entrepreneurs and business owners and for job creation, is the delays in the current planning system, which is not referenced at all in the document. How can the plan not recognise that planning reform is critical to the delivery of this?

Mr C Murphy: The point is well made. Planning reform is critical. We had a round-table meeting yesterday with the Minister for Communities, the Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs, who is a party colleague of the Member, and the Minister for Infrastructure. We have had this conversation with Infrastructure. The reform of planning will be critical because, if councils want to develop projects, they need to get them through their planning systems. The current bottleneck, particularly in the consultee process, places in jeopardy not only some of the ideas in the plan but, potentially, if we do not get the planning system sorted, all the Executive's infrastructure propositions. In some ways, that is a given. The Minister for Infrastructure has sought transformation funds to try to bring some level of reform. All his Executive colleagues will, I think, support it, because, just as we recognise the need for investment in water and sewerage infrastructure, we recognise that investment in planning reform will be essential to deliver on any of the projects that any Department wants to do.

Mr Delargy: I thank the Minister for his statement. It is comprehensive and definitely allows us to move along the road towards regional balance. Does he agree that local enterprise agencies have a significant contribution to make to local economic partnerships?

Mr C Murphy: Yes. Enterprise agencies have been doing sterling work, often on a shoestring budget, on start-ups and supporting local entrepreneurs. We have a very strong entrepreneurial flair right across the region. Invest NI will now have not only FDI targets but targets for start-up and business growth, which will make more collaboration possible in the space where the enterprise agencies work while trying to ensure that what they do gains more priority in that space. Enterprise agencies have a very strong presence in a lot of areas, and I imagine that they will want to be part of those discussions. They have a significant contribution to make given their significant knowledge of local businesses and of the potential of local start-ups, which will be one of the targets.

Mrs Erskine: I thank the Minister for his statement. How can we ensure that investment in such areas will be for the long term rather than a white elephant? As has been mentioned, better infrastructure, not just incentives, is required in order to attract businesses. Does he have evidence from other places where regional balance has been a government policy for overall economic growth?

Mr C Murphy: Significant work on regional balance has been undertaken to good effect in the South. That involved things like a land strategy to make sure that, if people wanted to start or grow businesses, they could do so in their areas, rather than have to relocate to larger, urban areas. There are good examples from other parts of the world and close at hand, south of the border.

Our intention over the next three years is to put in a sum of money that we will identify to allow the programme to get started and to work. It is a commitment in the Programme for Government, and I therefore assume that whoever takes over the Economy Department after I have left will continue with the programme. It is an Executive priority to grow the economy in a regionally balanced way. That is the commitment of the entire Executive in the draft Programme for Government. I therefore expect that to be followed through, as we will want to follow through all the commitments that we make in the Programme for Government.

Ms Nicholl: Minister, I welcome the work on the programme, and I look forward to seeing more detail. We hope that the local economic partnerships will complement, not duplicate, the work of the labour market partnerships. My real questions are these: will all councils have access to the local economic partnership funding? What criteria do you envisage being used to allocate that funding?

Mr C Murphy: We are conscious that there are other structures in councils, and that is why we have not been prescriptive. Councils may look to merge those structures to have labour market plus economic development. That is a matter for dialogue over the next period, when we will do some intense workshops with councils in order to work through it. All councils are included. The amount of funding that may be delivered will be measured by level of need, and that formula will be worked through in the time ahead, but all councils are included.

Miss Hargey: I thank the Minister for the update as a part of the overarching economic strategy. Does he agree that there is a need in Belfast, particularly in socially disadvantaged areas, to continue to support some areas in order to address regional imbalance and to connect that economic development focus to inclusive growth and building community wealth?

Mr C Murphy: Yes. Aside from this plan, I am engaged with the Department for Communities and the Department of Finance on a community wealth plan. We are doing joint work in that area on a couple of pilot schemes that, I hope, will demonstrate real value and will be able to be spread out to other areas. I met Belfast City Council's chief executive and group leaders. It is not my job to dictate what they do, but I suggested that, if there is additional support in the area that we have developed, Belfast may want to look at areas of deprivation and at trying to bring them all up. As she will know well from being a citizen of the city, some areas are doing very well and others very much feel left behind. This is an opportunity for councillors and other partners in the Belfast area to try to work on those areas and to look at levels of economic inactivity, skills and educational opportunities and at a general approach that leads to a stronger community and to more prosperity in those communities.

Mr Middleton: I thank the Minister for his statement. If we want Northern Ireland to work, it should mean that all areas of Northern Ireland feel supported. I very much welcome the move to address the regional imbalance. Is the £45 million for the local partnerships new money, or has it been found within the Department? Will it have consequences for other areas of work that you may want to undertake?

Mr C Murphy: It will be financed from within the Department. We have to find the money, and money is tight, but it is about prioritising what we do. If the priority in the Programme for Government is about growing our economy in a regionally balanced way, we have to allocate our money according to the priority. We will find the money, and I hope that, over time, we may be able to develop more money and put more support into the approach, because it will yield benefits. Not having a sense of balanced economic growth has been a stubbornly persistent problem for decades. Yes, we will find the money in the first instance, but, if others are prepared to contribute, we will welcome that as well.

Mr McGuigan: I welcome the new direction and the locally-led, working-together collaborative approach to tackling regional imbalance. Will the Department provide oversight to ensure that the local economic partnerships operate effectively?

Mr C Murphy: Yes. In the first instance, part of it is about recalibrating what the Department does. The Department has not persistently engaged at a local level. Invest NI has been engaged but not to the level or extent that it should have been, and that is why it was criticised in the report. However, the Department also needs to be on the ground more in dealing with councils. We will work closely. There will be a number of workshops with councils about how the partnerships will operate. It is not just a matter of keeping an eye on things; some councils need economic development capacity building. Other councils are very good at it, but some lag further behind. It is about supporting councils by capacity building so that they have a strong economic voice in the area. It is also about ensuring that the structure, as outlined, works according to the plan and that the funding that we want to allocate is delivered according to the plan.

Mr Buckley: FDI is crucial to any local economy. On that point, I pay tribute to the dedicated members of staff at Invest NI who have delivered thousands of jobs and millions of pounds of investment into Northern Ireland over its many years of existence. The aspiration for regional balance is a noble principle, but as it is harder to attract FDI to local economies as the labour markets and production methods have shifted, how can the Minister assure the House that the drive towards regional balance and a targeted approach will not stifle the overall ability to attain FDI?

Mr C Murphy: I concur with the Member's view about the sterling work that Invest NI's people have done over many years. Nonetheless, there were criticisms of the overall approach that we needed to address. We are on a very clear and good pathway with the new team that heads up Invest NI and the staff who are turning to the particular project and direction of travel.

It is not all about FDI. FDI is important, as the Member said, but the failing of Invest NI and, in many ways, perhaps, all of us over the years is that we measured it by how many jobs were brought in. We are not in that space now. FDI will continue to be important, but so will business start-ups and the growth of our businesses by those who come to invest here and, perhaps more importantly, by our indigenous businesses. The measurement of success will now be broader.

To grow prosperity, we also have to tackle economic inactivity and skills. A significant focus for the Department, Invest NI and, I hope, some of the partnerships that will be set up will be to try to get opportunities for young people and others to upskill while they are in jobs and to make sure that we have more prosperous, better jobs and more regional balance in our economic prosperity.

Invest NI will be recalibrated in the sense that it will not just be about FDI, although that will retain some importance. It is not about preventing anyone from setting up a business here. There is the ability to incentivise and encourage people to go to other areas, but it is not about preventing people from setting up in an area if that is what they choose.

Ms Mulholland: I thank the Minister for his statement. It is exciting to hear his plans for an attempt to balance the imbalance. The plan references the importance of city and growth deals for subregional economic development. Will the Minister detail his conversations with the UK Government on plans to lift the pause on the Causeway Coast and Glens growth deal and the Mid South West growth deal?

Mr C Murphy: The Minister of Finance leads the charge on that work along with the First Minister and the deputy First Minister. The pause is completely unacceptable. The decision was not only badly taken but badly communicated. I am glad that the decision on the Belfast region city deal and the Derry city deal was reversed quite quickly, but we need to see a quick reversal of the decision to pause the Causeway Coast and Glens growth deal and the Mid South West growth deal. It is not just about the public money from the Executive and from the Government in London that will go into the deals but about the confidence that business partners will have to stay with the deals. The sooner the decision is reversed, the sooner we can continue the momentum that we began to create when the Executive came back into office in February. We injected new momentum into the city and growth deals, and we want to see that continue in order to deliver the really good projects that they have in prospect.

Mr O'Toole: Minister, do you welcome the direction of travel? As the Opposition, we have always been constructive, and my colleague said that this is the right direction to go in for the north-west in particular and for other regions. It is also true, however, as Deirdre Hargey said, that not every street in Belfast is paved with gold. Belfast will continue to be the economic driver of the entire region; it is sometimes worth saying that. People commute from Newry and Ballymena to Belfast, which means that they benefit from jobs created in Belfast too. Will the local economic partnerships also focus on improving connections to Belfast, whether through public transport or education, so that those regions can get a sense of how their citizens and residents will benefit from growth in Belfast, which we also want to see?

Mr C Murphy: The Member is out of Downpatrick too long. He has forgotten his roots.

Belfast will continue to be the economic driver for the region; there is no doubt about that. The priorities will be a matter for partnerships to decide. We will not impose an economic plan on an area. Too often, Departments headquartered in Stormont and elsewhere have developed policies that have been delivered down to people. The new strategic approach is about reversing that. It is about local areas having some resource and having their capacity built so that they can decide their own economic priorities. If people think that the priority for an area is to have transport connections to Belfast, we will be glad to hear it, and I am sure that we and DFI will be prepared to engage with them. I am not being prescriptive; it is for each area to decide its priorities. Of course, as I said, Belfast will be involved. My suggestion is that people focus on areas of greatest economic need in Belfast and the surrounding urban areas, but that will be a matter for them. I sincerely hope that they do so.

Ms Bradshaw: Thank you for your statement, Minister. I will pick up on my South Belfast colleague's point. We know that Belfast Met and the universities play a pivotal role as economic drivers for Belfast city. Will you speak to the role of the universities and further education institutions in delivering the subregional balance?

Mr C Murphy: Clearly, Ulster University has a regional presence with the Magee campus and the Coleraine campus. We also have a strong network of regional colleges that have close links with our universities. We want to see community providers, regional colleges and universities, including the Open University, which I had the opportunity to meet yesterday, working seamlessly together to provide skills and educational opportunities. That will be key, because, whether through a regional balance approach or in general terms, our big challenge in growing the economy is in people and skills. We have priorities, but that is the overarching challenge for all of us. We need to make sure that our skills, our educational facilities, our further and higher educational facilities and our Open University work in tandem to deliver support across the entire region. Whether they have a physical presence outside Belfast, they have a presence through their support for and engagement with the regional colleges and other skills providers. We need to see that working seamlessly.

Mr McGrath: The review of public administration (RPA) was not universally popular, with some areas losing out to others in the new super-council model. Given that the Minister's policy suggests developing subregional partnerships, will he insist on guidelines that ensure that new partnerships provide subregional balance within council areas, so that no area is left behind?

Mr C Murphy: Councils are made up of elected councillors and, obviously, that dictates the balance of power across the council area. I am not sure that we will get too prescriptive: we want to see genuine partnerships that tackle the issues relating to the areas' economic priorities. There is a danger in trying to decide everything and micromanaging this rather than trying to give a steer in a genuine partnership approach across the priorities that we have set. That will be one of the measurements used in respect of how we allocate resources. Regional balance is one of the priorities, and I assume that that means within councils. We have set priorities, and, in that framework, I anticipate that we will get the best and fairest outcome for the people who live in whatever area the partnership is responsible for.

Mr Gaston: In May, I attended the subregional workshop in Ballymena, where I highlighted the vast swathe of grounds currently in the ownership of various Stormont Departments, that could be used to regenerate and re-kick our local economies. Will the Minister confirm whether the subregional action plan will identify all those lands across the various Departments? Furthermore, if a council identifies a need for regeneration, will the lands be transferred to it to take that idea forward?

Mr C Murphy: This is not simply about local councils. Councils have an economic development responsibility. One of the difficulties is that some councils have been much more active in that space than others, so we want Invest and our Departments to make sure that we support people to build that capacity for them. It will be about partnerships. If people decide what their economic priorities are — it could be the acquisition of land for further business development — we will work with them and see ways of supporting them. Invest will have a land strategy to make sure that it has more land available across the region for economic growth, because that has not been the case to date. It is about the partnership deciding what the priorities are. My Department will then provide support and, given our broad commitment in the Programme for Government, invite other Departments to look at what support we can give to make happen the things that people have identified as key issues in their area.

Mr Carroll: Thank you, Minister. What work will be commenced or has commenced to ensure that any jobs created outside Belfast will be unionised jobs and not jobs with zero-hours contracts, to which you have already stated your opposition?

Mr C Murphy: In support of good jobs, we will legislate on employment rights. We have already been working through that, and the consultation closed yesterday. We want to make sure that the jobs that we have work well for the people who are in them and that we end the unfortunate exploitation practices in relation to jobs.

We want to see economic growth across the region, but we also have to recognise the persistent problem in that, to date, that growth has been imbalanced. That has been due to a range of historical factors, infrastructure factors and investment decisions. We have to take measures to address that. We also recognise that, in urban areas, there are imbalances and areas of deprivation that need support. They should continue to be supported. This is not a single answer to all those issues. It is about strengthening the local economic voice, allowing areas to articulate their needs and trying to ensure that whatever money Departments spend in an area is spent in the knowledge that it is being invested in priorities that the local community has identified. In that way, we will get a much more efficient spend and a spend that will have much more consequence in lifting areas, particularly areas that have been deprived for too long.

Ms D Armstrong: I welcome the Minister's statement on the subregional action plan. It is a plan that I support, coming, as I do, from an area that requires further regeneration and growth. I welcome the 40% increase in the number of Invest NI regional office staff. Will that mean redeployment of staff from Belfast to regional offices, or will it be a further opportunity for job increases in regional areas?

Mr C Murphy: It will more likely be redeployment, but it is not simply about putting people into offices, because that, in itself, will achieve nothing. This will be about changing the mindset regarding regional presence. The focus of the people who go there will be on working with the people in the area to articulate the local economic need; it will not be on representing Invest NI's views to the area. It is also about the organisation and how its headquarters will recalibrate what it does and how it does it. Teams in Invest's headquarters will work on the issue of regional balance; the responsibility for that will not simply be farmed out to local offices to let them carry it. There will be more staff and a different approach from the organisation itself.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Thank you, Minister. That concludes questions on the statement from the Minister for the Economy.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Before I call the Minister, I remind Members that they must be concise in asking their questions and that long introductions will not be allowed.

Mr Nesbitt (The Minister of Health): Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I am making a statement on the launch of the public consultation on the hospital reconfiguration framework document, which is entitled 'Hospitals — Creating a Network for Better Outcomes'. I am pleased to have the opportunity to share the framework document with Members today in advance of the imminent launch of a 16-week consultation period. That will commence tomorrow and will run until 21 January 2025.

I am aware that some people tend to promote the belief that there has been no clinical involvement or engagement with health service front-line staff on the development of the framework. That is simply not the case, and I want to set the record straight. It is not something that civil servants have simply cooked up with no outside input. 'Hospitals — Creating A Network For Better Outcomes' has been co-produced with the trusts and the Public Health Agency (PHA), which have involved a wide range of clinicians in the process, as well as senior managers and chief executives. Furthermore, during July and August of this year, my officials carried out an extensive pre-consultation exercise that involved engagement with all the royal colleges, as well as with trade unions and service users. The feedback from that very useful pre-engagement exercise has been incorporated into the final draft of the document, which is presented to the House today.

At its heart, the work is about how we can improve the sustainability of hospital services and, ultimately, provide an assurance that none of our acute hospitals will close. The draft framework aims to describe our acute hospital system. Its underlying principle of local provision where possible and central where necessary is key to the document. A fundamental concept is that of an integrated Northern Ireland hospital network. Within that network, each hospital has been identified as part of a particular tier, combining to form an interdependent network. The types of hospitals described in the framework are local, general, area and regional. That network approach will ensure a brighter and more secure future for all our hospitals.

I want to be clear in the message that this is not about cutting costs or closing hospitals but about managing change in a controlled way and demonstrating the benefits, which have to be better outcomes. We will continue to need every square inch of our hospital estate. It is about showing everyone how each hospital fits into the network, determining what the most valuable role for each one to play is and delivering the best outcomes for patients.

To embed sustainability and resilience, taking account of our workforce, safety considerations and advances in modern medicine, it is simply not possible to deliver all services in every hospital. It is already the case that different hospitals have different services available. The network approach will ensure that people can still get the right treatment in the right place by the right person, even if it is not necessarily in the hospital closest to their home. I recognise that there are difficult judgement calls to make around that. My view is that patient safety must always come first. When hospitals have lower patient numbers, that can create significant issues for professionals working in key specialties. They include the rota and on-call pressures inherent in smaller clinical teams, as well as an insufficient case mix to support specialisation, training and skills development. Those issues inevitably have consequences for recruitment and retention, adding to the challenges of maintaining services. That, then, potentially compromises patient safety and often leads to poorer patient outcomes.

We have seen in recent years a number of examples where changes have been made as a direct result of service collapse rather than planned improvement. Research shows that the vast majority of people — in fact, in the region of 80% — say that they are willing to travel for elective care in order to receive treatment from the best and most skilled experts as quickly as possible. However, I recognise, of course, that there are some for whom any additional travel will be a cause for concern. That is why a section on patient travel is included in the draft framework, setting out the supports available for the public.

It is important to note that 'Hospitals — Creating a Network for Better Outcomes' will not itself reconfigure any specific services; instead, it provides a strategic context and structure for future reconfiguration decisions. It is underpinned by a number of existing service reviews and strategies, which were clinician-led and developed in partnership with those who use the services. Future reconfiguration decisions will continue either to come from regional service reviews or to be trust-led. I am committed to ensuring that such decisions include appropriate engagement with, for example, staff, service users and the local community.

In closing, I encourage Members to take the time to respond to the consultation and make their views known. As I encourage Members to look on our hospitals as a network, in the same way I encourage them to regard this statement as one of a series about reform of healthcare delivery that will come in the coming weeks. I commend the statement to the House.

Mr McGrath: Minister, I acknowledge your statement. We have had Bengoa, 'Developing Better Services', 'Transforming Your Care' and, today, it is 'Hospitals — Creating a Network for Better Outcomes'. The document, in its summary, details the why, how, what, where and when. We already know the why and the what. There are scant details on the how, and, given that the where is controversial, I can understand why you have omitted that.

When will you publish a concrete timescale that will detail the changes and when they will be implemented that is measurable and accountable? Failing to provide that just gives the impression that this will be yet another document that will lie on a shelf and gather dust without delivering any real change.

Mr Nesbitt: I thank the Member of the Opposition for his comments and his question. I can say to him that this will not lie on the shelf and gather dust. Indeed, some Members have suggested that the Bengoa report from 2016 has, over the past eight years, sat on the shelf gathering dust, and that is not the case. There have been some movements on foot of that Bengoa report. I think of day procedures and elective care and how we are trying to separate elective care from emergency operations. That is a sensible way forward. In my closing remark, I asked Members to think about this as one of a series of statements that are coming. Professor Bengoa will be back next week to, as I put it, reboot that report, not to write a new one, because the challenges remain as they were in 2016.
I intend to publish in the forthcoming weeks a three-year plan that will cover the rest of my time as Health Minister, if I am spared to work through to May 2027. I have made it clear that I want to see a regional attitude towards breast screening services. We will continue to deliver that at pace. I have talked about my initiative, which I am calling "Live Better", to tackle health inequalities. That is due to be launched in the forthcoming weeks. In association with that, I will look at some of the social determinants of health inequalities. I think of, for example, tobacco and vaping. We will be hand in glove with the UK legislation on that front. I am considering minimum unit pricing for alcohol, because it is clear that, if you go into the most deprived areas, you see the worst impacts of alcohol abuse.

I say to the Member that a lot is happening. I cannot give you a step-by-step time frame, but I am moving at pace to deliver better outcomes for patients, service users and the staff who deliver healthcare.

Ms Kimmins (The Chairperson of the Committee for Health): I welcome the Minister's statement. As he knows, we have been waiting for it for some time. It is a positive step forward, and I welcome that he has said that there will be engagement with a range of people.

The draft framework states that it will require:

Will the Minister therefore confirm that the key performance targets will be based on patient, clinician and, importantly, nursing and healthcare staff experience as well as focusing on securing better outcomes? We need that breadth of knowledge to deliver the framework properly and ensure that we achieve what it sets out to do.

Mr Nesbitt: I thank the Chair of the Committee for her welcome and her comments. I am, of course, not a clinician; I have no medical or clinical qualifications. As Minister, I see myself as an enabler of change. Recently, I was in both the Causeway Hospital and the Antrim Area Hospital. As the Member knows, the Northern Health and Social Care Trust is consulting on the future of general emergency surgery provision and the potential that it may move from the Causeway Hospital down to Antrim. In its consultation document, the trust has made clear its preferred option, which is the one that I have just articulated. However, when I met the clinicians at Antrim Area Hospital, they made it clear that it was an imperative for patient safety and delivering better outcomes. So, yes, I will be guided by clinicians, surgeons, allied health professionals (AHPs) and nurses.

There is also a need to consult the local community, because all healthcare is not just personal but local. For example, for most of my adult life, my nearest hospital has been the Ulster Hospital. Of course, I feel an affinity for the Ulster more than I would for the South West Acute Hospital (SWAH), Altnagelvin Area Hospital or Daisy Hill Hospital. I have to get over that affinity and wishing for every service that I need to be delivered at Dundonald and recognise that it is in my best interests, once we have the areas of specialty, to travel a little further for a procedure. Having said that, I know that people who are prepared to travel for a procedure want the aftercare as close to home as possible. That is the principle underlying my thinking.

Mrs Erskine: I thank the Minister for his statement. He will be well aware that, as we go out of the Chamber, there will be misinformation about what goes on underneath hospital roofs. I welcome that he has confirmed that no acute hospital will close. Can he confirm, as, I am sure, he will, that the plan will stabilise services and attract workforce to rural hospitals such as the SWAH, where it can be difficult to attract a workforce? Will he reassure the public that transport links, which I have raised with him before, will be developed as part of the programme of work? Missed appointments cost the health service as well.

Mr Nesbitt: I thank the Member for her comments. No acute hospital is, in any way, in danger; in fact, some of the proposals, such as the one to separate emergency from elective surgery, will secure their future.

On the first point about attracting workforce, interestingly — well, you will be the judge of that, but I found it interesting — I went up to Altnagelvin a few weeks ago to visit some of our international colleagues who have come here. They go into the centre at Altnagelvin to learn about the processes and procedures that we use in hospitals that may be different from what they are used to in India, Afghanistan or wherever their country of origin is. The interesting thing for me was asking them whether they preferred to be at Altnagelvin in Derry/Londonderry or at the South West Acute Hospital in Enniskillen. There was a variety of answers. Those who came from big cities in India tended to say that they preferred Altnagelvin because it is in the city of Derry/Londonderry, whereas others whose origins were, perhaps, more rural preferred Enniskillen. It is possible to think about imaginative ways in which to tackle those workforce challenges and not just simply buy into a narrative that a rural hospital will not attract a workforce. It may be more challenging, but I accept and rise to that challenge.

The Member made a very important point about transport. It is all very well for me to say that I am prepared to travel to Antrim, Londonderry or Enniskillen for my procedure when I have many family members with cars who would be more than willing to take me there and bring me back. I have been working with other Ministers — the Minister for Infrastructure and the Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs — to look at community transport arrangements and how to provide transport for those who do not have ready access to it. I am also thinking about the Northern Ireland Ambulance Service (NIAS), which has a voluntary driver scheme. That scheme took a bad hit to its numbers because of COVID. The NIAS is working hard to get the pool of drivers back up. We need to be imaginative. For example, I think of church networks: it strikes me that people who regularly go to church may be the sort of people who have the kind of community interest that might lead them to think about becoming community drivers.

The issues that the Member raised are very much on my radar. They are valid and need to be addressed.

Miss McAllister: I thank the Minister for bringing this long-awaited statement to the House. In the third paragraph of the statement, Minister, you state that you want to put to rest the belief that there was no engagement or clinical involvement. I am glad that that engagement took place, following the Committee session in which we pressed the Health Department on the lack of engagement.

I welcome the reconfiguration framework. Now that we have an overall strategic framework from which all the decisions on this will flow, when will we see more decisions and actions being taken, having evolved from the framework?

Mr Nesbitt: In headline terms, that sequence starts with the announcement in the Chamber today. Professor Bengoa will be at a half-day conference in Belfast next Wednesday afternoon. I will be interested to hear the detail of his remarks on whether he feels that his report from 2016 is still valid — I believe that it is. He will also reference some developments that have taken place globally over the past eight years and perhaps encourage us to take the next steps. After that, as I said, I will publish the three-year plan that will cover the rest of the mandate.

Out of that, we will have to get down into the weeds of what we mean when we talk about which hospitals deliver which services. I assure Members that we will go out to public consultation on every one of the potential moves, because that is the right thing to do. That is why it will not be possible to do it in a year or in the remainder of the mandate, and that is why I am talking about a five-year plan. We have to bring people with us, and I do not mean just the clinicians and everybody who works in healthcare, important as they are. We also want the community to come with us. Sometimes, when we say that we will change services, people think that they are losing a service from their local facility without being reassured that something better will come in its place. For example, you may separate emergency and elective surgery in one hospital in order to make that hospital a centre for excellence in elective surgery, which would be a bit better for securing its future.

Sorry, I wandered off topic a bit. There will be a series of announcements, and, while they might not please the Member, they will certainly give her the opportunity to respond.

Mr Crawford: I thank the Minister for his statement to the House. He acknowledged that, in a better-structured network, some patients may have to travel further for their procedure. Following on from Deborah Erskine's question, can the Minister give a commitment that he and his Department will do all that they can to make the case for adequate provision of accessible and reliable public transport for patients who require it?

Mr Nesbitt: An increased focus on centres of excellence for elective care will mean that some patients will be asked to travel further for non-emergency procedures. I refer to the 2023-24 health survey for Northern Ireland, in which approximately 80% of respondents indicated that they would be prepared to travel within Northern Ireland for a routine procedure or operation, if that meant that the waiting time would be reduced. Similar questions were asked by the Age Sector Platform, and over 80% said that they would be willing to travel further if there were benefits such as reduced waiting or procedure times and a lower risk of cancellation.

As the Member suggests and as Mrs Erskine made clear, there needs to be accessible and reliable public transport for patients who do not have access to private vehicles, particularly the elderly and the vulnerable. In that regard, flexible appointments, especially for those who are travelling a greater distance, would also be important.

Mrs Dillon: I thank the Minister for his statement. Action 7 states:

Can you give us some sense of what those activities might be? Is there an estates plan? As I have outlined before, Craigavon Area Hospital is bursting at the seams. People died during COVID because the hospital did not have the space to keep them separated.

Mr Nesbitt: I do not want to be prescriptive or overly prescriptive at this point in the process. I will stick with what I have said. There is huge logic in trying to separate emergency surgery from elective surgery, because, if you are on a waiting list for planned or elective surgery, the length of the list does not really matter. If you have been given the appointment, it is frustrating to get a phone call early that morning to say, "I am sorry. The theatre is in use for an emergency procedure. The anaesthetist, the surgeon and the theatre nurses have all been taken up, and your surgery is cancelled". Those are the sorts of things that I am talking about. We need a logical redistribution that means that we are more productive and more efficient in what we do.

You asked about Craigavon Area Hospital. My goodness. I was there a couple of weeks ago, and the last area that I visited was the emergency department. It was not edifying to see so many people in the corridors outside the emergency department being fed. When you want to access healthcare, dignity is really important. Far too many patients feel that they lose their dignity because of overcrowding, particularly in emergency departments. That was late August, by the way. One of the emergency department consultants said, "I think this is the start of the winter pressures". We have to box clever and use the whole of the estate.

I am not the expert, I am not a clinician, and I am not a medical professional who can say how we should do that, but we need to look at the network. It is important to get people thinking of networks. People tend to think of the local hospital as being "it". Once we can do that, we can have a good, mature debate about who does what.

Mrs Dodds: I thank the Minister for his statement. We have waited a long time for the paper. I am grateful for it, and I take your word that it is the start of a process. However, on reading it last night, I found that it is a series of high-level principles rather than any detail on how we will proceed. A number of questions arise about that. You said this morning that there would be further papers: that is really important, but we need further papers that focus on the principles that you outlined in this one.

You also said that service reviews would be trust-led: I worry about that, because my experience of trusts is that, at the moment, they will not and cannot cooperate with one another. How do you expect them to cooperate on service reviews and sharing resources? Will you ensure that each of those is led by a consultation?

Mr Nesbitt: First of all, I get it. You have waited a long time for the document, and, to a certain extent, perhaps, it is a little frustrating that it has only high-level principles. However, that is the logical sequence by which to roll out the nitty-gritty of reform. It is not just reform of hospitals; it is reform of how we deliver health and social care more generally.

There will be consultations — I can guarantee the Member that — on all the changes, but I said that they will either be trust-led or led regionally by the Department. I note that the Member said that the trusts are struggling to cooperate. I have to say that that is not my sense of things. I know that they were set up under the Thatcherite idea of, if you have competition, you drive down price and get a better bang for your buck, to use that expression. I suppose that there was a temptation, when going into the role, to say, "Why do we need five geographic trusts, and why can we not just have one Northern Ireland-wide body?". I do not think that that is worth the effort, but I said to the chairs, chief executives and financial directors of the trusts that I expect them to cooperate and that, in my mind, they are one trust. I think that they have been increasingly showing an ability to cooperate and collaborate rather than compete, but that is a work in progress, and I will certainly try to keep the pressure on to get further collaboration and cooperation. The big issue for me across those trusts is productivity, and I assure the Member that there have been some frosty enough conversations on that issue.

Mr Donnelly: I welcome the Minister's statement. We all know that reform of the health service is long overdue and has stalled due to the political instability in this place. The Bengoa report was in 2016, and it described a "burning platform". We should have been eight years into a 10-year programme of reform, but, instead, we have let it burn and burn.

The Minister mentioned that there has been clinical involvement in this document and this consultation, and I believe that there was a pre-consultation over the summer involving stakeholders. I ask the Minister to outline some of the feedback that was received from that and how that has fed into the document that will be given to the general public.

Mr Nesbitt: I thank the Member for his question. All the royal colleges were involved, and all the chief executives and the trusts were involved. Indeed, a couple of weeks ago, I was at the headquarters of the South Eastern Trust and met the chairs of all the arm's-length bodies that are involved in delivering healthcare. Therefore, extensive consideration has been given to this plan.

The big challenge that has been faced by, for example, the people who represent the five geographic trusts is, "What does it mean for me and my service?". One of the most important exchanges in the feedback has been my sense that they need to collaborate and cooperate more deeply and that they have to address the issue of productivity. If you talk to the clinicians, they will tell you about the barriers that prevent them being more efficient and more productive, and then, when you speak to the management, you maybe get a better sense of what management perceives to be the barriers to delivering that efficiency and productivity.

The one thing about healthcare that I discovered very early in my tenure is that there are so many moving parts. You can see one moving part and say, "Well, if we do something here, that will be really productive and positive", but there will be three or four other moving parts that might say, "Well, if you do that, you will have a negative impact on me". Those are the sorts of conversations that we have been having.

Ultimately, as, I think, I said in my very first remarks in the Chamber as Health Minister, everybody wants reform, but everybody has a different idea of what reform should look like. As we go forward, I know that people will object to this proposal or that proposal, but that is the value of the consultation. I am certainly happy to discuss offline with the Member some more detail, if he is interested in the specifics of the feedback.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Members, I remind you all about long introductions and that long conclusions should not be used to replace long introductions. [Laughter.]

Mrs Mason: I thank the Minister for his statement. Can he provide the details of what factors will be considered in the assessment of local hospital sustainability to meet the future needs of our population?

Mr Nesbitt: I thank the Member for her question. If I understood her correctly, she is talking about local hospitals. As I said, I think that, by and large — 80% at least — people are willing to travel for a procedure if they feel that they are going to a centre of excellence. I have said before that, if your local hospital does the procedure that you need once a week but that, by travelling a bit further, you can get to somewhere that does it 10 times a day, five days a week, you are more likely to want to go to that centre of excellence. The local hospitals will deliver the aftercare. I want aftercare to be delivered as close to the home as possible. That, primarily, is where I see a role. It is about delivering day-to-day, non-acute services. There is so much that local hospitals can do; they should be in no doubt about their short- and medium-term future.

Mr T Buchanan: I welcome the statement today as well. It is reassuring that none of the acute services is going to be closed during or after the process. Will the Minister assure us that each acute and local hospital will be utilised to its full potential? Far too often, when we see a change coming, we can see the gaps that will be left. That leaves the hospital not being utilised to its full potential, which then creates problems with the retention and recruitment of staff, as we have seen in the South West Acute Hospital (SWAH).

Mr Nesbitt: I thank the Member. I can offer that guarantee; we need every square inch of our hospital estate. The next challenge, having put hospitals into four tiers, is to determine exactly what services are offered by which hospital. That is a fairly significant piece of work, but, if it is approached with logic, it should not take that long to get to where we want to be. I assure the Member that I want every hospital to do whatever it is doing to the best of its ability, and to be recognised as such by the community that uses that facility.

Ms D Armstrong: I thank the Minister for his statement today. I look forward to working with him for the benefit of patients and staff from right across Fermanagh and South Tyrone. As he will recall, I recently joined him on a visit to the South West Acute Hospital. I was glad that he was able to see at first hand the potential that it has. Following on from the comments from the Member who spoke previously, will the Minister give a commitment that today's framework will help to better utilise the capacity that exists in SWAH?

Mr Nesbitt: I thank the Member. SWAH is a very good example of separating out emergency and elective care. It has become an elective-care centre of excellence in Enniskillen. That works really well. It gives an assurance to the staff and healthcare workers who are based in the SWAH that they have a really sustainable future and a worthwhile role to play in delivering as part of the network of our Northern Ireland hospitals.

Ms Flynn: I thank the Minister for the statement. I go back to the questions from Colin and Nuala earlier. I know that it is really hard to set specific definitive timelines at this stage because, obviously, it is an early phase of the process, but when do you foresee the proposals for reconfiguration going out to the public? The consultation closes in January 2025. Do you foresee that happening in 2025, or are we talking 2026, or later?

Mr Nesbitt: I thank the Member. I understand the nature of the question. It is going to be a rolling programme. For example, as I indicated, officials in my Department have been liaising with officials in the Department of Health and Social Care in London about the Tobacco and Vapes Bill. It is our intention that whatever legislation is brought in for England will apply here in Northern Ireland. I would love to see a smoke-free generation as soon as possible. Smoking is one of the social determinants of health inequalities. I am sure that the Member will join me in hoping that we can tackle that.

I have talked about minimum unit pricing of alcohol. We, as a Department, have already consulted on that. I am at the early stages of discussing with officials how we take that forward. It is something that I hope to bring to the Health Committee. I apologise for missing my slot last week due to illness. I think that it is something that the Committee and the Department can work together on. That will not have to wait until January and the end of the consultation. I want to go ahead with trying to see whether we can get agreement on minimum-unit pricing for alcohol.

Officials have been told to press on urgently with work on breast cancer screening. I want to get as soon as possible to the point at which every woman can go online and have control over her own appointment. If she wants the earliest available appointment, wherever that might be in Northern Ireland, she should be able to click a button and book herself in for that. If she would rather go local, even if it means waiting a bit longer, that is her choice, and I want her to have that choice. Those things are part of a continuum. It is not that we will get to the end of January and a whole series of initiatives will come. I am doing every one of those as quickly as I can.

Ms Nicholl: Thank you, Minister, for your statement. From the Alliance Party's engagement with the sector, it is clear to us that the Royal children's hospital needs to be a regional hub and funded as such through the proper commissioning of services. Will the Minister confirm that that is his intention, so that it can be a centre of excellence for children across Northern Ireland? Has he engaged with clinicians in the hospital? If not, will he do so?

Mr Nesbitt: Sorry, Deputy Speaker. Which hospital?

Ms Nicholl: The children's hospital.

Mr Nesbitt: Are you asking whether it can be a centre of excellence? Are you talking about the Royal Belfast Hospital for Sick Children?

Ms Nicholl: Yes.

Mr Nesbitt: Sorry, could the Member repeat the question? I did not quite catch it.

Ms Nicholl: Clinicians at the Royal Belfast Hospital for Sick Children are telling us that it needs to be a regional hub and funded as such, so that it can be a centre of excellence for children across Northern Ireland. I am trying to ascertain whether the Minister's intention is for it to become that and to be funded accordingly and for services to be commissioned.

Mr Nesbitt: I am sorry that I missed the question the first time.

It is my understanding that, in many ways, it already is a regional hub. Certainly, it is my intention that that is the case going forward. Certain services, like percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) treatment, are only available at the Royal.

Mr O'Toole: Minister, the document is largely made up of principles, and there are lots of principles to commend. One thing that is not mentioned in the statement is the cross-border context. Hospitals such as the South West Acute Hospital are already in a real-life network, but they could be in a theoretical network that includes hospitals in Sligo, Leitrim and Cavan. There is already a cross-border healthcare context. There is also an aspiration and a vision to maximise that. What will you do to properly maximise the cross-border potential for services at, for example, Daisy Hill Hospital, Altnagelvin Area Hospital or SWAH to ensure that those services are best used by people on both sides of the border? What will you do to ensure that we maximise the possibilities of cross-border healthcare provision?

Mr Nesbitt: I thank the leader of the Opposition. I think that I have said in the House — I have certainly said it at the North/South Ministerial Council and also at the North/South sectoral forum — that I have no political or ideological objection to cooperation with the Government of Ireland on healthcare delivery. In fact, it makes an awful lot of sense. Indeed, going back 15 years, the development of the breast cancer unit at Altnagelvin was based on a cross-border business model. SWAH was also built on the basis of cooperation across the border.

I have had two meetings, which, to my mind, were very useful, with my counterpart, Stephen Donnelly, the Minister for Health in the Government of Ireland. We talked about certain issues, including the need for a mother-and-baby unit. We discussed paediatric pathology, and we are making great advances on those terms. I know that a lot of Members have made clear in the House that it is far from ideal that we ask parents to fly or transport themselves to Alder Hey Children's Hospital in Liverpool. I hope that we will be able to offer an all-island solution on that. There is another initiative, which I will not mention at the moment but about which I am very excited. Mr Donnelly equally sees the benefit of an all-Ireland approach in this area.

Ms Mulholland: Thank you very much, Minister. As someone who lives in and represents a rural constituency, I was glad to hear the rural transport notion being picked up. What other engagement will the Minister have with rural communities to make sure that their issues are heard fully and understood by the Department in the transformation process?

Mr Nesbitt: The consultation that I have had so far has been with the Minister of Agriculture and the Minister for Infrastructure. Officials have gone away to look at community transport and at how we might provide transport for people who do not have ready access to it.

If the Member is asking me whether I have plans at the moment to go out personally and consult in rural areas, that is not the case. However, I encourage Members to encourage people, particularly in rural communities, to respond to the consultation, because I want to know what people's concerns are.

It is all very well saying that 80% of people have said that they are willing to travel for a procedure, but that means that 20% have not responded that positively. In the survey, 16% said that they were not particularly keen on the concept. If we are to deliver a health service for all, which is our obligation, we need to understand why that 16% are not buying into the concept. I am more than willing to engage with the Member on how we might consult in the way that she might intend.

Ms Bradshaw: I thank the Minister for his statement. I very much concur with some of the frustration in the Chamber. We have would appreciated a wee bit more substance. It was my understanding that the co-chaired work streams, looking at the four types of hospitals, were looking at defining what was going where.

My question picks up on that asked by my colleague Sian Mulholland. You talked about the 80% of people who are willing to travel for elective care. We know that there will still be reservations for people with a suspected stroke or heart failure. Will you take forward a communications strategy to look at where there are serious concerns about the time required for travel?

Mr Nesbitt: I thank the Member for her question. I will acknowledge her frustration, but I gently suggest that she might be more frustrated had I not brought the statement to the House today.

As for people having to travel, particularly in an emergency situation, I am working to the concept that no type-1 emergency department is going away. Emergency departments will still be there. The principle is stabilising patients as soon as possible and then getting them to the best place for their procedure. That is the way to go, with, as I have said, aftercare being delivered as close to home as possible.

Mr Durkan: I thank the Minister for his statement. A section titled "Patient Travel", setting out supports available for the public, is included in the draft framework. The Minister's predecessor had committed to a review of the hospital travel costs scheme, a review that, in the absence of Ministers, seems to have ended up on a shelf. I have raised the particular problem that the scheme makes no provision for the parents or families of sick children making long and frequent journeys, whose suffering and stress is compounded by financial hardship. Will the Minister update us on the review of the hospital travel costs scheme?

Mr Nesbitt: I thank the Member for his question. I can only tell him that it is under review. I encourage him to respond to the consultation by making that important and valid point.

Mr Gaston: I thank the Minister for coming to the House today. Over the years, Causeway Hospital has seen a gradual running down of its services. It lost its maternity unit to Antrim Area Hospital and is in the midst of a consultation on future general surgery at the site. There are lots of fine words in your statement, Minister, but what my constituents in the north end of North Antrim really want to know is this: will your proposals result in the removal of any of the cuts made to date? Will you take the opportunity to spell out your future plans for Causeway Hospital?

Mr Nesbitt: I thank the Member for his question. Causeway Hospital will remain a key element of the hospital network in Northern Ireland. Separating emergency surgery from elective or planned surgery, as I have said on a number of occasions, makes great sense for the people who access hospitals. The Member should have no fear about the future of Causeway Hospital. When I visited it a few weeks ago, I found there to be hugely positive energy amongst the staff and a great appetite for going forward together.

If we are to reform health service delivery, we will have to make changes. As I have said, I understand that, for many people, the National Health Service — Health and Social Care (HSC) here — is not just personal but deeply local. It is people's local GP surgery and their local hospital. I am as guilty as anybody of thinking that, but we have to think a bit more broadly if we are going to be more productive and more efficient and deliver those better outcomes.

Mr Robinson: I thank the Minister for his statement. Can he give an assurance that action point 5 is not a case of his Department putting a proverbial gun to the head of the population of the Causeway region that only when they accept the removal of emergency general surgery at Causeway Hospital will it be designated as an elective hub?

Mr Nesbitt: I thank the Member for the question. I encourage him to speak to the clinicians whom I spoke to at Causeway Hospital and at Antrim Area Hospital about the future.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): That concludes questions on the statement.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): I call the Minister of Justice.

Mrs Long (The Minister of Justice): I am pleased to bring my Justice Bill before the Assembly today. On my reappointment as Minister of Justice in February 2024 —.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Minister, move the Bill.

Mrs Long: I beg to move

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Thank you, Minister. In accordance with convention, the Business Committee has not allocated a time limit to the debate.

Mrs Long: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I am pleased to do this a second time.

I am pleased to bring the Justice Bill to the Assembly today. On my reappointment as Minister of Justice in February 2024, I agreed my legislative programme to continue reform of our justice system into a better system for everyone concerned. That includes this general justice Bill, a sentencing Bill and a victims Bill. The mixed-content Justice Bill before the Assembly today is another step forward in that reform programme, and I am committed to improving the operation and effectiveness of the justice system through this wide-ranging legislation.

The Bill consists of 34 clauses over five Parts and has four key principles. The first is to amend the retention periods for biometric material. The second is to make changes to bail and custody arrangements for children and young people. The third is to improve services for victims and witnesses. Finally, the fourth is to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of aspects of the justice system.

Part 1 of the Bill creates a new framework for the retention and destruction of DNA and fingerprints in Northern Ireland. Article 64 of the Police and Criminal Evidence (Northern Ireland) Order 1989 (PACE) is the current legislation in Northern Ireland governing that. It provides that the PSNI may retain the DNA and fingerprints of an individual who has been arrested for a recordable offence indefinitely, irrespective of whether they were convicted.

The current legislation has been found in two separate judgements of the European Court of Human Rights to be in contravention of article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). The first judgement dates back to December 2008, Marper v UK, whilst the latest judgement was delivered in February 2020, Gaughran v UK. The Criminal Justice Act (Northern Ireland) 2013 was passed by the House on 25 April 2013 in response to the Marper judgement. However, it was not possible to commence those provisions due to the need to preserve biometric material that may be required for future legacy investigations. The Gaughran judgement has since resulted in elements of the 2013 Act being assessed as not being compliant with the European Convention on Human Rights. Therefore, it is necessary to revisit the legislation and produce amended proposals for consideration by the Assembly.

Part 1 of the Justice Bill will amend the current law by removing indefinite retention and introducing maximum retention periods for biometric material taken in Northern Ireland. The retention period will depend on a number of factors, including the seriousness of the offence, the age of the individual, the individual's criminal history and the disposal given. In general, if the individual is not convicted, their material will not be retained. The Bill will also introduce a regulation-making power that will require the Chief Constable to carry out a meaningful review of long-term retained biometric material. The review process will include an independent complaints process.

The Bill also contains provision for the appointment of a new Northern Ireland Commissioner for the Retention of Biometric Material. That will provide important independent oversight of the operation of the new retention framework and review process. The commissioner will also have responsibility for keeping under review emerging biometric technologies that are being used or may be used by the PSNI. That is a balanced and proportionate approach. It responds to the European Court's rulings and protects the individual's right to privacy. It also recognises the public interest in enabling the police to make effective use of biometric data in protecting the public and in the prevention and detection of crime.

Members will appreciate that this is a complex area. During the recent drafting process, my officials identified some amendments and additions that are needed to provide greater clarity and ensure the effective operation of the provisions. I intend to table those amendments at Consideration Stage. Members will, of course, be aware that the clauses were originally drafted some time ago for inclusion in a mixed-content Bill in the last mandate. It was through the revision of those that we found further room for improvement.

Part 2 contains provisions to amend existing legislation and covers bail, remand and custody for children in order to enhance compliance with article 37 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC). The provisions ensure compliance by strengthening the existing presumption of bail for children and introducing unconditional bail as standard and a requirement that any conditions applied should be proportionate and necessary. They introduce specific conditions that must be met before a child can be remanded into custody and underpin the current administrative arrangements that exist around the separation of children and adults in custodial settings. The underpinning of current administrative arrangements will be achieved through the replacement of two existing youth-specific custodial orders, which are also location-specific, with a new youth custody and supervision order. The provisions also set it out in statute that, where a court remands or commits a child to custody, the child must be detained in a child-appropriate location — that is a juvenile justice centre.

The amendments to PACE in clauses 20 and 21 will enable videoconferencing technology, referred to as "live links", to be used for a number of custody functions. Those functions include the extension of detention by both the police and the courts and police interviews with the suspect. Additionally, the provisions make minor amendments to PACE to replace any references to "videoconferencing" with "live link", thus ensuring the continuity of terminology throughout PACE legislation.

The provisions are part of the Department's digital strategy, and we are keen to facilitate the use of live links in as wide a range of circumstances as is appropriate. Live links are already used in courts for a wide range of functions, including preliminary hearings, certain sentencing and appeal hearings and the giving of evidence by vulnerable witnesses, defendants and appellants. The prisons and courts also regularly use live links for remand hearings. Operationally, the introduction of live links for police detention and interviews will mean that they can be dealt with more swiftly. That will result in a more efficient use of police resources. The use of live links could also result in efficiencies in travel and escort costs. All of the proposed functions in the use of live links are already available to police forces in England and Wales by virtue of the Policing and Crime Act 2017. I am keen to facilitate similar arrangements in Northern Ireland not only for the reasons that I have outlined but to avoid putting the PSNI at any disadvantage compared with its UK counterparts.

Part 4 has five components that share a common focus on the administration of justice. The first of those provisions, at clause 22, seeks to amend the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000 to provide the Northern Ireland Policing Board with the power to delegate certain matters to board officials in response to the judgement in the case of McKee and Others v the Charity Commission for Northern Ireland. Those include a number of decision-making roles on matters such as pensions forfeiture, ill-health retirement, injury on duty and other miscellaneous benefits. That arrangement is necessary for practical reasons, given the volume of casework involved and the number of decisions required to be made in a timely manner.

Clause 23 will remove section 29 of the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000, which requires the Comptroller and Auditor General (C&AG) to audit the Policing Board's performance plan and performance review. The amendment is being made following a recommendation by the former Comptroller and Auditor General and would bring the position in Northern Ireland into line with that in England and Wales. However, the provisions at section 30 of the Act would remain in place should an examination of the board's compliance with section 28 ever be required.

The next three clauses all deal with criminal proceedings. The first of those provisions, at clause 24, amends existing legislation relating to conspiracy to commit offences outside Northern Ireland. The amendment corrects an error in the previous provisions to provide that the consent of the Advocate General for Northern Ireland is required when instituting criminal proceedings in Northern Ireland, as intended.

Clause 25 amends section 7 of the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act 2004 to provide that a judge can enter a no bill on a charge such as murder or manslaughter only if the judge also enters a no bill on the related charge under section 5 of the same Act, which relates to causing or allowing a child or vulnerable adult to die. The provision closes a gap in the law that, if not addressed, could see defendants not having to face criminal proceedings in relation to that charge even where the judge is not satisfied that the related section 5 offence — the lesser offence — should also be no-billed.

The final provision in this section is clause 25, which deals with registered intermediaries. Registered intermediaries are communication specialists who assist vulnerable persons with communication difficulties to give evidence during the police investigation and in court. The extension of powers in the use of registered intermediaries will ensure that there is provision not only for the giving of evidence at Magistrates' Court and Crown Court, which is currently provided for in the Criminal Evidence (Northern Ireland) Order 1999, but where there is an appeal from those court tiers to the County Court or the Court of Appeal. That will provide vulnerable defendants who have communication difficulties with the assistance that they need to participate effectively in appeal proceedings as witnesses giving oral evidence in court.

Clauses 28 and 27 deal with legal aid matters. Clause 27 is a technical amendment to schedule 11 to the Land Registration Act (Northern Ireland) 1970 to include legal aid legislation. Schedule 11 allows for the registration of statutory charges in the statutory charge register. Also, the proposed amendment would allow the Legal Services Agency, which administers legal aid in Northern Ireland, to register such charges, created by the legal aid legislation, in the statutory charges register. The purpose of the statutory charge is to ensure that legally aided persons contribute towards the cost of funding their cases insofar as they are able. It provides the Legal Services Agency with revenue that it is allowed to keep and use for the funding of future cases. The person who receives legal aid, known as the assisted person, can become liable for the statutory charge should they gain money or property that they did not own before or keep money or property that someone had tried to take from them.

Clause 28 is an amendment to the Judicature (Northern Ireland) Act 1978 to reinforce that, where a basis for determination of payment for legal aid work has been set out in a remuneration order made under the Access to Justice (Northern Ireland) Order 2003, the taxation process is not available as an alternative basis for that determination. The amendment will allow for the reform of taxation of legal aid costs, the basic principle being that, if the Department is paying, the Department determines the amount.

The penultimate provisions, at clause 29, are concerned with criminal record certificates and the disclosure of spent convictions or other disposal information of a person aged under 18. The provisions of clause 29 extend the powers of the independent reviewer of criminal record certificates under schedule 8A to the Police Act 1997. They extend the scope of automatic review by the independent reviewer to review the criminal record information to be disclosed on all criminal record certificates or enhanced criminal record certificates issued under the 1997 Act where that information relates to any other disposal awarded to a person when they were under 18 years of age. The provisions are required to comply with a ruling made by the UK Supreme Court in January 2019, which determined that blanket disclosure of such offences was a category error and, as such, an error of principle. Clause 29 therefore ensures that the Department continues to operate lawfully in that regard.

Finally, on the provisions of the Bill as drafted for introduction, clause 30 ensures that the exercise of court security officer powers may be extended to other buildings to be specified in regulations. Those must be buildings owned or occupied by the Department where a judicial officer or person exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions sits. The provisions will ensure that those premises are afforded the same security as premises that make up the main courts and tribunals estate.

That concludes my remarks covering the substantive policy content of the Bill at introduction. However, with your indulgence, Mr Speaker, I want to take the opportunity to provide Members with a short overview of a number of discrete policy areas where I intend to bring forward legislative provisions for inclusion in the Bill, albeit drafting could not be completed before introduction.

The provisions include the following: first, provisions to transfer the powers and functions contained in section 43 of the Justice and Security (Northern Ireland) Act 2007 from the Secretary of State to the Department of Justice in order to restart the accreditation process for organisations wishing to deliver restorative justice. The second area covers provisions to amend rehabilitation periods under the Rehabilitation of Offenders (Northern Ireland) Order 1978 to shorten existing rehabilitation periods for convictions that are already capable of becoming spent and to allow more convictions to be able to become spent. It had been hoped that that could be done by regulation. However, that has not been possible, which is why the drafting of primary legislation is under way. There will be provisions to facilitate the wider use of live links in courts and tribunals, thereby allowing the cessation of reliance on similar provisions that are in the Coronavirus Act 2020, which, I think, all Members would welcome. Next are provisions to repeal old and outdated vagrancy legislation under the Vagrancy Act 1824 and the Vagrancy (Ireland) Act 1847. Next are provisions to streamline arrangements for the maintenance and ease of understanding of the existing list of over 1,200 sexual and violent offences that AccessNI cannot filter from disclosure certificates. Those offences are housed in a number of different pieces of legislation. That is incredibly complex and, we believe, open to particular error. We are therefore keen to streamline those arrangements for transparency and clarity reasons. Finally, we hope to introduce provisions to tackle those who participate in or direct serious organised crime. Those are long-overdue provisions that the Independent Reporting Commission recommended to assist the PSNI and the criminal justice system in responding to organised crime.

My commitment to the Justice Committee is that we will share draft amendments with it at the earliest possible juncture, rather than wait until Consideration Stage. Given the shortened mandate and the discrete nature of the provisions in the different sections of the Bill, proceeding with introduction at this time, as I described, affords the Committee and the House the maximum opportunity for scrutiny without jeopardising progress and the rest of the legislative programme for the mandate.

The Bill, though very technical and dry, will strengthen and improve the operation of our justice system. I am conscious that my first Bill of the mandate is significant in scope and covers a broad range of policy areas, some of which are complex and technical but all of which make an important contribution to the modernisation of justice. In practice, there is a degree of interaction between the aims and provisions of the Bill that will often advance more than one of its core aims. I look forward to working with the Justice Committee and Assembly colleagues to ensure that the Bill is enacted in this mandate. I commend the Bill to the House.

Ms Bunting (The Chairperson of the Committee for Justice): As Chair of the Committee for Justice, I welcome the opportunity to speak in the debate and declare that I have an immediate family member who works in the legal profession. I state from the outset that the Committee and I look forward to scrutinising the Bill and working with key stakeholders and departmental officials in so doing, should it pass Second Stage today.

There is little point in my repeating what the Minister just said in outlining the content of the Bill. It will be referred to the Committee should it pass its Second Stage, which is when the Committee's scrutiny will begin in earnest. However, we have been proactive in preparing for that scrutiny. At our meeting on 19 September, we received an excellent and comprehensive briefing from the Assembly's Research and Information Service (RaISe), which covered the main parts of the Bill. That paper has been published on the Committee's web pages, and I encourage anyone with an interest in the Bill to read it.

On Part 1, which is labelled "Biometric data: retention etc", we were informed about the existing legal framework in Northern Ireland. We were also told about how the public interest in collecting and retaining biometric materials needs to be balanced with individual citizens' rights, with particular reference to article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which is on the right to respect for private and family life. The number of databases across the United Kingdom that hold biometric data and the different retention regimes that are in operation were also outlined to us. There is no doubt whatsoever that that is a highly complex area, especially given the rapid changes in biometric technology, and it was highlighted to us how important it will be to ensure that the Bill is future-proofed in that regard.

On Part 2, which relates to bail and custody for children, we were directed to the Department's strategic framework for youth justice 2022-27 and briefed on the importance of ensuring that the proposed legislative changes align with that framework. The need to consider how aspects of that part of the Bill will be supported by statutory partners, particularly with regard to appropriate accommodation for children when granted bail, was highlighted to us. It is a key consideration and reflects a wider need for cross-departmental working.

Part 3 relates to the use of live links in police interviews and detention, and we were given some useful suggestions for areas to consider: for example, the importance of achieving the appropriate balance between the efficient use of resources on the one hand and the rights of detained persons on the other, as well as the potential need for new arrangements to be monitored, which may well take the form of a review.

Part 4 covers a range of areas: functions relating to the police, criminal proceedings, legal aid, criminal records certificates and court security. Many of the provisions in Part 4 aim to amend other legislation — something that I will return to later in my speech — and, again, it is clear, even from an initial reading of the provisions, just how complex a lot of the issues are.

I put on record the Committee's gratitude for the work produced by the Assembly's researchers, so far, on the Bill. It has provided Committee members with a solid foundation on which to build when conducting our scrutiny.

My remarks thus far have reflected the positive approach that the Committee has demonstrated in conducting its scrutiny role, and I reassure the House that it will continue to do so. However, I need to draw attention to some less-than-positive aspects of the process that the Committee has been considering.

In March, the Committee considered a proposal for a statutory rule to allow courts and statutory tribunals to continue to receive evidence, wholly or in part, through audio or video links using the powers in the Coronavirus Act 2020. The Committee asked for more detail, particularly about the appropriateness of the continued use of the powers in the Act, and whether there were any plans to place such measures on a permanent statutory footing. Departmental officials advised the Committee that it was, indeed, the Minister's intention to include a permanent provision for the use of live links in the first justice Bill of the mandate. However, they also said that the intention was to add those provisions by way of an amendment at Consideration Stage, as opposed to them being included in the Bill as introduced. To say that Committee members were shocked at that revelation would be an understatement. Members immediately expressed their concern at the suggestion, noting its potential implications for effective scrutiny.

At its meeting on 14 March, the Committee considered correspondence from the Department stating that four substantive new areas were to be added to the Bill by way of amendment at Consideration Stage. In addition to those provisions for live links, the amending provisions would include proposals to repeal vagrancy legislation and for the new offences of directing and participating in serious organised crime. The substantive nature of those provisions is evident without further explanation. Departmental officials have since advised the Committee that they will provide the text of the provisions, as and when they are ready. However, as I am sure that the House will agree, scrutinising legislation in that way is far from ideal. At its meeting on 11 April, the Committee agreed to write to the Department to raise "its grave concerns", to ask the Department to note the Committee's view that the Bill should contain all the clauses at introduction, and yet still to emphasise that the Committee wished to work collaboratively with the Minister and the Department to support the effective development and scrutiny of the legislation. I reiterate that our desire to do so as a Committee has not changed.

Unfortunately, that was not the end of the matter. Not only was the Bill introduced without the inclusion of the aforementioned provisions but the Committee has since been made aware that there are, in fact, six areas that the Minister plans to introduce by way of amendments at Consideration Stage. Those include amending rehabilitation periods to shorten existing periods and to allow more convictions to become spent. Again, I emphasise that those are not insignificant provisions. It is the Committee's view that it is — to say the least — far from ideal, especially so in the context of the recent High Court judgement regarding the Justice (Sexual Offences and Trafficking Victims) Act (Northern Ireland) 2022, details of which the House will be familiar with. The approach is deeply concerning.

The Committee received a briefing —.

Mrs Long: I thank the Committee Chair for giving way. Will she accept that the provisions of the Justice (Sexual Offences and Trafficking Victims) Act were in the Bill as introduced? The relationship between that Act and an amendment is irrelevant.

Ms Bunting: I hear what the Minister says. I will address her point as I come to it. My next paragraph indicates that evidence that was brought to the court was not brought before the Committee.

Last Thursday, the Committee received a briefing from departmental officials on the Bill's content and principles. I put on record the Committee's gratitude to the officials for their candour, patience and explanations. They were clearly experts in their respective areas of responsibility and gave us considerable time to ask questions. During the meeting, we were informed that the need for an amendment to the biometric part of the Bill had been identified a mere nine calendar days after its introduction. We were assured that the amendment does not propose a change to the policy, but that did not fill the Committee with confidence that the Bill was ready to be introduced when it was.

Mr O'Toole: I thank the Committee Chairperson for giving way. Does she agree that, contrary to the intervention from the Minister that we have just heard, the experience with the legislation and what subsequently happened in the court and, indeed, in another instance of which I have been made aware regarding the sexual offences Act prove that this Bill really needs to be scrutinised? There were clear unintended consequences, and the Department really needs to take them seriously. There has to be complete confidence that this Bill is being scrutinised properly. I am sure that her Committee will do that.

Ms Bunting: I thank the leader of the Opposition for his intervention. I have no doubt that, when the provisions were brought forward, the Minister, the Committee and all concerned were genuine in their intent. However, there were outworkings, and we must take account of the learning and proceed in accordance with it. We must ensure that what emerges from the Bill's stages and our scrutiny is the best that can be done. That is our endeavour, and I will commit to it. I trust that the Minister understands that, when we come at the Bill from that perspective, it is with positive and constructive intent.

Bear with me for a second, Mr Deputy Speaker. I want to make sure that I do not miss any points that need to be made on the Committee's behalf.

As I said, the Committee questioned officials on a number of issues around the Bill during the meeting last week. We asked how the provisions will be delivered primarily within existing resources, as stated in the explanatory and financial memorandum (EFM), given the extremely challenging budget settlement that the Department has received. We raised concerns about the level of consultation that has taken place on some of the provisions and especially about the consultation on DNA and biometric data, which lasted for only eight weeks and was conducted during the initial summer months of the pandemic. We covered human rights compliance; we raised a concern about the Henry VIII powers in clause 31; and we covered a significant number of other issues.

I referred to the recent High Court judgement on the Justice (Sexual Offences and Trafficking Victims) Act (Northern Ireland) 2022. That is the key point on which the Minister spoke. One aspect of the judgement that I draw to the House's attention was that Justice Humphreys noted that the rationale given in evidence for certain decisions regarding the provisions in question, while given to the court:

That is significant. I mention it now, because, at last Thursday's meeting, the Committee requested that officials provide further information and papers on several matters, including a delegated powers memorandum and a Keeling schedule, given the considerable number of provisions in the Bill that are contextualised via or amend other legislation. It is felt that the latter document in particular will be necessary to enable the Committee to conduct its scrutiny effectively, particularly given the Bill's extensive amending provisions. I trust that the Minister will support the Committee's request for such information.

I finish this part of my speech on a positive note. As I stated, the Committee has been proactive in preparing to scrutinise the Bill. In addition to the actions that I outlined, the Committee has commissioned the public finance scrutiny unit of the Research and Information Service (RaISe) to conduct research into the Bill's financial aspects; it has commissioned the Examiner of Statutory Rules to scrutinise the Bill's delegated powers; and it has commissioned the Assembly's Legal Services to provide legal advice to support the Committee's scrutiny particularly in relation to compliance with convention rights. The Committee wants to work collaboratively with the Minister and the Department throughout the Bill's passage to ensure that the Bill emerges from the process as an effective, clear and coherent addition to the statute book that improves the administration of justice for all. Therefore, we urge the Department to produce the proposed amendments at the earliest opportunity.

I will speak now in my capacity as an MLA. My party shares the Committee's concerns around the extensive provisions to be brought forward at the amending stage. In practice, it makes the Committee's work extremely difficult, particularly in calling for evidence and hearing from witnesses. As you will appreciate, Mr Deputy Speaker, an outline of a policy is one thing, but the text can be quite another, and, realistically, scrutiny of the actual wording is the only proper, conscientious and effective way to proceed. To table such amendments at Consideration Stage is an unusual practice at best and is, moreover, risky, on the basis that there are no guarantees that such amendments would be selected for debate. The fact is that it is bad procedurally; it is bad for scrutiny; and it is unnecessary. If other Ministers were to do likewise, I have no doubt that MLAs from the Minister's party would be howling about it, and they would be right.

As a Committee, we had implored the Minister to hold the Bill until the amendments were ready and to include them in a full Bill at introduction. At that time, she indicated that they would be ready by the autumn, but now we are told that it will be the end of the calendar year, as I stated. Even now, two weeks later, officials are already amending the original provisions on top of all the additions. We have had these conversations, so I have no doubt that the Minister will argue that predecessor Committees accepted such processes. She will state that this is not unusual and has been custom and practice with Justice Committees. That may well be so, but they were not this Committee, and it was prejudgement. I need not remind the House of the scathing judgement that impacted the Minister, her Department, the Committee and the House. We are determined, as I have said, to learn those lessons. Just because it has been done does not mean that it should be done.

Of course, we understand that things arise urgently and that Departments need to address them, but, no matter what way you cut this, six policy areas do not and should not arise like this. We are not unreasonable —

Ms Bradshaw: I thank the Member for giving way. I want to highlight again that we would have been in a different position had we not had two years of political impasse in this place and that the Minister and her officials would have been able to progress this more slowly. It should be welcomed that she is bringing this forward today, having had two years of sitting around, waiting for other parties to get their act together.

Ms Bunting: I understand exactly why the Member makes the point. However, the mistake that she makes is that, in the period of hiatus, officials were working on the proposals and had additional time because they did not have other duties to consider.

Mrs Long: Will the Member give way?

Ms Bunting: I will.

Mrs Long: It is incorrect to say that, in the absence of an Assembly, officials were able to continue to work on proposals. They could work on some proposals, but, as with all Bills, they require ministerial direction on matters that are politically sensitive. Therefore, it was not possible to draft the legislation directions without a Minister present. The myth that the two years wasted has no impact on the mandate needs to be debunked.

Ms Bunting: Nobody indicated that the two years lost did not have an impact; nobody indicated that. That is not the point. The Member raised an issue, and I addressed it. Frankly, there is still no valid reason why those amendments could not have been brought and the Bill could not have been held. We will do our due diligence.

I wish to continue with my remarks.

Mr Dickson: Will the Member give way?

Ms Bunting: I am eager to proceed, but carry on.

Mr Dickson: Thank you. Does the Member accept that this is not a particularly novel approach to how we deal with such Bills and that we have dealt with this before? Certainly, I have had that experience on the Justice Committee and have dealt with Bills in this way. There are members who are new to the Committee who, maybe, feel that they cannot cope with all that is being brought in front of them, but I hope that they will. We have excellent officials in the Committee and in the Department who will bring forward the issues for us, as we progress through it.

When it comes to how we will call for evidence on all this, we know the policy areas that are to be covered. Many of those will be specialist areas, and those who come forward to give evidence will know fully the background to the issues that are being dealt with, even the areas that are not fully fleshed out at this point. The Committee is perhaps over-egging the pudding today about just exactly —.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): I ask that we proceed with the debate. I remind Members that interventions should be brief.

Mr Dickson: Thank you.

Ms Bunting: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. The Member was being somewhat pejorative when he said that Committee members who have not considered Bills before may be overwhelmed: that is not the case. We look forward to scrutinising the Bill, but our concern is that that should be done in the right way and in the best way. We know that it has happened in predecessor Committees — had the Member been listening, he would know that I have already pointed that out — but just because it has been done before does not mean that it is the right way. To introduce six significant areas of policy at Consideration Stage is not a good way to proceed, and nobody can deny that. Likewise, if it were a different Minister's Bill, I do not think that the Member would be taking the stance that he is taking now, although I appreciate that he has a duty to do so in Committee.

In his intervention, the Member also said that we had policy direction: yes, we do, but, again, I have said that text and direction are very different things. We raise the issue because it is a matter for the House. The Member may consider it to be being over-egged, but I was raising one of the issues for the Committee and am now speaking as the lead in the policy area for the Democratic Unionist Party. I would like to proceed, if that is OK.

As I said, or as I was trying to say, of course we understand that issues arise urgently and that the Department needs to address them. Nevertheless, no matter which way you cut this, six policy areas do not and should not arise like that. The point that I was coming to is this: we are not unreasonable, and we know that there are issues that must be legislated for as an emergency at Consideration Stage. We are well aware that Departments sometimes may involuntarily find themselves in breach and that loopholes and lacunas must be addressed urgently. That is, however, a far cry from bringing in an additional six policy areas by way of amendment when some of them could have formed stand-alone Bills in and of themselves. A number of said policy areas are technical and, in the Minister's own words, complex, and some involve taking people's liberty for a lengthy period.

I do not intend to comment further or in any detail on the policy areas that are yet to come, as their wording will be key and to do so at this stage would be mere speculation. We welcome the commitment from the Minister and officials to bring the amendments as soon as each is ready. They have given us an approximate timeline but have stated that we should not expect to have everything until the end of the year. We will await the text with anticipation.

The financial aspects of the explanatory and financial memorandum are notably scant, offering little detail. When we probed at this juncture, we were repeatedly advised that, as work is ongoing, it would be imprudent to outline further details. In some cases, we were advised that business cases would follow. Importantly, the EFM indicates that the provisions will be paid for from existing resources. Given the existing pressures in the Department, however, and noting that the Department has advised the Minister of Finance that it may have to consider cuts in service provision, its ability to absorb further cuts as those issues are implemented remains to be seen. We will wish to examine that area further as the Bill progresses. It would also be helpful to know whether the Minister envisages the additional provisions that are due to follow being paid for from existing resources or, indeed, whether she will commit to publishing a revised EFM.

All the issues around costs must be probed further. In previous Bills, finance did not necessarily follow function, and the relevant bodies had to absorb the cost of implementation. Given their present financial state, it is possible, if not likely, that those organisations are at saturation point and can absorb nothing further. Notable additional costs are likely to include those for the proposed Commissioner for the Retention of Biometric Material and for police software systems for same. It is likely that funding for those will form bids in future. I note, however, that officials have indicated that they have submitted a more detailed financial paper to RaISe for the Committee's perusal, but we have not had sight of that yet. We will give due consideration to the financials as we explore the relevant policy areas.

In some areas of the Bill the proposals are extremely broad, with us being asked to legislate with regulations to follow or provisions that will not immediately be commenced. There are references to case-by-case bases that leave questions around consistency. I confess to being slightly ill at ease with some of that until it is explored further.

There is also a Henry VIII clause. Departmental officials indicated that that was included for housekeeping purposes going forward. While that might be the intent now, once it is in statute, the reassurances will potentially matter little, should the powers be invoked in the years down the line. On that, we will await comment from the Examiner of Statutory Rules.

Let me turn briefly to each of the constituent parts. The biometric aspects of the Bill are somewhat technical, are certainly complex and have significant bearing on law enforcement's ability to detect and convict. They are emotive for many and will require extensive consideration and careful handling. We in the Democratic Unionist Party are extremely conscious of both sides of the coin: fundamental personal freedoms and rights, including the right to privacy, and the need to balance those with public protection, the public interest and the right of victims to seek and secure justice.

We are strong advocates of innocence until guilt is proven and of a fair and impartial justice system for defendants. Nevertheless, we also know the lasting impact and damage of crime, so we view proposals through the prism of victims, complainants and their needs. Hence, the timelines involved here, along with the rights and practical outworkings of all the proposals, including the role of the commissioner, will need to be considered further and in great detail. We certainly do not want to get to a situation where unidentified biometric data is deleted, only for it to be later proven that emerging technology was capable of connecting that data and those persons to serious crimes against persons and property. That would be an abdication of the state's obligations to innocent victims. We will want to scope those matters out and ensure that we have a comprehensive understanding, as well as being certain that the proposed way forward is indeed the best way forward.

In Part 2 on children's bail and custody, we note the move from the presumption of bail for children to a statutory right. Our criminal justice system already treats children and young people differently from adults in a range of respects, and many of the proposals in Part 2 flow naturally from that. In general, we are conscious that all efforts must be made to afford children the opportunity to change direction and not become trapped in a revolving door to the justice system and custody for the rest of their life.

We welcome the introduction of the new youth custody and supervision orders. They are preferable to multiple orders, which can be difficult and arduous to manage for all concerned. We want to probe further the options for 10- to 13-year-olds to gain a holistic picture.

Do you need to interrupt me, Mr Deputy Speaker?

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Yes, I do. Perhaps the Member can indicate whether she is about to wind up her speech or whether she needs a couple of moments after suspension.

Ms Bunting: I need a couple of minutes, please.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Continue after suspension, yes? OK.

Members, the Business Committee has arranged to meet at 1.00 pm. I propose, therefore, by leave of the Assembly, to suspend the sitting until 2.00 pm. The debate will continue following Question Time, when the first Member to be called will be Joanne Bunting.

Mr Muir (The Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs): The River Foyle, as part of the wider Lough Foyle catchment, is subject to the same routine monitoring and assessment of water quality as all other waterbodies in Northern Ireland. Reports of pollution are investigated by the Northern Ireland Environment Agency (NIEA) and the Loughs Agency, with enforcement action undertaken in line with existing policy.

The recently approved environmental improvement plan lays out my commitment to improving water quality in Northern Ireland. That draft plan contains the requirement to publish a third cycle of the river basin management plan for the period 2021-27, taking an integrated approach to the protection, improvement and sustainable use of the water environment. The river basin management plan will contain a programme of measures that set out the actions required to protect and improve all waterbodies and will require collective action across government, the public and private sectors and wider society.

Although I have had a number of conversations with Infrastructure Minister, John O'Dowd, I have not yet met the Minister on this specific issue. As the Member will appreciate, there are many areas of concern in Northern Ireland with regard to water quality and sewage pollution.

Mr Durkan: I thank the Minister for his answer, and I welcome the progress on his environmental improvement plan. On how many occasions, if any, has Northern Ireland Water has been prosecuted or fined for the discharge of untreated sewage into the River Foyle, or into any watercourse for that matter?

Mr Muir: I thank the Member for his question. First of all, I am glad that we have got the environmental improvement plan agreed and published. I run marathons and, sometimes, getting things through the Executive is a bit more difficult than completing a marathon, but you train harder and succeed, and I am glad that we got that plan approved.

As the Member knows, prosecutions of Northern Ireland Water do occur, but we also have the statement of regulatory principles and intent (SORPI) regime associated with that, and I am on the record as saying that that is not fit for purpose. If the Member wants statistics on previous prosecutions of Northern Ireland Water by the Northern Ireland Environment Agency, I am happy to address that in writing or through Assembly questions.

Mr Delargy: Minister, a huge amount of damaging sewage has been put into that stretch of the River Foyle. I am really concerned about the biodiversity impacts of that, particularly the health risks that it potentially poses. Has your Department done any inquiries into the scale of that risk?

Mr Muir: I am very aware of the impact of sewage pollution on our rivers, lakes and loughs in Northern Ireland. I do not think that it is acceptable for us to be pumping sewage into those waterbodies. That needs to be addressed, because it has an impact on our environment. That is why I will continue to support John O'Dowd in his call for investment in waste water infrastructure. We cannot continue with this situation, because it is damaging our environment and holding back economic development and housebuilding. I am very aware of the concerns about the impact on Lough Foyle. I have been assured, from a public health perspective, about the safety of drinking water, but let us be clear: the impact on our environment is severe, not just in the area that the Member represents but across Northern Ireland.

Mr Gaston: Minister, there has been a lot of focus on the farming community when it comes to water pollution in our system, but is it not the truth that, whether it is Lough Foyle, Lough Neagh or any other waterway in Northern Ireland, the Executive, particularly the Department for Infrastructure, and Northern Ireland Water need to get their own houses in order before pointing the blame at farmers?

Mr Muir: I have consistently said on the record that I am not into blame games because it does not get us anywhere. I am also on the record commenting on the statistics on the causations of poor water quality, and about a quarter of that is due to waste water infrastructure. We need to do a lot more in relation to that because, whilst farmers are playing their part, Northern Ireland Water needs to step up to the game.

Mr Muir: Despite the cessation of the rural development programme post EU exit, I would like to reassure you that my Department continues to invest in and support our rural communities through a range of initiatives, including the tackling rural poverty and social isolation programme. Through TRPSI, my Department has invested £54·58 million across a range of initiatives aimed at tackling those issues in rural areas since 2016. That includes the rural micro capital grant scheme, which launched recently. Grants of £1·5 million have been made to over 900 voluntary and community organisations. In addition, I was pleased to renew our support for Rural Support. The charity was recently awarded a three-year funding contract.

Looking ahead, as the TRPSI framework has been in place for over eight years, my Department commissioned an independent review to examine how effectively it has been implemented. The review is engaging with a range of stakeholders, including public authorities and rural community organisations, on addressing poverty and social isolation in rural areas. The review is due to report back in early 2025. The review will help to inform DAERA’s future policy direction, building on the collaboration and partnership working that underpins TRPSI. It will reflect that all Departments have responsibility for exercising their functions in rural and urban areas, and I plan to develop for consultation a new evidence-based rural policy next year.

Mr Gildernew: Go raibh maith agat.

Minister, I am sure that you are aware that I will host some of the rural support network groups here on 11 November, and I would very much like to invite you to that. What steps will you take to engage local communities and stakeholders to ensure that future financial support for tackling rural poverty and social isolation is targeted effectively at those most in need?

Mr Muir: It is absolutely key that we do that consultation and engagement so that whatever we do going forward is fit for purpose. On the future rural affairs policy, I will meet officials again next Monday, and, the next day, I will engage in a process of co-design with practitioners from community development in rural areas. It is absolutely key not only that we do that and target it to those most in need but that we shape the future policy direction in conjunction with local communities.

I am very happy to consider your invitation and to engage with communities on this, because we need to ensure that policy works for people in rural areas.

Mr McNulty: Will the Minister clarify whether he plans to impose cuts to the level of funding for individual tackling rural poverty and social isolation schemes or to reduce the number of TRPSI schemes available?

Mr Muir: I am working with the Finance Minister to roll out funding support to people, and I made a bid for further support through TRPSI, so it is not for the want of trying to roll out funding to people. We are in the financial situation that we are in, but I am lobbying hard on behalf of rural communities for the support that they need.

Mr Muir: I have written to the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs on a number of occasions expressing my deep concerns about the future of the earmarked agriculture budget, with the current funding package coming to a conclusion at the end of March next year. I have stressed to him that any future settlement should, as an absolute minimum, maintain the current budget allocation, uplifted for inflation to allow for delivery of my Department’s policy objectives and ambitions. Most recently, we discussed that in person at the inter-ministerial group for environment, food and rural affairs in London on 16 September. Following that meeting, I wrote again to stress the importance of receiving early clarity on future earmarked agriculture support funding for next year and beyond. In my letter, I also highlighted the significant contribution that the agriculture sector in Northern Ireland makes to UK food security.

I have stressed to the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs the need for funding decisions to reflect the importance of a just transition. I also made the case that there should be a separate, specific, additional capital fund to support that just transition in agriculture. My Department is engaging with the Department of Finance on raising that with Treasury as part of the broader budgetary processes.

Mr Honeyford: I thank the Minister for his response. How will the current funding be used to support farmers through a just transition towards a more sustainable agriculture sector?

Mr Muir: It is absolutely key. I am committed to setting up a just transition fund for agriculture in the months ahead, but, first, I need clarity from the UK Government on the level of funding being made available in the years ahead. We need to ensure that the work that we need to carry out to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and reach net zero will be fair and will support people on that journey. That is why we need to provide those incentives and support.

I will consider, in conjunction with Executive colleagues, the best approach to take on that and other requirements placed on us as a result of the Climate Change Act 2022, learning, where appropriate, from the experience of others.

I have already stressed to the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs the need for funding decisions that reflect the importance of a just transition. I support the EU's approach, which is outlined in the report 'Strategic Dialogue on the Future of EU Agriculture', that says that a temporary just transition fund should be established outside the common agricultural policy. The rest of Europe is moving on the matter. The UK Government need to support us to do likewise.

Mr McAleer: I am glad to note that the Minister continues to lobby the British Government on the budget. May I also suggest, Minister, if you have not already done so, that you include in conversation what was the pillar 2 rural development programme, which was also funded from the EU budget but is no longer available, so that pressure can be taken off the agriculture budget?

Mr Muir: I thank the Member for his question. He touches on a key issue that far too many people in Northern Ireland have forgotten . That is the loss to Northern Ireland of that rural development funding. A lot of promises were made during Brexit. Very few were fulfilled. One of those was rural support in our communities, and I lobby the UK Government hard for that support. That is because we should not lose sight of the benefits that it gave to our communities or of the need for that funding to come back to Northern Ireland and into those communities.

Mr Irwin: The Minister is aware that farm incomes fell to 46% in 2023-24 and that the basic farm payments are vital for the viability of many farms. I congratulate and commend his Department on getting basic farm payments out on 1 September; ours was one of the only regions in the UK to do so.

Mr Speaker: Is there a question?

Mr Irwin: Will the Minister undertake to raise with the Government at Westminster an inflationary increase to direct payments to farmers, given that, in recent years, inflation on direct payments has reduced in real terms the amount of money that farmers receive?

Mr Muir: I agree with the Member. An analysis that my Department undertook found that, in real terms and by using the consumer prices index, in 2020, £330 million, which was when the UK left the EU, would have been approximately £390 million at the end of 2023. Therefore, we need to ensure that future payments are indexed in line with inflation. I am glad to see that the basic farm payments went out last month. That follows progress that was made in the previous year. It is important to get the help out to people so that we can support the agri-food business in Northern Ireland.

Mr Muir: With your permission, Mr Speaker, I will answer questions 4 and 14 together.

My Department created the Paws for Thought multi-agency group in 2020 to coordinate the actions of relevant statutory agencies here in order to disrupt the trafficking of low-welfare pups. The group comprises representatives from the police; HMRC; councils; Belfast Harbour Police; ferry companies; and officials from my Department. Through that group, it has been possible to target individuals who are known to move consignments of low-welfare pups to Great Britain through ferry terminals. That joined-up working has resulted in a significant number of seizures of pups and the criminal convictions of those who are involved. In addition to the targeted checks, follow-up activities are carried out to identify potential illegal breeding sites.

As well as pups that have been illegally bred in Northern Ireland, my Department and its partner agencies remain aware that pups are being moved illegally from unlicensed breeding establishments in the Republic of Ireland to domestic premises in Northern Ireland. There is, therefore, regular liaison between DAERA officials and their Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine counterparts to consider the detection of illegal trading of pups in both jurisdictions.

A Paws for Thought public-facing awareness campaign is ongoing to highlight the role that everyone has to play in tackling puppy smuggling. Increased communications are planned in the lead-up to Christmas, a time when there is usually an increased demand, in a bid to raise awareness of that abhorrent, illegal trade and to ensure that potential owners source pups responsibly.

Mr Beattie: Thank you, Minister. It is good that you have recognised the fact that there is a trade coming from the Irish Republic into Northern Ireland and then onwards to Great Britain. Lucy's law, which is already being used in a part of the United Kingdom — England — is making a real dent on puppy and kitten trafficking. The Minister said he was going to look into Lucy's law. Will he give us an update on whether we will look at that?

Mr Muir: I thank the Member for his question. It is really an abhorrent trade. I was in Larne a few weeks ago to see the work of the multi-agency approach. Some of the stuff that I heard was shocking, including the story of an attempt to smuggle pups that were hidden under garden waste through the port. That is wrong. We need to ensure that the public is made aware of it so that no one ever participates in or facilitates it, because it is absolutely despicable.

I have given a commitment to bring forward Lucy's law, so I will do that. It is key that we bring forward that legislation. What is more, I am engaging with animal welfare stakeholders in the short time ahead to discuss the wider issue of animal welfare and what else we can do on that. One of the key issues that will affect what I can do to tackle animal cruelty is the budget settlement that I get for next year. I need staff resources to bring forward legislation, whether it is secondary or primary legislation, to deal with that issue, which is a stain on our society.

Mr Donnelly: I thank the Minister for his answer. I am always very happy to hear about the Minister's going to Larne. Can he give any further details on what impact those actions are having on that cruel trade?

Mr Muir: It was good to be in Larne. I got a warm welcome. I really commend the multi-agency work that is being done on this. It is an example of what we can and should do to deal with those issues. It is absolutely critical. What I have seen is that there has been a real deterrent effect as a result of the work that is being undertaken. It has also given us the information for HMRC, especially, to follow up and take action on that. That has proven to be extremely effective. If people want more information on that or publicity materials that they can share, I encourage them to contact me. I can provide that.

Miss Brogan: Can the Minister outline the role that the Paws for Thought multi-agency group will play in coordinating efforts between stakeholders to address different animal welfare issues?

Mr Muir: It is absolutely key, because it is sharing not only intelligence but ways in which to promote the efforts that it is making on that. That is why I want to engage with animal welfare stakeholders to see how much more we can bring them on board with what we are doing, because we need to be able to work together to tackle those issues. It is not just about puppy smuggling; we need to work together on a number of other issues. As I said, the key issue is how much funding I will get to enable me to support that in the time ahead.

Mr Muir: It is my intention to introduce a dilapidation Bill to the Assembly in the autumn term of the current session, subject, of course, to the agreement of my Executive colleagues. The proposed Bill would provide councils with a modern, fit-for-purpose regime and clear toolkit of powers to tackle dilapidated buildings and neglected sites, including a series of notices, offences, penalties and appeals. Powers would be similar to those that are available to local authorities in other parts of the UK, where low-level dilapidation can be dealt with at a much earlier stage. I am very keen to see that happen. The Bill is nearly ready to go. It is something that I called for before I took up ministerial office. You can be assured that I want to see it happen.

Mr Mathison: I thank the Minister for his answer. It is a welcome update. The issue is causing many difficulties for constituents whom I am dealing with in Strangford. One such scenario is when the owner of a dilapidated property cannot be identified. Will the proposed legislation do anything to tackle that scenario?

Mr Muir: The intended powers will enable councils to act in the absence of an identified owner by extending the range of persons on whom notice could be served to include any person with an interest in any neglected site, such as an owner-occupier, a person with a charge over or other financial interest in the land, or a person who has had responsibility for the management or maintenance of the land. In such a scenario where an owner cannot be established, a council would still be able to take action by serving a notice on an interested person. That is what is key about the legislation, because, often, it is difficult to get hold of whoever is responsible for a building. Even one dilapidated building can have a significant impact on a neighbourhood. It is key that we get that legislation through. It is nearly ready to go.

Mr O'Toole: A number of gradually dilapidating buildings in the middle of Belfast have historic and significant economic impact. One of them is Crumlin Road courthouse. There is a particular issue in the Cathedral Quarter with Tribeca Belfast. Some of the Bill's provisions —

Mr Speaker: Question, please.

Mr O'Toole: — would relate directly to that, but will the Minister work with his colleagues, particularly the Communities Minister, to see what can be done to tackle the scourge of dereliction, including that which is right in the heart of the city of Belfast?

Mr Muir: I will work with anyone to deal with any issues in society around that. Later this week, I will meet Belfast City Council. Ob