Official Report: Monday 04 November 2024

Mr Speaker: Members, before we begin today's business, I have some matters to deal with briefly. First, in line with paragraph 7 of schedule 6A to the Northern Ireland Act 1998, I wrote to Members on 31 October 2024 to make them aware that I had received notification from the Secretary of State of the start of the democratic consent process under the Windsor framework. In my letter, I outlined the steps that now have to be considered. Should a motion be tabled, the Business Committee will make the necessary arrangements.

Secondly, I have written to all Members who submitted proposals to develop Members' Bills. It will be for each Member to reveal details of their proposals in due course, including through public consultation. However, I make clear again the focus of the arrangements that I have determined for Members' Bills to create the conditions to ensure that legislation is well developed and can be properly scrutinised in the time remaining in the mandate. It is therefore my expectation that the number of Members' Bills that are introduced and complete their passage will be significantly lower than the number of proposals submitted. Members should therefore give priority to their proposals. Of course, we must ensure that the conditions for effective scrutiny also apply to Executive legislation, and I will write to the Executive about that shortly, in anticipation of a significant number of Bills coming forward before the end of the year, as outlined in the statement made to the House in June on the Executive's legislative programme.

Finally, before recess, I made some remarks on the abuse of points of order and on Members seeking to draw the Chair into party politics. I note that some Members have made public commentary on decisions on items such as Matters of the Day and questions for urgent oral answer. I remind Members that, regardless of whether decisions are taken by me or delegated to the Principal Deputy Speaker or Deputy Speakers, they are procedural decisions that are taken impartially in consultation with the advice of officials on the requirements of Standing Orders. Members are aware that the Chair's decisions are final and that it is out of order to challenge them. Upholding the authority and impartiality of the Chair is an issue for not only the Deputy Speakers and me but all Members. If it becomes a trend that Members seek to abuse our procedures and conventions by playing party politics with the Chair's decisions, the Chair can take account of that, particularly when Members seek permission to raise an item or catch the eye of the Speaker or a Deputy Speaker.

Mr Gildernew: I would like to raise the ongoing campaign of vandalism on dual language signage in south Tyrone. That vandalism has taken place over a number of years across the area. Dual language signs have been attacked in Fivemiletown, Benburb, Eglish, Caledon, the Brantry, Castlecaulfield and Killeeshil. In recent weeks, there have been worrying developments. There have been repeated acts of vandalism on some of the signs, with signs being vandalised several times within several days. Worryingly, in recent days, we have also seen the inclusion on some of the signs of the letters "UVF". That is being seen as an attempt to intimidate and to hark back to the past.

There are very clear criteria on the use of the signs, so they have buy-in from the community. It is fair to say that the Irish language is a threat to absolutely no one. In fact, even the English names that we have are fundamentally based on the Irish language. Indeed, Mr Speaker, I recall the event that you ran for Seachtain na Gaeilge in the Senate Chamber on the Irish origin of place names.

We are seeing a litany of intolerance, vandalism and intimidation with the treatment of the signs, and I appeal to those who have been engaged in that behaviour to stop it. I ask other political parties across the area to make similar appeals so that we can see an end to something that is born of intolerance and narrow-mindedness and needs to stop. Sin é.

Miss McIlveen: The headline of the recent Budget announcement from the Chancellor of the Exchequer was the raising of £40 billion in additional taxation through taxes that the Labour Party repeatedly claimed it would not be raising throughout the general election campaign. The impact of that on farmers is what I want to speak about.

When we talk about agriculture, it is worth remembering that it is worth £6 billion to the Northern Ireland economy, that it is our largest manufacturing sector and that it is a cornerstone of our local economy. It is also worth noting that around 36% of our population live in the countryside and that there are around 26,000 active farm businesses in Northern Ireland, which employ around 51,000 people. Any decision of the magnitude of that announced last week has the potential to have a devastating impact on those who live and work here. Last week, the Chancellor hit the agriculture sector with a triple whammy: the weakening of agricultural property relief; the removal of ring-fencing for the agriculture and fisheries budget; and the inflation-busting increase in the national living wage.

So far this term, we have highlighted the pressures that are already being faced by our local farmers, including the ammonia regulations that are choking development; bovine TB not being addressed; the real-term reductions in the basic payment scheme over the past 10 years; the huge inflationary and wage costs accruing over recent years; and the devastating impact of the winter storms on last year's potato crops. The weakening of agricultural property relief will heap further pressure on the future of family farms. That will accelerate the breaking up of farms and drive more young people away from farming at a time when more are needed in the sector. That will affect our food security. A £1 million cap sounds high to the layman, but there are few viable farms worth under £1 million, and even those are not high earning. A viable farm is not necessarily a wealthy farm. Many farmers do not even pay themselves.

Previously, agriculture and fisheries funding was a ring-fenced addition to our Budget. The Chancellor has announced her intention to include it in our block grant. That will mean that it has to compete against the big beasts of Education and Health. When we have raised with the Minister the problems that are being faced by the farming sector, he has not exactly been forthcoming in his support for it. When he could not stand up to his officials to give support for potato farmers last winter, how can the farming sector rely on him to fight for it in budgetary allocations when there is no ring-fenced budget? Those problems were compounded in the same Budget, with the inflation-busting rise in the national living wage. With farm incomes already down by 46%, an employer's national insurance hike, threats to the agriculture budget and the weakening of agricultural property relief, it is hard to see how farmers are going to meet the challenges without raising food prices massively, which, of course, will hit all of us, especially hard-pressed families.

Now more than ever, all of us, not just the farming sector, need our Agriculture Minister to finally step up.

Mr McMurray: I rise to speak about the 10th anniversary of the opening of Daisy Lodge outside Newcastle in my constituency. Daisy Lodge looks over the Shimna Valley and Tollymore Forest, and towards the slopes of Slieve Commedagh and Slieve Donard: a most peaceful and tranquil view, one of quite a few with which we are blessed in South Down. Daisy Lodge is a residential site, run by the Cancer Fund for Children, the vision of which is to ensure:

Families who are impacted on by cancer can come and stay at its site for a time of respite and therapeutic support. It is not a medical facility; there are no tubes or medical staff. It is a people facility.

At the 10th anniversary event, the physical transformation of the site over the past number of years was described. The site was said to be "homely" but also "rustic" and "not fit for purpose". Now, there are two main facilities: Narnia, a log cabin for young people, and Daisy Lodge itself. While the physical infrastructure has changed, emotional support has always been a pillar of what the site provides. A poem, written by a mother who used the site, was recited. It had the recurring line:

While the physical infrastructure has been created and is important to those who come to stay, the staff and leadership team at the location have put in great efforts to create more than just a pleasant physical space. They have created a space where relationships and programmes are developed that deliver support for all those who are on a journey with their loved ones. Sometimes, that can be difficult. Sometimes, it means helping those who have suffered loss and bereavement. How they do that was best encapsulated by a young man who, on coming through the worst of what cancer can do, described his experience of one of the programmes as:

As well as celebrating the 10th anniversary of its building, the charity launched its own bespoke, informal, therapeutic support model. While informal, that early intervention model, when implemented, can go some way to preventing more formal, acute support being needed further down the tracks.

I will finish by summarising what Daisy Lodge is for those who use it: a place where despair can turn to hope.

Mr Butler: It is critical that we speak up, united, and challenge the Labour Government's alarming disregard for the future viability of family farms in Northern Ireland and across the United Kingdom.

Farming, as we know, is already a relentless, hard-work, low-profit industry. Farmers push through 365 days a year in every weather, facing fierce, global price competitions and mounting climate and environmental demands. We also know that there are growing labour shortages. Yet, in a single Budget, its first in 14 years, the Labour Party has struck a potentially devastating blow to our family farms, unravelling one of the last supports securing their very future. The precarious balance of securing farms of scale and family tenure could be destroyed in one fell swoop by changes to the agricultural property relief.

Mr Speaker, you will well know that Northern Ireland alone feeds around 10 million people annually. It produces 15% of the UK's food supply. The Chancellor seems to forget that that vital food production does not come easily. What the Chancellor, Rachel Reeves, and the Labour Government have done with the Budget may well be the final straw for many of our struggling farmers. The move undermines not only their livelihoods but the stability of our nation's food security. It is a shameful assault on the families who have dedicated their lives to feeding us all.

Let us send this clear message: our farmers deserve better; our food security deserves better; and if the Labour Government will not stand with our farmers, we will.

Ms McLaughlin: I rise with a deep sense of urgency to address an issue that impacts on women, families and entire communities profoundly: the critical need to end violence against women and girls. In just the past week, four reported sexual assaults against women have been reported in Derry — a grim reminder that far too many women in our communities still live in fear. Each of those women will have to live with the trauma of her experience.

Violence against women is a profound violation of human rights, a pervasive injustice and a crisis that crosses all social, economic and cultural boundaries. The violence, whether it is domestic abuse, sexual assault, stalking, trafficking or harassment, leaves deep and lasting scars on those who experience it. It impacts on not only the individuals concerned but entire families and communities who struggle to heal from their trauma and loss.

This is a moment that calls for a strengthened response and an unwavering commitment to change. We must take a clear stand: violence against women and girls is unacceptable. The Executive must allocate greater investment to the strategic framework on ending violence against women and girls, accelerate its delivery and work closely with front-line services to ensure that they, too, are well supported. We need comprehensive, well-funded support systems that ensure shelters, hotlines, counselling and legal services are accessible to every survivor. That also means prioritising education for our young people about healthy relationships, respect and consent in order to address the issue at its very roots. We must hold perpetrators accountable. Too often, the victims are silenced or made to feel at fault, while abusers face few consequences. A strong and compassionate justice system is essential. It must be prepared to act swiftly and effectively to protect victims and prevent future violence.

Addressing violence against women and girls also means confronting the structural inequalities that make women vulnerable in the first place. Women must be empowered with equal opportunities and included in decision-making at every level. Let us seize the moment to reform and reaffirm our commitment to action and strengthen our resolve. This is not just an issue for women; it is our shared responsibility. We need to stamp it out.

Ms Dolan: It is with great pride that I rise today to congratulate my home GAA club, Erne Gaels, Belleek, on its historic victory over Enniskillen Gaels in the Fermanagh senior championship at the weekend. This is the first time that the New York Cup has been in Belleek since 1981. We do not just celebrate a trophy; we celebrate the heart, grit and relentless spirit of our players. Every training session, every sacrifice and every ounce of energy that was poured into this season was for this moment, and they have made us all so proud.

I thank and congratulate the coaches, the back-room staff, the volunteers and, of course, the loyal fans. It shows what is possible when we stand together as a community. You have made history, and you have given us all a moment that we will never forget. However, I have many friends in Enniskillen and therefore commiserate with the Enniskillen Gaels and congratulate them on giving us one of the most exciting senior county finals that Fermanagh has ever seen. Comhghairdeas libh, a Ghaeil na hÉirne.

Onwards to the Ulsters.

Mr Robinson: I welcome the reinstatement of the Causeway Coast and Glens growth deal, following last week's announcement by Chancellor Rachel Reeves that the pause in funding for growth deals has now been lifted. I very much welcome it that our UK Government will stand by their funding commitments to the Causeway Coast and Glens growth deal. This is a positive outcome, and I applaud the collective efforts of everyone, in particular those who took the fight to Westminster. The reinstatement means that Causeway Coast and Glens Borough Council can move forward on a range of key projects that will boost the region's economy, including the centre for food and drug discovery at Ulster University in Coleraine and the food innovation hub at the North West Regional College in Limavady, a project that I have supported from the outset.

While I welcome the news, I must ask why the current Government needed to create such drama. Why was there a need to create so much anxiety, particularly for the council, which had put in so much hard work to get projects this far, and among the key partners? The DUP secured city and growth deals in 2017 as part of the confidence-and-supply agreement with the Conservative Government. The investment will deliver economic and regeneration benefits to targeted areas and will help to transform and grow the economy across the region. The growth deal was always crucial to delivering the UK Government's clear priority for economic growth.

That said, as an MLA for the region, I am pleased that the Government have now listened, and I very much welcome and look forward to seeing the benefits that the growth deal will bring.

Mr McAleer: Like other Members, I want to touch on the recent Budget announcement and its impact on farming.

The recent announcement of a £1 million inheritance tax threshold by the British Government will pose significant challenges for family farms, which are essential for our food security. As Members will be aware, many farmers' assets are tied up in land and equipment, and those are often accompanied by loans and mortgages. Whilst those assets may be fixed, farmers struggle to make ends meet and feed their families week on week.

There is a risk that the new threshold will push small farms into financial distress, making it increasingly difficult for families to pass down their livelihoods and maintain the agricultural practices that sustain our communities and the environment.

The Government's recent U-turn on the taxation of double-cab pickups, reclassifying them as cars rather than vans, adds another layer of complexity. The change increases tax liabilities for farmers who depend on those vehicles for their operations, further straining their resources.

Those issues are compounded by the absence of a ring-fenced budget for agriculture, unlike in the South, where substantial funding support for farmers has been committed, along with an EU multi-annual budget. That discrepancy not only places farmers at a disadvantage but threatens the cohesion of the all-island agriculture sector. The application of the Barnett formula, post Brexit, heightens concerns about future funding for agriculture, leaving farmers uncertain about the financial support that they can rely on.

A motion passed by the Assembly expressed strong political support for a ring-fenced budget, underscoring agriculture's critical role in the local economy and rural communities. Unfortunately, the calls made in the House have gone unheard. MLAs argued that a ring-fenced budget is essential to replace the stability previously provided by EU funding, which provided for sustainable farming, rural development and environmental initiatives under the common agricultural policy (CAP). The Assembly's endorsement reflected broad political will to ensure that our agriculture sector and rural areas receive stable funding in an uncertain economic landscape.

As we navigate the challenges, it is crucial that we advocate a policy to support family farms, ensure food security and provide stable funding for the agriculture sector. We must recognise that farmers on the island of Ireland have common challenges and goals. It is essential that we develop coherent strategies that bolster their resilience and enhance food security for all communities, thereby safeguarding the future of our agriculture industry.

Ms Brownlee: I acknowledge the incredible achievements and dedication of Glenn Irwin as he announces his retirement from a remarkable career in motorcycle racing. Glenn's impact on the sport and on our community has been truly inspiring. His unwavering commitment to his craft, dedication in pursuit of the superbike championship and pride in representing Northern Ireland on the world stage have made him an iconic figure in the sport and in our local community.

Throughout his career, Glenn has been a formidable presence on the track, achieving victories and pushing boundaries with his skill, courage and relentless drive. His recent runner-up finish in the British Superbike Championship serves as testament to his talent and perseverance. He has always competed with the heart and resolve that embodies the best of Northern Ireland. Equally inspiring is Glenn's commitment to his family and his roots in Carrickfergus. His decision to retire reflects the importance that he places on his family, as he chooses to focus on his next chapter alongside his loved ones. His loyalty to his home town along with his humility and generosity have made him a role model for many. His influence will, undoubtedly, continue to inspire future generations of Northern Irish racers.

On behalf of everyone in Carrickfergus and, indeed, Northern Ireland, I extend heartfelt thanks to Glenn for all that he has achieved and for the pride that he has brought to our community. We wish him and his family every happiness and success for his future endeavours.

Mr McReynolds: I support and encourage the large number of local parents who have registered interest in their children attending Scoil na Seolta in East Belfast. The school will offer integrated education in East Belfast for the first time, bringing together communities and healing many of the divisions that we still see today. It will also do that through the medium of the Irish language, increasing bilingualism in young people from an early age. Research has well established that bilingualism improves critical thinking, creativity, memory, focus and problem-solving skills and helps children to think beyond themselves and see the world from a different perspective. Those are important and welcome values for children in Northern Ireland in 2024. I am fortunate to have met, on multiple occasions, the driver for that, Linda Ervine, who, in 2021, was recognised by the Queen with an MBE, no less. Her passion for education and reconciliation is clear for all to see, and she regularly says to me that our children will be the future.

Members will be aware of the recent intimidation that has unfortunately plagued the school, with banners erected by unknown people and cheerled by the usual voices on social media platforms. That is despite the school having gone through a rigorous public consultation in the Belfast City Council planning process. Two objections were received: neither was from the immediate area. It is, sadly, nothing new, and I have seen it before with projects in which Linda has been involved. I see it every year in East Belfast, and I have already been involved in debates in the Chamber about unhelpful antagonism from a small minority being reflected as a majority view. I saw it when Turas first started operating out of the Skainos Centre on the Newtownards Road.

As someone who studied languages before becoming an MLA, I can say that no one owns a language. Languages are organic. They are for everyone, and those who try to control languages or limit access to them are the ones who miss out in the end. We have seen that across history. We are seeing it today, and we will see it in East Belfast. Integration and bilingualism offer hope for the future, and I commend Linda, her team and the parents who want the school in East Belfast. History will remember them and their positive impact on Northern Ireland. It will not remember angry people in the darkness, those shouting on social media or the criminal gangs that agreed with them.

Mr Middleton: Over the weekend, in the Foyle constituency, we were shocked and angered that, once again, two young females were targeted in separate attacks. The community has expressed disgust and outrage at those who carried out those abhorrent attacks. Let us be clear: the events that unfolded were nothing other than terrifying, grotesque, sexually motivated attacks. The perpetrators remain — or the perpetrator remains — at large and must be brought to justice immediately. Someone somewhere must have information. From information that the PSNI has shared, we know that at least one of the attacks was premeditated, as the perpetrator attacked the innocent woman at knifepoint. It goes without saying that that is completely and utterly unacceptable and disgusting in every way.

Justice must be served. It is also imperative that justice be served in a way that is fitting for the crime. Soft sentencing is simply not good enough. As an Assembly, we need to work together to ensure that legislation is introduced that allows for proper, tougher sentencing for vile acts such as the horrific ones witnessed by those females in Drumahoe and Gobnascale.

We also must see societal change. There is no place in our society for misogyny or sexism, and, let me be clear, there never was a place for it. As citizens, parents, friends, family members and community members, we all have a duty to advocate change and better treatment of all women in our society. We must also give women's organisations proper support and get the message out that, day or night, every woman and girl should be able to walk and live freely inside or outside, as part of a group or alone. We owe that freedom, safety and confidence to every woman whom we know. We owe it to our daughters, sisters, wives, cousins, aunts, mothers, grandmothers and friends. We have a duty to protect them. We also have a duty to educate and inspire our sons, brothers, fathers and grandfathers. We must ensure that violence against women, which is all too prevalent in our society, comes to an end. We cannot afford for the lives of women whom we know and love to be ruined or ended. There is no justification. We owe that to every woman.

On a final note, I send my thoughts to the victims and commend them for their bravery in reporting the attacks to the PSNI.

Ms Hunter: I will speak on significant issues to do with animal welfare. Too many animals are being abused. Too many people are not being held accountable for their crimes. We lack a clear and publicly shared register of offenders' names. Too many offenders are easily able to acquire animals again and again and commit further offences.

I receive messages every day about animal cruelty in my constituency. People are rightly outraged about the lack of urgency to protect utterly defenceless animals and about the sheer lack of Executive investment to do so. The current laws are not good enough. Neither is the current monitoring of animal abuse, which leaves room for bad people to do bad things to innocent animals. In stark contrast, animal welfare charities in my constituency perform vital work to protect animals as best they can. Sadly, they are overlooked and undervalued, and, crucially, they remain underfunded.

Today, I draw the Chamber's attention to the specific problem of dog neutering. Northern Ireland lacks a dog neutering strategy or scheme, which has led to a huge number of dogs across our region being neglected and maltreated and often feeling abandoned.

Naturally, that is distressing for many people across all our communities who value animals.

I have called before for the establishment of an animal welfare commissioner, and I reiterate that call today. Until such a position is made a reality, I call for immediate intervention from the Agriculture Minister to ensure that all animal charities are given the resources that they so desperately need to perform neutering on the required scale. Pet owners have seen nothing but escalating costs. The cost of cat neutering has jumped from around £50 just a few years ago to around £100 today. Working people just cannot afford that. A pain relief injection for dogs costs £135. Dog neutering prices are now three times what they were around five years ago. It is crazy.

We are blessed and lucky to have charities in my constituency and people like Mel from the Dog Leap Animal Charity in Limavady, Tara from Causeway Coast Dog Rescue, and the entire team at Rainbow Rehoming in Eglinton. They perform the work that the state utterly fails to provide. It is desperate to see the predicament that they are in. It is deeply unfair. They are under significant pressure, and it brings them significant personal stress.

We must recognise that the entire system is broken. Dog wardens are unable to reasonably manage the plight of animal welfare and charities are under significant pressure and operating beyond capacity while animal abusers walk free. It cannot continue. I urge the Agriculture Minister to urgently take this plea seriously and ensure that his Department provides the money that is necessary to protect animals in all our communities.

Mr Brett: As we enter the period of national remembrance, across Northern Ireland communities will come together and fall silent as they remember those who came before us and made the ultimate sacrifice for the freedoms that we all enjoy today.

In my constituency of North Belfast, we are extremely proud of those who made the supreme sacrifice. At the weekend, we came together as a community in Rathcoole to launch this year's Rathcoole Row on Row celebrations. Under the stewardship of the RATH Community Group, Rathcoole Row on Row has grown from a small-scale project that, during the pandemic, afforded members of the community the opportunity to come together to remember our fallen heroes, to a highlight of the remembrance period, with hundreds of people coming together from across the community to stand together and remember those who laid down their lives.

I take this opportunity to pay tribute to the RATH Community Group, Dalaradia and those volunteers who give of their time freely to ensure that the people of North Belfast and Rathcoole, rightly, remember those who have gone before and ensure that we never forget them. We will remember them.

Mr Gaston: The Labour Government have proved that they have no empathy with farmers. If they did, they would not have dealt such a brutal blow to the future of family farming through their inheritance tax extension policy.

Farmers are, indeed, asset-rich because of their land but cash-poor, with it being a struggle to meet the constant monthly bills from fluctuating income. The fact that they own 50 or 100 acres cannot be drawn upon for day-to-day needs, yet retaining that 50 or 100 acres for farming into the future is key to the generational survival of a farm that is passed from one generation to another. There is reason and logic for the historic agricultural exemption from inheritance tax. Now, however, the Government are set to raid farming assets by whacking on inheritance tax upon the death of the current farmer. With limited cash reserves, most family farms, when that point comes, will have no alternative but to sell off land and consequently diminish the viability and productivity of the farm. Food production and security will suffer knock-on effects. The threshold of £1 million is of little help at current land prices. Farms with as little as 50 or 60 acres will frequently be caught for inheritance tax.

Currently, 36% of farmers in Northern Ireland are aged 65 and over. Farmers in North Antrim and elsewhere have devoted their lives to building up their farms with the driving motivation to see the land handed on to the next generation. Now, this kick in the teeth from an uncaring Government has, rightly, left many feeling angry and betrayed. When will the nation and its politicians start to respect those who put food on our tables? The TUV is very clear on the matter. My party leader will oppose the Budget when it comes before the Mother of Parliaments, not least because of that outrageous proposition.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): The Speaker has received notice from the Minister of Justice that she wishes to make a statement.

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

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): No. Not at this stage. I have already risen to ask the Justice Minister to speak, Mr Gaston.

Before I call the Minister, I remind Members that they must be concise when asking questions. This is not an opportunity for debate, and long introductions will not be allowed. Minister, over to you.

Mrs Long (The Minister of Justice): Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I wish to make a statement on work that is ongoing to reform access to justice. I am conscious that the withdrawal of services by the Criminal Bar Association and the Solicitors Criminal Bar Association, and the potential impact of that on some of our most vulnerable citizens, will be on the minds of many Assembly colleagues today. Enhancing access to justice, particularly for the most vulnerable, has been foremost in my mind for some time. It was the need to ensure that we meet the needs and expectations of citizens that drove me to commission a review of how access to justice is enabled across the criminal and civil spheres, and, of course, I wanted to ensure that the role of the Assembly in reviewing and testing departmental action was respected by sharing proposals here first.

The action by criminal practitioners reflects frustrations in the system. I share those frustrations. My Department has been consistently underfunded, and I have been arguing for additional funding for some time. However, I am conscious of the need to also consider how we use the resources that are at our disposal. Pressure on the legal system is at an all-time high and increasing. In 2023-24, the Legal Services Agency paid out approximately £114 million to legal professionals, which is the highest level in the history of legal aid. In the interests of ensuring that we deliver the best possible outcomes, there is a need to look critically at that investment: to examine why pressures and spend are increasing; to review benefits; and to assess whether intended effects are being achieved and whether different delivery models might generate better, quicker outcomes.

We are lucky that our justice system is supported and enabled by a wealth of talent and ability. Hard-working staff in the Courts and Tribunals Service, a strong independent judiciary, a capable legal profession, a committed and driven voluntary sector and a range of other professionals are all dedicated to ensuring that access to justice is protected and delivered. However, society evolves. User needs and expectations change. Technology offers new opportunities. We also need to ensure that we satisfy the requirements of good governance and that fees attached to actions add value, meet the needs of the most vulnerable and are quality assured. I have therefore undertaken a detailed assessment of how resources are currently used and of reform opportunities so that I can be assured and can provide assurance that resources are used to best effect where they will generate the best outcomes for citizens. I am pleased to report that the process is coming to an end. I expect to update the Assembly on the detail of my reform programme in the coming weeks.

Work has been informed by a number of actions and sources, including stakeholder engagement, previous reviews and existing data, a call for evidence on the foundational review of civil and legal aid and the foundational review of criminal legal aid that I commissioned His Honour Judge Burgess to lead. I understand the interest that members of the legal professions and other stakeholders will have in that ongoing work and, in particular, the interest that criminal practitioners will have in the fundamental review of criminal legal aid. However, risk is attached to examining aspects of the programme, and, indeed, to looking at criminal legal aid rates in isolation. Legal advice and representation will always be critical components of an effective justice system. I am committed to ensuring that there is fair remuneration. We need to nurture and attract talent to ensure that the right advice and representation are available at the right time. That is essential to the future viability of the system, but to consider remuneration in the absence of wider issues would be to fail in my Department's responsibilities for ensuring access to justice and value for money. An effective system is not contingent on legal aid rates alone. Fees and access to justice should not be confused. Access to justice is defined by many different factors and delivered through many different mechanisms.

It was also critical that we examined what could be learned from other jurisdictions, including those that have different delivery models to enable access to justice and that deliver at lower cost. It has been critical to listen and learn from what those using the system tell us about their experience; hear victims, witnesses, applicants and respondents and reflect on how the system and those whom we fund to support them meet their needs and expectations; and understand how and when they want to resolve disputes, receive information and engage with professionals in the system in order to learn whether justice is being served and whether we are providing high-quality services.

My focus is on ensuring that the right people have access to justice at the right time and that their issues are dealt with quickly by the most efficient means possible. I have listened to the users' experience and the views of practitioners. It is clear that there are opportunities to resolve matters outside the court — for example, through mediation — that can provide better outcomes for victims, families and perpetrators by reducing further trauma, increasing perpetrators' understanding and potentially reducing the risk of reoffending. It is critical, therefore, that I consider the whole system. To enable effective and prioritised decisions to be made, it has been critical to take the proper time to analyse and assess the implications of all the evidence, including the Burgess report, in the context of the wider programme and wider departmental pressures. A holistic approach has been critical to ensuring that some services are not being resourced at the expense of other more valuable actions.

While some professionals working in the system may specialise and, of course, want to highlight challenges with the system that they see or that affect them, the system itself is interconnected, and the linkages and repercussive impacts need to be properly assessed. Officials have been focusing on that analysis since Judge Burgess submitted his report on 23 August this year. Costs and implications have had to be analysed, and the robustness of evidence has had to be tested. Strong policy requires vigorous assessment. That work has not been done in isolation. We have reflected on the evidence that was submitted by stakeholders, including members of the Bar Council and the Law Society. They had an opportunity to submit views, and we have listened. The next stage is to share the outworking of evidence and analysis, and we are quickly nearing that point.

As I mentioned, I have also been keen to ensure that the role of the Assembly is respected and that my proposed programme, and the evidence that informed it, is shared with Members in the first instance. I will do that shortly. Stakeholders, including the Bar Council and the Law Society, are aware of that intention. My officials and I have been in regular contact with those bodies while the programme has been under development, and they have been aware that decisions and a prioritised delivery plan will be published for consultation shortly.

The Bar Council and the Law Society are also aware that the Department has been working to secure a more sustainable budget and that additional funding has been secured to meet current pressures. The legal aid budget at the start of the financial year was the highest opening allocation in the history of the legal aid scheme. I also secured an additional £7·4 million for legal aid through the June monitoring round, which brought the budget to just under £109 million. That follows a spend last year of £114 million.

Criminal practitioners' decision to withdraw services is therefore premature and deeply disappointing. I am acutely aware — as, I am sure, are many Members — of the potential adverse impact on those who will now have to wait another day for justice. For those victims and witnesses who are ready to give evidence and are waiting to be heard, the uncertainty caused by the strike action will only add further stress and anxiety at an already very stressful time. I trust that those taking industrial action today will reflect on that impact. They say that the system is broken, but they are aware that I am working hard to progress reform and deliver a more effective and efficient system for those whom we serve. Precipitous action that distracts from that work does nothing for vulnerable people or to address the challenges to the system. My focus will continue to be on constructive action to drive constructive change in order to ensure that the system is accessible, fairer, more proportionate and responsive.

Mr O'Toole: Minister, it is clear that there has been a significant loss of confidence among the legal profession in what you say is a process of consultation. How many meetings have you had about reforming access to justice, and why is the Assembly only being told of this on the morning of industrial action occurring?

Mrs Long: The reason I am here is to address the industrial action, which explains the timing. However, in previous weeks, I notified the Assembly that we are working through a process to look at the review of legal aid, including Tom Burgess's report and a number of other factors that will feed into that. My statement is about reassuring Members that we are nearing the end of that process. It has been clear in all my engagements in the Assembly that my intention is to provide a comprehensive proposal when we bring the matter to the Chamber.

I have been clear that I think that the industrial action is premature, because we are working through a process. I have met the Bar and the Law Society, and my officials meet them on a regular basis. However, we are now at a point where industrial action has started, and I am focused on trying to ensure that we get to a point where that can end.

Ms Bunting (The Chairperson of the Committee for Justice): I am aware that some from the legal profession have had sight of the Burgess report. What is the Minister's timeline for the Justice Committee to receive that report, and when will it be published?

Mrs Long: My intention from the outset was that the Burgess report would go to the Committee along with the rest of the recommendations that I hope to bring to the Chamber in due course, hopefully in the short term. It is true that a select number of members of the Bar and the Law Society have had access to the Burgess report under the direction of the court. I had no hand in whether or not that would occur.

Miss Hargey: Thank you for coming to the Chamber. I know that the Committee asked for that, and it is important that this issue is debated here. The publication of the report and whatever recommendations may come is causing alarm bells. To try to reassure this part of our justice system, which provides access to justice for some of the most vulnerable, and to ensure that this is not seen as a managed collapse of the legal aid system, can the Minister give assurances that the legal aid budget will be protected as a demand-led service?

Mrs Long: I have already set out that we spent more on legal aid last year than in any other single year. I find it hard to understand how the Deputy Chair of the Committee could call that a collapse of the legal aid system. We spent £114 million last year and, thus far, have secured £109 million for this year, so far from us not being able to fund legal aid, we continue to prioritise it in our budget. However, no, I cannot give an undertaking to ring-fence any part of my budget because I have to make sure that, at the end of the mandate, my budget is balanced.

I would certainly welcome the support of other Members, when it comes to the distribution of funds across Departments, for there to be a larger allocation for the Department of Justice so that we can do more, not only for legal aid but across the wider spectrum. The purpose of the review, however, is to ensure that we place criminal and civil legal aid, the system of taxation, civil justice modernisation and statutory registration on a sustainable footing. It is important that we do the proper groundwork to prepare the way for that, because it is large, wide in scope and complex, but it is also essential to the sustainability of the service.

Mr Dickson: Minister, thank you for your statement. Commentary around the Burgess report has already been made today in your statement and in questions. Can you set out for the House your intentions on the potential publication date and the next steps for the Burgess report?

Mrs Long: It has always been my intention to come forward with a full proposal that will look at criminal and civil legal aid in the round and look at the other matters that I mentioned in my previous answer. It is important that we take the time to do that properly, and it is important that we focus on ensuring that, when we do come forward with that, we are able to consult on the proposals that I have made. To look at any aspect of this alone, without looking at the potential repercussive effects and the potential knock-on implications in other parts of the justice system, would be flawed. Therefore, we have taken a comprehensive approach, and I hope to come to the Chamber on that in the next few weeks.

I want to reassure practitioners that, when we said that we were going to do this collaboratively and comprehensively, that is exactly what we meant. However, it is right that, when I make significant announcements that pertain to the business of the House, I do it in the House and not to any one or two stakeholders. The majority of stakeholders in the legal aid system are the public, who need access to justice, and, therefore, it is their representatives who I must first address in the Chamber before I address others.

Mr Chambers: Minister, we see high-profile, serious criminal cases in England being concluded within months of the crime being committed. In Northern Ireland, we do not see that urgent progress in serious cases. Will the Minister give her assessment of why that is and what can be done to expedite delivery of justice in criminal cases?

Mrs Long: The scheduling of criminal cases is a matter that falls to the judiciary. There are many reasons why the justice system in Northern Ireland takes longer to reach completion than our counterparts in England and Wales, but not all are relevant to the particular issues that I have raised today.

There is an issue where earlier guilty pleas happen in other parts of the UK. We saw that most recently in the serious rioting. The majority of cases that have reached conclusion and sentencing were through early plea, rather than through the full court process. That is less likely to happen in Northern Ireland than in other regions.

There are other issues: for example, the backlogs from COVID. When we got some COVID recovery money, we did not get the full impact of that in the Department of Justice. It was dispersed across Education and Health, and therefore we were not able to make the kind of recovery that we had hoped for. We have also been speeding up justice, so we have been working on committal reform in order to speed up the most serious cases such as rape and murder. However, that process is an ongoing one, so it requires transformation and change. That is another reason that it is important that the legal aid system keep pace with the other transformational changes that we are making in the legal system.

Ms Ferguson: Minister, you noted that the Law Society and the Bar say that the system is broken. There are sustained increases in work pressures, real-time cuts and payment delays. We have heard about solicitors walking away from legal aid. We also heard, just last week, that solicitors are failing to come to the north-west to provide services due to cost and time. I welcome a whole-system approach, and reform is coming. Can you throw some light on how you will ensure that legal aid will continue to be available across the North and how you will ensure fair access to justice?

Mrs Long: I have always been clear, as Minister, that I view legal aid as part of our welfare system. It is part of the safety net that is there to protect us when we cannot afford to access services ourselves. Therefore, it is important that, when people have an essential need to access justice, they are able to do so, irrespective of means. That is an important element of legal aid. I remain committed to that principle.

Legal aid is primarily about funding the applicant or the respondent in a case. Whilst the viability of the profession is absolutely critical in access to justice and fair remuneration is part of that, it is also important to recognise that it is not the primary role of legal aid. The primary role of legal aid is not to fund barristers and solicitors; it is to pay for access to law for members of our constituencies who are unable to pay for that access themselves. Therefore, it is important that we always temper our concerns around the effectiveness and efficiency of the profession and around the thriving profession, which is absolutely critical to being able to access justice, with the reality that it is for their client to pay them. It is our job to ensure that the clients, where they do not have the means to pay, are able to access legal aid to do so. That is a slightly different relationship from the one that is sometimes portrayed.

Miss McAllister: Will the Minister outline the expected impact of the strike action today, particularly the late notice of the Solicitors Criminal Bar Association's action?

Mrs Long: The number of proceedings in a Crown Court in any one day is very fluid, so it is difficult to know what cases would be delayed or postponed solely due to strike action. However, any additional delay is impactful. Members will be aware of how stressful people already find it to have a case go to court, and then to have delay that is, perhaps, unscheduled is a stressful situation. The late notice from the Solicitors Criminal Bar Association is particularly concerning because there was not the same lead-in time to prepare.

The Lady Chief Justice, however, has encouraged judges to exercise their discretion when determining whether it is in the interests of justice for the affected cases to proceed in the absence of counsel, so that option is available to the judiciary. The 40 cases in which Victim Support was due to help victims and witnesses will now need to be rescheduled. They include offences such as sexual assault, threats to kill and rape. Delaying those cases only extends the trauma and mental anguish being suffered. Civil and family courts have proceeded as normal. Today is the opening week in four areas so there will be significant business taken forward in the County Courts. Unfortunately, the withdrawal of services in these circumstances is impactful on victims and on the backlog in our courts.

Ms Ennis: Minister, thank you for the statement, which talks about examples of best practice. Why has the Minister not followed examples of best practice in neighbouring jurisdictions such as England and Scotland, where the Bellamy report and the Roberton review promptly published their findings, yet we have this announcement today without the benefit of knowing the findings from the Burgess review?

Mrs Long: I have followed best practice because best practice is that, if you are coming up with a comprehensive response to the system, you produce it all at once and not in small chunks. To produce any of the findings that we have in isolation would not give Members the opportunity to look at the interconnections in the justice system and, indeed, in the legal aid system. Therefore, it is best practice that a Minister should consider and reflect on what is reported to her, should test the robustness of the evidence and, where necessary, should seek additional information. She should also engage with other professionals who will have input to make, come to a considered conclusion and then bring that, first and foremost, to the House. It is to the House that I am accountable, not to other bodies outside of the House.

Ms Bradshaw: Minister, can you please outline how you and your Department have sought to prevent today's strike action?

Mrs Long: We have tried to do a number of things in our ongoing engagement, including our reassurance about the payment of legal aid and the work that we did earlier in the year and since I came back into office to ensure that we could pay legal aid bills and continue to do so. The evidence is that we have made bids in our engagement with the Department of Finance for additional resource and have kept the Law Society and the Bar Council abreast of our plans to introduce a comprehensive review of legal aid that they will be able to engage with through a consultation process.

I have also written to the Law Society, the Bar Council and others to say that I am willing to engage with them further, because it is important that we avoid further legal action. I do not want unnecessary delays in the justice system. If anything will destabilise the justice system, which is already fragile, it will be the imposition of additional pressures as a result of the impact of strike action. We need to work collaboratively towards a solution that is sustainable for the long term and, hopefully, will work particularly for our constituents but also, I would hope, for the profession.

Mr McNulty: I thank the Minister for her statement. Minister, it is extraordinary for you as Justice Minister to refer to the actions of the legal profession as "precipitous". To what degree does your Department's policy of payment delay impact on the legal aid system and access to justice for the most vulnerable and marginalised victims? Will the extra £7·4 million that you referred to in your statement help to rectify and reform that approach?

Mrs Long: First, my Department has no policy to delay the payment of legal aid, and I want to put that on record. Secondly, I am not going to comment on payment times, as that matter will be considered by the court in the coming months. I can say that securing an appropriate budget allocation for the justice system, including legal aid, will support reductions in payment times.

Mr Gaston: Can the Minister tell us when the Burgess report will be shared officially with all stakeholders, particularly the Bar Council and the Law Society? Furthermore, when will the report be published for members of the public to read?

Mrs Long: As I said, the first people who will see the Burgess report and all of the supporting information in respect of the evidence base that I will use to make my decisions will be the Committee and the House, as is appropriate. Beyond that, it will then be shared officially with others, although, as I stated, some Members will have had sight of it simply through the direction of the court.

Mr Carroll: It is a bit rich to attack workers who have every right to withdraw their labour and take strike action to defend access to justice for everyone. If criminal barristers are not being fairly remunerated for legal aid work or are experiencing delays, we will potentially lose them to more profitable fields of law. Minister, can you explain why the number of legal aid cases granted in 2023-24 is the lowest annual total over the past five years?

Mrs Long: No, I cannot because the granting of legal aid does not lie entirely with my Department. Some of it is at the behest of the judiciary, and some of it will be at the behest of LSA. Therefore, I am not able to give a complete figure to show why there has been any reduction. We are only part way through the year, and, as I said, we have secured already £109 million in-year for funding for legal aid.

Last year, we spent more on legal aid than in any other year.

To be clear, in the Chamber, I have not attacked anyone for taking legitimate action to withdraw services. People have a right to strike, and I have not attacked anyone for doing so. I have set out the consequences of people's doing so, which, as Justice Minister, I do not think is unreasonable for me to do.

Ms Sugden: Minister, the legal aid crisis is an access to justice issue. The legal profession is telling us that it can no longer afford to take legal cases, which means that it simply will not, so those who are in need of legal representation will find it harder to get.

I am also concerned about sole practitioners in rural areas. It is their job. It is a reality that legal aid cases fund their role, and, in doing so, they provide that representation. How are we going to fix the situation and reassure the legal profession that it can continue to undertake that area of work?

Mrs Long: I am already on record this afternoon as saying that a thriving legal profession is critical to having effective access to justice. I am conscious that fair remuneration is essential to ensuring robust and enduring representation. I have had the opportunity to discuss concerns about financial issues with the professional bodies and with Judge Burgess. I have also considered the issues in his report and am now considering potential actions to ensure the sustainability and viability of the system as part of a reform programme. My delivery plan will also prioritise areas in which progress can and should be made.

That is the role that I have taken on. It has been a priority for me. We have been doing work on that over recent months, and it is important to me. Ensuring that we have a robust and enduring profession is not a matter for the Department of Justice alone, however. There must be fair payment for work that is undertaken, but there must also be a proactive approach taken to succession planning, and diversity must be promoted and supported. There is a significant role for the profession in ensuring that training models build capacity and support inclusivity. Custom and practice can help ensure that the newly qualified, for example, build experience in income management and that career paths are not compromised because of breaks in service. We need to nurture talent and ensure that the right support, advice and representation is available at the right time and that those who are supporting the delivery of justice are reflective of our society.

I am therefore very sympathetic, particularly when it comes to newly qualified solicitors and barristers trying to build, establish and sustain themselves. The environment can be challenging, and I am committed to doing what I can to ensure that young and talented practitioners can develop and progress and that they receive equality of opportunity. The regulatory bodies themselves also need to take proactive steps, however.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): That concludes questions to the Minister of Justice on her statement.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): You attempted to raise a point of order earlier, Mr Gaston. Will you make it now, please?

Mr Gaston: Thank you very much. On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. At the start of business today, the Speaker advised the House that he had written to Members to advise them of the so-called democratic consent vote on the continuing application of the protocol in Northern Ireland. Will the Speaker's Office confirm that there is no requirement for cross-community consent for that vote and that, for the first time in more than half a century, a decision will be taken that disregards the views of one section of the Chamber, namely unionists?

Furthermore, if cross-community consent is dispensed with for the most controversial vote in Northern Ireland's 104-year history —

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Mr Gaston, please take your seat.

Mr Gaston: — how can we have confidence that it will continue —

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Mr Gaston, take your seat.

Mr Gaston: — to apply to less meaningful issues?

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Thank you very much. Mr Gaston, that started out as a point of order but stretched into a statement. Your remarks are duly noted and will be out there.

Members, please take your ease while we change the top Table.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: I have received notice from the Minister of Finance that she wishes to make a statement. Before I call the Minister, I remind Members that questions must be concise. This is not an opportunity for debate. Long introductions will not be allowed. I call the Minister of Finance.

Dr Archibald (The Minister of Finance): Go raibh maith agat, a Phríomh-Leas-Cheann Comhairle.

Last Wednesday, the Chancellor presented the autumn Budget. I want to update Members today — the earliest opportunity after recess — on the implications of that Budget for our public finances. I have been clear that delivering quality public services and a strong economy that supports businesses are key priorities for me in order to improve the lives of workers, families and communities. The scale of current pressures is so severe that it will take time and significant further investment to turn the tide and undo the damage caused by underfunding of our public services after years of Tory austerity. The amount of money announced by the British Chancellor last week reflects the state of public services and the urgent need for investment — something that I have been pointing out since I took up post — but let us be real: the impact of 14 years of austerity is not going to be reversed by one Budget.

I have been calling for greater investment in our infrastructure for some time. I therefore welcome the British Chancellor's announcement that the Government will change their self-imposed debt rules to free up capital funding. However, the proof of that announcement will be in its delivery. The change in fiscal rules is a first step. We must now see the Chancellor deliver the resources that the Executive need to invest properly in our public services in the long term. Next year's spending review will be the test of that. I also welcome the lifting of the pause on the Causeway Coast and Glens and Mid South West growth deals. The pause should not have happened in the first place, but I am glad that common sense has prevailed and the right decision has been made to enable the deals to go ahead: they will be key drivers for economic development and improving regional balance.

Whilst there are things in the Chancellor's Budget that, on first review, are encouraging signs of a different approach to public services, there are also clear areas of concern, including the impact of increased employer National Insurance contributions, particularly on our small businesses; the change in treatment of our agriculture funding; changes to agricultural property relief; and the reduction in the Shared Prosperity Fund.

I turn to the extra funding that we will receive for the rest of the current financial year. The autumn Budget will see the Executive receive an additional £609·3 million of resource departmental expenditure limit (DEL) and £30·4 million of capital DEL for 2024-25. That is on top of £308·9 million of additional Barnett consequentials, received from the spring Budget and Westminster Main Estimates, that I allocated in the June monitoring round, making a total of £918·2 million of additional resource DEL funding in 2024-25. That level of in-year funding is unprecedented outside of COVID. While that is welcome, it is, again, worth pointing out that the scale of the funding reflects the reality of how badly public services have been funded as the result of 14 years of austerity.

As a result of the interim fiscal framework that I agreed in May of this year, the Executive have received £184 million more than they would otherwise have done in 2024-25. I will move quickly to propose allocations to the Executive to get that funding out to Departments as part of the October monitoring round. As Members are aware, Departments previously identified resource DEL pressures of £770 million, so the extra funding falls short of what is needed and is not sufficient to meet the trajectory of overspend that Departments have indicated for this year. That will inevitably mean that Departments have to take decisions in order to live within budget.

The overcommitment figure does not include the cost of a number of exceptional items, such as the PSNI data breach, holiday pay and McCloud injury to feelings. It was anticipated that, if those costs were to crystallise in 2024-25, they might be funded by a reserve claim. However, given the level of in-year funding provided to the Executive in the autumn Budget, the Chief Secretary to the Treasury has indicated that, while further conversations are possible, the Treasury position in the first instance is that those items should be funded from the settlements that have been announced. It is my clear view, however, that these items are unaffordable, given the existing pressures facing Departments. I will therefore seek to negotiate a reserve claim.

The Chancellor's statement on Wednesday also outlined the first year of a multi-year spending review that will conclude in spring. That sets the Executive's funding envelope for 2025-26. It is welcome that the Chancellor has recognised the recurrent nature of the pressures being faced in 2024-25 by baselining the additional £609 million of resource DEL consequentials provided in the autumn Budget. The same approach, however, has not been taken for the autumn Budget 2024-25 capital DEL consequentials. As a result of the interim fiscal framework, the Executive's capital borrowing limit for 2025-26 will be increased from £220 million to £225·7 million. The Executive will also receive an additional £601 million resource DEL and £270·8 million capital DEL as a result of the announcement. Again, as a result of the interim fiscal framework, the needs-based factor has also been applied in 2025-26, meaning that the funding provided is £248 million more than it otherwise would have been.

That brings the total additional funding provided as a result of the interim fiscal framework to £431·4 million. That demonstrates the difference that the framework has already made by providing hundreds of millions of additional funding for public services here. While Barnett consequentials are not hypothecated and it is for the Executive to decide how those are used, I have included a breakdown of the Barnett consequentials for both years in an annex that accompanies the statement.

In addition to the Barnett funding for 2025-26, including the restoration package, the Executive will receive £668·7 million resource DEL and £91·6 million capital DEL that is non-Barnett funding. The 2025-26 settlement equates to a real-terms uplift of 1·3% in resource DEL against the latest 2024-25 position. However, given the continued pay and inflationary pressures and growing demands on our services, it still represents a challenge for the Executive and highlights the need for the transformation of our public services.

Previously, the Executive received a ring-fenced allocation for agriculture and fisheries support that was based on the level of EU funding in 2019. From 2025-26, that £332·5 million is included in the Executive's baseline. Therefore, it will now be for the Executive to agree on funding for agriculture as part of the Budget process.

As well as the direct impact of last week's Budget on the Executive's finances, there were a number of other announcements that are worth highlighting. On Wednesday, the British Chancellor announced changes to the employer rate National Insurance contributions policy. While the Treasury has advised that it will provide support funding to the public sector for additional costs, we do not know yet whether that will be sufficient to offset the costs. I will provide a further update on that in due course.

Of course, the bigger impact of the change will be felt by businesses. There is no doubt that the taxation increase will prove challenging for many small businesses, which are the bedrock of our local economy. Although the 1·2% increase in rate that was announced is lower than the 2% that some had speculated, that will be cold comfort to the businesses that have been impacted.

While the increase in employer's allowance from £5,000 to £10,500 will help to protect the smallest of our businesses, I have no doubt that the increased cost of National Insurance will be difficult for many businesses to manage. While the British Chancellor has said that the Budget is about putting more money into people's pockets, the Office for Budget Responsibility's (OBR) analysis stated that it assumes that three quarters of the National Insurance cost increase will eventually be passed on to employees through lower real-terms wages. That will impact on individuals who are still impacted by the cost-of-living crisis.

It is disappointing that the Chancellor did not move to abolish the two-child limit or to reinstate funding for the winter fuel payment, which will have a detrimental impact on the well-being and health of older people. That highlights again the impact of bad decisions taken at Westminster on people here, and, unfortunately, with the huge pressures already on our budgets, the Executive cannot mitigate every such bad decision.

The Chancellor also announced changes to agricultural property relief. I understand the concerns raised by many farmers about the potential impact of those changes on the sustainability of the family farming business here. The importance of our farming sector was raised in the meeting with the First Minister and deputy First Minister, the Chancellor and me on 12 September. I will continue to make the case for all the small farmers and small businesses that are vital to our economy.

The changes to agricultural property relief mean that, from April 2026, the first £1 million of combined business and agricultural assets will continue to attract no inheritance tax at all, but, for assets over £1 million, inheritance tax will apply at an effective rate of 20%. The Treasury has indicated that it expects only around 500 agricultural estates across Britain and the North to be affected by the change next year. It has also argued that small family farms are protected. Clearly, we need to see the proof of that. My officials have already been in contact with their Treasury counterparts to understand the impact locally.

The announcement that the Shared Prosperity Fund will continue for a transition year is welcome. That avoids a potential cliff edge in March 2025 and allows consideration of post-2026 arrangements. However, the total funding of £900 million for 2025-26 that was announced last week represents a 40% reduction in quantum from 2024-25. Our allocation for 2025-26 is not yet known, but Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government officials have advised that information will be available shortly to provide certainty for groups and projects that use the funding. I have already made it clear to the Chief Secretary to the Treasury that I do not believe that a reduction in the funding is acceptable and will continue to press hard for at least the same level of funding as before.

I hope that the statement has provided Members with an overview of the implications of the autumn Budget. While the additional funding is to be welcomed, the reality is that public services are still stretched and the level of funding announced last Wednesday still does not plug the current gap. We will need to see continued investment over the coming years to help transform public services. As an Executive, we have committed to taking a more strategic, longer-term approach to the Budget process, with the Executive Budget sustainability plan published earlier this month. We are committed to transformation and reform to help our services become more sustainable and efficient going forward. The multi-year spending review in the spring will give us the ability to plan on a longer-term basis. My immediate focus is on allocating the funding for 2024-25 before quickly turning our attention to the 2025-26 Budget, which I intend to bring to the Executive in coming weeks. There is no doubt that there will be challenges ahead, but, working together, we will be better placed to meet them and to deliver for all our citizens.

Mr O'Toole: Minister, we have all seen the impact of austerity from London and of chaos and collapse at Stormont, but now we have the opportunity to turn the page on both. This is not an austerity Budget and cannot be described as such. People want to hear about the decisions that you and your Executive colleagues are making, rather than hearing you simply rail against decisions made in London. To that end, will you confirm that, as seen in the annex, the roughly £140 million that appears to have been allocated to the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (DLUHC) and has been Barnetted here is a calculation of the business rates support that is going to businesses in England to support small businesses on the high street, particularly those in hospitality, which, as you say, have been hit by some of the other tax changes? Will you commit to spending some or all of that £140 million on rates support for small businesses, particularly those in hospitality? That is a decision that you can make here.

Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for his question. In my commentary since the Budget was announced, I have acknowledged the additional funding for public services. It goes some way towards showing a different approach. However, as I have outlined, it does not meet the significant pressures that we face this year and that will likely continue into next year.

Table 2 in the annex that accompanies the statement shows that the business rates Barnett consequential is -£79·66 million, because the British Government reduced the rates relief that is available to businesses in those sectors in England. Unfortunately, therefore, we have no additional funding to allocate for business rates support. I, however, have brought proposals to the Executive to set out a more strategic short-, medium- and long-term approach to our rating system. I very much recognise the pressures that are on businesses and certain sectors and that those pressures come from different angles, which does not help. I am committed to working with businesses to look at how we can support them.

Mr Gildernew: I thank the Minister for the statement and acknowledge the significant work on the fiscal framework, albeit with the caveats that she outlined because of 14 years of austerity. I particularly welcome the un-pausing of the growth deals, given their impact in Fermanagh and South Tyrone, Mid Ulster, Armagh, Banbridge and Craigavon. Will the Minister outline what un-pausing the deals means for those regions?

Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for his question. As I said in my opening remarks, the pause should never have happened in the first place; it was hugely unhelpful. However, I am glad that common sense has prevailed and the right decision has been made to unpause the funding commitment. When the funding was in jeopardy, we — all of us — stood up, side by side and shoulder to shoulder. We fought, we lobbied and we made an evidence-based case to the British Treasury on the need for all four of our city and growth deals to develop our economy, create prosperity and address the regional balance. The Member will be aware of the need for that in his part of the region.

The strength of collaboration and enthusiasm has been immense across the board from all political representatives, from colleagues in local government, from our council delivery partners, from educational institutions and from industry, and I thank Members for their unwavering support. City and growth deals are a key driver in boosting economic development and delivering regional balance and are a catalyst for further investment and opportunities. The un-pausing will allow both growth deals to move forward to development of their outline business cases, and I look forward to signing the heads of terms of the Mid South West growth deal on behalf of the Executive later this week.

Ms Forsythe: I thank the Minister for her statement. Employer contributions and the increase in the minimum wage have rightly been highlighted as having significant impact on small businesses, but there will obviously be a huge impact on the delivery of our public services as well. The Minister outlined that the Treasury had advised that it would provide support to fund the additional costs in the public sector. Will the Treasury support be extended to arm's-length bodies, such as the community and voluntary sector, that provide public services under government contracts, many of which are charities that have to fundraise and are being hit with the increase in minimum wage and employer's contributions?

Dr Archibald: I concur with the Member on the difficulty that those increases will pose for many businesses and for those who deliver services on behalf of the Executive and Departments. We understand that funding will be provided to cover the costs of the public sector, but we do not believe that it will cover the arm's-length bodies or the other organisations that provide services on behalf of the Executive. We will seek further clarity on that from Treasury, making the point clearly, as the Member did, about the difficulty that the increases will pose.

Mr Tennyson: Minister, you will be aware that a number of public-sector pay deals are outstanding this year. Will you update the House on the timelines for negotiating and settling them?

Dr Archibald: The Executive have prioritised public-sector pay since they came back in February. The first action that I took as Finance Minister was to propose £688 million to settle public-sector pay disputes that had been going on for some time. The Member will be aware that Departments have identified £770 million of pressures, which include the pay review body recommendation costings. We now have £600 million to allocate. From my perspective, it is really important that we recognise and properly reward our public-sector workers. I would like to see speedy movement — that is the best way to put it — from Departments. In my role as Finance Minister, I will engage with my trade unions on pay deals in the coming days. I recognise that pressures on pay and other elements will still be a challenge for Departments. Obviously, they will have to decide how they manage those.

Dr Aiken: I thank the Minister for her remarks. She will be aware that the Chancellor, in her Budget statement last week, talked about the pressures on health and, in particular, about the fact that, across England and Wales, the health budget will be raised by 4·7% this year and 3·3% next year. That is above the general baseline of 1·3% on funding. Is the Minister looking to match that in Northern Ireland, bearing in mind that our challenges are significant and our health allocation was below baseline during the budgetary process that started earlier this year?

Dr Archibald: I remind the Member again about the difference between the opening budget lines and the out-turn at the end of the year and that the Department of Health got an uplift in its budget this year in line with that of other Departments — greater in some respects. Clearly, there are huge pressures on health. That is recognised across the board. As I have said in relation to the general funding package, the funding that has been announced is a recognition of the underfunding of our public services, and it will be for the Executive to agree their way forward in relation to the Budget in 2025-26. Health has been a priority for the Executive since they came back, and it is clearly a priority in the Programme for Government. The Budget will reflect the Programme for Government in allocating funding to Health.

Miss Brogan: Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire as ucht a ráitis.

I also thank the Minister for the work that she has done in securing additional funds through the fiscal framework.

Will the Minister outline when October monitoring will take place to allocate funds for the rest of this financial year and when we can expect to see a draft Budget for 2025-26?

Dr Archibald: It is my intention that October monitoring will happen very soon. My officials are working at pace to ensure that it is delivered as soon as possible and had a lot of the preparatory work already done in advance of the Budget statement last week. I hope to bring proposals for allocations to the next Executive meeting. The funding envelope for 2025-26 has been announced, and, again, it is my intention to publish a draft Budget by early December, subject to Executive agreement, to allow time for a full consultation before a final Budget is agreed by the Executive, prior to the start of the next financial year.

Mr Brett: It is important that we recognise that, in this financial year, an extra £1·2 billion of in-year spending has been awarded to Northern Ireland by the Government. As the Finance Minister rightly says, the collective work of Members of this House and of other places has resulted in the un-pausing of two city deals. The Finance Minister will be aware that one funding stream that has not been un-paused is the Shore Road skills centre, which was due to receive £2·5 million under the Levelling Up Fund. The Finance Minister will also be aware that this is a vital facility in north Belfast for tackling educational underachievement. Will she commit to continuing to work with the First Minister and deputy First Minister and the Minister for Communities to ensure that north Belfast receives the £2·5 million that it deserves?

Dr Archibald: I am happy to confirm that I am willing to work with Executive colleagues in relation to the other funding streams and to get clarity on them. My understanding is that the intention of what was DLUHC and is now the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, is to consult the Shore Road skills centre applicants prior to confirming a final decision on that funding. That is a constructive thing to do, but, clearly, we will wait to see the outcome. The Executive do not have a role in that process. Obviously, that is a point that we have made in relation to a number of the funds. We would like to see decision-making in relation to those returned to the Executive, and we will continue to make the case for that.

Mr Dickson: I thank the Minister for her statement. The Budget is certainly a curate's egg: it has been good for working people but, perhaps, difficult for businesses and, particularly, for the Assembly. The Minister has acknowledged that the Department of Justice has been underfunded for a number of years. While the Budget settlement can improve the budget for the DOJ, what action has she been taking with Treasury officials to secure funding for McCloud and the data breach? Clearly, neither of those can be fulfilled with the current budget.

Dr Archibald: The Member raises an important point. As I mentioned in my statement, I believe those costs to be unaffordable to the Executive, particularly when you put them in the context of the projected overcommitments for this year that sit beside the funding that we are now receiving. There is no way that we can manage those costs. I have raised that at every opportunity in my engagement with the Chief Secretary to the Treasury and with the Chancellor. Clearly, as an Executive, we would want to negotiate a reserve claim to settle those issues, because, to me, that is the only way that we can take that forward.

Mrs Erskine: I thank the Minister for her statement. Like her, I welcome the fact that the Government have un-paused the Mid South West growth deal.

The Minister is well aware that without capital and resource investment for our waste water treatment works, we will not be able to deliver on key Programme for Government commitments, such as stopping water pollution and increasing our housing stock. Given that capital costs have risen exponentially, does the Minister recognise that the Budget will not be enough, given the pressures across our public services? Therefore, what extra is being done to ensure that funding for that key component of our infrastructure is on a more secure footing in order to stop the constraints in our towns and villages across Northern Ireland, so that we can deliver more affordable and social housing?

Dr Archibald: I agree with the Member. There is unanimity across the Executive on the need for additional funding for our waste water infrastructure. Obviously, the amount of additional funding that we have this year will not go a very long way towards meeting that. The Executive will have to take decisions on how to allocate the capital that they have for this year in October monitoring and into our Budget-setting process for next year. As I said in response to Dr Aiken, we will look to the Programme for Government to guide us on where we prioritise our funding. It is really important for a number of its key targets that our waste water infrastructure underpins their delivery.

I have worked and will work with Executive colleagues. I have met, specifically, the Infrastructure Minister in relation to what he is proposing to bring forward. The Executive, collectively, are looking at the issue of our waste water infrastructure and how we are able to invest in it.

Mr Durkan: I thank the Minister for her statement. Like others, I welcome the unpausing of the city deal projects.

Will the additional money allocated to the Executive in this Budget be sufficient for them to meet their match-funding obligations?

Dr Archibald: The Executive committed their funding allocation in relation to the city and growth deals when the funding from the British Government was under question. In recent weeks, I brought a proposal to the Executive to reaffirm our commitment to our proportion of that funding, and the Executive unanimously agreed that.

Clearly, there are many challenges facing the Executive in our capital budget, as with our resource budget, and so it will be for the Executive to collectively prioritise the capital projects that they wish to take forward. However, as I said, our commitment to the city and growth deals projects has been affirmed.

Mr Frew: In reply to my colleague Diane Forsythe, Minister, you clarified that you did not think that any further Treasury support would be able to be availed of by the voluntary and third sectors. Given the impact that the rise in employer rate National Insurance contributions will have on our businesses and employers, I also think about GP surgeries. What further support can the Finance Minister give to GP surgeries, as GPs may well be contemplating handing in their medical licences now?

Dr Archibald: I heard some of the commentary over the weekend in relation to GP surgeries, as well. I would be happy to work with the Health Minister on anything that he would be looking at to support them.

Mr Blair: I add to the thanks expressed to the Minister for her statement. What is the Minister's assessment of the removal of ring-fencing from agriculture funding? Does the Minister believe that that funding should be protected, given the importance of that sector to the Northern Ireland economy?

Dr Archibald: In advance of the Budget statement, I had worked with the AERA Minister to press upon Treasury the need for that funding: for it to continue to be ring-fenced and for an inflationary uplift, given that there had been no inflationary uplift over the previous couple of years. Unfortunately, the amount that has been baselined does not include an inflationary uplift, in the first instance. That means that there will be further pressure on the Executive's resources. However, the baselining of those funds means that it will now be for the Executive to decide how much funding DAERA will receive. That will, obviously, be weighed against other competing priorities. All of us in the Assembly will, however, recognise the importance of our agri-food and farming sectors and the need for them to be properly supported. I am committed to working with the Agriculture Minister on that issue, and, indeed, I have already spoken to him about it.

Ms Mulholland: Thank you, Minister, for your statement. On a slightly related note, you spoke about the belief that inheritance tax will have an impact on only a small number of large farms and that most small farms will be protected. First, is there any indication of what criteria will be used to differentiate between the two? Secondly, what engagement needs to happen in order to ensure that our farmers are protected in the face of that change?

Dr Archibald: As I said in my statement, and as has been widely reported on in the days since the Budget statement, Treasury has indicated that it will impact on only 500 agricultural estates across Britain and the North. It has argued that it will ensure that small family farms are protected. We need to see the proof of that, and we need to understand the basis for those figures. My officials have already been in contact with Treasury counterparts to try to get an understanding of them. They have not been able to provide us with specific figures for how many farms will potentially face a higher bill locally.

I have spoken to the AERA Minister about agricultural property relief as well, however, and I am clear that the changes cannot jeopardise our small family farms. My officials will continue to engage with Treasury and with DAERA colleagues to get a better understanding of what the change means and what options will be available to farmers who may be impacted on by it. We need to understand how the allowances that will be available compare to the typical value of farms here, which are passed down from generation to generation, what the resulting tax bills may look like and how the payment of those bills can be managed or profiled. In the first instance, however, we need to get a better understanding of what the impact is, how many farms are likely to be impacted on and who the people affected are.

Mr McGrath: Given that the Budget was anything but austere and that there is some stability in the institutions here after a decade of chaos, will the Minister commit to working with the Department of Health to ring-fence funding for transformation so that we can address waiting lists, which have hundreds of thousands of people on them, and also fix the system that put them on those lists in the first place?

Dr Archibald: In my remarks, I recognised that there is additional funding for the Executive, but I have to emphasise that the Executive will still be in a challenging position when trying to meet the pressures that they are facing this year and in future years. We still have further work to do on our funding arrangements post 2026-27. I would therefore not get overly excited about our being flush with cash. We certainly have additional funding, and it is very welcome, but there are still many challenges facing the Executive.

There is, of course, already a ring-fenced budget for transformation. We have a £235 million pot that was part of the financial package that accompanied the restoration of the Executive. I appointed an interim public-sector transformation board, which is currently assessing bids that have come in from all Departments. I am sure that the Department of Health is reflected in those bids, and I am happy to work with the Health Minister on addressing the Programme for Government priorities, which include tackling waiting lists.

Mr McNulty: I welcome the unpausing of the city deals, which is wonderful news for Armagh city and its environs. I also recognise that there are huge demands on health, education, infrastructure and housing, but will the Budget announcement and all the extra cash facilitate any progress from the Executive on Casement Park?

Dr Archibald: As the Member will be aware, Casement Park is an Executive flagship project, and it will be delivered. We need the British Government to honour their commitment to providing a funding element towards it. I will be working with my Executive colleagues in the immediate time ahead to ensure that we make progress on the delivery of Casement Park.

Mr Gaston: Like other Members, I welcome the unpausing of the Causeway Coast and Glens and Mid South West growth deals.

Minister, given the existing Welsh model, can you outline what discussions you have had with the Chancellor to ensure that Northern Ireland is funded to the level of need, as defined by Professor Gerry Holtham? If those discussions have not taken place, can you outline why not? They have been very beneficial to the Welsh Government, who have secured extra millions of pounds per year.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: OK.

Mr Gaston: I trust that, by pushing that, Northern Ireland would receive the same.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Thanks, Timothy.

Dr Archibald: I did not catch the start of the Member's question, but I understand that he is asking about discussions about our level of need. The interim fiscal framework that I signed off on behalf of the Executive in May codified the level of need as being 124%. That was based on the work of the Fiscal Council, which identified a range of levels of need, of which 124% was somewhere in the middle. The Executive have clearly articulated that we believe our level of need to be above 124%. As part of the final fiscal framework negotiations, we continue to pursue the evidence base needed to support the fact that there is a higher level of need than has currently been agreed. That work is ongoing, and my Department is working with other Departments to provide the additional evidence that it will use to negotiate with Treasury.

Mr Carroll: Minister, for some time, mutualisation and privatisation have been wrongly touted as being the solutions to our very real water, infrastructure and housing problems. Will the change to the borrowing rules for capital investment that you announced mean that there will be extra public money to properly fix our water infrastructure and allow the Housing Executive to build homes properly at scale again?

Dr Archibald: The changes to the fiscal rules allow the British Government to borrow for capital investment in a different way. Essentially, we will have to wait to see what additional money they decide to invest in capital infrastructure. I am hopeful of there being additional investment. We have a little bit of additional capital funding for the next financial year: £270 million more than we anticipated. That is welcome but does not go very far to address the huge pressures in our waste water infrastructure and the need to build more social homes. We need to see the outworkings of those changes and where that investment is targeted.

Ms Sugden: Minister, businesses in our constituency, and, I expect, across Northern Ireland, are concerned, rightly, about the additional pressures that they will experience following HM Treasury's autumn Budget. They suggest that more rate relief would be a great help. In response to a previous question, you mentioned that you are preparing proposals for the short, medium and long term. Can you give us any more detail on that and on whether you propose reducing rates for small businesses?

Dr Archibald: I have proposals for a more strategic approach to our rating system with the Executive at the minute, and those would ensure that our rating system is fair, progressive and equitable. It is important that our rating system supports our economic vision, creating an economic environment that supports businesses to start up, grow and thrive, thus creating jobs. It is important that we ensure that all the reliefs that are in place meet the policy objective that they were put in place to meet and that they continue to achieve that. I want to look at that strategically over the next number of years. It is for the Executive to take a position on that, and I cannot pre-empt what they will say about any particular proposed measures. It is a really important piece of work, but I require the cooperation of my Executive colleagues to take it forward.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: I call Robbie Butler.

Mr Butler: Thank you for your indulgence, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. Apologies for not being here for the start of your statement, Minister. Does the Minister agree that the Chancellor has potentially drastically under-represented the scale of the problem faced by farmers in Northern Ireland, given that agricultural land in Northern Ireland is somewhere in the region of 20% or 30% more expensive than it is in GB? Also, will the Minister commit to working with the Minister of Agriculture on a specific report that measures, once and for all, the food security implications in Northern Ireland and the impact that agricultural property relief will have on farmers here?

Dr Archibald: As I have responded to others, we do not have the full detail or a full understanding of that.

My officials are engaging with Treasury officials to get a greater understanding of exactly who and how many farms here will be impacted and answers to all the questions that you have posed.

As I mentioned to Mr Gaston about the work that is being undertaken to support the negotiations on our level of need, one of the elements of that work is the really important role that farms and agri-food businesses in the North play in delivering food security not only for us but for people across Britain. That has to be part of those discussions. That work is ongoing.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Minister. That concludes questions on the statement. Members, take your ease, please.

Mrs Long (The Minister of Justice): I beg to move

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

Mrs Long: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I seek the Assembly's approval for the Coronavirus Act 2020 (Extension of Provisions Relating to Live Links for Courts and Tribunals) (No. 2) Order (Northern Ireland) 2024.

Article 2 of the order extends the provisions allowing courts and statutory tribunals in Northern Ireland to receive evidence wholly or in part using audio- or videoconferencing systems but primarily video. Those systems are commonly referred to as "live links" and facilitate the attendance of persons participating in any court or tribunal hearing remotely where the judge is satisfied that it is in the interests of justice as opposed to the use of a video link's being restricted for a specific witness or defendant with all other participants attending in the courtroom. The extension will allow us to maintain access to live links provisions that have proved to be an essential element of the toolkit for addressing the backlog of cases accrued during and since the pandemic to 24 March 2025.

Members will recall from the debates on similar motions put forward for approval in March and May 2024 that we are planning to put in place new primary legislation while the extensions allow us to maintain efficacy in the system. Since the previous debate, we have published details of the proposed way forward for the future use of live links in a report available on the Department's website. The recognition by Members in those debates of the clear need for the temporary provisions to be maintained while my Department continues to manage the effects of the pandemic in the criminal courts, especially at a time of scarce resources, is much appreciated.

I share the concerns that Members have expressed about relying on emergency legislation and remain keen to have the new legislation in place as soon as reasonably practicable. From the contributions of Members in previous debates, I believe that they recognise and accept the reality that there is no practicable alternative to continuing to rely on the provisions as a temporary measure while there are cases across the criminal justice system that have been active for over three years. The length of time that they have been before the courts and the time required to complete them can, in part, be directly attributed to the actions required to be taken in the criminal courts in response to the pandemic.

The Commissioner Designate for Victims of Crime and nearly all the 41 other respondents to the Department's 2023 engagement exercise supported continuing to extend the live links provisions. Their responses highlighted the multiple benefits, including reducing the impact on those involved in court proceedings when going through what is already a stressful event, avoiding children and their parents having to be in separate locations while waiting to give their evidence and saving time and resources, particularly for expert witnesses, while contributing to reducing the carbon footprint. The use of the provisions aligns with commitments made or reflected in the Victim Charter. Therefore, I commend the approval of the order to the Assembly.

Ms Bunting (The Chairperson of the Committee for Justice): I rise on behalf of the Committee for Justice, and I declare that I have an immediate family member who works in the legal profession. The Minister has outlined the intention of the statutory rule (SR), so Members will have grasped the subject matter, and I will not repeat it.

This is the third time that the current Committee for Justice has considered a statutory rule to extend the provisions. The Committee's position has not changed. During previous debates on motions to extend the provisions, I pointed out that the Committee had agreed to ask the Department for its views on whether the continued use of the powers in the Coronavirus Act 2020 was appropriate and proportionate in the post-COVID environment. At that time, the Committee also requested an update on the Department's plans to make permanent provision for the use of audio and video links. As I said at the time, the Committee was advised that the Minister was satisfied that there remains a clear role for the continued use of the provisions in order to tackle the backlog of cases that have accrued during and since the pandemic and that it may take until 2028 to clear it without extra resources. The Department also advised that it was the Minister's intention to include provisions for the wider use of live links in the first Justice Bill of this mandate. The Committee was assured that reliance on the powers in the Coronavirus Act 2020 was, therefore, an interim arrangement. As the House will be aware, the Minister plans to add provisions on the wider use of live links by way of amendments at Consideration Stage of the Justice Bill. The Committee has concerns about that approach, but those concerns have been rehearsed elsewhere, so I will not focus on them now.

For today's motion, as I stated at the beginning, the Committee's position remains the same. Most, if not all, members are broadly supportive of the use of live links and agree that they should be a feature of our court system. The Committee considered the statutory rule at its meeting on 24 October 2024 and was content to recommend that it be approved by the Assembly, subject to the report of the Examiner of Statutory Rules. At that meeting, the Committee received an oral briefing from the Examiner of Statutory Rules. The Committee was advised that the Examiner was content with the rule and did not plan to draw it to the special attention of the Assembly. That was confirmed in the Examiner's report, which was published the next day. On behalf of the Committee for Justice, I support the motion before us today.

In my capacity as justice spokesman for the Democratic Unionist Party, I reiterate that we agree that there is a need for such provision in the courts and that, while it is not ideal that they are afforded by way of the extension of powers in the Coronavirus Act, we are aware that that will be addressed as the Justice Bill makes its way through the House. On that basis, we support the motion.

Mr McNulty: There is a clear purpose for the continued use of the provisions in reducing the backlog in court cases due to the pandemic. There is also an important argument to be made that extending the provisions will allow vulnerable victims and victims of violent or sexual crimes to remain in a safe place and provide evidence in a non-intimidating environment, rather than coming face to face with their attacker in a courtroom. The reliance on the provisions in the 2020 Act will be an interim measure, as the Minister has already indicated that she will include live links provisions in the departmental Bill.

The Justice Committee has agreed to recommend that the rule be approved by the Assembly, but members have expressed some concern about the Department bringing forward the provisions by means of an amendment to the Justice Bill at Consideration Stage. The Committee has expressed concerns to the Department about utilising that approach for such a substantive measure. However, on balance, the extension of the provisions in the 2020 Act is advantageous because it meets a need and offers time for the Department to work with the Committee to sort through the particulars of having the provisions included in the first departmental Bill. We support the motion.

Miss Hargey: We support the extension. It is important that the provisions continue to run until we have time to consider the legislation to make them permanent.

Mr Dickson: I support the extension of the provisions. They are essential for the efficient and modern delivery of our public services, particularly in the courts. Live link facilities have significantly improved access to our courts, allowing vulnerable individuals, as others have said, to participate without facing the added distress of in-person attendance. However, as has been noted, it is a temporary measure. It is essential, but it is a temporary measure. The Justice Minister's forthcoming Bill will provide a permanent and comprehensive framework for the provisions, embedding them into our justice system for the long term. It is, therefore, crucial that the Bill passes through the House with due speed, ensuring that the vital reforms are secured and established.

I urge the Assembly to support the order and to prioritise the timely passage of the Justice Bill to ensure that there is a fairer and more accessible justice system for all.

Mrs Long: I thank Members for their contribution to today's debate on the order. It is, hopefully, reassuring to the wider audience that we can achieve consensus in the Assembly for a common purpose, which is to provide the best possible access to the justice system that we can afford, given our budgetary pressures. Retaining the availability of the provisions as a temporary measure benefits those who come into contact with or need to avail themselves of our justice system by making use of technology, where it meets the needs of the court and tribunal users, as well as being in the interests of justice.

As no one has raised any questions, I simply impress on Members the importance of passing the motion and, hopefully, expediting work on the Justice Bill, which will allow these provisions to fall and enable us to rely on permanent alternatives.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): As Question Time begins at 2.00 pm, I suggest that the Assembly take its ease until then.

Mr Muir (The Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs): Between 2019 and 2023, there were 55 confirmed water pollution incidents in the East Belfast constituency. Two incidents were assessed to have a medium-severity environmental impact. The other 53 were assessed as having a low-severity environmental impact.

The two medium-severity incidents related to an NI Water incident in 2019 and an agriculture incident in 2020. The Northern Ireland Environment Agency (NIEA) issued a warning letter and claimed cost recovery in relation to the NI Water incident, and breach of cross-compliance regulations was progressed in relation to the agriculture incident.

In respect of the 53 low-severity incidents, formal enforcement action is not normally considered. However, NIEA will work with the polluter, where identified, to ensure that pollution is stopped and that that action is taken to minimise the risk of reoccurrence. Of the 53 low-severity incidents, 10 had a domestic source, 15 had an industrial source, six were related to NI Water assets and one was of an agricultural source. Twenty-one low-severity incidents had a source classified as "other", which may include pollution from oil spills, suspended solids from construction sites, paint washings or other miscellaneous sources.

Mr Allen: What is the Minister's assessment of the current enforcement powers, and how effective does he feel they are?

Mr Muir: The key challenge in my Department is not so much about the powers; it is about having the resources to carry out investigations and pursue prosecutions. That is why I have reallocated some of my Department's resources to NIEA's regulation and enforcement powers.

Another issue arising is fines and penalties for environmental crime, and that is why we are taking forward, with the Department of Justice, a review of the sentencing framework for environmental crime. It is absolutely fundamental that we do that.

Lastly, I emphasise to all Members and the general public that, if they are aware of environmental crime or pollution, they should report it urgently to the Northern Ireland Environment Agency's pollution hotline.

Mr McReynolds: Minister, what update can you give us on the pollution reported at the Loop river in East Belfast earlier this year?

Mr Muir: The NIEA received a report of pollution in the Loop river on 31 May 2024. The incident was classified as having a medium-severity environmental impact. NIEA water-quality inspectors carried out an examination of the drainage system in the area with a view to identifying the source of the pollution. The culverted nature of the drainage system curtailed the inspectors' ability to definitively identify the source of the polluting discharge to enable formal enforcement action to be taken. As part of the investigation, however, inspectors worked proactively with a local company within the catchment, and that company has since introduced improvements in its working practices. Continued monitoring of the waterway has shown that pollution discharge has now abated.

Mr Clarke: Minister, you will accept, like many of us here, that the polluter pays. That is a good mantra to come out with. Of course, that does not seem to extend to NI Water when it infringes the regulations. Indeed, in your answer to Andy Allen, you cited that six of the cases involved NI Water. At what stage are your Department and the Government going to get serious when a government agency is causing the pollution?

Mr Muir: I thank the Member for his question. He touches on an important issue, namely the situation with NI Water and how that is regulated by my Department and the Northern Ireland Environment Agency. The key underpinning policy around that is the statement of regulatory principles and intent (SORPI). I am on the record as having said that that is not fit for purpose and that we need to call time on that. I have asked officials to review that, and that review will be concluded by the end of the year. That is an important step towards dealing with issues of pollution from NI Water.

Mr Muir: I have previously made clear my desire to strengthen environmental governance in Northern Ireland and the importance of that, and I am fully committed to working on that. Officials previously provided me with an initial scoping paper that outlined current environmental governance arrangements and some options for strengthening them That was an internal exercise for my consideration as part of policy development and was not for publication.

Officials continue to progress work on ways to strengthen environmental governance, and I will provide a further update to the Assembly in due course. Any firm and final proposals to strengthen environmental governance will need to be brought to the Executive for consideration.

Mr McGlone: Thank you very much, Minister. Given that the announcement of the scoping exercise coincided with an SDLP motion calling for the establishment of an independent environmental protection agency (EPA), which the Assembly supported, has the Minister scoped the support of his Executive colleagues for such an independent agency?

Mr Muir: I started work on strengthening environmental governance on taking up office, and I asked officials to do that scoping study within my first few weeks. The next step here is to consider what an independent environmental protection agency would look like, what its powers would be and how it could actually improve the environment in Northern Ireland. I will be announcing the next steps in the next number of weeks. As part of that, there will be a call for evidence to get different views on that, and I will be engaging with my Executive colleagues as part of that process, recognising that any legislation or proposals to set up an independent environmental protection agency will require Executive approval. I will engage with the Executive as part of that.

Mr Robinson: Will the Minister provide an assessment of the role of the Office for Environmental Protection?

Mr Muir: The Office for Environmental Protection was set up as a result of us leaving the European Union. It has a significant and important role, which I value. A number of reports have been recently published, and they are obviously in the discourse of the Chamber and in the media. The issue is that that is one part of the environmental governance landscape that has emerged post EU exit, and we still do not have an independent environmental protection agency in Northern Ireland. That is something that we want to consider. I value the Office for Environmental Protection, and I believe that it is doing a good job.

Mr Blair: What contribution does the Minister believe that an independent environmental protection agency will make to help environmental protection in general, as well as in the context of initiatives and plans that he has already announced, such as the Lough Neagh plan?

Mr Muir: Thank you, Mr Blair. I am keen to bring forward proposals to set up an independent EPA for consideration by the Executive. I want to explore models that will deliver improved and more independent environmental governance. Much has been said in the past by various individuals and groups about the lack of separation between the policy and regulatory roles of DAERA and NIEA and the need for some degree of independence. It has been said that an independent environmental protection agency could deliver that and more, including improved public confidence in our governance arrangements and a reduction in environmental degradation.

I understand the concerns raised about current arrangements and see value in an independent environmental protection agency. I also recognise the commitment in New Decade, New Approach. I have made clear in the past my commitment to this, but we need to work this through to ensure that we fully understand the issues and the potential solutions to them. This is in a complex area, and it needs to be fully scoped out in the changing environmental landscape in Northern Ireland.

Mr Muir: The environmental improvement plan was published on 27 September this year, and it is, therefore, too early to identify improvements in air quality when compared with targets and actions included in the plan. However, the 'Air Pollution in Northern Ireland 2023' report was published on 3 October 2024 and demonstrates that legislative limit values, target values and air quality strategy objectives were met for the majority of pollutants monitored in Northern Ireland in 2023. Further information and data from air quality monitoring stations is available on the Air Quality NI website, via the link at airqualityni.co.uk.

Mr Gildernew: I have engaged with the Minister on significant issues in my constituency in the Granville and Killeeshil areas. There was a recent serious issue, once again, in Granville after hours, during which time no residents nor I could get any contact or communication about what was happening. What additional resource did the Minister provide to NIEA to allow it the capacity to deal with ongoing issues that plague my community in Granville and Killeeshil?

Mr Muir: I am aware of the issues, and I am happy to respond to them. I must say that there are resource pressures in my Department around the Northern Ireland Environment Agency and, more generally, in environmental protection. That is something that I will seek to address in the Budget next year. We need to support our environment, alongside farming, which, no doubt, we will talk about today. The NIEA continues to receive reports of odour relating to Granville Industrial Estate, particularly with respect to Granville Ecopark, which is an anaerobic digestion plant. I am aware of concerns from local residents, and my inspectors in NIEA continue to work with the company and other permitted sites in the Granville Industrial Estate to see improvements in the control of potentially odorous emissions. My inspectors will continue to regulate the permitted installations in the Granville Industrial Estate to ensure that permit conditions are complied with and will take appropriate enforcement action in line with DAERA enforcement policy where necessary. Granville Ecopark Ltd is working towards complying with an enforcement notice that the NIEA issued to the company on 7 March this year about odours.

Mr McNulty: Are the actions in the environmental improvement plan sufficient to reduce the number of deaths caused by poor air quality in the North? For context, the number was recently estimated at 900 deaths a year.

Mr Muir: I am very conscious of the figure that the Member has quoted, because those are individual lives that are being lost as a result of poor air quality in Northern Ireland. I will do whatever I can in my power, whether that be through the environmental improvement plan or the future air quality strategy for Northern Ireland, to reduce the number of deaths and to improve air quality, but that requires a cross-departmental approach, because more than just my Department can contribute. That is why I am working with other Departments on the actions that we can take to improve air quality.

Mr McMurray: When will the consultation on the clean air strategy be published?

Mr Muir: I thank the Member for his question. I have set the policy direction for the strategy with my officials, and they are now progressing it. Some actions will be the responsibility of other Departments, as I outlined, and I will work with my ministerial colleagues to finalise that important, cross-cutting strategy. It is my intention to publish the strategy for consultation as soon as possible. The pace of work may be impacted on by competing resource pressures. It is, however, a priority. I have met officials, and we are seeking to progress it.

Mr Muir: The high levels of nutrient and bacterial pollution in Belfast lough have an impact on marine life, particularly in the area inward of the line between Carrickfergus and Grey Point, known as the inner lough and harbour. Within the inner regions of the lough, marine life shows signs of pollution pressures. Shellfish grow well in that nutrient-rich area but require cleansing before human consumption. Seaweeds and other plant life are at moderate status in the harbour area, improving to high status in the outer lough, with Ballymacormick Point being one of the most biologically diverse sites in Northern Ireland. The sediment-dwelling organisms tend to be more resilient to nutrient pollution and are at good to high status, again improving as the distance from Belfast increases.

Belfast lough is a special protection area (SPA) for a range of bird species, supporting more than 10,000 birds during the winter months. Seabird populations in the UK overall are not in good status, and that is reflected in species such as the redshank and the great crested grebe in Belfast lough. Other species, such as the bar-tailed godwit, are in favourable condition, however, and there are stable, favourable trends for breeding terns. A decline in seabird populations is likely to be as a result of a range of factors.

Mr Chambers: Scientists are providing evidence that the area of dangerously polluted water in Belfast lough is expanding. It is having an adverse impact on water sports, bathing and mussel production, with the annual tonnage of that down. Will the Minister agree with the assertion of a whistle-blower, who said to me that Belfast lough has the potential to become the new Lough Neagh in the next 10 years?

Mr Muir: I am very aware of the recent Northern Ireland Water report, which is titled 'Story of Belfast Lough'. It paints a very concerning picture for all of us about an area in our constituency that is for Northern Ireland to use. I have reflected on the issue, and I have read the report. It is my strong view that, if investment is not made quickly in waste water infrastructure affecting Belfast lough, I feel that, sadly, we are on course for seeing Belfast lough become our next Lough Neagh, with serious and substantial water quality breakdown.

Mr Dunne: Minister, what action, perhaps including testing, is your Department taking to improve the water quality in Belfast lough, specifically for sea swimming, which, as you know, is very popular across North Down, in order to bring it above its current status of "satisfactory"?

Mr Muir: My Department's role is to test bathing water quality, which you referenced. The recent report outlined that. There are a number of contributory factors to the pollution of our waterways. In Belfast lough, it is largely to do with waste water infrastructure. I continue to work with the Minister for Infrastructure on that, and I will continue to support his bids for funding for NI Water, because we need to invest in that infrastructure so that we can reduce pollution. In Ballyholme in my constituency, for example, a piece of work is being undertaken in conjunction with my Department, including the Agri-Food and Biosciences Institute (AFBI), and NI Water to do some research into what the contributing factors are.

They possibly relate to agriculture. Actions have been taken by the Department to improve the water quality in Northern Ireland and reduce the impact from agriculture. That will also be laid out shortly in a nutrients action programme (NAP) and the consultation on that. That is a key measure to improve water quality.

Ms Egan: Will the Minister please outline how much of a contribution waste water infrastructure makes to poor water quality in Belfast lough?

Mr Muir: The impact that waste water infrastructure has on our waterways more generally in Northern Ireland is about 24%. Obviously, that varies in different areas, but, in Belfast lough, it is substantial. We know that there is a need for investment in the Kinnegar waste water treatment works in Holywood; that has a specific impact on Belfast lough. It is critical that we invest in waste water infrastructure.

Mr O'Toole: Minister, there is a disconnect here between the seriousness of what is happening at Belfast lough and the fact that you have said that it could or will be the next Lough Neagh with regard to ecological breakdown and the urgency or lack of urgency from the Executive. Lots of people are concerned that the Lough Neagh action plan is more of an inaction plan. I acknowledge that this is about waste water investment. What are you specifically doing, working with the Minister for Infrastructure and others, to make sure that it is dealt with expeditiously and is not simply about monitoring long-term plans and waffle, with the greatest of respect?

Mr Muir: There were a number of questions from the leader of the Opposition there. One was about Lough Neagh, and the other was about working with the Minister for Infrastructure on waste water infrastructure. I entirely refute the allegation that this is a Lough Neagh inaction plan. The Member will know that we are delivering many actions from that, and they are coming out regularly. I welcome the work that has been done by my officials and in conjunction with others, particularly in the agriculture community. We are very focused on delivering that action plan, as we have been over the last number of weeks and months.

I have a strong working relationship with the Minister for Infrastructure. The need to invest in waste water infrastructure was recently discussed at our last Executive meeting. It was agreed that we would have a specific discussion at a future Executive meeting. Additional capital funding has been allocated as a result of the Budget that was announced last Wednesday. It is for the Executive to decide how to spend that, but is my strong desire to ensure that we prioritise waste water infrastructure for capital investment.

Mr Muir: As the House will be aware, following the autumn Budget 2024 announcement last Wednesday, funding for agriculture, agri-environment and the wider rural economy will no longer be a ring-fenced addition to the Northern Ireland block grant. Instead, future funding for agriculture and fisheries will now be considered as part of the Executive’s Budget for 2025-26. My officials are still working through the detail, but I will do all that I can to ensure that the agri-food sector continues to be supported. I am confident that all parties in the Executive are fully supportive and care deeply about supporting our economically and socially significant agri-food sector. Moving forward, this funding will be essential in delivering my priorities of tackling climate change, protecting our natural environment and supporting a sustainable, resilient and productive agri-food sector.

Ms Á Murphy: I thank the Minister for his answer. Minister, given the vital role that rural development plays in our communities, why does rural affairs sit as the sixth ministerial priority in your 2024-25 business plan?

Mr Muir: Rural affairs is a priority for me and something that I have been spending time on. I have a number of ministerial priorities, which includes rural affairs. It is something that we are progressing in developing a new rural policy that we will seek to consult on in due course. I am also making efforts to see how we can restore funding for rural development. That funding was lost as a result of leaving the EU, and I want to see how we can restore that and had discussions with the Finance Minister on Thursday about that. It is absolutely vital that we support rural communities and reflect their needs today.

I also want to speak a bit more on the Budget. A decision that was made for the funding for farming and fisheries to no longer be earmarked and to just come as part of our block grant is a concern for me. I want to see that funding, alongside rural development, ring-fenced for Northern Ireland, because we need to protect those communities. I will work with my Executive colleagues to secure that. The funding was earmarked until the end of March next year, and it is important that we provide certainty going forward. That is something that I am keen to do.

Miss McIlveen: Minister, will you join the Ulster Farmers’ Union and the National Farmers' Union at the rally in Westminster on 19 November to show solidarity with our farmers?

Mr Muir: I will check my diary for that, but I will comment a wee bit on the issue that you have raised, which is about inheritance tax and agricultural property relief.

It was a bad Budget for farmers, and one of the biggest issues is the decision on agricultural property relief. Northern Ireland will be disproportionately affected by that. I am meeting the Secretary of State today, and I will raise that issue and ask for a rethink. We need to provide succession planning for farming in Northern Ireland so that we can encourage young people into farming and ensure the future success of family farms in Northern Ireland. The move on inheritance tax has severe impacts that inhibit that generational renewal and is causing a lot of angst and concern in Northern Ireland's farming community.

Mr McGrath: Given the recent announcement that funding will no longer be ring-fenced, is the Minister concerned that farming in the South will have a competitive edge? What can he do to address that?

Mr Muir: There is already North/South disparity in agriculture when it comes to Budget settlements and investment. Some of that is, frankly, about the outworkings of Brexit, with Northern Ireland no longer being part of the European Union, whereas, in the Republic of Ireland, the common agricultural policy still applies and funding is set aside. I cannot resolve that, but I can make the case for Northern Ireland to my Executive colleagues and the UK Government.

I also have strong engagement with Ministers in the South about the issues that they face and how we can replicate some of the measures that they are taking. We have had good discussions about the scheme for sheep support that has been rolled out in the South and how we can replicate that in the North.

I will do all that I can, as Minister, to support the farming community in Northern Ireland with the resources that I have.

Mr Muir: For Lough Neagh, like many waterbodies across the globe, the primary environmental problem that leads to the growth of blue-green algae is the excessive enrichment of waters with nutrients, specifically phosphorus and nitrogen. We know that the main contributing factors in that enrichment are agriculture and waste water from treatment works and septic tanks. The RePhoKUs project led by AFBI was completed in 2020 and attributed the sources of excess phosphorus entering the water environment in Northern Ireland as 62% from agriculture; 24% from waste water treatment works; and 12% from septic tanks.

Provisional Lough Neagh-specific data that AFBI prepared for the Lough Neagh report indicates a similar pattern, estimating that 56% of the total phosphorus load reaching the lough is from the agriculture sector; 31% from waste water treatment works; 1% from septic tanks; and 12% from other diffuse pollution, such as forestry and urban. Those figures have not been finalised, however, and further work is under way to do that, with outputs expected for release in January 2025.

My Department's Chief Scientific Adviser's office is working with senior science representatives from AFBI, DAERA's environment, fisheries and marine group, the Northern Ireland Environment Agency, Northern Ireland Water, Queen's University and Ulster University to oversee a joined-up programme of further scientific work for Lough Neagh. That includes the development of a Lough Neagh science platform and the development and validation of models to apportion nutrient loadings from agriculture and non-agriculture sources at river catchment and sub-catchment level.

Further information on source apportionment and the caveats associated with the estimates of the contribution by different sectors to nutrient pollution is in annex B of the Lough Neagh report and action plan.

Mr Gaston: Minister, is it not a farce that many in the House and outside it continue to point the finger at our main industry when the truth is — you just outlined it — that a significant part of the problem comes from Stormont Departments? Does Stormont not need to get its house in order before lambasting and blaming the agriculture sector?

Mr Muir: I have repeatedly said on the record that I am not involved in blame games — that is not where you will find me — and I do not believe in using some of the language that has been used in recent months. We need to work together to address the issues. We need to invest in waste water infrastructure, but we also need to take a better approach to enforcement when it comes to environmental crime. That is why, working with the Department of Justice, we will review fines and penalties for environmental crime: we need to provide sufficient deterrent. We also need sufficient resources — that is key to my budget for next year — so that we can do the regulation, investigation and enforcement activities associated with pollution.

I am clearly of the view that any polluter in Northern Ireland should be treated the same as any other. That is why I am reviewing the statement of regulatory principles and intent associated with Northern Ireland Water. It is absolutely key that we do that and that we treat everyone in Northern Ireland fairly on these issues. I will not be found wanting in that.

We need to invest in waste water infrastructure, which is why I continue to support John O'Dowd in his bids for funding. You might find it strange that one Minister is calling for another Minister's budget to be increased, but that is the kind of person I am.

Mr McAleer: Minister, you recently introduced a number of small business research initiatives (SBRIs). How will those help address the issues at Lough Neagh?

Mr Muir: We have a number of small business research initiatives. One is being taken forward by the UK Space Agency that is about monitoring blue-green algae, and there is significant interest in that. Another is about tackling and, potentially, reducing the blue-green algae blooms in Lough Neagh. We recently announced a number of suppliers on that, and we will see how that works out in the time ahead because it is about research. We will do a further launch of that initiative tomorrow, hopefully with the First and deputy First Minister.

Another initiative is about the sustainable utilisation of slurry, which is something that I strongly support and am passionate about. It is about moving from viewing slurry as waste to viewing it as a resource. We have appointed a number of suppliers — I was in Tobermore most recently, and I was also in Dundonald with Blakiston Houston Estates — and it is about moving to a situation where we can export the excess that we have to other parts of the world and generate electricity from it. That is a positive thing, and I thank my officials for progressing the SBRIs, because they are very positive.

Ms Mulholland: We know that the lough is central to the many communities around it. How are you engaging with those local communities to tackle the water quality issues that affect Lough Neagh?

Mr Muir: The Northern Ireland Environment Agency and my Department delivered three Lough Neagh outreach events in October 2024 around the lough shore to provide members of the public and other interested parties with information and guidance on blue-green algae. The events provided the opportunity for local stakeholders to see the ongoing work that is being delivered around the Lough Neagh catchment area. DAERA and the Northern Ireland Environment Agency will continue to work closely with local stakeholders, including the Lough Neagh Partnership, the Rivers Trust and local angling clubs, which are the eyes and ears of our rivers and can pick up on issues and opportunities to improve water quality.

A close working relationship with my Department is of mutual benefit as we strive to improve water quality in Lough Neagh and Northern Ireland. In addition, I am pleased to report that, in the next few months, I will chair the first quarterly Lough Neagh stakeholder forum. The forum will play a crucial role in progressing our next steps by enabling diverse and valuable input and providing a communication pathway as the implementation of the action plan progresses. I was at one of those events in Glenavy, and the turnout was fantastic. It was really good to see people working together on the issues.

Ms Hunter: The presence of the algae devastated businesses in my constituency to the point of closure. They are yet to receive any compensation. What enforcement action, if any, has been taken against the Departments and agencies responsible for the pollutants?

Mr Muir: I am happy to speak to the Member on the specifics afterwards because we need to give her a detailed response. The Department has an enforcement policy, and it is key for people to report the issues urgently. One of the other issues is that we want to ensure that the fines and penalties are appropriate, and we are reviewing that.

Mr Muir: My special adviser left her post on 13 August 2024. The Member will appreciate that it would not be appropriate to comment further on what is essentially a confidential HR process.

Mr T Buchanan: Is it not unusual for a special adviser to want only one week's notice, or was her swift exit due to another position that she may have been pursuing?

Mr Muir: It was not unusual.

Mr Muir: A wide range of actions are being progressed. The nutrients action programme is the key measure to control nutrient pollution from agricultural sources and improve water quality and includes a wide range of measures on the storage, spreading and management of slurry, manures and chemical fertilisers. The nutrients action programme is currently being reviewed, and a public consultation and proposals for the updated NAP will be launched in early 2025.

My Department is also developing an ammonia strategy to deliver reductions in ammonia emissions from agriculture. I wish to seek additional views on the proposed mandatory ammonia reduction measures in the ammonia strategy, including the use of low-emission slurry spreading equipment (LESSE), as part of the NAP consultation process.

In October 2024, my Department awarded contracts worth £4 million each to two companies in Northern Ireland as part of phase 2 of the sustainable utilisation of livestock slurry (SULS) small business research initiative. By the end of year three, the project seeks to remove and export at least 1,000 tonnes of phosphorus per year from livestock manures that are applied on the land in Northern Ireland. The launch of phase 2 of SULS delivers on action 10 of the Lough Neagh action plan.

Mr Speaker: We now move to topical questions to the Minister.

Mr Muir: I thank the Member for his important question. This is what Question Time is about: what affects people in Northern Ireland. The limitation of £1 million of agricultural property relief brings a considerable number of Northern Ireland farmers within the scope of inheritance tax. It is impossible to precisely determine the number of farms that will be affected, but, from the data, one third is a reasonable estimate. The number affected in the dairy sector will be much higher: potentially 75%.

Northern Ireland has some of the highest value agricultural land in the UK and Ireland. In 2023, an 'Irish Farmers Journal' survey showed that agricultural land sold in Northern Ireland had an average value of £13,794 per acre. This change will therefore have a significant impact in Northern Ireland. I am meeting the Secretary of State today and will ask him for a rethink on it. We, in our Department, will do all that we can to enable and encourage succession planning. However, the issue is causing real concern in Northern Ireland.

Mr McGlone: Thank you for that, Minister. I was thinking more specifically about getting professional advice from the likes of accountancy practices so that you are best armed to make your case when you go to meet the likes of the Secretary of State or, indeed, the Chancellor. Will you consider doing that, please? The issue is creating a lot of emotional turmoil among some farming families.

Mr Muir: I have to focus on the vires of my Department in this. I have spoken to the president of the Ulster Farmers' Union about it. We need to work together on the matter. It will obviously commission its own research on the change, and that will be valuable when making our case for Northern Ireland. Hopefully, in the Chamber and wider society, we can make our case to the UK Government.

Mr Muir: The Department recently announced the Farming for the Generations programme, which is about proactively managing the succession of farms. Unfortunately, there are instances where people pass away and it is difficult for farms to be passed on and be successful in the future. We do not want that. We want to see family farms in Northern Ireland being successful. That is why we need to plan for the future. As part of that programme, my Department will assist people with that. We need to do more to enable that, particularly in light of this significant announcement from the UK Government. For example, inheritance tax is not paid if you pass on a farm but do not pass away within seven years of doing so. That will obviously come into play if this decision is proceeded with. We will work with the farming community and help them on the journey ahead. It is a significant issue. I will do all that I can in the Department to assist the people affected by it.

Mr Clarke: I hear what you say, Minister. Your first example about farmers not transferring their land in a timely manner is probably less of a case.

In your answer to the Mid Ulster representative, you mentioned 75%, which is higher than the estimate that Rachel Reeves gave at Westminster last week. Can your Department do more scoping out of the impact of the change? We, on this side of the Chamber, fear — I am sure that others fear the same — that it will decimate farming in Northern Ireland. It is not a case of paying inheritance tax — the change will decimate farms. There will not be farms in Northern Ireland. Is this another way to get rid of farmers?

Mr Muir: My Department has done some initial analysis. As you are aware, the announcement was made on Wednesday, and we are digging through the details. I am happy to place in the Library the analysis that we have done on it. Hopefully, that will help Members.

We are dealing with an evolving picture. You know what the UK Government have outlined. We are working through the data and the different thresholds that are in place. We will do what we can. I have engaged with the Finance Minister and shared the information that we have to aid her in this case, because, primarily, this is about the relationship between the Department of Finance and Treasury.

I am very keen to see family farms in Northern Ireland being successful. They are the bedrock of our countryside. It is important that we support them and are on the side of farmers. I will do whatever I can to support them through this. The Executive need to come together around the need to ring-fence the future budget for farming, fisheries and rural development. That is one key measure on which, hopefully, we can shortly take a decision to give an element of reassurance. The decisions on inheritance tax and agricultural property relief are bad. It was a bad Budget for farmers, and we need to do all that we can together to address those concerns.

Mr Speaker: I call Sian Mulholland.

Ms Mulholland: I am so sorry.

Mr Muir: No problem at all, Sian. Peatlands are important to me. I was up at the College of Agriculture, Food and Rural Enterprise (CAFRE) hill farm recently to see the work being done on peatland restoration.

We want to do more than just the work at the hill farm, however. We are progressing a peatland strategy for Northern Ireland that will provide a framework to guide the conservation, restoration and management of semi-natural peatland habitat in Northern Ireland. Peatland restoration will play a key role in Northern Ireland's meeting its net zero commitments, providing a nature-based solution to reduce carbon emissions and support climate resilience. The publication of the peatland strategy will be subject to Executive approval and is a priority for my Department. I will be delighted to visit any peatland in your constituency to see the good work that is occurring in North Antrim.

Ms Mulholland: Apologies, Minister. I was genuinely so engrossed in what you were saying about the issues that are coming up for our farmers.

I would love to invite you, Minister. I will be in touch with your Department to arrange a meeting about Garron plateau. I thank you for the work that is being done on the peatlands so far.

Mr Muir: I am glad to accept the invitation.

The issues facing farmers are important, because we are talking about people's livelihoods. The Budget is causing real concern for people, and it is concerning for me, because the decisions on inheritance tax, agricultural property relief and removing the earmarking of the funding were like a bolt from the blue. The UK Government are clearly doubling down on that.

Our issue is that farmers are the custodians of our countryside. I want to work with people, but, if we do not have farmers, we will not have custodians of the countryside. That is why all of us, I think, are collectively concerned about the issues. Hopefully, we can work together on them, because the ultimate success of the Assembly and the Executive will be based on how we can work together.

Mr Muir: I am aware of the correspondence that the Member has sent not only to me but to officials on that. I am reluctant to comment on the matter in the Assembly, but I give a commitment to review the correspondence. I believe that the decisions that my Department has taken to date on the matter are correct.

Mr T Buchanan: Minister, James Corrigan, the Deputy Chief Inspector of Criminal Justice, advised that the case should be handed over to Deloitte. Why has that advice been ignored, and why, on two occasions since taking up office, have you refused to meet me to discuss the case?

Mr Muir: I have outlined my response through correspondence. I understand the Member's concern about what is a historic case. I will review it again in response to the Member's questions, and I will write to him further to that. I have corresponded extensively with him on the specific case, but I have to respect due process.

Mr Muir: I am aware of that ongoing issue. I am meeting the previous Chair of the AERA Committee, Lord Elliott — he has not gone away, you know — tomorrow, in relation to these issues, because we need to get the grants out on time. I am concerned about the delays that occurred in the previous financial year, and I am keen that we get the grants out as soon as possible. Further to the meeting tomorrow and my engagement with officials on the matter, I will update the Member, because it is important that we get the support out and meet the planting season and Northern Ireland's forestation targets.

Ms Forsythe: I thank the Minister for his answer and his commitment on the issue. Due to the uncertainty that the issue causes within the industry, will the Minister commit to a review to determine whether a multi-year budget package for forestry grants is the way forward?

Mr Muir: Yes. That is something about which I talked recently with relevant organisations, and it is something that I wish to do. Obviously, we need to have a discussion with the Finance Minister about it, but multi-annual budgeting would be fantastic because it would allow us to plan for the future. Now that the Member has raised the issue with me, she has given my argument more strength.

Mr Muir: We are progressing the third climate change adaptation plan and engaging with Executive colleagues on it. Alongside that, we are looking to set our first carbon budgets and to introduce our first climate action plan. They are absolutely critical interventions that we need to make for Northern Ireland. I engage regularly with businesses, and they are clearly on the road to net zero. I had a positive meeting with Belfast harbour on Friday: its commitment to tackling climate change and investment in decarbonisation is there, and we, as government, need to match the ambition of so many in Northern Ireland.

Ms Nicholl: I thank the Minister for his response. I agree that these are critical interventions. How can that action be carried out in a just and fair way?

Mr Muir: I am firmly committed to a just transition. I made a bid, via the Department of Finance, to the UK Government for a just transition fund for agriculture. That was not met, last week, as part of the Budget, so I will be engaging with my Executive colleagues on that funding for next year. Whatever we do around climate change, we need to work with people and be able to deliver it in a fair and meaningful way. It is about practical issues, such as energy efficiency in the home and being able to support people who are being pushed into fuel poverty, and addressing that. We also need to do that in agriculture so that we can support farming on its road towards net zero. That is absolutely key, and I will be making further announcements about that, next week.

Mr Muir: I am concerned about that. My Department has received correspondence and is considering the issue. I encourage people to consult their general practitioner and health officials, in the first instance, because, obviously, it is a public health issue. The Department is looking at the issue, and I know the concerns about it.

Mr Robinson: I thank the Minister for his answer. Will he clarify whether he or his Department have had any discussion with Northern Ireland Water to ask whether the reed bed installation at Walworth in Ballykelly, in 2021-22, may, in any way, be contributing to the presence of mosquitoes in the Ballykelly area?

Mr Muir: I am not personally aware of any discussions, albeit I am not saying that they have not occurred. I will make enquiries, today, and write to the Member by the end of the week.

Mr Muir: The lack of investment in waste water infrastructure in Northern Ireland is having a severe impact on water quality. It is contributing to about 24% of the issues in Northern Ireland. That is why we need to invest in those areas. The lack of investment in waste water infrastructure is not just holding back housebuilding and economic development but damaging our environment. That is why we need to work together, collectively, on how to address the issue.

Mr Dickson: I thank the Minister for his answer. Does the Minister agree that the separation of grey and foul water is an important aspect in the development of that infrastructure?

Mr Muir: It is, and I welcome the developments that are being taken forward by the Minister for Infrastructure in that respect.

Mr Muir: The steps that I am taking forward are multifaceted: one relates to working with the Minister for Infrastructure on waste water infrastructure, which, as evidenced in today's Question Time, is a key issue; and another relates to river basin management plans.

We are reviewing the current plans and taking into account the report from the Office for Environmental Protection and the other issues relating to the nutrients action programme. We are taking multiple steps, but I am reliant on others to deliver water quality for Northern Ireland. I am focused on regulation and on enforcement for those who pollute our waterways.

Mr Speaker: That concludes questions to the Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs.

Mr Lyons (The Minister for Communities): There is no specific equality impact assessment on the reduction in the rates support grant.

Mr Durkan: I thank the Minister for his answer, and I blame the Business Office for the question. My initial question, which I will now ask as a supplementary question, was on the independent review of the rates support grant, which was commissioned, as I understand it, by the Minister from Business Consultancy Services (BCS).

There has been a drastic cut in the rates support grant. It has gone from £20 million to under £5 million over 15 years. Does the Minister recognise the role that the rates support grant plays in tackling regional inequality, and will he make the case at the Executive to restore and ring-fence that vital funding?

Mr Lyons: First, the Member mentions the review. He will understand that that is ongoing. I expect it to be completed in mid-November. As Minister, I will do all that I can to seek as much resource as I can for my Department for all the affected areas.

Secondly, regarding regional balance, it will be up to councils to decide where that money is spent. Instead of being a regional balance issue, it is a wealth-versus-need issue. That is what the rates support grant tries to support, and I shall do all that I can to make sure that I get the necessary resources for everything in my Department, including local government.

Ms K Armstrong: Minister, can you confirm that, when the review is completed, you will define "essential services" to ensure that councils can provide them if there is a reduction?

Mr Lyons: I do not think that that definition lies with me, but, if there are specific issues that, the Member thinks, I need to take on board as part of the outcome of the review, I am happy to do so.

Mr Kingston: What is the Minister's assessment of the impact on section 75 groups of the future status of the rates support grant?

Mr Lyons: The councils have informed us that the money that comes from the rates support grant is used in:

The policy impact on some of the section 75 categories is therefore considered by DFC as either "minor" or "no impact", because it affects everybody in the same way. It is not for specific groups.

Ms Ferguson: Given that the seven councils are rural by nature, did the Minister conduct a rural needs assessment of the reduction in the rates support grant?

Mr Lyons: As I mentioned in my previous answer, the funding, as I understand it, is not used for those purposes. It is used to support all ratepayers, so I do not believe that a rural needs assessment has been carried out. That review is being done, however. It will be with me shortly, and I will, of course, take on board all the issues raised in it.

Mr Lyons: That is an issue for the Housing Executive, and its chief executive has advised me that it does not record data by parliamentary constituency but rather by local government district. I can inform the Member that, during 2023-24, the Housing Executive received 1,288 homeless presentations in Mid and East Antrim and a further 1,110 presentations in the Causeway Coast and Glens local government district.

Mr Crawford: I thank the Minister for his answer. He is aware that homelessness is not confined to the hours from 9.00 am to 5.00 pm. Can he outline what measures he has taken to prevent homelessness and to safeguard the out-of-hours service that the Northern Ireland Housing Executive provides?

Mr Lyons: The Member is absolutely right. It is a decision that the Housing Executive has taken. I am sure that it is not one that it wanted to take. The Member asked me what I am doing: I want to do everything that I can to make sure that homelessness is brief, rare and non-recurrent. I want to make sure that the funding that is available to us is used, where possible, to prevent homelessness in the first place. That is the goal that I have set. We spend considerable sums of money on temporary accommodation provision, and I want to see more of that money spent on homelessness prevention.

Mr Frew: What services are currently provided to tackle homelessness in North Antrim?

Mr Lyons: My Department and the Housing Executive offer a range of services to support the prevention of homelessness. We also have voluntary sector hostel accommodation for single households and families, as well as refuges for victims of domestic abuse, single lets and dispersed temporary accommodation. The Housing Executive is the commissioning body for Supporting People schemes and makes decisions on the location of schemes in consultation with relevant partners.

I can confirm to the Member that, across Mid and East Antrim, there are 84 units across seven Supporting People homelessness schemes, as well 133 single lets and 37 units of Housing Executive hostel or dispersed temporary accommodation. In Causeway Coast and Glens, there are 25 units in two Supporting People homelessness schemes, including a voluntary sector hostel for single households and a refuge for victims of domestic abuse, and 40 single lets and 28 units of Housing Executive hostel or dispersed temporary accommodation.

Ms Mulholland: I recently met representatives of Barnardo's who deal with children who are leaving care and have experience of homelessness. Is the Department able to put in place any additional supports, particularly working with the Northern Trust or other health trusts, with the knowledge that those young people will be leaving care and, potentially, going into a homelessness situation?

Mr Lyons: That is a very important issue. Overall, dealing with homelessness requires a whole-of-government approach, because the reasons for it are varied and complex. We know that young people leaving care or people with mental health or addiction issues are more likely to face homelessness. To prevent and resolve homelessness, we will take a collective, joined-up approach across Departments and statutory agencies. My Department leads on the development and oversight of the interdepartmental homelessness action plan, and we chair the homelessness strategy steering group, which includes the Health, Justice and Education Departments, statutory agencies and the voluntary sector.

Mr Gaston: Minister, a Choice Housing development which was built at George Street in Ballymena was completed in summer 2023. It was designed to be one-bedroom general needs properties. Does your Department have any oversight of the change from general needs to emergency accommodation that has been allowed to happen in that block of flats? I ask that because, 18 months on, those flats are still vacant, but our homelessness rates are going through the roof. Have you any oversight to ensure that those flats will be open to people so that they can get off the streets and into housing that can support their needs?

Mr Lyons: I will certainly be happy to find out further information on the specific issue that the Member raises. He will be aware, however, that commissioning decisions for Supporting People services are a matter for the Housing Executive, which is the commissioning body for the programme. I understand that the Living Rivers Trust, which is currently located on Linenhall Street in Ballymena, is funded through the Supporting People programme to provide short-term accommodation-based support for single homeless males.

Following initial conversations with Lighthouse, Choice Housing approached the Housing Executive in late 2022 with a proposal to change the designation of the George Street property, which was nearing completion, from general needs accommodation to supported accommodation, with provision for clients experiencing homelessness and related issues. The Housing Executive was supportive of that proposal, and, having reviewed the activity of the pipeline schemes and proposals from housing associations in the Ballymena area, it was satisfied that the proposal aligned with identified need. They say that it enabled the Housing Executive to maximise support across different need groups and look favourably on the opportunity being presented to address unmet priority homelessness provision in Ballymena.

That is the information that I have at the moment, but, if I receive a further update, I will be happy to provide it to the Member.

Mr McCrossan: How many times has the homelessness strategy steering group met since the Minister took up office? During that time, how many people have presented as homeless citing loss of private rented accommodation as the reason?

Mr Lyons: I hope that the Member understands that I do not have those figures at my disposal right now. Of course, I will be happy to write to him with that information.

Mr Lyons: I have been briefed by officials on the proposed listing of Marlborough House. They have shared with me the proposed listing report and its case for special interest in architectural and historical terms, which is the relevant statutory test. My officials have also advised that an independent report was commissioned from a heritage architect by the Department of Finance, which is the owner of Marlborough House, to consider my Department’s proposal to list. It reviewed the historic environment division’s report and did not dispute any of the claims.

Senior officials in DOF have made officials in my Department aware that DOF intends to vacate the building and dispose of the site in early 2026. DOF has also made DFC aware that the listing of Marlborough House might, in its view, have a detrimental impact on the future viability of the site for use by another public-sector body or on any potential sale of the building, should it come on to the open market.

My Department has met the Department of Finance and councillors from Armagh City, Banbridge and Craigavon Borough Council and has extended the listing process to allow time for that. In the interests of maintaining the neutrality of listing decisions, the established practice in DFC and its predecessor Departments since 1974 is that the senior official makes a final determination on a listing proposal.

Mr Irwin: I thank the Minister for his response. If Marlborough House were to be listed, would that mean that it could not be demolished?

Mr Lyons: Even if the building were to be listed, that would not mean that it could not be demolished. All planning applications relating to listed buildings are determined by the local council. It assesses the merits of the building's special architectural or historical interest against current planning policy. My Department will be a statutory consultee in the planning process, but it will ultimately be a decision for the council.

Mr Lyons: Seventy-nine.

Mr Carroll: Thank you, Minister. It has been reported that the Loyalist Community Council (LCC), which the Education Minister and you recently met, has raised opposition to Scoil na Seolta in east Belfast. Given the ongoing intimidation, attacks and whipping up of sectarianism against the school and those who use it, will you take the opportunity to condemn that hate and welcome that school in east Belfast?

Mr Lyons: I cannot answer questions on behalf of the Department of Education. Of course, if intimidation is happening, regardless of the situation, scenario or where it takes place, I will always condemn it. However, that issue was not raised with me during the meeting to which the Member refers, because it does not fall within the remit of the Department.

Mr McReynolds: As you know, Minister, sport plays an important role in building community cohesion. I am advised that East Belfast GAA wrote to you on 18 September to request a meeting but has not yet received a response. What actions are you taking urgently to meet East Belfast GAA to demonstrate your support in the face of ongoing intimidation in east Belfast?

Mr Lyons: I reiterate my opposition to any intimidation whatsoever, wherever it comes from. It is absolutely wrong and should not happen. My party and I have been categorical on that matter.

If there is anything that I can do to assist, I will be happy to do so. I am more than happy to look again at the invitation. I do not remember that particular invitation; the Member will be aware that I have over 700 invitations. I am more than happy to look again at that invitation. I think that we in the House are all clear that intimidation is wrong and that there should be no place for it in our society.

Mr Martin: In your answer to the Member's question, you mentioned how many groups you have not yet been able to meet. Can you outline how many groups you have met in your time in office?

Mr Lyons: Yes. So far, I have accepted 395 invitations from various organisations and individuals under the remit of my Department. It is important to put that on record, because there has been a lot of controversy about this over the past weeks.

It is not possible for me to meet everybody. Sometimes there are diary clashes; sometimes the issues are not the responsibility of my Department; and sometimes it is more appropriate for my officials to meet those groups in the first instance. I will say, however, that, although meetings are important and I continue to carry out my function in that regard, action — getting things done for the people whom we represent — is most important of all, and I am pleased with my record in the Department.

We have been able to make significant progress along a number of different lines within my Department's responsibility. On housing, we are bringing forward the housing supply strategy. We have achieved a stand-alone commitment on housing in the Programme for Government, which is the first time that that has happened. We are using financial transactions capital for intermediate rent and move-on accommodation for homeless people. We have put more money into Supporting People. We have put Housing Executive revitalisation on the agenda. We are pushing forward with private rented sector regulations.

The Northern Ireland Football Fund lay dormant for years. We are now making progress on that. I ensured that we had an Olympics celebration that was worthy of the success of our athletes. We are moving forward on the easing of charity regulation. We are bringing forward a sign language Bill, for which I have received Executive approval. We have set up the US/NI cultural working group and passed the Defective Premises Act (Northern Ireland) 2024. We are bringing forward an anti-poverty strategy and a new approach to heritage, culture and creativity.

Meetings are important. Action is what matters. We are actually getting things done in my Department.

Some Members: Hear, hear.

Ms Hunter: Recently, at an all-party group (APG), women's groups voiced that they were saddened that they had not had the chance to meet you yet. I understand that, as a Minister, your diary is tight for time. Will you consider publishing the criteria by which you decide whether to accept a meeting?

Mr Lyons: No, because I do not think that that would be a good use of time. I have given examples of why, sometimes, meetings cannot happen. With regard to some of the social inclusion strategies, I have made it clear that I wanted to set out my Department's way forward before we committed to different meetings. Remember, of course, that many of the co-design groups have already been set up and have contributed. I am happy to compare my record of meeting a broad range of groups that represent people from right across Northern Ireland. I have accepted almost 400 invitations. I will continue to do as much as I can. More importantly, I will actually do the work of delivering for people in Northern Ireland.

Mr Lyons: Work is progressing on the development of the Executive's Irish language strategy. Owing to the cross-cutting nature of the strategy, a cross-departmental working group of senior officials from Departments is considering the Irish language strategy co-design group's proposed strategy and action plan, which are being developed in parallel with an Ulster-Scots language, heritage and culture strategy and action plan. Alongside the work of that cross-departmental working group, I am considering the next steps in the development of both strategies and action plans. I will then engage with Executive colleagues to ask them to consider and, if content, agree those next steps.

Ms Bradshaw: Thank you, Minister, for your answer. What conversations have you had with the Executive Office on the new bodies and roles that are being established, particularly that of the Irish language commissioner?

Mr Lyons: I have not had any discussions yet with the First Minister or deputy First Minister on that issue.

Mr McGlone: How many times has the working group that you referred to actually met? What is its timetable for a product?

Mr Lyons: We love to ask questions about meetings in this place. I do not have information on the exact number of meetings that have taken place, but I will happily provide that to the Member.

Mr Gildernew: Minister, do you plan to meet Conradh na Gaeilge or other Irish language groups on the Irish language strategy?

Mr Lyons: I am more than happy to consider all invites that come in. Depending on how the work progresses, I will determine whether it would be useful or necessary for me or my officials to have such a meeting.

Mr Brett: Minister, do you agree that all minority languages are important in Northern Ireland, and that there is a clear focus by some elements in the House to pick out one language and not focus on the clear agreements that were made that all languages would be treated fairly and equitably here in Northern Ireland?

Mr Lyons: That is absolutely right. It is important that we treat all languages equally. In the past, agreements were in place in that regard. Of course, one of the other things that I have been able to take forward is sign language legislation. We love to talk about diversity and inclusion, but that group has often felt left out. I am making progress to ensure that they have the ability to take part fully in society.

Mr Lyons: I visited the United States two weeks ago. A major focus of the programme was the upcoming 250th anniversary of the signing of America's Declaration of Independence. To that end, I met the America250 commission, the National Archives, the Library of Congress, the Smithsonian Institution and the White House Historical Association to discuss the work that is being taken forward by the United States/Northern Ireland cultural working group, which is led by my Department.

I was pleased to announce details of a new programme of cultural and educational activities to mark the 250th anniversary in the United States and in Northern Ireland. The programme will include lectures, talks, conferences, exchanges of documents, exhibitions and outreach in Northern Ireland and the United States. The Public Record Office of Northern Ireland (PRONI) houses one of the largest collections of immigrant letters and documents in the world. The programme includes the launch of a special publication by PRONI that highlights its Ulster-American treasures. That will form part of a broader programme of outreach working in partnership with the National Archives in Washington DC. The programme will also promote the links that Historic Royal Palaces and Hillsborough Castle enjoy with Founding Father Benjamin Franklin. There is the opportunity to borrow items and documents from US institutions.

The contribution and influence that the early Ulster-Scots migrants made to the traditions and values of the United States of America is significant. The President of the United States and the US special envoy have acknowledged the common heritage that exists and the contribution that Ulster Scots have made to the United States. I am determined to use the anniversary to ensure that we have an opportunity to promote that contribution and shared heritage. It was clear from the organisations that I met in the United States that they are excited to cooperate with Northern Ireland partners in celebrating that historic milestone.

Mr Harvey: Thank you, Minister. Will you engage with UK Government counterparts to ensure that there is support for those links to be developed further?

Mr Lyons: I absolutely will. The 'Safeguarding the Union' Command Paper of January 2024 set out a commitment to:

I am determined to make sure that Northern Ireland has its place and that our distinct and unique identity is highlighted in the United States. The UK Government have a role to play in that regard as well.

Mr O'Toole: Minister, I am all in favour of your developing that agenda. It is really important. We should all be proud of the contribution that people from an Ulster-Scots background made to the United States. However, it would probably have been better to do that when we were not debating homelessness in the Chamber.

You talked about the importance of one tradition, as it were, in Northern Ireland, but, of course, many of those Ulster-Scots migrants spoke Irish. They also spoke lowland Scots and English. We are not necessarily all one thing in this place. I suggest that, when he was in Washington having conversations —

Mr Speaker: We are not here for suggestions: we are here for questions, Mr O'Toole.

Mr O'Toole: Will he establish the diversity of language that was spoken by those Ulster-Scots migrants? Perhaps, in future meetings with stakeholders about Irish language schools, he could suggest to them that they reflect on that.

Mr Lyons: The Member has made a critical error: he sees this only in language terms. That is a problem. It is more about the history and heritage, and the contribution that was made. That is what I want to emphasise. There is a unique Ulster-Scots tradition and heritage in the United States. You have to look only at the contributions that Ulster Scots made. Look at the number of US Presidents who had Ulster-Scots ancestry, including from Carrickfergus in my constituency with Andrew Jackson. You also have those who signed the Declaration of Independence. John Dunlap was one of the first to print copies of the Declaration of Independence.

The relationships that were forged and the agreements that were made with those to whom I spoke in the United States were based on a shared understanding. In fact, people were excited about the opportunities that could come from it, because these are often untold stories. I want to make sure that they are brought into the light. I want it to be understood what people from this part of the world contributed to the development of the United States. I welcome the fact that he thinks that that is a good idea. I will continue to do it.

Mr Donnelly: Given the strong historical and enduring connections between Northern Ireland and the United States, will there be resources for schools and community groups to come together and hold celebration events to mark the anniversary of American independence?

Mr Lyons: I certainly hope that people across Northern Ireland will take the opportunity to celebrate the contribution that people from here made to the founding and development of that nation. We are exploring funding. I hope that we will be able to secure funding from within our existing budgets, as well as support from elsewhere, to make sure that the anniversary can be properly celebrated. We also need to make sure that we leave open opportunities for it to create a greater benefit for Northern Ireland.

Mr Lyons: Given the sign language Bill's cross-cutting nature, I have received Executive approval for my officials to engage formally with the Office of the Legislative Counsel for the drafting of clauses for a Bill that will recognise and promote British Sign Language and Irish Sign Language. Engagement with the Office of the Legislative Counsel is ongoing, and the drafting of clauses is well advanced. Therefore, it is my intention to bring a draft sign language Bill to the Executive for approval at the earliest opportunity.

The sign language Bill will have a significantly positive and beneficial impact on the local deaf community. I look forward to delivering legislation that will improve the lives of many by enabling greater access to information and services that society at large takes for granted.

My Department is investing in increasing British Sign Language and Irish Sign Language interpreting capacity. That is vital in order to increase the accessibility of public services, which will be a central aim of the Bill. As the legislation is cross-cutting in nature, however, I will seek Executive approval for the central allocation of the resources necessary to deliver on the policy intent of the legislation.

Mrs Dodds: In many ways, Minister, we talk a lot about inclusivity in the House, but the Bill is a real move towards inclusivity for a section of our community that has often found itself to be invisible. Given that you talked about the cross-cutting nature of the Bill, what commitments have you had from the Finance Minister about providing funding for the necessary increase in interpreters and from the Education Minister about improving the lives of young people who suffer from those challenges?

Mr Lyons: I certainly agree with the Member's comments about ensuring that people can play a full role in society and, most importantly, get access to basic public services that we so often take for granted. Permission to draft the Bill has received approval from the First Minister and the deputy First Minister. I hope that other Ministers, particularly, as the Member mentioned, the Finance Minister and the Education Minister, will ensure that we have the proper allocation of resources to deliver on the policy intent of the legislation and make things better for a section of our society, members of which so often feel that they are on the margins.

Mr Lyons: I undertook a series of engagements in Washington DC, Bethlehem, Pennsylvania and Toronto, Canada during my recent trip to the US and Canada. As I already mentioned, the 250th anniversary of the signing of the Declaration of Independence presents us with a unique opportunity to promote the historical links between Northern Ireland and the United States.

I also took the opportunity to met representatives at the Harkin International Disability Employment Summit. The summit was held in Belfast in 2022. I also met representatives of Microsoft at its innovation and policy centre for a round-table discussion on disability employment. I had constructive discussions with Jennifer Sheehy, who is a deputy assistant secretary at the US Department for Labor, and her senior officials on disability employment-related issues. We are following up on the outcomes of those meetings with officials. I also met the Consul General of the United Kingdom in Canada, the United Kingdom ambassador to the United States, and the Irish ambassador to the United States.

I visited D.C. United to speak at a seminar on investment in sports. I had the opportunity to meet the club owners, senior executives and potential investors. I am pleased to inform the House that we will have a number of visits to Northern Ireland by investors as a result of that engagement.

I also attended a series of events in Bethlehem, Pennsylvania. I joined visitors from Gracehill to mark the designation of four Moravian church settlements as a transnational UNESCO world heritage site. That is a big deal. We have another world heritage site in Northern Ireland, and I was pleased to represent the UK on that visit. I also had the opportunity to engage with the United States Deputy Secretary of State.

Mr Speaker: We now move to topical questions.

Mr Lyons: Let me repeat what I have said before: there is a commitment from the Executive that I stand by. The sum of £62·5 million was originally agreed in 2011. The grant was given to Windsor Park and to Ravenhill, and those stadiums were developed. As the Member will be aware, Casement Park has, for a variety of reasons, not progressed, and, as a result, the cost has gone up. We do not have the budget to increase the resource for that at this time. Therefore, we need to look at what is possible within the budget envelope that we have and what other sources of revenue are available.

Mr O'Toole: Minister, you spoke earlier about the contribution that Ulster people made to the United States. Let me indulge in a good Ulster quality, namely straight talking, and encourage you to do the same, Minister. Are you saying that you will not budge from the £62 million that was agreed more than a decade ago? If that is your position, I am afraid that that is a real problem. You were in Washington DC talking about investment in sports. In Belfast — in this city — Gaels and everybody else who wants to see Casement Park developed deserve clarity from you. Are you or are you not going to invest in Casement Park beyond the £62 million?

Mr Lyons: I am not a magician. I do not have a blank cheque whereby I can get money together and just say, "Yes, whatever it is going to cost, here is the money". To be fair, I have been crystal clear on the issue, and I have been honest about the funds that are available. I was not the one saying that things would be built and that things would be done in time when that was never going to be the case. I have always been straight and honest. I was not the one standing with objectors like members of Mr O'Toole's party were. That held this up and contributed to judicial reviews and put the cost up.

I know that a game is sometimes played by Members on the other side of the House, which is this: let us blame unionists, and let us blame the DUP for everything. I was not messing about in terms of safety certificates for Casement Park, and I was not standing with objectors. We are keeping our end of the deal, but the Member has to understand the budgetary environment that we currently find ourselves in.

Mr Speaker: Alan Chambers is not in his place.

Mr Lyons: Far too many people live in temporary accommodation. That is obviously not acceptable. It is not acceptable for anybody to be in temporary accommodation for any prolonged period. These are operational matters for the Housing Executive, and it is up to it to decide what meets the circumstances of the individuals who are in need.

Mr McHugh: Go raibh maith agat.

Minister, what support is given to people placed in temporary accommodation outside the area in which they normally reside? What is the Department's contribution to reducing over-reliance on such accommodation?

Mr Lyons: The easiest thing that we can do to deal with the over-reliance on emergency accommodation is make sure that we have more housing in Northern Ireland, and I am absolutely committed to achieving that. There are a number of ways that we can do that. I will bring forward the housing supply strategy very soon to make sure that, for the first time, we have a cross-departmental plan in place to deal with the issue. The other big thing that we can do — I encourage all Members around the House to support this — is make sure that the Government confirm that the Housing Executive can borrow on the same basis as housing associations elsewhere in the UK. I want to do everything that I can to make sure that we assist those who are dealing with homelessness right now, but, in the longer term, I want to make it easier and cheaper to build more homes, and that is where our focus should be.

Mr Lyons: Great progress has been made on the Northern Ireland Football Fund. We are finalising the application process, and, as I have said in the House and elsewhere, I hope that it will be open towards the end of this year or at the beginning of next year, with the first letters of offer being issued by the end of this financial year. That represents fantastic progress that we have made since I came into office. For far too long, the fund was held up. Money was available, yet no effort was made to get it out to the clubs that needed it most. That has changed since I took over the leadership of this Department, and we are going to have real delivery within months.

Mr Dickson: Thank you, Minister, for your answer. I appreciate that you have made some progress. Nevertheless, when you launched the project in May of this year, you did promise that an application process would be completed by the end of this year. Where are you with physical application forms for people?

Mr Lyons: I stand by the comments that I made. That is absolutely my intention, and I hope that the application process will have opened by then. As I said, most importantly, letters of offer will be going out the door by the end of this financial year. I assure the Member that I am doing everything that I can and that my team is doing all that it can to ensure that those deadlines are met. With every day that passes, the money is worth less and less. We have been dealing with that situation for far too long, and that changes now.

Mr Lyons: I am more than happy to provide that exact information, but I do not have it in front of me now. The answer, however, is this: far too many. As I said in response to other questions that have been asked of me today and in the past, we have far too many people who are homeless and far too many who are on a waiting list. The number is going up all the time. We need to make sure that we build more homes across all tenures so that people are not facing homelessness, which has huge health, education and well-being implications for the rest of their lives. We need to get more homes built, and that is why I have progressed a number of items. I am bringing forward the housing supply strategy, pushing the Northern Ireland Housing Executive revitalisation programme and improving the private rented sector. We are doing everything that we can to ensure that there are more homes and better homes for people right across Northern Ireland.

Mr Baker: Thank you for your answer, Minister. Nearly a third of young people under the age of 18 are currently homeless. Do the Minister and his Department consider the rights of children and young people when developing policy and solutions?

Mr Lyons: Of course we always take on board the concerns and rights of children. I am particularly concerned about the impact that the housing shortage is having right now on those children who are living in temporary accommodation that is often far away from support networks such as their family and school. It is an additional burden. That is what I mean when I say that the lack of housing provision has an impact on education outcomes. Inevitably, it has an impact on health outcomes and sometimes on justice system outcomes, and that is why I am committed to doing everything that I can while I am in office to push forward housebuilding by making homes easier to build and by making sure that we have more homes.

Mr Lyons: I am sorry, but does the Member mean the Housing Executive or the Northern Ireland Executive? [Inaudible.]

Mr Lyons: If the Member means the Housing Executive, we have been working closely with it on that, and it is ready to go, once it gets confirmation. It has a plan in place so that it can take advantage of the rule change and start investing more in the homes that we have and also ensure that we can build more homes.

If she is referring to what the Northern Ireland Executive can do, their role is limited. There is not going to be a substantial change made to the Northern Ireland Housing Executive. It is more a confirmation of a borrowing rule, rather than a need for, for example, primary legislation from the Executive.

Ms Sugden: Minister, you have answered for both. I am just asking for clarity. How quickly can we make progress, given the significant need for housing?

Mr Lyons: Whenever the issue was being touched on, I engaged with the Housing Executive. I said to it, "What can you do now to make sure that you are ready?". I do not want this rule change to come along and for us then to find ourselves looking at each other, asking what come next. I want to make sure that there is a plan in place so that we can move forward on day 1, and I have full confidence in Grainia Long and her team to make sure that that happens.

Mr Lyons: I think that the Member can guess what my view on that is. I am sure that there were good intentions behind the guide, but, let us be clear, there is a lot of nonsense in it as well, including not being able to say the word "Miss" and the phrase "ladies and gentlemen". My favourite is that you should not say that someone is "coasting to retirement" but that they have a valuable contribution to make to the team. A lot of this is utter rubbish, and I think that people should have more common sense on this issue. I am particularly concerned about Stonewall's inclusion in this. Stonewall has been largely discredited in some of the work that it has done, and it is disappointing that the Department of Finance is still using Stonewall in this information.

Mrs Erskine: I thank the Minister for his answer. Given the amount of pressure that there is on our public services and given the fact that there probably will have been a cost to put the document together, what is the Minister's advice on this guide to civil servants in his Department?

Mr Lyons: I certainly will not be encouraging civil servants in my Department to pay too much attention to it, but the intention of it is to make sure that we treat people in the right way. I think that we should use our common sense, and I believe that we should treat other people as we would want to be treated. I think that that is a much better way to go forward than being condemned for using phrases such as "ladies and gentlemen".

Mr Lyons: I will certainly get that number for the Member, and I can confirm to her that we will be following in the footsteps of England and Wales. There will be some legislation that we will be required to put through, and my understanding is that we will have that in place for April 2025, subject to some agreement with DWP. That is one good thing that has come from the Budget and something to be welcomed, and I am more than happy to ensure that my Department plays its role to make sure that that change can go through.

Mrs Dodds: Thank you, Minister. In Northern Ireland, over 220,000 people provide unpaid care for ill and disabled family members. They save the Northern Ireland Executive up to £5·8 billion a year, yet they are not specifically mentioned in the Programme for Government. Will you ensure that these people, who provide such a valuable contribution to Northern Ireland, have more recognition in the Programme for Government?

Mr Lyons: First, everyone should take stock of what the Member has just said: carers in Northern Ireland contribute £5·8 billion. If they were not there, that would be an incredible cost that would be put on the public purse, and one that we simply could not meet ourselves. Therefore, we all need to recognise the invaluable work of carers and the contribution that they make and to applaud them and congratulate them for that. We should be doing everything that we can to support them because of the incredible contribution that they make and because of the difference that they make daily in people's lives.

On recognition in the Executive, I am more than happy to write to the First Minister and deputy First Minister and Executive colleagues and outline to them the importance of carers and try to secure agreement so that we can have that proper recognition and support.

Mr Speaker: Claire Sugden has given notice of a question for urgent oral question to the Minister of Justice. I remind Members that, if they wish to ask supplementary questions, they should rise continually in their place.

Mrs Long (The Minister of Justice): I was shocked and saddened to learn of the attacks on two women in Derry/Londonderry over the past weekend. Rightly, we are all deeply concerned about the increase in incidents of violence against women over recent times. We must all do everything in our power to challenge and change the attitudes and behaviours on which those are predicated. There has to be a collective effort from across society and across government to address those important issues.

Work is ongoing to reduce risk and contribute to an end to violence against women and girls. That includes work under the domestic and sexual abuse strategy. Led by my Department and the Department of Health, that was launched by the Health Minister and me on 25 September 2024. The interdependencies between that strategy and the strategic framework for ending violence against women and girls (EVAWG) are evident. However, given that women and girls are disproportionately affected by domestic and sexual abuse, the two are complementary, albeit we must always recognise that not all victims of violence against women and girls are abused in a domestic setting and that not everyone abused in a domestic setting is a woman or a girl. All efforts made to address domestic and sexual abuse under the strategy will, however, directly contribute to the broader goal of ending violence against women and girls.

My officials worked closely with the Executive Office on the development of the EVAWG framework, and we are committed to continued collaboration and partnership. Our governance structures will ensure the alignment and support of ongoing joint efforts to protect everyone. What we can do best to reassure people at this stage is to move upstream and tackle the underlying causes.

Ms Sugden: I appreciate the Minister coming to the House to answer the question. Everyone in the Chamber supports the ending violence against women and girls strategy. However, the events that occurred in the north-west in recent weeks are immediate and concerning. What is the Minister doing, and how is she working with the PSNI to ensure that our communities are kept safe?

Mrs Long: I appreciate what the Member said, but she will appreciate, having previously served as the Justice Minister, that it would be inappropriate for me to engage with the PSNI directly on how it polices any particular crime or set of circumstances. It would be particularly inappropriate to do so now, given that these are live cases. It is important that I allow the police to do the work that they have to do and allow them to be led by the evidence and where it leads. We can, however, demonstrate collectively that we wish to protect women and girls from this kind of violence. We can work with the PSNI and the rest of the Executive on budgets to ensure that there is a police presence and that the reassurance on the ground that is required in the aftermath of such attacks is there.

I have to acknowledge, however, that the PSNI is operationally independent, and it is important that I recognise that.

Ms Ferguson: The recent sexual assaults in Derry were absolutely shocking. My heartfelt thoughts are with all the women affected.

I will follow on from what the Minister said: given the recent spike in violence against women, what meetings is she aware of between the likes of the PSNI, Women's Aid and other support organisations to bring forward immediate steps to address the issue?

Mrs Long: I understand that the PSNI has increased high visibility patrols and police presence in the area to reassure women in the community that there is no place for violence against women and girls and to provide the reassurance that people will be safe.

There are ongoing conversations all the time, whether with the Executive Office, my Department, the PSNI, Women's Aid or lots of other organisations. I have met most of those organisations in the past couple of weeks to have further conversations about how we can better protect women and girls. By the time we deal with this through the justice lens, someone has already been subjected to a horrific attack. People are already living in fear. If we want to end violence against women and girls, it is important that we move upstream and start to tackle the attitudes, the entitlement and the violent culture in parts of our community that allow that behaviour and enable it to persist. We are not doing women and girls a service by simply talking about attacks after they have happened. We need to focus on how we prevent those attacks.

Mr Middleton: I thank the Minister for her presence in the Chamber on this issue. We are all deeply concerned about the most recent attacks. Minister, it is important that we get this right with men and boys from an early age so that they understand the value of women in our society and that women cannot be treated in such ways. How are you working with other Ministers, such as the Education Minister, to get into schools and start educating our young people about the dangers of such acts?

Mrs Long: That is an interesting question. Of course, during the previous mandate, I tried hard to bring forward a review of the minimum content order for relationships and sexuality education (RSE), as recommended by Sir John Gillen in his report on dealing with serious sexual offences. Unfortunately, the DUP Minister at the time refused to participate in that. I initially had a good response from Peter Weir, but the subsequent Minister resiled from that. In this mandate, there has been a lot of hot air and disinformation around the need for RSE. The truth is that it is about age-appropriate information for young people so that they can protect themselves and others and understand consent and respect for personal boundaries. A lot of the debate that we have had on RSE has, unfortunately, been profoundly unhelpful, which has left many of our young people without the kind of role modelling that they could have had through RSE and the information that they need to protect themselves and others.

Ms Egan: I thank the Minister for coming to the House today. My thoughts are with the women who were subjected to the attacks in the north-west. Minister, do you agree that, while a justice response is very important in ending violence against women and girls, it is more important that we stop it happening and that, to do so, we need a cross-societal and a cross-governmental approach?

Mrs Long: Absolutely. The domestic abuse strategy has five pillars. The first is "Partnership", which is about working across Departments and with statutory, voluntary, community and faith-based organisations. The second is "Prevention", which involves challenging attitudes and behaviours that foster domestic abuse and sexual abuse. It also involves early intervention, which is where RSE and the curriculum become so important. Many young people see violence in the home — domestic abuse and sexual violence — modelled by their parents and guardians. We therefore have to have opportunities to talk to young people about those issues. Pillar 3 is "Children and Young People", which is about focusing on preventing children and young people from becoming victims and on working with them to change attitudes, because we know that adverse childhood experiences can lead to offending. Pillar 4 is "Support and Provision" to ensure that victims of domestic and/or sexual abuse get a tailored response, with specialist support and provision to recover and build their lives. The final pillar is "Justice", which focuses on ensuring that justice responses are effective, supporting victims and holding abusive individuals to account at the earliest opportunity. Whilst that is important, it is rightly the fifth step, because everything that goes before it is what will prevent the harm being done.

Ms D Armstrong: Minister, thank you for coming to the Chamber this afternoon. Like others, I condemn the recent attacks and the litany of violent incidents perpetrated against women, which has become endemic in our society. It is unacceptable. We have heard about strategies, but, Minister, how are you taking charge of the situation?

Mrs Long: As I set out, I am, jointly with your party colleague the Health Minister, taking forward action on domestic and sexual abuse. We have not only a seven-year strategy but a three-year action plan. Further to that, the Executive's violence against women and girls strategic framework was launched by the First Minister and deputy First Minister on 16 September. That, again, works through a series of options within its main themes. I am taking the lead by speaking out on the issues, as I have done consistently, not just throughout my political career but before it started.

With respect to how we change cultural attitudes, many young people are becoming radicalised online into having very poor views and attitudes towards women and girls. I have led a conversation with the Home Office and others on what we can do about online harms within the provisions of the Online Safety Act 2023. That legislation did not go far enough; it needs to go further. If we are to protect our women and girls, we need to educate our men and boys about what it means to be a decent, caring and responsive adult and male. Too often in our society, women's lives are treated as expendable, and men and boys are treated as though they will not be held to account for that attitude.

Ms McLaughlin: Thank you, Minister, for coming along this afternoon. There is considerable concern and alarm in my community after the four serious sexual assaults. Chief Superintendent Gillian Kearney and Detective Superintendent Lindsay Fisher have just finished a press conference in Derry, in which they reassured the community that the PSNI will have an increased, high-visibility presence in key areas. Minister, are you confident that the PSNI has the resources and capacity to invest heavily in ending violence against women and girls when, across all Departments, the budget against the strategy is only £3 million over two years?

Mrs Long: I cannot answer for the funding of the ending violence against women and girls strategy because that lies within the functions and budget of the Executive Office. It would be appropriate for you to raise that with the Executive Office.

I have been clear that the PSNI budget is not adequate to cover all the issues that the PSNI needs to cover. I have argued that the Department of Justice and the PSNI need additional resources so that, when people become victims, they will get the right support and right care at the right time, and will be able to progress through the court system swiftly and see their attackers and abusers held to account.

Gillian Kearney and Lindsay Fisher are two women in the PSNI whom I admire greatly. I know their commitment, and I have no doubt whatsoever that, if they have announced that they are going to make extra high-visibility patrols, those will happen. However, in order for us to make a sustained difference, we cannot look only at the response after someone has become a victim. As I said, there are things we could do upstream, at very little cost, that would change attitudes and cultures and protect women and girls from that type of violence. We need to focus more on what we do in that space if we are to see our budgets become more sustainable and our lives become a lot safer than they are at the moment.

Ms Forsythe: I thank the Minister for coming here today to speak to this. Crimes of a sexual nature are some of the most heinous crimes, and my thoughts are very firmly with the women who were victims of those attacks. As we know, those types of crimes are significantly underreported and have low conviction rates due to the struggle to get through the process. Those victims are to be commended for coming forward and working with the police. To reassure women, can the Minister outline the supports that will be in place for those victims as they progress through the justice system in the wake of those attacks?

Mrs Long: I cannot speak to those specific attacks for obvious reasons, and I urge people to be cautious when they talk about live cases. However, if a victim comes forward and makes a disclosure about an attack, an assault or any kind of abuse, whether that be current or historical, a number of things ought to happen. The Victim Charter and the Witness Charter set out the expectations that any victim and witness can have, but they also set out the expectations that those who are particularly vulnerable due to the nature of the crime can have. The victim and witness care unit, provided by the Public Prosecution Service (PPS), can intervene and support people to be able to give evidence in court, including through familiarisation visits. For sexual offences, we have implemented the recommendation on sexual offences legal advisers. From the new year, there will also be children's sexual offences legal advisers to support people through their cases.

Undoubtedly, this is one of the most heinous kind of crime. A person already feels violated and fearful when they have been attacked in that way. It is important that they do not feel further violated by their experience of the justice system. That is why the sexual offences legal advisers are so important in providing people with general legal advice. It is important to say that, through the domestic and sexual abuse strategy, counselling is also available for those who need it. However, all those services are under a degree of strain.

I have to be honest and say that many of the victims who come forward and who have spoken to the Commissioner Designate for Victims of Crime say that the service they received was not what they would wish. I would, nevertheless, encourage people who are in those circumstances to come forward. They will be believed, they will be listened to, and they will be heard. If they find that they are not getting the service to which they are entitled under the Victim Charter and the Witness Charter, I would encourage them to speak directly to the commissioner designate, who can pursue the matter on their behalf and ensure that, in future, they do.

Mr Durkan: Like others, my thoughts are with the victims of those horrific attacks, who were subjected to a terrifying and traumatic ordeal. I commend the courage of the women targeted.

Minister, in response to a recent question for written answer, you told me that the Probation Board does not have a statutory role in where its service users reside. However, does it have a statutory responsibility to inform the police where offenders, particularly sex offenders, reside?

Mrs Long: Anyone who is subject to reporting arrangements under what is commonly known as the "sex offenders register" has to let the police know what their accommodation address is. That goes without saying. The police will be notified of that.

Mrs Erskine: Like everybody else around the Chamber, I condemn the attacks against women and girls. We have the strategy and the framework, but we need funding to ensure that the likes of our community and voluntary sector can do the work and implement the aims of the strategy and the framework. In Fermanagh, Women's Aid had to let go of some staff, one of whom helped train organisations to recognise the signs of domestic abuse, yet we see an increased incidence of such abuse all the time. Will the Minister make sure that community and voluntary organisations have adequate funding to implement the strategy and the framework?

Mrs Long: Again, it is not for me to ensure that the Executive Office fund any organisation. The investment that it makes is a matter for Executive Office Ministers. I believe that its budget is around £3 million. The strategy for which I am responsible — the domestic and sexual abuse strategy — has a budget of around £1·62 million this year. My Department is not involved in the direct funding of core services for any community and voluntary sector organisations. We do, however, engage with the community and voluntary sector in the commissioning of services. The funding for those who have been working for my Department in that capacity has been ring-fenced and protected.

Ms Hunter: I cannot reiterate enough how serious this is. There have been four attacks in a short time. On the topic of prevention, in the immediate aftermath, Minister, what assurances can you give right now to women like me who live in the north-west so that we feel safe? What will that look like? Is it self-defence classes? Is it the provision of things like pepper spray? Is it providing public messaging or personal alarms? What can we do in the immediate aftermath so that women feel safe this week, right now?

Mrs Long: When it comes to how people should protect themselves in the public space, the best people to give that kind of community safety advice are PSNI officers. I do not claim, nor should I, to be an expert. However, I will say this: pepper spray is illegal, and no one should carry it. The risk of carrying pepper spray is that, like any weapon, it could be turned on you and used against you. People should not resort to carrying weapons, because they could end up being used against the individual who carries them. I need to put that on the record.

There is a role for things like self-defence, of course. However, we need to bear it in mind that, unless you are routinely engaged in a space where you are likely to use those self-defence techniques, the challenge is whether, when attacked, it will be natural to you to use the mechanisms that you have trained in to defend yourself. It can also create a false sense of security and lead people to go to environments or places that may be higher-risk in the belief that they can defend themselves. That is a difficult issue for me to address.

What I can say is this: we all know the things that we can do, such as taking precautions and considering where we go. Sadly, in this day and age, more and more women say that they are afraid to leave home on their own in the evenings or that they have to move in groups because they feel vulnerable when they are on their own. Whilst that may be a short-term protection for those women, it is not a solution to the problem. Women should not need to move in groups in order to feel safe in our community. Men need to let women live their lives in peace, whether they are on their own or together. Whether they are walking singly or in crowds, it is not acceptable for any woman to be attacked in this day and age.

Mr Chambers: Mr Speaker, I apologise to you and the House for not being in my place during questions to the Minister for Communities.

Minister, do you agree that it is vital that any member of the public who has any information, no matter how small, about the recent attacks brings that information immediately to the attention of the PSNI to assist with its investigation?

Mrs Long: I absolutely concur. The sooner that people do so, the better. Although it may be hard to believe, there will be people who have suspicions that someone whom they know was involved in that spate of attacks. I encourage them to come forward to give that information to the PSNI.

I encourage people in the area to look at their Ring doorbells or at CCTV to see whether there is anything on them that might give the police somewhere to start their investigations. People will be safest when the people who commit such crimes are in custody.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Minister. That concludes the question for urgent oral answer. I will give Members a couple of minutes to move about the Chamber.

Ms Nicholl: I beg to move

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: The Business Committee has agreed to allow up to one hour and 30 minutes for the debate. The proposer of the motion will have 10 minutes in which to propose and 10 minutes in which to make a winding-up speech. Three amendments have been selected and are published on the Marshalled List, so the Business Committee has agreed that 45 minutes will be added to the total time for the debate. Without further ado, Kate, please open the debate.

Ms Nicholl: Thank you, Principal Deputy Speaker. I am glad to propose the motion, which provides an opportunity to discuss further support that we can and should provide to our high streets.

Alliance understands that high streets are at the heart of communities in cities, towns and villages across Northern Ireland. From post offices and banks to corner shops, bakeries, cafes, butchers and everything in between, our high streets are places not just of business and commerce but of community connection and social cohesion. They provide jobs, vibrancy, arts and cultural opportunities, essential services and a sense of pride in the places that we call "home". As the Federation of Small Businesses (FSB) stated in a recent report:

However, we all know that our high streets are under enormous pressure and that they are changing. With online shopping, out-of-town retail parks and the challenges of COVID, our high streets have faced enormous volatility in recent years. There is an urgent need to find more creative and innovative policy responses to address challenges, especially for the small, micro, independent, family-owned businesses that dominate our economy. The FSB report on high streets set that out clearly, noting:

The need for support for micro and small businesses has only increased in the past week, given the impending pressures emerging from the Budget announcements, particularly those on National Insurance contributions and wage increases. The Government claim that the increases are mitigated by the increase in the employers' allowance, but serious concerns remain. Today, Retail NI told me that members are struggling to pay the highest business rates in the UK. That, coupled with increasing employers' National Insurance contributions, will have a negative impact on local jobs and the viability of small businesses and will restrict the growth of our economy.

Retail NI also raised the issue of the Chancellor's announcement of a 40% rate relief scheme for independent retailers and other high street businesses in England. There are growing calls for Barnett consequentials to be used locally in order to offset the National Insurance increase and to allow high street businesses to reinvest more of their money in order to create more jobs and boost our economy. It is on that point that we will be accepting the SDLP amendment.

Over the past decade, Governments around the world have introduced various schemes to address the regeneration of town and city streets and centres. In parts of Manchester, after a period of community engagement, Friday night markets were developed to host local businesses, and those drew residents into the town centre for after-work entertainment. Toronto developed its Digital Main Street campaign, which is aimed at increasing the online presence of bricks-and-mortar shops. In central Berlin, public realm works resulted in market squares becoming entertainment and social destinations, with knock-on benefits for local businesses. Lille in France developed a niche as a centre of research and design, leveraging public transport connections to build an international reputation.

We have also seen action closer to home. In Scotland, the £50 million town centre fund was launched in 2019 by the Scottish Government and local authorities to help high streets become more sustainable, diverse and successful in the face of significant changes. In 2020, the Welsh Government announced the £90 million transforming towns fund to increase footfall, tackle empty buildings and create green town centres. In the South, the town centre first initiative has been developed to help every town lay the foundations for a locally developed plan to help it reach its potential.

When we look globally, we see that there is a wide range of creative solutions to the challenges facing our high streets. In response to local challenges, our Executive established a high street task force in 2022 that presented recommendations on delivering a 21st-century high street. That report recognised a range of challenges and opportunities, including the crucial role played by urban centres in driving economic growth, the need for locally tailored strategies and a wide range of other dimensions that my colleague Connie Egan will speak to in greater detail later in the debate. It was envisaged that the task force would be in place for five years to coordinate TEO's five-year reconstruction plan. Its recommendations have since gathered dust, however, and, all the while, the problems for our high streets have mounted.

In response to a question for written answer that I submitted recently, the First Minister and the deputy First Minister acknowledged:

They wrote to the Department for the Economy, the Department for Communities, the Department for Infrastructure and the Department of Finance on that basis on 10 October. It is clear that there are issues that span multiple Departments and that, in an ideal world, we would have all the relevant Ministers in the Chamber to respond. Given the economic imperative of high street regeneration, Alliance is of the view that the Department for the Economy should play a leading role on the cross-departmental working group, especially given the lack of action that there has been from TEO up to this point. What is clear is that there is no shortage of ideas. What we need to do now is deliver.

Although there are issues across a range of Departments, Alliance believes that a focus on the Department for the Economy gives us a strong starting point to continue to drive forward the changes that are necessary in order to support our high streets. The Department for the Economy is in a much better position than TEO is to develop an understanding of the effectiveness of high street regeneration efforts and to prioritise the economic challenges that high streets face. It is also crucial that the engagement be not just cross-departmental but with local councils and communities in order to develop an effective, locally owned approach to high street regeneration.

High street regeneration is an issue that every Government must grapple with and respond to. As Dr Fei Chen noted in her report on creative engagement for high street regeneration:

The most successful high street regeneration projects emphasise the importance of aligning high street assets with community demand for diverse facilities and retail opportunities, recognising that high streets not only serve commercial purposes but provide an essential community, cultural and educational resource. Although our high street businesses, retailers and tenants face significant challenges, I remain hopeful for the future of our high streets and look forward to working collaboratively with colleagues from across the House and with the Minister on developing a comprehensive strategy to rejuvenate our high streets and town centres.

Ms McLaughlin: I beg to move amendment No 1:

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Sinéad. You will have 10 minutes to propose amendment No 1 and five minutes to make a winding-up speech.

Ms McLaughlin: There can be absolutely no doubt that high streets and town centres play a vital role in the economic vibrancy and social cohesion of our communities, and we welcome the Alliance Party's motion. It is not an exaggeration to say that the businesses that we find on our high streets, big and small, represent the lifeblood of our economy, creating employment and driving growth across the region. We also know that that role goes beyond mere commercial activity. They are where our communities come together, where local identity is fostered and where social interaction flourishes. A bustling high street supports not only the economy but the quality of life in our towns and cities.

As the motion rightly points out, the challenges facing our high streets are significant. The lasting impact of the pandemic, combined with evolving consumer behaviours, has placed tremendous pressure on retailers, the hospitality sector and other businesses that make up the fabric of our high streets. That pressure has not been felt by all businesses equally. Small businesses have faced particular challenges, and it is right to draw attention to just how important that is for considering how we reinvigorate our high street economy. Family-run shops, independent cafes, local pubs and unique speciality stores give our town centres character and diversity. Rising costs, inflation and reduced consumer spending are putting a strain on those businesses. I see it in my own city of Derry and across the North, where they are struggling to recover from the impacts of the pandemic.

If we do not take decisive action to support them, we risk losing not only those businesses but the character and vitality that they bring to our streets. Reform of non-domestic rates is central to that conversation. The case for change has never been clearer: the current system is outdated and does not reflect the economic realities faced by small businesses in our community today. Reforming that system is not simply a matter of easing the financial burden on small enterprises: it is about creating a fair and more balanced economic environment, where businesses of all sizes can thrive. We must ensure that the system is more equitable, with targeted relief for small businesses and measures that encourage investment and growth in our town centres.

While reforming non-domestic rates is a crucial step, we must recognise that it is only part of the solution. The recent Budget announcement grants us further opportunity. Rate reliefs for businesses from the relevant Barnett consequential funding must be ring-fenced by the Executive. Funding for services must not be allowed to come to Stormont and then just fall into a big black hole. Businesses are calling out for strategic planning of additional funding, and the SDLP will continue to make that case. Rate relief is just one measure that is used to support our struggling high streets. A comprehensive strategy of high street rejuvenation is needed to address the full range of challenges that our town centres face. The strategy should be multifaceted, not only targeted financially but to address structural issues that have been exacerbated by the economic downturn and the shift to online shopping.

In 2022, the main political parties, representatives of the 11 councils and some 33 businesses, trade unions and community sector groups all agreed the final high street task force report recommendations. The high street task force outlined a vision for revitalising high streets and called for a five-year programme, focused on creating high streets that are fit for the 21st century. Since then, however, nothing has happened: absolutely nothing. Significantly, the Executive Office has refused calls from Retail NI and Hospitality Ulster for it to be recalled, and no explanation has been given to them.

We are letting down our high street businesses by ignoring the task force and its recommendations. Those recommendations could form the basis of a strategy for the Economy and Finance Ministers. The comprehensive strategy that we develop could be built upon the task force recommendations. That would mean greater investment in infrastructure and public space, making our high streets attractive, inclusive and accessible places where people want to spend. That is why we welcome the amendment by Gerry Carroll on the need for retail centres that are accessible for disabled people.

Investing in cleaner, greener and safer public spaces, as well as improving pedestrian and cycling infrastructure, can make our town centres more inviting and encourage higher footfall. It will also mean incentivising the use of vacant properties. We all know that empty shops and derelict buildings are a common sight on many high streets. They contribute to a sense of decline and, certainly, a sense of wasted opportunities. We need policies that encourage property owners to bring vacant units back into use, whether for new businesses, community spaces or, indeed, housing. We also need to support local events and community activities. We need to embrace digital and technological innovation and to foster sustainable development.

Each of those measures will be integral to the rejuvenation of our high streets, if they are properly implemented. While it is important to aim to revive traditional retail, we must also help local businesses to adapt to the digital age. Providing support to small businesses to adopt digital tools, develop online sales channels and integrate e-commerce in their in-store offering will enable them to compete in a changing marketplace.

We must not forget that the future of our high streets must be environmentally sustainable. Investing in green infrastructure such as energy-efficient buildings and sustainable transport will not only reduce costs for businesses but contribute to broader environmental goals. That can include incentives for businesses to make energy-efficient upgrades and measures to promote sustainable forms of transport, such as cycling and electric vehicle charging points etc.

Finally, any strategy to rejuvenate our high streets must involve local partnerships and community input. Each high street has its own unique strengths and challenges, and local councils, businesses and community groups are best placed to identify and address those needs. By empowering local communities to take the lead in reshaping their town centres, we can ensure that solutions are tailored to the specific requirements of each area. District councils should be encouraged to develop bespoke high street action plans that are informed by the views of local residents and other stakeholders. The report of the high street task force supported that place-based approach, which puts local needs and aspirations at the heart of the regeneration efforts.

In conclusion, I urge the Assembly to support our amendment, which recognises the importance of developing "a comprehensive strategy to rejuvenate" our "high streets and town centres". Let us seize the opportunity to invest in our own communities, to support our local businesses and to build town centres that are not only economically vibrant but socially and inclusively enriching. Our high streets are the heart of our communities, and, by taking bold action now, we can ensure that they are thriving places for generations to come.

Mr Carroll: I beg to move amendment No 2:

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Gerry. You have 10 minutes to propose and five minutes to make a winding-up speech. Please open the debate on amendment No 2.

Mr Carroll: Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. Under our current system, our city and town centres are carved up by private property, and property rights dominate all the claims to our shared spaces. However, if we are serious about recognising the importance of our city and town centres and our high streets as the social fabric of our communities, which they are, we need to acknowledge that property rights have, effectively, alienated us from our own public spaces.

Our towns and high streets belong to those who live and work there, and they should be shaped by the needs of communities and designed to promote social connection and inclusion. My amendment focuses on making our towns and high streets more accessible to people with disabilities and mobility issues, and it pushes back against a deeply unpopular idea, continually floated by the party that tabled the motion, that shops should open for longer on Sundays.

When it comes to accessibility, any strategy to rejuvenate our high streets and town centres must prioritise accessible infrastructure for people with disabilities and mobility issues. Shockingly, research from Disability Action shows that nine out of 10 disabled people feel that public transport and buildings are inaccessible to them. Furthermore, nine out of 10 disabled people experience serious challenges with street accessibility in their local areas. Nine out of 10 disabled people experience challenges accessing high street shops.

Every day in our town and city centres, disabled people are forced to deal with poorly maintained pavements and unacceptable barriers and obstructions, including pavement parking. Those barriers, effectively, stop disabled people from carrying out their day-to-day tasks, but they also have a serious negative impact on people's mental and physical well-being, limiting opportunities for social interaction and independent living and access to employment. In the face of those social and economic barriers, no money has been allocated to the DFC access and inclusion grants. Those grants fund projects such as Changing Places and help to make sport, leisure, arts and heritage more accessible. We urgently need better investment in Changing Places and accessible transport solutions such as the Disability Action transport scheme. People with disabilities and mobility issues should be placed at the centre of discussions about planning, so that everyone can move around our public spaces easily and safely, but they are usually an afterthought, at best.

The Alliance Party representatives on Belfast City Council have always, to my knowledge, pushed for an extension to Sunday trading hours, despite vocal opposition from workers, trade unions, independent retailers and small businesses. I say, politely, that they are out of touch on that issue. The fact that the motion was proposed by a party that refuses to drop the idea of extended Sunday trading hours should be a concern for all of us who care about workers, their families and our communities. We will oppose any attempt to extend Sunday trading hours, whether it is under the guise of high street and town centre rejuvenation or any other buzzword.

The extension of Sunday trading hours would benefit only big businesses and chains; it would harm workers and small businesses. Retail and hospitality workers constantly tell us that they do not want that change. Their union — the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers (USDAW) — surveyed its members in the North about the issue, and 92% of them — 92% — opposed the idea of extended Sunday opening hours. If hours were extended, workers in large shops would come under more pressure to work on Sundays, which would mean people having less time to spend with their families and in their communities. Extending Sunday trading hours also makes —.

Ms Nicholl: Will the Member give way?

Mr Carroll: Go ahead.

Ms Nicholl: I thank the Member for giving way. He and I agree on most things apart from Sunday trading. Does the Member not agree that employment law is in place to protect workers' rights? On allowing choice on Sundays for some workers, I have heard some mothers talking about it in terms of childcare, saying that they would like the opportunity to work on Sundays so that they can have a day at home with their children during the week. It is about facilitating choice and making sure that employment law is as strong as possible, not denying people the choice to shop on a Sunday if they want to.

Mr Carroll: I thank the Member for her point. I will come on to that.

Speaking more generally, extending Sunday trading hours makes zero economic sense. There is a litany of evidence and analysis that shows that deregulation would not only bring no economic benefits to our high street but would harm the viability of small businesses. Small retailers can already open for longer hours than other businesses can on Sundays, and many of those are independent local businesses that rely on the boost in trade on Sunday mornings in particular. Allowing larger stores to open for longer on Sundays would not mean people having more money to spend — trickle-down does not work — or more jobs being created. There would be no economic vibrancy or rejuvenation of our high streets as a result of extended trading hours.

On the subject of the Member's intervention, when USDAW members in the North were asked what would make Belfast a more attractive city for leisure or family reasons or for visiting in general, extended retail opening hours came at the bottom of a very long list. The retail and hospitality workers of our town centres and high streets have their own lives. They are parents and carers, and many of them already work long, atypical hours and find it difficult to balance work and family life. To refer, again, to the Member's point, those workers already feel pressured to work for longer: extended opening hours on Sunday would only add more stress.

USDAW also found that 68% of members surveyed already come under pressure to work on Sundays. Rather than there being the flexibility that the Member referred to, people already feel pressured by their employers to work on Sundays. In theory, workers have the right to opt out of Sunday working. In practice, however, many are pressurised by their management to take on Sunday shifts, and, in many cases, if they refuse, their working hours and pay are cut. That is unacceptable, but it is real behaviour. Employers are under no obligation to replace a worker's Sunday hours with a shift elsewhere in the week. Effectively, many retail and hospitality workers cannot afford to exercise their legal rights.

The strengthening of workers' rights should be at the heart of all discussions about the rejuvenation of our high streets and town centres.

In reality, workers' hours have always been contested, certainly since the beginning of industrial capitalism. To that effect, somebody once said that the shortening of the working day is freedom's basic prerequisite. That rings absolutely true. Protecting and maximising free time is at the core of the ethos of the trade union movement and all those who want to live in a better, fairer society. Any suggestion of coercing retail and hospitality workers into working more hours on Sundays would be a completely regressive move, especially as more of us are actively fighting for a four-day working week. If we value a society where people have more free time to spend with their friends and family, and where they are happier and better rested and can participate fully in community life, we must resist regressive attempts to expand the working week.

I urge Members to support the amendment in my name, and I am happy to support the other amendments.

Ms D Armstrong: I beg to move amendment No 3:

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Diana. You have 10 minutes to move the amendment and five minutes to make a winding-up speech.

Ms D Armstrong: Thank you, Principal Deputy Speaker. I rise to address the substantive motion that has been moved by Alliance but to focus specifically on addressing long-term derelict buildings and how they impact on schemes to rejuvenate high streets and town centres.

I share other Members' disappointment that the high street task force's recommendations have not been implemented. They would go a long way to revitalising and re-energising the image of high streets and town centres. Our high streets play an important part in the local economy and the social fabric of our towns and villages. When our high streets thrive, our communities thrive. However, it is obvious that high streets face unprecedented challenges with, as others have mentioned, online shopping, changing consumer habits, ongoing legacy pandemic economics and out-of-town retails parks, leading to reduced footfall and an increase in vacant properties. The recent rise in employers' National Insurance contributions, on top of the generous increase to the national minimum wage and the large cost implications of proposed employment law reform, will have a significant impact on high street employers.

In England, the Chancellor has protected small businesses by extending business rates relief for small firms in retail, hospitality and leisure. The Assembly has consistently failed to pass on business rates relief to those sectors in Northern Ireland. Those challenges have not only monetary implications but profound social consequences. That is evident in the two main towns in my constituency of Fermanagh and South Tyrone. Despite a public realm scheme some years ago in Dungannon town, it suffers high vacancy rates and competition from a nearby out-of-town retail park and is no longer the bustling town centre that it once was. Enniskillen town centre is experiencing a shift that many other towns already feel from traditional family-owned shops to more national brands and an increased number of charity outlets. In addition, a soon-to-be-completed out-of-town retail park near Enniskillen poses a threat to town centre footfall.

A strategy that links retail needs with the need for residential housing, flexible office space, digital connectivity, hospitality and entertainment options would be a positive and comprehensive first step to meet the demands of modern businesses. In that way, more residential accommodation in town centres and high streets would see more vibrant, lively high streets and contribute significantly to a night-time economy.

The Minister for the Economy should work with the Minister of Finance to address long-term derelict properties with a new strategy to rejuvenate high streets and town centres. A dilapidation Bill was due to be introduced to the Assembly in 2021 but still has not materialised. Preparation for that Bill should take a cross-departmental approach to examine Northern Ireland's planning laws and property taxes, which reward leisurely landbanking. Planning permission that is meant to expire after five years can be kept valid indefinitely with token effort. Those issues must be part of any comprehensive plan to address long-term dereliction.

In County Fermanagh, there are at least four long-term vacant hotels in towns and villages. Recently, one was destroyed in a deliberate fire and is now a gaping derelict shell in the streetscape. In another location, a long-term derelict hotel, the owners of which cannot be located, is holding back potential investment opportunities. Across the two council areas in my constituency, there are over 1,500 non-domestic vacant properties. Any new strategy must devolve more power to councils to identify and locate long-term vacant property owners to serve relevant notices on them.

Efforts by councils to maintain and improve their town centres and high streets are hampered by the lack of an effective and modern enforcement regime, meaning that they are powerless to intervene to address long-term vacancies. Derelict shopfronts and abandoned buildings make it hard for councils to improve streetscapes in order to encourage new investment and tourism opportunities. One solution would be to do away with the 50% tax reduction for empty commercial buildings and the 100% exemption for derelict buildings. In Britain, those reliefs were scrapped a decade ago, with councils allowed to levy punitive charges. The same must happen here to provide no incentive for letting a building fall into disrepair.

I thank the Members for tabling the motion, but any action plan to rejuvenate our high streets and town centres must include a comprehensive and bold plan to deal with derelict properties that blight our streets and hold back economic development. I hope that Members will support the amendment.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: I remind the Assembly that none of the amendments are mutually exclusive. I will put the Question on all three when it comes to the time.

Mr McGuigan: I thank the proposer for providing the opportunity to speak on the issue today. I absolutely agree that thriving high streets and town centres are vital to the economic vibrancy and social fabric of our communities. They are also the spaces where we live, work, shop, socialise and access public services, so they need to be welcoming, safe and sustainable locations for businesses.

Unfortunately, as the motion states, high streets and town centres face many challenges that have a visible impact on small and independent retailers. Many of the challenges existed before the pandemic, but they have undoubtedly increased since then because of the changing ways in which we access goods and services, including online and mobile services, shopping centres and out-of-town retail parks; the impact of the cost-of-living crisis and the legacy of the COVID pandemic on how people spend their time and their decreased disposable income; and more working from home and less lunchtime spending. Rising overhead costs and inflationary pressures for businesses are also having an impact.

The motion and amendments mention the Economy and Finance Departments, but addressing the issues will require a partnership approach across a number of Departments, as well as councils. Public realm and environmental improvements, revitalisation schemes, planning and infrastructure, development schemes, urban development grants, licensing laws and many other connected issues impact on the success of our high streets and town centres and touch on numerous Departments.

The high street task force was established by the Executive. Its membership is drawn from retail, hospitality, academia, central and local government and the community and voluntary sector. As has been mentioned, it has already put forward its recommendations following extensive engagement. It should be the template for moving forward. We need to focus on how the recommendations from the task force can be progressed with the current budgetary challenges that we face. As others have said, we also need to look at locally based solutions and initiatives. While many of the issues will be similar across the North, every area, town centre and high street will have its particular strengths and challenges. In the three major towns in my constituency — Ballymena, Ballymoney and Ballycastle — the issue of derelict buildings is continually raised by businesses.

Obviously, an increasing number of vacant and derelict buildings will reduce footfall in a town, impacting on existing businesses. I welcome the work of the Finance Minister on that subject. She has restored the Back in Business scheme that was introduced previously by her colleague Conor Murphy, which offers businesses a 50% rate discount for up to two years if they move into vacant premises that have been unoccupied for 12 months or more and were previously used for retail purposes.

Rejuvenating town centres and buildings while protecting their heritage is also important in many areas to ensure that the high streets, town centres and buildings remain attractive to potential new businesses. Ballycastle is one of the most unique towns in the North because of its retail offering, but we recently witnessed a road closure for a number of days and scaffolding right in its heart, because the Antrim Arms has been allowed to dangerously degrade into disrepair. We should look at expanding townscape heritage initiatives that have borne fruit elsewhere.

The impact of car-parking charges, again, is something that needs local consultation. That is important, because every situation can be different. The increased use of pedestrian zones will benefit many of our town centres.

Before I conclude, I welcome the recent announcement that the pause on the city and growth deals, particularly the Causeway Coast and Glens growth deal, which relates to my area, and the Mid South West growth deal, has been lifted and that all deals across the North are now progressing. In my constituency of North Antrim, which sits in two council areas — Causeway Coast and Glens Borough Council and Mid and East Antrim Borough Council — the growth deals are, as they have been described numerous times in the Chamber, a "game changer". The investment and outworking of the projects in Mid and East Antrim Borough Council and the Causeway Coast and Glens Borough Council areas will certainly be seen positively across our high streets and town centres.

Mr Brett: I thank the Member for South Belfast for moving this important motion. My party has for many years recognised how vital our town and city centres are to our communities across Northern Ireland. As the motion focuses on changing habits from the COVID pandemic, I again pay tribute to the work of the former Economy Minister, the Member for Upper Bann, who ensured that over £260 million of support went to our high streets and town centres during that very difficult time for our traders.

As the Member for Foyle articulated, the important work of the high street task force needs to continue in earnest. I welcome the fact that the First Minister and deputy First Minister wrote on 10 October to all relevant Ministers about the outworkings and recommendations of the task force's report and called for their work streams to take forward the important work. The junior Minister, who is more than ably standing in for the Economy Minister, will be able to inform the House of the work that the Department for the Economy will take forward in that regard.

The Department for the Economy needs to take a leading role on the issue, but it goes wider than that. It is a cross-cutting issue on which many Departments need to focus. In particular, following the Budget allocation and the decisions made by the Chancellor, there is a game-changing opportunity for the Finance Minister when she comes before the House in the coming weeks and months. The Finance Minister has the opportunity to introduce a rating scheme that, for once in a generation, is fair and balanced and ensures that high street businesses are not taxed to such a level that they are unprofitable or that makes them want to move online. It is an opportunity, as highlighted by the Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone Mrs Armstrong, to ensure that the dereliction of our town centres is not rewarded but rightly penalised. There is a long-standing need for that reform, and I hope that that will be the focus of the proposals that the Finance Minister brings to the Executive.

We need to see support for our hospitality sector across Northern Ireland. In our current economic climate, our hospitality sector is the driving force that brings people into our town and city centres. It needs to get the support that it deserves.

The amendments proposed by Members are important, and we will support them. We will support the amendment proposed by the Member for Foyle Ms McLaughlin. We will support Mr Carroll's amendment. He eloquently outlined the case against extending Sunday trading hours much better than I could have. I did not think that I would be saying that, so congratulations to Mr Carroll.

My party will also support Ms Armstrong's important amendment. Dereliction impacts massively on my constituency. The Castlebrooke development in the city of Belfast and my constituency of North Belfast is a complete and utter disgrace. It has been left derelict for years. Businesses that continue to pay rates and try their best in the economic climate are surrounded by scaffolding and dereliction. I know that all parties will continue to push for that development to take place as soon as possible.

I highlight the important work that the Department for Infrastructure needs to take forward in town and city centre regeneration. First, it is a well-rehearsed argument, but our planning system is not fit for purpose.

How often do businesses come to us to say that they want to expand and invest in our town centres, only for them to be told that they cannot get a planning permission in a timely manner, meaning that they instead decide to proceed with another investment?

We have a Department for Infrastructure that cannot seem to pedestrianise a single street in the cultural heart of our capital. Hopefully, with the £608 million that has been allocated in the Budget, Minister O'Dowd might be able to afford a few barriers so that we can ensure that Hill Street is finally pedestrianised and that Belfast city centre can continue to have that cultural heart. The Nightmovers scheme is vital to ensuring that our night-time economy is supported, but, again, the Department for Infrastructure says that it does not have the funding to run public transport late at night. That type of scheme is key to attracting people back into our city.

After receiving the letter that was sent by the First Minister and the deputy First Minister on 12 October, Executive Ministers now have their tasks, and I think that the House speaks with one voice in saying that all Ministers need to get together and start to deliver for our town centres right across Northern Ireland.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: The business in the Order Paper is not expected to be completed by 6.00 pm. In accordance with Standing Order 10(3), I will therefore allow business to continue until 7.00 pm or until the business is completed, whichever is earlier.

Mr Gildernew: I start by thanking Members for tabling the motion and, indeed, the amendments, which deal with specific elements of town centres.

The important role that our high streets play in our society cannot be overstated. They are the very heart and soul of our communities, and they act as a focal point for much of the activity that occurs in our everyday lives. For hundreds of years, high streets have been a crucial driver of economic activity in our towns and villages, and they have also shaped the very culture and identity of the regions in which they are situated. It is, however, fair and accurate to say that our high streets are no longer the hive of activity that they once were. Changing consumer patterns and prolonged periods of economic downturn have, in some cases, left them a shadow of their former glory.

In my town of Dungannon, the decrease in footfall is noticeable and has been mentioned often. In fact, even today, a business in the town contacted me about decreasing footfall, and local businesses often tell me that they are struggling to deal with the new realities. In towns such as Dungannon, we have vibrant business communities that are seeking to do their best all the time. They are investing their time, money and future in making the town work, and that places an onus on us, as an Assembly, to play our part by protecting retail space in towns and by providing clean, welcoming, attractive and accessible spaces for people to come to, stay in and do their business in. That will involve things such as looking at parking issues to ensure that towns are being dealt with fairly when it comes to parking restrictions and ensuring that the space is clean and attractive and that we are doing all that we can in that respect.

The decline of the high street is not unique to here. It is happening all across the world, and we need to give some thought to that. Our Executive have previously stated that the rejuvenation of our high streets is a key priority going forward, and, in the previous mandate, the high street task force, as has been mentioned, was formed to look at the issue. It is also the case that local government has a very important role to play in the rejuvenation of our town centres. Councils have a lot of local knowledge and local contacts, and it is important that we work in partnership with them, with businesses and with communities to ensure that that rejuvenation happens.

It is also important to recognise the work that has been done, such as the public realm schemes that have been rolled out. Through those schemes, millions of pounds have been invested in some of our towns. In addition, Conor Murphy reduced the non-domestic regional rate by 18% and provided rates holidays to many businesses during COVID, which allowed them to survive that period. That places an onus on us to ensure that they continue to survive and thrive. More recently, Caoimhe Archibald reinstated the Back in Business scheme, which supports new businesses and tackles dereliction on our high streets.

The high street task force report, 'Delivering a 21st Century High Street', provides a blueprint for how to revitalise our high streets, and we must ensure that it is implemented in full. In the report, there is a recommendation that calls for the establishment of a living high streets fund to support projects that would transform underutilised assets into vibrant community spaces. I commend some of the work that has been happening in some spaces in Dungannon. Local entrepreneurs have worked to create that welcoming environment, and they have done so at much cost to themselves, I have to say. The report also recommends the development of a high street investment programme and the transfer of regeneration powers to local councils, which, I think, can play a significant role.

The final point that I want to make is this: while it is OK to have strategies — we absolutely should have strategies — a bit of this is about our own behaviours. We need to consider how best we can support our local businesses, how we can ensure that the decline does not continue and how we can make our towns places in which we feel that we can do business, relax, socialise or whatever. Each of us has a responsibility in that respect to promote and support our high streets in whatever way we can, particularly in the period coming up to Christmas.

Ms Brownlee: I am pleased to speak in support of the motion and the amendments, as my colleague so eloquently did in his speech.

We want to highlight how critical our high streets and town centres are to the economy and to the vibrancy and social cohesion of our community. A comprehensive strategy is, of course, essential, and I would like to use my experience as an East Antrim representative to address several key issues that must be considered as part of that strategy.

Dilapidation continues to be a pressing concern. A recent consultation in my constituency highlighted dereliction as the top concern of local residents. Abandoned and deteriorating buildings not only deter footfall but project a sense of neglect and discourage investment. To address that, we must see movement on the dilapidation Bill. That would hold property owners accountable for maintaining their premises, ensuring that our town centres remain attractive and welcoming, and it would provide real powers for our council to act. Investing in the upkeep of high streets will create an environment where businesses can thrive and where residents feel a sense of pride in and connection to their local community.

In addition to those physical improvements, we must support businesses that are bringing life into areas. In my area, new businesses, such as Luna, that are trying to establish themselves have faced unexpected challenges. For example, Luna struggled when unforeseen work on the water infrastructure disrupted operations and added financial strain at a crucial time for that brand-new business. Other businesses in the same area have had to close while the work is ongoing. That example underscores the need for improved coordination and communication between councils, utility companies and businesses to minimise disruption. Small businesses are the backbone of our local economies, and we must ensure that they have the stability and support that they need to grow.

One of the most common concerns that I hear about is the high VAT rate, which has created an uneven playing field. A VAT reduction could be a lifeline, helping businesses to stay competitive and encouraging more footfall in town centres. With the cost-of-living crisis impacting on consumer spending, reducing VAT would not only benefit businesses but make shopping and dining on our high streets much more affordable for residents.

Moreover, we have a massive opportunity with city deals to transform town centres. The funding and projects in those frameworks should prioritise initiatives that rejuvenate our high streets and businesses, create jobs, improve the infrastructure and effect digital transformation. That is an opportunity that we must grasp. Recent NI Audit Office reports highlighted significant concerns around skills gaps and the planning system in Northern Ireland. Both are absolutely critical to our town centres. We must address the skills gap by investing in training programmes tailored to the needs of our high street businesses, particularly in areas such as retail, hospitality and digital skills, ensuring that our workforce is equipped with the right skills to be more dynamic and more responsive to changes in consumer trends.

Our town centres and high streets need a planning system that is fit for purpose so that businesses can thrive and diversify without lengthy delays. In Carrickfergus, we operate in a conservation area, which brings additional restrictions and costs, but there is very little support for businesses to navigate that additional burden.

We have also the transition to online banking, which also presents additional challenges. With more banks closing their physical branches, residents, particularly those who are less digitally confident, face difficulties in accessing those essential services, which increases the digital divide and inequality. Town centres have traditionally been hubs where people conduct their daily banking, so we must consider alternatives such as community banking hubs or financial support. By ensuring accessibility, we can maintain footfall in our town centres and support our local businesses. During my Adjournment debate a few months ago, I welcomed the Back in Business grant, but, to date, only four businesses in the Mid and East Antrim area are actually in receipt of this funding.

Northern Ireland has a high rate of people with disabilities, and we must ensure that our town centres and streets are more accessible and, of course, accommodating. I agree with Mr Carroll. The Minister for Infrastructure must work with local councils and other partners to ensure that footpaths are fit for purpose and do not pose risks and that the whole town centre is, of course, welcoming and accessible. Primarily, people with disabilities must be at the heart of future planning.

Finally, we should look at the townscape heritage initiative in my constituency as a model for repurposing the high street.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Time, Cheryl.

Ms Brownlee: As a successful scheme that focused on —. Is that my time up?

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: It is well up.

Ms Brownlee: Sorry about that. Thank you.

Ms Egan: The centres of our villages, towns and cities play an absolutely vital role in providing space for people, community and creativity. That is why we have tabled the motion today to urge the Economy Minister and our Executive as a whole to put in place a comprehensive strategy to rejuvenate our high streets and town centres. Whilst the motivations of consumer culture have evolved over time, we as legislators and political representatives of this place have a responsibility to ensure that our policies and strategies evolve just as quickly. Moving at pace with rapidly developing technologies, we need to build experiences and vital community consultation. We must listen to the will of the people who live and work in those areas to lead our delivery of change. Alliance is fully committed to protecting our high streets, because they hold the key to not just economic vibrancy but strengthening the social fabric of our communities.

The motion calls on the Economy Minister to produce a strategy to lead on rejuvenation of our high streets in his Department, although we recognise that this ambition involves more than just one Executive Department. As a member of the Executive Office Committee, I will bring the responsibilities of TEO into focus. The First Minister and deputy First Minister have oversight of the high street task force. That group was chaired by the junior Ministers in the previous mandate and comprised cross-departmental senior civil servants, industry experts and community organisations. In 2020, the group delivered a series of recommendations on how we evolve our high streets and the centres of our villages and towns for the betterment of our people and our economy. The aim of that work was to deliver a shared, agreed vision of creating thriving places to do business, socialise, shop, be creative and use public services, creating great and fulfilling places to live.

I bring that up because it is important to reflect that the content of the motion is the consequence of lack of follow-up and formal responses to these asks. We have ended up in a limbo space where work is not being progressed at the pace that we would like due to its sitting in TEO. There has not been as much progress as we want to see in implementing this report's evidence-based recommendations to push transformative change for our local economies. This is unacceptable. It speaks to the failures and lack of clarity in our government. The high street task force report brings together what has been discussed around the Chamber today: delivering destinations that are clean, green and diverse; addressing social need; and creating solutions shaped by the communities in the space itself. It puts forward a comprehensive and encompassing case for developing funds to support creativity, creating rate relief, supporting workers, reviewing planning and tackling the changing landscape of our economies alongside technologies and innovations.

Town and city centres, and the high streets within them, are changing, including how they look and what is on them. Whether it is the rising place of the food-to-go industry, the need to support micro and small businesses or incentivising activity that is experience-based away from traditional retail, we have to match this pace of change. From my constituency of North Down, l will take the example of Bangor and its city centre. Our city centre is filled with people who have enthusiasm and hopes for the future of this place, wanting to see it evolve into an even stronger district of experiences, whether that is through visiting our food spots, getting involved in leisure activity in and around the seafront, engaging with arts and cultural hubs or supporting independent and small businesses.

Whilst there has been positive progress in Bangor over recent years — we have seen the regeneration of the Court House, the transformation of the Old Market House into a community hub and momentum building towards the creation of a business improvement district — businesses and people in Bangor feel that they have been left behind. They have been left behind with the delays in the Queen’s Parade regeneration, the lack of progress in waste water infrastructure, which stifles redevelopment, and small businesses facing high levels of rates in our city centre. We need to invest in our high streets for both economic and social value; set policies that prioritise town centres; create experiences for people; update our planning infrastructure; simplify our business support infrastructure; and deliver for people and communities.

As my colleague has pointed out, we support the SDLP amendment.

Mr Gaston: While recognising the significant challenges faced by businesses on our high streets, I begin by noting that I have the privilege of representing the constituency that has the current High Street of the Year. I commend the businesses of Ballymoney for winning that prestigious title and note that Winnie Mellot is worthy of particular praise after her shop, The Winsome Lady, won the prestigious Overall Independent Retailer Award for 2024. Ballymoney is a great place to shop, and it is fantastic to see it recognised in that fashion. It is noteworthy that Winnie Mellot had to adapt and overcome the challenges that many of our high street shops face. The Winsome Lady is a model of how to use the power of technology to bring products to a new audience through internet sales. However, Winnie would be the first to recognise the key role of local community spirit and the importance of working together and promoting one another's businesses. That team spirit is a key element to the success of businesses in Ballymoney, and I am delighted that it has been recognised on that scale.

If we want to preserve our high streets, it is not good enough to simply tell them to get online. Large retailers will always get the lion's share of such business through brand recognition. Unfortunately, that makes it challenging for many of the independent retailers on our high streets, which are, in essence, the DNA of many of our town centres. Take Ballymena, which is known for its unique shopping experience, with over 70% of its businesses being independent. On the subject of Ballymena, this Thursday is discount day in the town, and there are now 65 businesses involved that will attract thousands to the town to avail of unrivalled bargains for all their Christmas needs. Multiple household names are involved, such as Moore Electrics, Camerons department store, Fred Funk, McKillens, Wallaces of Ballymena, Sams of Ballymena, Grassmen and many more.

Unfortunately, large internet retailers have a competitive edge over the businesses that I have just listed. They do not face the massive rates bills that we impose on businesses in town centres, nor do they face the challenge of competing with out-of-town retailers that suck the business out of our town centres through convenience and free parking. In her response, I would like the junior Minister to set out what plans the Executive Office has, whilst working with the Economy and Infrastructure Ministers, to develop new policies that discourage edge-of-town developments and encourage the breathing of life back into our high streets.

I thank the SDLP for tabling its amendment. It focuses on the issue of rates, which is a key point. I commend Gerry for his amendment, particularly the part on the importance of the two-day weekend. Recently, Belfast City Council made a blunder when it backed an Alliance proposal to develop plans to pilot an extended Sunday trading scheme. The blowback has been immediate and predictable. I will never make a secret of my religious convictions, but even those who, unlike me, do not have concerns about Sunday being a day of rest can see the value of hard-working people having Sunday off. Those employed in the retail sector are often the most poorly paid and have little enough time with their families as they struggle to make ends meet. As the Northern Ireland Committee, Irish Congress of Trade Unions pointed out in a resolution passed in 2017,

An increasing push for unlimited trading on Sunday is a backward step. I trust that today's debate will cause all the parties in the House to reflect on their actions not just here but in councils up and down Northern Ireland.

Mr Brooks: Will the Member give way?

Mr Gaston: I am happy to give way.

Mr Brooks: Has the Member noted that the Alliance proposition at Belfast City Council, which it has tried and failed to pass many times, is likely to pass through City Hall only with the support of Sinn Féin? Will he encourage Sinn Féin to stand up for workers as it has in the past and not turn on them?

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

Mr Gaston: The Member makes an important point. Indeed, for that motion to pass, Sinn Féin needs the help of Alliance — or, rather, Alliance needs the help of Sinn Féin. They work hand in glove nowadays, so I get them mixed up.

It is important that Sunday trading is left the way it is. We have to respect workers' rights. I worked in the retail industry for many years before I came here. It is important that, when workers get to the weekend, they have a day of rest and do not face burnout, so I welcome the intervention. I encourage Sinn Féin to do a little soul-searching, if that is possible, and, when it comes to the Alliance motion before Belfast City Council, to stand up for workers' rights and say, "No, thank you".

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: OK. We are in the Assembly Chamber, but, sure, all politics is local.

Junior Minister Reilly will respond on behalf of the Minister for the Economy. Minister Reilly, you have up to 15 minutes.

Ms Reilly (Junior Minister, The Executive Office): Go raibh maith agat, a Phríomh-Leas-Cheann Comhairle.

I welcome the opportunity to speak to the motion on behalf of the Minister for the Economy, and I thank Members for bringing forward this important issue for discussion today.

The fabric of community life and its economic vibrancy are significantly woven through the high streets and town centres that span our cities, towns and villages. Those places have historically been the heart of local, commercial and civic life: bustling centres of activity providing essential services, retail opportunities and spaces for social interaction. They are the stage on which much of local daily life unfolds. They embody the communal and cultural spirit of the areas that they serve, and they exist as barometers of local economic health, with busy businesses and lively public spaces signalling a thriving community.

Recent years have seen our high streets face unprecedented challenges. The COVID-19 pandemic led to significant economic disruption, forcing many businesses to close temporarily or adjust operations, leading to reduced foot traffic and altered shopping habits. Business have faced a costs crisis driven by increases in the prices of food, energy and other essentials. They have faced recruitment and retention challenges due to a combination of historically low unemployment and stubbornly high levels of economic inactivity. The retail and hospitality sectors have continued concerns about VAT rates, late-night transport and insurance.

Meeting those challenges will force a re-evaluation of the role of high streets in a modern society, but, within the scope of that re-evaluation, there is an opportunity for revitalisation and for reimagining how high streets can better serve our communities into the future. The Minister for the Economy's response to the challenges faced by our high streets is shaped by his vision for the economy. At the heart of his vision are commitments to securing a regionally balanced economy and creating the conditions for more good jobs for our people. Minister Murphy intends to support the economic performance of our regions by putting in place a coherent ecosystem that acknowledges the need for the key players to work more closely together. An important shift in that direction took place in 2015, when councils assumed greater economic responsibilities, recognising the value of local areas leading their own economic development. The Minister intends to build on that by providing communities with more opportunity to identify their priorities.

Minister Murphy introduced the subregional economic plan at the beginning of October. That is a new strategic approach to economic development that is locally led and places regional balance at its heart. Councils will be asked to establish local economic partnerships, bringing together central government, the business community, universities, colleges, local enterprise agencies and civic society. Partnerships will identify the main barriers to local economic development and the priority interventions that will build each region's value proposition, with dedicated funding of £45 million over a three-year period from April 2025.

In parallel with Minister Murphy's commitment to regional balance is his focus on good jobs. The need to promote good work and fair work policies for workers was acknowledged in the 'New Decade, New Approach' agreement of 2020 and continues to be recognised through the Minister's economic priorities. People who work in high street businesses should have the same right as everyone else to jobs that offer fulfilment, security and fair pay. Minister Murphy has already made progress in that area with the proposed introduction of new employment rights legislation and a Good Work charter to ensure better jobs and to promote a healthy work-life balance.

The Minister held his wide-ranging public consultation on employment rights earlier this year. The legislation that flows from it will modernise and strengthen our employment legislation framework to ensure that it provides appropriate minimum standards of rights and decent working conditions for all. That should help deliver fair work on our high streets, while ensuring that our many good employers, who already treat their workers fairly, can operate on a level playing field. The Labour Relations Agency is leading the development of the Good Work charter and plans to consult on a draft charter before Christmas with an aim to finalise it in early 2025.

In addition to the employment rights legislation and the Good Work charter, Minister Murphy is focused on initiatives to promote greater adoption here of the real living wage. The Minister recently announced funding support for an initiative by Advice NI, in partnership with the Living Wage Foundation, to raise awareness of the real living wage across the North and to promote living wage accreditation among employers. We know that higher wages are associated with increased productivity and job satisfaction, which could address critical challenges for typical high-street businesses that often struggle with staff recruitment and retention.

Through his dedication to the creation of more good jobs here, Minister Murphy is ensuring that his Department delivers on one of the key recommendations of the high street task force. It reported on its recommendations in 2022, although consideration of the implementation was delayed, pending the formation of the current Executive. The report contains 14 recommendations. Several of the recommendations have a pragmatic focus on existing delivery mechanisms, while others seek fundamental reform of key policies, such as rating and planning, or call for significant additional investment. Minister Murphy considers that recommendation 8 — "Fair Work on Our High Streets" — sits within the remit of his Department and will be delivered through his work on good jobs, but he is also keen to collaborate with departmental and local government colleagues on any of the other recommendations.

The report of the high street task force recognises that collaborative approaches must continue over the coming years to deliver high streets in village, town and city centres that are fit for the 21st century, and it is something that the Minister takes on board. It is not, however, for one Department to develop a strategy to address the varied issues faced by high-street and town-centre businesses. The delivery of the high street task force report requires a response from across the Executive, and Minister Murphy is keen to work with other Departments to ensure that that happens. For example, he will work with the Department of Finance to explore support options for smaller local businesses that are struggling with rates bills. He is also keen to see more initiatives like the small business rate relief scheme, which has been extended through 2024-25 to provide support to some 30,000 small businesses throughout our towns and cities, and the Back in Business scheme, which incentivises the use of long-term vacant retail space and is already bringing new businesses to our high streets.

Minister Murphy will work with the Department for Infrastructure, through its range of functions and network of assets, to positively influence the delivery of public services, the operation of local businesses and the daily lives of communities, town centres and high streets. The Minister notes the Department for Infrastructure's new transport strategy, which aspires to better connect neighbouring communities to our towns and city centres, and the Department's work with NI Water to alleviate capacity constraints so that high street redevelopment can proceed without hindrance.

Minister Murphy also considers the Department for Communities a key partner in efforts to rejuvenate our high streets, with consideration of that Department's particular remit for town centre renewal. There are also cross-cutting and wider social issues that impact on our high streets. Tackling violence against women and girls means ensuring that we proactively think about how to ensure that our entire population is safe in public as well as private spaces.

The Department for the Economy is involved in an ongoing and significant investment in our town centres with programmes around public realm and environmental improvements, urban development grants and the development of business improvement districts. The relationship between central government and councils will be essential to the success of all of those endeavours. Councils have a deep understanding of the local challenges and opportunities that will allow for tailored approaches that are more likely to succeed.

The establishment of local economic partnerships under Minister Murphy's subregional economic plan is just one example of how Departments can work with local bodies for the betterment of our high streets.

Addressing the challenges faced by our high streets is a job for the whole Executive to respond to. I can confirm to Members that the Minister for the Economy is committed to delivering the actions needed to make that a reality.

I want to turn to some of the points raised in today's debate and touch on the amendments. The Minister is committed to working with all Executive colleagues, including the Minister of Finance, to address the issue as it relates to business rates. I understand that, rather than undertake a further one-off review, the Finance Minister aims to work with Executive colleagues on a more strategic approach and to progress a rolling review and evaluation of the current suite of rate support measures in both the non-domestic and domestic rating system. As part of that work, she will work with business bodies, organisations and wider society to build a progressive rates system that both grows our tax base and stimulates our economy.

The Member for West Belfast raised the ability or inability of those with reduced mobility, wheelchair users and those using prams to access town centres. That is a really important issue that all of us are likely to face at some stage in our life. It is important, particularly with an ageing population, that we ensure that public spaces are accessible to all. Although footpaths are not in the Minister for the Economy's remit, he is happy to help support work on the issue, where possible.

Ms Armstrong raised the issue of derelict properties, which is also a significant issue in some town centres. The Department for Communities, together with councils, is responsible for regeneration and local economic policy. Again, Minister Murphy is happy to support the work in that area.

In closing, I thank colleagues for joining me today to discuss these important issues. Minister Murphy assures Members that he will continue to work with all stakeholders in the efforts to restore the spirit of our high streets and town centres. I think that there is cross-party support on the issue. We all recognise how important town centres are to the social and economic life of our constituencies. It is the Minister's hope that, through a collective focus, we will transform these spaces into the vibrant, resilient hubs that we envision, ensuring that they continue to thrive in an ever-changing world.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Go raibh maith agat, a Aire shóisearaigh.

Colin Crawford will make a winding-up speech on amendment No 3. Colin, you have five minutes.

Mr Crawford: Thank you very much, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker.

Today, we gather with a shared purpose and, hopefully, as the junior Minister said, cross-party support to breathe new life into our high streets and towns right across Northern Ireland. Those vibrant hubs are not just places of commerce but the beating hearts of our communities, where culture, connection and commerce all come together. We must embrace the opportunity to rejuvenate such vital spaces, ensuring that they thrive for generations to come. Our high streets have faced unprecedented challenges in recent years. The impact of the pandemic has shaken the foundations of our local economies, with many well-known shops and businesses forced to close their doors, yet, from these challenges arise a unique opportunity: a chance to reassess, reinvent and revitalise.

To rejuvenate our high streets, we must address the issue of long-term derelict buildings, which are detrimental to town centre developments. Many of the proud buildings that once held the stories of our past and that fostered trade and community today lie empty, crumbling and forgotten, casting a shadow over the vibrant spirit that they aspired to cultivate in our towns. However, I want not only to highlight the problem but to ignite a conversation about the solutions. We cannot let such buildings continue to blight our communities. We must act decisively and collaboratively to breathe new life into those spaces.

First and foremost, we need a comprehensive strategy that prioritises the identification and assessment of derelict buildings across our towns. We must work closely with councils and stakeholders to create inventories of the properties and to develop plans for their rehabilitation. Through partnerships with the property owners, developers and public agencies, we can facilitate the transformation of neglected spaces into valuable assets.

Secondly, we must tap into our shared heritage. Many of the buildings are historic treasures, and their restoration can be an opportunity to celebrate our culture while also boosting tourism. By promoting schemes that encourage the restoration of heritage buildings, we can foster community involvement and pride and, in the process, create job opportunities.

The rejuvenation of our high streets is an opportunity to celebrate our heritage, to foster community spirit and to create spaces that reflect our collective identity. Northern Ireland is rich with culture, talent and potential. Let us unite in our efforts to revitalise those cherished spaces, ensuring that they remain vibrant for years to come. We will support the motion and the amendments.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: I call Gerry Carroll to make a winding-up speech on amendment No 2. Gerry, you have five minutes.

Mr Carroll: Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. I welcome the debate and thank the Members who contributed to it.

Members raised important points on many issues, including empty buildings and the pedestrianisation — I had to say that slowly — of city and town centres. Different issues were raised about rates, some of which I agree with and others less so. We need to insert into the debate the idea of restructuring our rates system in a general sense in order to connect it to profits, income and wealth rather than to metrics and size, as is mainly the case. I ask how many major corporations in our city and town centres that are doing well financially, to put it mildly, pay adequate rates. I expect that very few do.

There was a bit of discussion, which I welcome, about Sunday trading hours, hence the amendment, which has received some support and some opposition in a way, although that was not expressly said. We need to defend important time off for workers, which was hard won by them. Weekend breaks were not gifted by nice employers or by the state but rather were hard won through trade union struggle and the gritted teeth of trade unionists. Workers should be able to do what they want with those hours on a Sunday. I am not religious, but workers should be able to go to religious events, family activities, arts events, cultural events or whatever on their day off. By not accepting my amendment, parties will effectively be saying that they are on the side of the employers rather than on that of the workers. For some, that may be the case, and on the side of big employers at that, but I do not think that that is acceptable, given the pressures that workers face and the fact that they are keeping our city centres alive despite challenges. Without those workers, however, there are no city and town centres of which to speak.

It is often presented as a modernising idea that we should squeeze every possible hour out of workers and that they should be in work every hour of every day of the week. That idea is unpopular with workers in the sector. They are opposed to it, as I stated earlier. It is also out of step with practices in other countries. In Spain, France and many other countries, people have longer breaks during the day. That is in part because of weather conditions, but if it is good enough for workers in those countries, why can workers here not have extended time when they are not in work?

I agree with Members' concerns about plans to erode existing Sunday trading hours. I mentioned Alliance's support for changing the hours, which has been pretty consistent over the years, although I oppose it. Through the debate, we learned that Sinn Féin members of Belfast City Council supported a Sunday trading hours pilot. I am not sure whether there has been a change in Sinn Féin's position — I am happy to give way if anybody wants to clarify that — but I think that it is a bad move. Some may ask, "What is the harm in commissioning a bit of research?", but why waste time and money on a bit of research for a pilot scheme that nobody wants? I respectfully say that it was a bit bizarre that the Member for North Antrim quoted the ICTU policy when the parties opposite seem happy to go against trade unions and workers' issues. That is a bit of a shame, but I welcome the support for the amendment.

Phillip Brett mentioned the pedestrianisation of Hill Street and other areas, which I and my party support.

People in city and town centres experience homelessness while buildings lie empty. That was not really mentioned in the debate, but it should be a source of shame for the Executive. A housing-first approach would help support people who are experiencing homelessness, tackle the issue and see housing as a human right.

Public transport was not mentioned in detail. Obviously, we desperately need to invest in our public transport system. A third of our local workforce commutes into Belfast every day, and many others use public transport to get around the city. The high street task force recommended that the Executive implement an investment programme for blue-green infrastructure and sustainable public transport. Two and a half years later, we are still waiting for delivery. Free public transport should, ultimately, be the aim.

Thanks for the debate. I appeal to Members to support my amendment, and I am happy to support the others.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: I call on Colin McGrath to make his winding-up speech on amendment No 1. Colin, you have five minutes.

Mr McGrath: Thank you very much, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. We are pleased to welcome the motion, offer our amendment and support the other two amendments. Whilst it is a further non-binding motion from an Executive party, the main strand is to offer support to small businesses on our high streets, and the SDLP welcomes the ability to join in that support for them. While there are differences in the nuances, it is important in this debate that we focus on what we agree on, which is that we support our high streets and the businesses that are there. It would be unhelpful for the House to divide on this under a small sub-issue that is something that is taking place in another area. We need to focus on what we can do and send out the clear message that we support our high street businesses.

We agree with many of the points that have been raised. There has been mention of the high street task force. It has been around for many years. When I was the Chair of the Executive Office Committee, about four years ago, it was getting around to being established and beginning to look at the work that it was able to do. It was an opportunity for the Executive to show solidarity and tangible support for our high street businesses, but it has been found to be lacking and, if it is lacking, then it is failing our small businesses. Regardless of what is lacking — be it content, the implementation, motivation or pace — the one message that we are sending today is that we feel that the high street task force is lacking and, therefore, needs to evaluate what it is doing to be able to try to improve outcomes for our small businesses.

Mr McNulty: I thank the Member for giving way. Does the Member agree that, in developing a strategy to rejuvenate our town centres, it would be positive to see the Ministers of Finance and Economy engage directly with councils to identify local need and maximise the impact of planned schemes through targeted and strategic intervention?

Ms Ní Chuilín: The Member has an extra minute.

Mr McGrath: Absolutely; I cannot disagree with that. Many of our contributions today have referenced that. We have also acknowledged that the high street is changing. COVID had a big impact on shopping habits. Online shopping is now the norm, and that changes the configurations and types of businesses that we need on our high streets. High rates mean that many small family-based businesses are struggling to afford to be able to stay open, and, with many bigger businesses being located on the fringes of towns or in retail parks, the task of high street businesses is made much more difficult. We need to be able to try to support them. The bigger businesses that are located in the out-of-town retail parks can afford to keep themselves going. It is the local, family businesses that we need to support.

Our amendment asks for work to be done on the reform of the non-domestic rates system. We all know what we hear when we go on to our high streets and talk to the businesses. They tell us — clearly and loudly — that the rates bill is their biggest bill. It cripples them: they have real struggles to pay it; it is a massive amount; it comes in every month; and they struggle to pay it. They have said that, if there is one thing that we could do to help them, it would be "Sort out the rates". They say, "If they were lower, we could survive. We can adapt to the changing environment, but take the rates bill and make it lower for us. That will be of great help".

I also want to talk about the importance of interventions in times of difficulty. This time last year, we were coming to the end of a process in Downpatrick: we were up to our waists in water, and the town was ravaged by floods. When we went to the businesses, many of them said, "We're still having to pay rates. We can't get anybody into the town — nobody is coming into a town that's flooded — but we still have to pay rates".

Then, there were the businesses that were right at the edge of the flood. They were not affected. They were not able to claim any help or assistance because they were not flooded, but the footfall was zero. The streets were sealed off, yet they still had to pay rates, and they said that it was that move that absolutely crippled them when they needed help and assistance from the Executive. Here, nearly a year later, the Executive have been found totally and utterly wanting. We need a reform of rates that helps with the levels that are paid but, at the same time, is flexible enough to enable us to step in whenever businesses are in their moment of need.

I welcome all the amendments. There are many of them, including one from the SDLP, but I hope that we can focus on sending a clear message from the top of this hill: we want to support small businesses and our high streets and help them to be able to prepare for the future.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: David Honeyford, you are making a winding-up speech on the motion on behalf of the Alliance Party. I advise you that you have 10 minutes.

Mr Honeyford: Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. Speaking as the Alliance Party spokesperson on the economy, I feel that this is the stuff where business meets community. It shows that there is potential, and it enthuses me that we can actually control change from the Assembly and make a huge difference right across this region.

We need to take a little step back and ask ourselves what it is about our town centres that makes them vital to our community, our local economy and our local businesses. What is it about the social fabric of our community that clusters around an urban centre? We can look back on the glory days of the past, but what is important today is that we look to the future and to a world that has changed. Having asked ourselves why our town centres are vital, we can then put in the measures that will help to deliver the future. I want to look at those measures and how we help to grow and sustain our high streets, because we cannot keep doing the same thing over and over again.

Philip McGuigan mentioned the places in which we live and work and need to be safe. He also talked about councils' role, as did Connie Egan, who spoke about the issues in Bangor. Thinking of my town, Lisburn, I have watched Bow Street slowly decline over the past 25 years, with bad decisions at political level that have —.

Mr McMurray: I thank the Member for giving way. Does he agree that more commitment is required from the Department for the Economy by setting targets and attributing financial commitments to the rejuvenation of our high streets? The Member references Bow Street in Lisburn. I will reference, as did another Member, Market Street in Downpatrick.

Mr Honeyford: Yes, I agree. I highlight the situation in Downpatrick — I was there last year — that was absolutely devastating for local businesses.

In Lisburn, we have seen bad decisions at a political level that failed our high street, but I want to look forward and at solutions to change that. What is the aim, and what should the future look like?

Colm Gildernew referenced the change in usage and, moving forward, a new reality. We need to reshape and repurpose our town centres to create vibrant, regenerative, sustainable town centres that are thriving and inclusive, where everyone gets to play and no one is excluded. Within that reshaping, we need to look at good urban design that encourages people to live in our town centres, which can become living spaces where city centre living sits alongside retail and hospitality. Furthermore, we should encourage arts and crafts to have a presence. As well as our high streets having commercial spaces and offices, we can bring them into mixed use and give them a pulse during the day and, importantly, at night.

Using rate relief or restructuring our rating system would encourage a reworking and a rethinking of our town centres to make them places of mixed use — places where we shop, live, go out to enjoy hospitality, enjoy the arts and be entertained on the streets or where our home serves as our workplace. We can do that if we tip the tax advantage towards our town centres to encourage growth. Sinéad McLaughlin and Colin McGrath laid out the need for a review of our high streets to recreate them as the heart of our communities.

Our high streets really spark discussions and change in here. Gerry Carroll, in a kind of protest, talked about Sundays, and the DUP nodded along. Then, Timothy Gaston was positive about Ballymoney High Street and went on to congratulate People Before Profit. So, with the new fans that Gerry has in the DUP and the TUV, who says that politics cannot change and that we cannot all be friends?

Mr Carroll: Will the Member give way?

Mr Honeyford: Go for it.

Mr Carroll: I remind the Member that his party is in the Executive with one of those parties, just in case he forgot.

Mr Honeyford: I thank the Member for his intervention and I hope that he enjoys his new friendships. [Laughter.]

City centre living must be developed with a mixed tenure apartments on our high streets and in town centres. We need to develop safe cities for all — for young people, professionals and retired people — so that they enjoy living in our town centres. We need to create towns that breathe and develop living cities with more urban space, more trees and more green space in the built-up areas, where the environment is clean and sustainable, where there is good air quality, where there is clean water in the rivers and where there are accessible green spaces.

Diane Armstrong and Colin Crawford talked about long-term dereliction and buildings that remain in our town centres, and the need for the Department for the Economy and the Department of Finance to action that. I agree with what has been said, but we also need planning reform, which Phillip Brett referenced. We need planning that balances the protection of heritage alongside the unlocking of today's high street requirements, enabling the future to be realised. Cheryl Brownlee and Phillip Brett both highlighted dereliction and planning.

I mentioned the arts in our town centres. We must encourage local artists and musicians to entertain on our streets, but they also need spaces where they can perform and attract audiences, thereby creating more footfall on our high streets. We need to support and grow inclusive annual community festivals that are unique to each town and city throughout the region. We have some great examples of that, such as the West Belfast festival and the Halloween parades in Derry, which other towns and villages can learn from. In Lisburn, however, the arts centre and the theatre are based at the council headquarters, which are outside the city centre. Both are completely disconnected from the city centre. If we continue to separate every function, our high streets will continue to decline. In Lisburn, that needs to change, and both of those facilities should be moved to Bow Street. That will act as a catalyst and encourage others to follow and start the regeneration of the city centre.

The principle, and one of the key values that are required for our high streets, is that we support the generation of wealth locally and that it is recirculated so that everyone feels the benefit and no one is excluded. We need to create tailored spaces, including small spaces for independent traders, boutiques and craft makers, which will allow them to open, trade and thrive and will work for and with their business needs.

Finally, we must encourage commercial use in our town centres. Belfast has quite a lot of that, but outside Belfast it is not as prominent. We need to ensure that small businesses and social enterprises can have connected and flexible work spaces that incubate and encourage growth, thus forming clusters uniquely in our town centres, supporting wealth generation that is circulated and stays locally.

I want to talk about better connections. Gerry Carroll made a really good point about developing a city centre that is easily walked or cycled, with permanent cycle lanes installed on the major routes in and around our towns and cities. We could have better connectivity and cost-effective, reliable and frequent public transport options that allow us to move around and get about. The motion is about how we can create vibrant, regenerated and sustainable town centres that are thriving and inclusive. The day of viewing our high streets as solely economic spaces is over. We need to transform and reimagine our town centres so that they can not only contribute to economic growth but provide opportunities for everyone.

Phillip Brett talked about the need for the Department for the Economy to take the lead on the issue, and I completely agree. Junior Minister Reilly laid out the Executive Office's view, but the high street task force's recommendations have been sitting for three years. There seems to be a ludicrous bureaucratic triangle regarding who is delivering those recommendations. I hope that, as today has shown, we can establish support and that the Department for the Economy can take the lead and develop the high streets that we deserve.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Before I put the Question on amendment No 1, I remind Members that the amendments are not mutually exclusive, so I will put the Question on each in the order in which they were moved.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Members, take your ease for a minute.

Ms Bunting: I beg to move

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

Ms Bunting: I am honoured to propose the motion on behalf of Alan Black, the sole survivor of the Kingsmills massacre, and the family of John McConville. Innocent victims are a priority for the DUP. We consider it a privilege and a solemn obligation and duty to support these families in their quest for truth and justice.

The Kingsmills massacre is one of the most horrific and blatantly sectarian atrocities in our history. The brutal murder of 10 innocent Protestant workmen by the IRA on 5 January 1976 remains a painful reminder of the hatred that fuelled terrorism and robbed so many of their futures. The fact that some in high office suggest that there was no alternative to such sectarian murder is utterly repugnant.

As if what happened to those men is not bad enough, it is appalling that, some 48 years after that most ruthless, callous and sectarian of murders, which caused embarrassment even to the IRA, their families still have to fight, at every turn, the very systems and statutory bodies that were set up to help them and support them to get to the truth.

It is profoundly unjust that the families affected have waited so long for answers. On 4 October, Mr Black even had to issue a second pre-application protocol letter on the Office of the Police Ombudsman to try to secure the section 62 report on the Kingsmills massacre. Each time, he has had to use money that he has saved to pay for his funeral. As far as I am aware, to date, there has been no response.

No one has ever been held to account for the murders, nor has the inquest answered all the questions that the families had hoped. For eight years, they could see that there was information that they would not be given, and they watched that play out in court, but the coroner speculated that missed steps could have provided evidence from both the RUC and the guards, who were reported to have taken samples of the vehicle connected to the attack. That is one of the many reasons why the Police Ombudsman's report is so important.

Mr Black is now 81 years old and in poor health. He has endured an eight-year inquest that raised more questions than it answered. As a result, he has pinned his hopes for getting to the truth on the Police Ombudsman's report but fears that he may not live to see it. The matter should have been resolved. Bear in mind that the initial complaint was in 2013. He fails to understand why the Office of the Police Ombudsman would treat him in that way. He believes that it is cruel. It is.

The coroner indicated that the families should get the report as soon as the inquest was over. That was six months ago. They have been provided with nothing but mixed messages. They were told by one of the ombudsman's investigators that the report was completed in 2020. Later, they were advised that it was not and was still being worked on. That office, on which many victims rely for the truth, cannot even seem to get its own story straight. Why the hold-up? Why is it not handing over the report? The families are entitled to the information and the report expeditiously. They have been through enough.

Six months after the conclusion of the inquest, the ombudsman's office continues to withhold the report despite numerous repeated requests from the families' solicitors and elected representatives, denying the families full disclosure as they seek the truth. That is no way to treat innocent victims. It is shameful. They feel that the Office of the Police Ombudsman is purposely running down the clock. Just because it can take until 30 April 2025 to produce its report does not mean that it should. To do so is completely unacceptable. It will leave the families no avenue to pursue the questions that they may have arising from any published report. After that April 2025 deadline, the ombudsman's office will cite that it no longer has any statutory powers or responsibilities on events of that era as a result of the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023, and other bodies to whom that case may be passed will rightly state that it is not their report and, therefore, they are unable to comment on it or answer to it. Thus, the families will be stonewalled again. You could write the script already. It is grotesque.

Mr Black and John McConville's sisters Karen, Tania and Mandy have fought long and hard against everybody, including the state, for the truth in a way in which they ought never to have had to. Mr Black survived but has spent the rest of his life in a fight for justice for his murdered friends. He feels that he owes it to them to pursue the truth until his dying day. They are owed justice and explanations. John McConville and his family lost the promise of his future and all that it held. His family, too, have spent their lives having to campaign. Every gathering and happy event is tinged with the loss, the empty chair and the absolute barbarity of what happened on that night.

The Secretary of State also has a role here. Recent government decisions on legacy issues have perpetuated a hierarchy, suggesting that some murders are more deserving of investigation than others. Kingsmills offers the Government the chance to address that imbalance and show genuine support for victims who seek truth and transparency. It is important to note that, over the course of the inquest, there were several times when it was stopped to allow private discussion between the coroner and lawyers for the state; secret discussions in which the families' lawyers were not permitted to partake or even to be present at.

Likewise, the Government in the Republic have questions to answer. They may have passed laws to allow for disclosure to Northern Ireland, but to what effect when the Attorney General will decide what is "relevant" to be released? What is "relevant"? That is just weak and obfuscatory. In truth, the guards sent "relevant" newspaper clippings. Newspaper clippings. That is the extent of the efficacy of legacy disclosure laws in the Republic; the mere semblance of helping.

Bear in mind that the gunmen were in no hurry to get away. You would think that the possibility of the security forces arriving at any moment would cause haste. There were three army patrols within a mile and a half of the murder scene at the time of the incident. You would think that even the physical impact of adrenaline in the body in such a situation would cause them to run, but no. It was execution military-style. First, the men were shot in the legs to prevent them from running. They were then murdered one by one as the gunmen walked through the groaning, bullet-ridden bodies strewn on the ground, calmly and casually walking away from the scene. No haste, no hurry. Why? What did they know? Did they know that nobody was coming? Was there collusion with the IRA to protect informants?

The horror was vividly clear from listening to the coroner's report. I wish Members to hear the following excerpts:

The man told the bus driver:

The workmen were told to line up against the side of the van and put their hands on it. Mr Hughes — more of whom later — gave evidence that:

The sole Catholic on the bus by then testified that:

Subsequently, Mr Hughes was told to get out of the line and "Run down the road." The report also states:

The families did not need an inquest to tell them that the IRA was responsible, but they need to know why it was allowed to happen and why the subsequent police investigation failed to follow basic lines of enquiry, which impacted significantly on its effectiveness. Shamefully, some of the information will likely never be released due to national security, although, for a layperson, it is hard to fathom what or who needs to be protected after almost 50 years. That is why it is all the more important that what can be released is released immediately. Forty-eight years of waiting is long enough; it is far too long.

The Police Ombudsman must release the report without further delay. I call on the Department of Justice and the Secretary of State to intervene to ensure that that happens. Justice delayed must not be justice denied. The DUP believes that the door to justice must never close on innocent victims. We stand firmly with Alan Black, the McConville family and all innocent victims, who deserve truth and justice. Alan Black — the sole survivor of that horror — has shown remarkable courage and resilience. He has carried the immense trauma of that day and shown extraordinary determination in his pursuit of justice not only for himself but for the families of those who were cruelly taken. We want to ensure that Alan gets the answers that he so deserves in his lifetime. The Office of the Police Ombudsman must release that long overdue report without further delay. I call on all MLAs to support the motion.

Mrs Dillon: I support the motion. We have repeatedly called for a human rights-compliant approach to legacy cases and issues for all conflict-related incidents. Our focus has been and remains on creating a suite of options to meet the varied needs of all victims, survivors and families that is human rights-compliant and victim-centred. All victims and survivors and their families are entitled to receive truth and justice, irrespective of the circumstances surrounding the death or serious injury, of their political or religious persuasion and of which organisation or individual was responsible.

Truth and/or justice at present can be delivered through a number of mechanisms, some of which have been closed down under the British Government's cruel legacy Act. That Act has been clearly rejected by all political parties and, more importantly, by victims, survivors and their families, who have once again been let down and feel that the legislation is just another obstacle to prevent the truth and justice that they have fought for decades to achieve.

Historical investigations have currently been removed from the Office of the Police Ombudsman's remit as a result of the commencement of the legacy Act. Ninety-five investigation reports by the Police Ombudsman remain outstanding, however. All those investigations must be brought to a conclusion and their findings communicated by 30 April next year. I agree with the proposer of the motion that we do not have to wait until 30 April, which is 12 months on from the commencement of the legacy Act. Those outstanding reports include the findings of the investigation of the Kingsmills killings in January 1976, and we fully support the urgent need to address the matter.

It is imperative that all outstanding reports be released prior to the cut-off date in April next year, otherwise the incomplete reports could be transferred to the Independent Commission for Reconciliation and Information Recovery (ICRIR), which was established under the legacy Act. It is a matter of public record that the majority of families have already rejected that alternative route and that many of their concerns about that body have been validated in recent legal challenges.

Survivors and their loved ones deserve answers, not as a privilege but as a right. The call for answers is about more than a single report; it is about recognising the rights of all families seeking the truth. The path towards truth and justice is essential for genuine reconciliation. Let us ensure that no family, including the Kingsmills families and Alan Black, is left behind in our collective pursuit of reconciliation and healing.

Mr Speaker: I call Peter McReynolds. No?

I call Robbie Butler.

Mr Butler: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I thank the Members who tabled this important motion for debate this evening. There were many dark days during the period that we refer to as "the Troubles". Among the very worst of them was the Kingsmills massacre. It was one of the most barbaric and blatantly sectarian atrocities in our history.

It has been eight years since the inquest into the Kingsmills massacre of 10 Protestant workmen began. To say that the process has failed at every level would be an unacceptable understatement. The process has failed to give the families confidence that they will receive information about the loss of their loved ones. It has failed to identify publicly those responsible for that horrific crime, although they are known. It has failed to move the Irish Government finally to give up their secrets about that vile episode. That is something on which many of us have communicated with the Irish Government numerous times.

The most damning failure to date, however, must be that of the Office of the Police Ombudsman in not providing the findings of its investigation. That failure adds more distress to the sole survivor of the atrocity, Alan Black, along with the families and loved ones of those who were so callously murdered in that horrendous act. The failure of the Office of the Police Ombudsman to provide clarity and to publish its findings, which would perhaps offer some recourse, raises questions about its ability to carry out its remit.

A year ago, the Chief Constable stated that the investigation of an incident at the ombudsman's home in September last year would be resolved in weeks rather than months. Twelve months after that statement and 14 months after the incident, we have had no movement on the matter. That must raise the question of how the Office of the Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland can function without having the ombudsman in her role for such a period. What impact has her absence had on the office's ability to deliver on essential issues such as the release of the Kingsmills investigation findings?

Last month, Mr Black was in this very Building to highlight the impact that the continued failure of the Office of the Police Ombudsman has had on him and on the families of those who were murdered. In the Great Hall, just yards from where I stand, Mr Black said, in his own words:

Then he said:

I think that Mr Black was very kind in his description.

For such continued cruelty to be faced by Mr Black and those who lost so much in this horrific and depraved attack is a damning indictment upon every individual and agency that has obstructed, whether by intent or by negligence, the truth about this darkest time being brought to light. I and the Ulster Unionist Party support the motion, and we hope that those with information and those with authority will act.

Mr Speaker: I call Nuala McAllister.

Miss McAllister: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Apologies for the confusion before.

Alliance will support the DUP motion. The Kingsmills massacre was a reprehensible act of savagery, and, as the coroner's inquest finally confirmed earlier this year, an overtly sectarian attack. It is representative of an extremely dark period in our history — one that it is incumbent on everyone in this Chamber to avoid going back to. In order to move forward as a society, we must ensure that victims are properly supported and that the pursuit of justice is facilitated. I take the opportunity to pay particular tribute to Alan Black for his continued campaign for truth and justice. He has been campaigning for truth and justice for his colleagues and friends for longer than I, and many in this Chamber, have been alive. I can only imagine just how deeply personal this campaign is for him, and it is a fitting tribute to colleagues who were murdered that day that, in his words, he wakes up every morning and, to this day, they are the first people he thinks about.

I welcome the fact that, earlier this year, the Police Ombudsman's office confirmed that it will be reporting on the case, despite the uncertainty of the impact of the now-condemned Legacy Act. However, it is Mr Black's understanding — we have heard it again from the proposer of the motion today — that he was told that the report was written and completed back in 2020. What exactly is the delay? What is going on here? What is the truth behind whether it was finalised? Is it finalised? What is stopping it? Why have Mr Black and the bereaved families had to wait since 1976? If this report was completed, can we not just publish it now? We do not need to wait until the deadline of April 2025.

Mr Black has gone on record in the media confirming that his health is not great at the minute and that he would like to see the report published as soon as possible. Victims should not be pushed to make such public statements. They should not be treated in such a cruel way. They have put their emotional, physical and mental health on the line for over 50 years. For an eight-year inquest and a complaint initially made in 2013, how do we have a system that is so broken, especially when it can be made available and brought to a conclusion much sooner? Do not get me wrong: despite my criticisms of the Office of the Police Ombudsman, I must lay out today that we know that it is a necessary and helpful tool for those who seek truth and justice whilst ensuring that all police action is lawful and necessary and that all investigations are upheld to the highest of standards in order to have a police service that upholds law and order. Securing respect for the rule of law and effective policing is not just important now; it was important in the past. To ensure reconciliation in Northern Ireland, the accountability mechanism provided by the Police Ombudsman is crucial. Alliance would like to see the report and its findings released without further delay and, most importantly, before the deadline of April 2025, so that Alan Black and his work colleagues can get the truth and justice that they deserve.

Mr McNulty: The Kingsmills massacre, the murder of 10 innocent men on their way home from work on 5 January 1976, was a crime whose barbarity was matched only by its cowardice. When their work bus was stopped, the men on board thought that it was a loyalist murder gang because the leader asked for the one Catholic on the bus to be identified. Reggie Chapman took the hand of Richard Hughes and squeezed it as if to say, "We will not give you up. We will not let this happen to you". Imagine that. Reggie Chapman held on to his humanity while staring into the cold faces of an evil murder gang. Richard Hughes was then ordered away, and the remaining Protestant men were lined up against the bus and riddled with gunshots. There were more than 100 spent cartridges found at the scene. Ten of the 11 men died. One man, Alan Black, whom I spoke with today, miraculously survived. The scene could only be described as a bloodbath. In a disturbing reflection of the gruesome realities of the time, the hearses of two young men who had been murdered in Whitecross the night before, John Martin and Brian Reavey, had to be diverted because 10 men lay dead on the Kingsmill Road. Anthony Reavey died in the following weeks, leaving three Reavey brothers dead. I call attention to Eugene Reavey, who became great friends with Alan Black, and to the important role that they and their families played in building peace.

It is also worth noting that those atrocities were followed by the murder of Majella O'Hare, just up the road in Ballymoyer, seven months later. It is hard to comprehend the sheer saturation of trauma in such a small rural area in such a short time, in Whitecross, Kingsmills and Ballymoyer. In a coordinated familicide — the mass shooting of an innocent Catholic family by the UVF — the O'Dowd brothers were killed on the same night as the Reavey brothers.

The excruciating weight of grief, fear and horror that engulfed south Armagh in the wake of the massacres of January 1976 left permanent scars in the psyche of people and neighbours throughout our community. In the village of Bessbrook, where nine of the 10 murdered men came from and where Catholics and Protestants lived side by side, a coldness began to emerge. My late friend and the MP at the time, Seamus Mallon, vividly described the atmosphere in the years after the massacre. He said:

Nothing can ever undo the horror of what happened at Kingsmills. Nothing can ever bring back or replace the fathers, brothers, sons and husbands who were so cruelly and needlessly ripped away from their families on that dark night in January.

It always astounds me when people glibly or even petulantly suggest that we should "move on and leave the past behind", because there was simply "no alternative" to the wanton violence, murder and maiming. Those same people continue to happily and gleefully celebrate and commemorate the violence and the perpetrators of violence. However, there is a stubborn and simple fact: there has been not so much as a charge, let alone a conviction, for the mass murder that occurred on 5 January 1976 when 10 ordinary working-class men were pulled out of their work van and slaughtered at the side of the road.

The Police Ombudsman's office holds a report on those murders that it has so far failed to publish. It must do so without delay. At a time when so many families are struggling for truth and justice across the North, it is unacceptable that the Police Ombudsman is holding back the report on Kingsmills. The ombudsman must produce the unvarnished truth of the report, even if it is uncomfortable — especially if it is uncomfortable — because what an obscenity it would be for Alan Black to survive the Kingsmills massacre, to survive the spray of gunfire but not to survive to see the findings of the ombudsman's report.

We will never see true reconciliation without justice, and we can never hope to see justice until there is truth. None of us should have anything to fear from hearing the truth. Alan Black and the Kingsmills families have spent too long campaigning for answers to those questions to be told to wait longer for the findings of the ombudsman's report. Telling them to do so is cruel, and the ombudsman must release the report on the Kingsmills massacre without delay. Day by day, the delay being faced by the families of the Kingsmills massacre, in the continued absence of information from the Police Ombudsman to explain the delay, is detrimentally impacting on confidence in the office of the Police Ombudsman. No victim should be expected to lodge two pre-actions for —

Mr Speaker: The Member's time is up.

Mr McNulty: — access to truth and justice via our own Police Ombudsman.

Mr Speaker: The Member's time is up.

Mr Gaston: My one small issue with the motion is the fact that it does not clearly attribute the murders of 5 January 1976 to the IRA. Even by the blood-soaked standards of the brutal IRA campaign, the Kingsmills massacre stands out as a particularly evil act. There are some in the House who maintain that there was no alternative to such slaughter; no alternative to ordering men off their work van on the side of a dark rainswept road as they tried to return home to their families; no alternative to picking out the Protestants in that group and telling the lone Roman Catholic worker to get away from the scene; no alternative to firing over 130 round in less than a minute into the backs of 10 men; and no alternative to saying "Finish them off" before a murderer fired another burst into the heap of bodies that lay on the ground. It is worth noting that not only does the IRA continue to maintain the fiction that it was not involved in the murders but, at the time, it issued a statement that claimed:

It went on to clinically add:

I have no problem in saying that the brutal murders by loyalists were wrong. The lead party in this House, which continues to be overseen by the IRA army council cannot say the same about IRA murders. It will only condemn Kingsmills today because of the fiction that it was not an IRA massacre. To call for the Police Ombudsman to release its findings while maintaining such a position is utter hypocrisy. Let us not forget either that the party to my left was happy to have Barry McElduff not only as a councillor but as chairperson of Fermanagh and Omagh District Council in 2022-23 after his sickening mockery of the massacre on its anniversary in 2018.

It is long past time that the Police Ombudsman released its report. The sole survivor of the atrocity deserves nothing less, even if he will not get any truth or justice from this House. Alan Black is on record as saying of his workmates so callously murdered that day:

When I reflected on that, I recalled how scripture records that not only does Alan Black hear that cry but that it is heard in the presence of the Almighty. Revelation 6 records the cry of the martyrs and reads:

There will come a day of accountability for Kingsmills. It is shameful that this House, which claims to administer justice, is prepared to turn a blind eye to the continuing role of the organisation responsible in overseeing the lead party of this Government.

Mr Carroll: The killing of 10 innocent people in the Kingsmills massacre almost 50 years ago was wrong, sectarian and should be condemned outright. The families who lost loved ones and the sole survivor of the attack all deserve justice, and they all deserve to receive an accurate account of what happened on that awful night and why it happened. They deserve to have all the files and documentation released to help them to achieve closure if that is what they need and if that is even possible. All victims of violence deserve to have their pain and anguish recognised and to have the information on the particular killings that have impacted on them released. That is true of the Kingsmills families, the Ballymurphy massacre families or whomever else.

Sectarian killings in the 1970s sparked further sectarian killings and led to a dead end and a depressive cycle of tit for tat. We all know that before the Kingsmills massacre the O'Dowd and Reavey families lost loved ones. Too many families and communities are left with the scars of paramilitary violence, and, too often, politicians use that real pain, not to build a consensus to bring people together but to keep the division going. All sectarian killings are wrong and cannot be justified, and we should oppose them whenever they occur. That is true, whether we are talking about today or 50 years ago, because too many people are living with the scars and the hurt.

We also should not forget the state's role in supporting and allowing paramilitary violence and the beating of people on the streets — Catholic, Protestant and neither — who dared to demand an end to discrimination. We should not forget that violence and the role played by the state in encouraging, supporting and, in many cases, taking part in it.
We also should not forget the words of the sole survivor of the Kingsmills massacre, Alan Black, who has been mentioned a lot today, and rightly so. He has questioned the role of informers who were working for the security forces. I ask who knew what, and why have they not released the files? How much involvement did MI5 or the security forces have in the killing of 10 people at Kingsmills?

What did they know beforehand? Did they protect their handler and let a massacre go ahead when they could have stopped it? Those questions need to be answered, and I call on the supposed human rights supporting Prime Minister to release the files. However, given his recent announcements, I would question whether he is still interested in human rights. I am happy to support the motion.

Mr Speaker: I call Trevor Clarke to wind on the motion.

Mr Clarke: I thank all those who have participated in the debate. It is heartening to find that we have universal support for the motion.

I want to comment on and try to paraphrase what some Members have said. I will start with my colleague from North Antrim Mr Gaston. He criticised the wording of the motion. Of course, if Mr Gaston had been in his place, he would have heard my party colleague the Member for East Belfast Joanne Bunting being very clear in citing who the perpetrators were. She spent hours sitting through the inquest listening to who the perpetrators were — that was very clear from the inquest. My colleague has put on record today the actions of the IRA. The weapons that were traced back to the IRA and the other atrocities that they were used for were also cited at the inquest. I want to put the record straight on my party colleague's comments. Of course, I agree with Mr Gaston that all the murders, whether they were loyalist or republican murders, were equally wrong. Like him, I can say that those murders were wrong. I cannot, for the life of me, understand how others can say what they have said about that, and not so very long ago. I also agree with his comments about the actions of Mr McElduff.

It seems strange for me to stand here and agree with Gerry Carroll. It must be the start of a trend, because it is, I think, the second time today that our party has agreed with Mr Carroll or he has agreed with us. What he said about all sectarian murders being wrong is fair. Most of us in the Chamber would agree with that, and I appreciate his comments. He is also right that all the people who were murdered deserve justice. That is key for us. It is key for Mr Black. It is key for the McConville family. It is key for all innocent victims of violence.

Justin McNulty talked about the "bloodbath" at Kingsmills and about other crimes in south Armagh. None of those crimes was justified. Of course, we all agree with Mr McNulty's comments on that. It was the same theme from Members, time and time again. Nuala McAllister talked about the sectarian nature of the Kingsmills attack and, indeed, other attacks. We are not trying to distance ourselves from those: they were all wrong. She also talked about our dark past and how the victims, including Mr Black and his colleagues' families, require support. We can all agree with that.

Robbie Butler talked about the "dark days" and reminded us that this event was one of the worst of its time. That is so true. He talked about the failures of the Irish Government. Again, certainly, on these Benches, no one will disagree with those comments. It is clear to us who sat at the inquest that day that there were failings from the Irish Government. There were also failings from our Government. Those things need to be addressed. There are unanswered questions.

I appreciate Linda Dillon's comments about people being entitled to the truth. Everyone is entitled to the truth. Of course, I could say that people in the organisation that her party is connected to have held back on the truth. The sooner that those people come to the table and give up the truth, instead of hiding behind some other code, the better. Linda went on to talk about historical investigations and how some of those are still outstanding. None of those investigations should be held back. All these people, regardless of where they are from, deserve truth and honesty.

I commend my party colleague for proposing the motion. Listening to the way in which Joanne relived the event today, you nearly felt as if you were standing there at the time.

In April this year, I attended an inquest for the second time. The first was many years ago, and I never thought I would find myself at another. I sat there for hours with my party colleagues Joanne Bunting, William Irwin and Jonathan Buckley. I would not wish it on anyone. It was horrid, as an outsider, to sit through that, hearing about the harrowing events and what those people went through that night. I came away from my second attendance at an inquest with a clear view that our Government know more than they have said. Maybe that is why the ombudsman is slow in coming forward. The protection, the missed opportunities, the witnesses who were not allowed to be interviewed because of Special Branch: all those things were read into the record that day. It was scary, to be honest. I came out of it that day and thought, "Déjà vu: I have heard this all before". It was about the protection and — I think it was Gerry Carroll who talked about it — state agents. That is 100% right. State agents were involved, state agents were protected, and our British Government and the Irish Government are guilty of both those things.

Joanne and I met Mr Black in his home a few weeks ago, with his solicitor. His solicitor recounted Mr Black's failing health — Mr Butler talked about Mr Black coming here a few weeks ago — and anybody could see that, as he stood in the Great Hall, at 81 years of age, on a rollator, on oxygen. Mr Black was not expected to survive his most recent time in hospital this year. He told his son and the rest of his family that he wants them to continue to fight. Members, I tell you now that we gave him an assurance on behalf of our party from the four colleagues who met him at the inquest and the two of us who met him in his home that day that, if the report is not on the table before he passes, we will continue that fight for him. He deserves answers; the McConville family deserves answers; all the other people who are innocent victims of any other crime deserve answers; and we will continue to fight and get justice for them.

The ombudsman's report that has been referenced today was started in 2013. Reference has been made to 2020, and, indeed, Mr Black was told more recently — this year — that he would have the report. We got a lesson on our ages from Nuala today. I might be slightly older than Nuala, but I was a very young boy 48 years ago. I think of all the atrocities in Northern Ireland through the years as I was growing up and of successive Secretaries of State, successive senior police officers and successive senior politicians going in front of the media to talk about what they would do to bring justice and find the perpetrators. I am not sure who was Secretary of State or who the senior policeman was 48 years ago, but I would love to meet them today and say, "Forty-eight years later, sir, where are the truth and justice for Mr Black, the McConvilles and all the other innocent victims in that van?".

Why is our current Secretary of State not pushing the ombudsman to release the report to give Mr Black, in the time that he has left — I hope it is long, but it could be short — the answers that he deserves? I recall sitting in his house that day. His living room and the space between his chair and his mantelpiece are not big. There is a picture on his mantelpiece of him and a cross. The cross is at Kingsmills. As someone said today, he gets up and thinks about those men every day. It is like a 48-year continuing attack on Mr Black. As the only survivor, he lives it every day. He sits in his chair, from where he can nearly reach his mantelpiece, and the picture sits there as a constant reminder to Mr Black. I think that it was his son who talked to him about taking the picture away. He said, "No. I owe it to those men" — his colleagues. That is the life that that man has lived.

Many people have been traumatised by the events in their life. Many people get the opportunity to overcome and heal from such events, but the Government have continued to make Mr Black suffer to this very day, because he has not got the answers. Until the ombudsman gives those answers, his healing cannot start. The day that he was here, there were also families: young people who had not been born who lost relatives and never got to meet them. The problem is passed down in generations, and, until we are able to help the whole family, no healing will take place.

I thank Members for taking part, and I am pleased to hear that we have universal support. I hope that the ombudsman's office is listening today, that it has a heart — I doubt it, but I hope that it does — and that it releases the report soon.