Official Report: Monday 11 November 2024

Mr Speaker: Members will have been saddened to learn of the passing of Anna Lo, a former Assembly Member for South Belfast. Anna represented the constituency of South Belfast in the Assembly from 2007 to 2016, and she was held in high esteem by all of us who served with her. Anna was a Chairperson of the then Environment Committee, and I had exchanges on various issues with her on many occasions. The exchanges were always pleasurable, however, because Anna was that type of character. She always had a smile on her face at the conclusion of any discussion, but she fought passionately for what she believed in.

We have absolute respect for what Anna did and what she achieved. She was the first person from a Chinese background to sit in any Parliament in the United Kingdom and, indeed, in Europe. That was a significant achievement. Dr Paisley had a particular affection for Anna Lo and what she represented. We are privileged to have many people from ethnic minorities in our community. It was the Assembly's privilege to have someone from an ethnic minority background representing the people of South Belfast, and we had the utmost respect for Anna Lo.

Many people, particularly in the Alliance Party, will be deeply saddened by Anna's passing. Some of the people who are Members of the Assembly now were previously members of her staff, and they will, understandably, be feeling that pain. I particularly want to express the sympathies of the House to Anna's partner and her two sons at this difficult time. We all know the burden of losing a loved one and we express our deepest condolences and sympathies to Anna's immediate family at this time.

Members will wish to speak on this matter and will have up to three minutes in which to do that.

Mrs Long: This is a tribute that I hoped I would never have to pay. For all of us in the Alliance Party, it is hard to contemplate that Anna is no longer with us. She was full of energy and joy and lit up every room that she entered. It is hard to believe that we will not see her again. On behalf of Alliance, I extend condolences to her sons, Owen and Conall; her daughter-in law, Fiona; her two grandchildren; and her partner, Robert. Anna was hugely proud of her family, and I know that they will truly miss her.

When making tributes to public figures, we often speak in superlatives, using words such as trailblazing, unique, groundbreaking and transformational. Few truly deserve such praise, and there are still fewer for whom those words feel inadequate to express what they were to us, but Anna was one of those precious few. Born in Hong Kong, Anna came here and made her home here. Now, at a time when immigration is such a contested issue, we remember with gratitude the fact that Anna chose this place — chose us — and made a huge contribution to the community here. As a translator, a social worker, the chief executive of the Chinese Welfare Association and a Member of the Assembly, Anna's life was one of service. Her compassion, empathy, intelligence and insight made her not just an excellent legislator and Environment Committee Chair, but an outstanding constituency worker.

Anna was, however, much more than her work. She was a published author, a gifted artist and someone who loved to spend time walking and hiking in nature; a fact that is reflected in many of her paintings. Her thirst for knowledge and learning — her natural curiosity — made her a joy to be around.

I first met Anna when I was a councillor in Belfast City Council, and she was a member of the good relations steering panel. At that time, she was also guiding the plans for the new Chinese Resource Centre through the various procedural hoops for planning and funding. From the minute that I met her, I was hugely impressed by her. Her commitment to the city, to public service and to building a truly shared and united community shone through. Integration and fairness were in her DNA. I saw in Anna the qualities that would make her an excellent public representative, and I asked her, in 2007, whether she would consider running for Alliance in South Belfast. She could not have been more surprised when I asked, and I could not have been more delighted when she agreed. After she spoke to the local association at a selection meeting, only days later, they were thrilled to select her as their candidate. The rest, as they say, is history.

That was genuine history in the making, however, in that Anna became the first person from an ethnic minority background to be elected in Northern Ireland and the first person from a Chinese background to be elected to any legislature in western Europe. She paved the way for others from minority backgrounds to participate and contribute, and, as a society, we are much the richer for that.

Her election showed the best of us in Northern Ireland: warm, welcoming, diverse and confident. That was the Northern Ireland that she loved and helped to nurture. Sadly, however, her election also brought out the worst in some people: Anna was subjected to appalling racism and abuse. Anna's bravery in facing down her abusers, on her own behalf and on behalf of others, was matched only by the support and encouragement that flowed towards her from friends, colleagues and constituents, all of whom were inspired by her resilience. There could be no more passionate and consistent an advocate for the causes that she took up and that were close to her heart. To have Anna on your side was to have a determined and persistent champion, whether that be for the protection of the environment, human rights or equality and women's rights.

For those of us who knew her best, Anna was not just a colleague but a friend. Over the years, she was a huge encouragement and support to me, as she was to many. I will miss her directness, candour, wit and humour so much. Anna quietly shaped and, on occasion, even changed my views in ways that she will never know, all thanks to her honesty and compassion. For those of you who know me, you will appreciate the achievement that that represents.

Anna was not a religious person. As a humanist, she believed in the goodness of people and their ability to transcend division. She exemplified that, every day of her life. Good things do, indeed, come in small packages, and Anna Lo was the best of us. She was my friend: warm, witty, funny, fierce, courageous and kind. I will miss her enormously, but she will live on in her legacy and in the hearts of all those whom she touched with her kindness.

Ms Ennis: As Sinn Féin Chief Whip, it is my honour to say a few words on behalf of the party on the passing of Anna Lo. Anna Lo has been described as a trailblazer, a champion of equality and peace and a fearless campaigner who fought against discrimination her entire life.

I know, from speaking to colleagues who worked with her over many years in the Assembly, that she was certainly all those things and much more.

As the first politician from a minority ethnic background to be elected to the Chamber, and, indeed, the first Chinese person to be elected to a legislative Parliament anywhere in western Europe, she broke new ground, but she also stood her ground. It is always difficult to be the first. There is no doubt that Anna faced appalling racism, misogyny and bigotry throughout her political career. However, she was never deterred from doing what she believed in. She never shied away from speaking her mind or doing what she believed was right.

She may have been small in stature, but she always stood tall when it came to representing her constituents and defending the rights of those who needed her assistance. Of course, there were often political disagreements. Anna, although she was a straight talker, was always respectful and courteous in the cut and thrust of political discourse. Whether it was campaigning for equality or women's rights, or fighting discrimination and racism, there was much common ground on which Sinn Féin was proud to stand with her. She is a great loss to those ongoing campaigns. She is a great loss to the political process here. Most of all, she is an immeasurable loss to her partner, Robert, her sons, Conall and Owen, and her wider family and friends. Our thoughts are with you today. On behalf of Sinn Féin, I offer our sincerest condolences to you all.

Mrs Little-Pengelly: Today, we remember Anna Lo, someone whose place in the history of the Assembly and Northern Ireland is assured. When Anna Lo became an MLA for South Belfast in 2007, she made history as a first. Her election was a significant milestone, but the fact that Anna remains the sole MLA from a minority ethnic background highlights how far we still have to go to honour her legacy by making the House more reflective of our increasingly diverse society.

Anna was, undoubtedly, much loved by those who knew her and much respected by those who worked with her. As someone who represented South Belfast, I heard that love and respect for her first-hand from so many people in so many places. She genuinely blazed a trail. She did so with passion, ability, commitment and some style. I know that she loved representing South Belfast, a constituency with such incredible diversity, and she worked hard for her constituents there.

On behalf of the Democratic Unionist Party, I extend our deepest sympathies to Anna's family, friends and colleagues in the Alliance Party. We extend our heartfelt condolences on Anna's passing and assure them of our thoughts and prayers at this difficult time.

Mr Nesbitt: As we create this tapestry of tributes to Anna Lo, it is difficult, at times, to avoid repetition. However, repetition is not necessarily a bad thing; not when it focuses on Anna Lo's values and the great contribution that she made, not just in the Chamber but to society in general.

Before she was here, Anna spent some time working for BBC Northern Ireland, which is where I first came across her. She was working on the administrative side of the BBC's World Service operation in Belfast. For a young aspiring journalist, having, "Worked for the World Service" on your CV was very desirable at the time. The obstacle was the person who was head of the World Service. I will not name them — if you know, you know — but they were difficult. Anna became the bridge between young, nervous reporters like me and that formidable head of the BBC World Service in Belfast.

I think that "being a bridge", to a certain extent, summarises Anna's contribution to public life in Northern Ireland down the years. She was a fantastic character. She made a tremendous contribution. At all times, she was not just a public servant but public-spirited. She was very direct. I will never forget Anna coming straight up to me on one sunny March morning outside the famous Willard Hotel in Washington DC. I had made a statement the night before. She had obviously read it. She deconstructed it. She changed my mind, and she admonished me. In a way, that underlines the sense of respect that she commanded as a great person.

She will be sadly missed. On behalf of the Ulster Unionist Party, I offer my condolences to her family and friends.

Mr O'Toole: I join everyone else who has paid sincere and fulsome tribute to Anna Lo on her passing. I extend the condolences of the SDLP and me to her family, including her partner, Robert, her two sons and her grandchildren, and to her colleagues in the Alliance Party, who will be feeling her loss most acutely, having stood with and worked with her so closely over the years.

When you become a representative for South Belfast, as I am proud to be — as are you, Mr Speaker, and others in the Chamber — one of the things that you are most proud of and feel most passionate about representing is the diversity of South Belfast. Of course, Anna Lo represented that in a very obvious way in that she was not only the first and, so far, frustratingly, the only ethnic minority MLA to serve in the Assembly but as others, including Naomi Long, her party leader, have said, the first legislator from a Chinese background in all of western Europe. What an extraordinary achievement. If that were the sum total of Anna's achievement, that would in itself be remarkable, but it was not. She was a fierce advocate, a talented legislator, an extraordinary communicator and campaigner and a diligent constituency worker. People from all backgrounds in that wonderfully diverse constituency of South Belfast that we serve feel real affection and, as the deputy First Minister said, love for Anna Lo, because she was an extraordinary representative and an extraordinary human being. She represented extraordinary qualities in overcoming division.

It is often said by people who get frustrated by this place — sometimes by people who leave this place and wonder whether they should come back — that Northern Ireland never changes. In many ways, Anna Lo was the rebuke to that view. Anna Lo represented positive change. She was not just an emblem or symbol of that change; she helped to deliver it by working for her constituents, including but not limited to those from ethnic minority backgrounds, for all of South Belfast and, indeed, for all of Northern Ireland when she was Chair of the Environment Committee. The extent and depth of her achievement are evidenced by the warmth and sincerity of the praise that we have heard for her today. We are all the poorer for her loss.

I offer my condolences again to not only her family, who will be feeling the loss most acutely, but her friends and colleagues in the Alliance Party, who rightly treasured her contribution so much. We offer them our sincere condolences.

Ms Bradshaw: I start by expressing my condolences to the family and friends of Anna on her passing.

I first met Anna Lo in her capacity as director of the Chinese Welfare Association in 1997, which was the year that I started working in the voluntary sector. Our paths crossed many times, so I saw at first hand how she championed not just those from a Chinese or Asian background but those from all sections of society, including people of colour and those from different cultural and religious backgrounds. She always did that with her warmth and wit. She was also a great advocate for the celebration of cultural diversity, and she very much contributed to the likes of the Belfast Mela every year.

When I joined the Alliance Party in 2010, she invited me out for coffee and said, "I will be running for only one more term, and I will support you in that transition". She did that with generosity of spirit and warmth. We know in the Chamber that that transition from one politician to another is not always easy, but Anna was exemplary in that.

I also extend the condolences of the South Belfast association. We have a large membership, and they were all so fond of Anna. When we used to go out campaigning, we nearly had to allocate somebody to Anna, because she got caught at doors because everybody wanted to speak to her, spend some time with her and exchange views. We all have very happy, warm memories of her.

I saw that, over the weekend, a lot of people, me included, shared photos of Anna being at many rallies. She was a champion for those who experienced racism, homophobia, transphobia and misogyny and those who were being deprived of their human rights in terms of reproductive health. In many ways, she was the embodiment of the Alliance Party's core values. She was a genuinely wonderful person. I will sorely miss her.

Mr Carroll: I extend my sympathies to Anna's family, friends and all her Alliance Party colleagues on her very sad passing.

There is no doubt that Anna was a tenacious trailblazer. She had many barriers in her way that were put in place by a society that makes life harder for women, particularly women from a racialised minority. One can only imagine the barriers and obstacles that Anna had to face and overcome every day, especially as an elected representative. She had to face brutal racism and hatred, but she stood against hatred, racism and the bullies. She was absolutely brave in doing so.

From my memory, Anna was one of the first pro-choice MLAs — certainly the first that I saw — to speak in support of reproductive rights. It would have been easier for her to keep her head down and not speak up about women's reproductive rights, but keeping quiet was not what she did and rightly so. Before I was an MLA, some party activists and I were involved in some anti-racist activity with Anna Lo around, I think, 2014. We worked with Anna, speaking on platforms and organising protests that said that all racialised minorities were welcome in Belfast and beyond. It was really important. That was not the sum of her work, but it was an important part of it. Our city and our society are better for the work that Anna did. She was an important figurehead for anti-racist sentiment in Belfast and beyond, and that is more important today than it was in 2007 when she first became an MLA. I hope that her friends and colleagues can be proud of that legacy and of so much more that she did. I express my condolences on her sad passing.

Ms Sugden: I, too, offer my sincere condolences to the family, friends and colleagues of Anna Lo.

It was a pleasure to have known and worked with her. Many have said this, because, simply, it is true: she was a trailblazer, and she did it with style. No one rocked a leather jacket in the Chamber as well as Anna Lo [Laughter.]

She did it with energy and good humour. Ultimately, however, she served her community and all others.

Elected politics in Northern Ireland is difficult, especially when presented with the challenges that Anna experienced. Society no longer accepts those challenges because leaders such as Anna Lo faced them down. She was unique because she was the first; sadly, she is not yet the first of many, but that will come, and it will be because of Anna. That will be her legacy.

I offer my deepest condolences to all who knew and loved her.

Ms Nicholl: I first met Anna Lo when I joined her office as a work experience student 12 years ago. She was the first person for whom I ever voted, and the more I got to know her, the more I respected her. She talked about issues that others were often too afraid to talk about. As Claire said, she wore a leather jacket. She bought that jacket because she did a course on women in leadership, where they said that men had to wear blazers in the Chamber so women should wear jackets too. I think that Anna got a leather jacket out of spite and to take that advice on board.

Anna somehow managed to deliver brutal honesty with so much warmth. Jenna and Cathy, who are my work sisters, are in the Public Gallery, but, once, another one of my colleagues, who is in America, got a haircut. She came in, and Anna said, "Did you get a haircut?". My colleague said, "Yes, do you like it?", and Anna said, "No". [Laughter.]

Anna never lied. She wondered how dishonest people kept track of what they said. It was not just us who she was direct with. She told constituents when she thought that they were being unreasonable. She told other politicians when she did not like their behaviour, and party policy rarely dissuaded her from saying what she thought.

Anna taught me so much about the value of hard work. The ushers will remember frequently having to go up to her office to check when she was going home so that they could lock up, because she was the last person here, diligently reading her Committee papers late into the night. She told me that you can never please everyone, but, if you stick to your values, you maintain your integrity. Mostly, she showed me how politics can be done with kindness and empathy, which goes so much further than one-upmanship or bitterly fixating on difference and the past.

Born in Hong Kong, Anna left school at an early age, but her thirst for knowledge never left her. She knew what it was like to be denied opportunities and to feel like an outsider, so she built a career that was founded on inclusivity as a police interpreter, a social worker, the director of the Chinese Welfare Association and, later, as Alliance MLA for South Belfast. Anna was never particularly interested in political theory or strategy; she was just interested in people and making their lives a bit better. She made so many people's lives better, including my own.

Suzanne Breen said that she was good fun, and she was so much fun. Despite so many personal and professional challenges, she lived her life with such energy and optimism. There was a pure, almost childlike joy about her. Anna loved the arts, the environment, going for walks, good food — she was an amazing cook — and spending time with her many friends, but her greatest love was her two sons, Conall and Owen. She would tell anyone who would listen how accomplished they were, their achievements, how they were doing in university and how they were so handsome. She used to tell me that, if I wanted children, I needed to find a Chinese husband. Any time she saw beautiful children, she said, "Oh, they are gorgeous. You know, my children are gorgeous too. They are Eurasian". She was so funny and so proud of her sons. She leaves a remarkable legacy for her children and grandchildren, whom she so adored.

A life of hard work and service had not given her the time for herself that she richly deserved, yet she never seemed to age. In fact, that almost reversed in retirement, and meeting Robert was life-enhancing. Every time I saw her, she was glowing — days filled with painting, swimming, gardening and travel. The cruellest part of her passing is that the life that she had so longed for and that she was finally living has been cut short.

Principled, inclusive, warm and brave, Anna Lo embodied everything that we need more of in politics and in life. My work mum, my mentor, my inspiration, my friend. I cannot believe that she has gone, but I am so glad that, before she went, I got to tell her that I loved her, because I really did. All who loved her will feel her loss profoundly, particularly Conall, Owen and Robert. We will remember Anna Lo for ever.

Mrs Cameron: I rise to pay tribute to Ms Anna Lo and to pass on my condolences, as an MLA, to Anna's partner, Robert, her sons, her wider family and friends and, of course, to Anna's Alliance family circle on Anna's very sad passing.

I had the pleasure of serving on the Environment Committee for a number of years as Deputy Chair while Anna was Chair. Anna was a very good Chair. She was very fair, very respected and very respectful. She was warm, a great character, full of fun, always smiling and incredibly knowledgeable and passionate on environmental issues. She was a little but strong lady who spoke her mind, and she was not afraid to do so. Anna certainly made her mark during her time in the Assembly, and we will remember her for that. I know that she will be missed not just by her family and friends but by those of us who were fortunate enough to have known her, even for a short time, and to have worked alongside her in the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Mr Dickson: I first met Anna before I knew of her involvement in the politics of the Alliance Party in Northern Ireland. I met her when she was working for the Chinese Welfare Association and I was providing employment documentation support on behalf of the Labour Relations Agency to that organisation. There was definitely a ray of sunshine in that room and in those meetings that I had with her.

Anna joined the Alliance Party, and, as our leader said, in a whirlwind was selected to be a candidate and got elected to the Assembly in 2007. She was here until 2016. I joined her in the Assembly in 2011 and was proud to do so. We were a small team at that time, very close-knit and working very closely together in the roles and responsibilities that we had in the Assembly.

Anna was a friend and a champion of all that she stood for. She stood in the European election in 2014, and, as a party officer, I had a lot of time to spend with her, campaigning and going with her as she went to various events and knocked doors across Northern Ireland. That election had all the hallmarks of a Northern Ireland election from its highs to its appalling lows and to the way in which Anna was treated quite often not only in the press but by her political opponents. I will never forget some of the horrible times that she went through, but Anna had a resilience and that wonderful smile, and she just pushed on in everything that she did. However, I know personally that those attacks took a toll on her.

Anna left here in 2016. She retired from active politics but always kept her passions and interests alive. She was a talented artist. If Members have the opportunity to look at Facebook and elsewhere where you can see some of her art, they will find it absolutely incredible. I am just sorry that I did not have the opportunity to get some of her wonderful art.

Today, I add my words of condolence and sympathy to her family, her wider family circle and all her Alliance Party colleagues, as well as to those constituents in South Belfast who will forever remember Anna Lo.

Mr Durkan: It is with great pride but huge sadness that I pay tribute to the late Anna Lo. Others have spoken of Anna's role as a trailblazer and pathfinder. She showed what could be done and how it could be done well. Anna served with distinction and determination as an MLA and in the role of Chairperson of the Environment Committee, in which role I, as a former Environment Minister, had quite a few dealings with her. She never let our shared passion or, indeed, policies for the environment temper her scrutiny of my Department, and, although we occasionally crossed swords, there were never cross words.

I admired her effectiveness as a politician and public representative but even more so her ebullience as a person. Her very presence as an elected representative from an ethnic minority background was rare, but the warmth and respect that she showed others was even more so. The House has been a poorer place without her. My condolences, thoughts and prayers are with her family, friends and party colleagues. The world will be a poorer place without her.

Ar dheis Dé go raibh a hanam uasal.

Ms K Armstrong: I came to the House in 2016, after Anna had left, but that does not mean to say that I did not know Anna in her role as a politician. I remember that, in 2014, as part of the European election campaign, she came to Portaferry to look at the SeaGen turbine that was in Strangford lough at the time. It was an absolutely miserable day. The car was fogged up. It was terrible, and there was nothing that we could do other than get out of the car and stand along the coastline, where Anna quizzed me for about 45 minutes about how the turbine worked. That encapsulates part of what we have heard here today from so many others. Anna Lo was absolutely committed to the environment. She not only loved doing her work but loved the environment. She loved doing things that were going to protect it, not just for her but for all of us.

Anna was a person who loved very warmly. In recent times, an event was held for former and current female elected representatives of the Assembly, and Anna attended it. I watched as she went round the room, and there was not a single female elected representative in the room, no matter what the party, whom Anna did not hug. We all know what Anna's hugs were like. I am very sorry for Owen and Conall and for Robert. Although they have lost a very precious person, we have all lost. Anna was a warm person. She epitomised what Alliance is about. One did not really get into an argument with Anna. She talked you round and made sure that you understood exactly how she felt, but it was all done with a smile on her face and with great warmth in her heart.

Others from the Alliance Party have spoken very warmly about Anna today. I think of Kate, Cathy, Jenna and all who worked with Anna for so long over the years. She was their work mummy, and they will desperately miss her.

Anna was my friend. She and I did not exactly share a lot of height, but the good thing about that was that, when she hugged me, she hugged me really hard, and I will miss her so much.

Mr Brett: My thoughts are with those who knew Anna Lo and those who loved her. I had only one interaction with her, and that was in this place. I was a politics student at Belfast Royal Academy in 2009. Our class was very diverse, and we could not agree on a single thing. Our teacher, trying to get us to agree and not argue with us, decided that it would be a good idea to come up with a dream team, including who we could agree should be the First Minister. To a man and to a woman in that class, everyone agreed that that person should be Anna Lo. We came on our visit to Stormont and we had made signs to say "Anna Lo for First Minister". [Laughter.]

We arrived here and Anna was not in the Building. Instead of devoting her time to her constituency office in South Belfast, she drove from her office to Stormont. There was nothing for Anna to gain in doing that — we were all from North Belfast — but she knew the importance of ensuring that young people were interested in politics. She sat with us for 90 minutes. Her office staff were telling her that she had other engagements, but the people in that room were the most important to her that day. She taught us one thing, and that was that we need to learn to disagree well. Whilst we may have different political views and aspirations, our job as politicians is to serve the collective interests of the people whom we are honoured to represent. That day, Anna Lo, probably unintentionally, had an impact on me.

Our job, as public representatives, is to devote our lives, day and daily, to making the work of this place deliver for the most vulnerable in our society. I am very sorry that I never got to sit in this place or work with Anna Lo, but her legacy lives on. Let it be her epitaph that people in this Chamber learn to disagree well.

Mr Muir: Today, as we mourn the passing of Anna, I want to give thanks for a life of public service, and that has been outlined by many today. That public service included her role as head of the Chinese Welfare Association then as an MLA for South Belfast and Chair of the Environment Committee. We are so lucky that Anna chose Northern Ireland to be her home, as her book title states, 'The Place I Call Home: From Hong Kong to Belfast - My Story'. What a wonderful story it is: a story of being courageous in the face of numerous threats and racism, a story of being committed to serving her constituents diligently and a story of being a powerful leader on very difficult topics but someone who stood up and spoke out for many people, including on women's reproductive rights. I give thanks for that.

She was a gentle, kind and humorous person and someone whom I admired deeply. I wish that we could have more politicians like Anna. We were very lucky that Anna chose North Down as her home in recent years, and I was delighted to have Anna as a constituent. She will be missed not just in North Down but by her friends and colleagues in the party and more broadly across Northern Ireland and in this place. Anna was a wonderful person. Her dedication to the environment was well known, and that is something that gives me inspiration in the job that I do so that I can serve the people of Northern Ireland just as well as Anna did.

Mr Speaker: That brings to a conclusion the contributions of the Members who requested to speak on this matter. We were not scheduled to do this, but I would like Members to stand for a moment to reflect on Anna Lo.

Mr Speaker: Thank you. Please be seated.

Mr Kearney: Sinn Féin leaders have consistently sought to heal divisions through efforts to build trust and foster reconciliation, and that has often meant stepping beyond traditional comfort zones. The participation in yesterday's Remembrance Sunday ceremony by Michelle O'Neill as a First Minister for all, who is also an Irish republican, represents a gesture of respect for those dead from Ireland — and their loved ones — who served in British forces during Britain's wars.

That is notwithstanding my and my party's republican and anti-imperialist opposition to those same colonial wars and global conflicts, both historically and in more recent times. By attending, she was acknowledging the pain and suffering of all those who have lost their lives, on all sides, in the horror of World War I and during subsequent conflicts.

War can never be romanticised or glorified. All wars are terrible. The ongoing genocide in Gaza is a graphic reality of how terrible war is. International humanitarian law, diplomacy and multilateralism must always be paramount. Serving as a First Minister means being a First Minister for unionists, for republicans and for those from neither background. The dead from all traditions, including republican patriot dead, should be afforded the right of respectful commemoration.

There is also a broader point: political leaders must lead by example. All our actions today must be about laying the foundations for the transition to a new constitutional settlement in Ireland that is based on respect, inclusion, pluralism and equality.

Ms Forsythe: Delivering more affordable childcare has long been a priority for the DUP. Within seven months of devolution being restored, our Education Minister designed a scheme to slash childcare bills by 15%. The latest figures that I have received show that 13,294 children have been registered for the Northern Ireland childcare subsidy scheme, with parents saving £1 million every month. That is additional money that is remaining in the household budgets of working parents in every part of Northern Ireland. I stood for election to the House in 2022 on the DUP manifesto commitment to help working families and deliver on childcare, and I am proud to see real progress on it.

In the range of schemes, the Education Minister delivered on securing the Sure Start provision. That is a successful partnership between the Department of Education and the Department of Health that delivers the best early intervention outcomes for children in Northern Ireland. The Education Minister has also expended our preschool provision as a commitment to ensuring fair access to preschool provision for all children across Northern Ireland so that they have the best start in life. We now see 96% of all registered daycare providers set up and registered to provide the childcare subsidy scheme. Significant numbers of childminders and play groups are also included.

We want to make further progress to make the childcare sector more sustainable. We have identified a problem and practical measures to help. That is our focus across government: staying committed to our election manifesto, delivering for working families and delivering on childcare.

Mrs Guy: In Anti-bullying Week, the first thing that I want to do is to speak out to anyone who is experiencing bullying. It is an absolutely shattering thing to go through, and I want to encourage anyone who is experiencing it to reach out to a parent, their school or an organisation like Childline to get the support that they need to get through that experience. I know that words from an MLA who you have probably never heard of will be little consolation if you are going through it, but I felt that it was a better use of my time to speak words like that than to go through lots of statistics about bullying.

The House has not been behind in looking at the issue. I want to acknowledge that we have legislation, the Addressing Bullying in Schools Act. I am grateful to the Minister for providing me with information on the impact and implementation of that Act. Around 9,000 people have experienced some training on bullying, about 146 schools are involved in putting together leadership training on bullying, and almost 300 referrals have come through on bullying. Bullying is an issue that we cannot stop talking about and that will always recur. We have to keep our focus on it and look at what else we can do.

The Act required schools to gather information and statistics, but they are not shared with the Department. I call on the Minister to start gathering that information and to publish annual reports on bullying in schools so that we can better target resources and do a better job of trying to eradicate bullying in our schools.

Dr Aiken: Today in the Assembly, we solemnly gathered to remember those who gave their all so that we may have the freedoms that we have today. We often forget that those who made the ultimate sacrifice in the defence of our nation and the wider democratic way of life that we cherish did so not for some base ideology but because they wanted to defend their family, their friends, their community and our way of life. Wherever they served our nation, their willingness to put themselves in harm's way speaks to their courage, which we must never forget.

The wearing of the poppy is also a reminder that war and conflict continue to be with us. Recent history, regrettably, shows that violent ideology, nationalism and race hate are back with a vengeance to haunt us all. That is marked in particular by two events this weekend at either end of Europe. On the 86th anniversary of Kristallnacht, the violence against Jewish people in the streets of Amsterdam was rightly identified by the President of Israel, Isaac Herzog, as a pogrom. This is Europe in the 21st century. Secondly, virtually ignored and forgotten by our near-instance, short-attention-span media, a full-scale war is ongoing in Ukraine between Putin, along with his North Korean and Iranian allies, and the Ukrainians, to whom we should be giving all our support.

The continued rise of the antisemitism that pervades what passes for political thought in some sections of this island and across Europe and the war in Ukraine are clearly and irrevocably linked. The naivety of those political and media commentators who do not see the interlinking of that wider-scale conflict in the Middle East, directed by Iran, and the battles in Ukraine, directed by Russia, show that they are perfect examples of Lenin's useful idiots. You do not need to look very far to find them.

One of my predecessors as Ulster Unionist Party leader, Jim Molyneaux, saw first-hand the impacts of destructiveness and hate when he helped to liberate the Bergen-Belsen concentration camp in 1945. The horrors of war and the inhumanity and evil shown were that which our forebears fought against and which many of us who have served since thought had been consigned to the past. Regrettably, today, unless we take urgent steps to properly defend our freedoms and fight intolerance, it will not be long until those horrors are revisited on us all. As we remember the past, do not ignore the facts that could lead us inexorably back to those dark days.

Mr Sheehan: Tá deis againn an tseachtain seo díriú isteach ar an mhaistíneacht agus Seachtain na Frithmhaistíneachta ar siúl.

Is minic a phléitear an mhaistíneacht sa Tionól, agus rinne muid an tAcht um Aghaidh a Thabhairt ar an Mhaistíneacht i Scoileanna (TÉ) 2016 a chur i gcrích agus a chur chun feidhme le blianta beaga anuas.

Cé go bhfuil dul chun cinn bainte amach againn, tá obair go fóill le déanamh le haird a tharraingt ar an mhaistíneacht — go háirithe an chibearmhaistíneacht — ó tharla méadú suntasach ag teacht ar líon na ndaoine a ndéantar maistíneacht orthu. Dar leis an Eagraíocht Dhomhanda Sláinte go bhfuil méadú tagtha ar líon na gcibirionsaithe sna Sé Chontae, ach ní hé amháin anseo ach fud fad an domhain. Sa bhliain 2018, tuairiscíodh go ndearnadh maistíneacht ar aon duine óg as seisear. Is tráthúil go bhfuilim ag caint air seo ós rud é go bhfuil Mí Eorpach na Cibearshlándála ann an mhí seo chomh maith.

Gach bliain, ceapann Anti-Bullying Alliance téama ar leith don bhliain, agus Choose Respect an téama a cheap siad i mbliana. Mar chuid den fheachtas sin, iarrann Anti-Bullying Alliance orainn dhá stoca chorra a chaitheamh ar an 12 Samhain le haird a tharraingt ar na rudaí a dhéanann daoine ar leith dínn.

Tá mé ag dúil go mór le bhur stocaí corra a fheiceáil amárach.

Mr Middleton: Today is an important day of remembrance, when we remember all those who fought and died for our freedoms. It is also a day to remember Winston Cross. Winston was only 18 years old and was from the Glen estate on the city side of Londonderry. His family described him as a "happy-go-lucky" teenage boy who was funny, full of life and had a bright future ahead of him. Winston worked as a painter in Ebrington Barracks and was leaving his work one Friday in 1974 to join the army the following week. He had his papers to sign up on Tuesday 11 November 1974, 50 years ago to the very day.

Winston's sister, Sharon, shared her story, and here are some of her words:

— that was 8 November —

In stark contrast to the murderers, the people in the Glen estate were all mixed and from various backgrounds, but:

Today, I want to ensure that the name Winston Cross is remembered in the House. Let us make sure that Winston, who was brutally murdered in the prime of his youth, is never forgotten. My thoughts and prayers are with Winston's family and friends. Their loved one was cruelly taken from them by murderous cowards 50 years ago today. Fifty years on, we will remember him. This evening, a special 50th anniversary service will take place at All Saints’ Clooney Parish Church, where a plaque will be unveiled. We will be thinking of the family at this time.

Ms Bradshaw: My statement is on remembrance, exactly 106 years after the end of World War I. However people choose to remember and reflect, it is important that we do so. We remember the sacrifice of so many during two world wars and other conflicts. We recall also the loss of civilian lives in conflict, and we reflect on the ongoing need to promote peace, democracy and the rule of law. Historians will always dispute what truly led to World War I, and we must be wary of any glorification of it. Nearly all of us have ancestors who fought in the war. Few spoke of it particularly fondly, and many did not speak of it at all. The appalling loss of life and the suffering of so many, combined with the collective trauma, are what we should remember. The tragedy is that the very next generation faced the trauma of global conflict yet again.

Within most of our lifetimes, we experienced conflict in our land. Nearly 4,000 people were killed, 10 times that number were injured and, sadly, there absolutely were alternatives. At least we recognised, even if it was too late and after too much suffering, that there is no future in murder and mayhem. We may reflect on those who are always focused on building peace and creating a fair society. We may reflect on those in many other parts of the world where, sadly, murder and mayhem are still the norm. In the Middle East, Ukraine, many parts of sub-Saharan Africa and numerous other places, we see the types of suffering and instability that will create cycles of conflict that are likely to last for generations if no one has the courage to focus on our common humanity and build and lead a peace process.

For all that, we must reflect that, contrary to what we may perceive from the news, globally, we are lucky enough to live in the safest and healthiest period in human history. In those 106 years, global life expectancy has more than doubled, entire diseases have been wiped out, rates of murder and violent crime have plummeted and more people than ever live in a democracy. That is due in many parts to the sacrifice of those who gave their todays for our tomorrows.

In this part of the world, we should therefore reflect on the fact that, at this stage in the 21st century, UK and Irish troops as often as not work alongside each other on peacekeeping missions; in fact, the UK contributes almost 7% of the entire UN peacekeeping budget. That work is often overlooked precisely because it does not appear on the news; indeed, it prevents even more places from ending up on the news.

Mr Gildernew: This afternoon, I raise the issue of the arts sector here. Last week, Equity, the actors' union, addressed a number of MLAs in room 115. What was clear from the testimony of those artists and actors and the people who work with them was the lack of support that they receive and how difficult it is to be a full-time member of the creative industries here.

We are all aware of the value and the worth of the creative industries across the island of Ireland. We, as a small island, punch well above our weight. We see the outworking of that at some of the big, global events, such as the Oscars, where Irish actors and Irish films are often featured at the top level of those industries. That all comes from the grassroots and from the people who take part in drama and writing, those who help to stage events, and musicians. All those people are fundamentally challenged in doing their job here. What was reflected to us the other day is the fact that many young artists, in particular, are now looking to move to other places. We should do everything that we can to prevent that. We should create an environment here where those artists are supported. While they are some of the best talents across the world, they do not get the best support on these islands.

I call on the Minister for Communities to look at that situation. I know that he has done some work on it. The Committee is also doing work on it. We need to look at putting in place a support system that allows artists to create their work and supports them to do so. All of us will reap the many benefits of that, which go way beyond the arts. They reach into health and social cohesion and out into communities. I underline the plight of those artists.

Mr Brooks: I congratulate President-elect Donald Trump and his Vice President-elect JD Vance on their remarkable election victory in the United States. There is a spectrum of political views in this place. It is no surprise that there are differences of opinion on international affairs. Just as I congratulated the incumbent president in Belfast City Hall after his election, despite some questionable remarks and political differences with unionism, I, today, heartily welcome the return of President Trump. As ever, I look forward to continuing to build strong relationships for unionism and Northern Ireland on both sides of the aisle, as ever, but particularly with the incoming Trump team, knowing that, in his first term, his ears and his door were open and he was more balanced in his approach and more open to hearing unionist concerns and priorities than many Administrations in my lifetime.

The roots that bind our people run long, deep and strong. I hope that, in the coming presidential term, we are able to cultivate still stronger ties and transatlantic cooperation economically and culturally. As we approach the 250th anniversary of US independence, we recall the trans-generational, transatlantic journeys of the Ulster-Scots people. As we work to reawaken awareness of the Ulster-Scots diaspora and the Ulster-Scots role in founding and shaping the United States, it is exciting to have a prominent and eloquent Scotch-Irish Vice President-elect in JD Vance, who is aware of and takes pride in his Scotch-Irish lineage. Over centuries, waves of Scotch-Irish immigrants have left these shores to build new lives in America, bringing with them the values of hard work and resilience and a fierce dedication to freedom and democracy. Those people and communities today face challenges, as we do at home, but many of the pioneers helped to shape America's frontier, laying the groundwork for the vibrant nation that it is today. Vice President-elect Vance's Scotch-Irish heritage is a proud reminder of that legacy, a heritage shared by many past presidents and a testament to the lasting influence of those who came from Northern Ireland and travelled along the great wagon road on the spirit and character of the United States.

Today is Armistice Day. Yesterday, I stood at the memorial at the former US military cemetery at Lisnabreeny, as I do each year, to remember not only our servicemen but our allies. Young Americans prepared there to launch the famed allied attacks on the beaches of Nazi-occupied France. They, by the way, knew what a real Nazi was: American forefathers fought them alongside ours, looked them in the eyes and liberated victims from their genocidal jackboot. That may be what the Member for South Antrim referred to as "colonial wars" while forebears of his were found on Nazi U-boats. Our nations have stood side by side not only in world wars but in many conflicts since to defend the freedoms that we enjoy today. From the shores of France to the poppy fields of Afghanistan, from the Baltic to the deserts of Iraq, we will remember them. In contrast, Sinn Féin and the Irish republican movement —

Mr Speaker: The Member's time is up.

Mr Butler: I take the opportunity to make Members aware that this is the start of Safer Ageing Week. Safer Ageing Week is an initiative run by the charity Hourglass, which is the only UK-wide charity dedicated to calling time on harm and abuse of older people. Through its helpline, casework service and awareness-raising, it works daily for safer ageing and a fairer society. I fully support its work and agree that it is time to wake up and speak out on the abuse of older people.

Older people experience the same forms of abuse as all other age groups: psychological, sexual, physical and domestic abuse; neglect; and, sadly, economic abuse. During Safer Ageing Week this year, Hourglass asks us to take note and call out specifically the economic abuse of older people. I am told that, every day, the Hourglass helpline hears from older people who have become victims of a range of nefarious individuals. There are distressing accounts of theft and robbery, of being taken advantage of by rogue traders acting in bad faith, and, perhaps most shocking of all, of family members pressurising their older relatives into relinquishing control of their finances or building up massive debts in their name. Since 2021, Hourglass has worked with older victims of economic abuse in Northern Ireland, who have lost an estimated total of around £700,000. Those are only the recorded cases, however; much of the abuse goes unreported.

In a cruel twist, economic abuse is often accompanied by emotional blackmail — the aforementioned psychological abuse. Many older people who are grandparents fear losing access to their much-beloved grandchildren if they do not comply with the attempted manipulation or coercion around their money. Often, the family members who abuse the older person are their only meagre means of support if they have been purposely isolated. The abusers in such instances thrive on that type of impossible scenario, as they know that it makes the barriers higher and increasingly impenetrable for the older victim, who is often left powerless. Feelings of shame and fear of further isolation combine to create a wretched environment akin to a psychological prison for many of our older people.

What can we do? Indeed, what can I do? First, we can recognise Hourglass and its important work to ensure that older people do not feel isolated, neglected, trapped or powerless. We can speak up about the issue and signpost people to the Hourglass helpline. We can also support Hourglass by looking out for older people in our families, among our friends and neighbours and across our community. We should create an environment in which people are able to grow old safely. Sadly, that is sometimes not the case.

Members, take note: we will all get older, and we will all want to be protected from economic and other abuse. Let us support Hourglass and the valuable work that it does, which not only changes lives but saves them, and let us not only do that in Safer Ageing Week.

Ms Sugden: My father passed away on 1 November 2021. Earlier that year, he had been diagnosed with stage 4 lung cancer. His cancer was likely a consequence of many years of smoking, and, sadly, he realised that. However, he began smoking at a time when it was encouraged and people even suggested that smoking was good for you. His roles in the British Army and the Prison Service made it difficult to stop. He quit about 15 years before his passing, but, unfortunately, the damage had been done.

On 1 November as well, we observe the beginning of Lung Cancer Awareness Month, which serves as a reminder to all of the devastating impact of the disease and the urgent steps that we need to take to improve outcomes in Northern Ireland. My family and many other families across Northern Ireland are living with that impact. It is cruel yet hopeless to miss someone so much.

Lung cancer remains one of the deadliest cancers in Northern Ireland. Over 1,000 people are diagnosed annually. Some 74% of cases are detected at late stages, when treatment options are limited, but, by prioritising regular lung health screening and addressing other lung health issues, we can improve outcomes, and not just for lung cancer but for a wide range of respiratory conditions that affect our community. Northern Ireland does not currently offer systematic lung cancer screening, despite evidence showing that targeted, low-dose CT scans can catch lung cancer early in high-risk individuals, such as those over 55 years old or those with a history of smoking. In the United States and Europe, similar programmes have led to a significant increase in early-stage lung cancer diagnosis and improved five-year survival rates.

We need to prioritise resources for a lung cancer screening programme that includes people at high risk and extend that model to those with other chronic respiratory issues such as asthma and COPD. Screening and early diagnosis for those conditions would allow for more effective interventions, thus improving quality of life and reducing the strain on our emergency services. Asthma, for example, affects around 182,000 people in Northern Ireland, including many children. Although the condition is often manageable, uncontrolled asthma can lead to severe complications and can be fatal, but, by investing in preventative care for asthma, such as regular check-ups, access to medication and public education, the Government can reduce the need for emergency interventions and help more people lead healthier lives. Many lung cancer patients also have underlying respiratory conditions, which could be detected and help the cancer to be caught early.

We need to reduce the stigma around lung cancer. The truth is that anyone can develop it or any respiratory condition. A well-funded public awareness campaign could emphasise how lung health matters for everyone.

Mr K Buchanan: Growing up, many of us learned that the pen is mightier than the sword. That remains true today, especially when it comes to social media. Social media can be a powerful tool that helps us all communicate useful information to our constituents and wider society. Local and national media outlets use it, as do churches, schools and community groups, and our children and young people seem to spend a lot of time on their socials.

Despite the good and valuable information that can be found online, there is, however, a darker side that involves online abuse, and no one is immune to it. It can be a way for school bullies to continue their abuse outside the limits of school, and those with violent tendencies can often transfer their physical abuse to mental abuse through the use of social media. Public figures and politicians are not immune to that type of abuse, as keyboard warriors often feel that they can say what they want online without the need for accuracy of any description. There are those who believe that online abuse against politicians is inevitable and acceptable, and most public figures occasionally find themselves on the receiving end of spiteful and hurtful comments and attacks. Sometimes, a misunderstanding that could easily be resolved by a phone call or a face-to-face conversation takes on a new life when someone posts on social media. Many read comments on Facebook and other social media sites and believe the written word without doing their own research and fact-finding.

One clear rule that everyone on social media should remember is to make sure that they do not say anything in a public forum that they would not say to someone's face. Remember that the person whom you are attacking has feelings and has family members who have feelings. When individuals are attacked, those in their family and in their employment are also hurt and left feeling dejected. Regardless of whether you are a politician, a celebrity or a child or young person in school, you are not fair game. It is all too easy to get carried away when there is a keyboard at your fingertips, but remember this: there may be consequences for your actions, as there is in the real world when speaking.

Mr Speaker: That concludes the time that we have allowed for Members' statements. I encourage Members who did not get to speak today to come back tomorrow, when, hopefully, we will be able to get them in.

Mr Speaker: Before we move on to the next item of business, I advise Members that I have received notification of the resignations of Connie Egan as Deputy Chairperson of the Committee for the Executive Office and of Stewart Dickson as Deputy Chairperson of the Committee on Standards and Privileges, both with effect from Friday 8 November.

The designated nominating officer for the Alliance Party has informed me that Connie Egan has been nominated as Deputy Chairperson of the Committee on Standards and Privileges and Stewart Dickson has been nominated as Deputy Chairperson of the Committee for the Executive Office. Ms Egan and Mr Dickson have accepted their respective nominations and I am satisfied that the requirements of Standing Orders have been met.

Mr Speaker: Colm Gildernew has sought leave to present a public petition in accordance with Standing Order 22. The Member will have up to three minutes in which to speak.

Mr Gildernew: The petition is from traders in Dungannon. It contains 130 signatures, which is a large sample from what is quite a small cohort. The Dungannon traders are raising the issue of the one-hour parking restriction in Dungannon town centre. They make the case, correctly so, that that is very restrictive to people who want to come into Dungannon town centre and engage in activities.

Although one-hour parking probably allows you to do a single thing that you wanted to do in Dungannon, it probably does not allow you to do all the things that you wanted to do. If you go in for a meeting or to pick something up, within 30 to 40 minutes, you will not have time to do anything additional. You will not have time to get a coffee, to browse in some of the shops or, better still, spend money in the shops. The traders of Dungannon believe that that creates a significant disadvantage for them. Realistically, the hour is not enough time to get your lunch in Dungannon town, where you could wait for 15 to 20 minutes in some of the busier places. People are constantly watching their watch. They are not able to enjoy the town, giving the traders all the social and economic benefits that that would bring.

The traders recognise that the parking scheme could be abused by people who work in Dungannon and would park for the whole day. They have suggested, therefore, that it be changed to a two-hour period. That, they believe, would provide an extra bit of comfort, without necessarily aggravating the parking situation. The parking situation is a separate issue and should be dealt with as such.

It is also worth pointing out that some of the nearby towns have different arrangements that place Dungannon at a disadvantage. Magherafelt, for example, has two-hour parking, while Cookstown has free on-street parking.

The call for change is supported not only by the traders but by the newly formed Dungannon and South Tyrone Chamber of Commerce and Industry, which reflects the dynamic and entrepreneurial cohort of business people whom we have in the area. It is incumbent on us to support them by addressing the issue.

Finally, to demonstrate the worth of the proposed change, the traders are asking for it to be considered as a trial during the Christmas period, to allow those traders to take full advantage. I urge the Department to work with the council, which is supportive of the direction of travel, to see whether it can be done during the Christmas period.

Mr Speaker: I will forward the petition to the Minister for Infrastructure and send a copy to the Committee.

Mr Speaker: I ask Members to take their ease before we move to the statement from the Finance Minister.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): The Speaker has received notice from the Finance Minister that she wishes to make a statement. Before I call the Finance Minister, I remind Members that they must be concise in asking their questions. This is not an opportunity for debate, and long introductions will not be allowed.

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

Thank you for the opportunity to make a statement on the outcome of the 2024-25 October monitoring exercise.

As Members will be aware, the October monitoring round was postponed following confirmation that the British Chancellor would announce her autumn Budget on 30 October and set the budgets for Whitehall Departments for 2024-25. That, in turn, provided the Executive with their final spending envelope for 2024-25. Departments were invited to provide updates to their forecast overcommitments in order that the Executive could consider the most up-to-date positions in the October monitoring round.

Following the autumn Budget, the Executive have £631·5 million in resource departmental expenditure limit (DEL), £68·1 million in capital DEL and £20·4 million in financial transactions capital (FTC) available for allocation in this monitoring round. Despite the considerable additional funding provided through the autumn Budget, that still falls short of the pressures identified by Departments in full. As Finance Minister, I know and expect that every politician will make the case in the Chamber and in the media for what they would fund, but rarely do they offer where they will take money from. Articulating problems is easy; the challenge is in addressing them. The harsh reality is that we do not have enough money to do everything that we want to do, so we all have to compromise.

Before addressing departmental overcommitments, some central allocations were agreed, as they would not have been included in departmental overcommitments. An allocation of £1 million resource DEL was agreed for the costs associated with attaining the necessary assurances from Central Procurement Directorate on city and growth deal projects. Allocations of £2·8 million resource DEL and £0·1 million capital DEL were agreed for match funding to allow Departments to draw down EU funds. The Executive also agreed a resource to capital DEL switch for the Department of Justice for the NI Road Safety Partnership. Having taken account of those issues, the Executive had £627·3 million resource DEL, £68 million capital DEL and £20·4 million financial transactions capital available for allocation.

I will turn first to resource DEL. The most recent departmental returns forecast overcommitments of £791 million, meaning that, even after allocating the full £627 million, it falls short of the pressures identified by Departments. Given the Executive’s collective commitment to ensuring that public-sector workers are fairly paid, I have encouraged Ministers to prioritise pay. However, Departments will have to make savings or reduce what they want to do in order to remain within their allocations.

The general allocations to each Department are set out in table B, which accompanies the statement. There are also some earmarked allocations for specific purposes. Despite the challenges that face us, the Executive have prioritised the funding available. Some 92·6% of the resource funding available for general allocation has been provided to Health, Education and Justice: £350 million has been allocated to Health and £170 million to Education, and £36 million is being provided towards addressing pressures in Justice. In addition, £2·8 million is being provided for the costs incurred by the PSNI due to the unacceptable racist disturbances over the summer.

The Department for Communities has been provided with a general allocation of £11·3 million and an allocation of £17 million for winter fuel support. While that funding cannot mitigate fully the bad decision taken at Westminster, it shows our determination to do what we can with the constrained funding available to us to provide a level of mitigation of the detrimental impacts of winter fuel payment changes on older, vulnerable people this winter.

The Department for Infrastructure has been provided with a general allocation of £22·8 million. The Executive Office has been allocated £7 million in respect of victims’ payments. The Department for the Economy has been provided with £6·2 million and the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs with £3·6 million as general allocations. No allocation has been made to my Department.

I will turn to capital. Once again, capital bids far outstripped the available funding — some five times over. Departments submitted bids totalling £346·1 million against available funding of £68 million. Given that there are clearly considerable capital pressures across the system, I have urged any Departments with reduced requirements to bring those forward as early as possible. The Executive today agreed allocations totalling £68 million, including £24 million to be allocated to the Department for Communities for new-build social housing, which will enable delivery of up to 1,400 houses in this financial year, and a further £1 million as a general allocation.

The Department for Infrastructure has been allocated £39·6 million towards its capital pressures, including the ongoing issues arising due to constraints in the waste water infrastructure and the resultant impact on construction and the environment. Some £2 million is being given to DAERA for tackling rural poverty and social isolation (TRPSI) and £1·4 million to TEO for North/South Ministerial Council accommodation costs.

I propose a small allocation of £0·2 million of financial transactions capital to DFE to reflect a reduction in receipts. With over £20 million of financial transactions capital remaining unallocated and a further £27·7 million expected from a Budget cover transfer later this year, I have asked all Departments to consider how that can be utilised.

While the Executive do not have the funding to meet the overcommitments in full, today’s allocations of over £631 million across resource and £68·1 million capital DEL will help to alleviate some of the pressures facing Departments. The allocation reflects the total funding available this year. The British Treasury has been clear that it is unlikely that significant further funding will be made available this year. It is therefore imperative that every Minister and all Departments take the action necessary to live within their budgets following the allocations. Given the significant impact of an overspend at block level, failure by one Department to do so will have consequences for all Departments. Overspending is not an option. Doing so would run the risk of having to repay the £559 million from the financial package and of a reduction in next year’s allocation by any amount that we overspend. That would serve only to make 2025-26 even more difficult, given the constrained financial context.

We must work together to deliver a balanced Budget. The continued pay and inflationary pressures and growing demands on our services highlight the need for the transformation of our public services. The level of in-year funding reflects the reality of the underfunding of public services following 14 years of austerity. The autumn statement signalled a step in the right direction, but we need to see continued investment over the coming years to help to transform public services. With the substantive funding from the financial package ending prior to 2026-27, I am determined to continue to build on the progress made and negotiate a fair funding model, going forward, that ensures that our Budget reflects our level of need and not just the uplift provided through Barnett consequentials.

My focus will now turn quickly to the 2025-26 Budget. I intend to bring it to the Executive for consideration later this month for what, I hope, will be the last single-year Budget.

I commend the outcome of the October monitoring exercise to the Assembly.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Minister, thank you for that statement.

Mr O'Toole: Minister, you said that you did not have enough to cover the shortfall this year. You also said that difficult decisions would have to be made. One decision that you have flirted with and talked about is reviewing how our rates system works and taking a broader look at how we might raise revenue and use new fiscal levers. Nine months on from restoration and a month or more from the publication of a Budget sustainability plan, we have not heard any detail from you. When will you finally bring us detailed plans?

Dr Archibald: I am sure that the Member will acknowledge that it has been a rather busy nine months. The Budget sustainability plan was published at the beginning of October.

One of the commitments in it that the Executive agreed was to have regular strategic consideration of income generation. Last week, my officials briefed the Committee on that. The work on how we take an Executive-wide approach to that matter is ongoing. I have also submitted to the Executive a set of proposals on the short-, medium- and long-term consideration of our rating system. I hope that the Executive will consider that in the near future. I had hoped to make some progress on the rating system in the next financial year, but, if that is to be possible, we have a very tight time frame in which to do it. I still hope that the Executive will consider that.

Ms Forsythe: I thank the Minister for her statement. In it, she says:

yet she also highlights the need for Ministers to prioritise their break-even position at year end. With the £791 million of overcommitments being offset by £627 million, that leaves £164 million of a shortfall. That is a significant challenge. Can she clarify which one of these priorities is the most important as she directs Ministers: the prioritisation of pay or the prioritisation of breaking even?

Dr Archibald: Clearly, and I have articulated this on many occasions, the Executive need to balance their Budget for 2024-25 or there will be significant financial penalties that will impact on us all in the next financial year and will limit our ability to deliver on public services and public-sector pay awards. Each Minister has been given an allocation, and they will all go off now to look at the pressures that remain in their Department. Some Departments have considerable pressures to try to manage. As an Executive, we have prioritised public-sector pay since we returned in February. I know that all Ministers will want to seek to do that. It is about how we can best take action to try to go as far as possible on public-sector pay, because I think that we collectively have that commitment.

Miss Brogan: Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire as a ráiteas.

The statement is very welcome, particularly because the Finance Minister prioritised Health and Education. As a member of the Committee for Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs and a representative of a rural constituency, I also welcome the £2 million that is going towards TRPSI. Will the Minister please detail the remaining resource DEL shortfall?

Dr Archibald: The allocations reduce the departmental overcommitments from £791 million to £180 million. That reflects the significant challenges that are facing the Executive, which I have just outlined to Ms Forsythe. While I would have liked to be in a position to fund all the pressures in Departments, it simply was not possible, because providing more for one Department would simply increase the pressures on all the other Departments.

Mr Tennyson: Thank you, Minister, for the statement. I am sure that you would agree that, at a time of such constrained budgets, it would be outrageous if we were to return £48 million of FTC at the end of the financial year. Will you elaborate on what proposals you are working on with your Executive colleagues to utilise that money? When will the Assembly learn more about those?

Dr Archibald: As I know the Member will be well aware, the distinguishing feature of FTC is that the funds can be deployed by the public sector only as a loan or as equity investment in a private-sector entity, so that limits what the Executive are able to spend the financial transactions capital on. Any private-sector entity will then go on to use the funding to invest in related infrastructure. That investment has to be in line with the Executive's aims and objectives. It is challenging for Departments to identify suitable projects. Clearly, we want to ensure that those projects that Departments bring forward align with the Executive's policy aspirations. At every opportunity that I have had to engage with them on budgetary matters, I have encouraged all Departments to bring forward proposals on financial transactions capital. I have done so particularly in engagements that I have had with the Communities Minister given that there is a significant pressure on the supply of social housing. The Department for Communities has brought forward some proposals on the use of financial transactions capital, but it is important that all Departments try to think imaginatively about how they could utilise that funding. FTC is not necessarily returned if it is not spent; it can be utilised to pay off other FTC loans, so it is not lost to us, as an Executive. However, it would be much better if we used it to deliver on projects and priorities.

Dr Aiken: I thank the Minister for her remarks so far. Minister, you talked very clearly in your statement about prioritising public-sector pay. Does the Minister accept that, as a result of the Executive's Budget decisions, we are very likely to face fresh industrial action by health workers and other key members of the public service?

Dr Archibald: As I have done already in the Chamber today, I recognise that the October monitoring round outcome is challenging for all Departments. As I have said on a number of occasions, the funding that was available simply did not go far enough, given the pressure that all Departments face. That means that there will be difficult decisions for all of us to take in relation to balancing our desire to provide public-sector pay awards against those other pressures. It is disappointing that the Health Minister felt that he could not support the paper today, given that his Department was provided with an additional £350 million, which was over 58% of the resource funding that was available for general allocation. The Member will be interested — he has commented on it a number of times — to know that that brings the total allocation to the Department of Health for this year to £472 million, which is a 4·9% increase on the Department of Health's final budget for 2023-24.

Mr McAleer: I thank the Minister for her statement. Minister, will you seek a reserve claim this year?

Dr Archibald: The 2024-25 overcommitment figure that I quoted — £180 million after the October monitoring round allocations have been made — does not include the cost of a number of exceptional items, such as the PSNI data breach, holiday pay and the McCloud injury to feelings judgement. 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 that was provided to the Executive in the autumn Budget, the Chief Secretary to the Treasury indicated that, although 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. I have been clear in my view — I have expressed it to the House already — that I consider those items to be unaffordable if they were to crystallise this year, given the existing pressures facing Departments. Therefore, it is my intention to seek to negotiate a reserve claim if any of those were to crystallise.

Mr Frew: Despite the pressures on public-sector pay, the Minister stated that she made no allocations to the budget of her Finance Department. Why not?

Dr Archibald: The approach that was taken to how we would allocate the money that was available to us involved Departments that had a overcommitment and unfunded public-sector pay costs. All Departments had overcommitments except the Department of Finance and the Executive Office, so those Departments received no allocations from the general allocations.

When we set the Budget, there was an assumption that Civil Service pay would increase by 3% this financial year. Trade unions have made it clear to me that that is not acceptable to them, so I will have to have conversations with the trade unions, as will all the other Ministers when they make representations about their departmental budgets. It will be difficult for all of us to navigate a way forward in that regard, but I am committed to trying to do my very best.

Ms K Armstrong: Thank you, Minister. Are you concerned that if Ministers do not live within their budgets, it will have an impact on negotiations with the UK Government on a permanent fiscal framework and debt forgiveness?

Dr Archibald: An overspend in Departments this year is one of my current concerns. The financial implications are significant; it would come off next year's Budget and put at risk the £559 million reserve claim. We are also still in the process of negotiating a fair funding model. We made significant progress with the interim fiscal framework, but there is a further way to go on that, because we need to negotiate beyond the 2026-27 financial year, get that commitment to funding based on our level of relative need tied down and ensure that our funding settlement enables us to deliver public services to the level that people rightly expect and deserve.

Mrs Dillon: I thank the Minister for her answers so far. I welcome the follow-through on the commitment to prioritise Health, because you have prioritised it in the allocations. I welcome that, and I look forward to finding out how that money is going to be spent and prioritised. You outlined some of the consequences if the level of overcommitments was to remain. My question follows on from the previous question: have Ministers given you a commitment that they will do everything in their power to ensure that that does not happen? We all need to understand the consequences of those overcommitments remaining.

Dr Archibald: My colleagues around the Executive table are well aware of the consequences. I do not think that any of us want to be in the situation where we lose funding in the next financial year. I hope that all my Executive colleagues are committed to ensuring that they live within their budgets. I am reassured that they are. It is important to outline the consequences. There is the potential that we could lose money from next year's Budget and that the £559 million reserve claim write-off could become repayable. Of course, we as an Executive did not accept that strings should be attached to the reserve claim, because it was accrued while the Executive were underfunded and the institutions were down. However, Treasury takes a different view on that, and it will have to be a matter for negotiation.

Mrs Dodds: Thank you, Minister. Like previous contributors, I am glad to see the prioritisation of Health. I particularly look forward to seeing how the Minister will help healthcare workers maintain the parity for which they fought for so long. Will you require a plan from each Minister as to how they will live within their budget? If so, can we see those plans for the sake of transparency?

Dr Archibald: Part of the work on the Budget sustainability plan involves Departments bringing forward five-year plans on how they are going to meet their budgets in the years to come and how the various elements that make up the spend in each Department are going to be controlled, whether that relates to resource spend, the type of projects that they want to prioritise or how to utilise technology or workforce planning. Departments will need to work through those things and bring that work forward. Reform and transformation is a pillar of the Programme for Government. The aim is to set up a unit in the Executive Office to coordinate that work. That will be really important work as we seek to manage our public finances and put them on a more sustainable basis and as we plan to deliver high-quality public services in the future to meet our citizens' needs.

Mr Crawford: I thank the Minister for her statement. Can the Minister set out the criteria that were used to determine the different allocations to each Department?

Dr Archibald: The practices around the October monitoring round are, like any monitoring round, well established. Departments make bids and provide equality impact information on those bids, and I meet Ministers and have conversations about those bids. It became apparent over the summer that we were on a trajectory for a significant overspend. I conducted an urgent in-year exercise, which provided the Department of Finance in the first instance, and then the Executive, with a considerable amount of information that was considered when making the allocations. Of course, we are guided by the Executive's priorities, which are now articulated in the draft Programme for Government, including things like health, tackling waiting lists, special educational needs, childcare and social housing. It is therefore a process that is guided by the Executive's priorities and based on Departments' needs.

Mrs Mason: I thank the Minister for her statement and welcome her commitment not only to health but to education. Is she able to outline the capital funding challenges to be faced?

Dr Archibald: Yes, of course. As I set out in my statement, bids submitted by Departments totalled £346 million, which, unfortunately, was about five times as much money — £68 million — as we had available for allocation. It was therefore simply not possible to fund all, or even the majority of, bids. I know that some Departments will be disappointed that they did not get a capital allocation, but, as I just said to Mr Crawford, the allocations that the Executive agreed reflect the importance of social housing and recognise the pressures faced by our largest capital spending Department, which is the Department for Infrastructure. Those pressures include waste water infrastructure constraints. Both are priorities for the Executive and are reflected in the draft Programme for Government.

Mr Brett: I thank the Finance Minister for coming to the House this afternoon to update Members. It is disappointing, however, that some Ministers found it appropriate to give a running commentary of events before Members had been informed of the outcomes. Can the Finance Minister confirm that, of the £631·5 million allocated, the £350 million allocated to the Department of Health represents 55% of the entire allocation and, furthermore, brings its overall budget to 51% of the entire Northern Ireland block grant?

Dr Archibald: I have the figure at 58%, but we will not quibble over that too much. The allocation is a very significant one, and it reflects that, in the amount of money that has allocated, the Department of Health is the Executive's priority, alongside the Department of Education and the Department of Justice. I think that, collectively, we share the view that Health needs the funding that it has got, particularly when one looks at the number of people on waiting lists and the other challenges across our health system. As I said to Dr Aiken in a previous answer, the allocation means that the Department of Health's budget has now received a 4·9% increase on its out-turn budget for 2023-24.

Mr Dickson: Minister, thank you for your answers so far on the statement. One of the issues that could not be dealt with in the statement is your negotiations with Treasury on the PSNI data breach, holiday pay and the McCloud judgement. Can you tell the House what action you are taking to ensure that those matters will not impinge on future Assembly Budgets?

Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for that question, because it is an issue that I have raised with Treasury in every engagement that I have had with it to date. It is also something that I would expect other Ministers to raise with me, not least the Minister of Justice on issues that impact on her Department. Of course, issues that may be the subject of a reserve claim impact on all other Departments and would represent a significant cost to the Executive. That is why I have raised them in every single engagement that I have had with Treasury and why it is my clear view that meeting them would be unaffordable and that I would therefore need to seek a reserve claim. I would need to negotiate that with Treasury.

Mr Durkan: I thank the Minister for her statement. I welcome any additional allocation for housing, but I am not entirely sure how an extra £24 million, as welcome as it is, will enable delivery of up to 1,400 houses, given the decimation of the baseline budget for housing. In this year initially, we had enough money to build 400 houses, and the previous monitoring round brought that number up to around 600. Will the Minister clarify whether she consulted the Minister for Communities or the Housing Executive on that figure of 1,400? If not, from where did she get it?

Dr Archibald: I concur with the Member on the allocation of funding for housing. We all recognise that it is very necessary. The figures that I quoted were provided to me by the Department for Communities, so I hope that they are accurate from that Department's end. The 1,400 figure reflects the total number of new builds this year and the priority that the Executive attached to it in this monitoring round, from which £24 million has been allocated, and also in the June monitoring round, when another £20 million was allocated.

Mr Gildernew: I thank the Minister for her statement and welcome the significant investment in housing, as well as the £17 million for winter warmth to address or partly mitigate the British Government's disgraceful cut in that benefit and the money for tackling rural poverty and social isolation. Those are welcome.

Can the Minister comment on financial transaction capital funding? How could it be better utilised to prevent future significant underspends?

Dr Archibald: As I set out to Mr Tennyson, the Executive are limited in how they can utilise financial transactions capital, because it has to be deployed by the public sector to the private sector either as loan or equity investment. I have continued to encourage all Departments to consider how available financial transactions capital can be used. I have written to the Communities Minister to encourage him to consider whether greater use can be made of the available financial transactions capital to increase the supply of social housing building on the schemes that the Department currently has in place. My Department has also agreed with Treasury that any underspends can be used to offset the required repayment of 80% of FTC allocations and, therefore, the underspend, as I mentioned to Mr Tennyson, which cannot be carried forward, is not lost but rather used to reduce future liabilities.

Obviously, we would much rather it is used for projects that the Executive want to deliver and that we can deliver in partnership. Of course, I encourage Departments to look as imaginatively as possible at how they can use FTC in the future.

Mr Chambers: Will the Minister confirm that she has advised Executive colleagues that the Department of Health's capacity to make more savings in this year is extremely limited if not non-existent?

Dr Archibald: It is not for me to advise the Executive in relation to Health's capacity to make savings; that is for the Minister of Health. I recognise the challenges that the Health Minister, like every other Minister around the Executive table, has. Action has been taken in Departments already to make savings and to try to live within budget, but, clearly, with the level of overcommitment that we have, further action is needed.

Mr Boylan: I thank the Minister for her statement. How much additional funding has the interim fiscal framework secured for public services?

Dr Archibald: The application of the 124% needs-based factor in the interim fiscal framework has resulted in £431·4 million of additional funding through the Barnett formula for the Executive. That is made up of £59·95 million already received in the uplift for 2024-25 at June monitoring; £123·81 million announced in the autumn Budget for 2024-25; and £247·6 million announced in Barnett consequentials in the autumn Budget for 2025-26.

Ms Hunter: Minister, the funding last year for special educational needs was £65 million: that is 14% less than it needs to be this year, due to inflation and increased demand. While the £170 million announced today is certainly welcome, is it enough to meet the shortfall and the diverse needs and demands of our children, particularly those with special educational needs?

Dr Archibald: The specifics of the Department of Education are more appropriate for the Education Minister to comment on, but I recognise, as with other Departments, that the Education Minister will still face a shortfall in his departmental budget and, as in other Departments, will seek to go as far as possible on pay. I know that that is something that he is committed to. However, we have all to live within our budgets and prioritise within our Departments. How we do that will be important.

Mr Gaston: Minister, Westminster has been clear that no additional money is coming from them for Casement Park. Will you confirm that, in your statement today, there is likewise no additional money coming from Stormont and that, indeed, if the GAA wants Casement, it is up to it to fund it? [Interruption.]

Dr Archibald: As the Member will be well aware, Casement Park is an Executive flagship priority that the Executive are committed to delivering on. There would not be funding for Casement in the monitoring round statement, because we need to see proposals coming from the Communities Minister. We also need to know the amount of money that the British Government will put on the table for the delivery of Casement Park, as they have committed to doing. We will all be working towards delivering that.

Mr McNulty: I thank the Minister for her statement. Minister, can you confirm whether you have asked your officials to draw up options for using some of your Executive's £65 million capital underspend on constructing Casement Park or suggested same to the Communities Minister? If not, why not?

Dr Archibald: I will have to write to the Member on that, because I am not sure what figure he refers to. Our capital budget is significantly oversubscribed. If the Member wants to highlight the specific figure to my officials, we will pick that up with him.

Mr Carroll: Minister, you said that Departments will have to make savings. You cannot issue a diktat to cut budgets and then wash your hands of the consequences. It is, by any definition, austerity. I share the concerns about money not being allocated to health workers who were promised it.

Minister, is the £17 million to mitigate the Executive's cut in winter fuel payments recurrent or a one-off?

Dr Archibald: It was not the Executive who cut winter fuel payments. It was the British Government who took that decision, and we are left to pick up the pieces and live with the consequences. We, as an Executive, have decided to allocate that money, which is much needed. It does not go as far as any of us would want it to in replacing the money that has been lost, but, hopefully, it will go some way to mitigating the bad decision taken in London and give some support to our more vulnerable older people this winter. The Communities Minister will bring forward proposals on that, and I will wait to see what his proposals are before I comment further on the recurrent nature of it.

Mr McGrath: A farcical element of the Executive is that, when it is the Programme for Government, it is everybody together, but, when it comes to budgets, everybody is on their own to deal with what money is left. Will the Minister explain why the 5·5% pay rise for health workers was not ring-fenced so that they would definitely get that money? Is the money that is included in the attachments a 3% rise or a 5% rise, as was previously indicated by the Department of Health?

Dr Archibald: I do not agree with the Member's assertions on how the Executive have dealt with their Budget. We have challenging but constructive discussions on that, and we have taken a collective approach to the Budget and subsequent monitoring rounds. I have recognised clearly today and in all my comments on the matter that all Ministers face significant challenges with how they move forward on their budget and how they prioritise and try to deliver on all the things that we, collectively, demand of them.

On the allocation to the Department of Health, I am not sure that the Minister of Health would have welcomed ring-fencing of the money. That is not an approach that we have taken with any Department. We have given a general allocation to try to give Ministers flexibility in how they manage their budgets for the rest of the financial year. Clearly, there is an onus on every Minister around the Executive table to take any action that they can that might create savings or provide additional funding to the centre that could then be reallocated to other Departments, as we try to manage our way through the rest of the financial year as best as possible.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): That concludes questions on that statement. I ask Members to take their ease before we move on to the next item.

Dr Aiken: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I apologise for my mobile phone going off just before Mr Gaston had the opportunity to make a speech. I do not normally provide musical accompaniments, so please take my apologies.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Accepted, Mr Aiken.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): The Speaker has received notice from the Minister for the Economy that he wishes to make a statement. I repeat that questions should be short, and long introductions should not happen.

Mr C Murphy (The Minister for the Economy): Go raibh maith agat, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle.

With your permission, I wish to make a statement, in compliance with section 52 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998, on a meeting of the North/South Ministerial Council (NSMC) in trade and business development sectoral format. The meeting was held in Armagh on 23 October 2024. Minister Gordon Lyons MLA and I represented the Northern Ireland Executive. The Irish Government were represented by Peter Burke TD, Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment, and Minister Burke chaired the meeting. The statement has been agreed with Minister Lyons, and I make the statement on behalf of us both.

The NSMC welcomed the overall achievements of InterTradeIreland since a previous sectoral meeting in April 2024, including achieving a business development value of £82 million or €94 million and providing crucial investor readiness supports. The Council commended the valuable contribution that InterTradeIreland has made through its trade and development programmes for small and medium-sized companies trading across the border and in both jurisdictions, including support through its collaboration innovation pathway and under the innovation boost programme. Ministers recognised the positive impact of the innovation and technology programmes administered by InterTradeIreland and its support for building relationships between companies and researchers.

The NSMC noted InterTradeIreland's ongoing research work in 2024, which includes a study of the business supports ecosystem across the island, research into the changing nature of trade on the island and offshore wind and hydrogen energy, as well as the ongoing work on its quarterly 'All-Island Business Monitor'. The Council welcomed the work of InterTradeIreland alongside Enterprise Ireland and Invest NI in developing a cross-border enterprise cooperation scheme, which was awarded €30 million of Shared Island funding.

Ministers welcomed the presentation from businesses on the benefits of InterTradeIreland's programme of supports. The NSMC also welcomed a presentation from the advanced technologies in manufacturing cluster on the benefits of clustering and how the development of the cluster was supported by InterTradeIreland. The Council noted InterTradeIreland's strategic ambition in the area of clustering.

The NSMC approved the reappointment of Margaret Hearty as chief executive officer of the trade and business development body, InterTradeIreland, for a four-year term with effect from 21 April 2025. The NSMC appointed members to the board of the trade and business development body, InterTradeIreland, and the Council agreed to hold its next NSMC trade and business development meeting in spring 2025.

I commend the statement to the Assembly and welcome questions.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Thank you, Minister. Members, as Question Time begins at 2 pm, I suggest that the Assembly takes its ease until then. Questions on the statement will begin after Question Time, when the next member to speak will be Sinéad McLaughlin.

Mrs Little-Pengelly (The deputy First Minister): The Maze/Long Kesh Development Corporation business plan was submitted to the Executive Office, but we understand that the development corporation is further reviewing it in light of its current budget allocation. The business plan will be revised now that the outcome of the internal reallocation exercise is known. The Member will appreciate that that outcome became known only today. The development corporation will consider that, and that will determine what is achievable from a budgetary perspective.

We will consider the updated plan as soon as possible. Once approved, it will be published on the Maze/Long Kesh Development Corporation website. In the interim, the Maze/Long Kesh Development Corporation continues to operate in line with its agreed remit. We are committed to working with the development corporation to realise the potential of the site to the benefit of all, but we recognise that we must move only with consensus and sensitivity. No decisions have yet been made on the future of the site.

Mrs Guy: Thank you, deputy First Minister. You and I share the constituency of Lagan Valley, where the Maze/Long Kesh site is, and we understand its strategic importance for the area. With the access and influence that being deputy First Minister provides, what are you doing to deliver the potential of the site? It seems as though the politics of the site are taking priority over delivery.

Mrs Little-Pengelly: I thank the Member for her question. As I outlined, a significant history is associated with the site. It also has huge potential, but we can move forward only with sensitivity to the victims and survivors who are most impacted on by the events that happened on and are associated with that site. That is what I will do.

Mr Boylan: At a Question Time in September, the First Minister referenced a meeting with the MLK Development Corporation in July. Will the deputy First Minister update us on subsequent discussions that will inform a road map for the regeneration of the site?

Mrs Little-Pengelly: I thank the Member for his question. We had an update from the board. There is a new board in place, with six new members. They are looking at some of the plans and proposals that the previous board made. The new members are still in the early stages of working together, but there is significant talent, enthusiasm and ambition on that board. Anything that the board proposes, including the budget and activities on the site, will require the First Minister and my agreement. As the Member will be aware, however, a number of organisations are on the site, so part of the board's role will be to continue to support those excellent organisations, such as Air Ambulance and the Ulster Aviation Society.

Mr Buckley: The deputy First Minister will know that yesterday marked a significant day for many of us who attended acts of remembrance. Last night, I attended the UDR Association act of remembrance in Mountnorris Presbyterian Church, where I joined UDR widows, including my great-aunt, who lost her husband in the Glenanne army barracks explosion many years ago. Most of the victims have experienced much hurt and retraumatisation but no justice. Will the deputy First Minister assure the House that there will be nothing on the site that will hurt victims and survivors of terrorism?

Mrs Little-Pengelly: In the Executive Office, we have many responsibilities that relate to victims and survivors of the Troubles. That means trying to meet their needs. It also means being sensitive to the concerns and issues that they face. Victims and survivors in Northern Ireland have given the most, and we must always be very sensitive to that as we move forward. We must recognise their loss and the legitimacy of their concerns and issues. As I said, it is therefore important that nothing happens on the site that would further any hurt or pain. Anything that happens must be done with full sensitivity to the victims and survivors.

Mr O'Toole: Deputy First Minister, you said that it is important that nothing happens on the site that gives offence to victims. I agree, but the problem is that nothing is happening on the site at all. The saga of the Maze/Long Kesh development has been going on longer than 'The Mousetrap'. It has been sitting there, a wasting asset. If the Executive Office cannot progress it, I suggest that two things happen: one, a simple, poignant memorial is put up for all those who want to remember at that site; two, the rest of it is given over to social housing or some other productive form of economic development, because this farce cannot continue indefinitely.

Mrs Little-Pengelly: I thank the Member for his question. If he wants to tramp over the concerns of victims, that is up to him. I will not engage in that. I will move forward with the consensus of victims and survivors, because anything that we do should not cause any further concern or hurt. Therefore, it is not for me to decide the way forward and to impose it on those who have been associated with that site and have hurt and sensitivities in relation to it. As I said, I want to unlock the potential of the site, but it has to be done in a particular way and with consensus.

The Member is also incorrect when he said that nothing is happening on that site. There are some good activities on that site, not least the Balmoral show, which, I understand, he has attended. There are activities at the Eikon Exhibition Centre, and there is the Ulster Aviation Society, an excellent organisation that attracted 7,000 visitors on the European heritage open days weekend. Of course, the Air Ambulance has been based there since 2017, and it has been called out some 4,500 times. Those are some of the activities that take place. Of course I would like to unlock the full potential of the site, but we should recognise the good work that is already happening there.

Mr Gaston: Deputy First Minister, your party colleague, Lord Dodds, is on record as stating:

Will you give a commitment today that you agree with your party colleague and the statement that he made?

Mrs Little-Pengelly: I thank the Member for his question. The Member will be aware that that building was listed, as I understand it, at the request of the then Secretary of State for Northern Ireland during a period of direct rule and outside the control or context of either the Northern Ireland Executive or the House. I am clear and reiterate this: nothing will happen on that site as long as I am deputy First Minister that would cause hurt and pain to victims and survivors. That is my promise to victims and survivors. I wish to do nothing to cause any further pain and hurt to those who have suffered the most and given the most to Northern Ireland.

Mrs Little-Pengelly: We know that victims and survivors, understandably, see contributions from the institutions as an important measure of accountability. We welcome the interim payments that we have received from three institutions: Barnardo's, the De La Salle order and the Good Shepherd Sisters. I am pleased to say that an additional contribution has been made by the Diocese of Down and Connor just this month, specifically in respect of the De La Salle-run homes. Engagement will continue with those institutions on their final contributions following the closure of the Historical Institutional Abuse Redress Board.

Constructive discussions on appropriate contributions from the Irish Church Missions, Sisters of Nazareth and the Sisters of St Louis are ongoing. We have committed to publishing the details of those contributions when the process has concluded. Members will understand that negotiation is live with a number of those organisations, hence the sensitivity around some of the detail.

We encourage all victims and survivors who intend to make an application to the board to do so as soon as possible and in advance of next year’s deadline.

Mr Dunne: I thank the deputy First Minister for her answer. Does she agree that it is important that the outstanding institutions recognise the harm that has been caused and contribute to the scheme? Equally, as she stated, with the scheme beginning to wind down, is it her assessment that time is running out for the outstanding institutions to do the right thing and make a contribution?

Mrs Little-Pengelly: The Hart report, following the inquiry into historical institutional abuse, very clearly highlighted things that a number of institutions did wrong in the treatment of children in their care. Therefore, of course it is right and proper that there is an acknowledgement of that by those institutions and that those institutions should contribute to the costs. Of course, we are realistic, and we did not want victims and survivors to have to wait for those institutions to decide when and what to give. Therefore, we decided to move forward with the redress board to address and support those victims and survivors, but the negotiations will continue to get that all-important contribution.

I am pleased to say that the work of the redress board is winding down, and I understand that there are only 38 applications left to be scheduled. That is a significant amount of work that the board has completed. That is why we are appealing to any remaining victims and survivors to come forward and seek that redress, if they have not done so already.

Ms Flynn: Following on from the last point, is the Department doing anything specific to reach out to harder-to-reach victims in order to make them aware of the redress scheme and the services available to them?

Mrs Little-Pengelly: I thank the Member for her question. As we head towards the closure date of the scheme next year, we want to make sure that we reach those who are entitled to that support. There have been a number of previous campaigns, including a leaflet that was put through every door. However, we want to make sure in the last months of the scheme, so there will be a new campaign, including radio adverts. We have written to all MLAs and various organisations asking them to share the information. We have also sent the information to all councils across the UK and Ireland and, indeed, have reached out to organisations that we have worked with before in, for example, Australia to try to support that. We will also place stories in local and international media to try to promote to the readership the fact that the scheme remains open and to encourage them to come forward before it closes next year.

Ms Egan: Has the Executive Office given any consideration to bringing forward legislation to compel further contributions?

Mrs Little-Pengelly: I thank the Member for her question. That is a legal issue that we have examined. Indeed, it may be appropriate to have further engagement with the Committee on it. There are a number of legal aspects that make it complicated, not least the nature of the report. The report did not examine every institution, and therefore the findings in the report differ from, for example, the findings of a court in a civil or criminal case. Of course, the redress scheme extends beyond that. There are some challenges in doing it. However, we have made it very clear that we believe that there is a strong moral responsibility on those institutions to step up. They have contributed to an apology for their actions and acknowledged that things were done that ought not to have been done. Therefore, it is right and proper that they step up and make financial contributions to the scheme, not least because it sends a clear message of acknowledgement of their role and failings.

Ms McLaughlin: The commissioner, Fiona Ryan, has done really good work in this area. Will your Department consider extending her role?

Mrs Little-Pengelly: I thank the Member for her question. She will be aware that the work of the redress board is winding down. However, the pain, the trauma and the issues will continue for many years beyond the closure of the scheme and will, indeed, impact those who were involved for the rest of their lives, so there are needs. We are doing a number of things through, for example, the support mechanisms of the Victims and Survivors Service, which, along with Advice NI and other organisations, has taken on the new role of trying to support victims of historical institutional abuse. It is important that, as we move towards the scheme's closure, we look at a range of supports. We will take a look at your proposal. What we want is a system and a service that meet the needs of victims, no matter what they look like. We will actively consider that.

Mrs Little-Pengelly: With your permission, Mr Speaker, I will ask the junior Minister to take this question.

Mrs Cameron (Junior Minister, The Executive Office): The central good relations fund is open to all constituted voluntary and community groups, including minority ethnic groups, to deliver good relations projects where there is evidence of good relations need. Many projects provide opportunities for sustained, meaningful contact between those from different backgrounds to actively target sectarianism and racism via, for example, cultural awareness workshops, community dialogue sessions or formal training in tackling racist or sectarian attitudes and behaviours. Since 2016, over £25 million has been awarded, enabling the delivery of more than 780 projects that reached over 260,000 people here. Outcomes data for 2023-24 indicates that 83% of those aged 13 years or more and 68% of those aged 12 years or less reported a positive change across their knowledge, behaviour and attitude towards people from a different background, due to their participation in the central good relations fund project.

The opening budget allocation for the central good relations fund in 2024-25 was £1·65 million. Through the June monitoring round, we secured a further £625,000, bringing the total allocation to £2,275,000. That is an increase of over 60% on the 2023-34 allocation for the fund and demonstrates our ongoing commitment to good relations work. The funding has allowed 59 good relations projects to be supported in 2024-25, reaching around 22,500 people across all council areas. In addition, through approximately £1·1 million of funding per annum under the minority ethnic development fund from 2022 to 2025, we are supporting 31 successful applications to support our minority ethnic communities and help eradicate racism.

Mr McGrath: I thank the junior Minister for her answer. Given that there was a reliance this year on monitoring round money to fill the gap, may we have some assurance that, next year, the full budget will be applied for up front so that the groups that work on good relations in the community can continue their work and provide their services without fear of the money being reduced and jobs being lost?

Mrs Cameron: I thank the Member for his supplementary question. He will be aware that the bid for £625,000 was lodged for the central good relations fund and was fully met and that the bid for £1·5 million for the Communities in Transition (CIT) project's tackling paramilitary activity programme was lodged for June monitoring and was also fully met. No further bids were submitted as part of October monitoring.

The issue of multi-year funding may come into play. We are delighted by the UK Government's commitment in the Chancellor's statement at the end of July for future spending reviews to cover at least three years, with a review every two years. That will provide greater transparency and allow Departments to plan more effectively and efficiently for further investment in public services.

Ms Sheerin: Will the junior Minister indicate when the application process will open for 2025-26?

Mrs Cameron: I thank the Member for her question. The 2025-26 central good relations fund will open for applications in December 2024. Further details will be provided on the Executive Office website and on social media platforms, and emails will be issued to mailing lists, along with details of how to apply.

Mr Bradley: Will the junior Minister give examples of projects for young people that the fund has supported across Northern Ireland to date?

Mrs Cameron: I thank the Member for his question. In 2024-25, approximately 61% of projects in the central good relations fund are delivering against the Together: Building a United Community (T:BUC) priority "Our Children and Young People". Almost 8,000 young people will be directly impacted on as a result. In 2024-25, through the central good relations fund, two projects are being supported that include participants from my constituency of South Antrim: Ulster Hockey, with funding of £45,000, targeting 620 participants; and the Belfast Electronic Arts and Music Academy (BEAMA), with funding of almost £27,000, targeting 90 participants. The Your Freedom and Ours project received an award of £33,620, and it is delivering in the South Antrim constituency as well. Under the T:BUC camps programme, one group in South Antrim was awarded £30,000 to deliver three T:BUC camps projects, engaging approximately 80 young people. Under the planned interventions programme, two groups in South Antrim were awarded a total of £10,750 to deliver two projects, engaging a total of 59 young people. Out of the councils' good relations programme, £94,000 was awarded to Antrim and Newtownabbey Borough Council to deliver good relations programmes, including projects engaging participants in South Antrim. Those are some examples.

Mr McReynolds: In August of this year, we saw racism and violence on our streets. I had friends and colleagues who were affected by what they saw, heard and experienced during that period. What bids have been made to address the ongoing increase in racist attacks since those scenes took place?

Mrs Cameron: Sorry, I am trying to find the answer. I apologise: I cannot find it.

Obviously, we abhor racism and the activities of the past few months, and we have been strong in our condemnation of them. We look forward to the review of all of the policies to make sure that racism is included and acted on. If the Member follows up with us in writing, we can provide a fuller answer.

Mrs Little-Pengelly: The appointment of the commissioners and the members of the Office of Identity and Cultural Expression is essential to implementing the provisions of the Identity and Language (Northern Ireland) Act 2022 for which the Executive Office is responsible. As previously advised, we have instructed our officials to develop further advice that will include documentation for each competition, including candidate information booklets and details of selection panels, to enable the competitions to be launched. To finalise that advice, a competition initiation meeting (CIM) needs to be conducted for each competition. We are pleased to advise that the selection panels have been formed and that the preparations for the CIMs are at an advanced stage. We hope to hold a CIM for each of the competitions in the coming weeks. We also remind Members that the competitions will be run in line with Commissioner for Public Appointments' guidelines.

Mr Kearney: Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire as ucht a freagra. A Aire, an dtiocfadh leat amlíne chruinn a thabhairt dúinn maidir leis na trí choimisinéirí a earcú? Lena chois sin, an dtiocfadh leat a léiriú dúinn cá huair a cheapfar na trí choimisinéirí go foirmeálta?

Mrs Little-Pengelly: I thank the Member for his follow-up question. As I indicated in my answer to the substantive question, a lot of detail and process go into making sure that such public appointments abide by the guidance and rules of the Office of the Commissioner for Public Appointments and that they are fair and open in the appropriate way. Of course, that process needs to take place. The First Minister and I will receive the final proposal on the criteria for the appointments, the adverts and, as I mentioned, the documentation and the booklets. We will take a look at those, and, if we are satisfied that they meet the requirements, the competition can go out and be placed.

The appointment process generally take around six months. That will depend on the interest in the appointments: some get more interest than others, which can complicate things. It will then be a requirement for the decisions on those who are deemed to be appointable to each post after the process to go back to the First Minister and deputy First Minister for consideration and agreement. On the odd occasion, no one crosses the line and is deemed appointable after a public appointments process, but we hope that that will not be the case for these appointments.

As I have outlined, this is a lengthy process, but having the documentation up — hopefully, in the next couple of weeks — will enable the competition and the six-month public appointments process to commence.

Mr Kingston: Will the Minister confirm that the business case ensures a fair and equitable approach to the Irish language commissioner and the commissioner for the Ulster-Scots and the Ulster-British tradition?

Mrs Little-Pengelly: I thank the Member for his important question, because, at its heart, the important message is that the process will be brought forward on a fair and equitable basis. That is why I welcome the fact that the business case has been prepared, advanced and agreed on the basis of the two offices initially having a fair and equitable amount of funding. When the commissioners are in place, they will bring forward their business plans and corporate plans and details of their proposed activities. Again, in recognition of the numbers of people from those traditions throughout Northern Ireland, those need to be advanced on a fair and equitable basis, because that is right and proper. Public funding should always be distributed in that fair way.

Ms Mulholland: Will the deputy First Minister outline the role that the commissioners will have in working alongside the North/South language bodies?

Mrs Little-Pengelly: I thank the Member for her question. These are statutory roles, so, of course, they have statutory responsibilities, which are set down in the legislation. I imagine that the commissioners will engage with the North/South bodies and across the UK in advancing the Irish language as a recognised minority language of the United Kingdom, and as regards the Ulster-British tradition’s strong links and the Ulster-Scots tradition’s links with Scotland, for example. Of course, there are links between Anglo-Irish traditions and different British traditions right across this United Kingdom. I imagine that they will engage, but one assumes that that will be set out in their first business plans and corporate plans.

Mr Beattie: Minister, from a question for written answer, we know that the set-up costs for the commissioners' offices is £8·3 million, with annual running costs of £9 million. Has that money been set aside for this financial year, or, really, are we looking at it not happening until we go into the next financial year?

Mrs Little-Pengelly: The preparation plans for the commissioners' offices will give a sense of when it is likely that that expenditure will be required. Of course, as a principle of good public expenditure, you would not try to take that funding into a year in which it would not be accrued or spent. The commissioners are yet to be appointed. As outlined, the appointments process is likely to take at least six months, so that would bring us into the next financial year in any event. However, even in that situation, the commissioners' offices would need to be established, staff would need to be recruited, and systems would need to be put in place. You would then be looking to the plans and proposals put forward by those commissioners. I fully expect that they will require resource to support them to do all that, and time to put their initial plans in place.

Like with anything, you would want to move towards a multi-year approach as regards their plans, but I anticipate that we will have some early indication about the activity. The Member will appreciate that that will not be done tomorrow or next month and will take some time. As that develops, the spending profile will be set out. It is likely to be not in this financial year but in the years to come.

Mr McNulty: Deputy First Minister, I understand that £3·8 million has been allocated for each body once established. Can you tell us how that figure was arrived at? Can you give us your assessment of whether that funding is fair, proportionate and equitable? Will it be enough for each body?

Mrs Little-Pengelly: I thank the Member for his question. I suspect that if you went to any body and asked whether their funding is enough, it would indicate that it is not. What we do within the remit of the statutory responsibilities for each body has to fit within the overall financial position of the Executive and the Department and what is possible and achievable.

The amount of money, as set out, has come out of a detailed business case, but it is predicated on a core staff complement and start-up costs. It is for a small staffing complement for each of the offices. Any proposals on any additional spending — for example, on activity, projects or grant funding — would not sit with the commissioners' offices. Grant funding would sit in the central office of identity and cultural expression, as opposed to with the particular commissioners. That is set out in detail in that legislation.

Mrs Little-Pengelly: We recognise how important the issue of clerical child abuse is. We are aware of the devastating impact that it has had on many people. The junior Ministers met victims and survivors in September through the reference group to, at first hand, hear about their experiences and restate our commitment to this important work.

Work is progressing on the three separate pieces of research that we have commissioned: one examining records held by faith organisations and statutory agencies; one recording the experiences and expectations of victims and survivors; and one examining the safeguarding policies and practices of faith groups. We intend to call shortly for victims and survivors to come forward to participate in that research. The research is an important step in deciding the best way forward to address the impact and legacy of that abuse. We look forward to the conclusion of the research projects next spring and, subsequently, to seeing the final report and recommendations. As with all these things, it will be a trauma-informed response. We will, of course, move forward conscious of the pain and trauma that many victims and survivors of clerical abuse are still going through.

Mr Speaker: We have no more time for tabled questions. We will move to topical questions.

Mrs Little-Pengelly: I thank the Member for his important question, because it provides the opportunity, once again, to put on record our absolute rejection of racism and of any actions based on hate, discrimination or prejudice. What we saw over the summer was entirely unacceptable, and that is the message that we have been sending.

There are a number of different aspects to what we have been doing. First, we want to show joint and shared political leadership, not just in the First Minister and the deputy First Minister's office but across the Executive, to call out those terrible actions at every opportunity. Secondly, we have been liaising with statutory agencies through our arm's-length bodies and our funders but also, importantly, with the PSNI. We raised the issue once again when we met the Chief Constable just last week. It is incredibly important that we work in a connected and collaborative way to tackle the scourge of racism and the violence and disorder that is brought about by that.

In addition, we have been looking at many of the Department's funding schemes. For example, I asked for and we have received the figures on the very significant participation rates in the good relations schemes by minority ethnic communities. Of course, good relations is not just about those with different political or religious beliefs but people of different races and ethnic identities. It would be really positive to ensure that those groups are all fully mainstreamed within our funding schemes, and we encourage other Departments to do so as well.

Mr O'Toole: Minister, I do not doubt your commitment to this, but since we have come back, we have not seen progress on a stand-alone hate crime Bill from the Justice Minister, nor have we seen the publication of a racial equality strategy. We do not know when we are going to get a refugee integration strategy, and I am afraid that we do not have clarity on whether good relations money is going to be specifically directed towards getting outcomes for people like those in my constituency who face being hounded out of their homes, or where kids are being injured with glass because masonry is thrown through their front windows. I am afraid that we do, now, need to move beyond warm words and see practical action. May I ask whether we will see delivery and more specifics from the Executive in all the areas that I have listed by the end of this year?

Mrs Little-Pengelly: I thank the Member for his follow-up question. There was a lot more that I could have said in my initial answer, but I am very conscious of the time and the length of response available to me. Of course, we are also working on those issues. We are bringing forward race relations legislation as well as, importantly, the refugee integration strategy that has been promised. I can reassure the House that that work is ongoing and that we are endeavouring to bring it forward as soon as possible.

The Member is absolutely right that this is not just about words. However, words and leadership matter, and what we say and do on this issue, through the media and in this place, as we stand together against racism, is important. He is absolutely right when he says that that needs to be followed up by action. That is why officials in the Executive Office have been working closely throughout the period with Belfast City Council and other councils on practical and financial support.

We have a dedicated ethnic minority funding scheme under our race relations strategy: that has been protected and we will be moving forward with that. We are looking at issues around multi-year budgets and better support under that scheme. I have indicated to the Member is that that needs to be mainstreamed within our good relations schemes, such as central good relations and our T:BUC camps and others. That is a really good opportunity to ensure that those key principles about respect and tolerance of difference and different identities start at the earliest possible opportunity when it comes to prevention.

Mrs Little-Pengelly: I thank the Member for his question. As I understand it, some work has been done on that. The recent legal case, however, made it clear that the ministerial code has to be read subject to decisions under the legislation, such as for example, the Executive Committee (Functions) Act (Northern Ireland) 2020. Therefore, anything that we do, regardless of what the ministerial code says, has to be done in relation to the primary legislation. That does not mean that it is acceptable, as a matter of good legislating, for that to be the permanent position. Work is progressing on the code, and I have no doubt that it will be brought forward in due course. I reassure the Member that any aspects of the ministerial code that conflict with, for example, the Executive Committee (Functions) Act, will not create any issue or problem with the Northern Ireland Executive or their functions.

Mr Beattie: I thank the Minister for that answer. I have asked about that on multiple occasions, particularly given the lack of openness, transparency and integrity from some Ministers over the past months, especially with regards to the McMonagle affair and child safeguarding. Does the Minister agree that it is really important that we have that new and amended ministerial code in order to give us confidence that we can hold Ministers to account when we have to?

Mrs Little-Pengelly: To be fair, the required changes to the ministerial code pertain to particular aspects of the Executive Committee (Functions) Act that are to do with, for example, clarification of the types of matters that come to the Northern Ireland Executive for consideration and agreement. That need arose out of confusion, perhaps, or lack of clarity in some of the subsequent legal cases. It is a technical point. There is a point around the Executive's treatment of planning applications and their consideration of planning matters. Those are technical matters that require a change to be made to the ministerial code. As far as I am aware, there have been no proposals to change the obligations that all Ministers have under the key principles set out in the code, including those of transparency and openness. Those existing principles endure. All Ministers must comply with the ministerial code that is currently in place.

Mrs Little-Pengelly: Northern Ireland has been a huge beneficiary of foreign direct investment from the US in particular. That is why significant time has been taken to work in the US over recent years to try to build further on that very successful FDI. Our relationship with the United States goes much further than trade: we have bonds through our history and heritage. I believe that, compared with any other jurisdiction, Northern Ireland has the most links to US presidents per head of population.

We should build not just on those trade links but on improving opportunities with the US based on our heritage and those links. For example, I am very conscious that the incoming vice president has Ulster-Scots links, or Scots-Irish links, as those from the US refer to them. I look forward to engaging with the president-elect and the incoming Administration for the further benefit of Northern Ireland.

Ms Forsythe: I thank the deputy First Minister for her answer. I am pleased to take any opportunity to raise the importance of the Ulster-Scots links between Northern Ireland and America, and I believe that J D Vance's being in the White House presents great opportunities. Does the deputy First Minister think that this is a key opportunity to build on Northern Ireland's historical links with America?

Mrs Little-Pengelly: Absolutely. A key part of the international relations work that we do is on what is often referred to as soft diplomacy or cultural diplomacy, which is very much about reaching out in that way and explaining the links of shared culture and history. Many people in the US do not realise that they have that Ulster-Scots or Scots-Irish heritage, heritage from the UK and, of course, from Ireland. A very rich vein of that heritage runs right through the US. We have not just a responsibility to try to promote that heritage but a really good opportunity to use our shared history of those bonds, not the least through trade. Many Ulster Scots who went to the US invested heavily in trade and business, helping to build America. There are lots of opportunities. I understand that the Communities Minister had a very successful trip over there on that very issue. I look forward to building on that and to sharing our experiences.

Mrs Little-Pengelly: I thank the Member for his important and timely question. At the moment, many farmers and farming families throughout Northern Ireland are particularly concerned about those proposed changes by the Chancellor. I had taken the opportunity to raise directly with the Chancellor and the Prime Minister concerns about the rumoured changes, particularly in relation to agricultural relief, prior to the Budget. However, that was not listened to, and now those changes have been put in place in announcements on the Budget.

We will continue to fight that fight. I am pleased to say that I will attend the rally that has been organised by the Ulster Farmers' Union on Monday 18 November 2024, at the Royal Ulster Agricultural Society site at the Maze/Long Kesh. I encourage all others with concerns to do likewise in order to show our strong opposition to those changes. Farming is at the heart of the economy in Northern Ireland. It is incredibly important. Local farmers provide quality, nutritious, locally grown, supported and produced food. We are a net supplier of food across the UK. That is to be valued and protected. We should stand up for our farmers. I am determined to do that as we move forward, including on that important issue.

Some Members: Hear, hear.

Mr Robinson: I very much appreciate the response from the deputy First Minister. Can she further update the House on what steps the Executive are taking to fully assess and address the negative impacts on family farms? Does she expect, through discussions with Executive colleagues, that support or guidance will be issued to help farm businesses to navigate those changes?

Mrs Little-Pengelly: I thank the Member for his follow-up question. Absolutely: there are things that people can do. Some of that relates to planning. I know that some farms and farm businesses have already done that, but, of course, there is more that we can do to support that through, in particular, the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs. I was glad to see that some organisations were already advertising some of those activities.

However, let us be very clear: if, indeed, the consequences and impacts for farmers of those changes to agricultural relief could be negated or mitigated in full, there would be no point to the Chancellor's putting them in place. The fact that that relief has been reduced in such a way indicates that the Chancellor believes that a tax will be raised by that change, and, if tax will be raised by that change, it will be raised on the backs of our farmers. Farmers need support. They are not a cash cow from which to raise tax or anything else. They do an incredible job and require support, not additional burdens. I believe that the Northern Ireland Executive can have a united voice and tell the Chancellor strongly, "Protect our farmers". We will fight for farmers. We are on their side on the issue. We are asking the Chancellor to change course urgently.

Mrs Little-Pengelly: I thank the Member for her question. That is an important aspect, because the approach to doing the research first was very much based on the reality that, although some anecdotal and other evidence has come forward on what has happened, there is little insight into the scale or depth of the problem. The research is designed to flag up relevant issues to be considered. I suspect that that issue will be looked at.

One important element of that is the call for victims and survivors to come forward. We are likely to go public with that call at the end of November. It is incredibly important that we hear from those victims and survivors because — for the very reasons that the Member mentioned — they will raise things that we are not aware of or, perhaps, that the layout of it does not take into account this time, but that will need to be taken into account as we move forward with additional support and help.

That is a really important aspect that MLAs across the House can get involved in helping to publicise. It will be about research, looking at the evidence, identifying what more work needs to be done and, importantly, listening to the voices of victims and survivors.

Mr Speaker: That brings to an end the questions to the deputy First Minister. We will just take our ease briefly.

Mr Givan (The Minister of Education): Due to affordability considerations, the pay and grading agreement will be implemented in two stages. Stage 1 will move eligible staff on to their new pay scales with effect from 1 April 2024, while stage 2 will entail a non-consolidated payment of £2,550, pro rata, to eligible staff in lieu of back pay. The Education Authority (EA) has completed its amendments to the payroll system and will make the payments for stage 1 of the agreement this month as part of the normal pay process. Payments for stage 2 of the agreement will be made in the next financial year in line with the agreed settlement.

Mr Stewart: I thank the Minister for his answer. Minister, I am sure that you agree that our education support workers, classroom assistants and staff at all levels are invaluable and deserve a fair rate of pay and good conditions. Can you indicate whether the financial package agreed today for your Department will allow you to redress all the pay requirements for education staff? If not, what projected shortfall could there be, and where is it likely to land?

Mr Givan: The Member is absolutely right about valuing our support staff. That is why I engaged proactively with the trade unions to get a resolution to the issue around the pay and grading review, which had gone on for some time. Primarily, it was about recruitment and retention in the workforce, but the outworkings of that negotiated process were the new pay scales, which will take effect this month, once the payroll goes through, and the non-consolidated payment, which will come in stage 2 of the process.

I thank the unions that worked with me during that process. It built on the negotiated outcome with teachers, where we were able to increase by double figures the percentage increase for staff on taking up office. Again, that is a refection of my commitment to supporting teachers. Of course, we have the settlement now from the monitoring round. I will engage with my officials on what the outworkings of that could be as we seek a resolution to this year's pay rise, which needs to be negotiated with the teachers' trade unions.

Mr Mathison: Thank you, Minister, for the update today. It is welcome news that this is now progressing. I welcome also your comments about how important classroom assistants are to the running of our education system. On that basis, can you provide an update on the development of the register for substitute classroom assistants, similar to the Northern Ireland supply teacher register for teachers?

Mr Givan: I will have to respond to the Member in writing about how we can do that work on the register. If he is content, I will write to him.

Mr Durkan: On the face of it, this is welcome news, but every silver lining has a cloud. I have been contacted by many of those low-paid workers who are also in receipt of universal credit. They are concerned about the impact that the award will have on their entitlement. In particular, if a payment is to be made in the near future, it could result in a nil award in their universal credit in the mouth of Christmas. What interaction or communication has the Minister had with his colleague in the Department for Communities about how that could be mitigated?

Mr Givan: The Member has raised that issue on a number of occasions with me, as have other Members. Whilst I have every sympathy with the positions that are being expressed, the outworkings of how the payment impacts on universal credit is not a matter for me or my Department. It also ties in with issues around Treasury and the way in which it interfaces in that regard. I am not able to give comfort to the Member on that issue, other than to say that we have negotiated and agreed an increase that is reflected in those workers' terms and conditions. That is the right thing to do. We are also following through on the nationally negotiated pay rise for support staff, and we will seek to make sure that the funding is in place for that to take effect as well. There will be a further increase in pay for staff affected in the support staff category.

Mr Givan: Operational responsibility for the planning of education provision lies with the two statutory planning authorities: the Education Authority and the Council for Catholic Maintained Schools (CCMS). They conduct area-planning activity in consultation and collaboration with a number of sectoral bodies. 'Planning for Sustainable Provision: Strategic Area Plan 2022-27' and the special education strategic area plan set out the strategic direction for how the future educational needs of children and young people will be addressed through area solutions.

While the plans provide the strategic direction for the next five years, 'Operational Plan 1: 2022-24' outlines the activity to be taken forward in the first two years. A medium-term work stream associated with the Antrim and Newtownabbey local government district stated the following:

To date, no proposals have been brought to my Department, which becomes engaged in the area-planning process only when a development proposal is published by the Education Authority.

Dr Aiken: I declare an interest as a member of the board of governors of Kilbride Central Primary School, a great primary school, and of Ballyclare High School, a great high school.

I thank the Minister for his remarks. He will be aware, as he will have heard from his MLAs and others, of the considerable amount of development that is going on in South Antrim. There seems to be a mismatch in some of the plans that are being proposed for new housing in the area, which, I am glad to see, is being taken up. The key question, however, needs to be how the plans match the requirements for the education system. I am sure that the Minister would like to join me on a tour of South Antrim to look at some of the significant areas, but what is he doing to make sure that we take a more realistic approach to planning systems , rather than what we have at the moment?

Mr Givan: The Member rightly highlights and namechecks those schools: there is no doubt that they are good schools.

As I indicated, area planning is not a function of the Department of Education; it is one for the managing authorities to take forward in how they plan their school estate. There are seven such schools in South Antrim, three of which are oversubscribed at the point of first-preference application. Issues of capacity and provision are more acute in the Antrim town area. Where there is pressure, the Department can work with those schools to provide temporary variations to try to accommodate that pressure and meet the needs. At a high level, area planning is a function of the Education Authority and the Council for Catholic Maintained Schools.

Mr Givan: I accept that there is a need to review and improve service delivery in education. To that end, education services will be reformed through the outworkings of the end-to-end reviews of special educational needs (SEN) and school improvement, which focus on the development of high-quality, cost-effective services. The reviews will shortly produce recommendations on how delivery models can be more responsive, agile and customer-focused. Service delivery improvements will be achieved initially through the reconfiguration and refocusing of services delivered by the EA and other education bodies. Progress will be closely monitored, and, if necessary, more fundamental structural change will be implemented.

Mr Dickson: Thank you, Minister, for your answer. You will be aware that the independent review of education recommended the creation of a single managing authority: what action are you taking to bring that about in this mandate?

Mr Givan: The independent review of education identified a number of key areas that relate to the managing authority role. I will highlight one of them, which is that the level of support for controlled schools was "suboptimal".

That is why I have created a task force to address that issue. We need to make sure that, where managing authorities operate, they do so on an equitable basis, providing support to the various sectors.

The Education Authority has failed the controlled sector in particular. The independent review of education provided evidence to that effect, as did the landscape review of the Education Authority. There is work taking place to highlight how those issues need to be addressed. There is evidence for that. We have engaged with schools on that task force, and that is providing further evidence on the need for change. However, I expect the managing authorities to work together to deliver consistency in the level of support that is required, but there is a clear need to address the failings that exist in relation to the controlled sector.

Mr Brooks: In his answers so far, the Minister has, in some ways, commented on what I was going to ask, namely whether he agrees that the Education Authority has been failing our controlled schools. Perhaps he would like to comment further on the evidence for that.

Mr Givan: Let me quote from the independent review so that it is not me saying it. A number of things have been stated in that report:

It then says:

It also says:

It also says:

It also says:

The evidence is clear, and the landscape review also provided clear evidence on EA's failings towards the controlled sector.

Mr Crawford: Minister, I have a follow-on from Mr Dickson's original question. How will the Department monitor progress on reducing red tape in the Education Authority, and what matrix will be used to evaluate success?

Mr Givan: Obviously, the Department engages with the EA on the various recommendations in the landscape review. There were 13 recommendations highlighted relating to improvements required to support organisational effectiveness, governance, accountability and relationships. The report indicated that, whilst matters have improved over recent years, many aspects of the operation of the Education Authority remain profoundly unsatisfactory. This is ongoing work that my Department has with the EA to ensure that, as an organisation, it addresses the failings that have been well documented and rehearsed not just in independent reviews but by many Members across the Chamber.

Ms Hunter: As recently as Friday, Minister, I was at a school and spoke with parents, teachers and principals about the lack of responsiveness from the EA. Off the back of that, can you detail some specific examples of what has been done to transform the work culture in the EA with regard to criticism about a lack of responsiveness?

Mr Givan: I made a clear intervention to ensure that we had a new chief executive in the Education Authority. That intervention was severely criticised by the leader of the SDLP. I very much want the Education Authority to be responsive and to address its failings, but, when I make those changes, I appeal to Members to support me rather than doing what happened on that occasion, when the leader of the SDLP took the opportunity to have a go — unnecessarily so.

Mr Givan: When I took up post in February, I realised that urgent action was needed to make childcare more affordable. I secured an additional £25 million of Executive funding in May to implement a package of measures in this financial year that are already making a real difference to thousands of children and families across Northern Ireland. The Northern Ireland childcare subsidy scheme, which came into operation in September of this year, is one element of that package. Parents now benefit every month from the scheme's 15% subsidy.

The scheme is currently focused on working parents who are eligible for tax-free childcare and have children below primary school age. We prioritised that group because they typically face the highest costs due to their requirement for more childcare hours. This is also the period when mothers make decisions about returning to employment following maternity leave, and the high cost of childcare can be a significant barrier.

Uptake of the scheme has exceeded our expectations, with nearly 13,300 children and 1,550 providers registered and £2 million in savings delivered for families in September and October. When combined with the tax-free childcare, those parents will have saved over £4 million in total. Having listened to both parents and providers, it is my intention to bid for the funding required to sustain the scheme beyond the end of March 2025 and, indeed, until a longer-term strategy is in place.

I appreciate that there have also been calls to increase the level of the subsidy and to extend it to others, such as parents with school-age children. I will consider those options over the coming months. The scheme is set up in such a way that we can easily expand it, if there is a case to do so and the required funding is made available by the Executive. I will bring forward recommendations in due course.

Ms Sugden: I thank the Minister. The work that he has done in this area is very much appreciated, and many parents are grateful for the support. However, there are parents who have children of school age who are not necessarily getting that support. There is much that we can do with breakfast clubs and after-school clubs, which, with the Minister's support, could extend that type of childcare.

Mr Givan: The Member is right to raise the issue of helping to support school-age children. I alluded to that in the original response. The reason we focused on preschool-age children is that that is typically the period when families face the highest childcare costs. It is in that period that mothers are transitioning back to work following maternity leave. The initial focus was on that category of children not only because of childcare costs but because the early years are critical to the educational value that an early learning childcare strategy needs to have. That has been the focus.

We have developed many other aspects of the scheme. Prioritising children of preschool age is, I think, justified, but I very much agree with the Member. I want to do more, and I have every intention of making proposals to do more. I hope that Executive colleagues will support me to provide the necessary resources.

Mrs Mason: Minister, the community and voluntary sector provides first-class care for children of school age with breakfast clubs and after-school clubs. Unfortunately, we do not have enough of them. What plans do you have to further support and stabilise that sector, specifically in respect of staff and attracting new workers to the sector?

Mr Givan: Childcare providers are in a private marketplace. How would that be regulated? How would you do it? I am picking up something that another Member asked about how you would provide a scheme to support the pay and the terms and conditions of the people involved in after-school clubs and so on. One of the proposals in the early years childcare strategy is to identify whether there is a need to support businesses where there could be a critical failure in the marketplace. The Department for the Economy leads on that. I am supporting it in identifying whether there are measures that we need to take forward around supporting businesses and employment practices. I hope that that work can be completed before the end of the financial year to help inform the outworkings of the strategy.

Mr Martin: In light of the Budget the week before last and the changes to employers' National Insurance contributions and the minimum wage, is the Minister considering additional support for the childcare sector generally?

Mr Givan: Obviously, there has been an impact as a result of the change that has been made through the National Insurance contributions and the minimum wage. Many businesses are raising the issue of how they will meet the additional expenditure that is now required. As we review the outworkings of all of that, we will seek to provide as much support as we can. That is part of the work that the Department for the Economy is looking at in its assessment of employment and helping to meet the need, but that is something for the Department for the Economy to lead on and provide the evidence base. If the Executive want to provide support, that will be a wider Executive decision outwith what I would be able to do in the Department of Education.

Mrs Guy: I have met many stakeholders in the childcare and early years sectors, and the consensus seems to be that the Department has everything that it needs to produce a childcare strategy. What specifically is holding up the publication of an early learning and childcare strategy?

Mr Givan: The Executive and I, as Minister, wanted to make sure that action was taken, not just words. A strategy is a document that outlines what you want to do. I wanted to do something, and the Executive wanted to do something, hence the focus has been on standing up the childcare subsidy scheme as well as all of the other support that we have put in, for example, to stabilise Sure Start funding that we provided to early years organisations.

If I had gone with a strategy first, Members would rightly have asked me when I was going to take action. I have taken action, and the benefit of the approach that I have taken is that 13,300 children and more than 1,500 providers are registered. That all provides us with information and gives us the data that we need around the costs and patterns here, which then informs the strategy. I can advise the Member that, in the past number of weeks, the Department has turned to developing the comprehensive strategy. I have said before that I want this to be brought to the Executive in 2025, and I remain committed to doing that. Initially, we wanted to take action, and now the work on the strategy has started.

Ms McLaughlin: The general allocation of £170 million for education in the monitoring round is very welcome. Will any of the money go to the provision of 22·5 funded preschool hours a week? If not, how can the Executive deliver on their key priority in the Programme for Government?

Mr Givan: I assure the Member that we have already secured the funding to take forward the first tranche of the standardisation programme within the early learning and childcare funding pot. Twenty-five million pounds was allocated to that, and that is allowing us to identify at least 100 settings that, by 1 September next year, should be able to deliver over 2,000 more places moving from part-time provision to full-time provision, which is that 22·5 hours.

I have already announced for consultation two tranches that identify the settings on the basis of the criteria that have been used. There is another tranche that needs to be announced to do that. The Executive have already agreed that we are moving towards delivering 22·5 hours of provision in our preschool settings, whether that is statutory or non-statutory. Work is taking place for the first phase of that to start. It will become more challenging, as we need capital funding to increase the physical capacity of some of the premises to fulfil that commitment, but we have started that work.

Mr Givan: The challenges facing the early learning and childcare workforce, including recruitment, retention, qualifications and pay, are well recognised and are being considered as part of the development of the Executive's early learning and childcare strategy. However, aware of the immediate pressures faced by the sector, I secured an additional £7 million of Executive funding to help stabilise existing provision in the current year. That has enabled me to provide additional payments to all groups delivering Sure Start, Pathway, Toybox, non-statutory preschool and other early years programmes to help them manage rising costs, including staff wages. While that has provided some temporary relief, I appreciate that a longer-term solution needs to be found.

I am aware of the calls for a direct government intervention to improve the pay and retention of the early years and childcare workforce. However, given that the sector comprises private, voluntary and community sector providers, including self-employed childminders, that needs to be considered in the wider economic and business support context. To that end, the Department for the Economy is leading on a scoping exercise in conjunction with Invest Northern Ireland, the Department of Health, the Department of Education and wider stakeholders to develop a clearer picture of the business support requirements of the childcare sector and to help inform an appropriate government response. That work is due to conclude in March 2025, and it will inform proposals in the draft early learning and childcare strategy that I intend to bring forward to the Executive later in the year. We are committed to finding a balanced solution that promotes workforce stability and values our early years and childcare workers whilst maintaining accessible high-quality childcare options for families across Northern Ireland.

Ms Egan: Thank you, Minister, for your answer. As part of the work that you are doing to support early education and childcare workers, will you consider helping to fund the creation of a professional body for early years and childcare workers?

Mr Givan: A number of bodies that I have met can provide support. There is the NI Childminding Association with Patricia Lewsley. That organisation provides support to childminders that they can turn to. As part of the review and the strategy that we want to take forward, I am happy to look at the idea of a professional body. If it has merit and traction, it could be considered as part of the wider strategy.

Mr Buckley: Minister, what has been the impact of the subsidy cap, and will it be raised or removed?

Mr Givan: There has been an impact from the cap, and changes have happened. It has had an impact on some of the funding that we have been receiving, but we are assessing what the threshold should be. The cap that exists has affected a small number of people. The overwhelming majority of people have not been impacted by the cap in terms of the costs associated with childcare. A small number have been affected, and we are gathering data on that.

Mr Givan: The Education and Training Inspectorate report uses the term "preventative curriculum" to encompass safeguarding practices and the taught elements of the curriculum, such as personal development, mutual understanding and relationships and sexuality education (RSE). The ETI report found that pupil safety and safeguarding practices worked to good effect to safeguard pupils and that educational settings have adequate support from external agencies in responding to child protection and safeguarding issues. To ensure that good safeguarding practices exist in schools, my Department's safeguarding guidance was reviewed and updated in September 2025. Schools and educational settings are required to follow and implement that statutory guidance.

Mr Donnelly: I thank the Minister for his answer. Does the Minister agree with the NSPCC, the Children's Law Centre, the Human Rights Commission and others that ensuring the delivery of quality RSE in schools is a key safeguarding issue?

Mr Givan: I very much agree that the delivery of RSE in our schools is an important safeguarding issue.

Mr McGlone: Minister, drugs education is an important part of the preventative curriculum, yet, despite that, the North has seen a trebling of drug deaths in the past decade. Will the Minister outline whether there is any revision or review taking place in his Department of drugs awareness and education in our schools?

Mr Givan: That is about how the curriculum is delivered. The preventative curriculum in particular is kept under review, and, as issues emerge, we need to make sure that we have the right support for it. The Council for the Curriculum, Examinations and Assessment (CCEA) has been good at providing material when schools have particular issues, which can sometimes vary. As well as that, the Education Authority can provide support in the protection of children and young people. There are functions that it can use to support schools in those areas. It is vital that we always keep on top of emerging issues, particularly when it comes to drugs. New drugs can enter society, and it is about how we respond to that to make sure that young people are properly informed. That is a role in the preventative curriculum that it is important to keep up to date.

Mr Speaker: You have about half a minute, Minister.

Mr Givan: Transitions post 19 for young people with statements of special educational needs have been a key aspect of the end-to-end review of special educational needs. I am aware that my officials recently met the Member and a number of parents at Rossmar School to discuss the matter. My officials are working closely with colleagues from across the Department of Health and the Departments for the Economy and Communities to ensure that high-quality and appropriate pathways are in place for young people with statements of special educational needs who are leaving school.

Mr Speaker: We move to topical questions.

Mr Givan: There have been occasions on which it has been recommended that I not meet an individual or group, and I have met them, so that is not the only occasion on which that has occurred.

Ms Hunter: It is crystal clear that young people reject paramilitary activity in their community. Young people listening today will be disappointed that you met that group, because they want to leave violence behind and to leave groups associated with violence outside the conversation about education. Can you provide the Chamber and the young people who are listening today with any concrete outcomes from the meeting that will contribute to the betterment of education in Northern Ireland?

Mr Givan: Back in the day, when I was a young person — maybe I am now just young at heart, although the politically correct Civil Service guide says that you should not say those sorts of things — I actively campaigned against releasing prisoners. I wanted them to be kept in prison. The Member's party campaigned to release mass murderers from our jails but now lectures me about who I should or should not meet. I will meet those who want to move our society forward. As to those who do not, I very much appeal to the PSNI and the security forces to get the evidence and put them behind bars. I will campaign to keep them behind bars, unlike the Member and her party, which embraced paramilitaries and let them out of our jails.

Mr Givan: I thank the Member for his question, which is a very important one. CPR is dealt with in the curriculum, but we need to give greater focus to it. Teaching of CPR and awareness of defibrillators have been mandatory elements of the school curriculum at Key Stage 3 since 2022. To support schools in meeting that requirement, my Department has worked with CCEA, the Education Authority and the Ambulance Service on developing the Community of Lifesavers programme. That programme provides teacher professional learning in CPR, along with resources and training equipment for schools. I am delighted to advise the Member that over 500 teachers have been trained through the programme, which utilises a "train the trainer" model to support teachers and focuses on CPR and defibrillator awareness. The Community of Lifesavers interactive phone app is also being launched, with the aim of building children and young people's confidence in developing vital CPR and automated external defibrillator (AED) lifesaving skills.

Mr Middleton: I thank the Minister for his answer. Minister, you touched on defibrillators, which are lifesaving pieces of equipment throughout our community. What can you do to ensure that more defibrillators are rolled out across the schools estate?

Mr Givan: Tomorrow morning at Methodist College, I will launch the new CPR training app. In conjunction with training, we need to look at the physical device. That is why I commissioned a survey of all schools, to which we have had over 600 responses. Half of the schools that were surveyed do not have such devices on-site. It is vital that we provide those devices in our schools, because they are lifesaving — they have saved lives — which is why I have undertaken the work of identifying the need for them. Upon identifying that need, I will look with my Department at what I can do to support schools and whether we can provide them with the devices.

Mr Givan: We touched on this issue during listed questions. The preschool setting is one of the areas of the childcare strategy funded by the Executive, and we aim to deliver 2,200 full-time places in September. So far, the two tranches have comprised 77 preschool settings, and that allows us to move forward with those places. There will be a further tranche to take forward to achieve the target that we have set for September of next year. However, the transition in subsequent years is largely dependent on the resources available to the Executive to continue to deliver that.

Mr Brett: I am delighted that Currie Primary School in my North Belfast constituency will be one of those moving to full-time provision. Can the Minister give any further updates on how his work impacts on residents right across North Belfast?

Mr Givan: The Member will be pleased to know that over 400 of his constituents are registered for the scheme and benefiting from it. Again, it is worth highlighting that those 418 children in North Belfast are an element of the now over 13,000 people in hardworking families who are benefiting directly. We have also been able to secure funding for a 10% Sure Start uplift, and that is £3·1 million. We expanded the number of Sure Start areas to include the additional 22 geographical locations that had been on a temporary basis and made them full time. An uplift of £600,000 was provided for the pathway fund, and that will have a positive impact. The Toybox project is having a positive impact, particularly around educational underachievement.

I have also been able to provide funding to the Department of Education to support childminders. I have also provided a grant to the Department of Health for workforce training on fair play. We have provided support for an approved home childcare pilot scheme, PlayBoard NI and the Bookstart Baby programme. That is evidence of the Executive and the Department, through the childcare subsidy, providing support for those critical early years and also to hardworking families.

Mr Givan: It is an issue with the operation of the policy that many Members have raised. Any one particular change will have a repercussive effect and cannot be taken forward in isolation. I will look at the home-to-school transport issue, not least because there are ways in which we could provide better support to young people to access the education they want. There is also an issue with the exponential increase in the cost of transport. On the one hand, I want to carry out a review to provide greater access to education, but there is a real impact on the funding available to the Department, and transport has seen a significant increase in cost. Therefore, I need to make sure that we represent value for money to the taxpayer who funds all of that. Those are two areas that need to be addressed as part of the wider review.

Ms Sheerin: I thank the Minister for the answer. I understand the cost implications and challenges that this presents. I have written to your office to request a meeting with you and a group of parents. Quite a proportion in my area, but a small number when you consider the number of people accessing transport across the North, are currently unable to access transport for their children from Ballinascreen to Magherafelt. Will the Minister commit to meeting those parents to see what can be done?

Mr Givan: I have met many parents and constituents about the very same issue that the Member has raised. I have always tried to accommodate all the requests for meetings that come in to me. The figures are the evidence of that. I think I may have met more individuals and groups than any other Minister in the Executive. I would certainly like to accommodate the Member, and if I can, I will do so.

Mr Givan: That is an issue of concern that I have expressed opposition to and engaged with Treasury on. HMRC has confirmed that there are 14 independent schools and 11 grammar schools in Northern Ireland that will fall within the scope of the VAT changes owing to the Government's policy.

Mr Harvey: Will that place more demands on the Minister's Department?

Mr Givan: We will continue to monitor that. The impact that it may have on some families could cause them to reconsider their use of private schools and to consider whether they need to access education in the public setting, the cost of which will be borne by the taxpayer. I cannot be precise about the numbers associated with that, but we will continue to monitor whether there is going to be an impact arising from the policy.

Mr Givan: From my reading of the resolution of the amended motion, it did not demand that I change the criteria.

Mr Carroll: I think that it did. Throughout the debate, Members made the point that they are for a change to the eligibility criteria. Can the Minister therefore confirm that no changes will be made to the criteria?

Mr Givan: Let me say as a starting point that resolutions are non-binding, so a motion that is agreed by the Assembly does not carry any legal status. The amendment to the motion sought reassurances from me, as Minister, that what had been done was correct. I am quite capable of providing the evidence to any Member who wishes to see it or, indeed, to the Education Committee. As I said in the Chamber, facts are facts. The Member is entitled to his opinion, but the fact is that very robust criteria have been used, and I will continue to apply the fair and appropriate criteria.

Mr Givan: I have been in a number of schools in which that example of financial management has been used to help young people understand money and how to use it. That has been of benefit to them and to the school. It is unlikely that I will be able provide direct funding for that, given the budget pressures that we are under. There are, however, organisations that go into schools to provide that type of support. In my constituency, one of the local banks has provided support to schools and advice to young people in a primary-school setting. The schools were then able to use that as part of their programme of delivery in class.

Ms Mulholland: Following on from that, I wish to ask about encouraging young people to participate in the democratic process, which is what participatory budgeting is all about. What support does the Department give to school councils or pupils to engage in their school's democratic processes?

Mr Givan: I am always struck by the fact that, when I visit a school, whether it be a primary school or a post-primary school, the student council will come to meet me and talk about how its members have had to make speeches in order to get votes. I seek to gather advice from them on how I can use that approach myself.

Schools are now really good at encouraging young people to get engaged through their student council. The schools that work best are those that do not just pay lip service to it but follow through on a change that the council has recommended. By doing so, the school council is therefore not just a talking shop, and it is not about the school simply being able to say, "We've got a student council". I therefore very much advocate and encourage schools to make sure that they not only have a student council but properly engage with it and implement decisions taken by the young people in order to give real meaning and purpose to having that council.

Mr Speaker: Very quickly, Minister.

Mr Givan: Contingency measures have been put in place. When we started, significant progress was made by creating 1,400 places, which ensured that placements were being provided. In September, October and November, we have been completing the final numbers for school settings that need additional capital. Where we still have not been able to have a young person in a school setting, the Education Authority has put support arrangements in place to provide as much support as possible. I want to get to the point where every child is in their school setting, and no child is left at home not receiving some support.

Mr Speaker: That draws to a conclusion questions to the Minister of Education.

Mr Gaston: On a point of order, Mr Speaker, in response to a question from me, the deputy First Minister claimed that the prison buildings at the Maze were listed at the request of the then Secretary of State. Will you require the deputy First Minister to correct the record to reflect the fact that the request for listing the buildings came from convicted IRA murderer Paul Butler? Will you also ensure that the deputy First Minister makes clear that the powers to delist the buildings lie with her party colleague Minister Lyons?

Mr Speaker: There are a number of issues. First, I am not here to clarify or fact-check on behalf of Members everything that everybody else says. Secondly, the listing took place under a period of direct rule, and the Member is right that Paul Butler made the request. Thirdly, having dealt with the Department for Communities on listing, I know that the law is clear on how it can be done or removed. It is generally not done as a result of a politician's intervention but on the basis of the work of the Historic Buildings Council.

We will move on. Members should take their ease momentarily.

Ms McLaughlin: In the context of InterTradeIreland's research and, indeed, the COP conference that is taking place, the Sustainable Energy Authority of Ireland (SEAI) recently indicated that there is an excellent and largely untapped geothermal resource in Ireland, especially in the North. Given the urgent need to make progress on renewable energy development if we are to meet the "80 by 30 target", how is the Minister's Department working on a cross-border basis to exploit that resource?

Mr C Murphy: That was not a subject of discussion at the meeting that we had in Armagh under the North/South arrangements. Nonetheless, the Member is correct that geothermal energy can play an important part in our journey towards net zero. We need to explore all alternatives to using fossil fuels to heat properties. I understand that two experiments are exploring the potential of geothermal. One is on the Stormont estate, down at Dundonald House, and the other is, I think, at one of the agricultural colleges, although I am not sure which one. Those two experiments are being rolled out. On the basis of the analysis from them, we are happy to explore the potential for geothermal, not just here but across the island, and any collaborations that can be made.

InterTradeIreland is keen to promote clusters. If industries and opportunities around geothermal should develop across the island, it will be keen to make connections between people. At the moment, we are at the experimental stage. I hope that we can quickly move on to exploring the outcomes that can be achieved from that.

Mr McGuigan: I thank the Minister for his statement. What is the current position of InterTradeIreland's staffing levels?

Mr C Murphy: There has been an increase in InterTradeIreland's staff numbers in recent times. InterTradeIreland has to be resourced to deal with the outcomes of the protocol and dual market access. We want to ensure that InterTradeIreland is best placed to try to work on the interest that there is, not just outside the island of Ireland but within the island of Ireland, in how companies can get into trading arrangements, North to South and South to North.

From my recollection, the staffing cohort has gone up from about 45 to roughly 67. InterTradeIreland will develop further business plans in order to meet the challenges that it anticipates with the growing interest in the North/South and dual market access arrangements. Of course, we want to ensure not only that our businesses are in a position to take advantage, but that the organisation that is resourced to assist them has sufficient resources to do so.

Mr Brett: I thank the Minister for his statement. The statement rightly recognises the importance and opportunity of advanced manufacturing. The Minister will be aware that, as a result of the city deal project, Northern Ireland will have a new advanced manufacturing site on the edge of my constituency, and of yours, Mr Deputy Speaker. Will the Minister advise how we can ensure that the lessons from clustering, which has happened in other parts of these islands, are recognised at the Global Point site, and that all communities are able to benefit from job opportunities at that site?

Mr C Murphy: We have a good advanced manufacturing sector and a strong manufacturing sector. His constituency, South Antrim and other constituencies, such as Mid Ulster, are very well represented in that regard. At the meeting, we had a presentation about advanced manufacturing clustering — something that InterTradeIreland has promoted. There were companies from North and South talking about how they had worked together. We know that, where companies come together in clusters, there is a sharing of knowledge, expertise and business opportunities, and that we tend to get more innovation and export opportunities and, therefore, more growth for those companies. The advanced manufacturing clustering programme that InterTradeIreland has focused on has the potential for huge benefit. Certainly, the presentation from the companies that spoke to us at the meeting bore testimony to that. We want to continue to encourage it so that we can see advanced manufacturing continue to grow and be a strong performer on the world stage.

Mr Honeyford: I welcome the Minister's statement. Alliance welcomes the specific work of InterTradeIreland on energy innovation and technology towards decarbonisation. If we can solve that crisis, we can open up a different world of opportunities here, as we all acknowledge. The Minister spoke a minute ago about resource. Is the Minister content that sufficient ambition and resource is being given to InterTradeIreland to fully realise the potential?

Mr C Murphy: I am certain that, over a number of years, there was not enough. InterTradeIreland is best placed to work on the interest from companies abroad that might consider investing or setting up here, due to the dual market access. It is also of significant interest to companies on both sides of the border with regard to how they can advance their own position to export. Therefore, we want to ensure that InterTradeIreland is resourced sufficiently to meet that challenge. There has been a significant increase in staff numbers and resource. There was an almost £2 million increase in funding for the organisation this year. We are going to look at further development plans for InterTradeIreland. There is a determination between myself as Minister for the Economy and my southern counterpart to make sure that InterTradeIreland has what it needs to do the job, because the outcome from that will be beneficial to economic growth across the island.

Ms D Armstrong: I welcome the Minister's statement on the North/South Ministerial Council. The Minister referenced the Shared Island enterprise scheme funding of €30 million. I understand that the scheme is dedicated to fostering women's entrepreneurship on an all-island basis. Will the Minister give his assessment of uptake of the Grow It programme that is delivered by Women in Business and Network Ireland?

Mr C Murphy: The Member is right: there was €30 million of funding from the Shared Island Fund for that joint initiative between Invest NI, InterTradeIreland and Enterprise Ireland. One of the programmes was to encourage female entrepreneurship. I am told that there was a very encouraging response to that programme. Of course, we want to promote more entrepreneurship and more opportunity for start-up for female business people across the island. They are very much under-represented among business leaders, and so we want to ensure that that is corrected. The programme is, in many ways, a pilot scheme, if you like — a testing ground for that — and the responses, to date, are encouraging. Of course, if that is the case, we want to take more initiatives to try to promote female entrepreneurship.

Mr Delargy: I thank the Minister for his answers so far. Minister, are there currently any vacancies on the InterTradeIreland board?

Mr C Murphy: A number of vacancies have been filled as a consequence of the meeting that we had in Armagh a couple of weeks back. A number of further vacancies will arise early in the new year. For some of those, the duty of appointment will fall to the northern side of the border. There is another one to be filled from the southern side. Of course, we want to ensure that the board continues to have the membership that it requires and that input in managing and overseeing the work of InterTradeIreland. It is critical that, when the opportunities arise to make appointments, we do so quickly and we put in the best possible people to fill those positions.

Mr Gaston: Minister, since the introduction of the protocol, the budget for InterTradeIreland has ballooned by £1·8 million. Can the Minister put his politics aside for a moment and tell us what, if anything, he is doing to support businesses that are trading with the rest of the UK and face the challenges of the Irish Sea border?

Mr C Murphy: Of course, that is not in InterTradeIreland's remit, and I am not bringing any politics into it.

There are enormous opportunities. The statistics on North/South trade and how it has grown significantly over the past number of years are already there for people to examine. There is nothing political in that. That is businesses getting on with doing what they do best, which is doing business with each other and creating prosperity. They see opportunities in the protocol arrangements to further enhance that. The requests and their engagement with InterTradeIreland have increased significantly as a consequence of that, so we wish to support InterTradeIreland in assisting our businesses, people who employ people in your constituency, to get on and do it as best they can.

An InterTrade UK body has been set up to try to ensure that any barriers that might exist to east-west trade are addressed. The First Minister and I attended a meeting in London a while back in relation to a discussion about that under the previous Administration. I have no further advice on how that body is functioning or how it is performing its duties. It is not directly responsible to my Department, but certainly, we are happy to give it any assistance if we hear from it at any stage in the future.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Members, that appears to be the end of the questions on the statement, so I thank the Minister for that. I ask Members to take their ease for a moment before we move on to the next statement.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: I have received notice from the Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs that he wishes to make a statement. Before I call the Minister, I remind people to be succinct in their questions.

Mr Muir (The Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs): Madam Principal Deputy Speaker, I thank you for this opportunity to update the Assembly on progress on our commitments, arising from the Climate Change Act (Northern Ireland) 2022.

Today, world leaders are gathering in Baku, in Azerbaijan, for the twenty-ninth UN Climate Change Conference of the Parties, otherwise known as COP29. The twenty-eighth Conference of the Parties focused on placing people and livelihoods at the heart of climate action, with inclusivity of a diverse range of stakeholders.

COP29 will continue with that theme, with a focus on climate justice for those who are most impacted by the effects of climate change but did not necessarily contribute towards the emissions that have led to those impacts. I believe that, alongside others, we have a moral duty to take action to tackle climate change and to deliver our climate targets. To that end, I am fully committed to our doing so in a way that is fair and just.

That brings me to my first update, which seeks to ensure that all sections of society are placed at the centre of and involved in our decision-making. The Assembly should be commended for the fact that a just transition runs through every aspect of the Climate Change Act that we passed in 2022. A just transition requires a whole-of-society approach to tackling climate change and its impacts, an approach that seeks to promote inclusion and to respect human rights while promoting development and the creation of decent work and quality jobs.

The just transition approach that we are taking ensures that, as we transition to a low-carbon society and economy, we do so in a way that is fair and just and does not leave anyone behind. I am therefore delighted to inform the Assembly that I have launched a public consultation on the establishment of a Just Transition Commission for Northern Ireland. The establishment of the commission is one of the key legislative requirements arising from our Climate Change Act. The consultation is a key milestone in moving that forward and ensuring that we establish a commission that delivers on the functions envisaged by the Assembly, as set out in the Climate Change Act. It is important we have the right membership on the commission to ensure that it is as effective as possible. The 2022 Act sets out the sectors and groups that must be represented on the commission. However, I am of the view that, to fully address the transformation required, the commission may need to broaden its representation from others, such as those from the energy and transport sectors. Once the commission is established and fully operational, it will be an invaluable resource to the Assembly and Departments as a source of expertise to help ensure effective and inclusive emissions reduction policy.

The commission will provide advice to Departments on how to ensure that their emissions reduction policies, including climate action plans (CAPs), comply with the just transition principle. Importantly, it will provide an independent oversight function to ensure that Departments are held accountable and are adhering to the just transition requirements set out in the Act.

I turn to delivering on our climate commitments. In February 2020, I spoke to the motion declaring a climate emergency. It was my maiden speech, in which I quoted Alan Turing, who once stated:

Plenty has, indeed, been done. The Assembly not only voted to declare a climate emergency in 2020 but voted unanimously at Final Stage for what is now known as the Climate Change Act (Northern Ireland) 2022. Since coming into office earlier this year, I have been very conscious of the obligations and opportunities that arise from the Act and have been working to deliver on our climate commitments. In May, I introduced legislation for new climate change reporting duties for public bodies. In September, I secured Executive agreement for Northern Ireland’s first environmental improvement plan (EIP). Alongside that, I have been progressing the carbon budgets and the climate action plan to provide us with the ambition and the delivery plan to enable Northern Ireland, as a region, to maintain pace on our climate targets.

There are significant benefits for all the people here, if we fully embrace the opportunities provided by addressing climate change not only through welcome investment in sustainable, green energy and technologies but through the new employment opportunities that those will bring and the benefits of decarbonisation through increased energy supply security. From my engagement with leaders across many sectors, the message is clear: we in the Chamber need to provide clarity to investors and businesses here and internationally that we have a clear and long-term commitment to decarbonisation to ensure that, as a region, we do not miss out on the investment opportunities that tackling climate change can bring.

A key mechanism for reducing our greenhouse gas emissions will be through the setting of our carbon budgets, which will set the maximum amount of greenhouse gases that can be emitted in a given five-year period. Their primary purpose is to ensure that a mechanism is in place to put us on track to meet our 2030, 2040 and 2050 statutory targets in a planned and gradual way. Last year's consultation on the proposed carbon budgets, which were in line with the recommendations of the UK Climate Change Committee (CCC), showed significant public support. Over recent months, I have been working to secure the agreement of my Executive colleagues to the setting of our first three carbon budgets and our interim 2030 and 2040 emissions reduction targets at a level that we consulted on and that was recommended by the CCC. I will then bring them to the Assembly. By setting the carbon budgets, we will show collective leadership and make clear our commitment, alongside every other nation on these islands, to decarbonisation.

We will deliver on our carbon budgets through the development of a series of climate action plans that will set out the policies and proposals across all sectors to reduce greenhouse gas emissions during the associated five-year period. My Department has been leading on the development of our first climate action plan with input from all Departments. Extensive work has been undertaken to ensure that we have a credible plan that is supported by robust science and evidence. To put us on the path to net zero, our policies and proposals have to be ambitious. Our current policies are not sufficient, as they stand. It requires transformation. We must work together to drive forward action on climate change for our current and our future generations: it is the issue of our time. We must provide leadership and deliver clear direction to our businesses and society on how net zero will be achieved. Our approach must be fair, must benefit the most vulnerable in our society and must create high-value work and a sustainable economy. It is vital that we listen to the public as we shape our approach, and that is why I am determined that we publish our draft climate action plan for consultation as soon as possible once we have set the carbon budgets. I look forward to bringing the first CAP to the Executive in the coming weeks, and I will update the Assembly in advance of the 16-week consultation.

When considering collaboration, it is important to emphasise that this is a whole-of-society issue. We cannot do it alone. Collaboration and partnership across government and with all key stakeholders are vital. In tackling climate change together, it is essential that we protect our environment and take advantage of opportunities to develop our green economy and, in particular, to seize economic opportunities to showcase Northern Ireland as a leader in innovation, technology and science that will drive inward investment. Members will be aware of the world-leading manufacturing that we have on our doorstep, with Wrightbus, Artemis Technologies and many others. We must support, invest in and continue to grow those opportunities or risk being left behind.

I turn to the green growth strategy. As Members will be aware, a consultation on the Executive’s draft green growth strategy was launched just before COP26. My Department, in consultation with all other Departments, has been working to refresh that strategy to ensure that it is current and up to date. "Green growth" is an accepted OECD term, and, in their draft Programme for Government (PFG), the Executive have recognised the importance of harnessing the potential of green growth and decarbonisation for our economy. The green growth strategy will provide our framework for tackling the transition to a greener, sustainable future. I intend to present the updated green growth strategy to the Executive in the coming weeks so that there is an agreed framework in place for all Departments to develop policies and deliver programmes that tackle climate change, protect and restore our environment and support the growth of our economy.

In the draft Programme for Government, the Executive have recognised the impact that climate change is already having on our communities, the environment and our economy, particularly through increased occurrences of severe weather events, leading to impacts such as flooding that we must address. The devastating events in Spain that we witnessed at the end of October, with the sad loss of life, should be a wake-up call for us all. What would a year's worth of rainfall in eight hours do to our businesses, farms, economy and communities? We know the impact last year on Downpatrick, Portadown and other areas.

To improve our resilience in the context of climate change, my Department has been leading on the coordination of the development of our third Northern Ireland climate change adaptation programme. That plan will set out the actions by all Departments that are under way and in development to adapt to climate change risks. It is important that we acknowledge that, even if we were to achieve net zero by 2050, we would still have locked-in impacts of climate change to which we must continue to ensure that we are adapted to, in order to improve our climate resilience. Subject to Executive agreement, I will launch a public consultation on the draft third Northern Ireland climate change adaptation programme later this year.

Whilst Northern Ireland Departments will not be attending COP29 in person, we will continue to support the UK Government's COP objectives where needed. Recently, I had the privilege of being invited by the Under2 Coalition to attend New York Climate Week. The coalition represents 178 individual states, regions, provinces and sub-national Governments, like ours, totalling more than 50% of global GDP. During Climate Week, I was fortunate to be able to engage in a range of events and discussions with Ministers and governors from across the globe, see first-hand the world-leading Billion Oyster Project in New York harbour and engage in a number of direct bilateral meetings with our international counterparts. The key theme of Climate Week was that the time to act is now, not tomorrow. I was reminded that we are not alone on this journey. It is a global problem, and we all have a role to play in finding the solution.

Across the region, we have so much expertise, knowledge and skills and a strong history of innovation that we should rightly be proud of. We are already developing local solutions. Northern Ireland has the chance to showcase our globally leading science and technology and to embrace future industries that will attract green investment and have real economic benefits. During my brief time in New York, it was apparent that we have much to be proud of in Northern Ireland in the progress that we have made to date and, in particular, the strength and depth of our climate change legislation. It was evident that other regions admired our approach and the strength of our legislation through elements such as embedding biodiversity, soil and air-quality targets; the establishment of a Just Transition Commission; and the important embedding of the just transition principle in our legislation. I believe that the progress that we have made to date and the steps we are about to take in setting our first three carbon budgets, finalising the development of the first climate action plan and publishing our green growth strategy will act as a springboard to drive forward necessary emissions reductions and begin to realise economic, health, social and well-being outcomes for all our communities.

Finally, I hope that colleagues will recognise my emphasis on partnership and collaboration in the statement and in how I do business. No single Department or sector can deliver the road to net zero. We need to all work together to bring all sections of society along with us in a just and fair way, as we transition to a net zero society and economy. From speaking to people across Northern Ireland, it is clear how much we value our environment, and we need to protect it. That has never been more apparent than in the impact that our actions have had on Lough Neagh, which we now seek to reverse. Climate change is the issue of our time. We have the opportunity now to stop its worst effects impacting our communities and businesses whilst we also grow a sustainable economy. I believe that we owe it to ourselves, our young people and future generations to do all that we can now to tackle climate change. Everyone in the Chamber and beyond has a leadership role and a part to play. With the impact of climate change we face challenges that go beyond anything that we have dealt with before as a society. It impacts every aspect of our lives. I believe that it is a challenge that, together, we can and must rise to.

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

Can the Minister provide the House with some detail of what the public consultation on the Just Transition Commission is seeking input on? Will it include a just transition fund for agriculture?

Mr Muir: I thank the Member for his question. There are two parts to it that it is important to answer.

One question that we want to tease out in the consultation relates to the sectors that will be represented and the inclusivity of that. We will be keen to hear responses on that. The requirement for a just transition fund for agriculture is set out in the Act. As part of discussions on the Budget that was announced at Halloween, I made the case to the UK Government that there should be separate and additional capital funding to qualify as a just transition fund for agriculture. I was not successful in that, and, as we know, the Budget was not good for agriculture in Northern Ireland. I am now engaging with the Finance Minister, as part of the budget for the next financial year, to see what we can put together as a just transition fund for agriculture. That is important,. and I will work with the Finance Minister and Executive colleagues on it.

Mr Butler: Minister, thank you for your statement, particularly the part about the just transition. You will know that mental health is an issue of real primacy for me and young people. Will you outline to us what engagement will look like with young people and, in particular, young farmers? I am thinking about the Budget from two weeks ago. Its further implications may mean that they do not see a future for themselves in farming and in agriculture more widely. How will the just transition fit into that and perhaps protect them?

Mr Muir: You touched on the really important issue of young people in Northern Ireland and their concerns about climate change. I know from meeting the Children and Young People's Commissioner and representatives with whom he works that there is real anxiety. That is why I am looking to convene a citizens' assembly for young people on climate change. That is a work in progress. We want to partner with others, because it is important that we hear their voices on such issues.

I get the particular concerns that you outlined about young people working in farming. We need to have succession planning and to give people hope for the future. That is what I am doing day and daily. It is absolutely vital that we get young people into farming and agriculture in Northern Ireland. Climate change is an issue of our generation. It is of particular concern to young people, so it is important that we hear their voices.

Miss Brogan: Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire fosta.

He will be aware that the Climate Change Act recognises the importance of treating the island of Ireland as a single biogeographical unit. It also requires that we harmonise climate action in the North with steps that are being taken in the rest of Ireland. Will the Minister please outline what level of cooperation he has had with his counterparts in the rest of Ireland to ensure that climate action across the entire country is as complementary as possible?

Mr Muir: You touched on key parts of the Act. I have had significant engagement with my counterparts in the South through the North/South Ministerial Council. I have met Eamon Ryan, Charlie McConalogue and Heather Humphreys. There have also been bilateral meetings with Charlie. I am awaiting the outcome of the election in the South. I do not know whom I will be dealing with after the end of November, but, whomever it is, I am looking forward to having a very strong relationship, because we have to work North/South, east-west and way beyond in order to deal with the issues. It is therefore about having good working relationships. Taking learnings from the work that is being done in the South or across the water is also really valuable for us. That is why we set up the co-centres, which are valuable scientific and research resources.

Miss McIlveen: I thank the Minister for his statement. Given that the climate change targets that the Assembly set are somewhat unrealistic and are unlikely to be met, and given that the Minister has not yet secured a financial budget to deliver them, will he consider introducing amending legislation to adjust the targets in order to ensure that meaningful climate change is deliverable?

Mr Muir: I and the Executive continue to work through the budget issue. It is, however, not just about cost but about opportunities. I have a real concern that, if we do not travel the road that is set out in the climate change legislation, we will lose investment and good green jobs, which people in Northern Ireland deserve. We need to grasp that issue. I have already addressed the issue with the Committee, and I do not intend to introduce primary legislation to amend the targets.

Mr Blair: I thank the Minister for his comprehensive statement. Will he outline any reasons for why the implementation of the Climate Change Act, which was agreed so convincingly in the House, has been delayed?

Mr Muir: The Member rightly states that the legislation was approved unanimously at Final Stage by the Assembly. Delivering on the requirements of the Climate Change Act is challenging for my Department and the wider Executive, but many things in life are challenging. I run marathons, which are challenging, but that does not put me off. I just train harder and go at it.

The lack of a sitting Assembly and a functioning Executive until earlier this year has undoubtedly had an impact on meeting our statutory deadlines, as set out in the Act. Many other areas have also been affected by the lack of an Assembly and an Executive. My focus, however, is not on looking back. As is the case when running a marathon, it is about looking forward. It is about trying to do what we can to deliver on the ambition of our climate change legislation: legislation of which I am proud. Since coming into office, I have already introduced public body reporting regulations, which was the first deliverable required under the Act. As many will know, my Department consulted on carbon budgets during 2023, and I am currently engaging with Executive colleagues on setting Northern Ireland's first three carbon budgets and on undertaking the review of our 2030 and 2040 emissions reduction targets. I have met several of my Executive colleagues and had very useful, positive and constructive discussions with them. Once the Executive position on those issues has been agreed, I will introduce legislation for the Assembly to consider. The consultation on the just transition commission will help to inform the final policy content of the regulations that will establish the commission.

Progress has also been made on the development of our first climate action plan. We can make real progress on delivering the requirements of the Act in the coming months, and I hope that my Executive and Assembly colleagues will support my efforts to do so together.

Mr Irwin: I thank the Minister for his statement. Agriculture plays a key role in the Northern Ireland economy, and the agri-food sector employs over 100,000 people or thereabouts. Indeed, Northern Ireland produces food for 10 million people in the UK. Will the Minister undertake to work constructively with the sector and its representatives to ensure that climate change targets do not irreversibly damage the sector?

Mr Muir: I thank the Member for his question. He touched on some key issues, and those are why we are launching the consultation on setting up the just transition commission. We need to do it in partnership with people. I am very aware of the role that agriculture plays not only in our economy but in communities in Northern Ireland. Family farms are the bedrock of our rural economy in Northern Ireland, and we should be very proud of them.

I hope to bring the first climate action plan to the Executive and then take it out for consultation. It is very ambitious, but agriculture will play a significant role in it. The sector should, rightly, be proud of that. We often talk in this place about what we are not doing or talk negatively about Northern Ireland, but we should be very proud of the role that agriculture will play in the first climate action plan, because it is positive and constructive. Other parts of the UK and Ireland are looking to Northern Ireland: they see what we are doing and want to replicate it. There are many examples of that in the packages of measures that we are bringing forward. The farm support and development programme is ambitious, and it includes many measures, including the soil nutrient health scheme. We should be hopeful about the future. I do not underestimate the challenges, but we should be positive about the role that agriculture plays in Northern Ireland.

Mr Dickson: Thank you, Minister, for your statement. Given your — indeed, our party's — clear and unequivocal stated commitment to tackling climate change, will you set out the rationale for your decision to appeal the judgement that was handed down by the Court of Appeal in respect of the No Gas Caverns case in order to allay any concerns that are being expressed by the No Gas Caverns campaign, which I and my East Antrim colleague Danny Donnelly wholeheartedly support?

Mr Muir: Thank you, Stewart, for your question. The rationale for the appeal of that decision is purely on constitutional grounds. I set that out on 9 July — I remember because it was my birthday — in a written ministerial statement to the Assembly about the appeal. The impact of the decision is very clear to those who read the judgement and written ministerial statement, in that it changes the requirement for referring decisions to the Executive. That has the potential to impact on my progressing important interventions to protect our environment in Northern Ireland. Some of the commentary of late has been bereft of any evidence or sense of reality. The idea that I am some sort of gas guzzler and climate-change denier is untrue. I took the decision after careful consideration of the judgement's constitutional implications. I do not believe in further oil or gas extraction or storage that perpetuates our reliance on fossil fuels. I took the decision purely on the grounds that I set out on 9 July.

Mr T Buchanan: Minister, it is disappointing and perhaps a little alarming that you are pressing on with unrealistic targets and refusing even to look at introducing primary legislation on more realistic targets. However, you have talked about broader representation on the just transition commission to include representatives of other sectors, such as the energy and transport sectors. What do you envisage will be the total membership of the commission and its annual cost?

Mr Muir: Thank you very much. I am not fixated on what the commission will look like. It is important that I acknowledge that. The purpose of the consultation is to be aware of the different views and take them into account. I will deal with the issue about cost before I turn to your first comments about the targets.

Similar to the commission that was set up in Scotland and that which was recently set up in Ireland, I propose that commission members will be part-time and that they will be remunerated in line with the Department of Finance's public appointee remuneration levels. My Department will provide funds for the commission to meet secretariat costs, IT support costs and operational costs as required, and fees and expenses will be in line with Department of Finance guidance. Those costs will be dependent on a number of factors. The consultation will seek views on those factors, and the sectors will be represented. That will determine the way forward on cost, particularly with regard to frequency of meetings.

I will say a couple of things about the targets. The legislation was agreed unanimously at Final Stage. Hopefully, I will be able to bring forward the first climate action plan. I have confidence that we will be able to achieve that. Why would we miss that opportunity? Why would we turn that away? Why would we turn down the opportunity for investment? I am very serious about this. I want Northern Ireland to succeed. I think that it is the best part of the world, and I am very, very proud to represent it. I want to get investment in here. I do not want companies to go elsewhere. I want them to come here. We need to show that there is certainty and that we are serious about our climate change legislation. As in a marathon, you do not give up at the start line. When you are at mile 20, you might want to consider where you are at. We are nowhere near mile 20. We have not even started. Let us get cracking at it. Let us show a bit of confidence for Northern Ireland, and let us work with people through the just transition commission.

Dr Aiken: Thank you very much indeed, Minister, and I thank Mr Dickson for asking the same sort of question that I am about to ask. Minister, on 27 June this year, the Lady Chief Justice quashed the marine licence associated with the gas caverns project in Islandmagee. In light of your comments in paragraph 5 of your 70-paragraph statement, in which you specifically mention a "moral duty" — I say that again: a "moral duty" — on Ministers to deliver on the climate emergency, why are you and the Department taking such a retrograde step of referring the decision on the gas caverns back to the courts when, actually, what we need is resolute action from you, Minister, in stopping it right now?

Mr Muir: What you are getting is resolute action from me on climate change, and that is why I have come to the Assembly today to outline the work that I am doing in relation to it. If the Member cared about this issue, as he pretends he does, he would have read the judgement fully and read my written ministerial statement on 9 July. What I cannot stomach is johnny-come-latelies, on 11 November, suddenly cottoning on to this issue and making false allegations about my commitments around climate change.

Mr Donnelly: I welcome the Minister's statement and his clarity on his actions against climate change. Will the Minister detail further how climate budgets and climate action plans reflect the recommendations provided by the Climate Change Committee?

Mr Muir: The actions that I am taking on setting the way forward are entirely in line with the recommendations of the CCC. I sent a letter today to congratulate the new chief executive of that organisation.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Matthew, did you want to ask a question?

Mr O'Toole: Yes, if that is OK [Laughter.]

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: It is just that you sort of stood up.

Mr O'Toole: Apologies.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: OK. Go ahead. Thank you.

Mr O'Toole: Maybe it is age and I am not as quick on my feet as I thought I was, but thank you very much, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. I obviously do not run as many marathons as the Agriculture and Environment Minister.

Minister, thank you for your statement. There is a bit of a disjunction here. Your answers mention urgency in addressing climate change, but there is some slowness of pace inside your Department and historically. You said that international partners admired our approach. Perhaps that was at the drinks reception after they had had a glass or two, because I would love to meet anyone who is serious about climate change who admires Northern Ireland's approach. You said that, in the coming weeks, you will bring forward carbon budgets, and you also said that you will bring forward a climate action plan. Specifically, when will those issues be brought to and discussed at the Executive? Will they be published and brought to the Assembly before the end of 2024?

Mr Muir: I thank the Member for his questions. As you are aware, those are discussions that I am having with my Executive colleagues. The pace that I run this marathon at has to be the pace that my Executive colleagues are prepared to join me at. I will continue to encourage others to follow at that pace. I am very ambitious about this, and I am ready to go. I will seek to continue to engage with my Executive colleagues on the carbon budgets. Once that agreement is reached, I will come to the Assembly to let people know more about. Then I will seek to get approval of the climate action plan, because that is the next step.

We should — we must — get this agreed by the end of the year, and I will continue to engage with Executive colleagues on it. That is absolutely key.

As to others looking to Northern Ireland, I referred specifically to agriculture and the interventions that are being made. I am happy to meet the SDLP to brief the party on the work that is being done on the future farm support development programme and the good work that is being done in agriculture.

Boy, do I know there is more to be done? There is significantly more to be done, but we are making good progress in turning things around. Government can be difficult, but it is about delivering change for people and working with others. That is what we are doing, particularly in farming. It is absolutely crucial that we do that and give people hope for the future. Interventions such as the soil nutrient health scheme and the different packages of measures that we are bringing forward are positive and groundbreaking in Northern Ireland.

Mr McMurray: Minister, how will the Just Transition Commission ensure that our farming and rural communities are protected as we move towards a low-carbon economy?

Mr Muir: That is exactly what the Just Transition Commission is about: holding the feet of the Assembly and wider government to the fire to ensure that those voices are heard. It is absolutely critical that we move on and are able to set the regulations. I want to carry out that consultation so that we get voices heard in relation to the issues.

Ms McLaughlin: I thank the Minister for his statement. DAERA recently published the 'Northern Ireland Greenhouse Gas Inventory'. Based on the Department's document and data on the average rate of emissions reduction, Professor David Rooney, an energy expert in Queens University — I am sure that the Minister knows him — suggests that, at the current rate, net zero will be reached only by 2118: 68 years after the 2050 target. Does the Minister agree that Northern Ireland is falling increasingly behind? That is the understatement in the question.

Mr Muir: I am aware of the stuff that the Member has quoted. It takes no account of the need for ambitious climate action plans. When we insert those, we get ourselves on the road to net zero. That is why it is crucial that we get agreement on carbon budgets and then the climate action plans. Those are the interventions that we need. As I outlined in my statement, they have to be transformative. However, we are up for this. Northern Ireland has a history of being transformative. Look at our past and see what we were able to do. Do not underestimate what we can do in the future. Other parts of the world look to us to lead in those areas.

Mr Mathison: I thank the Minister for his statement. Will he answer in more detail what funding the Department needs to drive a just transition? Will he also talk about the cost of failing to take action on climate change?

Mr Muir: There are significant costs in failing to take action: lost investment and lost opportunities for jobs in Northern Ireland. However, I do not want to contemplate those. There are costs to making the interventions to enable a just transition. That is something that we should, frankly, already be doing. In relation to, for example, Communities, I would support Gordon Lyons on the need for investment in energy efficiency in homes. This is about a just transition, but it is also about decarbonisation. In agriculture, there is a need for capital funding not only to drive down greenhouse gas emissions but to promote water and air quality. My ambition is high, and I will engage with the Finance Minister in the time ahead on what resources we can secure to deliver that future for everyone.

Mr McGrath: The Minister's statement references "embedding ... air quality targets". If a private business sprays diluted chemicals over waste and the wind transmits that, on occasion, to residential and urban areas, does that hinder our ability to meet air-quality targets?

Mr Muir: I ask the Member, if he has concerns about a specific area, to raise it with the relevant agencies. It is important that he does so. I am aware of a local issue that he is concerned about, and I will write to him shortly to invite him to a meeting in relation to it.

Mr Gaston: The Minister pushes a policy that will result in the slaughter of animals in Northern Ireland and the export of demand to the depleting rainforests of Brazil. Will he tell us how many jobs, he estimates, will be lost in the Northern Ireland agriculture sector if the climate action plan is implemented in its current form?

Mr Muir: The Member is clearly unacquainted with the legislation, which was brought forward by the previous DUP Minister and agreed unanimously, including by his party at Final Stage during the last mandate. I do not look towards a reduction in jobs: I look for the growth of good, green sustainable jobs. The Member may not be aware that the climate action plan has to be agreed by the Executive, and we are working together to achieve that.
I do not look for us to move backwards; I look for us to move forward, and that is what I am keen to do.

Agri-food is a vital sector, and that is why I am working to give it a sustainable future. That means taking difficult decisions, but, rather than allowing people to feel warm and not facing up to them, I am working through them. When I came into post in February, my in tray was overflowing with difficult issues, and I am not dodging them.

Ms Á Murphy: I thank the Minister for coming to the Chamber to make his statement. Minister, can you provide any detail on the timeline for completing an equality and rural impact assessment of the final climate action plan to ensure that the needs of rural communities and farming families are addressed?

Mr Muir: I will write to the Member with the full details on that, but it is key that we consider the impact on rural communities. I am taking that forward through the future rural affairs policy, because I want to embed it in the Department. I am also working with my Executive colleagues on the future Budget because, as you know, the earmarking for that has been removed, and we want to ensure that rural development is a key part of it.

Mr Durkan: Apologies, a Phríomh-Leas-Cheann Comhairle, for missing the starting pistol. We are well aware of the Minister's fondness for marathons, and that is reflected in the length of his statements. [Laughter.]

Today, the Minister has highlighted once again the need for increased investment to address the climate emergency. Can he tell us how much of his Department's budget has been allocated to climate mitigation and adaptation?

Mr Muir: I thank the Member for his question. What Members do not know is that, on occasions, the Member has been faster than me in marathons. I give him credit for that, but I will catch up in due course.

The issues that the Member has raised should be mainstreamed in all Departments. We should do that as a matter of course. One of our challenges is with adaptation and mitigation in Northern Ireland, and that is where we need to work as an Executive. That is key to going forward.

On the Budget for the next financial year, it is important that all Departments bid for significant funding for those issues. We have to match that with what the UK Government are providing us with, and I continue to engage with the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (DESNZ) on financial support.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: That concludes questions.

Mr Carroll: On a point of order, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. I believe that, at Question Time, the Education Minister misled the House by saying that the House did not pass a motion last week calling for him to review the eligibility criteria for the RAISE programme. The motion, which was passed last week:

To my and anybody else's reading, that sounds like the House asked him to review it. Can I ask for the record to be corrected in that regard?

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Gerry, I will bring that back to the Speaker's Office. They can review Hansard and get back to you. In case the Minister of Agriculture — Steve, were you going to raise a point of order?

Dr Aiken: I was going to raise a point of order too, Principal Deputy Speaker. Please continue.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: You do not mind?

Dr Aiken: No.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Thank you. [Laughter.]

Questions to you, Andrew, on the statement are concluded.

Dr Aiken: On a point of order, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. I think that the Minister tried to call me a johnny-come-lately. He might like to correct the record, because, if he has any knowledge of the number of times that I have been involved in the No Gas Caverns process, along with John Stewart and, indeed, his two illustrious colleagues the Members for East Antrim, he will discover that we have been doing it for a very long time. Minister, please feel free to correct the record.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: OK. There is a lot of gas in the Chamber. I will bring that back and ask the Minister to reflect.

Are there any more points of order?

Mr Muir: Further to that point of order, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker, I acknowledge that the Member may have been raising this issue regularly, but I note that, when I published a written ministerial statement on 9 July, many who are now commenting on the issue were clearly on a long vacation.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: None of those, apart from Gerry's, are points of order, as you all well know.

Mrs Cameron (Junior Minister, The Executive Office): I beg to move

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

Mrs Cameron: Today, we seek the Assembly's approval for the Fair Employment (Monitoring) (Amendment) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2024. It might be useful to Members for me to begin by setting out the principal considerations that informed the preparation of the statutory rule (SR).

The Executive Office proposes to make a statutory rule under powers conferred by article 53 of the Fair Employment and Treatment (Northern Ireland) Order 1998 or "FETO", to amend the Fair Employment (Monitoring) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 1999. The statutory rule is subject to draft affirmative resolution before the Assembly. It is substantively an administrative matter and will amend the monitoring regulations to require existing registered concerns, including public authorities, to provide monitoring information in respect of schoolteachers from 12 May 2024 only. That is the date on which the school teachers exception in the Fair Employment and Treatment (Northern Ireland) Order 1998 was removed by the commencement of the Fair Employment (School Teachers) Act (Northern Ireland) 2022.

Without the amendment, some schools could be in technical breach of the monitoring regulations. The monitoring regulations currently require employers to provide 12 months of data to the Equality Commission for Northern Ireland on the anniversary of their initial registration. The Fair Employment (School Teachers) Act (Northern Ireland) 2022 does not provide for the collation of the 12 months of teachers' data needed for the first return that follows the removal of the schoolteachers exception.

The monitoring regulations state that failure to provide a return containing the required information is an offence. To ensure that employers are able to provide the required monitoring data and not be potentially subject to a fine, there is a need to amend the monitoring regulations. The purpose of this statutory rule, therefore, is to amend the reporting requirements so that the existing registered concerns do not need to supply information relating to schoolteachers prior to 12 May 2024 only.

We thank the Committee for the Executive Office for its prompt scrutiny of the regulations.

Ms Bradshaw (The Chairperson of the Committee for The Executive Office): I rise on behalf of the Committee for the Executive Office. The Committee considered the draft regulations at its meeting on 11 September 2024 and accepted that this is technical legislation to ensure that schools do not find themselves in breach of equality legislation. The Committee had no concerns about the draft legislation and was content in principle for the regulations to progress. However, the Committee raised a query to the Department on the estimated additional costs to the Equality Commission of adding schools to its oversight remit. The Department's reply indicated that it was considering a business case from the commission to cover that cost but stressed a need for the commission to find ways to absorb the new costs in the current financial climate. The Committee will keep under review the commission's capacity to undertake the additional work.

At its meeting on 23 October 2024, the Committee considered the final version of the regulations, which did not differ from the draft presented in September. The Committee therefore recommends that the draft Fair Employment (Monitoring) (Amendment) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2024 be approved by the Assembly.

Ms Sheerin: I support the motion, as outlined by the Chair of the Committee. We discussed it at the Committee and supported the largely procedural matter, which just brings equality into place for our teachers across all sectors.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: I call junior Minister Cameron to make a winding-up speech on the motion.

Mrs Cameron: We are grateful to the Chair and the Member for their contributions to the debate.

I will update the Chair of the Committee on the point about the Equality Commission. On the wider issue of the implementation of the Fair Employment (School Teachers) Act (Northern Ireland) 2022, the Equality Commission has submitted a business case to the Department in respect of additional staff costs, as outlined. The requirement to monitor teachers that flows from the Act is new work, and the scale and volume of the task required is not yet clear. The vast majority of schools are already registered for fair employment monitoring processes and report through the Education Authority or the Council for Catholic Maintained Schools, which can provide advice and guidance to member schools.

It is not yet clear what additional burden will fall on the Equality Commission for Northern Ireland. The Department is extremely mindful of the current financial climate and the likelihood of additional funds being available centrally to meet the new need. The Department has asked the commission to look at ways of meeting the new requirement by reallocating funds from other work. In addition, in considering the commission's business case, the Department asked the commission for an analysis of tasks in the business case that could be conducted at a reduced level and tasks that were unachievable without additional resource. The Department has received that analysis and is actively considering it. The First Minister and deputy First Minister have agreed to the internal reallocation of £298,000 to the Equality Commission for Northern Ireland to cover staffing cost pressures. That funding is not directly related to Fair Employment (School Teachers) Act (Northern Ireland) 2022 work or the associated business case, but the commission has welcomed the funding, and TEO has asked the Department of Finance to note the proposed adjustment to its budget lines. That is by way of information.

The Executive Office will continue to assess the implementation of the Fair Employment (School Teachers) Act (Northern Ireland) 2022 as the monitoring process continues. These regulations will provide a helpful transitional arrangement for the new monitoring arrangements for school teachers. We thank Members for the support for the regulations that was signalled in the debate today and in their consideration by the Committee for the Executive Office, and I commend them to the Assembly.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Members, just take your ease for a few minutes before the next item of business.

Miss McAllister: 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 to propose and 10 minutes to make a winding-up speech. As an amendment has been selected and is published on the Marshalled List, the Business Committee has agreed that 15 minutes will be added to the total time for the debate.

Miss McAllister: I rise to propose our motion calling on the Health Minister to introduce a statutory organisational and individual duty of candour by the end of the mandate. Since the beginning of the hyponatraemia inquiry in 2004, following the deaths of five children in Northern Ireland, there have been consistent calls for a statutory duty of candour for healthcare workers to be enacted. Despite that, I stand here, 20 years later, with little progress to note from the Department of Health and a string of Health Ministers. Unfortunately, in those 20 years, we have also seen scandals that could and should have been prevented, such as the actions of Dr Michael Watt, the infected blood scandal, abuse in Muckamore Abbey Hospital, the urology and cervical smear reviews and the scandal at Dunmurry Manor, to name a few.

I have engaged extensively with families of those who lost their lives and those whose lives were changed as a result of those scandals, and I have heard their pain first-hand. Some of those families are in the Public Gallery today, while others are watching online, and I pay tribute to each and every one of them.

We should never underestimate the power of a person who has lost a loved one, who has watched a loved one suffer as a result of mistakes, deliberate or otherwise, or who has witnessed a cover-up instead of transparency to pursue justice, truth and accountability. Although a statutory duty of candour, applicable to both the organisation and the individuals in the organisation, with legal backing, would not have saved every life, it would, in all likelihood, have significantly decreased the time for which such actions were able to continue and the number of lives impacted on as a result.

Since joining the Health Committee, I have taken every opportunity to speak up on behalf of families who have been impacted on by the abuse and neglect at Muckamore Abbey Hospital. Just last week, I met relatives of Muckamore residents who had experienced severe abuse during their time in the hospital, including the relatives of one young man who was in the hospital for 21 years. They made it clear to me that an individual statutory duty of candour, with legal backing, is essential in order to make sure that lessons are learned from the plethora of health scandals in Northern Ireland. Those are not my words but the words of Glynn Brown, whose son experienced horrendous abuse during his two years in Muckamore Abbey and who speaks on behalf of the majority of families involved in the scandal.

My colleague Danny Donnelly and our wider Alliance Party reps have had ongoing engagement with relatives of deceased patients of Dr Michael Watt. Their fight for justice has been made all the more difficult as a result of delays with the deceased patients review process.

I have given just a snapshot of the human impact that such scandals have had on families across Northern Ireland. The Alliance Party tabled the motion on their behalf, and I want them to know that, if there is anything that any of us can do for them, we will always be here to listen.

I thank Sinn Féin for tabling the amendment, which calls for a:

That is an extremely important point. We welcome the amendment and will support it.

From discussions with the sector, I am clear that it is in full agreement with the need for an organisational duty of candour with legislative backing. I will therefore focus instead on our call for an individual duty. An important discussion on the duty took place at the Northern Ireland Confederation for Health and Social Care (NICON) conference just a few weeks ago, at which an emphasis was placed on the need for any statutory framework to be introduced in tandem with support for cultural changes in an organisation. That is an important point to make. We are not arguing that the legislative approach proposed in the motion should happen alone. I acknowledge that, if the duty were to introduced in a vacuum, it would not be successful or effective. The duty must be implemented alongside efforts to implement an open and transparent environment in the health and social care sector.

Staff must feel safe raising concerns at every level. I highlight the fact that the Belfast Trust has done some work on implementation by placing an emphasis on the psychological safety of staff. The trust aims to change behaviours from the macro level to the atomic level as a tangible example of supporting a cultural change, such as having weekly one-to-ones at which people can raise concerns, in order to ensure that it can meet the goal of being more open. Let us be honest, however: we cannot rely solely on the Department of Health to take the lead on changing the culture. How can we trust that a more open framework will be embedded when it has taken the Department so long to get to here in the first place?

Two weeks ago, I learned at Committee that the Being Open framework should launch early next year. Is that acceptable? Is that the grand total of the efforts made since the launch of the hyponatraemia inquiry and the publication of its findings in 2018? I want to make it very clear to all healthcare workers that we appreciate and value their work. The overwhelming majority of healthcare workers carry out their work every day with the utmost integrity, and for that we are grateful. It is important to emphasise that we are not calling for mistakes to be criminalised. We have been told by the sector that the notion of criminalisation is a misunderstanding that was spread carelessly by the Department. To make a mistake is to be human. Doctors and healthcare staff are not immune to making mistakes. That is not the issue at hand. The issue that having a statutory duty of candour would address is where an effort is made to cover up mistakes when they are made. We recognise that the threshold must be high. Where there is an intentional cover-up, however, we recognise that there must be accountability.

I have heard some argue that legislative backing for an individual duty is not required, as healthcare professionals can already be held accountable through the GMC. To that I say that they should speak to the parents of Claire Roberts. Alan and Jennifer have fought for almost 30 years for the truth about what happened to their daughter, Claire. We all recognise the smiling photo of Claire that we see in news articles to this day. When we talk about duty of candour and cover-ups, it is about ensuring that we get honesty. If we honestly believe that people can hold themselves to account and mark their own homework, we must speak not only to Alan and Jennifer but to every family member who has lost a loved one and still does not have the truth and accountability that they so deserve.

The cervical smear review was launched by the Southern Trust in October last year, long after the scandals around hyponatraemia and the actions of Dr Michael Watt became clear and were headline news in Northern Ireland, yet cover-ups continue to occur. Clearly, something needs to change. The reports that have called for an individual duty to be implemented must not be in vain. I recognise that people have concerns about there being a fear factor as a result. To anyone who is worried, I say that we are not blind to the difficult decisions involved in practising medicine. We understand that risks sometimes have to be taken and that decisions may only become clear in hindsight, but truthfulness and honesty must be prevalent. Patient safety is paramount.

I hope that we can get support on the matter. Most importantly, I hope that the Minister will commit today to introducing legislation and, perhaps, to exploring the Hillsborough law proposals as an opportunity to do legislative work here on organisational and individual duty of candour. We owe it to every person who was, and continues to be, unable to speak up for themselves.

Before I finish, I pay tribute to the parents of Claire Roberts and the many victims of the plethora of scandals in Northern Ireland, some of whom are sitting in the Gallery today. We thank you for your ongoing campaign. We particularly thank Alan and Jennifer, who have fought for almost 30 years and who, as recently as last week, found themselves fighting these issues in court. It is for people like Alan and Jennifer that we need to ensure that the issue does not go unheard. We need to ensure that we instil a legislative basis upon which we can receive honesty and truth for any mistakes that have been made. I commend the motion to the House.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Nuala. I call Liz Kimmins to move the amendment.

Ms Kimmins: I beg to move

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Liz. You will have 10 minutes to propose the amendment and five minutes in which to make a winding-up speech. All other Members will have five minutes.

Ms Kimmins: Go raibh míle maith agat, a Phríomh-LeasCheann Comhairle. I thank Alliance for tabling this very important motion. We have had numerous discussions on the issue in the short time that the Health Committee has been in place. Without speaking for others, I think that we are all very much on the same page on the issue. Even in the short time since February, when we first came together, we have heard, time and time again, about the very difficult reality than many patients and families face. We have listened to and met numerous families and people with lived experience of the harm that has come to them as a result of mistakes, cover-ups and other factors. We felt very strongly that now is the time for change. We cannot wait any longer. We cannot continue to see such inquiries and scandals coming to the fore. I, too, acknowledge all the families who have used their experience to ensure that those who come behind them do not go through the same traumatic and distressing experience that they went through. Without them, we probably would not be in this place today, although what we are discussing is a sad indictment of the system.

Openness and transparency are fundamental to underpinning trust in our health and social care system. It is what all users of those services are entitled to expect. A culture of openness benefits patients and service users, but it also benefits those who work in Health and Social Care (HSC). A statutory duty of candour seeks not to punish workers for mistakes but to empower them with the knowledge that, if harm is caused, they can flag it to ensure that there is learning and to help improve the processes and systems that are in place. By initiating an openness framework, we can start to make the change from a blame culture to a culture of learning. The most important piece of work is the cultural shift that is required in the health and social care system. That shift needs to ensure that staff feel supported to assist in system learning and improving outcomes for patients.

As mentioned, we have experienced a number of scandals in the health and social care service in the past number of years that have left many patients, families and staff with a sense of distrust in the system and a feeling that many issues were missed that developed into major incidents for patient safety. As MLAs, a lot of us will have dealt with individual cases of families who have lost a loved one or faced life-altering conditions as a result of mistakes being made and have waited and continue to wait far too long for answers and for change to occur.

We believe that it is important that we have both an organisational and an individual duty of candour to ensure that the highest levels of transparency can be relied on at every level of our health service. Families have a right to know the circumstances, if their loved ones experience harm. It is only right that they get that. Likewise, staff need to feel safe to be open and honest, as that protects them in the crucial work that they do and ensures that our healthcare is delivered to the highest possible standard.

Sinn Féin commends the patients and families impacted by the hyponatraemia and other scandals in Health and Social Care for their perseverance and endurance in their search for truth and justice. The outcome of their efforts must be a health and social care system that is open and transparent and inspires trust and confidence in all those who deliver and use its services. We need to make the changes, otherwise more and more scandals will continue to blight our services and our society. We cannot allow that to be the case.

It is important that the organisational statutory duty of candour requires each organisation to provide training, support and protection for staff to enable and empower them to fulfil their individual duty of candour, underpinning the open and honest culture for which we strive. An overwhelming majority of our dedicated Health and Social Care workers are committed to and strive to provide the best care for their patients. That is why the amendment seeks to ensure that there is genuine co-production and co-design that involves staff, patients and families who have experienced harm. It is crucial that those with lived experience of the serious adverse incident (SAI) process are involved in the development of legislation around duty of candour.

Understandably, a number of representative bodies for professions in our health service have outlined their concerns and a lack of support for the proposals, particularly for those around individual duty of candour, citing that workforce pressures have not, to date, formed part of the discussions and that staff feel very much that they are the low-hanging fruit when harm is caused and blame ensues. That is crucial in any discussion of or decision to move to an individual duty of candour. That is why we seek to amend the motion to ensure that there is full co-design and co-production with staff as well as families. Staff must be part of any process to develop legislation, to ensure that they can outline their key concerns and are listened to. In a climate in which our health service is under extreme pressure, staff are burnt out and often work in unsafe conditions and mistakes and errors are at a higher risk of occurring it is vital that that is recognised and informs any proposals. Staff must not be the collateral damage for organisational failings or poor management and planning. That must be abundantly clear when it comes to duty of candour. As a whole Executive, we must collectively strive to reduce the significant pressures on our health service.

Sinn Féin wants to ensure that patients, their families and all our staff have confidence and trust in our health service and that people feel safe to speak out when things are not done how they should be or when mistakes are made, so that steps can be taken to address that at the earliest stage. Any culture of cover-up must be eliminated. We need to put the best interests of patients at the forefront to ensure that no family has to wait years upon years for the truth when a loved one comes to harm. We have seen that time and again, through the hyponatraemia, neurology, urology and infected blood inquiries, to name just a few. The huge impact that that has on patients and their families must not be underestimated, and one thing has been consistently made clear: had facts been made available at the earliest possible stage, a lot of the pain and trauma could have been avoided. Families could get some level of closure and justice for their loved one, and the learning from those experiences could be used to reduce the risks of the same mistakes being made time and again. That is the motion's ultimate objective, and, essentially, the amendment would ensure that all stakeholders are an integral part of the process and that the principles of co-design and co-production are fully implemented throughout.

There is no doubt that difficult conversations remain to be had, but we cannot stand still on this any longer. By working together, we can ensure that there are strong frameworks in place to protect all of our patients, uphold strong confidence and trust in our system and protect staff, going forward.

Mrs Dodds: I thank the proposers of the motion and the amendment for the opportunity to contribute to a very important debate. Since joining the Health Committee in February of this year, I have met and talked to a wide range of individuals who have been dreadfully let down by the healthcare system in Northern Ireland. They have found it impossible to get answers, but, for many, knowing the truth of their loved one's situation is of paramount importance. It is harrowing for those who have lost loved ones to have to fight long, protracted legal battles in order to get truth and accountability.

In the hyponatraemia inquiry, which reported in 2018, Mr Justice O'Hara spoke of:

In a response to my colleague Joanne Bunting on 26 September of this year, the Minister indicated that 11 of the actions relating to a duty of candour arising from Justice O'Hara's report had been put into a Being Open framework policy that is currently under development. I hope that, today, he hears our frustration at the fact that there are no conclusions to this. It is hard to tell what progress has been made; maybe he will outline that in his response.

As a Health Committee, we have met relatives of the deceased patients of Michael Watt and have taken evidence from those involved in the infected blood inquiry. I also reference the 17,500 women in the Southern Trust who have had smear tests reviewed because of underperformance in the reading of such tests. The trust was aware of those issues since 2008. Today, I think specifically of the husband and family of Erin Harbinson, who passed away recently after a battle with cervical cancer. Erin's smear was misread in 2012, 2015 and 2018. Erin was diagnosed in 2021 and received her smear audit only in 2023 — one month before the trust had to issue the 17,500 letters. There should also be an independent inquiry to establish the facts around that.

Families have been left deeply hurt, traumatised and grieving but with prolonged fights in order to ascertain the truth. When we consider all of that, it is understandable that relatives of patients so grievously impacted should be asking for a statutory and legally enforceable duty of candour. Honesty, integrity and transparency with patients and families are key in establishing trust in our health service.

Let us also be clear that our healthcare workers are not only highly skilled and trained but committed and caring individuals who go above and beyond to give exceptional care to their patients. They operate in a fast-moving and extremely challenging environment where they are often understaffed and under-resourced. We should pay tribute to their professionalism and care for their patients. On Friday, I met the Royal College of Nursing (RCN). It is clear that there is anxiety among staff as to how an individual duty would work in practice, given the level of risk that they operate under daily. As we discuss the motion, we need to acknowledge that the overwhelming majority of healthcare professionals do their best and serve the public in a difficult environment. We also need to acknowledge that modern healthcare is incredibly complex, that the risk element is high and that not all decisions will have a successful outcome.

In response to the consultation on a duty of candour, in 2021, the DUP welcomed Justice O'Hara's report and asked for it to be implemented in full. On the individual duty, the DUP said:

We went on to say that we would continue to engage with professional interests and other stakeholders on the crucial aspects of the proposed legislation. Colleagues, that remains our position. We really thought that, by now, we would have seen that proposed legislation.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Your time is up.

Mrs Dodds: Minister, you should move to legislate for the recommendation of Justice O'Hara's report —

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Diane, your time is up. Thank you.

Mrs Dodds: — and my colleague Mr Frew stands ready to do so, if you are not.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Thank you very much.

Mr Chambers: Today, my sympathy and that of my party is with the many families in Northern Ireland who have suffered greatly as a result of medical negligence but have not always been able to get to the truth. They are very much in my thoughts today.

I understand the motivation behind the motion, but my concerns and those of my party relate to the unintended consequences and, in particular, the chill factor that it could create among our health professionals. We will support any future movement to introduce an organisational duty of candour. Such a duty would bring Northern Ireland into line with the rest of the United Kingdom. We saw the difficulties when efforts were made to attract surgeons to take up employment at the South West Acute Hospital, when the jobs did not perhaps tick all the boxes for potential applicants. With an individual duty of candour in place and potential criminal sanctions lurking in the background, how much more difficult will it be to attract health professionals here to work? There is also the issue of clinicians becoming more risk-averse in their treatment plans for patients.

I know that it is the Minister's ambition to deliver on the organisational duty of candour, but there is no doubt that an individual duty would be difficult to deliver and to deliver at pace. We will not divide on the motion, but we will always be honest about what is deliverable.

Mr McGrath: In addressing the motion, I will set out the fact that the SDLP has always stood alongside the families who were impacted, be that by Dr Watt or the scandals at Muckamore Abbey Hospital, and alongside those impacted by hyponatraemia or other cases. The families fell victim to a litany of failures by those who were charged with their care and health. They deserved better, and many still deserve justice. I have met many of those families, and the justice that they deserve goes beyond prosecuting those responsible to changing the culture in our health system so that those who witness failings feel that they can speak truth to power. That culture is, sadly, not there at present. Unfortunately, the motion might not help with that change in culture; in some ways, it might inhibit it. The proposers suggest a process in which there is an individual duty of candour, an organisational duty of candour, criminal sanctions for all and then roll those all together. That could just lead us to poor policy.

We have met doctors through the British Medical Association (BMA). We have met nurses through the RCN, and we have met UNISON, the largest union, about the motion. I would be surprised if, when developing the motion, the proposers had not also engaged with those unions, which represent tens of thousands of workers. If you had, which, I am sure, you have, as we did, you would have heard them ask, "Where does the proposed duty of candour begin and end? What do you mean by 'legally enforceable'? Are you aware that the unintended consequences of what is being proposed would push our statutory duty beyond the rest of the UK?".

Ms Bradshaw: Will the Member give way?

Mr McGrath: Yes, because I would appreciate the extra minute.

Ms Bradshaw: I do not lead on health any more. My colleagues and I have met the different unions many times. Does the Member agree that the motion has been proposed today out of sheer frustration that, seven years on from the inquiry into hyponatraemia, we are no further forward in this space?

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

Mr McGrath: Absolutely: I could not agree more with you. You are now in that Executive, so I look forward to your being part of the Executive and part of the decision-making to ensure that that happens. I am an Opposition spokesperson: I cannot deliver that. You are in the Executive, and it is up to you to deliver that.

I want to know why we are pushing for criminal sanctions, when, three years ago, an expert-led consultation said that we could not get agreement on that.

Miss McAllister: Will the Member give way?

Mr McGrath: If I must. You got plenty of time, but I am happy to debate.

Miss McAllister: We purposely left criminal sanctions out of the motion because we understand that a conversation needs to be had about that. You might want to actually engage on the issue in the first instance, for example, in the Committee, where we have discussed it time and time again. You do not even sit there: you walk out early. You are being really disingenuous here as to why we have tabled the motion.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Interventions are meant to be brief, please.

Mr McGrath: Alliance do not like it when you disagree with them on a few things. I agree with you on many of these things, but when we do not fully agree with the Alliance Party, they like to lecture us. I am happy enough to continue, because it is not my intention to completely disagree with all of it. It is about the way that the motion is phrased and worded.

We acknowledge the intention of Sinn Féin's amendment, because any new system should be co-designed and co-produced with workers and the families that are affected. However, I fear that it is still predicated on the basis that there is an individual, criminally sanctionable duty of candour, which might be a bit concerning.

Ms Kimmins: Will the Member give way?

Mr McGrath: Of course I will.

Ms Kimmins: I just want to come back on that point. First, as Miss McAllister said, there is no reference to criminal sanctions in the motion. Secondly, do you not think that this is the time to have those discussions, in order to outline what people's key concerns are, from all sides of the debate, so that we can move forward to find a suitable outcome that will benefit everyone and keep patient safety paramount?

Mr McGrath: I thank the Member for the intervention. I agree, but if we are going to end up with a criminally sanctionable individual duty of candour, that is not an outcome that those hard-working health staff want, and it is not one that we could support.

Mr Frew: Will the Member give way?

Mr McGrath: I am being attacked from all sides of the Chamber. I only have six or seven minutes. Go on ahead, because yours will be the most interesting intervention that I am about to get. [Laughter.]

Mr Frew: I will make a very quick intervention. Does the SDLP not agree with O'Hara?

Mr McGrath: I am sorry: I did not hear that.

Mr Frew: Does the SDLP not agree with the O'Hara report?

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: The Justice O'Hara report.

Mr McGrath: We absolutely do, but what I am saying is that this motion, as proposed, which has everything lumped in and is non-binding, is not going to achieve that. What we need to see is legislation being presented in the Assembly. That is what we are supposed to be doing. We need to legislate so that we can work for the families and help those who have been impacted on. We need to legislate so that we can create a culture in our health service that will work and allow people to feel that they can step up and detail any of the problems and concerns that they have. Once again, however, what we have here is a talking shop, with no action at the end of it. If we are going to continue with talking shops, we will see no change in anything.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: OK, thank you. I remind everybody not to be talking from a sedentary position. Everybody needs to be heard. With that, I call Pat Sheehan.

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

There seems to be some misunderstanding about what an individual duty of candour is — one with criminal sanctions. It is not about penalising doctors or other medical professionals who make genuine mistakes. It is about ensuring that there is a culture of transparency, because, for the past 20-odd years or the past 30 years, we have seen a culture of cover-up time and time again.

Today, I want to talk about one case, which is that of young Claire Roberts. I want to acknowledge her parents, Alan and Jennifer, who are in the Public Gallery today. As Nuala McAllister said, they have been trying to get to the truth for nearly 30 years now. Let me just give a recap of what happened. Claire was nine years old when she was admitted to the Hospital for Sick Children in Belfast with vomiting and lethargy. Her bloods were tested, and it was noticed that her sodium was low: not dangerously so, but it should have been checked the next day. She had been admitted on 21 October, and those levels should have been checked the next morning, on the Tuesday. They were not, and that was the first mistake. She was then treated with a number of medications that, because of her condition, she should not have been given. She was prescribed three medications and was overdosed on two of those, making the situation worse again.

Her family were by her bedside for most of that Tuesday. That evening — around 9.00 pm, I think — they needed to go home, because they have two other children. None of the staff in the hospital explained to them how seriously ill Claire was. Later on in the evening, after the family had left, Claire went into respiratory failure and was taken to the paediatric intensive care unit, by which time it is believed that she was already dead. The consultant who was in charge of Claire's care did not see her for the whole time that she was there on the Monday and Tuesday. She only arrived in the children's hospital at 4.00 am on the Wednesday, and she immediately knew what had happened. Claire had been put on intravenous fluids, and, because her sodium was low, those fluids further diluted the sodium in her system, leading to hyponatraemia and the brain swelling that caused her death. The consultant did not notify the coroner, as she should have, and did not order the post-mortem that she should have: she ordered a post-mortem of just Claire's brain. The family were told that Claire died as a result of a bug in her stomach travelling to her brain. They lied, barefaced, to the family. The family were obviously devastated from having lost their daughter but believed what they had been told by health professionals.

Miss McAllister: Will the Member give way?

Mr Sheehan: I will.

Miss McAllister: I am giving you the opportunity of a minute being added on. Does the Member acknowledge that two pathologists and a number of other consultants were also involved in what was potentially a cover-up from the start?

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

Mr Sheehan: Absolutely. Time prevents me from going into all the details of the case; I am just going over the main points.

Seven or eight years later, Alan and Jennifer watched a programme entitled 'When Hospitals Kill', which was produced by UTV. It struck both of them that what was being discussed in that programme, which was about other children who had died from hyponatraemia, was the same thing that had happened to Claire. They went to the Belfast Trust and demanded that the coroner be informed. The Belfast Trust was caught with its pants down and had no option but to go to the coroner. You would think that, at that stage, the Belfast Trust would have said, "Right, we've been caught here: let's be open and transparent. Let's tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth" —.

Mr Buckley: Will the Member give way?

Mr Sheehan: I will take a quick intervention; I have not got much time.

Mr Buckley: I thank the Member for giving way. From my time on the Committee with him, he knows that we are both extremely passionate about this issue. I agree that the fight that the Roberts family has had to go through has been nothing short of disgraceful. Does the Member agree that the current system encourages cover-up rather than transparency?

Mr Sheehan: I agree with the Member 100%.

You would think that the Belfast Trust would then have been open and honest. A team was set up to collate information to give to the coroner. Alan Roberts says that, between 2004 and 2006, false and misleading information was supplied to the coroner. In 2006, the coroner returned findings that were not true or accurate. In the aftermath of the O'Hara report, and following the family's campaigning, the family got another inquest in 2019. The findings from that inquest are that Claire Roberts died as a result of hyponatraemia, not as a result of a virus travelling from her stomach to her brain or for any other reason.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Your time is up, Pat.

Mr Sheehan: We need an individual duty of candour with criminal sanctions. That is the only way in which to bring about a culture of openness and transparency.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Go raibh maith agat as sin.

Mr Robinson: I give my party's support to the motion and the amendment.

The report into hyponatraemia-related deaths was published in January 2018, 14 years after the inquiry was set up. The report set out 96 recommendations, all of which were deemed to be major pieces of work, with implications for the entire health and social care system. It was expected that the vast majority of the recommendations would be implemented by the end of 2020, with the statutory duty of candour piece requiring Assembly legislation.

At the heart of the report, and, indeed, of the debate, are five grieving families of children who should still be with us. That could have happened to any family. It could have happened to me. I have a healthy, fun-loving 10-year-old girl whom I love with every bone in my body. It was haunting to watch the footage of the families of the children on whose behalf the hyponatraemia inquiry was set up in order to find the truth. Whatever contributions there are back and forth today, we owe an outcome to those families and others thereafter.

Equally, no one in the Chamber would wish to be in a battle with doctors, nurses or any other health professional. We recognise the valuable work that they do. I very much value and respect the concerns that they have about there being an individual duty of candour. Submissions from health unions over the weekend suggest that there are concerns about the individual piece. I see no similar concerns about an organisational duty of candour, however. At the Health Committee last month, we heard from Professor Peter McBride, who told us that there is a high degree of fear and anxiety among healthcare staff and a lack of trust in the systems that are in place to allow them to raise concerns. He also told us that it would harm their career if they were to speak up, specifically if there were an individual duty of candour. He informed Committee members that the organisational piece would bring us into line with other parts of the UK.

Time and time again, we have seen, through the conveyor belt of inquiries, the importance of transparency, honesty and responsibility in delivering healthcare. Although our healthcare professionals are deeply committed to upholding the highest standards of care, we must recognise that, when things go wrong or when failings, abuses or negligence occur, it is essential that those issues be addressed promptly, openly and justly. A statutory duty of candour would ensure that healthcare organisations and individuals are held to the highest standard of transparency. It is not about blame or recrimination but about safeguarding lives, protecting public trust and fostering a culture in which learning from mistakes is not only encouraged but mandatory.

When harm occurs, patients and their families deserve nothing less than honesty and accountability. That principle was made abundantly clear in the aftermath of the inquiry into hyponatraemia-related deaths, a tragedy that shook the foundations of our healthcare system 20 years ago. Despite the passing of two decades since that inquiry began, the families are deeply concerned, and rightly so, about the limited progress that has been made to introduce a statutory duty of candour. Although it will require finely balanced decisions to be taken, weaknesses in our healthcare system cannot be allowed to persist. The people of the Province deserve a healthcare system with accountability woven into its very fabric, not something that is introduced only in times of crisis.

Back in 2021, my party's response to the consultation on a statutory individual duty of candour included the important line:

A statutory duty of candour will not only help identify and address individual cases of malpractice or negligence but should be designed to strengthen our institutions by providing greater transparency and accountability. It should ensure that healthcare providers learn from any mistakes at the earliest possible opportunity. I agree with my party colleagues that a duty of candour should be drafted and enacted fairly and without unintended consequences. It should not be viewed as a punishment. My party supports in principle the possibility of criminal sanctions in more extreme and serious cases, whilst recognising that any such sanctions must be framed in a way that is evidence-based and make a clear distinction between the wilful and deliberate withholding of information that relates to practices that take place in a healthcare setting and those practices themselves.

Mr Donnelly: A statutory and legally enforceable duty of candour in our health and social care system is urgently needed on both an organisational and individual basis. Although there is no question that the vast majority of our health and social care staff are committed to the highest standards of care, it is impossible to pretend that mistakes will not be made, so we must ensure that appropriate safeguards are in place to ensure that they are not repeated and that we learn the lessons that are necessary to ensure that there is the utmost care for all our patients.

It is very disappointing that limited progress has been made on introducing a statutory duty of candour and that successive Health Ministers have failed to introduce legislation on the issue. The case for reform is more relevant than ever, following a number of important inquiries, including the hyponatraemia-related deaths inquiry, the infected blood inquiry and, in England, the proposal for the Hillsborough law. There has been encouraging progress on the proposed Hillsborough law since the election of the new Labour Government, with the Prime Minister recently announcing that the Bill will be introduced in Parliament early next year. A report from the Joint Committee on Human Rights last year highlighted the importance of such a Bill to ensuring compliance with articles 2 and 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Legislation from this place would and should be compliant with those articles due to our membership of the ECHR and the legislative competence of this place under section 6 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998.

The other inquiries mentioned reiterate the need for a statutory duty of candour. The hyponatraemia-related deaths inquiry, which began 20 years ago, recommended the introduction of a statutory duty of candour in situations in which it was suspected or believed:

The report stated that, in such circumstances, the patient or family:

The recommendations were specifically for healthcare professionals, NHS healthcare organisations and private providers. The inquiry noted that, in 2015, the then Health Minister Jim Wells informed the Assembly that a statutory duty of candour should be introduced in Northern Ireland, and that that was a priority for him and the Department. However, as with so many other things that we discuss in the Chamber, such legislation has been delayed by years due to political instability and the prolonged absence of an Executive and Ministers.

More recently, the infected blood inquiry also highlighted the need for an introduction of a statutory duty of candour. In May this year, the Health Committee heard from Nigel Hamilton from Haemophilia NI. Nigel spoke very powerfully during that Committee session about the need for a statutory duty of candour. I recommend that Members revisit his contributions. He, rightly, said that people need to have confidence in our public institutions, whether it is the Assembly or our medical institutions. He also said that openness is vital and that those in positions of leadership and responsibility need to listen, not just tell. Furthermore, he, rightly, stated that it is important that we have our own specific legislation on duty of candour in Northern Ireland, given our unique circumstances, and that, given the realities of devolution, we should not simply wait to see what Westminster chooses to do. We must ensure that that is a priority in the remaining two and a half years of the mandate.

In 2021, the Department ran a 16-week consultation on draft policy proposals for a statutory duty of candour and a Being Open framework. There were varying levels of support for the proposals among the organisations that responded, and we have since met and corresponded with some of them. Some stated that they could not support the recommendations, pointing out that their members were already professionally regulated. The proposals are not about diluting the existing regulation of healthcare professionals; they are a means of complementing and expanding that regulation. It was also said that a duty of candour may affect the recruitment and retention of staff. Some people talk about a chill effect in the health service. I do not see how working with that duty would put anyone off, particularly if they are already professionally regulated.

As someone who has worked in the health service, I know that it is important to emphasise that this is not about punishing people for mistakes. Mistakes can happen in any profession, but it is essential that we learn from such mistakes, and that we have a culture in our healthcare system that promotes the highest standards of care and openness, including the highlighting of mistakes and what must be learned from them. When things go wrong and someone suffers harm in the course of receiving healthcare, it is absolutely right that the patient or their loved ones get clarity on what happened from the people responsible for their care and that steps are taken to make sure that no one else suffers in that manner. A duty of candour is about reassuring the public that they will get answers and truth when things go wrong and rebuilding trust in the health service after the scathing conclusions of some inquiries.

It should not be lost on any of us that the health service in Northern Ireland is under enormous pressure. Our waiting lists are scandalous: people wait for years for routine operations and, in many cases, are forced into paying for private healthcare. We, effectively, have a two-tier health system. Wards in our hospitals regularly have extra patients lying in corridors. Our A&E departments are overcrowded, and the whole system operates under prolonged periods of intense pressure. Sadly, those are precisely the circumstances in which things go wrong. Staff feel exhausted, and they are overworked and undervalued. In conjunction with the duty of candour, we need the Health Minister to introduce safe staffing legislation for Northern Ireland —

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Danny, your time is up.

Mr Donnelly: — to ensure that patients have the correct number of staff to deliver safe and effective care for them.

Mr Frew: I think of Adam Strain, Lucy Crawford, Raychel Ferguson, Conor Mitchell and Claire Roberts: children at the centre of the O'Hara report. Alan and Jennifer Roberts, Claire's mum and dad, are with us today. I think of Conan McIlwrath, vice chair of the UK Haemophilia Society, and Nigel Hamilton, chairperson of Haemophilia Northern Ireland, who sits in the Public Gallery. I think of the Ladies With Letters and those 17,500 women. I think of Erin Harbinson and Lynsey Courtney, who also lost their lives. I think of the inquiries into Muckamore Abbey Hospital, neurology and urology. Northern Ireland has had the need for too many public inquiries, given the fact that we are such a small jurisdiction. Too many times, the promises to learn lessons have not been fulfilled.

A health system that should have openness, truth and transparency at its heart has the opposite. I wish I were standing here with faith in the Department of Health, but that faith is shot. It is shot because mourning the loss of a loved one is so difficult, but to have to then fight for the truth for three decades is unbearable. If the Department of Health does not introduce legislation on this, I will. I have been working on a private Member's Bill to bring in an individual duty of candour. I give this commitment: I will work with Nuala and Danny and the Alliance Party, and with Pat and Sinn Féin, and we will try our best to get legislation that serves the population and our healthcare workers and brings openness, truth and transparency to the heart of our health service.

It is not just about the past; it is about the future. The 2023-24 report by the Northern Ireland Public Services Ombudsman (NIPSO) says:

That report was published for the year 2023-24.

Mr Buckley: I thank the Member for giving way. I know how personal the issue is to him, and I commend him on his private Member's Bill. He mentioned Lynsey Courtney. She was not only my friend but my constituent. Does the Member agree that the way in which those families have had to fight has compounded the grief that they have experienced through the loss of a loved one?

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

Mr Frew: I thank the Member for his contribution, and he makes a valid point about Lynsey. The ombudsman's report says:

For far too long, our health service workers and personnel have been let down by whistle-blowing legislation. It does not work, and we need an individual duty of candour to empower those workers.

Applying a duty of candour and then applying a criminal liability for a breach of the duty to be open and truthful, we believe, empowers the individuals in the health service who could well come under intense pressure from senior staff or line management to hide or keep secret actions that have had a detrimental effect on people's health if such a liability and responsibility was not in place. We also believe that there is currently a stigma attached when people speak out or whistle-blow, with fear of suspensions or retribution, and that must be overcome.

Folks, in this House, we have an opportunity to introduce positive legislation that will do a world of good for people who mourn and for people who work hard in our health service. I take this debate as a sounding for my private Member's Bill, and I give this commitment today: I will work with every single one of you to try to produce a Bill that is suitable for Northern Ireland.

Mr Carroll: Being open and honest when things go wrong is definitely the right thing to do, and I pay tribute to all the families who have campaigned for that — the families of former patients of Dr Watt, the Roberts family and all those who have been mentioned so far.

As the motion states, the vast majority of health and social care workers are committed to providing the highest quality of care. Many already work according to professional codes of practice under a de facto individual duty of candour, and placing a duty of candour for individuals and organisations on a statutory footing may help to ensure that more patients and their families get the honesty and transparency that they deserve. However, in reality, health and social care workers are scared to speak up because they know that they will be bullied and intimidated by management if they do. Multiple health unions have reported that their members do not feel supported enough to raise issues about unsafe staffing levels and high vacancy rates. Unsafe staffing levels, as has been mentioned, is just one factor contributing to massive amounts of pressure on the workforce. In the context of the —.

Ms Bradshaw: Will the Member give way?

Mr Carroll: Sure, yes.

Ms Bradshaw: Does the Member agree that it is disappointing that we still have not seen safe staffing legislation come forward either? Thank you.

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

Mr Carroll: I agree with the Member, and proper budgets that properly fund our health service are needed too. I agree with the Member on disappointment about the lack of legislation.

In the context of these broader pressures and systemic failings, it is unsurprising that mistakes are made. However, the focus should not be solely on the individual worker who is dealing with an unsustainable workload, persistently low pay and high pressure. The focus should be on the wider system that brings about those conditions. This is a health and social care system with — the last time that I checked — over 5,000 vacancies. That is just crazy. We have a system that contracts private companies to provide social care services and tells workers to deliver complex personal care during 15-minute home visits. How many issues around standards of care and safeguarding are caused here? It is a system that breaks its promise to maintain pay parity for workers — I direct Members to their inboxes.

As people have said, we also need to see systemic culture change across our health and social care system. That is badly needed. It is basic common sense that our health and social care organisations and senior managers should reflect on existing systems and procedures when things go wrong. That does not always happen, to put it mildly. Workers report a culture of corporate protection, blame and cover-up on the part of senior managers in health and social care bodies. I have heard that far too many times. Our health and social care system must develop a culture of openness and learning to improve patient safety, and an organisational duty of candour will be part of the change that is needed.

The Department of Health's 2021 consultation on the introduction of a duty of candour was severely lacking in detail about how the duty would be implemented and who would be responsible for its outworkings. It cannot be left to the underpaid, understaffed and overstretched workers on the front line. It should fall to the departmental heads, permanent secretaries and senior staff in the Department.

I also support the call for the Executive, as the motion says, to:

That has long been fought for by working-class communities who experienced tragic injustice and had their good name besmirched by a rotten Tory Government.

Being open and honest about unethical and unacceptable behaviour should be the norm. There should be a culture of transparency and accountability that allows workers to feel safe in speaking out and not to be targeted or victimised.

The ultimate focus of the duty of candour should extend beyond the workers on the front line to HSC bodies, organisations and senior management. A separate duty of candour should also apply to Ministers, who should have an obligation to be open and honest about the issues plaguing our health and social care system. A duty of candour might compel Ministers to explain cuts and closures, the downgrading of services and the creeping privatisation of our health and social care system and its effect on the standard of care. The Executive owe the public honesty and transparency about the implications of their decision-making, and they should be clear about the consequences of years of reconfiguration, privatisation and underinvestment and the impact that all that has on people's clinical outcomes, quality of life and health inequalities.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: The Minister has up to 15 minutes to respond to the debate.

Mr Nesbitt (The Minister of Health): To begin with, I acknowledge not only the genuine passion with which Members have spoken but the frustration that nothing has been done in a long number of years. Members have alluded to the fact that the idea of a duty of candour has been around since the inquiry into hyponatraemia-related deaths and the conclusions of the chairman, Mr Justice O'Hara, that the arrangements to ensure the quality of service and the behaviour of certain individuals in the health service at the time were not acceptable. As Mr Frew pointed out, those failings led to the tragic deaths of five young children — Adam Strain; Claire Roberts; Lucy Crawford; Raychel Ferguson; and Conor Mitchell — who, along with their families, of course, were so badly let down.

Mention was made of other disasters. In recent times, I have met representatives of the Ladies with Letters and, I think, 29 family members who lost loved ones to Dr Watt. Some people say to me, "Those must be difficult things to listen to", but I think that they are difficult things for the survivors telling their stories to trust to somebody in authority.

We have seen recommendations for a duty of candour also arise from the urology inquiry and the UK-wide infected blood inquiry. That last one recommends that:

and that, specifically, Northern Ireland should introduce an organisational duty of candour, as we are the only part of the United Kingdom without such a sanction in place. I agree, and, if the legislative programme permits, it is my ambition that legislation will be introduced before the end of the mandate. It is a vital issue and one that must be addressed not only by my Department but by the Assembly and the health and social care sector at large. Our focus and the purpose of any legislative change need to be clear: to reduce patient harm and to support a culture where openness and honesty are at the centre of the services that we provide. As Members have made out, it would be remiss of me not to say that, in the vast majority of cases, openness and honesty as well as a relentless commitment to patients and their safety are evident in every ward and through every service in Northern Ireland. The staff in our health and social care sector continue to undertake some of the most difficult work in some of the most challenging environments. However, as is clear from the reports and reviews that I have referenced, much more needs to be done to ensure that, when things go wrong, there is openness and candour.

As mentioned, my Department consulted on organisational and individual duties of candour in 2021, and, understandably, there was a great deal of interest in the issues raised. In fact, the consultation yielded 344 responses that the Department considered along with the hyponatraemia work stream structures that were established. Those structures included service users as well as the clinicians who provide them. While there was significant support for legislation to support a duty of candour, there was also a significant amount of concern and fear around the proposals. In the main, those concerns related to whether a culture of openness and candour is sufficiently present and supported in the systems that we currently have in place. There were also concerns around what the unintended consequences of an individual criminal sanction might be in Northern Ireland, when such a sanction does not exist elsewhere in the United Kingdom.

I am conscious that a duty of candour for HSC staff is nothing new or, indeed, novel. It appears throughout professional codes of conduct, and, in that sense, nothing new is being asked of staff when it comes to being open and honest when things go wrong. The proposals, as Members will know, are not to sanction mistakes but to sanction attempts to mislead or cover up when mistakes are made. It is clear that a lack of openness when things go wrong can be devastating for patients and for families and can significantly frustrate our efforts to keep patients safe going forward.

The Department's response to the consultation was outlined to the Assembly in October 2022, just days before the Assembly collapsed at the end of that month. The decision of my predecessor was to address, in the first instance, the cultural work that is critical to any successful legislation and, in parallel, to further consider the concerns expressed by some consultees around the impact of the proposed criminal sanctions. I am firmly of the view that new legislation, without also addressing the cultural issues that I have referred to, would not be particularly productive. However, I am aware of the time that has passed since the release of the hyponatraemia recommendations in 2018 and the frustrations that I have mentioned. I am on record as saying that I am in favour of every individual working in public service being honest and candid when people suffer unnecessary harm, whether that harm is physical, mental or psychological. That is my desired outcome in this important policy area.

The key question, then, becomes how to create a regime that minimises the chill factor that deters individuals from being candid and maximises their willingness and responsibility to engage in an honest review of what went wrong. I am happy to report to the Assembly that we have made significant progress on a regional Being Open framework in recent months, and I expect to consult on that towards the end of the calendar year. That work was initiated in the autumn of 2022, with Professor Peter McBride, an experienced associate member at the HSC Leadership Centre, commissioned by the Department to lead on that work.

Mrs Dillon: I thank the Minister for taking my intervention. Will you agree, Minister, that being open is one part of it but that staff seeing the changes that need to be made when they are open, visible and in front of them is what will encourage them to be open? It can be disheartening when you tell the truth about something that is happening and nothing changes.

Mr Nesbitt: I thank the Member for her intervention, and I agree. I hear Members say that, even when individuals in HSC are willing to come forward and talk about what went wrong and why, they are sometimes discouraged — "discouraged" may be a light description — by their senior management or by people above them in their line of management. So, yes, it is important, and, that, I believe, links into the culture that has to go alongside any legislation.

Significant engagement has been carried out by the Department over the past number of months about the Being Open framework. It aims to ensure that individuals in our system are fully empowered to exercise candour and openness and that HSC organisations have in place the necessary support and the systems required to enable and nurture a truly open culture, as the Member referred to.

It is important too to recognise the wider duty of candour policy context across the UK. England, Scotland and Wales already have an organisational duty of candour in place. The legislation in Wales was implemented recently, in fact, in 2023. It is also important to note that, in December 2023, in response to the release of the Hillsborough disaster report, the Department of Health and Social Care in London announced a review of the duty of candour in England. Its statutory duty has been in place for 10 years now, and the review is taking place to understand to what extent the duty is being honoured, monitored and enforced and to ensure that the initial policy objectives are being met. In ensuring that our legislation is as effective as possible, the evaluation of the English duty will be of significant benefit to us. My officials continue to engage with colleagues in England to ensure that any future work in Northern Ireland is informed by the conclusions of that important review.

The Assembly will also have noted that the Prime Minister committed, in the King's Speech, to a duty of candour Bill to be introduced to Parliament before the next anniversary of the Hillsborough disaster, which is in April 2025. The Bill is expected to be much wider-ranging, taking into consideration all public bodies so that they all act in the public interest with transparency, candour and frankness. Again, my officials are engaging with colleagues in England, Scotland and Wales to consider those wider developments. I have also written to the First Minister and the deputy First Minister, as there will be implications across the public sector that we will need to be alert to.

While the duty of candour is under review throughout the UK, I am not content for Northern Ireland to remain an outlier on the organisational front. It is certainly important that I continue to take account of the experience and effectiveness of the duty in the rest of the United Kingdom over the coming months, but I do not want that to unduly delay progress. In principle, I repeat that I support the implementation of an organisational duty in Northern Ireland and expect to make a firmer commitment to its implementation following the outcome of the forthcoming consultation on the Being Open framework. I am optimistic about what we can achieve before the end of the Assembly mandate and the momentum that exists across the system on the issue. It is something that I very much welcome. I look forward to updating the Assembly again, following consideration of the Being Open framework consultation, on the next steps for that work and on the duty of candour issue more broadly in Northern Ireland.

As we move forward on an organisational duty of candour, it will also give us a further opportunity to involve key stakeholders in the development of the policy. I talk often about trying to avoid the chill factor. One Member pointed out that not all clinical decisions will have successful outcomes, and perhaps a chill factor would impact a clinician in deciding whether to perform a certain procedure. There is also the question of whether people who know what went wrong will be willing to speak out. When I spoke to a lot of the victims who lost loved ones to Dr Watt, they were clear in their minds that people around Dr Watt knew exactly what he was doing and the harm that he was creating but were afraid to speak out. The question is whether an individual duty of candour that is legally binding and has criminal sanctions will further enforce that chill factor or open things up.

Miss McAllister: Will the Minister give way?

Mr Nesbitt: The final thing that we have not discussed around the chill factor is about applying for a job in health when a duty of candour with criminal sanctions for individuals applies only in Northern Ireland. We already have huge workforce issues: maybe we will lose more people to Sláintecare or to England, Scotland and Wales.

I will give way.

Miss McAllister: The Minister needs to be honest and genuine today in saying to healthcare workers that a duty of candour will come into force only where there is cover-up. All that people like Alan and Jennifer Roberts want from today is to ensure that there is no cover-up.

Mr Nesbitt: I am clear that there should never, ever be a cover-up by an individual, a group — such as a group who had maybe operated a procedure in a theatre in a single day — a trust or the health and social care system.

Mr Sheehan: Will the Minister give way?

Mr Nesbitt: Yes.

Mr Sheehan: Just on the chill factor and some individuals in the health system being afraid to speak out because they are under pressure maybe from more senior people in the health service. If they have a choice to make between acquiescing in what a more senior person wants or complying with the law, where, if they do not, they could end up in front of a judge, I think it is pretty straightforward what choice they will make.

That is why it is important that, with an individual duty of candour, there is a criminal sanction, so that people cannot be pressurised by people above them, as one of the doctors involved in Claire Roberts's care was by the director of litigation. That doctor accepted in a statement that he had made a mistake, and the director of litigation in the Belfast Trust pressurised him or asked him to change that statement, and he did.

Mr Nesbitt: Again, I accept that as the Member's genuine belief. Ultimately, it will be a judgement call for the House. I will make my judgement call after we have consulted on our Being Open framework. We can all agree, however, that we have an opportunity here to end the years of frustration. At this point, we might not agree on the exact way forward: I propose that we go forward with an organisational duty of candour only, but maybe Mr Frew will introduce a private Member's Bill or try to amend the Bill that may come out of the Department. However, we have an opportunity to ensure that that sort of cover-up never happens again.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Before I call Órlaithí Flynn to make a winding-up speech on the amendment, I will say that, as the business in the Order Paper is not expected to be disposed of by 6.00 pm, in accordance with Standing Order 10(3), I will allow business to continue until 7.00 pm or until the business is completed.

Órlaithí, you have five minutes.

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

The motion and the amendment seek to create a culture of transparency and accountability in the North's health and social care system. By establishing a legally enforceable duty of candour, we will take a critical step to ensure that every organisation and individual in our healthcare system is open and honest about any shortcomings. This is not just about a policy change but about building a foundation of trust and integrity.

A statutory duty of candour is ultimately about protection: protection for staff, patients, families and our wider communities. Such a duty ensures that cases of abuse, negligence or mistake are brought to light, investigated and addressed transparently. Families and staff deserve that assurance. That point is important because of the genuine concerns of our Health and Social Care workers that have been raised throughout the debate. As MLAs — elected representatives — we represent people who work in the Health and Social Care service. We have family members who work in Health and Social Care, and we have MLAs who have worked in Health and Social Care. It is about finding a balance. How can we have conversations to allay those workers' fears in tandem with giving families complete security and confidence that they will never go through what other families have gone through? It is a fine balance.

This evening's debate may be a good beginning of a conversation. There are differing views among Members, and it is good that the Minister is taking forward the work on candour through the Being Open framework. We had a presentation on that at the Health Committee the other week. It is really good that that work is taking place, but it may be a sign that many more conversations have to be had. I know that those conversations will take place as part of the consultation, but, again, it is about how we strike a balance for Health and Social Care staff and patients and their families, who come from our homes and our constituencies, so that everyone is included in the conversation. We are all speaking on behalf of both sides, and the challenge is to find the right method and the right legislation that makes everyone feel protected and safeguarded.

I think that it was Gerry who mentioned the culture of fear around speaking up for Health and Social Care staff. That was mentioned a few times. Again, the big question is "Why?". There is a big wrong there. Pat mentioned cases that involve senior managers and executives in trusts and Health and Social Care settings. Why are those staff feeling that fear? Why is there that culture of people being too afraid to speak out when they see someone intentionally doing wrong or harm? In 99% of cases, the harm is unintentional, which leads to another important question: we can legislate, but why do our Health and Social Care staff feel a sense of fear when they want to speak up about something that, they think, has gone wrong? That signals that there is a legacy somewhere in the structures and management of our health and social care system that has let some of that fear fester. We need to focus on those conversations alongside any legislation that we introduce. The motion is not about blaming the staff; it is about how we protect staff and patients. They need to be treated equally.

It has been asked how, if we are not going to build the foundation of trust in the health and social care system, we will instil confidence in our health and social care workers to communicate what has gone wrong with their managers and feed that up the line. There was a conversation in the Health Committee the other week about getting to a place where there is trust, openness and transparency. That way, when there is a serious adverse incident —

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: The Member's time is up.

Ms Flynn: — ideally, it will not lead to a situation like the ones that the families in the Public Gallery have had to endure. Those situations are what we are trying to prevent.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: I call Paula Bradshaw to conclude the debate by making a winding-up speech on the motion. Paula, you have 10 minutes.

Ms Bradshaw: Thank you very much, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. I thank the Members for their contributions this afternoon. I very much concur with the Minister that there has been a passionate debate. That is because we all care so much about the issue and, as elected representatives, have heard the stories of the victims and survivors, many of whom are in the Public Gallery.

The fundamentals are simple: victims have rights. Those who suffered ruined and incomplete lives because of a scandal or disaster need to be central to the response to that scandal or disaster. Work needs to be undertaken to ensure that such scandals or disasters do not occur, and Alan Chambers highlighted that.

My colleague Nuala McAllister outlined some of the scandals. Sadly, the list of scandals and disasters this century alone makes for grim reading; they have had a significant human cost. We had the hyponatraemia inquiry, and I pay tribute to Alan and Jennifer Roberts for their courageous work over the years. I very much appreciate Pat Sheehan's outline of their story; I do not know how you remembered it all, Pat. We heard the family's story again, and what they have had to go through is harrowing. We have also had the Muckamore Abbey Hospital inquiry. That is another inquiry that the Department of Health was reluctant to establish, but it is under way, and some of the information coming out of it is deeply disturbing. We pay tribute to Dawn Jones and her late husband, Councillor Mervyn Jones, for the support that they gave to their son Timmy, who was an inpatient at Muckamore Abbey. We have had the independent neurology inquiry and seen the sterling work of Colin Armstrong, who has been fighting on behalf of the families of the deceased. Of course, there was also the infected blood inquiry, and Nigel Hamilton and his late brother were stalwarts in the campaign for truth, justice and accountability in that space. We have seen a series of individual cases of negligence. The payouts for negligence average £40 million per year in Northern Ireland. I should have highlighted — it is on my list — that Diane Dodds raised the cervical smear test failings in the Southern Health and Social Care Trust.

We could stand here all day and recite the scandals, but there are so many inquiries into scandals and disasters that the Department of Health even has an inquiries implementation programme management board. Remarkably, it is made up entirely of departmental appointees. We know that victims are looking for truth, justice and accountability, so you have to question how they could have faith in such a board. As Jonathan Buckley highlighted, the families, many of whom have campaigned for decades for the truth about their loved one's case, need to have faith in whatever processes are taken forward.

By way of example, let us look at some of the findings of the independent neurology inquiry, which should truly shock us. It found that there was a lack of prioritisation of patient safety to the extent that trusts had audit committees but not patient safety committees. My colleague Nuala McAllister raised that issue. It found that intervention is required where there is clear evidence of poor performance and malpractice, yet no such intervention occurred in the case of Dr Watt. It specified — we should note it clearly — that intervention is required where there is reason to suspect that patient safety is at risk. In other words, the burden of proof is not the same as it is in a court of law; it is on the balance of probability based on the evidence. It found that opportunities to stop harm being caused to patients were missed. Even when it was evident that harm had been caused, the authorities focused on trying to reduce the financial burden that would arise rather than on accepting liability and trying to learn from it. That issue came up today. Those whose focus was not on patient safety or on trying to learn from the process that led to appalling harm are, in some cases, on a board that is supposedly implementing the changes based on those very findings. Incredibly, even after all that, authorities were subsequently called out in court for conspiring to enable Dr Watt to escape due process by allowing a voluntary erasure.

Another aspect of patient safety that Members will be aware of relates to the SAI process. Incredibly, when we turn to any of the inquiries and look at the review of systems and processes of learning that were carried out on behalf of the Department by the RQIA and an expert panel, some of whom came from outside Northern Ireland, we see that it gets even worse. The panel specifically found that, in over a decade of serious adverse incident reviews, which started in their current form in 2009, not a single review had delivered any improvement. The panel found that the procedure for serious adverse incident reviews had never met the requirements of the statutory duty of personal public involvement set out in the Health and Social Care (Reform) Act 2009, did not provide for reasonable application of the principles of SAI review practice; did not deliver significant independence of the chairs; did not provide for the formulation of evidence-based recommendations or for the design of action plans that would enhance the safety and quality of healthcare; and did not produce readable reports. It did not end there. The panel further noted that the SAI procedure focused too much on timescale rather than on standards; did not have regional standards on patient rights; lacked regional patient safety training; failed to provide clear competencies that were required for those leading reviews; delivered insufficient independent advocacy for patients and their families; and struggled because time was taken up, in some cases, with reviews that were not necessary. That is purely shocking.

The outcome is that we simply can no longer trust those responsible to put the needs of victims first. There are simply too many instances of patient safety not being the absolute priority. Indeed, in many cases, those instances are systemic.

Miss McAllister: Will the Member give way?

Ms Bradshaw: Go ahead.

Miss McAllister: Does the Member acknowledge that, in some of those instances, the individuals involved in dealing with the families afterwards are the same individuals who now sit on the boards that are implementing the very recommendations from the public inquires through which the truth eventually came out?

Ms Bradshaw: Exactly. I touched on that a bit. Thank you for that.

It is perhaps small wonder that, when Justice O'Hara made his first recommendation for a statutory duty of candour, those who had overseen the system that did not prioritise patient safety decided to kick for touch, persuading the then Health Minister to ignore that absolutely critical recommendation and instead pursue the Being Open framework. That is still incomplete six years on, and we hear today that it will go out to consultation. We just need to get on with those pieces of work.

I welcome Paul Frew's contribution, in which he talked with passion about introducing a private Member's Bill. So many times in the Chamber, unfortunately, it is up to individuals, rather than the responsible Minister, to introduce the legislation that is required.

Mr Frew: Will the Member give way?

Ms Bradshaw: Go ahead.

Mr Frew: In my speech, I failed to mention that I am prepared to work with the Minister of Health and the Department to introduce legislation. I wish that he would introduce it, but I feel that he will not. His utterances today suggest that he will not. I will do so, if need be, but I wish that the Department of Health would do it.

Ms Bradshaw: Thank you for that clarification.

The public have grown tired of scandal after scandal and disaster after disaster, as the Chair of the Health Committee, Liz Kimmins, highlighted. They, rightly, no longer trust a system that refuses even to engage with clear recommendations for improvement and putting patient safety first. That is why a statutory duty of candour is necessary, otherwise there is no prospect of restoring patient confidence.

The interests of victims must be put first when we look back, and the interest of patient safety must be put first when we look forward. The motion is drafted as it is for a reason. Among the prime beneficiaries of a statutory, legally enforceable duty of candour will be the overwhelming majority of HSC staff. My colleague Danny Donnelly highlighted that. We recognise and really appreciate that they are committed to the highest standards of care and to the oath of working in consort with patients. If we identify cases of abuse, we will identify those responsible. If we address negligence, those committed to higher standards will themselves be able to have more faith in the system within which they work. If we can address the public with candour about the care and services that they receive, the bond between HSC staff and those for whom they care will be strengthened.

I appreciate the Minister's contribution. I hope that he introduces his legislation shortly, and we will work with him on it.

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

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Members, please take your ease while we change the top Table.

Mrs Erskine: I beg to move

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

Mrs Erskine: At the outset, I declare an interest as a homeowner living in an unadopted housing development. Today's motion is nothing new to the Chamber, but it is an issue that I know Members deal with on a regular and frequent basis. To date, we have been unable to fully implement a road map on it. We are failing our constituents if we do not act on the issue. We must make progress on it in the here and now and in this mandate. I feel strongly about the issue, and I know all too well about the impact that it has on homeowners. That is why I am developing my private Member's Bill on it.

Roads and footpaths have been left for decades without adoption. It is not just the fact that they are aesthetically unappealing; they are a major health and safety concern, from the potholes that damage vehicles, to the poorly lit streets that increase the risk of accidents and the footpaths that are so poorly maintained that they pose a risk to pedestrians, particularly those with mobility issues. The neglect of those developments has far-reaching consequences. The residents who have done nothing wrong other than buy a home in a development that they believed would be finished are left carrying the financial and emotional weight of unfinished work. However, the situation is even more troubling. Unadopted housing developments are contributing to environmental damage. We have seen how unfinished and unadopted sewerage systems and drainage networks are affecting our waterways and polluting the very environment that we all depend on.

Beyond the environmental and safety concerns, a very real and urgent issue faces homeowners who wish to sell their properties. Unadopted infrastructure makes properties difficult, if not impossible, to sell. Many buyers are wary of purchasing homes that are in developments in which roads and paths are not adopted and where they would be left financially liable for the costs of repairs and upgrades. That creates a stagnant housing market for affected communities and places an unnecessary burden on homeowners who are unable to move forward with their life. In order to protect homeowners, we need to have an enhancement of property certificates to offer greater protections when those properties are being resold. Therefore, I am calling for a clear and strategic plan to address the backlog of unadopted roads in order to ensure that legacy sites are identified and prioritised for adoption. It is crucial that the Minister works alongside Northern Ireland Water, councils and other relevant bodies to identify the sites and ensure that they are brought up to an adoptable standard without further delay. We will support Mr Carroll's amendment.

In Northern Ireland, there are 1,868 unadopted sites. I obtained the list of housing developments across the country. It is a substantial document that highlights each street and development, behind the names of which are those who are in the predicament of having poor infrastructure right outside their door. Hundreds of thousands of residents across Northern Ireland are affected. Quite rightly, residents are angry. "I pay my rates and my taxes", is a cry that I hear often. They are right. Many work hard, do their jobs for a living and have bought a house in good faith. I will give an example. A person who bought their house 30 years ago complained about a pothole in their development, but it turns out that it cannot be fixed because the development is unadopted.

Another prime example is a first-time homebuyer. The first phase of the development goes live, they purchase, and they know, as anyone would, that, whilst building work may go on, on another stage in the development phase, they have the hope that, one day, the development, which is in construction, will be completed, and they will have street lighting, better footpaths and roads. However, a year or two after all the construction has finished, houses are built and purchased, everybody starts to notice that nothing has changed. We might get a call to our constituency offices from residents in the development, checking in to see what the relevant authorities are saying, but it becomes clear that the residents are living on an unadopted site.

In the majority of cases, it could be a simple matter that it is an elongated process, but, for a huge proportion, there seems to be an issue that brings logjam to the process. Developers believe that the bond that they have in place is sufficient. Meanwhile, at the end of the development construction period, DFI or NI Water attest that it is not. The developer, in most cases, points to the fact that the guarantee bond is a tripartite agreement between the developer, their bank insurer, which provides the funding for the bond element, and DFI and NI Water. The value of the bond is determined by DFI and NI Water and is based on what costs they would incur if required to complete works.

I recognise that there is already legislation whereby, if construction of a private street is not progressing properly, DFI can intervene and issue a notice under article 11 of the Private Streets (NI) Order 1980, which requires the execution of all works necessary to bring the street into conformity with the regulations. If the notice is not complied with, DFI/NI Water can proceed to carry out work using contractors and recover the cost of the work from the bond and bring the roads and sewers up to an adoptable standard. However, how many cases has that happened in? It seems to me that powers are not being implemented and, indeed, that they are not tough enough.

There is no redress for homeowners. In fact, they are the middleman stuck in a back-and-forth between the developer, DFI and NI Water, and that is if you are lucky enough that the developer is still in business. Where the bond is not sufficient to bring the development into an adoptable standard and they have ceased trading, DFI and NI Water have no funding mechanism or legal responsibility, I understand, to bridge the shortfall between the bond and the cost of the necessary works. That leaves homeowners literally picking up the pieces of the broken streets and footpaths, and, even worse, the site reverts to the homeowners.

We have been here debating this issue before. In 2012, a former Assembly Committee, which was then the Committee for Regional Development, held an inquiry into unadopted roads. It was then estimated that it would take £300 million to bring roads up to an adoptable standard and somewhere between £41 million and £100 million — quite a range there — to allow for adoptable sewerage and waste water schemes. What does the Department believe that the costings will be now?

In 2021, the Infrastructure Committee brought a motion to the Assembly that pointed out the lack of progress made in addressing the failures in adopting sites since the report in 2012. It called on the Minister to formulate and implement a more robust and time-constrained package of guidance and enforcement. I ask the Minister this: what has his Department done since, and why has that crucial element not been addressed?

Time is critical. I have seen situations in which housing developments have been built, homes purchased, developers go bust and leave homeowners in the lurch; or, indeed, developers go bust and then, frustratingly, pop up in another area or, as is the case in the past, even just down the street from the last unadopted site, under a different company, and start building again. That brings me to a key question: how is that allowed to happen? In my view, developers should face a penalty for that.

Poor infrastructure is surely something that nobody in the Chamber wants to see outside the doors of our constituents.

We need a review of the main statutory instruments. The Private Streets (Northern Ireland) Order 1980 and the Private Streets (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) Order 1992 are outdated and require amending in order to update them, to ensure that they offer protection to consumers and, furthermore, to ensure that they adequately address the issues that surround unfinished developments and roads. I trust that Members will join me in calling for greater action and urgency on this matter this evening in the Chamber.

Mr Carroll: I beg to move the following amendment:

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

Mr Carroll: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I am happy to support the motion, obviously. I think that the amendment strengthens it: I am glad that the proposers of the motion accept the amendment, and I hope that the House does as well.

The issue of unadopted roads, developments and alleyways is one that affects our communities on a daily basis, my constituency included. Unadopted roads and alleyways present major health and safety issues for local communities, such as deep potholes, raised manhole covers, bad paving, poor or no street lighting, flooding, poor drainage and backed-up sewers: the list goes on and on. Those are all health risks as well as a nuisance to experience and live with.

As the proposer of the motion mentioned, some residents who live in unadopted streets are forced to take measures into their own hands that they would not normally do, including wheeling full bins of rubbish down steep lanes, causing all sorts of problems and health risks. The private streets Order provides DFI with powers to begin enforcement action, using a bond, as was mentioned, provided by the developer to fund the completion of roads and footpaths. However, what use are the powers to begin enforcement action if the Minister and the Department fail to use them enough? I do not think that they are being used adequately. The Minister previously said:

I would ask the Minister how well that approach has been working. I do not think that it is working very well. We are talking here about private developers who fail to complete basic infrastructure works on a development because, often, they have gone bust or, as has been mentioned, because they simply lose interest and move on to the next project.

Those developers primarily care only about one thing, which is maximising their profits. They do not care about the chaos that they leave in their wake: those are problems for the residents or us, in this Building, to deal with. Private companies are literally profiting from the chaos that developers leave in their wake. Mortgage holders are locked into relationships with unscrupulous management companies, which can charge uncapped fees for maintaining communal unadopted areas, and that is completely unacceptable. People, including those with disabilities who need a more accessible home, are left unable to sell their homes, as are those who need to downsize or who are growing their families or those who just want to move somewhere with basic functional infrastructure. What takes more resources, time and effort: gently persuading private developers to finally finish or fix the job that they started, or starting enforcement action, using the bonds that are provided by developers for their intended purpose? I suggest strongly that it is the latter.

The reluctance to use enforcement powers may be connected to budget cuts. In 2021, there were just 20 workers overseeing 3,470 live bonds plus enforcement cases. In 2015, there were 43 workers in the same team. Fewer workers means less action, with almost a 50% reduction in the number of workers in that section of the Department. Maybe the lack of enforcement action against developers is a bit of a conscious strategy and a consequence of austerity budgeting and efficiency savings as well. I think that we need a crackdown on developers in order to stop them from moving from one site to another until they can show that roads, street lights and sewers are in an adoptable state. We need to stop granting planning permission to developers who repeatedly abandon shoddy developments, leaving residents to pick up the pieces. There needs to be more of a role for councils: that is relevant to this debate.

I commend the work of the local communities in my constituency, which have stepped up to clean alleyways and back entries and make them safe and welcoming places, such as in the St James's area of west Belfast, the Three Sisters group in the Cavendish Street area and many more residents in south Belfast and beyond who are doing similar very important and valuable work. It is important that the proper level of funding is given to councils on an equitable and consistent basis, so that it does not fall solely to volunteers to do that work in the main. Residents know their areas best, so they can identify the local alleyways that are most in need of investment and work out ways in which to clean them up and make them useful for the people who live there.

DFI and councils should work together to support community-led development and to give local communities the investment that they need in order to bring alleyways up to an adoptable standard. That is why I tabled my amendment. Grants should not be solely for cleaning and greening. Although those measures are important, grants should cover ways in which to upgrade unadoptable and unsafe alleyways to a safe and better standard. I urge Members to support the amendment.

Mr Boylan: I welcome the motion and the opportunity to speak on an issue that affects each and every constituency in the North and that, in turn, impacts on the lives of real people in our communities. Our communities deserve to have good-quality public services and infrastructure, including proper roads, footpaths, street lighting and sewerage. Having roads and footpaths that are not adopted not only causes a health and safety issue for those affected but creates inequality for people who are trying to access the same level of public services across our society.

I welcome how the amendment seeks to include councils as a key contributor to the joined-up approach that is asked for in the motion. It is important that we do all that we can to ensure that there are no barriers to people accessing basic yet vital public services. In 2021, I spoke on that topic in the Chamber during a debate on a cross-party Committee motion that was similar. At that time, we highlighted the fact that the issue affects our constituents' everyday lives. During the debate, it was roundly recognised that the issues relating to unadopted roads and footpaths in developments were yet another example of British Government austerity. I know that the Minister is well aware of the issues that we are discussing, and I am confident that, given the correct support, he would act to address the barriers that many of our constituents face. It is imperative that we continue to press for adequate funding for public services so that they are delivered properly for everyone.

It is also important to remember that developers have a responsibility to bring developments up to an adoptable standard. Having more sites that are adoptable would reduce the need for departmental intervention and lead to the situation improving.

It is imperative that a collective approach be taken on those issues and that we speak with one voice on the need to have proper funding, to a level that ensures that we can transform and support public services.

Mr McReynolds: I welcome the motion and thank the Chair of the Infrastructure Committee for proposing it. As we have heard, it is not a new issue. To my knowledge, it was discussed here in 2012 and 2021, in councils and at the Infrastructure Committee, so the Minister and his officials will be acutely aware of the issues faced by homeowners across the country who live on those sites. I find it frustrating that we are today discussing something that has gone before.

From what we heard from the proposer of the motion, it is also clear that the developer-led process for the adoption of roads and other associated infrastructure falls short of its intended purpose. Bonds, which are almost like a deposit for a developer and insurance for the homeowner, should be an incentive for developers to complete construction. We are all aware, however, of developments that are not finished, not finished on time or not finished to a financially reasonable level for DFI to adopt. That is key to the argument, with one of the issues highlighted being that the value of the bonds is not adequate to cover the costs of the remaining works, should a developer default. That leads to developments not being constructed as expected, the developer going bust and the responsibility for unfinished work reverting to homeowners, and that presents a major dilemma for families and homeowners, with their largest asset facing increased expenditure and an uncertainty that did not exist at the time of purchase.

For that reason, and given that he is here today, I would be grateful to hear the Minister's thoughts on reviewing the bond limit, with inflationary pressures built in, and on the process for invoking a bond. I know that the previous Minister spoke about that in 2021, so I would like to hear from the current Minister and his Department about where we are at with that. That is essential because a house on an unadopted site is almost impossible to sell, which leaves the owner stuck where they are, with a house that is unlikely to reach its full market value and represents a loss on their investment. Moreover, it is surrounded by infrastructure that they cannot use. Street lighting, pavements, pedestrian crossings, speed restrictions, parking enforcement and proper sewerage and drainage infrastructure are all completely unusable. Not only is that an issue of equality in the provision of services, it is a risk to physical safety and public health. I am aware of residents who are consciously navigating those sites to avoid injury. That becomes even more difficult for those who live with disabilities, which raises equality-of-access issues.

At the moment, there is a lot of talk about building more homes. That will require access to waste water treatment, which is linked to the underfunding of Northern Ireland Water. The sites that we are talking about cannot be allowed to be maintained at present levels or to degrade further. As we look to increase housebuilding to accommodate demand, it is important that the issues that we see with unadopted sites are not replicated. Not only do we need to ensure that new sites are not left unadopted but we need to tackle the long list of legacy sites that have remained unadopted for several years.

That is why it is incumbent on the Department, alongside statutory partners, to develop a strategy for the adoption of private infrastructure. On that note, I add that we will support Mr Carroll's amendment, which pragmatically includes councils. When I saw it come though in my emails, I was reminded of taking part in a debate a number of years ago, when I was a councillor on Belfast City Council, on unadopted alleyways. One of our councillors tried to address the issue at the time, but, four years on, I am conscious of several alleyways and roads near where I live that remain littered from fly-tipping and are a health hazard to the public.

Mrs Erskine: I thank the Member for giving way and for raising the issue of alleyways. Being a Belfast rep, he will know that it becomes an issue because nobody seems to want to take responsibility for it, yet it has a huge impact on residents, with health and safety concerns. There is a lot of fly-tipping and nobody is taking responsibility for it.

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

Mr McReynolds: I thank the Member for her intervention. I completely agree with her. Having spoken to the estates team at Belfast City Council on several occasions, I know that there are a lot of historical issues. With ownership probably being recorded around 100 or 125 years ago, it is difficult to establish. It is important that the Department comes on board to ensure that we are able to find a way forward, because issues remain when no solution is in place.

Mr Brooks: Will the Member give way briefly?

Mr McReynolds: Of course.

Mr Brooks: Does the Member agree that some of the alleyways that he talks about contain infrastructure that could only have been placed there by DFI or its predecessors, and that, therefore, it cannot deny that it has something to do with them?

Mr McReynolds: I thank the Member for his intervention. I thought that it was going to turn into a Belfast City Council love-in. [Laughter.]

As a former Belfast city councillor, I am always proud to talk about the council. I completely take your point, David.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Trust me, Peter: it will not. [Laughter.]

Mr McReynolds: The motion is practical, ambitious and would deliver real value and impact for constituents across Northern Ireland. I appreciate that the Department's capacity and available resources are limited and that it has a multitude of competing priorities, so it will be difficult to allocate funding in the immediate term to the adoption of roads and sewers. However, several focused recommendations in the 2012 report would reinforce the process of adoption in order to mitigate loopholes that developers are exploring.

The Assembly is in a better place. The fact that we are talking about these issues should remind us all of the importance of long-term, sustained government, with Ministers being able to drive issues for residents across Northern Ireland. I look forward to the Minister's response and to working on the issue more in the Infrastructure Committee.

Mr Stewart: The Ulster Unionist Party will support the motion and the amendment.

The sponsors and the Minister will know that I, too, have been raising the issue in the Chamber, at Committee and at any other opportunity that I get. As elected representatives, we know that, at the best of times, it is hard to get roads repaired, sewerage facilities sorted and lights fixed, but, when you do not even exist on the system, it is impossible. Last week, I stood in East Antrim with some of the many hundreds of people who live on one of those 1,600 developments as they had just managed, after six months, to get lights switched on. That was a result of their own efforts, but they remain without any proper sewerage facilities and road repairs. They are some of the many thousands across the country who are in that situation.

We all know that buying a home is one of the most important and biggest steps that you will take. Many, thankfully, go through without any difficulties, but, sadly, thousands of people across Northern Ireland are left in a limbo land where they cannot get access to services and are not on the grid.

I agree with much of what has been said today. One of the many things that has been covered is frustration with developers. I called in a Member's statement for a two-pronged approach, which would fit with what has been proposed today regarding a strategy to tackle the backlog. I would be interested in hearing from the Minister how much that would cost. I know that it would be significant and that money is tight. The 2012 report, for example, suggested that it could be in excess of £300 million. There is no doubt that it would be significantly more than that. There is nothing more frustrating for the people who are living in those developments than seeing developers starting to build elsewhere while their own cannot be finished. Some of those developments are 20 or 30 years old, and they —

Mr Honeyford: Thank you for giving way. I appreciate that developers want to get the final surface on and be done with it, but, in the Ayrshire development in Lisburn, the developer has been allowed to build multiple phases without the sewers even having been agreed for approval, which then causes exactly those problems. Do you agree that there should be a limit on how far developments should be allowed to go and on developers moving to other places without looking after those who have purchased first?

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): John, you have an extra minute.

Mr Stewart: Thank you.

That is exactly the point, and that is the frustration. I think that there is a development in my home town of Carrickfergus that remains unadopted after 24 years. Ninety per cent of the bond has been drawn down by the developer, but it has transpired that the money that is left over will not even touch the sides of the repairs that need to be done. Where did the system break down? How on earth was that developer allowed to, effectively, draw back 90% of the bond without having done any of the adequate works underneath the ground? When the homeowners contact me, other representatives or the Department, they are, invariably, told to sort it out with the developer, who does not engage. After 20 years, the cycle continues, and they remain totally frustrated. Their house price is affected. Their ability to sell the property is affected. They feel, like so many other people do, that they are totally in limbo and nothing is being done. That is why we need to see some sort of change. I am open to having the discussion about what that looks like.

I appreciate that there will be a backlog when addressing some of them, but we must stop it. If that means that the bond has to excessively grow, so be it. If it means that developers are stopped from selling the last percentage of their houses until everything is signed off, so be it. A debate needs to take place about what needs to be done to stop it. The good developers will continue to do the right thing, but the most frustrating thing is those who do not. As I said, when people who are stuck in that position see the developers who built their property building a mile down the road while, 15 years on, they still cannot get access to basic services, they rightly find that frustrating.

We support the motion. We look forward to hearing from the Minister. I would like to hear how much of the money from the 1,600 developments is still caught up in bonds and how many of those examples have been tapped into. In the example that I gave, in which a percentage is drawn down, what is the current value of bond money sitting in holdings, and how much of that could be used to start tackling the backlog? I am interested in hearing the Minister's thoughts.

Mr Durkan: I also declare an interest as someone who lives on an unadopted street.

Unadopted housing developments, footways, roads and alleyways are a massive concern that impacts on countless people to varying extents, but it is a problem that has evidently gone unchecked. It is frustrating that, 12 years since the Regional Development Committee presented its findings to the Assembly and three years on from a motion presented by the former Infrastructure Committee, we are no further forward. Not only are we no closer to resolving the matter; the problems that householders face around roads and sewerage systems have intensified. Currently — I think that this is right, Mr Stewart — nearly 1,900 housing developments remain unadopted. However, the Department has been unable to provide me with details of how many of those developments are stalled due specifically to issues with water and waste water infrastructure. That is indicative not only of the woeful data held on unadopted areas but of the lack of communication between the Department, Northern Ireland Water and other statutory agencies and bodies. We will happily support the amendment as well as the motion.

We have heard again today that some housing developments have remained unadopted for decades. In some cases, developers have gone into liquidation, leaving residents to shoulder the costs themselves. That is the case in Burnside Manor in my constituency, where residents have been left in a situation in which DFI holds the bonds for the site, but, due to water defects, it does not meet Northern Ireland Water's standards for adoption. The Department has now shifted the responsibility onto residents, requiring them to pay for the repairs necessary to bring the site up to an adoptable standard.

Some homeowners feel trapped and unable to resell their homes due to the poor condition of the infrastructure. That not only limits their ability to move but impacts their property value and financial stability, leaving them stuck in a worsening situation that has an extremely negative impact on their health and well-being.

Sadly, it is not an isolated situation. We have seen it repeatedly across Derry, including at Ivy Mead and other developments. In 2016, there were 80 unadopted housing sites in Derry and Strabane. That number has now increased to 147. It is clear evidence that the problem and the solution do not lie solely, Mr Carroll, with developers. I have to make the point that, believe it or not, some developers are responsible and responsive in addressing residents' concerns, sometimes, dare I say, even more so than DFI.

Mr O'Dowd (The Minister for Infrastructure): Will the Member give way?

Mr Durkan: Certainly.

Mr O'Dowd: Any site that is not adopted is unadopted for one reason only: the developer has not carried out their duty to bring the site up to an adoptable standard. It is not a case of DFI turning around and saying, "We do not want it". I know that the nature of the game that we are involved in is to have a go at the Department or whoever it might be, and that is fair enough. However, factually, any site that is not adopted has not been adopted because a developer has failed to bring it up to standard.

Mr Durkan: I thank the Minister for his intervention, but, in the space of eight years, we have seen an additional 67 unadopted sites. The number has increased by 67. That perhaps indicates a resource issue in the Department, but it certainly indicates — how should I say it — the Department's inability to adopt even the sites that are adoptable in a timely manner.

The lack of action has allowed the situation to worsen. The Department's failure to implement recommendations made in 2012, including the Law Society's call for redress options for homeowners in developments where, despite bonds being in place, roads and sewerage remain unadopted for extended periods, has only compounded the problem. Any further slippage risks us reaching the point of no return.

The recorded data on alleyways and footways is scant at best. However, daily enquiries, which, I am sure, are received by all of us, make it clear that it is a widespread concern that impacts on safety and accessibility. We receive countless reports of elderly residents slipping on moss-covered pathways or tripping over in badly lit, litter-strewn alleyways when simply trying to take out their bins. It is a concern that affects people's daily lives.

Mrs Erskine: Will the Member give way?

Mr Durkan: I have a wee bit more to get through.

Most of the time, residents and agencies navigate the maze of ownership before hearing the dreaded phrase: "This is a no man's land". We definitely need to see a more strategic and centralised approach from the Department on unadopted spaces. The issue affects public safety, well-being, community pride and property values.

While there is no denying the financial challenges facing the Department, budget constraints will not absolve the Minister or the Department from a lack of meaningful intervention on the issue. Additional legislation and action is needed to grant the Department more authority, create a more streamlined approach and support the long-term sustainability of our infrastructure.

Ms Ferguson: I, too, welcome the motion and the amendment. All our people deserve access to secure, adequate and affordable homes. That should be supported by good local infrastructure and amenities, accessible services and strong communities. Housing is not just about having a roof over your head but, importantly, is about improving the life and well-being of our people and our families. When we talk about "adequate homes", that simply means homes that are able to meet people's needs in terms of size, space, light, accessibility, proximity to work and support networks etc.

Unadopted roads in our housing estates negatively impact on that right. We all know about the issues that have been raised today: unaddressed potholes; poor drainage; lack of basic services such as rubbish collection, gritting or street lighting; and the health and safety implications of all those. For example, in Derry, in Gort Na Si Close, which was built back in 2002, the residents are totally frustrated. They are dealing with blocked gullies and broken street lights, but the developer no longer exists. It went into liquidation. Likewise, as a colleague mentioned, residents in the likes of Ivy Mead have been totally frustrated and have been unable to sell their homes — they have attempted four or five times — due to areas not being adopted. Fortunately, after work between DFI and the developer, the developer is out now upgrading that area, which is good news.

More recently, I met Derry City and Strabane District Council building control and legal services about the issue, and they highlighted the plethora of estates that are unadopted. However, they are taking a proactive approach and are setting up a working group, so they are keen to work with all the statutory stakeholders, DFI and the developers to address the matter. Likewise, I commend our community organisations, which are supporting our local communities when it comes to unadopted alleyways and pathways. You can lift the phone to them, and they will support the residents in those areas.

As all of us across the Chamber know, 14 years of a Conservative Government in London has wreaked havoc on our vital public services, our community infrastructure and our economic development. We have been subject to a continual failure to adequately invest in society, resulting in devastating unmet basic needs, and we have only to look at the many people who do not have access to basic resources or income for food, clothing, housing or healthcare, for example. The debate is welcome, but it should be viewed in that context, and we should be collectively outlining and asking why we have some of the poorest outcomes. The British Government have failed to deliver sufficient investment to meet our critical social and economic priorities, including the delivery of adequate social and affordable housing.

I welcome the Finance Minister's work since coming into office on championing that point and negotiating a vital interim fiscal framework in May. Undoubtedly, however, continued pay and inflationary pressures and growing demands on services after decades of austerity mean that those are real issues that we collectively need to get a grip of. It is not about pointing at any one Department: ending homelessness and transforming our public services will require genuine collaboration and collective leadership.

Mr Dunne: I welcome the opportunity to speak on an important issue that affects so many parts of Northern Ireland. At the outset, I declare an interest, as I plan to move into an unadopted housing development shortly. I just want to keep myself right [Laughter.]

We will have to hear what the Minister says. I might have to change that.

As has been said, this is not a new issue for the House, but we have a useful opportunity to remind the Minister again about the need for action. I certainly hope that the Minister is in listening mode, as he always is when it comes to us on the DUP Benches.

There are many things to consider for those purchasing a new home, and one factor is whether the roads and footpaths have been adopted. As our motion rightly points out, there are a litany of problems that can come from that, particularly, as has been said, with the public services that flow both outside and below the property. In my constituency of North Down, I have recently been working on a number of examples of problems in developments. People have invested heavily in purchasing properties in the context of ever-rising house prices, and, when they tried to get their road upgraded, they faced an extensive list from DFI to get it up to standard.

The associated costs were eye-watering for them and simply unaffordable.

That situation sometimes gives the opportunity where developers can, unfortunately, wash their hands of responsibility in getting those areas properly upgraded. Indeed, statistics provided by the Department show that the southern division, which covers my constituency, has the highest number of unadopted bonded phases of developments with 80% occupation, with 485 developments; 303 being the next highest and the lowest 205. Indeed, in my council area, we have 151 unadopted housing developments, which highlights the significant scale of the issue. That is reflected right across our country.

It is an unacceptable backlog, and, each year, unfortunately, it gets worse. Homeowners can face deteriorating road and footpath conditions and, as has been said, experience difficulties in selling on their property.

The current situation is such that, should a developer default or dissolve, the bond can be used by DFI and/or NI Water to complete the roadworks and sewers. As my colleague Deborah Erskine said, legislation is indeed outdated and ineffective. That is where there is room for improvement.

Some action has been taken, particularly on the bond rates, when they were increased by around 70% in 2023. We understand that the Department plans to adjust that bond rate at the beginning of 2025, and we look forward to hearing more detail on the Minister's intentions. Homeowners must not be left to foot the bill or be liable for bringing the development in which they live up to an adoptable standard in cases where that developer has defaulted. As has been said, some people can reappear in close proximity, under a new name sometimes. That emphasises that homeowners need to be protected.

Mr Brooks: Will the Member give way?

Mr Dunne: Yes, certainly.

Mr Brooks: Does the Member agree that perhaps the Minister should look at piercing the corporate veil legislation to ensure that developers are not able to set up shell companies and seek protection in that way, if we do not already have that legislation? Perhaps the Minister will comment on that.

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

Mr Dunne: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, and I thank my colleague Mr Brooks for that. There are opportunities to improve things for everybody in this process. That opportunity is there, and, hopefully, it will be taken forward by the Department and the Minister. That is why we call on the Minister to do more, and, in the case of unadopted alleyways, a partnership approach is needed between local communities, the councils, the Housing Executive, DFI and others to adopt those areas and instigate a programme of basic maintenance. That is why we are happy to support the amendment to bring in the councils. It certainly strengthens the motion.

The motion calls on the Minister to put the interests of ordinary homeowners first and to take the necessary steps to identify high-priority and legacy sites for adoption. As was mentioned, many of those are historical issues, and it can be tricky to get clarity on ownership and so on. There is definitely room for improvement, given the issues that we are having, as we seek to make this more effective and efficient.

Mr McMurray: The problem of unadopted roads and developments is a long-standing issue, and there is a fair number of them in Northern Ireland. I am the third or fourth MLA to point out that there are now 1,868 unadopted developments in Northern Ireland. Of those, 170 are in the council area of Newry, Mourne and Down, which contains most of my South Down constituency. It contains the third highest number of unadopted developments after Mid Ulster and the Armagh City, Banbridge and Craigavon council areas.

The Committee for Regional Development undertook an inquiry into unadopted roads in 2012, and the Infrastructure Committee heard evidence from DFI in 2021. A similar motion to the one that we are debating today was tabled later that year. In other words, the issue has been discussed before. It is well known and understood, but it persists nonetheless.

I understand that all new developments start out as unadopted, and often there is no issue at all: developers do what they are supposed to and the road to adoption is fairly smooth. However, where things go wrong, it can be a very significant problem for residents. We must not forget that this issue can cause real hardship for the people who are unable to sell their properties and, in the meantime, are dealing with completely unacceptable conditions. In my constituency, in Downpatrick, there is a development that is experiencing very serious problems with sewers and subsidence. It received some media coverage a while ago. The bond is insufficient to address the issues. DFI says that it wants to help to find a solution, but, because the ground continues to settle, repairs will not be possible until 2030. My constituents did not create that issue or problem but are now in the impossible scenario of not being able to sell their houses due to the inadequate infrastructure within the development. While that is the most serious of examples, it is not the only one. Putting the repairs off until 2030 seems decidedly unfair to these constituents. That example points to a bigger problem with some developers. We need to ensure that developers meet their obligations and build to an acceptable standard that does not cause problems further down the road.

I understand that DFI has increased bond calculation rates to ensure that works can be completed to an adoptable standard if the developer defaults and that solicitors are also more aware of the issues than they were in the past. That will, hopefully, act as an incentive to developers to ensure that a bond is in place before they start work. Hopefully, all that will mean that substandard roads will become less of an issue in the future, but we still need to keep an eye on it to make sure that it is working. We also need to find solutions for the existing developments that cannot currently be adopted, especially those that have very serious problems and where the bond is inadequate or non-existent and where the developer has gone out of business. We just cannot abandon the residents who bought their homes in good faith and are facing the nightmare due to no fault of their own. From a housing perspective, we cannot afford to essentially take so many existing homes out of the market because they cannot be sold.

Although the issue has been debated at length and for years, I have a couple of questions that I hope that the Minister will remark on. The first is in relation to staffing levels at DFI and the impact that that may have on enforcement and on the adoption of uncomplicated roads. The Minister intimated this in his interjection, and I am interested in how that affects capacity in the team dealing with the adoption of developments and whether the staffing situation in the team has improved or worsened in recent years. Also, is the backlog of roads to be adopted being reduced at all, or is any progress quickly being cancelled out by new cases entering the system? Finally, I want to raise the impact that capacity constraints might have in the future if we manage to overcome the waste water and planning issues that are restricting housing development at the moment. We want to see new homes being built, but is the Department actually able to cope with more new developments coming its way for adoption? Are we going to face a much bigger issue of unadopted roads in the future?

Mr T Buchanan: I thank my colleagues tabling the motion. A lot of the issues have been covered, so I will be as brief as I can. Unadopted housing developments are a blight right across our constituencies, with unfinished footpaths and roadways posing a serious health and safety risk to homeowners and residents in these areas. Kerbs and manholes protrude above the base coat of tarmac, leaving potential trips and dangerous and hazardous conditions for the residents, including children, elderly people and all who reside in the area. Indeed, in many cases, council refuse lorries will not enter those developments in their unfinished conditions, meaning that homeowners have to take their bins to the entrance of the developments. I know, Minister, that you will agree that that is a totally unacceptable situation.

Homeowners, who purchased their properties in good faith, with the expectation that the developments would be duly completed and adopted, are now left in a position where they cannot sell their property. Many, perhaps, are first-time purchasers who now want to move on and are unable to get a sale due to the unfinished condition of the development. When we contact the relevant authorities, we are told that it is now up to the homeowners to rectify the problem. I say to the Minister that the Department cannot simply wash its hands of the issue and leave it at the door of the homeowners. In my constituency, I have been dealing with a number of developments that have been sitting unfinished for years. In recent correspondence, the Minister informed me that, in the Omagh area alone, there are 76 unadopted developments. That is only one small area of the constituency of West Tyrone, and we are dealing with these unadopted developments right throughout the constituency, and, yet, developers are being let off the hook, and that should not be the case. Developers should not be let off the hook on this issue. When a developer comes into an area with a new development and gets planning permission for it, a bond is required. We have heard much about the bonds today. A bond is required by DFI and by NI Water, yet, on every occasion, when I request that DFI and NI Water use the bonds to make good the default, we are told that, on some of the developments, it is inadequate to cover the costs. Minister, I have to ask why. Why is a bond that is set by the Department inadequate to cover the costs when the developer defaults? I heard you say earlier that it is up to the developer to complete the development. That is absolutely right, but then there is a fallback position if the developer defaults: a bond. Yet, on a number of occasions, if the bond covers 25% of the work that is left to do, that seems to be the problem. I cannot for the life of me understand why the Department sets a bond that is so insufficient to cover a default when something like that happens. That leaves a situation where the bonds are not worth the paper that they are written on.

I have contacted building control about inspecting the sewerage systems during installation. That is a role that building control officers have to play, but they only inspect the sewerage system within the curtilage of the property. When we take the main body of the sewerage and storm water systems, no checks are carried out during the laying of that pipework. In 99% of cases, it is the sewerage and storm water pipework that fails the test, which results in so many developments lying unfinished. Minister, that practice must change. Any bonds that are set must be sufficient to cover a default. There should be inspections during the laying of the sewerage and storm water pipework. NI Water has advised me that it does not do any inspections during the laying of the pipework. Again, the developer is getting off the hook and is not being held accountable. For one of the developments in Omagh, NI Water sent me a list of the defaults within the sewerage system, which is why the development cannot be adopted. NI Water has said that it does not have the money, and the bond is insufficient to repair the sewerage network in the area.

Mrs Erskine: I thank the Member for giving way and for raising that point. I know that, in some circumstances, homeowners are then left with a bill that can run into tens of thousands of pounds because a developer has either gone into liquidation or gone bust. Homeowners are left counting the cost of that, which is huge when you think about the fact that they also bought the homes in the first place.

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

Mr T Buchanan: I thank the Member for her intervention. I urge the Minister to be more proactive in bringing forward plans for more meaningful enforcement against developers. We cannot simply continue with a situation where a developer builds the houses and sells them but defaults on the completion of the roadway, the footpaths and the lighting. The majority of the time, it is all down to the sewerage network being incomplete and insufficient. Therefore, stiffer legislation must be put in place to hold developers to account for that. If they do default, the money should be in the bond to bring it up to a sufficient standard.

Mr Brett: My colleague is distracting me here. I declare an interest as someone who recently moved onto an adopted road. However, the Minister will be pleased to know that my neighbours do not want the road to be adopted. That one can be taken off the Minister's list. [Laughter.]

I do not intend to use this as an opportunity to bash the Department or the Minister, because that will not move the debate forward one iota. I am simply trying to get some answers for my constituents. However, I commend Ms Ferguson's ability to blame the Conservative Party for the Department's inability to use its enforcement powers or set bonds at a relevant level.

Minister, in a number of questions for written answer, I have raised the cases of Loughshore Manor and Willowbrook in my constituency. In your answers, you state that your Department has enforcement powers but has judged that it is not appropriate to use them at this time. All I am simply trying to find out, Minister, is when you or your Department think it is appropriate to use your enforcement powers? A bond sits in place. The longer we leave it, the higher the price will be for the adoptions. The developers clearly have no interest in ever finishing the roads. When the Department does not take action, the cost of materials increases, the price goes up and the bond level is not sufficient.

I would be grateful, Minister, if you could make clear what criteria your Department sets for taking enforcement action. Without enforcement, the list of unadopted roads and footpaths will continue to grow. The message from my constituents is that they want a simple answer on when the Department will use the powers that are available to it.

Ms Bradshaw: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for letting my name be added to the list at such short notice. I only came in to listen, and I was getting post-traumatic stress disorder from the debate, having worked for constituents who live in a development in South Belfast and have been waiting for 13 and a half years for their road to be adopted.

The questions that Phillip Brett has just asked are the ones that I want the answers to. We keep going round in circles, with departmental officials saying, "It is maybe a wee bit early to use the enforcement powers. Maybe we will send another letter. Is there benefit in sending another letter?". It is ridiculous, Minister. The reason that I am not mentioning the name of the development is that the residents have said over and over, "We do not want to go to the media because the last thing that we want is to devalue the price of our property". They want to protect the reputation of the area, but they have spent years repairing their cars and getting stuff out of the gutters themselves; they have just been tortured. It was meant to be their dream home, but they have been left with a shambles. In many ways, it is down to inaction from the Department for Infrastructure.

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

Mr O'Dowd: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I thank the Members who tabled the motion and the Members who have spoken on it. I am conscious of the private Member's Bill to be introduced by Deborah Erskine on the subject. My officials are gathering information to inform her proposal, and I look forward to working with Deborah as that private Member's Bill makes its way through the Assembly. There may well be a need for a change in legislation on some matters, and I am sure that some of the ideas and, indeed, knowledge from the 2012 report will help to inform that.

At the outset, it is important to note that the majority of housing developments pass through the processes of planning consents, construction and adoption with relatively few issues. DFI Roads data indicates that approximately 92% of housing developments are adopted with no need for my Department to engage in enforcement action or for the development to be added to the list of unadopted sites. However, I fully recognise that, despite the fact that most developments are constructed successfully, a significant number of developments are not completed to the correct standard and remain unadopted. I also recognise that each unadopted development has an impact on the residents and the families who live there.

My Department defines an unadopted backlog development as one with at least 80% of houses occupied but infrastructure that remains unadopted. Currently, 839 developments are designated as backlog developments. For a long-term comparison, the 2012 inquiry into unadopted roads found that there were then approximately 1,200 unadopted sites. While the number of unadopted developments remains significant, my Department continues to work with developers, stakeholders and homeowners to further reduce the backlog.

I acknowledge the point raised in the motion that some developments have been left for decades without full adoption. It is important to state that it is the developer's responsibility to ensure that the infrastructure is constructed to the correct standard to allow the adoption. However, it may be useful to highlight the powers available to my Department in seeking to facilitate adoption of a development. The statutory basis for the adoption of private streets by the Department is in the Private Streets (NI) Order 1980 and the Private Streets (Amendment) Order 1992. The Private Streets Order requires developers to take out a bond surety, which is a financial guarantee that the developer will meet its obligations or that, if the developer defaults, the authority may draw down the bond in order to have the works completed to the required standard. I will return to the issue of bonds.

There is a similar mechanism in the Water and Sewerage Services Act 2016. Where a developer has defaulted on its agreements by leaving a site incomplete or the company ceases to trade, DFI Roads and NI Water have the discretionary option to commence enforcement by using notices under the relevant legislation and using the bond moneys to complete the works necessary to bring the infrastructure to the required standard. If the value of the work necessary to bring the development to an adoptable standard exceeds the value of the bond, my Department has no funding stream to bridge the gap. Unless alternative funding can be identified, the development will remain unadopted. It is likely that the majority of the developments that have been left for decades without full adoption fall into that category.

I understand the significant challenges faced by homeowners on unadopted sites who seek to sell their property, and I share Members' concerns about the situation that homeowners have been left in by developers. My Department is ready to work with other stakeholders to identify solutions that may help overcome those challenges, including strengthening the rights of homeowners, being more proactive and engaging in enforcement action.

One of the benefits of this debate is that it highlights to potential homeowners the liabilities they may take on when they buy a new home in a development. Understandably, many people do not understand how the system works and rightly expect that, when they buy a home in a new development, the basic amenities will be available to them when they move in. They do not understand the danger that those may not be available. One legislative option, which may not necessarily fall under the remit of DFI or a private Member's Bill, is that we may have to strengthen the consumer rights of home purchasers. We have to look at that.

Members have mentioned that there is a potential for pollution from incorrectly constructed sewerage works. I note Tom's comments about the inspection process for pipework, and that model needs to be followed up.

My Department increased the bonds after a significant period when there was no increase in the value of the bonds. The increase came about following an instruction that I gave when I was in post as Minister for a short time in 2022. The increase became a reality in 2023. Again, it is something we should look at to ensure that bonds meet the right value, especially if a site develops over three, five, seven or 10 years. How will we ensure that the bond that my Department holds will meet the value of the repairs or installation works required, if, for whatever reason, the developer does not complete the works? I am more than happy to undertake that work.

There is a necessity to look at the legislation that protects homeowners, although it may not all fall into my Department's remit. I can confirm that my Department is not responsible for the inspection or maintenance of unadopted alleyways. It is the Department's policy not to adopt alleyways and pathways that are not essential for safe vehicular and pedestrian access. As a Minister and a public representative, I am more than happy to take on more roads and improve the lot of the people we collectively serve. However, Members will also understand that, if I take on unadopted alleyways or, indeed, unadopted developments, I would take on a huge financial burden for the public purse. The money that I would need to bring those up to standard would mean less money for my Department to carry out other services and less money for the Departments of Health, Education and Communities. There is a cost.

Ms Bradshaw: Will the Member give way?

Mr O'Dowd: I will.

Ms Bradshaw: I gather from the short time I have been in the Chamber that it is not so much about the Department taking on the burden as about enforcement.

Mr O'Dowd: I will come to enforcement because it is a valid point that a number of Members have raised.

My officials have adopted a policy of engaging with developers, and, where necessary, they will bring enforcement cases. A number of enforcement cases in recent years have got to that stage. My officials are much nicer than I am, and perhaps they engage for much longer than I would in those circumstances. I hope that some of my traits will start to rub off on them. In discussions with officials, I have said that we need to provide guidance to our teams that work on the ground that says, "Yes, engagement is good, but you have to reach a point in a certain time frame when enforcement kicks in". My officials have undertaken to look at how we can produce that guidance for our teams that work on the ground. In many cases, unfortunately, you have to have a carrot-and-stick scenario, but you need the stick to make sure that the work is carried out. I have asked my officials to take that work on board.

I will turn to Members' comments. Hopefully, Deborah will bring forward a new legal framework, and I look forward to working with her on that. Mr Carroll asked whether the legislation that we have is effective, and he talked about working with other agencies. Legislation is only as effective as what you use it for, and I commented on what the guidance says about when enforcement is used. The point was also made that my Department is significantly understaffed and under-resourced. We have only so many staff to carry out certain functions. We have recruited new staff for the private streets issues, and I hope to have them on the ground. I am looking at other options in the short term to see whether we need to bring in consultants for a short period in order to work our way through the backlog while we continue to recruit staff to our Department.

I have answered the question on pipework. There are inflationary pressures on bonds, and that is why they need to be index-based and increase over time. I have mentioned staff levels. Mr McMurray asked about staff capacity. Yes, we have capacity issues, but we are working on them. That also answers the question of whether, if we ever get to the point of having sufficient funding for waste water treatment works and can properly resource our planning service, we will be able to deal with an increase in demand.

There have been improvements in recent years, but we have a legacy issue that I do not have the answer to. Some sites have been sitting for 29 years, as Members have said, but I do not have the financial wherewithal to resolve those issues. It is a legacy issue. I am not ignoring it; I am pointing out that we do not have the resources to resolve it at this stage. There has to be a collective Executive discussion on how we start to work our way through those legacy issues.

We then have the sites that have been online for five years or so. I think that we have a mechanism to deal with those, although there may be cost implications. I am also confident that, with some refinement and some engagement and resource in the current process, we can ensure that we do not fall into having backlogs of 20 years, 29 years and 10 years, that those sites come on board now and that the vast majority of developers are responsible, do their tasks and what is asked of them by the people who purchase homes from them. We need to ensure that, for those who slip behind, we have a properly resourced system with the wherewithal to hold them to account and ensure that proper processes are delivered.

I recognise that Deborah Erskine is bringing forward legislation. Legislation can be useful to strengthen powers where necessary, and I look forward to working with the Member on that. I assure Members, however, that I have tasked officials with entering into enforcement as soon as it is practically possible and to ensure that we recruit, which we are doing, and get staff on board. I will work with other agencies, such as the council or whoever it might be, on unadopted alleyways.

Mrs Erskine: Will the Minister give way?

Mr O'Dowd: Yes.

Mrs Erskine: On enforcement, I think that I read somewhere that the legislation includes a penalty to developers of about £500. Five hundred pounds is a pittance for developers. I do not want to stop housebuilding in Northern Ireland, but we need to ensure that enforcement is stringent, so that things like this do not happen again.

Mr O'Dowd: I am not aware of the penalty that is enforced on developers. I will ensure that officials get that information and inform the Member of it.

Whatever legislation we are using has to have teeth. Nobody wants to get to the point of using it, but it has to be available to ensure that proper procedures and protections are given to those people who are making what is probably the biggest purchase of their life — their family home. We want to make sure that we are in a position to protect them. I assure the Member that I will work with her and other Members to get to the point at which we are —.

Mr Brett: I thank the Minister for giving way. I sense a real commitment from him, particularly in relation to the developments of up to five years old. He does not have a magic wand and those older ones will be much more difficult. He has tasked officials with producing new guidance. When does he hope that it will be produced, brought up to him, approved and put in place? I ask that because, going by tonight's debate, people in those developments want to have some glimmer of hope that they will have a possibility of getting the upgrade that they deserve, sooner rather than later.

Mr O'Dowd: I hope to have the paperwork with me this calendar year. I am conscious that I am asking teams who are involved in the enforcement work, and all the other work that we want them to do, to do this for me as well. I hope to have it this calendar year.

Mr Speaker, that concludes my remarks.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Mr Carroll, you have five minutes.

Mr Carroll: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I thank the Minister and Members for their comments and support of the amendment. Members raised various concerns about the plight of unadopted housing developments. The increase in the Strabane area was mentioned. The Member for Foyle said that there had been an almost 50% increase in eight years, if I heard him correctly, and he made scathing comments about the Department, some of which were warranted, but I gently remind him that his party held the post for two years.

The fact that a number of Members reported living in, or being about to live in, areas where the housing development was not adopted points to how much of a problem it is. It was useful for Members to say that. If I picked him up correctly, the Member for South Down asked a question about workers who work on the enforcement powers aspect of DFI. I reported earlier in the debate that, in 2015, there were 43 workers in that team, and now there are only 22. There has, therefore, been an almost 50% cut in the number of workers who could enforce the bonds and enforce proper payment. The Minister mentioned new staff being employed in other sections of his Department. That is welcome, but I am not sure why we need consultants, albeit, I know that he said that it would be temporary. I am happy to give way if he wants to clarify that.

Mr O'Dowd: I do not favour using consultants, except when necessary. It is to deal with the backlog. While we work our way through the backlog, I can continue to recruit staff into my team.

Mr Carroll: I thank the Minister for that, but I still express concern. We need permanent workers rather than, what are usually, overpaid consultants. I have a concern about that.

Members raised wider issues, such as the fact that the number of unadopted roads and developments points to a lack of investment. Other points that were made referred to: a lack of investment in the services and the sector; the people who can make sure that those bonds are adequate and paid; and about investment in the water and sewerage infrastructure not keeping pace. I appreciate that I am probably in a minority of one in the House, but I say that the state of the unadopted roads and alleyways is a perfect illustration of the failure of the private market and of our over-reliance, in a general sense, on developers. Why not go back to the wide-scale public building of homes, so that we do not have to rely on developers, chase after them, get nowhere — in many cases — and, obviously, have people left in the lurch in the process? If it is more profitable for a developer to abandon a housing development than it is to finish or fix the infrastructure, the developer will, obviously, abandon the development, as we have heard. There is some legislation in that regard, but there is nothing meaningful or strong enough to compel them against doing so. There is a role for councils in that, as well.

If private companies cannot work out a way to make profit from our footpaths and alleyways, and the state refuses to adopt them, which is a reality, places will lie derelict and unsafe until communities take it upon themselves to transform the space. Fair play to people for doing that across the board, but that should not fall on their shoulders, solely.

Mrs Erskine raised a point similar to this: the Executive are happy to take in money from domestic rates, but, in many, many cases, they fail to take responsibility for adopting the roads and alleyways that surround the homes. It is not a radical idea to suggest that the state has a duty to take responsibility for the basic upkeep of public spaces.

The Minister previously said that he had implemented the vast majority of the 2012 recommendations from the Regional Development Committee inquiry. I do not think that he mentioned which recommendations have still to be implemented, so a bit of clarity on that would be useful. He also stated that, in 2023, his Department increased the bond calculation rates, but I do not think that he stated what the increase was. I am happy to give way to the Minister if he can give a general figure on that. He might not have it at hand.

Mr O'Dowd: Sorry, I do not have it available, but I will pass it on.

Mr Carroll: Yes, no problem. I would appreciate it if we could be informed of that. To expand on the point, do the bond amounts really reflect the current price of works? Is there still a gap in the cost between the works that need to be completed and the bond, with inflation and the cost of materials? Has the Department done a wider review of the bond process? We need some information on that as well.

I thank Members for their contributions, and I commend the amendment to the House.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): I call Keith Buchanan. Keith, you have up to 10 minutes.

Mr K Buchanan: Thank you, Deputy Speaker. I do not think that it will take me 10 minutes. I am going to rattle through this very quickly, because, to be fair, other comments have covered it. I was looking at my notes, and I think that some of you have spotted them and taken notes from them. A lot of points have been covered, but I will make a point broadly. I have dealt with several of these issues, from Maghera right down to Newmills in Mid Ulster. The Minister talked about 82%, I think that it was, if I am correct, of developments having no issues. Not all developers are bad. It is only very few, and I think that they just need a little bit of focus at times. We are all guilty of it. There are probably some phone calls that you did not make today that you should have made this morning, and you put the awkward ones off until tonight. You are all smiling. Developers just need a little bit of focus, a little push or a little bit of persuasion. They are not all bad. That has to be taken into account, because I do not want to be referenced in those remarks.

I will briefly go through the comments that different Members made. Deborah Erskine referred to health and safety issues and mobility issues. There are a large number of people in those affected houses across Northern Ireland. The Minister, to be fair, touched on the value of the bond. We talked about article 11 being instigated and the current legislative upgrade of that.

Gerry Carroll talked about health and safety issues. Moving heavy wheelie bins is a big thing, believe it or not. A lot of people are moving large wheelie bins down to the end of their estate, which can be a fair distance. You get to some housing developments and there are 30 or 40 wheelie bins at the end of the estate. It is a big issue for people, and it is a very practical thing for them. Councils will not go up those estates; we know that. There are trip hazards, and they have done risk assessments etc. They will not go up there with a bin lorry to collect the bins. That is one issue relating to that.

Gerry also talked about management companies charging for grass cutting etc in areas that are not adopted. That is a point, and I have heard that before in relation to many issues. He also talked about volunteers tidying up alleyways.

Cathal Boylan referred to having inadequate funding for some developers. That goes back to that bond issue. That will be an interesting piece of work: how much does that bond actually need to be and how will you manage it, Minister, for three, five or seven years? It is difficult to get that piece of work correct, to have some control over it.

Mark Durkan talked about the residents having to pick up the pieces: 147 unadopted developments in Derry and Strabane. I think that he referred to the community pride issue — it was Gerry's point as well — and about people having to go in and tidy up their own areas. There is nothing wrong with that, but they should not be the sole people to do that. They should not be tidying up something that has not already been, to some degree, tidied up.

Ciara Ferguson talked about gritting, health and safety and developers going into liquidation. She mentioned funding from the UK Government. I do not know how that is relevant when the Department is not holding developers to account, but she made the point, which is valid enough.

Stephen Dunne talked about high numbers in the southern division, selling properties and bond rate increases. Then I have written down "house-warming", so maybe Stephen is going to invite us down to his house-warming party.

We will put that in our diaries, if you give us the date, Stephen. [Laughter.]

Send it out in time, if you do not mind.

Andy McMurray talked about high numbers, developer responsibility and, again, the bond values. To be fair to Tom Buchanan — I am not defending Tom as my colleague — he made some good points about the installation work and building control only monitoring the pipework until it leaves the curtilage of the house. Who actually polices the developer? Not that they are all bad, but, sometimes, it is not tens of pounds or thousands of pounds but tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of pounds to put those issues right. Who is actually going to do that? It is about who polices that work outside the curtilage of the house. The houses are good enough to sell, but it seems that when you leave the curtilage of the house, the developer gets into a land of confusion and no responsibility. Some other very good points were made, such as checking the storm and foul pipework, getting meaningful enforcement and asking when that is going to happen. To be fair, the Minister covered most of those points.

Phillip Brett talked about the criteria for enforcement action. Paula Bradshaw made the valid point that people are not going to shout to the media for obvious reasons; it is going to be counterproductive for them. The Minister is last in my notes. I usually refer to Gerry Carroll last, but he got his touch earlier. The Minister talked about the 92% that have no issues, which is fair enough, but that leaves 8%, which is still a lot and is a big issue for the people who live in those areas. The worrying part is that there is no funding stream to bridge the gap and to look at the bond levels.

To summarise, it is about how you police the developers to make sure that they finish the work to a standard that does not leave people in the position that others are in now. It was a good debate: a lot of things were covered several times over, but most points were covered. The Minister has, to be fair, made some commitments.