Official Report: Monday 20 January 2025

Mr Speaker: The first item in the Order Paper is Members' statements.

Mr Kearney: I welcome the announcement of the ceasefire in Gaza. It is a pivotal occasion for the people of Gaza, Palestine, the wider Middle East and their neighbours in Israel. The conditions in Gaza at this time are those of an absolute apocalypse. The physical destruction and the unimaginable suffering and loss of life are beyond our comprehension. Prior to the ceasefire, 'The Lancet' reported that, as far back as June of last year, deaths in Gaza had been underestimated by 40%. The ceasefire is an opportunity for respite for the people of Gaza, and, critically, it is an opportunity for them to begin to mourn their losses properly. It cannot be temporary, however. The ceasefire must be fully implemented and observed, and all phases must be rigidly adhered to. That will demand good faith on the part of all actors: those who are party to the war and those who have indicated their willingness to act as guarantors of the ceasefire and the following phases. Much more is needed, however. The ceasefire must become a pathway to a permanent, democratic peace settlement in Gaza and for the people of Palestine, and it must become a pathway to the achievement of a sovereign Palestinian state.

As we know from our experience of peace processes, there is a need for great vigilance. However, it is also a time at which there must be increased political solidarity with the people of Gaza and increased financial solidarity to assist in overcoming the humanitarian challenges.

For the first time in many months, the children of Gaza can now, perhaps, look to the skies with hope not fear. We all have a duty to ensure that that is realised, that peace is achieved and becomes permanent, and that the people of Palestine and Israel can live in peaceful co-existence.

Mr Buckley: Just when we thought that six months of Labour's grubby hold on power could not sink to any new depths, it did so last week. Two-tier justice is no longer just the perception of some but the reality. Through the Labour Government's removal of a section in the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023 that blocked payments to terrorists, we see the potential for terrorists who were interned to be rewarded with big compensation claims because of an administrative error.

That includes Gerry Adams. Mr Adams claims that he was never a member of the IRA. I do not believe that anybody in this democratically elected forum holds that view. Mr Adams was the IRA chief of staff. The Provisional IRA killed some 1,700 people across the United Kingdom, yet, under the Labour Government, Mr Adams could potentially be in line for a six-figure payout. Could it get any more grotesque? This is a man who authorised what happened to the disappeared. We have heard harrowing accounts from their family members, but the remains of Columba McVeigh, Captain Nairac and Joe Lynskey still lie in bogs and unmarked graves, with no remorse or information from Sinn Féin and, indeed, Gerry Adams.

Let us compare the Government's approach to two-tier justice and the treatment of victims of the IRA. I recently represented Alan Black, the sole survivor of the Kingsmills massacre, who had to fight for a victims' pension because it was blocked by administration. Thankfully, that was resolved. The First Minister delayed the implementation of a victims' pension scheme. The Labour Attorney General represented Mr Adams in court just last year. Could it get any more barefaced?

The Labour Party must close the loophole. It must grow a backbone, stop supporting terrorists and start supporting decent, hard-working victims in this country who have received a raw deal under Labour Governments of the past and, as it appears, of the present.

Ms Nicholl: I welcome the recent deal in the Middle East and recognise the hope that it has brought to people across the world. For the past 15 months, MLAs have been meeting unofficially with members of Palestinian community and people who are and have been directly affected. It has been sobering. I know that I am not the only one who feels this way, but, when I put my children to bed every night, I feel an enormous sense of relief and privilege that I live in a place where my children are safe and they can dream of a better future. For so long, the children of Gaza have been denied that. Now, finally, there is hope for better.

At one of our meetings, there was a man who had recently returned from Gaza. He is a doctor in Dublin. He talked about how he was walking along a path with his extended family. He was carrying his niece on his back, and, as they were walking, he was hoping that that child would not see the bodies along the road. The impact of that and the trauma that he experienced at that time has stayed with me.

I do not think that we can overestimate the impact of the last 15 months. Collectively, our focus now needs to be on ensuring that humanitarian aid is able to reach children and families in Gaza. There needs to be increased access and safety, especially for humanitarian workers. There also needs to be accountability.

During the week, I spoke to a Palestinian doctor who works in one of our hospitals. I asked him how he felt, and he said that he had mixed emotions. There is such relief, but, just six weeks before, so many members of his family had been killed. He questioned whether, if the ceasefire had happened sooner, they would still be alive and said that he still fears for others. He said that, if there was anything that we as politicians could do to raise awareness and push for aid, we should. We will host another meeting with members of the community and the Disasters Emergency Committee (DEC) about its appeal and how we can support additional support in Gaza. He also referred to family visa schemes and said that they account for a very small proportion of those who are here. Those people contribute to our economy. His wife is a teaching assistant, and he is a doctor. If we can reunite families, that will really be something.

There is still work for us to do. International guarantors have to play their part. For now, our hearts are with those who have been impacted on, those who are mourning loved ones and the hostages who will, very soon, be finally reunited with their families. It has been an awful 15 months, and there is so much for us to learn from this. We need to look at the root problems. It did not start on 7 October. The international community has to push for a two-state solution and lasting peace.

Ms Sheerin: I commend the organisers of, and encourage attendance at, an event that we are having in Ballinascreen community hub tomorrow at 7.00 pm to raise awareness of drug addiction and abuse and to reduce its harm. Our community has come together in recent times to acknowledge the fact that drug addiction does not discriminate: it can affect anyone, regardless of race, class, creed, background or religion. Drugs are no longer something that you only find in big cities; they are now a rural problem as well. We see more and more young people come into contact with illegal drugs and, indeed, prescription drugs that can ruin lives, and, in many instances, do so. This is not about shaming anyone; it is about breaking the stigma, having a conversation and raising awareness of the forums that can help people who are suffering from the effects of drug abuse. I encourage people to come along, have that conversation and see whether, as a community, we can stamp out the problem.

Mr Butler: Members, today, I ask you to join me in helping to flip Blue Monday on its head by working with the Samaritans to rebrand it Brew Monday, a day not for misery but for mugs, chats and connecting over a good old-fashioned cup of tea, however you drink it. I know that many will rightly ask this question: "Can a cup of tea really fix all the problems in my life?" Probably not, but it is a great start. After all, nobody ever solved life's big questions with an empty mug in their hand.

Brew Monday is about taking time to talk and, more importantly, taking time to listen. The Samaritans — those incredible lifesavers who sit with headsets on — remind us that sometimes the greatest gift that we can give is not advice but a few moments of our time and the comfort of our presence. Let us face it: we have all been there, staring at a teabag wondering whether it is safe to reuse. That is just an analogy for what our problems sometimes look like. This is not about being perfect or having all the answers; it is about showing up for one another. The Samaritans know that better than anyone, and they offer a listening ear 24/7, 365 days a year with no judgement and no rush. Let us make Brew Monday a reminder that life might not come with a manual, but it does come with tea, and, sometimes, it is good to share it.

Mr O'Toole: I too want to reflect on the news over the weekend of a ceasefire in Gaza in the Middle East. First, I welcome the fact that the immediate horror of bombs being dropped in Gaza has ended.

It is important to say first that the attacks that initiated this latest round of conflict in the Middle East were wholly wrong and reprehensible. The response to them has been not just wholly disproportionate but grotesque and wrong in the most profound way. Tens of thousands of innocent Gazans and Palestinians have lost their lives. The people of Israel and the wider Middle East have not been made any more secure by the actions of the Israeli Government in responding to the heinous attacks of 7 October.

As Declan Kearney and Kate Nicholl said, most people who saw the scenes of innocent Israeli hostages being returned and of aid surging into Gaza will have been relieved and felt some degree of respite from the onslaught of awful images that we have seen and, at times, felt unable to do anything about over the past 15 months. However, it is important to say that the legacy of the awful bombardment of Gaza, which was a wholly disproportionate and counterproductive response to a heinous set of acts by Hamas, is the creation of trauma that will be with the babies and children who are alive now and their families until the end of the century and beyond. It is that serious and significant, and we should not gloss over that. As someone who believes in the leadership of democracies in the world, I am afraid to say that the conflict has damaged people's trust in the ability of parts of the international community to lead and stand against the wholesale slaughter of innocents.

There is now a glimmer of hope. First, the immediate death has ended, and hostages have been returned to their families. Aid is surging into Gaza, although it needs to pour in in much greater quantity. As has been said, we all should be part of that by encouraging donations from Western and other Governments. Fundamentally, however, in order to resolve the conflict in the long term, as has been said for decades now, there needs to be a just and lasting settlement between the peoples of the Middle East. There needs to be a viable, durable and just Palestinian state that allows Palestinians and Israelis to live in peace in that part of the world.

Mr Speaker: Time is up.

Mr O'Toole: That is what we should all hope for and work towards.

Mr Frew: I rise also to applaud the efforts that have been made over the last weeks and months to create a ceasefire in Gaza and to talk about the release of hostages and the fact that there is absolutely no reason why Israeli hostages are still in captivity. There is no excuse for that. However, a deal has been brokered that some of the families have applauded the Trump Administration for, so credit where credit is due. The deal was on the table last year. A deal has been done, and we pray that people will get respite from the war and all the horrors that war brings on a people, especially the innocent civilians in any given area.

The three hostages who have been released are Doron Steinbrecher, Romi Gonen and Emily Damari. I had the privilege and honour of meeting Emily's mother, Mandy, six months into her daughter's captivity. That was a meeting that will never leave me. What I witnessed that day was the complete numbness of not wanting to think the worst but not daring to hope for the best. Emily has, however, been reunited with her mother, Mandy, and we are grateful for answered prayers.

Emily's recovery has only started. She has had 471 days in captivity, held by Hamas terrorists. I pray for her recovery and for all the hostages who will have to recover. We know that she has lost fingers on her left hand, but that is only the damage that we can see. I pray that she will get the best treatment and care possible to recover from her ordeal. She spent 471 days in captivity. Can we remember our last 471 days and how we enjoyed the freedoms that we have and take for granted? Think of the ordeal that the hostages continue to go through, and it is not just adults but babies and toddlers who are being kept captive by Hamas terrorists. There is no excuse, and those young people — those human beings — should be released immediately.

Mr Sheehan: I seachtain seo Lá Idirnáisiúnta an Oideachais, athdhearbhaíonn Sinn Féin a dtiomantas a chinntiú go bhfuil an tús is fearr ag gach páiste agus ag gach duine óg agus iad ag gabháil i gceann an tsaoil agus a chinntiú fosta go bhfuil rochtain acu ar oideachas ardchaighdeáin. Ní hé amháin gur buncheart é an t-oideachas, ach is uirlis chumhachtach é leis an chomhionannas, leis an athrú shóisialta agus leis an chumhachtú eacnamaíochta a bhaint amach.

Agus sinn ag tarraingt aird ar Lá Idirnáisiúnta an Oideachais, aithnímid na dúshláin atá roimh mhic léinn, tuismitheoirí agus múinteoirí ar fud na hÉireann, Thuaidh agus Theas. San am atá romhainn, leanfaidh Sinn Féin de bheith ag obair go dian lenár dtosaíochtaí san oideachas a bhaint amach: ag gabháil i ngleic leis an tearc-ghnóthachtáil oideachais; soláthar riachtanas speisialta oideachais a athrú ó bhonn; cúram páistí a dhéanamh inacmhainne; agus cothrom na Féinne a fháil don Ghaelscolaíocht.

Tá Sinn Féin tiomanta bheith ag obair le daoine eile le córas oideachais cuimsitheach, lánacmhainne a chruthú, córas nach bhfágfar aon duine ar deireadh ann.

Mr McReynolds: I rise to highlight concerning video and bullying behaviour that I saw on social media last weekend against a young man with autism in Belfast and what it should say to all of us as politicians.

A while ago, I saw that New Yorker Joshua Block, otherwise known as "World of T-Shirts", was planning a trip to Dublin and would possibly come to Belfast. I noticed immediately a tone in those who responded with delight at the news. Mr Speaker, I am not sure whether you dabble in the world of TikTok, but Josh is a 23-year-old living with autism and a vulnerable adult struggling with alcohol issues. His videos are primarily of him consuming alcohol and behaving erratically. People send him money for that and, in turn, sustain his lifestyle and fuel his alcoholism.

Last weekend, when Josh came to Belfast, thousands of others on the platform and I saw large groups of young people following him around Belfast city centre and recording interactions with him on their phones. It involved him being jeered at, shouted at, cajoled, ridiculed, goaded and deliberately provoked by young people who should have known better. I get that he is somewhat of a public figure who puts himself out there, but that does not mean that standards have to drop as low as the behaviour of some last weekend in Belfast.

Respect for and understanding of neurodivergence have been hard fought for over the years by groups across Northern Ireland and now rightly receives the continuous attention that it deserves. I fear, however, that what we saw last week is what happens when we up here, including Ministers, do not act or intervene. That can lead to some thinking that it is OK to bully someone with autism and to brazenly record doing so.

It is timely that we will debate today the lack of specialist autism mental health services in Northern Ireland. I encourage all Members to look into the footage from last weekend, and let it be a warning to us all what a lack of input from us in the Assembly can mean for those living with autism.

Mr Brooks: I speak to mark 80 years of Grosvenor Grammar School. As a past pupil, I know that the school has, for many, been more than a place of learning; it has been shaping lives, nursing talent and inspiring generations of local young people through those eight decades.

Since Grosvenor's foundation in 1945 — sited initially on the Grosvenor Road, before moving to Cameronian Drive in the premier east part of the city in 1958, with its new school opening in the same area in 2010 — it has remained steadfast in its commitment to excellence. It has not only provided academic excellence but raised young people with resilience and integrity. The school has seen countless achievements from academic triumphs to artistic and athletic brilliance, all fuelled by the dedication of excellent teaching staff and students. While grammar schools are often stereotyped as elitist, I can say, as a working-class former pupil, that the lion's share of my classmates were from places such as the Newtownards Road, the Braniel, Ballybeen or the Cregagh. Perhaps that is reflected in the truth that we were always rather better at Schools' Cup football than we were at rugby, as I recall.

One of the Cregagh's own was its most famous pupil, as the school famously had George Best leave after his first year due to his wanting the option of playing football. George Best has often been considered one of the most notable names associated with the school's past, but Nathan Connolly of Snow Patrol and, more recently, Oscar- and BAFTA-winning director Ross White are also notable alumni. Gavin Robinson MP is also a past pupil, and we have a past teacher in Michelle McIlveen sitting here. Gavin was a deputy head boy during my early years in the school.

What I recall about Grosvenor is its spirit of inclusivity, its ambition and its family-type ethos. As someone who had health issues that disrupted his education at the school, I remember not only the excellent academic teaching received but the pastoral care for pupils that was a hallmark of the school. Each Grosvenorite becomes part of the school's legacy, which extends far beyond the classroom, and alumni have contributed to society across a range of fields. As we look forward to the future, we celebrate the last 80 years with gratitude. Here's to Grosvenor Grammar School, particularly its leadership and staff down the years — a beacon of learning and inspiration for generations to come. Speaking of beacons, I know that the school is looking forward, as I am, to City Hall lighting up in celebration of this landmark later this week.

Mr Gildernew: Déanaim comhghairdeas le foireann sinsir na bhfear ó Airgeal Chiaráin a bhain cluiche ceannais craobhchomórtais sinsir chlubanna na hÉireann amach inné. Rinne siad tréaniarracht, agus chuir siad dlús leis an imirt sa dara leath, ach, ar an drochuair, níor éirigh leo.

I acknowledge the achievement of Errigal Ciarán in reaching the all-Ireland senior club final yesterday and acknowledge the effort that goes into such an achievement right across a club, particularly a rural club such as Errigal Ciarán. I also want to let the club know that it brought great pride to the county of Tyrone, particularly in light of the fact that it was, surprisingly to many, the first time that a Tyrone club had featured in an all-Ireland final. Finally, I wish a speedy recovery to the Canavan brothers, Ruairí and Darragh, who both picked up injuries during the game.

Miss McIlveen: On the evening of 13 December 1955, one of the most decorated soldiers of the Second World War, Newtownards native Blair Mayne, tragically died in a car accident at the age of 40. He was an extraordinary individual whose courage, heroism and determination under fire exemplified the very ideals that the Victoria Cross represents.

Blair Mayne was born in Newtownards on 11 January 1911. The sixth of seven children, he excelled at sports such as boxing and golf and particularly rugby, representing Ireland and playing in the British Lions tour of South Africa in 1938. He attended Regent House School and read law at Queen's University, and he then trained as a solicitor and eventually became secretary of the Law Society of Northern Ireland.

It is perhaps for his exploits as a soldier that he is best known. Blair Mayne served with distinction in the SAS during the Second World War, a career of exceptional valour with an unwavering commitment to his comrades and an unshakable sense of duty to his country. He was known for his daring leadership, his incredible bravery in the face of overwhelming odds and his remarkable ability to inspire others. During the battle of north Africa, on many occasions, he led small units on audacious raids behind enemy lines, targeting key positions and disrupting enemy supply chains. He showed exceptional leadership during those operations, with tactical brilliance and an unmatched fearlessness. Then there was the raid on the Italian-held port of Tobruk in 1941. Despite being outnumbered and facing heavy resistance, he led his men with incredible determination. His actions were crucial in securing vital intelligence and weakening the enemy's hold on the region.

Blair Mayne's leadership and selflessness under fire have been described as the hallmark of the finest military leadership. However, despite multiple nominations, Blair Mayne was never awarded the Victoria Cross, a medal that he so richly deserved. Even King George VI remarked that it "so strangely eluded him". He did not seek recognition; his focus was always on the mission and the welfare of his comrades. His bravery and valour, though celebrated by those who served alongside him, was never about personal glory.

It was about serving with excellence and dedication to his fellow soldiers and his country.

The Victoria Cross represents the highest military honour for acts of extraordinary bravery. I have no doubt that Blair Mayne exemplified those qualities. His contributions to the war effort and his extraordinary bravery, selflessness and devotion to duty deserve that highest and most prestigious recognition. It is time that the wrong is righted and that Blair Mayne is awarded the Victoria Cross, which he so richly deserved during his lifetime.

Some Members: Hear, hear.

Mr Gaston: The Northern Ireland Executive's 2016 assessment of problem gambling demonstrated that we suffer from a significantly higher problem gambling prevalence than the rest of the UK: 2·3% compared with 0·5% for England. To put it another way, our gambling harm rates were five times higher than those of England. We have to assume that the situation has since deteriorated here, as it has in England. At that time, as now, the UK Minister had a regulation-making power under the Gambling Act 2005 to charge a gambling levy, requiring the industry to make a contribution to address the socially destructive effects of gambling. He used the threat of its deployment to extract a voluntary contribution from the industry. We eventually caught up, making a similar provision through section 15 of the Betting, Gaming, Lotteries and Amusements (Amendment) Act (Northern Ireland) 2022. Unlike the GB levy, however, our levy appears to apply only to terrestrial gambling. If I am right about that limitation, it constitutes a major difficulty, because the problem prevalence figures associated with online gambling are significantly higher than those pertaining to terrestrial gambling, and the gross gambling yield figures demonstrate that more than half of the gross gambling yield comes from online gambling.

Last year, the Government determined that it was time to use their regulation-making powers, and, on 12 December, the Gambling Levy Regulations 2025 were laid before Parliament. The regulations apply to terrestrial and remote gambling, placing a significantly higher levy on the latter. It is estimated that, operating from the coming financial year onwards, they will raise between £90 million and £100 million annually, an increase of £40 million on the voluntary contributions.

I do not believe that the regulation-making powers in our 2022 Act have yet been deployed. Even when they are, it seems doubtful that they will engage remote gambling. If my assessment is correct, two things are urgently required. First, we must use the regulation-making powers in the 2022 Act from 1 April, so that people experiencing terrestrial gambling harm in Northern Ireland are not disadvantaged compared with those in GB. Secondly, we must introduce legislation applying the levy to online gambling for the same purpose. If we cannot do the latter, we should ask the UK Government urgently to make the relevant legislative changes to the regulation-making power in the 2005 Act, so that the levy applies to Northern Ireland in relation to online gambling.

Mr Speaker: That concludes Members' statements. I encourage Members who did not have the opportunity to raise their issues to come back tomorrow.

Members should take their ease for a moment while we change the Chair.

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

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

Mr Nesbitt: I am seeking the Assembly's approval of the draft Period Products (Department of Health Specified Public Service Bodies) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2024. I am pleased to be able to introduce the regulations as part of a journey that began with the introduction of a private Member's Bill by former SDLP MLA Pat Catney in October 2021. That Bill was subsequently enacted as the Period Products (Free Provision) Act (Northern Ireland) 2022, which created a legal right of free access to period products in hospital premises in Northern Ireland for all those who need them. The Act places importance on respect for dignity and aims to remove financial barriers to accessing period products, when they are required. Period products are not a luxury item and should be available to everybody who needs them.

Period poverty is a massive issue in our society. Women often struggle to afford sanitary products and find themselves using unsuitable products as a result. Patients and staff of health trusts and visitors to their sites are there to receive care, provide care or visit individuals who are availing themselves of that care. In those instances, people should have access to the period products that they need. I am glad to be able to address that issue through the regulations. As I said, period products are not luxuries; they are essentials for all those who menstruate. They often cost a significant amount of money, and, as a result, some individuals are forced to go without them, which should never be the case. Such products should be available to all those who need them, and there should be no stigma around their provision. For anybody who is unable to obtain those items as and when they need them, there is damage not only to their physical well-being but to their mental well-being, so we need to do everything that we can to remove what is, in fact, a gender inequality. I am proud to be able to bring the regulations to the Assembly and, in a small but hopefully significant way, break down barriers and remove some of the gender inequality in our society.

I will now speak to the draft regulations. Members will be aware that all Departments must specify the public service bodies that will have duties under the 2022 Act. The Department of Health has specified the following public bodies, and liaised extensively with them on how the regulations will be implemented at their various premises: the Belfast Health and Social Care Trust; the Northern Health and Social Care Trust; the South Eastern Health and Social Care Trust; the Southern Health and Social Care Trust; and the Western Health and Social Care Trust.

The Act allows for the Department of Health to provide descriptions of persons and premises in order to allow its implementation to be operationally effective but stay true to the spirit of the Act. Significant consultation has taken place with the trusts to ensure that the regulations can be operationally effective across the vast number of health trust premises while staying true to the intention of the legislation, which is to provide free period products for those who need them. The trusts have undertaken their own consultation exercises with product users, and I thank them for their continued cooperation and support. There are other arm's-length bodies that have not been specified in the legislation, such as the Northern Ireland Ambulance Service (NIAS). However, those bodies operate voluntary schemes, even though they are not bound by the regulations.

The cost of implementing the regulations in the specified bodies is estimated to be approximately £1·5 million per year across the five trusts. However, as the level of usage remains unknown, especially in high-footfall premises, that is an estimate. The cost of implementing the regulations should be considered against the backdrop of a hugely stretched Health budget, which is being pushed further still by the legal requirement to implement the regulations. That is not to take away from the significance of the regulations, which I am pleased to present to the Assembly. This is a significant step forward in the fight against period poverty.

I thank the Health Committee for its scrutiny of the SL1 for the regulations. I will leave it there, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Thank you very much, Minister.

Ms Kimmins (The Chairperson of the Committee for Health): I welcome the opportunity to confirm the Health Committee's support for the motion. The Committee considered the policy proposal for the statutory rule (SR) and the statutory rule itself at four of its meetings since June 2024. It invited departmental officials to attend two of those meetings to discuss the regulations. As the Minister has set out, the regulations specify the public bodies that sit within the functions of the Department of Health that must ensure that period products are available, free of charge, to persons on their premises who need to use them.

The Committee supports the naming of the five hospital trusts as the public bodies that will provide free period products for use by patients, staff and visitors. It notes that that will result in the availability of period products on 1,300 premises across 507 health and social care sites.

Period products are necessary and essential items that should be readily accessible and available to those who need them, when they need them. By improving access to essential period products in our public service buildings, including in our hospitals, we will help normalise menstruation and reduce the stigma surrounding periods. Periods are a normal part of life. We often take it for granted that everyone has easy access to period products, when, unfortunately, that is not always the case. The free provision of period products in our hospitals will go some way to assisting those in our community who experience period poverty.

The provision of free period products in healthcare settings is particularly important and will ensure that everyone who needs to access what are essential items during their time in hospital can do so. Being in a hospital as a patient or when accompanying a patient is generally a very stressful and anxious time. The provision of such products will hopefully alleviate some of the embarrassment or discomfort of being in a hospital without having adequate protection.

The Committee recognises that the provision of free period products on that scale may present logistical challenges and add financial pressures to already stretched budgets for each of the trusts. The Department advised the Committee of estimated costs of between £200,000 and £300,000 a trust a year, which equates to between £1 million and £1·5 million annually in total. The Department also advised the Committee that no additional funding was available for compliance with the regulations and that the trusts would need to fund the costs from within existing budgets as part of normal operational costs. The Committee notes that the Department will have a better understanding of demand and the cost of operation. It looks forward to receiving an update on the actual cost of delivery when the figures become available.

It would be remiss of me not to point out the Committee's disappointment at how long it has taken to progress the regulations. Despite its best efforts to elicit from the Department the information that the Committee needed in order to understand the impact and implications of the regulations, it took five months before it was provided with that information, including an estimate of the costs and the operational date. The Committee understands that it has been difficult for the Department to provide some of the information that we requested, as the primary responsibility for delivery lies with the trusts. The Committee would, however, not be undertaking its proper scrutiny role were it not to persist in seeking the clarity that it required.

The Health Committee is committed to working in cooperation with the Department. I therefore ask the Minister that his officials support us in progressing future legislation by providing the full information that the Committee requires in a timely way.

In conclusion, the Health Committee looks forward to the regulations' implementation, as we view them as being an important measure for addressing issues to do with period dignity and period poverty. I am happy to confirm that the Health Committee agreed to recommend that the draft Period Products (Department of Health
Specified Public Service Bodies) Regulations be approved and made by the Assembly.

Mrs Dodds: I will briefly put on record my party's support for this move. Reducing period poverty is hugely important in our society. It is important that women and girls not be excluded, either from the workplace — in this case, healthcare workplaces — or from treatment as a result of period poverty. I therefore look forward to the effective implementation of the regulations. I am glad to hear, as the Health Minister pointed out, that the Northern Ireland Ambulance Service, although not named in the regulations, will also undertake to provide free period products.

I note that, as yet, there has been only a best estimate of how much this will cost. I appeal to the Health Minister that, as soon as the figures become available, we be made aware of the cost of implementing the regulations. This is a good move forward, however. It is good for women and girls, and it is important that our society reflects that.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: I call the Minister, Mike Nesbitt, to wind up the debate.

Mr Nesbitt: Principal Deputy Speaker, thank you very much. I thank the Chair of the Committee and Diane Dodds. I assure Mrs Dodds that, once the figures have been firmed up, they will, of course, be made available to the Committee. I also thank the Business Committee for scheduling the debate. I see no reason to delay the House any longer, so I will finish simply by commending the motion to approve the regulations to the House.

Mr Butler (The Chairperson of the Committee for Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs): I beg to move

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: The Business Committee has agreed that there will be no time limit on the debate. I call on you, Robbie, as Chair, to open the debate.

Mr Butler: Thank you, Principal Deputy Speaker. On behalf of the AERA Committee, I request an extension to the Committee Stage of the Agriculture Bill to 23 May 2025. The motion was agreed after discussions in Committee on 12 December 2024. The Committee first heard of the proposed content of the Bill on 20 June, when officials briefed us on the outcome of the consultation that ran from 3 April to 27 May. We were informed that the Bill would have a narrow focus on directly amending assimilated law governing the legacy EU fruit and vegetables aid scheme (FVAS) and provide scope for DAERA to further amend the legislation that covers that scheme and another legacy EU scheme for agri-food information and promotion. At that meeting, we also heard from a mushroom producer organisation and Commercial Mushroom Growers UK, which highlighted the benefits of the current FVAS as it gives certainty for long-term planning.

Even at that early stage, the Committee recognised that, although a short Bill had been proposed, there would be considerable scrutiny to do. The Department's consultation had limited responses and revealed mixed views on the proposal that FVAS support would become discretionary. However, there was support for the need for DAERA to have a power to provide for the development of policy.

The Bill was not introduced until 25 November 2024, and Committee Stage commenced on 4 December. We started our scrutiny on 12 December with a briefing from the agri-food legislation branch. Officials then confirmed that the Bill amends the legislation governing FVAS to make support under that legislation discretionary, that it confers the power to make modifications to that legislation and that it provides a power to modify the legislation governing promotional schemes for agricultural products.

The Committee heard from the Research and Information Service (RaISe) on 16 January, which was last week, with a briefing on the RaISe Agriculture Bill research paper. RaISe highlighted a number of pertinent queries and issues that the Committee will want to pursue in detail with external witnesses and departmental officials. Those include the specific impact on the mushroom sector and the fact that the Bill was introduced before the completion of reviews into post-EU agriculture support. At this stage, the Committee has a live Citizen Space survey, which will not close until mid-February, and is inviting around 14 organisations from the mushroom, fruit and veg and environmental sectors to give evidence.

The Committee wishes to give the focused issues and wider impact of the Bill due diligence and scrutiny while keeping its important scrutiny of statutory rules, common frameworks and agriculture, environment and fishing policy moving forward. The Committee is also aware of the need to provide sufficient time for deliberations and to allow time for the potential overlapping of a second Bill in the not-too-distant future.

The Committee wishes to scrutinise making the FVAS discretionary. In budget-constrained times, we have all had experience of discretionary spend being what is described as "low-hanging fruit". We also wish to scrutinise the enabling power to amend the legislation to align with future farming policy and post-EU exit policy, which are still under the development of our Minister. We know that those powers would allow for Northern Ireland-specific schemes, but we see much broader sectoral producer organisation coverage in England and Scotland, and there is work to be done to understand why we have not had that uptake here in Northern Ireland. We know that one of the considerations was to include the proposals in this Bill in a broader agriculture Bill, so we wish to hear views on whether we are putting the cart before the horse and whether it is valid to do so in advance of a wider Bill in the manner that is proposed in this Bill.

In conclusion, having consulted the Bill Office and considered the evidence that we wish to take and our ongoing work, the Committee is seeking the support of the House to extend the Committee Stage of the Agriculture Bill to 23 May 2025, albeit the Committee will endeavour to report in advance of that date if at all possible.

Mr McAleer: The Agriculture Bill is a pivotal piece of legislation, with significant implications for the agriculture and horticulture sectors. Given its importance, I support an extension of the Committee Stage to allow for more comprehensive scrutiny of its provisions. The Bill grants DAERA rights to modify, amend, repeal or revoke regulations, particularly those concerning the fruit and vegetable aid scheme and food promotion activities. Those are crucial for the future of our agri-food sector, rural economy and alignment with broader policy frameworks. A research paper recently presented to the AERA Committee, which the Chair mentioned, highlights concerns about advancing the Bill before completing reviews of post-EU agriculture support and food promotion schemes, both of which remain ongoing as part of the food strategy framework. The paper also raises questions about the potential for the Bill to constrain future policy decisions and notes a lack of clarity around DAERA's long-term plans for horticulture support.

Clause 1 makes funding for the FVAS discretionary. That would have significant implications. The research paper warns that that could effectively lead to the closure of the scheme, creating uncertainty for the horticulture sector, especially the mushroom industry. Although the Minister has given his assurance that it will not be closed, the Bill gives no guarantees for continuation or replacement, so, effectively, it is not future-proofing it. The absence of an impact assessment on how those changes might affect the mushroom industry is another gap. Additionally, the budget pressures that are faced by DAERA, which have been made worse by Tory austerity, raise questions about whether discretionary funding will realistically support critical schemes such as the FVAS. The research paper highlights the fact that those constraints could lead to reduced or withdrawn support as other statutory obligations are prioritised. The accompanying rural needs impact assessment asserts that the Bill will have no direct impact on rural communities, but the research paper challenges that conclusion, warning that the changes to the FVAS or food promotion schemes could have economic consequences for rural businesses. A lack of further regulatory scrutiny for discretionary funding decisions heightens those concerns.

Extending the Committee Stage is essential. It will allow members to consider the issues more thoroughly, engage with stakeholders and ensure that the Bill aligns with the long-term aims of our agriculture strategy. More time will enable us to address gaps in the Bill and deliver legislation that is robust, transparent and fair. The Assembly has a duty to support our agriculture sector, a cornerstone of our economy. By granting more time for scrutiny, we can strengthen the Bill to meet today's challenges and prepare for the future.

Mr Muir (The Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs): I will speak briefly, and I do not oppose the motion. I fully understand the pressures on the Committee and its many competing priorities, but I would like to impress upon its members the need to have the Committee's consideration completed at the earliest opportunity. It is important that I put that on the record. An extension to 23 May will put at risk the Bill's completing all its stages before summer recess. As I have articulated previously, if the Bill has not received Royal Assent before the summer, it will have an impact on my ability to decide on DAERA's funding priorities for the next three years. Furthermore, the earlier that the Bill is enacted, the more scope that there will be to amend the scheme rules by subordinate legislation, including, possibly, to begin to address some of the issues that have been raised by stakeholders, should the scheme be rolled forward to next year.

It is my understanding that discussion surrounding the request for an extension at the Committee meeting of 12 December recognised that pressure and that an ambition was stated to have the Committee Stage completed before Easter recess. I do not wish to undermine or suggest limiting the Committee's important scrutiny of the Bill, which I fully acknowledge and accept. I am aware that other pressing issues are coming before the Committee in its forward work programme. As I said at the Bill's Second Stage, I and my officials look forward to working closely with the Committee as it undertakes its important role, but I ask that the Committee seeks, to the fullest extent possible, to expedite the scrutiny of the Bill, which I know that it will.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Minister. Back to Robbie Butler to conclude and wind up on the motion.

Mr Butler: Thank you, Principal Deputy Speaker. The winding-up speech will be just like me — short. I thank the Deputy Chair and the Minister for his response. To pick up on a point that he raised: the Committee will absolutely give a commitment that if we can come to a position on the Bill in the shortest time possible, we will, but it would be remiss of us not to offer it the highest levels of scrutiny. Although the Committee absolutely had an interest in the Bill, certain parts of last week's RaISe presentation piqued its interest even more, and those are worthy of further development. The relationship between the Minister and the Committee so far has been good and constructive, and I hope that we can maintain that during the passage of the Bill. Thank you.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Members, please take your ease.

Mr Beattie: I beg to move

Mr Speaker: The Business Committee has agreed to allow up to one hour and 30 minutes for the debate. The proposer of the motion will have 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 debate. Please open the debate on the motion.

Mr Beattie: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Some will think that this is an unnecessary or contentious debate, but the reality is that the conversation on the matter is happening right across our society. Therefore, it is important that we, as legislators, debate the issue and lay out our position. I hope that the debate can be both robust and respectful while being mindful of the fact that we are talking about lived experiences right across Northern Ireland. The motion falls into three main areas, which I will cover during my contribution.

First, it is important that we commit to providing support for minority communities right across Northern Ireland, including, for example, the Travelling community, the disabled, the elderly, the vulnerable and the LGBTQ+ communities, particularly in health, education, dealing with bullying and mental health. To vote to leave out any one of those groups is not in keeping with the inclusive Union that I aspire to. Therefore, I will not support the amendment.

Secondly, the motion talks about "societal rights". There is a saying that goes, "The right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins." What does that mean? It means that, at times, rights can be conflicting and that there is no automatic hierarchy in delivering what is best for the majority of people here in Northern Ireland or anywhere else. At times, there are genuine conflicts in rights, which are laid out in the Equality Act 2010. Over the past number of years, many women have felt that their rights have been undermined. Those issues can be best seen in spaces, sport and language. Do women deserve their own spaces, such as changing rooms, toilets, women-only groups, crisis centres, medical facilities, including hospital wards, and holding facilities, such as prisons? I believe that they do, and if you believe that they do, you should support the motion. Under normal circumstances, women should expect to be searched by women with only women present during said search.

Sport — not just elite sport but grassroots sport — is another area where women believe that the present system is against them. Transgender women, who are biologically male, have a physiological advantage over women. It is not fair. It should not be allowed. Sporting organisations should ensure that they do not allow it to happen. Imagine that you are a young woman now starting out in sport and wanting to reach the highest levels but, every time, being ignored or not selected due to the presence of a transgender woman who is bigger or stronger.

Asking for a separation of rights between women and transgender women is not an unusual position. The Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) outlines in its guide to single-sex service providers why it could and, I believe, should be the case for reasons of privacy or decency, to prevent trauma or to ensure health and safety.

Lastly, the changing of language associated with women needs to stop. It is not "chest feeding"; it is "breastfeeding". It is not a "birthing person" but a "pregnant woman". It is not a "frontal birth"; it is a "vaginal birth". It is not "cis women"; it is just "women". Of course —.

Ms Nicholl: Will the Member give way?

Mr Beattie: I will not give way until I get through my speech, sorry. If I find time at the end, I will give way.

Of course, the trans community exists. We must look to see how we can cater to, help and support that community. However, that should not be to the detriment of over 51% of the population in Northern Ireland, who are biological females.

I suppose that, at this point, we must define what a woman is, because that is at the heart of the issue. A woman is an adult female or, as 'The Law Dictionary' puts it:

If Members have a different definition, they can lay it out today.

That brings us to the last point: where do we house biological males and females who identify as transgender if they are handed a custodial sentence? 'The United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners', known as the "Nelson Mandela rules", state:

Again, there is no legal policy on the issue. There are guidance notes, but they can be undermined by the courts; indeed, that is what happened in the most recent case, where a transgender woman who had been housed in Maghaberry was moved to Hydebank Wood following a court judgement.

Mrs Long (The Minister of Justice): Will the Member give way?

Mr Beattie: I will not.

Why was the person moved? According to the Justice Minister on 21 December 2024:

and

It is a mess. There needs to be proper policy from the Minister to give legal guidance to our judiciary, Police Service and Public Prosecution Service (PPS). The argument that all transgender detainees are given a risk assessment before committal is fair enough, but every individual who is committed receives a risk assessment. It is normal practice. A risk assessment is normally done by the prison staff and, where needed, by prison health professionals from the South Eastern Health and Social Care Trust. It is normal. It happens quickly.

The argument that Hydebank is a fully mixed male and female prison just does not add up. Yes, males and females undertake education, training or work detail together, but that is closely supervised by the Prison Service. However, living support and accommodation are completely segregated. Women are housed only with other women. Two of the landings have an open-door policy. On one of the landings, the doors are open 24 hours a day, with the inmates holding the keys. On another landing, the doors are open until 2200 hours each evening. Putting a biological male in that environment is, in my opinion, wrong and contrary to the Nelson Mandela rules. Nobody is saying that all transgender women are predatory, but, again, the very presence of a male in a space designed for women creates problems and, possibly, anxiety and stress for the women housed there. At no stage are those women consulted before a biological male is placed in their midst.

Where does the confusion come from? In part, it is about our Justice Department failing to grasp the issues and continuing to send out mixed messaging. 'Supporting Change: A strategy for women and girls in or at risk of contact with the criminal justice system' states:

Under the Equality Act 2010, sex is a protected characteristic, as is gender reassignment: another conflict. The Act defines a man as "a male of any age" and a woman as "a female of any age", but it provides the ability to distinguish in service provision.

Many will cite the gender recognition certificate (GRC) as a reason for transgender females and males to be housed in a male or female holding facility in accordance with how they identify, but nowhere in the GRC is gender-affirming surgery expected. Put simply, a transgender woman who still has male genitalia could be housed in a women's prison. That could be in the most open part of the prison and cells.

I do not pretend to speak for all women. Nobody in the Chamber speaks for all women. Nevertheless, we can put in measures to deal with the issue, possibly including the repurposing of Murray House at Hydebank to house biological females who identify as transgender men, with something similar at Maghaberry and Magilligan for biological men who identify as female. However, intrinsically, I believe that biological males should be housed in a male prison and biological females should be housed in a female prison.

Mr Gaston: I beg to move the following amendment:

Mr Speaker: You will have 10 minutes to propose and five minutes to make a winding-up speech. All other Members who speak will have five minutes.

Mr Gaston: Before the debate, I, of course, studied the Prison Service guidance. I believe that the author of that guidance, while not agreeing with me on much, would agree that the opening words should be removed from the motion. I say that because the guidance states at paragraph 4:

In the same paragraph, I read:

The core aim of my amendment is to place the focus where it needs to be: on the fact that what we should be addressing today is the rights of women. I see no reason to have to preface a motion before the House that deals with a women's rights issue with material committing our support to other communities, particularly when the policy paper that we are discussing says what I have quoted.

While it is interesting to think about what is in the document, it is enlightening to think about what is not in it: the words "woman" or "women" or "girl" and "girls" appear nowhere in it. Today, we rectify that. Today, we give voice to a section of society who, in the race to supposedly embrace a more inclusive future where we must respect —

Ms Egan: Will the Member give way?

Mr Gaston: — every identity, are having their identity erased, so much so that officialdom cannot even define them: women.

I will move on. Later, I will give you the opportunity to come in.

The right of women to have their own space in the penal system had to be fought for and won. One of the most celebrated champions of female rights in the late 18th and early 19th century was the prison reformer Elizabeth Fry. At a time when women were denied the right to vote, Elizabeth Fry led a national movement demanding change. On 27 February 1818, she became the first woman to give evidence to a Select Committee of the House of Commons. Five years later, her campaigning bore fruit in the form of the Gaols Act 1823. The Act marked the beginning of government efforts to impose general standards in prisons across the whole country. Let me quote one short extract from the Act:

The world has moved on in many ways from 1823, and much of that has been progress. The inability of some today to say that a male is and always will be different from a female is not part of that progress.

Until 2017, Elizabeth Fry's reforms were recognised as so significant that she was deemed worthy of being depicted on Bank of England £5 notes. Who would have thought that, less than a decade after her face disappeared from the notes in our wallets, the battle that she won would have to be fought all over again? It is incredible that the reforms won by Elizabeth Fry against incredible odds at a time when women were excluded from the democratic process are being disregarded by the Prison Service today because of the unscientific, silly and, frankly, dangerous idea, which is blindly accepted in the guidance, that:

Would anyone in the Assembly who is prepared to defend that guidance and argue that it is sound like to tell me how many gender identities there are? Before you do, consider that that question is materially relevant to how the guidance operates. In paragraph 7, we read:

Regina Doherty, when she was leader of Fine Gael in the Seanad, said:

In June 2022, 'The Daily Telegraph' ran a report about an email sent to BBC staff by Global Butterflies, a transgender group that the BBC had drafted in to do training sessions and that, no doubt, was handsomely reimbursed with licence fee payers' money. What did Global Butterflies say? It stated:

How many genders are there, Minister Long? Are there two? Are there about nine? Are there over 150? It would be interesting if you could give us your position today. If you do not know or refuse to say, how is the guidance fit for purpose? If you accept the ideology that resulted in that guidance being produced, how can you ever say that the panel is, to use the Prison Service's own words, "gender balanced"?

This nonsense — I make no apologies for using the term — will always collapse under the weight of its own contradictions. If it were only laughable nonsense, it would not be so serious, but it is serious, Members. Why did Elizabeth Fry champion single-sex prisons? It is because, before she won that victory, women in the prison system were at risk of sexual and physical abuse from men. Now, the Minister will point to paragraph 7, which states that the Northern Ireland Prison Service:

Minister, the risks were identified by Elizabeth Fry. Any rowing back on what she achieved will result in the return of a risk to female prisoners.

We do not need panels concerning individual prisoners, convened at public expense, that are, by the definition of the terms they are set up under, inoperable. We need a bit of common sense: men should be detained in male facilities with male staff, and women should be detained in female facilities with female staff.

In September last year, when I raised the issue with the First Minister, I got a dismissive and condescending response that did not address the issue. Whatever the Minister of Justice says about it, the fact remains that in December, as reported by the BBC, a man won a High Court case to be transferred from Maghaberry prison to Hydebank Wood. In January last year, the case of Adam Binnie Bryson, a convicted double rapist, who was held at a women's prison in Scotland —

Mrs Long: On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

Mr Gaston: — caused outrage, as he had been convicted of a crime —.

Mr Speaker: Take your seat, Mr Gaston. There is a point of order.

Mrs Long: Mr Speaker, you will recall that, at Question Time last week, I set the record straight about the court case to which the Member and the former leader of the Ulster Unionist Party have referred. There was no ruling against the courts in that case. Can we get that on the record? Perhaps Members will stop misrepresenting the factual position.

Mr Speaker: The Minister has put that on the record, and I am sure that she will clarify matters when she has her opportunity to speak.

Mr Gaston: As I was saying, in January last year, the case of Adam Binnie Bryson, a convicted double rapist who was held at a women's prison in Scotland, caused outrage as he had been convicted of a crime that no woman could commit. Since then, a review has been conducted, which means that transgender prisoners are initially accommodated according to their sex at birth while an assessment is carried out into whether it is more appropriate to house them in a men's prison or a women's prison. The case also prompted action in England and Wales, with regulations being introduced in February 2023 to ban transgender women from being sent to women's prisons if their male genitalia are intact or they are sex offenders

The Assembly has an opportunity today to take a stand for common sense, to honour the memory of a trailblazer in the campaign for equality for women and, most importantly, to protect vulnerable women from the risk of abuse. I ask Members to support my amendment.

Miss Hargey: The Ulster Unionist motion seeks to oversimplify a complex and sensitive issue. Instead of having concern for the vulnerability of people in custody, the motion seeks to use their vulnerability to play politics. The amendment from the TUV seeks to remove a broad expression of support for the LGBTQI+ community and other minority communities, which is yet another reminder of that party's disdain for the LGBTQI+ people in our society.

We believe that the safety of everyone in prisons, including trans prisoners, should be the priority consideration when managing prison populations. That includes the safety of the prison population as a whole, those who work in prisons and the offenders whose admission to prison is being considered. Indeed, we submitted an amendment to the motion, which set out that the safety of everyone must be the main priority. Unfortunately, our amendment was not accepted.

We support a risk-based approach that prioritises the safety of everyone within prisons. That, of course, should include consideration of an offender's record. A situation where an individual has been convicted for the non-payment of a fine is very different to one where an individual has been convicted for violent offences. We are clear that those with a history of sexual violence against women should not be placed in a women's prison. We want a risk-based approach that prioritises the safety of everyone in prisons and considers the admission of transgender prisoners on a case-by-case basis.

Ms Bunting: I am grateful to colleagues for tabling the motion, which is on one of the most serious issues that women may face.

All prisoners — indeed, everybody within and without the justice system — should, of course, be treated with courtesy, dignity and respect. However, in many aspects of life, women's rights and safe spaces are being eroded. That is a very serious issue of great concern to the public, and we must set down a marker and have clear guidance and policies. Some would seek to accommodate the wishes of a very small percentage of society at the expense of half the population. We must decide whether we will protect the rights of 50% of society, or sacrifice their rights and safety for the sake of a minority of men who want to be women or regard themselves as such.

The DUP will continue to advocate for the preservation of women-only spaces, including in our prisons, as a matter of principle and justice. Safety and safeguarding must come first. Allowing biological males to reside among the female prisoner population risks undermining those protections and could have serious consequences for the safety and dignity of women.

As I highlighted in the Chamber just last week:

To avoid a rerun of other Members inferring from that something that I did not imply last week, let me be explicit: I am not equating transgenders to predators. Rather, I am saying that sexual predators will exploit self-ID. Those who present a serious risk and threat to women will absolutely seek to exploit self-identification, and any loophole that they can find, for their own sinister ends. It is only a matter of time. They will claim to identify as women specifically for the purpose of being put in confinement with women, either to prey on them or to have what they envisage as an easier time in a women's jail. It has already happened in other parts of the UK, so why would we think that we in Northern Ireland would be exempt? We must take steps to ensure that women are not prey. Of the 245 transgender prisoners in England and Wales who, as of 31 March 2024, reported their legal birth gender as male, 151 had been convicted of a sexual offence. We have therefore already seen, and should have learnt from, cases in England and Wales in which those convicted of rape and other sexually violent crimes self-identified as women and were placed in female prisons, to the severe detriment of biological female inmates, some of whom ended up being sexually assaulted as a consequence. That is so wrong. There was a subsequent public outcry, and, rightly, those woke policies and placements had to be reversed. I remain to be convinced that there can be any circumstances in which biological males should be able to serve their sentence in female prisons. Even the disparity in physical strength presents a difficulty.

Last week, the Minister kept her focus on the rights of transgender females. I, too, wish them to be treated with dignity and for them to be kept safe, as I wish for all prisoners, but I suggest that the Minister should also give due consideration to the rights and safety of adult human females and be very careful about self-identification. The Minister has been keen to rubbish recent reporting of the court ruling that touched on those issues, yet we have not had sight of the instructions that she had indicated were issued to governors providing guidance on the management of transgender prisoners in August 2022. I will make no apology for standing up for biological women or for stating that, when men decide that they want to identify as women, it is always the hard-won rights of women that are depleted and their safety diminished and compromised.

Mrs Long: Will the Member give way?

Ms Bunting: I am worried about women. I will give way.

Mrs Long: Will the Member inform us of when she has asked to see the policy on the housing of transgender prisoners?

Mr Speaker: The Member has an extra minute.

Ms Bunting: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I have points to make, so I am not going to engage in pettiness.

Mrs Long: She has never asked.

Ms Bunting: It is a serious issue.

Mrs Long: It is.

Ms Bunting: Ironically, when the Executive are focused on tackling violence against women and girls, consideration is still being given, on a case-by-case basis, to allowing biological males into what should be a safe space for women, and, worse still, that is being done in the full knowledge of the numbers of vulnerable female inmates who have been abused and, as a result, are traumatised and suffering from mental ill health and anxiety. Prison is already a daunting place, even in a single-sex environment. There may be some in the Chamber who are unable, or unwilling, to define what a woman is. We are very clear, and it does not involve having male genitalia.

Ultimately, the welfare of women in custody must be safeguarded, particularly given the vulnerability of some of the women who are in prison. The very rationale for the establishment of women-only prisons was so that the specific needs of female inmates, some of whom will have experienced trauma or abuse, were met. That is another less-debated issue on the safety of women and girls, and we need to be able to have serious conversations about it and its implications. It remains abundantly clear to me that adult biological males should not be permitted into any women's safe spaces: not sports, not toilets, not changing rooms, not shower cubicles and certainly not prisons. We must take a stand and make a choice to protect women and girls, as we have pledged to do.

Ms Egan: I stand to speak on the extremely important topic of protecting the rights, dignity and safety of those in custodial facilities. My party and I wholeheartedly believe that we must do everything that we can to ensure that the societal rights of those in prisons or holding facilities are upheld while their liberty is taken away. Decisions and judgements must be made in the context of individuals' needs and risks. That is best done on a case-by-case basis, and that is why we will vote against the motion.

We do not need to attack the rights or diminish the well-being of others, particularly those who are vulnerable or who belong to marginalised communities, to secure our own safety. For us to build a justice system that truly works, respect for the dignity of everyone involved must be at its core. It is imperative that we meet the needs of those who are in custodial facilities and give our full support to those in the Northern Ireland Prison Service. They are met with challenges every day yet they still execute their responsibilities and meet their duty of care for those who are held there. Their priority is the safety of everyone involved, and the calls that they make are informed by the advice of the South Eastern Health and Social Care Trust and, very importantly, the Equality Commission: true expertise that has curated the approach that we have today, something that the motion ignores.

If we were to apply the blanket approach that the motion and the amendment suggest, we would not be fulfilling our responsibilities as a legislative Assembly to safeguard the well-being of those who are held in custodial facilities. There is nuance, individualism and context in every person who comes into contact with our criminal justice system, and it is imperative that we trust the judiciary, police and prison officers to recognise and respond to that.

The current approach allows for the needs and risks of each inmate to be assessed on a case-by-case basis and for that inmate to be accommodated through how they access services in the prison. That guidance was implemented by the Prison Service in 2022, and it aligns with international best practice, including that from the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime. It sincerely concerns me that any party that is represented in the Chamber could believe that there is a one-size-fits-all approach to our justice system and Prison Service. We are all different, and we all need different things. We should not make our approach to this issue any different. A blanket rule that does not have best practice at its heart is one of the dangers that is being discussed today. We have all been contacted by women's organisations, such as HERe NI and the Women's Resource and Development Agency (WRDA), which have asked us to oppose the motion. I will do so.

Mr O'Toole: I will speak briefly on the motion and the amendment. When we discuss contentious issues that are subject to some controversy, as this issue clearly is — it would be odd not to acknowledge the fact that it has been the subject of significant public debate in recent years — it is important that we speak with honesty, sincerity and sensitivity. That goes for people who are trans, regardless of whether they find themselves in the custodial prison estate. It is important to note that, in Northern Ireland, transgender prisoners represent a tiny number of people. I do not know the exact number, but I think that it is in low single figures. For the best part of a decade, there was not a single individual. It also goes for women, who are entitled to an honest discussion about single-sex spaces, risk assessments in relation to the prison estate and other issues. The motion is specifically about the custodial context. Some remarks have strayed into other connected issues, because Members touched on the rights and expectations of trans people, but the motion is specifically about the prison estate, so I will limit my remarks to that and let others make comments about other issues.

First, the most important thing is to say that, in such issues, the primary motivation should be the safety of all those in the prison estate. When a court finds you guilty of an offence and a judge has sentenced you, you are deprived of your liberty for a set period of time. When you enter the prison estate, there is a process by which you are risk-assessed. If and when you leave the prison estate on licence, you will be managed by the Probation Board. Those are criminal justice professionals whose job is to make decisions on risk. Risks assessments are made in conjunction with the health service. Nothing should get in the way of the primary motivating purpose, which is the safety of all those in the prison estate. That should be the overriding concern.

One of my concerns with the text of the motion and, indeed, the amendment is that there are obvious potential unintended consequences. I will set them out. The motion says:

By "biological males" — I do not dispute the use of the term — Mr Beattie, I think, means "natal males": people who live as women but who were male at birth. A plain reading of the text is that, even if a person had, for example, received testosterone for decades, presented as a man and was living as a man — they could be a large, bulky individual and could even have been convicted of a violent crime — they would have to go into the female prison estate. Likewise, trans man would have to go into the female prison estate. There are clear unintended consequences that would not just present risks to the safety of other prisoners or, indeed, trans prisoners but place additional resource and management burdens on the Prison Service. The motion and the amendment would have very severe potential unintended consequences were they to represent a blanket policy.

I have no difficulty having these debates, but if we are going to table such motions in the Assembly, we should carefully think through the consequences of them. I have no difficulty talking about the importance of, in particular, female safety in the prison estate. I am also very clear on the need to talk about trans issues in a respectful and inclusive way. A very high proportion of trans people have been vulnerable in their lives and live pretty difficult lives, so, for example, simply shoving them into parts of the prison estate, particularly when they pose no discernible risk to anybody, would be a risk. As I said, I have no difficulty talking about safety in the prison estate, but we need to judge the issues on a case-by-case basis, with the absolute priority, whatever about questions of gender, being safety. It needs to be looked at on a case-by-case basis.

I do not think that the motion or the amendment today are as nuanced as the debate requires. If we are going to have such debates, we need to have them in full knowledge of the potential unintended consequences. As I said, a plain reading of the motion and the amendment is that they do not really deal with the issues that are here. If there is going to be guidance from the Department, it clearly needs to take into account all those factors. I am afraid that neither the motion nor the amendment does that.

Mr Bradley: Today's debate demands compassion and common sense. It is about ensuring the rights and safety of all individuals in prison while protecting the dignity and security of women. Personally speaking, I do not like labels. I do not assign labels to anybody. Therefore, when I speak, I speak of all, not one particular section of the community or another. We all have rights, and we are here to defend those rights.

The motion highlights the need to support all minority communities and underscores an important principle: custodial facilities must safeguard the welfare of all inmates. Women's prisons exist to meet the unique needs of female inmates, many of whom have suffered trauma or abuse. Allowing biological males, particularly those with violent or sexual offences convictions against women, into those spaces undermines those protections.

The Department of Justice claims to manage transgender prisoners on a case-by-case basis, yet we lack clarity on how decisions are made or whether sufficient protections exist. Other jurisdictions have stricter policies. In England and Wales, transgender individuals with male genitalia or violent offenders are generally not housed in women's prisons. In Scotland, risk assessments prevent individuals with histories of violence against women from entering women's facilities. Does Northern Ireland provide similar safeguards? I do not know. Are provisions in place for transgender individuals who cannot be safely accommodated in either male or female estates? We do not know. That lack of transparency is unacceptable. We must embed a presumption that biological males convicted of violent or sexual offences should not be placed in women's prisons. Exceptions should only —.

Mrs Long: Will the Member give way?

Mr Bradley: I am nearly finished.

Exceptions should only occur following rigorous risk assessments by multidisciplinary panels and ministerial approval. That approach respects individual circumstances while prioritising safety. It is not about denying rights but ensuring justice and protection for all. Women in custody must feel secure, and our policies must reflect that. Let us act decisively to safeguard those principles. If a panel decides to send a male to a female prison and it goes wrong, should that panel not be liable for prosecution for making a wrong decision?

Ms Bradshaw: I oppose the motion. I am, sadly, as disappointed as I am outraged by the gross insensitivity and playing to the audience by the proposers of the motion who, as individuals and as a party, are playing a very dangerous game with some of the most vulnerable people to have been committed to the care of our Prison Service.

Given the size and nature of the prison population in Northern Ireland, the motion and the solutions that it proposes are not only overly simplistic but could create severe risk and cause greater harm. The Assembly has a duty to ensure the safety and dignity of everyone in Northern Ireland, whether they are in wider society or in our prison system. Sadly, and to the disgrace of those who advocate it, the motion seeks to undermine that duty by supporting an approach that fails to address the complexities and sensitivities of the issue and, indeed, jeopardises the very safety that it seeks to protect.

Let me be clear: my party has always proudly championed the rights of and protections for LGBTQ individuals, women and other minority groups in Northern Ireland. That commitment is reflected in the policies that we, as a political party, develop and the work that we do every day. The motion takes us not only in the wrong direction but in a very dangerous one. A rigid ideological policy that segregates prisoners solely based on biological sex does not account for the nuances or the realities of often challenging custodial environments. Instead, it risks creating greater vulnerabilities and undermining safety for all.

The Northern Ireland Prison Service already employs a case-by-case approach to determining where and, indeed, how prisoners are housed. That system relies on thorough and well-tested risk assessments and professional advice, including input from South Eastern Health and Social Care Trust staff, in order to make decisions with safety as the top priority. Such a people-centred and evidence-based approach is essential in managing the complex risks that are in custodial settings. By contrast, imposing a blanket rule would strip professionals, who are, in my opinion, the people best placed to deliver them, of the flexibilities that they need to address those challenges effectively and responsibly and to care for some of the most vulnerable people in our prison system.

Prisons are inherently difficult and, at times, dangerous environments, and managing risks in such settings requires expertise and informed judgement. Professional assessments ensure that decisions are tailored to individual circumstances, recognising that no two cases are identical. A one-size-fits-all policy, as proposed in the motion, would tie the hands of those who are best placed to safeguard prisoners and staff. It is not only impractical but counterproductive and, frankly, cruel.

It is important to emphasise that opposing the motion does not mean dismissing concerns about safety in prisons. On the contrary; I wish to demonstrate my party's commitment to addressing those real concerns in a way that prioritises fairness, respect and the protection of everyone who is involved. The current case-by-case risk assessment approach offers the best framework for balancing safety and dignity. It allows professionals to weigh individual risks and to make decisions that are based on evidence and not arbitrary rules. We should be proud that our Prison Service meets best international standards in that risk assessment model.

In closing, I implore the Assembly not to be drawn into divisive rhetoric or simplistic solutions that fail to address the underlying complexities of our justice and prison systems. We must focus on fostering a compassionate, practical and fair approach that supports the rights and safety of all individuals. By rejecting the motion, we reaffirm our commitment to a justice system and a Prison Service that protect the vulnerable, empower professionals and ensure equitable treatment for everyone who is in custody. For those reasons, I urge Members to oppose the motion and the amendment.

Mr Dunne: I welcome the opportunity to speak on the motion, which seeks to balance the rights, dignity and safety of all individuals across Northern Ireland. We must continue to advocate for the preservation of safe and accessible women-only spaces, including in prisons, as a matter of fairness and equality. Safeguarding and protection must come first. The need for safe spaces extends widely across our society and, indeed, beyond our prisons and custodial facilities. It includes places such as changing rooms, toilets and sports pitches, to name but a few. Over recent years, we have seen a growing need for clarity and certainty when dealing with such a sensitive issue.

The proposer of the motion mentioned sports and some of the issues around that. It was interesting to note recent comments from Lord Coe, World Athletics president, when he said on the issue of trans policy in sports, as an example —.

Mrs Long: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. This is the second time in the debate that we are discussing athletics and sport. With all due respect, I am the least qualified person to answer questions in that regard. Is it not a general rule of thumb that when we are engaging in debate in the Chamber, it should be on the body of the motion and not wandering off into other areas?

Mr Speaker: Essentially, it is for whoever is in the Chair to decide whether it is within the scope of the debate. We are talking, in the main, about prisons, but we are also talking about people who identify as trans females or trans males. Therefore, what the Member is raising is within the context of the motion.

Mr Dunne: Thank you, Mr Speaker, for that, and I will continue. The Minister will have her time later, I am sure. I know that she is keen to get involved in the debate, as we have already heard.

What I was saying gives a bit of context and shows that the issue does not relate solely to our Prison Service. As an example, Lord Coe said about sports:

That gives some context to the scale of the issue and its importance across so many sectors of society. It is not related to solely the Northern Ireland Prison Service.

We have seen changes in recent years to promote fairness and equity across genders. There is no doubt that permitting biological males to reside among a female prisoner population carries risks that would undermine protections and could have serious consequences for the safety and dignity of women. An article in 'The Telegraph' last year stated that more than 70% of transgender prisoners in UK mainland jails were serving sentences for sex offences and violent crimes. That highlights the significance of the issue. As others have said, the welfare of everyone in custody must be paramount. We pay tribute to the dedicated staff in our Prison Service who deal with complex issues daily.

The very basis, as has been mentioned, for the creation of women-only facilities, including in prisons, was that their specific needs could be best catered for. Unfortunately, many will have experienced trauma or abuse. We need to look at the evidence from across the globe, including the UK. In March 2023, former Taoiseach Leo Varadkar said that Ireland may have to consider changing the law so that "women are protected". That links in with harrowing and horrific examples that we have seen in other parts of the UK, including in Scotland recently.

In the Chamber last week, we rightly spent several hours in collective agreement on the need to protect women and girls. I believed that we had reached a consensus that the rights and safety of women must always remain paramount. The motion and the amendment reflect a commitment to safeguarding women's spaces and rights in a manner that is consistent with fairness and equality.

The motion raises an issue of profound importance in the justice system. When individuals are placed in custody, they are already in a vulnerable position. Many women and girls who come into contact with the justice system are vulnerable and have a range of complex and sensitive needs, often as a result of physical, sexual or domestic trauma or abuse. It is imperative that the system responsible for their care make every effort not to add to that vulnerability, particularly of those who may already feel unsafe.

I believe that allowing biological males among such prisoners carries risks and could undermine the protections for the dignity and safety of all prisoners in our custodial facilities; indeed, the recent High Court case highlighted the difficulties with the current policy gap in regard to transgender people in custody.

As I said, we need clarity and certainty, and this space provides an opportunity for our Justice Minister to provide that clarity and a clear direction to ensure the protection of rights and safety in our custodial facilities.

Mr Carroll: I oppose the motion and the amendment.

The motion talks about providing "continuous support" for the LGBTQ+ community, whilst urging the Justice Minister to force trans women into male prisons and to force trans men into women's prisons. The denial of trans and non-binary identity in prisons is inhumane. How can that be described as "continuous support" for transgender and non-binary people? I challenge those who tabled the motion on their rationale for that. The proposer of the amendment tried to solve that contradiction by completely removing any commitment to support the LGBTQ+ community, and that is pretty telling in itself.

The so-called debate about trans prisoners is just another culture war fuelled by lies and fearmongering about a marginalised, oppressed community. If it were not so serious, it would be almost hilarious to hear people talk about women's rights when their parties oppose them every step of the way. Trans people are not a threat to other women or to anyone else. The fact is that none — I repeat: none — of the 24 women killed in the North in the past four years, which is a huge number, was murdered by trans people. They were killed by cisgender men. If you do not know what that means, go look it up. In fact, trans people are at a disproportionate risk of violence themselves. Transgender Europe reports that at least 350 trans and non-binary people across the world were murdered in the past year. Most of them were trans women — not a mention of them from the Members who tabled the motion and the amendment.

Frankly, the debate is a complete waste of time. When there is so much work to do on ending violence against women and girls, the time would be much better spent trying to prevent misogynistic violence from the earliest possible stages.

Ms Nicholl: I thank the Member for giving way and for being the first male Member to allow a female to intervene. There has been mention of women's rights being undermined: does the Member agree that the women's sector in Northern Ireland is entirely trans-inclusive and is opposed to the motion?

Mr Speaker: The Member has an extra minute.

Mr Carroll: I thank the Member for her important point. I note that. It is a positive, progressive thing, and I think that most of the women's rights organisations in the South are the same. That is a positive thing as well. I was going on to talk about groups such as HERe NI, the Women's Resource and Development Agency and the Rainbow Project, which, among others, are experts on women's rights and safety as well as the rights of LGBTQ people, and they all reject the blanket approach in the motion.

Transgender people, including prisoners, have the right to be treated with dignity and respect. That includes access to appropriate clothing and gender-affirming healthcare. Beyond the lack of access to basic rights and services in prison, the Westminster Women and Equalities Committee recognised "a clear risk of harm" to transgender prisoners who are placed in prisons that do not align with their gender identity. That harm includes — I emphasise this — sexual assault, harassment, discrimination and mistreatment. People should heed those words.

Given the evidence, is it in anyone's interest to force a transgender man into the female prison estate? Does anyone really think that it is wise for a transgender woman to be housed in the male prison estate where she is at high risk of experiencing physical or sexual assault and abuse? What is really motivating calls for trans people to be placed at active risk of harm? For the most part, I think, it is bigotry, misogyny and transphobia.

It is also worth remembering during the debate that we cannot end transphobia without tackling the over-incarceration of people, especially the locking up of so many people who have serious mental health issues. The carceral state itself is transphobic, misogynistic, racist and oppressive at its core, and, as long as it continues to exist, the criminal legal system will deny prisoners, including trans people, the rights and dignity that they deserve. Rather than locking people up in a violent prison system, we should tackle the root causes of crime: poverty, abuse and a lack of access to education, good jobs, housing and, crucially, mental health support. We should strive for a society in which everyone's basic needs are met. That includes the needs of women, trans people and non-binary people. The motion is completely contradictory, disrespects the rights of transgender prisoners and, if acted on, would put trans prisoners in danger. I oppose it, and anyone who cares about the dignity, rights and safety of all prisoners should fundamentally oppose it too.

Ms Sugden: I will not support the motion, because I am not content with its blanket wording. We need to allow room for individual circumstances. However, I am sympathetic to the practical consideration of biological sex; indeed, it is crucial to address the difference between sex and gender. It is a distinction that directly informs the motion and the wider conversation that we are having around gender identity. Biological sex refers to physical characteristics, while gender identity is deeply personal and is rooted in an individual's sense of self. Both are valid and deserve respect, but they carry different implications in settings such as prisons, where physical realities and vulnerabilities must be prioritised to ensure safety. Indeed, while prisons have historically been segregated by sex, which, I appreciate, is to do with women's health and safety, that needs to be included in the discussion. By recognising sex-based differences, we diminish no one's identity. It is about safeguarding well-being, particularly in environments where safety and vulnerability are key considerations.

There is a wider conversation in Northern Ireland, the UK and the world about the tension that arises between women's rights and the recognition of gender identity. It is not an abstract discussion but a real, difficult and deeply felt issue for many, including cis women and transgender women. I am often asked, usually by a man, "What is a woman?". I am a woman, but that is a deeply personal consideration. It is not about physical stereotypes or societal expectation but about the right to be fully oneself without external definitions or limitations. That applies to a consideration of our spaces as well, to ensure that we can be women with dignity. At the same time, transgender individuals face challenges that are no less significant. They, too, deserve dignity and safety. Balancing those needs is not easy, but it is necessary. The answer lies in thoughtful policies that recognise and protect the rights of both groups without allowing one to feel that its rights are being diminished by the other.

Custodial settings amplify the tensions. Women in prison, many of whom are survivors of trauma including violence and sexual assault, need spaces in which they feel secure and supported to provide the maximum opportunity for rehabilitation, as any other prisoner would have. Transgender individuals will also face significant risks of harassment and violence in custody. Those overlapping vulnerabilities demand a balanced approach that carefully considers the safety and dignity of all groups. Dedicated wings, separated facilities or other bespoke measures can ensure that everyone is treated with dignity without compromising safety. Such solutions demonstrate that recognising physical realities does not negate the validity of gender identity; indeed, they ensure that no group feels excluded, unsafe or overlooked.

We need to look to other jurisdictions to understand the importance of getting this right. There have been cases in England and Scotland that have shown the risks to prioritising safety and incidents in which poorly implemented policies have led to harm in women's prisons. Northern Ireland can and should lead with an approach that balances —

Mrs Long: I thank the Member for giving way. I am aware that there has been a focus, particularly in recent years, on incidents that affected women negatively. Does the Member acknowledge that there have also been deaths in custody of trans prisoners due, at least in part, to policies that were extant in England and Wales?

Mr Speaker: The Member has an extra minute.

Ms Sugden: I appreciate the Minister's intervention. Yes, absolutely; that is why we need to take an approach that ensures safety for all in our prison system. However, we cannot take out the specific issues to which biological gender can give rise. We have to take the issue forward sensitively while ensuring safety for all.

Mr Speaker: As the next contribution will be from the Minister of Justice, who has up to 15 minutes in which to speak, and we have just over five minutes available, I suggest that we take our ease until Question Time at 2.00 pm. The debate will continue after Question Time, when the next Member to speak will be the Minister of Justice.

Mrs O'Neill (The First Minister): I ask that junior Minister Reilly take this question, Mr Speaker, with your permission.

Ms Reilly (Junior Minister, The Executive Office): We have made a good lot of progress on building good relations through the Together: Building a United Community (T:BUC) strategy, particularly across key areas such as shared housing; engagement of young people through the T:BUC camps and wider, on-the-ground delivery; the Urban Villages initiative; and the removal of interface barriers. I place on record my appreciation of the amazing work done by the community and voluntary sector and, in particular, by groups and organisations on the ground. They are invaluable to us all.

Through our engagements and visits in recent months, we have demonstrated that we are fully committed to continuing the process of building good relations in a future defined by peace and prosperity for everyone who calls here home. That is shown through our cross-cutting commitment to peace in the draft Programme for Government (PFG).

We recognise that challenges remain. The day-to-day needs of communities have also changed considerably over the past few years. Communities experiencing good relations issues often face wider socio-economic challenges. As well as tackling those issues, we will need everyone across government and the community sector to work even better together.

A review of the T:BUC strategy has been initiated. Its recommendations are being considered and will shape the process for developing a refreshed approach to good relations.

Mrs Erskine: I thank the junior Minister for her answer. Does she agree that the example set by political leaders has a significant bearing on building good relations in Northern Ireland? In that context, does she accept that the First Minister's recent attendance at an IRA commemoration event and her glorification of terrorism are examples of not building good relations in our community? Will the junior Minister and the First Minister therefore desist from attending events that glorify terrorism?

Ms Reilly: When it comes to good relations, we all have a part to play. People from different political, ethnic and religious backgrounds, whether they live in a city or in a rural community, all need to be committed to improving community relations.

Just last week, junior Minister Cameron and I met the Clonard-Fitzroy Fellowship, two faith groups that have come together to have conversations with and learn from each other. They are leaders in the community. We also met TACIT in north Belfast at the end of last year, where community leaders are standing side by side and working together for a better future and legacy for the generations coming behind them.

As I mentioned, there is a lot of amazing work happening in the community and voluntary sector. Do we need to build on that? Yes. Do we need to do even more? Yes. Are we committed to doing so? Absolutely. As political leaders and leaders in our community, the First Minister and I will do everything that we can to demonstrate every day that we will do just that.

Mr Delargy: Will the junior Minister outline what ongoing Executive work there is to bring young people from across our communities together in order to build a better understanding of each other and of all that they have in common?

Ms Reilly: I thank the Member for his question. My focus in this role is on supporting the work of the First Minister and the deputy First Minister, along with junior Minister Cameron, to build a future that is defined by inclusion, equality and respect. Many across the Chamber are also committed to working to deliver that outcome. Investing in our young people and creating opportunities for engagement are key to building on that process.

The T:BUC camps programme that is delivered under the strategy specifically gives our young people the opportunity to build positive relationships with young people from different communities. Since summer 2015, the Executive Office has invested over £12 million in the T:BUC camps programme, with over 950 camps having been delivered, reaching over 33,000 young people. In 2024-25, a further £1·5 million has been invested, with over 110 camps currently being delivered. That investment in our young people and their future is so vital. Learning from each another, understanding each another and recognising that we have more that unites us than divides us in what is an increasingly diverse, vibrant and multicultural society is, simply put, invaluable. We will continue to support that work.

Ms Bradshaw: In evidence sessions to the Committee for the Executive Office, we have been advised that there is no definition of "good relations" on the statute book. Will the Executive Office be taking forward work on that?

Ms Reilly: When you look at the ongoing good relations strategies that we have in the Executive Office, you see that T:BUC, for example, has had a clear impact on the lives of people here through the development of and investment in headline actions and wider commitments by removing interface barriers and bringing people together through sport, education and the camps. As I said, since 2015, we have invested over £12 million in the camps programme, and more than 950 have been delivered. We have reached a massive 33,000 young people. As I said, that demonstrates the commitment of the First Minister and the deputy First Minister, and junior Minister Cameron and me. We will do all that we can to continue that work.

Mrs O'Neill: With your permission, Mr Speaker, junior Minister Reilly will also answer this question.

Ms Reilly: Beidh an freagra seo as Gaeilge, más maith leis na Comhaltaí na cluasáin a chur orthu.

Chuaigh oifigigh i gcomhairle le hearnáil na mionlach eitneach cheana féin le tacú le forbairt na straitéise nua comhionannais chiníoch ó 2025 amach.

Ghlac muid na torthaí ó chláir eile ina bpléitear le saincheisteanna sochaí agus creideann muid go bhfuil gá le fócas láidir ar chur chuige sláinte poiblí má táimid le dul i ngleic leis an chiníochas agus neamhionannas ciníoch. Seolfar glao poiblí ar thuairimí gan mhoill, agus ba mhaith linn cluinstin ó phríomhpháirtithe leasmhara, ó earnáil na mionlach eitneach agus ón tsochaí i gcoitinne. Mholfaimis do gach duine a nguth a chur in iúl sa chomhairliúchán thábhachtach sin nuair a bheidh sé ar fáil go poiblí.

I mí na Nollag, d'fhoilsigh muid an t-athbhreithniú neamhspleách ar chur i bhfeidhm na straitéise reatha um chomhionannas ciníocha 2015–2025, mar aon le freagra ón Roinn. Leagadh béim san athbhreithniú ar an athrú suntasach atá tagtha ó seoladh an straitéis, chomh maith leis an ghá atá ann le bheith níos solúbtha le freastal ar imeachtaí seachtracha. Leagadh béim fosta ann ar a thábhachtaí atá ar tháinig siad tríd sa tsaol.

Is é an rún atá againn leanúint ar aghaidh leis an phlé le mionlaigh eitneacha le héisteacht a thabhairt dóibh agus páirt a thabhairt dóibh i bhforbairt na straitéise.

Mr Kearney: Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire shóisearach as ucht an fhreagra sin. An féidir leis an Aire shóisearach a dheimhniú go mbeidh comhairliúchán agus rannpháirtíocht cheart ann leis na grúpaí is mó a mbeidh tionchar ag an straitéis seo orthu?

Ms Reilly: Is féidir, cinnte, agus ba mhaith liom aitheantas a thabhairt don obair a rinne an Comhalta sa réimse seo le linn a thréimhse sa Roinn. Is féidir liom a dhearbhú don Chomhalta go bhfuil Airí tiomanta lena chinntiú go bhfuil an Straitéis nua um Chomhionannas Ciníoch oiriúnach don fheidhm agus go léireofar inti taithí saoil na ndaoine atá i gcroílár a bhfuil sí ag iarraidh a baint amach.

Faoin Straitéis roimhe seo, bunaíodh an Foghrúpa um Chomhionannas Ciníoch mar ghuth i gcroílár an rialtais do mhionlaigh eitneacha agus imircigh, agus le tacú leis an obair ar chomhionannas ciníoch agus dea-chaidreamh cine a chur chun cinn. Tá an Foghrúpa ina chomhpháirtí lárnach go fóill inár rannpháirtíocht le mionlaigh eitneacha, agus tá ról suntasach aige le tacú le tosaíochtaí reatha a chur i bhfeidhm agus tosaíochtaí amach anseo a stiúradh. Déanann an Foghrúpa ionadaíocht ar 28 n-eagraíocht faoi láthair agus bíonn sé ag obair le príomhcheisteanna agus príomhghníomhaíochtaí a shainaithint a chuirfidh feabhas ar na daoine a ndéanann sé ionadaíocht orthu.

Cuideoidh an t-eolas sin ar fad leis an rannpháirtíocht a mhúnlú agus muid ag obair i dtreo straitéis comhionannais chiníoch ó 2025 amach.

Mr Dickson: Given that the policy and strategy extend from 2015 to 2025, why have you failed to start the renewal of the strategy within the 15- to 25-year time frame? Why do you have to wait until the end of the strategy to consult on a new one when you know that a new one is coming forward?

Ms Reilly: A consultation on a racial equality Bill began in March 2023 and formally closed in June 2023. A report on the responses to and feedback about the consultation was published in August 2024. We aim to bring updated race relations legislation before the Assembly through the legislative programme in the 2025-26 session. That report considers over 50 amendments. It will inform the basis of any legislative change and will move us a step closer to providing the best possible legal protection against racism and towards a more equal society.

Mr Durkan: An féidir leis an Aire shóisearach gealltanas a thabhairt go leathnófar ciste forbartha na mionlach eitneach tar éis mhí an Mhárta?

Ms Reilly: Níl an t-eolas sin díreach os mo chomhair, ach tá mé breá sásta scríobh chuig an Chomhalta agus an t-eolas uilig a chur chuige.

Mrs O'Neill: As civil aviation is a reserved matter, DFE officials have explored with the Department for Transport the possibility of extending pre-clearance services to Belfast International Airport. The Department for Transport has committed to entering into exploratory talks with the United States Administration on the options for introducing pre-clearance checks on customs and immigration for passengers travelling on direct flights between here and the US. The deputy First Minister and I are fully supportive of the reintroduction of a transatlantic route to Belfast and implementation of pre-clearance. A direct flight between here and the US really would have transformative economic benefits for our economy. It would boost tourism and open up new opportunities across the board, including for our universities. We are fully committed to supporting the Minister for the Economy in any way that we can in taking this forward.

Mr Butler: I thank the First Minister for her further confirmation of the Executive Office's ambition on this. The inauguration of President Trump at 12.00 noon today offers a new dispensation with the American Government. We had some great performance from Joe Kennedy as the former Northern Ireland trade envoy. Will the First Minister give a commitment that the Executive Office will work proactively with President Trump to ensure that a special Northern Ireland envoy is in position as soon as possible, not in the last six months of his mandate as previously, and to seek the delivery of transatlantic routes and, indeed, pre-clearance at Belfast International?

Mrs O'Neill: As the Member has noted, the inauguration is happening as we speak, I believe. Obviously, we will continue to work proactively to try to secure pre-clearance. That would be an enormous economic booster for us here. As we have done with previous Administrations, regardless of who is at the helm, we will work with those who are responsible for delivering this important economic booster. The Economy Minister has taken that forward quite strongly in engaging with the Department for Transport and in commissioning research around this so that we can make the case for why it is so important. Yes, we will take all opportunities to ensure that we can secure this. I think that it is in our best interests to secure this.

Appointments such as that of a US envoy are yet to be made, but we have had beneficial experiences of working with previous envoys. Let us hope that we can have similar types of benefits going forward.

Mr Buckley: As has been said, today is a big day for our US friends, who today will see the inauguration of President Trump for his historic second term. It is a presidency that, indeed, I welcome. During the first Trump Administration, the then First Minister, Arlene Foster, and the then deputy First Minister, Martin McGuinness, issued an open invitation for President Trump to visit. First Minister, will that open invitation be extended again by the First Minister and deputy First Minister to ensure that the people of Northern Ireland and the United Kingdom can get the benefits of this second Trump Administration?

Mrs O'Neill: I think that there is a lot of grey area about what the intention of this new Administration will be, particularly when it comes to economic policy and protectionism policy. Therefore, we will have to work our way through that. He is only being inaugurated as we speak, and we can consider all these things in the round going forward. My interest in engaging with an American Administration is always in our own selfish interests, and that is important. We can all have our own views on the individual who holds the position of president, and we are all entitled to do so. The American people voted for this president, so that is their prerogative. My concern is about what is good for our economy, what is good for our job creation and what is good for our ongoing engagement, which is much wider than the White House. It is about Irish America, engagement across the board, drumming up tourism potential and so much more. We can consider all these things going forward.

Mr McGuigan: In the First Minister's response, she talked about exploring what is good for our economy. Last week, the Economic and Social Research Institute published a report that looked at a new economic model for the North. Does the First Minister welcome that report?

Mrs O'Neill: Yes, very much so. I have just started to take a look through it. I very much welcome the fact that the report has been published by the Economic and Social Research Institute, because I think that it will contribute to a wider understanding of how our economy works. Our Executive colleague Conor Murphy is working to ensure that our economy serves everybody and serves everybody well and that everybody gets to enjoy prosperity.

He has set out in an economic strategy and plan how that can be done by using the Windsor framework to grow local exports and attract better FDI, taking full advantage of the all-island economy and collaborating very much with our business representatives, trade unions and academia. He has also set out his clear mission to have a highly productive, zero-carbon and regionally balanced economy with good jobs.

As we constantly review, prepare and plan for the future, such reports are very much a welcome part of what we have in the public domain, so that we understand what makes our economy tick and how we can look towards growing it into the future for everybody.

Mr O'Toole: First Minister, I am genuinely intrigued to hear that seeking pre-clearance is official Executive policy, in part because it originated from a clandestine bilateral process between the DUP and the UK Government, not the other Executive parties. Secondly, we know that the Trump Administration will be anti-immigration. They will not seek more open borders. Thirdly, it is also true that we already have pre-clearance on this island. The US Administration are likely to say, "Travel 100 miles down the road to Dublin".

Mr Speaker: Mr O'Toole, please take your seat.

Mr O'Toole: It would also include —.

Mr Speaker: Please take your seat. This a time for questions and answers. You in particular, of all the Members, seem to want to make speeches. Will you ask a question, please?

Mr O'Toole: I appreciate that, Mr Speaker. I am the leader of the Opposition, and it is my job to hold Ministers accountable.

Is this going to be Executive policy —?

Mr Speaker: Mr O'Toole, you are the leader of the Opposition, but I am the Speaker. Do not challenge the Speaker. As with any other Member, you are asked to ask a question. If you cannot, I will move on, so please ask a question.

Mr O'Toole: Will seeking pre-clearance in that context and with all that it entails seriously be Executive policy? I do not think that any serious observer thinks that it will happen.

Mrs O'Neill: I have just said that it is. I just said that the deputy First Minister and I are committed to working with the Economy Minister to pursue it even further. We should take that advantage if we can get it. Ultimately, because of the cost of such infrastructure, it will come down to the airport itself, so we will engage with it also. It is clear what the Economy Minister has set out: connectivity is so important to our economic growth. Therefore, trying to improve connectivity across our island will always be a good thing. So, yes, I cannot be any clearer about the fact that the deputy First Minister and I have said that we are committed to working with the Economy Minister to pursue the matter further.

Dr Aiken: First Minister, have you had the opportunity to consult our friends in Scotland and, indeed, in Manchester? Edinburgh, Glasgow and Manchester are looking for pre-clearance as well. That would be well within the remit of the great airport that is Belfast International Airport, which is, of course, in my constituency.

Mrs O'Neill: We have not engaged with Scotland or Wales on the issue. I think that Dublin is the only place in Europe that has pre-clearance at this stage. We will continue to make the case for connectivity. It is written in the draft Programme for Government that connectivity is so important to growing our economy. We should pursue anything that helps us to improve that situation.

Mr Speaker: Mr McNulty's question, question 4, has been withdrawn.

Mrs O'Neill: Mr Speaker, with your permission, I will answer questions 5 and 12 together.

The ending violence against women and girls first delivery plan was published last September. It sets out key actions to support collaboration across government and wider society. It focuses on prevention and early intervention over the next 15 months. As part of a wider £3·2 million investment, we launched the local change fund on 9 January. A total of £2 million will be shared across 11 councils to enable them to support ending violence against women and girls action in their local areas. That funding will support community networks and provide opportunities for grassroots organisations to play their part in preventing violence, harm and abuse against women and girls.

Work on the regional change fund investment with the community and voluntary sector continues to progress with a view to making an announcement imminently. In partnership with the PSNI and DOJ, the Power to Change public awareness campaign will also be launched soon. The campaign uses the active bystander approach and targets harmful attitudes and behaviours of men and boys.

Recently, Junior Minister Reilly and Junior Minister Cameron had the opportunity to meet the six successful suppliers that are developing innovative ideas and solutions to tackle the scourge of violence against women and girls. That was part of two small business research initiative challenges. Work is also progressing with partners to advance other elements of the delivery plan, including work with sectoral groups to address key issues such as safer socialising and healthy relationships.

Ms Egan: Thank you, First Minister. Are there any mechanisms in your Department to ensure that there is coordination between councils when it comes to dispersing the local change fund?

Mrs O'Neill: The strategy aims to bring that joined-up coordinated approach, whether that is across councils or working with the Executive and all Departments on their responsibilities. The fund is consistent across all councils, so it is important that we are joined up. It is important that we support projects on the ground that make a real difference. There may be differences of approaches in different areas, such as rural versus urban, and different factors at play, but there is a fair degree of consistency in how it will be rolled out across councils. One council has already launched, and the rest will launch before March.

Ms Brownlee: I thank the First Minister for her answer. How has the engagement between councils and TEO on the change fund been? Have those relationships been positive? Do you foresee difficulties in the roll-out of the scheme?

Mrs O'Neill: No issues have been raised with or elevated to us, for sure. Officials have engaged with all 11 councils on the proposals for strand 1 and the local change fund itself. Applications opened in Antrim and Newtownabbey Borough Council on 6 January and will open across all the other councils between now and March, with delivery commencing from April 2025. That is really good news. Councils are willing to play their part. They are considering proposals to use in-year funding to build momentum for the local change fund, how they will raise awareness around ending violence against women and girls and how they will build the capacity of the community and voluntary sector. Who better than our councils, which are close to the grassroots delivery and the projects that are on the ground doing that work every day, to do this? That seems to be going well. It seems to be a success.

In parallel with all that work, we have engagement with the community and voluntary sector on strand 2, which is the regional change fund. Plans are progressing. I hope that we will be able to launch that over the coming days.

Ms Sheerin: Gabhaim buíochas leis an Chéad-Aire as an fhreagra sin.

Minister, can you outline how exactly the fund will work to complement the fantastic work by local groups on the ground to end violence against women and girls?

Mrs O'Neill: Yes. The strategy was about how we can work collectively to end the scourge of violence against women and girls. Coordinating the delivery and success of the challenge funds that we are launching is about how we can work collaboratively with the people who are already on the ground and have the expertise and skills to deliver the message about prevention really strongly. Collaboration has very much been embedded in the strategy from the outset. The sector was part of the design of the strategy itself and is part of the oversight structures for its delivery. I look forward to that.

Time moves quickly. We launched it in September. We are due our first review six months in, which is next month. We will be able to have an understanding of how quickly we have advanced the pledges that we made for the first two years of the strategy. I look forward to getting that review. I am confident that what we set out from September through the strategy is already coming into play. Funding is being announced for the local change fund and will be announced for the regional change fund over the next number of days.

Ms Hunter: First Minister, can you detail the engagement that the Executive Office has had with the British Government on online harm that causes violence against women and girls in Northern Ireland?

Mrs O'Neill: I do not believe that our Department has had any direct discussions, but I am sure that there has been engagement across other Departments, such as the Department of Justice. I know that we are collaborating at official level, given that it is important that we pick up what works well elsewhere, learn from it and do it here. If there has been direct engagement and I can give you any further information, I am happy to respond to you in writing.

Mrs O'Neill: One of our key priorities as an Executive is the health and well-being of our people. We are committed to working together to deliver the transformation needed to deal with the pressures facing the health and social care system.

Following a recent meeting of the Executive, we issued a statement on winter pressures. We acknowledged that this has been a particularly difficult winter across the health and social care system, with high rates of hospital admissions and flu. We also thanked Health and Social Care (HSC) staff, carers and the community and voluntary sector for their tireless work over this difficult winter.

As an Executive, we fully understand the impact of long waiting times on patients and their families. We encourage people to take any steps that they can to stay safe and well this winter. If you are eligible, please take up the flu vaccine, which has now been extended to everyone over the age of 50. We continue to work together on the reform and transformation of the health and social care sector, including the urgent need to reduce waiting times. As with all commitments in the draft Programme for Government, it is one of our shared ambitions, and its importance has been discussed frequently by the Executive.

Mr Clarke: Thank you for your answer, First Minister, and I hear what you say. However, this has been a relatively mild winter, and we have the same problem with waiting lists every year. Hundreds of people are waiting to get into hospital, and, indeed, hundreds are waiting to get out. Does the First Minister have any suggestions for the Health Minister, or will he bring forward specific proposals to relieve the pressures?

Mrs O'Neill: We had a collective Executive discussion on that last week. We can all say that the situation facing patients right now is not acceptable. The situation facing our Health and Social Care workers is not acceptable. The winter comes every year, so we should be prepared and ready. I want to be helpful to the Health Minister, and the collective will of the Executive is to work together to transform our health and social care system. We need to have a plan to work towards. We have engaged with the Health Minister and will continue to do so, because the public at home want to know when the health system will get better, when they will be able to access their GP and when they will be able to get hospital care if they need it. There is more to be done, and the public will be better served by a collective effort on the health system.

We are funding the health system with over half of our budget; yet and all, the health outcomes are not improving. That has to change. There needs to be a plan to fix that. I will be constructive, and I will work with the Health Minister to get us to the right point. As an Executive, we discussed last week how we could work with the Health Minister, but we need to see a plan that we can all sign up to. Transformation is absolutely where it is at: we need to transform our health and social care system. There are things that work really well in our system and things that do not. We need to see a plan to fix our health system that we can all sign up to.

Mrs Dillon: Minister, on the point that you have just made, it is necessary for us to see a plan for the winter pressures and a plan to fix the health service as a whole, with a time frame for that plan. Is that what we need to see now? As an Assembly, we have been clear that we want to support the Health Minister and work with him, but we need to see that plan in order to know what we are supporting.

Mrs O'Neill: Yes. We all know that there are no quick fixes, but we also know that the ingrained problems across health and social care have been there for a long time. We need a transformation plan on paper that people can understand. We need to talk to the public about how we will improve their health outcomes. That requires a collective effort from us, but we need a written plan that we can talk to people about.

The immediate focus has to be on stabilising the health system, but core to that is a plan with measurable targets; that is clear. There are fine examples across our health and social care system of things that work really well. Acute Care at Home is an absolutely excellent initiative that brings care to people's homes and prevents them being hospitalised. We need to ramp that up. There are a lot of things that we can do better, such as supporting our domiciliary care workers who work in the community and keep people well and at home. We all know the ideas, but we need to see a written plan that we can all sign up to.

Mr Blair: Will the First Minister and deputy First Minister give a commitment not to collapse the institutions again, given the untold damage that suspension has caused to health transformation and outcomes, as we see in emergency departments across Northern Ireland?

Mrs O'Neill: I am here to do business. I am here to work with Executive colleagues, and I am glad that, as we approach the 1st anniversary of working together in the Executive, we have delivered tangible benefits for the wider public. I am committed to being here every day. I am committed to working with others, I am committed to making politics work, and I would not be here if that were not my objective.

Mr McGrath: It is well recognised in the sector and by the public that transformation of our health services is the long-term solution to our problems, but the short-term solution requires finance. Will the Executive give the Health Minister the finance that he requires to reduce the waiting lists? Does the First Minister agree that, without that finance, that will be an impossible task?

Mr Speaker: Minister, you have half a minute.

Mrs O'Neill: Money matters to being able to invest in our health service. On day 1, when we entered the Executive in February of last year, we collectively made it clear that the funding model that we had was not fit for purpose.

We have made strides forward to change that. We have achieved hundreds of millions of pounds of additional funding because of the Executive's work. Is it enough? No, because we had a poor starting point in that 14 years of austerity crushed our public services.

We have a lot of work to do. Not everything will cost money; sometimes it is about doing things better. However, there is no doubt about this: 52% of our entire Budget goes to the health service, and that will only keep increasing if we do not transform. Let us all work together to make sure that we transform our health and social care system.

Mr Speaker: We now move to topical questions.

Mrs O'Neill: I am absolutely committed to ensuring that Casement Park is built. It is one of the outstanding projects. It must be done, and I will ensure that we continue to raise it until the project is completed. I believe in investment in the west of the city. It will be an enormous booster for the economy and for sport. It is long overdue, and it must be built.

Mr O'Toole: First Minister, as with statements on a lot of other issues, one year on since restoration, the public see words but not delivery at Stormont. Can you confirm when Casement Park will be delivered? How often have you and your colleague raised it with the Communities Minister? When in 2025 will we see the 2024 legislative programme delivered?

Mrs O'Neill: My personal view on Casement Park is well known and has been rehearsed over and over again in the House. I want the Communities Minister to move and work with the GAA to complete the project. The GAA community deserves nothing less. I want to invest in sport. Sport should be a big unifier, not something that divides us.

We will bring a statement on the legislative programme to the House. We have asked Ministers to update us on their legislative programmes for the rest of the mandate. We hope to be able, in the short period ahead, to set that out for the House. One year in, a lot of good things have been delivered by the Executive — things that we can be proud of and that help make people's lives better — whether it is childcare, the Magee task force or the announcements on the A5, the Cookstown bypass or the Enniskillen bypass. The list of what has been achieved in the first year is extensive.

Have we more to do? Absolutely. Will we get there and make more positive strides forward? Yes, we will, because the four parties of the Executive are committed to ensuring that that is the case.

Mrs O'Neill: We are going through the research. We will then have to make decisions based on the information that comes forward. We want the process to be inclusive. It is important that we ensure that all the voices that want to be heard are heard. I will take the question away. If you have identified particular issues, I would like to hear about them, because it is important that we get it right. It is the third part of the institutional abuse work, and we need to get it right. The research projects are under way, but, as I said, if there are particular issues, please, let me know.

Mr Blair: I thank the First Minister for the answer. Evidence to the Executive Office Committee last week was clear that there are people, even people who are still resident in Northern Ireland, who are not aware of the redress scheme on the historic institutional abuse of children. What specific learning has been taken to ensure that that is not repeated in the historical clerical child abuse investigation?

Mrs O'Neill: I do not have the exact details in front of me, but promotion of the scheme to ensure that people are alerted to it has been wide-ranging. It has been done in various ways, including online and in publications. A lot has been done. I do not believe that concerns have been flagged with us that we have not reached large swathes of people, because so many have come forward. However, as with all these things, we want to listen. I just want us to get it right, because those people have been failed at every turn. It is important that, when we are able do something, we do something that is positive, that is important for them and that is exactly right for them.

Mrs O'Neill: As you know, there is not, perhaps, a collective view on reform in the Executive Office. My personal view and that of my party is that the Assembly and Executive Review Committee should do its work and that that is where we should have those conversations. I am absolutely committed to playing my part and that of the party in the conversation on how we can make sure that the institutions are fit for purpose and work in the best interests of the people whom we serve.

Mrs Guy: Thank you, First Minister. So that I understand your answer correctly, will you support the Assembly and Executive Review Committee taking forward, within its remit, work on the reform of the institutions?

Mrs O'Neill: Again, this is a personal view and not that of the Executive Office. My view has always been that the Assembly and Executive Review Committee is the place in which we should do that work, and my colleagues should participate accordingly.

Mrs O'Neill: There is no escaping the fact that we have had a very turbulent and difficult past. It is also very important that we remember that much trauma and suffering has been inflicted on so many people across our society. My job, as a political leader in 2025, is to try to heal the wounds of the past and allow a space for us to be respectful of each other, of our life journeys and of what we believe. It is important that we create that space for each other. I am committed to doing that, and I ask the Member to join me.

Mrs Dodds: First Minister, the victims of IRA violence will listen carefully to what you have said but will realise that they are hearing the same old platitudes. You could change that today in the Chamber. Given that your party did not cooperate with the Kingsmills inquest, will you call on the Police Ombudsman to release the report on the Kingsmills massacre and ensure that the families get justice?

Mrs O'Neill: I believe in all families having justice and truth. That is why we have to find a way to properly deal with the past. We had that with the Stormont House Agreement, but, unfortunately, others walked away from it, mainly the British Government and yourselves.

We have to acknowledge that we have so much hurt and pain from the past. Let us help every family to move forward and not pick and choose whom we want to help and support. I am committed to looking towards the future and to helping people to heal — not to forget but to heal. I have said that from day 1, and I am absolutely committed to that. I want us to build a better future and not burden today's children with yesterday. I want us to help people to heal. Let us try to find a way to do that together.

Mrs O'Neill: We are working on it as we speak. We have an Executive meeting this week, but I am not yet sure whether it will make it to that meeting. Needless to say, we intend to get it published ASAP. I hope that that will be in the coming weeks.

Ms Egan: How will the Executive Office ensure that the consultation responses are reflected in the finalised Programme for Government?

Mrs O'Neill: We have had over 70 public engagements and 1,400 consultation responses. That is a lot to get through. We have been working our way through those, analysing them as they have come in as opposed to waiting to the end. That, hopefully, will allow us to move to the next stage. The final document will, in the main, reflect the consultation responses that we received, particularly on the bigger issues that came up repeatedly.

Mrs O'Neill: When issues are identified, we should find pragmatic and reasonable ways in which to deal with them. The Secretary of State has made his call, as he can, on the Stormont brake. We now need to find ways to make things work. Where pragmatism is required, let us find ways to do that. Let us not have stop-start; let us create the stability and certainty that the business community requires. Where we find issues, let us use the mechanisms that we have to raise them in order to get a resolution.

Dr Aiken: I think that I thank the First Minister for her remarks. My question was on the role of the democratic institutions and, in particular, the safeguards that were supposed to be in place. When the Windsor Framework Democratic Scrutiny Committee clearly does not work and does not do what it is supposed to do, the key question is this: what proposal is coming from the Executive Office in particular to enable us to get things in which people can have faith and trust? Frankly, people have no faith and trust in the rules and systems that we have at the moment.

Mrs O'Neill: We were a long time in a period of uncertainty. It then took us a long time to get to the point at which we had the Windsor framework. The mechanisms that have been agreed are agreed. They are the democratic mechanisms through which to deal with the issues. The Stormont brake will not be pulled on this occasion, but let us continue to find a resolution to the issue that was identified. Let us be pragmatic about it instead of grandstanding or trying to be overtly political about it. We are where we are because we have been taken out of Europe against our wishes — that is my personal view — and we have to deal with the consequences of that in a post-Brexit world. That is what we are dealing with. I want us to create certainty and stability for the business community, and, where issues are identified, we should try to find a resolution to them.

Mrs O'Neill: I have made the point that we should be sensitive to the fact that, when we talk about individuals who were killed in the course of the conflict, regardless of how or by whom, it is important to be respectful of the fact that they are individuals with a family: a mother and a father, siblings and perhaps children. We should be sensitive to the fact that everybody has a right to remember their dead and to do so in a dignified way. My job, as I have said, is to try to deal with the past in a way that allows us to be as comprehensive as we can and that brings truth and justice to as many families as possible, but I also want to be somebody who looks to the future — the next 10 or 20 years — and who tries to make this a better place and to create a better society: one that is inclusive and free from sectarianism and racism. That would be a better prize for everybody whom we collectively serve.

Mr Kingston: I will push the First Minister more on that. She talks about taking a victim-centred approach and showing sensitivity to those who have suffered. Does she not recognise that, when individuals who engaged in terrorism are individually lauded and honoured by those in political leadership, it causes only hurt to the families whose loved ones were murdered by terrorists?

Mrs O'Neill: I have answered the question. As I have said before in the House — I said it when I took up post as First Minister — I am sorry for every lost life, without exception. That is my position. We need to be a bit more sensitive. If Members look at the trauma-informed strategy for victims and survivors that we produced, they will see that it talks about recognising differences and the different perspectives on the past. That is important for healing. I encourage all Members to take that approach instead of trying to point-score politically off one another. Let us be consistent, and let us try to work together to heal the wounds of the past.

Mrs O'Neill: We have started that work. Unfortunately, it has taken us a bit longer than we all would have wanted. In June 2024, Ministers agreed to run a new competition to appoint a Commissioner for Public Appointments. Preparations are well progressed. Since the previous commissioner stepped down from her role, the day-to-day business of the office, including the provision of advice and guidance, has continued. That has not, however, extended to the statutory regulatory duties of the post, which only a commissioner can undertake. Public appointments have continued to be made in the intervening period, and the OCPANI code of practice continues to apply.

Mr Speaker: I ask Members to take their ease for a moment while we change Ministers.

Mr C Murphy (The Minister for the Economy): The security of the electricity supply is a risk that is managed collaboratively by the Government, the Utility Regulator and the System Operator for Northern Ireland (SONI), which provides electricity transmission.

Last week, SONI published a revised winter assessment, following significant damage caused by storm Darragh to the Ballylumford power station. The assessment indicates that, while the power system will experience tighter margins for the remaining winter period, under normal operating conditions, there is sufficient generation to meet customer demand. Therefore, the current risk of any disruption to the electricity supply is low.

The owner of the Ballylumford power station, EP UK Investments, is working at pace with specialist contractors to resume generation at the site as soon as possible. My officials will continue to work with the energy industry and the Utility Regulator to review and monitor the short-, medium- and long-term security of supply and to ensure that our changing energy system is robust and resilient.

Dr Aiken: I thank the Minister for his reply. He will be aware that there has always been a lot difficulty around planned maintenance, particularly in relation to Coolkeeragh power station. It is probably due to have some planned maintenance. There is a significant problem, because, if it goes down for any particular reason, there would be significant concerns about maintaining the security of supply. Is the Minister's Department engaging with other utility users more widely so that if, for example, Coolkeeragh goes down, we will not be in a position where we have to do load shedding? That is a significant concern, despite the smooth tones that are coming out of SONI.

Mr C Murphy: We engage regularly with the Utility Regulator and the supply side for electricity and energy generally — we do something similar with gas — to try to make sure that there is confidence that supplies will remain sufficient to meet our needs. Of course, we cannot predict what weather circumstances might arise, but we have not had that kind of extreme weather since storm Darragh.

My understanding is that we are sufficiently covered for the remainder of the winter. We will keep on top of it. Officials will continue to engage with all those in the sector to make sure that there is an understanding of what the challenges are and to ensure that we build in more security of supply in the short term over the winter and in the long term.

Mr Boylan: Minister, what is the timeline for a new electricity connections policy?

Mr C Murphy: The Department will publish a consultation imminently on increasing the level of socialisation of reinforcement costs for customers who are connecting to the distribution electricity network. It will review a number of options for sharing the reinforcement costs of the distribution network among all network users. My Department will review the responses to the consultation after it closes in mid-April with the Utility Regulator. I expect to publish a decision thereafter. There are ongoing developments in other areas of connection policy in the North, including NIE Networks' consultation on its cluster methodology.

Mr Honeyford: Recently, the Great British Energy Bill was in front of the Economy Committee. We are looking through the outworkings of it. Will the Minister tell us what advantage that Bill will bring us? Will there be an uplift in investment here? What difference will it make to energy security here?

Mr C Murphy: Since the very first day that the Government in London came into office, we have engaged with them on those ideas. The Bill was front-loaded in the sense that there would be legislation, and now that has been backfilled, if you like, with detail. We continue to engage on it. Of particular interest are the community energy plans, which will give more resilience at a local community level rather than a reliance on one or two large producers and distributors of electricity. We are very keen to see what advantage there might be. We are told that resource is attached to some of those plans, and we will continue to investigate that with the Department in London to make sure that we get our fair share of whatever is developed.

Mr Frew: Is it the case that, due to climate change targets and renewable energy targets, the Minister's Department is putting pressure on the integrated single electricity market (I-SEM) and SONI to use indigenous renewable energy instead of using cheaper interconnected energy?

Mr C Murphy: The solution will be a mixture of all. Of course, in order to meet our targets for climate change, which the Executive and the Assembly have agreed to, and which are very challenging, we have to ensure that we have a renewable supply. Given our location, our geography and our position on the western Atlantic, there is real potential there for renewable energy and for the industry to gear itself up for that. A long-term ambition on the island of Ireland is to be a net exporter of energy, which would be very beneficial not just to the security of supply for our customers here but for profit generally on the island. It is not a matter of trading one off against the other; it is a matter of trying to ensure that all options are open to us so that, if we end up in the situation where, I hope, that ambition is realised and we are a net exporter, interconnection goes both ways and we will be able to sell electricity off the island.

Mr C Murphy: My Department works closely with further and higher education institutions to support a skills pipeline that meets the needs of our local economy and addresses skills shortages. That includes a range of interventions: for example, collaborating with employers through our sectoral partnerships in order to align curricula for apprenticeships with industry needs. Promoting pathways to good careers through the Careers Service is also part of that approach, as is attracting learners to further and higher education. College development plans are another important mechanism by which the Department measures performance in addressing subregional skills need. My Department has also worked with the three universities on the first annual outcome agreements, which require the institutions to be responsive to the needs of the economy.

Ms Forsythe: I thank the Minister for his answer. In September 2024, the Northern Ireland Audit Office published the report, 'Developing the skills for Northern Ireland's future', which highlighted the significant undersupply of skills in STEM subjects, particularly engineering and technology, in Northern Ireland. Has the Minister taken any proactive steps since that report was published to increase the uptake of courses in those areas and reduce it where there is potential oversupply in Northern Ireland?

Mr C Murphy: In collaboration with the universities, we introduced higher education outcome agreements for the 2024-25 academic year. The outcome agreements are intended to demonstrate alignment between the Department's priorities and the work of the universities, including the skills strategy and related targets. For higher education provision in a further education setting, the Department approves all higher education courses planned for delivery to ensure alignment with departmental priorities.

The most recent data showed that nearly half of all graduates from local universities gained a qualification in a broad STEM subject, while a quarter gained a qualification in a narrow STEM subject. Twenty-eight per cent of full-time undergraduate students graduated from university in a narrow STEM subject. We will continue to improve in that area. I very much welcomed the report, which related to a previous period. Nonetheless, it has lessons for us. We will continue to work in that area.

Mr Stewart: Minister, one of the biggest barriers to further and higher education is funding. When will you be able to provide an update on the higher education funding review?

Mr C Murphy: That continues. It is challenged by the level of funding that we have. As is the case for, I am sure, every Minister who stands here, we would do more in each area if we had more funding to do it with. Unfortunately, given the funding settlement that was proposed by London, we remain in a very challenging situation. We will conclude that review. I am sure that it will be published in due course. We will continue to argue for as much money as we can for the further and higher education sector to ensure that we produce the level of skills and knowledge needed in our society to assist with the growth of the economy.

Mr Delargy: I thank the Minister for his commitment to ensuring that further and higher education colleges are supported. What is his assessment of the Department's performance in increasing student numbers in further education?

Mr C Murphy: We continually monitor that. As I say, we have engaged in programmes with the colleges to ensure that we understand the numbers in attendance. There is a desire to increase that. It has gone up by something like 13·5% over the past number of years. There is no doubt that there is capacity there to do more. I have spent quite some time over the past year engaging with the individual colleges and the college principals as a group to try to ensure that we align the provision so that it is seamless across all our colleges. I have also tried to ensure that we do significant outreach and work with those who are assisting in bringing people back into training and education on the potential for alignment and synchronisation between the colleges and the organisations that are involved in that work in the community. We need to try to ensure that we get the best value. There has been a very significant investment in our college estate over the past 10 or 15 years, and we have a very good college estate, but we want to maximise its usage to make sure that we get the best possible outcomes.

Mr C Murphy: My Department is fully committed to ensuring that Ulster University's Magee expansion is done in a way that maximises the benefits to the local community and minimises the potential negative impacts. The task force is made up of local people, including a representative from the community sector. Its recently launched action plan emphasises the importance of meaningful community engagement to keep residents informed and involved. That engagement will continue throughout the expansion process. In addition, Ulster University has already initiated several community engagement forums. The Department will monitor and support those efforts in order to ensure that the expanded campus integrates well with the surrounding area, delivering positive outcomes for residents and the region.

Mr Durkan: I thank the Minister for that answer. Everyone recognises the huge positive impact of university expansion on Derry, but we have to make sure that it is managed right and that local communities are not choked by traffic or have their fabric threatened by the demand for accommodation. I welcome the fact that the chair of the task force has set up a public meeting for next month, but will the Minister expand on the efforts of the university and the task force to identify opportunities for new, purpose-built student accommodation?

Mr C Murphy: I welcome the Member's acknowledgement of the fact that the task force has done some very positive work. Its membership is rooted in the Derry community, which is beneficial when it comes to local engagement. Accommodation will be a key issue in the expansion, so significant work has been done to identify land and to make sure that there is engagement with the private sector, which will provide a lot of that accommodation. That work has already begun. There is engagement with the council to ensure that spaces that become available can be used.

There is a strong desire to ensure that the surrounding population is not overwhelmed by student numbers. We have seen that happen in parts of Belfast, where a neighbourhood becomes, essentially, a student area. My understanding is that there have been discussions on planning restrictions to ensure that ownership of houses in multiple occupation is kept at a level that does not substantially change the nature of the neighbourhood.

Of course, student accommodation is critical, and the understanding when the task force was put together was that it needed to be recognised that this was not just about creating more university places but about the infrastructure in the city that is needed to accommodate that. Issues such as transport and accommodation will be central to that.

Mr Middleton: A lot of the issues that residents have faced fall under the remit of other Departments and, not least, the council. Those issues were identified in the Magee task force report. What can you do, Minister, to support the task force in working with those other Ministers to look at proposals for things such as resident parking schemes in and around Derry?

Mr C Murphy: The Department for Infrastructure has been and will remain engaged with the task force. It is looking at issues such as the restriction on ownership of houses in multiple occupation in areas that are in proximity to the Magee campus. I circulated a draft report and a final report to all Executive colleagues to keep them informed of developments. The project is part of the Executive's Programme for Government, and it was part of an all-party agreement. It is now part of the Programme for Government, and, in that sense, I believe that all the Executive will ensure that they will put what is required into the development so that the 10,000 places are delivered from other Departments as well. I will remain engaged with colleagues as necessary, but I know that some of them have already been engaged with the task force, which is very welcome.

Ms Ferguson: Will the Minister confirm that his Department is working closely with Ulster University to acquire land for the expansion?

Mr C Murphy: UU is in negotiation with the owners of sites that are located within walking distance of the existing campus in order to purchase suitable land and buildings to support the future growth of student numbers. That work continues, and I hope that announcements will be made on some of it in the very near future.

Mr C Murphy: Tourism has grown substantially in recent years, and there is considerable potential for further growth. However, the introduction of the electronic travel authorisation scheme threatens that progress. That is why, on behalf of the industry, I continue to lobby the British Government for a solution. With 67% of our overseas holidaymakers arriving via the South, seamless all-Ireland travel is key to the success of our tourism sector. The ETA introduces a financial and bureaucratic barrier for tourists to travel into the North. Undoubtedly, that will put off some people from visiting here, which will, in turn, impact on expenditure by international visitors in the local economy.

Mr Martin: I thank the Minister for his answer. Minister, I am aware that you recently met Seema Malhotra, a Home Office MP and Minister for Migration and Citizenship. Was that meeting positive? Further to that, what is the best solution to the ETA issue?

Mr C Murphy: You have to judge the positivity of a meeting not by the pleasantness of the conversation, which was very pleasant, or by the exchange of information — we provided further written information to the Minister and the Home Office — but by the outcome, which was not positive. The outcome was that they went ahead, and not only did they go ahead but they announced an increase in the fee from £10 to £16 for the electronic travel authorisation document.

Our preferred solution was not to go ahead with the scheme at all, in recognition of our particular and unique circumstances here. Our secondary proposal was to allow a five- to seven-day waiver for people travelling from the South into the North but not intending to go on to Britain. That would have covered an estimated percentage in the high 90s of our international visitors, who come for roughly that length of time. Those solutions were put to the Home Office. It has already worked to find some practical solutions to other issues. For instance, people who are resident south of the border but are not necessarily Irish citizens can travel without an ETA. For some reason, French school groups can travel to Britain without an ETA, yet we did not get movement on our situation.

There is a strong fear and recognition that this is potentially damaging to our economy. International visitors are high spending and provide a significant income for our tourism providers, so we will continue to press that case.

Mr McGuigan: In support of regional balance, how will the tourism action plan help the development of hotels outside Belfast?

Mr Speaker: That question is probably more appropriate to the next question, but if the Minister wishes to answer it, he can.

Mr C Murphy: I am not sure that the Speaker judges the appropriateness of questions.

The tourism action plan continues to support the development of hotels outside the Belfast area. It ensures that there is an adequate mix and scale of tourist accommodation across the North that meets visitors' expectations. The Department for the Economy will review its policy to support that and to transfer the accommodation support scheme from Invest NI to Tourism NI, as recommended in the Lyons report. We are working closely with colleagues in Tourism NI and Invest NI to bring forward that transfer of responsibilities through a working group. That also involves an independent assessment of the local visitor accommodation sector in order to inform departmental policy and scope further financial assistance schemes to be put in place by Tourism NI. The target date for the completion of the transfer of functions is October 2025. That will ensure that the current policy continues beyond that date.

Mr Speaker: A Minister always has to be light on his feet, even when his own colleague catches him out. [Laughter.]

Ms D Armstrong: Minister, thank you for your attempts to soften the impact of the ETA scheme. Who will implement the controls on the ETA scheme to ensure compliance, should it come into effect?

Mr C Murphy: The scheme is to be implemented by the British Home Office, which has been a bit vague about how it intends to enforce it. It talked about no checks when crossing the border, which would be welcome, and intelligence-led enforcement of the scheme. I am not quite sure what that means, and, despite our many engagements with the Home Office, we are still not quite sure what that means. The implementation of the scheme is the responsibility of the Home Office. We do not have a role in that, but we have a role in representing the interests of the tourism industry, and those interests are firmly against the imposition of the scheme.

Ms Hunter: Minister, I know that you are conscious of the possible risk that the ETA scheme could create for the Open, which is coming to Portrush this year. We want to see our businesses prosper there. What level of risk do you see the ETA scheme posing to the success of that championship this year?

Mr C Murphy: I hope that the research that has been done is not borne out. I hope that events such as the Open on the north coast are more successful than previous events there, and all the plans are in place to try to do that. We will support that, because, despite the setback with the approach of the Home Office, we will try to encourage growth in tourism and will spend more money on promoting tourism.

The assessment done by Tourism Ireland was that one in five North American visitors would reconsider coming. I think that it was a higher number of European visitors who would consider whether they would come because of the ETA scheme. I hope that that does not manifest itself and that people do decide to come, but that is some of the research that has been done. We will, of course, continue to try to promote tourism wherever we can and try to ensure the best possible outcome for people in the tourism industry.

Mr Speaker: Question 5 has been withdrawn.

Mr C Murphy: I am pleased to confirm that I launched my tourism vision and action plan on Wednesday 15 January. The final document is available on the Department's website. The vision and action plan sets out how we plan to grow our tourism sector over the next 10 years, and I have set a strategic goal that tourism expenditure from overnight visitors will exceed £2 billion by 2035. I am indebted to the Tourism Partnership Board, which helped to identify 17 activities that are critical to achieving that ambition in a way that promotes regional balance, raises productivity, creates good jobs and lowers carbon emissions.

Ms Sheerin: Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire as an fhreagra sin.

Minister, thank you for recently meeting the members of the Loughinsholin tourism cluster, along with me, from Mid Ulster. Do you agree that that group has massive potential to strengthen tourism in Mid Ulster, and will you agree to visit that tourism, please?

Mr C Murphy: I had a very constructive meeting with several members of the tourism cluster, and the Department and Tourism NI recognise the value of all tourism clusters in the North, which raise the profile of those destinations and enhance the capability of tourism providers. Tourism NI has worked closely with a number of individual businesses and has experience of the Loughinsholin tourism cluster, as well as other tourism clusters. Looking forward, it will be important to continue engagement between the tourism cluster, Tourism NI and Mid Ulster District Council. The tourism vision and action plan commits to the development of a set of destination stewardship plans for destinations across the North, and clusters can be key partners in shaping the delivery of those plans.

Of course, I would be very happy to visit some of the facilities there. I have passed by them often enough on the road up to Derry, but I would be very happy to stop when the opportunity arises.

Mr O'Toole: Minister, do you agree with the First Minister's claim that the Executive are wholly behind devoting energy and resource to getting pre-clearance for Belfast International Airport, which would be great in theory but looks vanishingly unlikely in the circumstances? Would your Department's energy not be better focused elsewhere?

Mr C Murphy: I agree with the First Minister in that we are putting significant effort and resources into those plans. We want to ensure that tourism, which the question relates to, has an opportunity, through the priorities that I have set in the Department and that are now included in the Programme for Government, to improve regional balance, access to jobs and productivity growth and to help with some of the green initiatives taking place in tourism for net zero. It is an important industry and a very important part of our economy. It has been undervalued, in my opinion, for too long, and the task force plan that I have put together provides a degree of focus and, importantly, provides for engagement with the tourism industry on the development of those plans and their implementation going forward.

Mr C Murphy: The latest economic evidence shows that the local labour market continues to remain very challenging, with an annual undersupply of 4,300 workers, unemployment remaining historically low at 1·6%, economic inactivity remaining high at 26·5% and many sectors reporting recruitment challenges. With over 90% of the 2030 workforce already in employment, we must work with employers and sectors to support a culture of lifelong learning and to invest in skills to address current shortages and meet future challenges. I am committed to addressing skills shortages. As I set out in my skills statement last July, I have created a skills fund, investing in a range of training interventions focused on growth sectors and transferable skills.

Mr McGlone: Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire.

As the Minister knows, Mid Ulster is a manufacturing hub that sends products all across the world. Digital skills are particularly important in the development of many businesses, especially those in the manufacturing sectors. What specific plans does the Department have for that industry and, in particular, for the development of artificial intelligence and how that relates to some of those businesses?

Mr C Murphy: I have had a number of meetings with the manufacturing sector in Mid Ulster over the past year or 18 months, most recently last November. It is doing a remarkable job, and its organisation through the board of Manufacturing and Engineering Growth and Advancement (MEGA) adds strength to what it is delivering. We discussed with MEGA opportunities and challenges in the manufacturing and engineering sector in Mid Ulster, including the need for a skilled labour force, and how the Department and its partner organisations can align our provision with the needs of the industry.

We have had discussions on AI with the Department responsible in Westminster to get a sense of the direction of travel under the British Government, what they might legislate for and how that might impact on us, as well as to see how we can enhance the use of AI to support our local manufacturing. One of my four objectives is productivity, which is about using the latest technology to improve the outcome of manufacturing in particular. We want to ensure that all our manufacturers have access to the latest thinking and learning. We will invest in an AI centre to ensure that people have a resource to go to for advice and support in that area.

Mrs Dillon: Minister, you mentioned the fact that you met MEGA just before Christmas. It was a good meeting, and anybody would attest to the work that MEGA has done. Will you confirm that MEGA, which is the organisation that I know most about as it is in Mid Ulster, and other organisations are taking a leading role? Industry needs to be central to developing the skills that are needed and how we teach them. Will you give us some detail on what training is provided by the skills fund?

Mr C Murphy: We engage with industry — with clusters and with individual companies — to ensure that we have the bespoke training, through, for example, skills academies, that is needed for a particular area in order to create a skills pipeline for the people who operate in that area.

The skills fund aligns with my economic plans. It already supports a range of initiatives targeting up to 8,000 individuals to upskill this financial year. Those initiatives include a new SKILL UP programme, developing our workforce in the childcare sector and training for green skills. I am also focused on ensuring that we offer support to people facing additional barriers to accessing learning and employment. A number of new initiatives are being supported to provide training and additional support to individuals who are economically inactive. Those include programmes targeting people who are disabled or neurodiverse or who have barriers to entering employment or learning. Additional funding is provided for a series of women returners' initiatives to help individuals to use learning to gain confidence and skills to re-enter the workforce. Local further education colleges and universities are taking the lead on delivering all skills fund programmes.

Mr C Murphy: I held my 'good jobs' employment rights public consultation between 1 July and 30 September 2024. My officials and I have engaged constructively with stakeholders throughout. My consultation focused on four key aspects of a 'good job': terms of employment; pay and benefits; voice and representation; and work-life balance. Some 192 consultation responses were received, highlighting a range of views and observations. Detailed analysis of those responses is almost complete. That analysis and other policy considerations will inform my decisions about the content of the employment rights Bill that I will bring to the Executive for agreement in the months ahead.

Mr Baker: Go raibh maith agat,

Minister. What is your thinking on carers leave?

Mr C Murphy: The 'good jobs' employment rights consultation proposed to introduce the right to up to one week of leave pro rata for unpaid eligible carers over a rolling 12-month period, to provide care for a family member or other dependant who has a longer-term or otherwise significant care need. We will continue to engage on that, and there are opportunities for those who represent carers to have an input. They already have done, and they will continue to have an input as we develop policy on that issue and turn it into legislation and other proposals that may come forward over the next year.

Mr Speaker: A quick question, Mr Brett.

Mr Brett: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Minister, business organisations and employers have expressed huge concern at the manner in which the consultation on the Bill was carried out and the lack of proposals from the Department. Will the Minister give a commitment to the House that, once he has taken policy decisions, he will go out to further public consultation on the proposals that he intends to bring in?

Mr C Murphy: Just last week, I engaged with the Labour Relations Agency (LRA) forum, on which a number of business organisations are represented. I did not hear that level of concern, but, if the Member has, we will endeavour to engage on that.

The report to the Committee last week was, if you like, a summation report on the consultation. The next step is to develop that into policy, which would ultimately lead to legislation, advice and guidance or other measures that might bring forward the measures that are needed in order to secure better employment for people. We will, of course, keep the Committee involved, and it will have opportunities, during its deliberations, to engage with business organisations, trade unions and others on the content of the Bill.

Mr Speaker: We move to topical questions.

Mr C Murphy: Just last week, we launched the task force report on tourism and hospitality, in which there is an ambition to grow that industry and its income. I hope that, in doing that, we will secure employment for people and businesses in that sector.

I have no doubt that these are challenging times. We came out of COVID, with all the challenges that it presented, particularly to hospitality and other small businesses, and moved immediately into an energy crisis and a cost-of-living crisis in which the material costs for the people providing tourism offerings increased and the income of those who were trying to avail themselves of those offerings reduced. That presents a significant challenge. The addition of the increase in National Insurance contributions for employers is particularly challenging for small businesses. The Finance Minister will continue to engage with the Treasury on that.

We will continue to try to grow the economy through the development of strategies, the promotion of our businesses and the promotion of investment in the area to try to increase the overall level of prosperity, which will, in turn, benefit the tourism and hospitality sector. Through the additional investment that I have put into Tourism Ireland, we will continue to promote this place as a destination and make sure that we get more international visitors, albeit with the challenges that we face with the ETA that I was just speaking about.

Ms McLaughlin: The incoming Irish Government are committing to reducing VAT for tourism and hospitality businesses to 9%. The UK Government afford small businesses rates relief at a much higher level than we do. Minister, will you and your Executive colleagues commit to bringing forward proposals to support our business community as it struggles to survive? Many of those businesses are at the end of their tether and feel that there is a hostile business environment in Northern Ireland.

Mr C Murphy: The Finance Minister will bring rates proposals to the Executive shortly, and I think that she intends to provide as much support as she can to the business community. When I was the Minister of Finance, we reduced the business rate by 18% because we recognised that it was a high burden. The vast bulk of our businesses are small and medium-sized enterprises, so that was a challenge to them.

I will, of course, continue to work with Executive colleagues. We all have different responsibilities in relation to that. For example, the Department for Communities has responsibility for the high street, and TEO had the high street task force. We need to work together. Growing the economy is an Executive priority, and I expect all Executive colleagues to row in behind measures, plans and propositions that aim to support that.

Mr C Murphy: We have done an energy efficiency scheme for businesses through Invest NI, and we want to look at what more we can do for domestic customers.

The challenge, as ever, for every Department is to have the finances to be able to do those things. Executive targets for reducing carbon emissions will include the need for much more energy efficiency. Much more energy efficiency will therefore be required in the time ahead. We will bring forward proposals and try to support them as best we can out of our Department's limited resources and also make an argument at the Executive table for collective responsibility when it comes to more energy efficiency and more use of renewables, a consequence of which will be a reduction in our carbon emissions.

Mr Allen: I thank the Minister for his answer. Minister, have you given any consideration to supplementing the Northern Ireland sustainable energy programme? Can you perhaps provide your assessment of its effectiveness?

Mr C Murphy: As I stand here today, I cannot. I would need to get some sense of its effectiveness. I am, however, happy to write to the Member in the time ahead.

We will consider any schemes that are effective or working well and that we can afford to do. Affordability is a key issue for us. One then has to set that against the potential for missing targets and what that would do to society here. We will therefore continue to lobby for more support from London. In answer to an earlier question, I spoke about the GB Energy Bill. Where there are opportunities for assistance from there, we will continue to try to utilise it. As I said, however, I am happy to write to the Member with an assessment of the sustainable energy programme.

Mr C Murphy: The short answer is this: very challenging. Like, I have no doubt, most Departments, we got much less than what we bid for. That will present real challenges for us in areas such as skills and higher and further education, as well as for everything else that the Department is committed to supporting in the time ahead.

We have been meeting regularly — both before and since Christmas — to endeavour to make sure that our budgets stretch as far as they possibly can. We need more collaboration with other Departments. There is already a significant degree of collaboration with Executive colleagues on a range of matters. We also need to ensure that the First Minister, the deputy First Minister and the Finance Minister in particular continue to lobby for a better budgetary outcome for us.

It is going to be a challenging year, and, as far as we understand, we are then into a three-year Budget cycle. The opportunity for us is to try to get the budget right over the course of this year for the further three years. That requires us to work together to achieve more efficient and effective outcomes, to make sure that everything that we spend reaches as far as it possibly can and to continue to work with the British Government to try to ensure a decent outcome.

Mr Kearney: Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire as an tuairisc chun dáta sin. Lena chois sin, a Aire,

can you give us an assurance that, notwithstanding the dire financial situation that your Department faces, funding for Magee will continue to be prioritised?

Mr C Murphy: As I said in response to a previous question, the expansion to 10,000 students for the Magee project was a New Decade, New Approach (NDNA) commitment. All parties that were turning into Executive parties at that stage were committed to it, as were both Governments, who also had a contribution to make in that regard, because both of them drafted that particular agreement. That commitment has now been absorbed into the Programme for Government.

I have set up a task force to work on that, because, as I have said, it is not a matter of creating more spaces in the university but a matter of how the city accommodates the numbers. The Member, and others beside him, will know that the city itself has identified the growth of Magee as being a key catalyst for its overall economic performance and improvement. It is therefore a commitment, and I intend to honour it, and I expect other Departments and the Executive as a whole to assist me in honouring it.

Thus far, we have got off to a good start. Programmes have been developed. There are more students there now than there were before. Land has been identified, while capital plans have been identified until, I think, 2032 in order to achieve the expansion. Of course, that good start has to be sustained and supported as we go on. Given the fact that it forms part of our Programme for Government, however, I would expect Executive support for doing so.

Mr Speaker: Question 4 has been withdrawn.

Mr C Murphy: The Member's point is a critical one, because we have a situation in which there are very high levels of employment and low levels of unemployment, yet economic inactivity remains at a high level — I think that we said 26·5% — on average across the North. The further north and west that one goes, the percentage goes up.

Given the restrictions of Brexit, the ability to attract foreign labour is restricted. Regardless, we have an obligation to work with people who are trying to find their way back into the employment market to give them the support that they need.

A lot of the organisations that were involved previously relied on European funding, such as the European social fund (ESF) and the European regional development fund (ERDF). They then relied on the Shared Prosperity Fund, which brought them close to a cliff edge. We are now told that Shared Prosperity funding will continue for one more year but at a reduced amount. We have been trying to ascertain the level of support in that respect. Those organisations are critical in terms of their experience, their know-how, their record in working with people who are far removed from the labour market and their knowledge of the steps that are necessary to bring people back in and then, hopefully, on to other skills organisations, such as our colleges and universities.

We will continue to press the case in relation to the Shared Prosperity Fund to get an understanding. If the programmes are not funded, those who provide them and those who benefit from them and rely on them will be in a difficult situation. We will continue to try to get a handle on that.

Mr Dickson: Thank you, Minister, for your answer. A recent report has demonstrated that women over 50 in Northern Ireland are, in comparison with other jurisdictions, less likely to be in employment. How will your 'good jobs' Bill help to deliver for those women and get them into employment?

Mr C Murphy: As I mentioned in answer to one of the questions on skills, there are specific programmes for women in the skills programme. We have had many engagements with people who represent women in employment and other women's interest groups. People with disabilities, young people and women comprise a higher proportion of the economically inactive than in the general population. The programme is tailored to get economically inactive people out of that situation. Of course, childcare will be a critical part of that, as it will allow people the opportunity to go back into employment or skills and learning. Those programmes need to be tailored with those groups in mind. That is our intention.

Mr C Murphy: I do not have an assessment of the proportion of good jobs, but, as I said, we set four priorities across the Department on productivity and promoting good jobs that all of its agencies have also undertaken and that are now part of the draft Programme for Government, which, hopefully, will be finalised in the near future. We have brought in outside advisers to assist us in that regard, and we have brought together a number of organisations regularly to provide advice and guidance.

It is not simply about the salary involved; it is about representation in the workforce and flexibility and value in your work. There are a range of factors that go into that. There is the Carnegie definition, and work continues on trying to achieve the outcomes that that envisages in terms of good jobs. That will take time and effort, but it is a priority for the Department, so we will continue to focus on it.

Mr Delargy: I thank the Minister for that comprehensive answer. What impact will the British Government's decision to increase National Insurance contributions for small business have? Will it make it more difficult for small businesses in particular to bring people into employment?

Mr C Murphy: It certainly increases the challenge. The difficulty is that that was introduced with no compensatory measures to support small businesses. It was, basically, introduced as a quick fix in one area without, in our view, any consideration of a region such as this in particular, where small and medium enterprises employ about 90% of our working population. There was no real consideration of the consequences or impact of that, and there was no alternative support to assist businesses to grow.

We have heard from quite a number of small businesses that that will be a challenge. I hope that it is one that they can meet. I hope that the arguments about mitigation and other supports land with the Government in the time ahead and that we get that support, but there is no doubt that it will be a challenge.

Mr C Murphy: The whole region will benefit. There are something like 17 actions. We brought together a wide range of people from the industry. I have a firm view, which I have always had, that, if you are going to design policies and action plans, you need to co-design those with people in the industry at the coalface who know what works and what will not work and involve those with Tourism NI officials and officials from the Department. It will now be about delivery on that, and destination tourism is a part of that, because, clearly, we have a lot of outdoor and indoor attractions that have become part of our tourism map here and have been successful in drawing more visitors to the area. It is a matter of strengthening those but also growing the other destinations that are available. North Down, I am sure, has plenty to offer visitors who will come to the area.

I invite the Member to engage with the tourism action plan and perhaps engage with the partnership board on that and to discuss it with the board, because all of the industry has been represented there. There was a strong presence at the launch from across the sector and across the North. People are enthusiastic about getting on with that work and growing the tourism industry in the way that we want to grow it over the next number of years.

Mr Speaker: That concludes questions to the Minister for the Economy.

Mr Gaston: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. As you are aware, the Secretary of State has refused to pull the Stormont brake in spite of the request to do so by every unionist in the House. Does not today's decision expose the basis on which devolution was restored as a sham? Mr Speaker, do you expect to remain in office in light of the fact that the main unionist party should pull the plug on these institutions, which are built on sinking sand?

Mr Speaker: First, it is not a point of order, but you have made a statement. The Secretary of State gave a comprehensive letter, and people should take time to read it and understand it. I am sure that it will not be the end of the matter in terms of people who wish to exercise the Stormont brake in the future. Having read the letter, I think that it provides quite a bit of clarification on how these things can be resolved. I look forward to people using the democratic institutions to enable that to happen.

Mr Speaker: It is time for the Minister of Justice's response, and we look forward to that.

Mrs Long (The Minister of Justice): At the outset, I say that it was disappointing today, in a debate that purported to be about the protection of women's dignity and of women's rights, that a sequence of men in the Chamber chose to speak at us and for us rather than give way to listen to us as women. In fact, when the Ulster Unionist Party Member for Upper Bann was holding forth on things as unrelated to the motion as vaginal birth, breastfeeding and pregnancy, he refused to give way to a pregnant woman who has vaginally birthed two children and breastfed both of them and may be more experienced in such matters than the Member to my right. It says a lot that we are having a defence of single-sex spaces in a place where, today, women's voices could have been heard more clearly but others would not give way, with the notable exception, I have to say, of Mr Carroll.

I know that the Ulster Unionist Party is keen on preserving single-sex spaces; indeed, its Assembly team was a single-sex space until relatively recently, with their new Member joining. Therefore, I know that it is a long-standing commitment.

Mr Butler: Will the Member give way?

Mrs Long: No, I will not give way, because, interestingly enough, I think that, when a woman is holding the Floor and making her speech in response to the debate, it is appropriate that maybe she should be allowed to do so without interruption, given the discourtesy that was shown to us earlier.

I welcome the opportunity to respond to the motion. I thank the Members who acknowledged the sensitivity and complexity of the issues being discussed and the potential for what is said in the Chamber to impact on the lives of vulnerable people in our community. We can and should debate and discuss these issues. However, it is important that, when we do, we do so in a considered and temperate manner. This is just one of many debates that we will have in the House, but, for some people, including those who are transgender and those who are raising transgender children, these debates, the words that we use and the things that we say are everything. We need to be conscious of that when we approach the issues.

When I look around today, I am struck by the fact that no one in the Chamber is the same as the person next to them. We all come from different backgrounds. We have all had different journeys through life. We have different fears, different hopes and different aspirations and, yes, even in the Chamber, different vulnerabilities. We see and experience the world through a different lens as a result. No two women are alike; no two men are alike; and no two people are alike. We also have a reasonable expectation that our differences will make us a part of society and not apart from society.

There is always a risk when issues of identity are the subject of public and political discourse that the discussion is marked by contention, fractiousness and a lack of compassion, nuance and understanding. Approaching issues in that way can inadvertently make individuals and groups in our community feel further marginalised, vulnerable or fearful. I am determined to guard against that. My Department is fully committed to providing continuous support for the LGBTQI+ community and to all other minority communities throughout Northern Ireland when they are in contact with the justice system, whether that is as a victim of crime, a witness, a complainant, a defendant or a perpetrator. We are committed to doing so while ensuring that there is no diminution of any other person's rights. Rights and equality are not finite. Their extension to one person or group does not diminish their availability to others. None of us are truly equal and protected until all of us are.

The placement of those from the transgender community in prison has recently been the subject of inaccurate media reporting. It is regrettable that the public discourse that led to this debate is about one individual from a minority group that all of us in the Chamber have a duty to protect and support. Every prisoner has the right to a degree of privacy and dignity in their personal business that we in the Department always endeavour to protect as a rule. Therefore, we do not comment on individuals committed to our care.

I took the opportunity last week at Question Time to set the record straight about that case, given that it was already in the public domain. However, I will do so again, because, despite my explicitly setting out the facts, none of those professing concern about the issue seem to have taken on board anything that was said in the Chamber last week. There was no ruling against the Department. There was no finding that the Department did not have a policy. In fact, the judge did not respond to the writ of habeas corpus but said that it was appropriate and right that it should be left to the Department to process a prisoner through the system in the normal way. That is what happened, in effect. To be clear, there has been no judgement against the Department's policy and no ruling against the Department's policy. Yet, a number of Members erroneously stated that in the Chamber again today. If I, as a Minister, came to the Chamber and misrepresented facts, knowingly misrepresented facts, I would have to come back and apologise to the House for misleading it. Yet, Members will stand up in the Chamber and misrepresent facts, despite the fact that they were brought to their attention in the Chamber last week, and nothing happens. People can essentially insinuate and smear without having facts. That is a risky approach to take.

My Department and the wider justice system are keenly focused on ensuring that the safety, security, rights and dignity of every individual who comes into contact with the justice system are upheld. Every day, across the justice system, we expect and trust the independent judiciary, the Police Service, the Prison Service and others to consider the risks and needs of the individuals for whom they are responsible. We ask those professionals to make decisions in context, taking into account the complex individual circumstances and wider public safety considerations, in order to manage that risk. That is their job. I, for one, find it incredibly depressing that, despite the fact that the Prison Service has managed to do that so successfully over recent years without serious incident or cause for alarm, we find ourselves second-guessing the policy approach that it has taken. They are professional people who live to protect the people in their care as well as their colleagues and the public.

Of course, that applies not just to matters of gender identity; it applies to ethnicity, socio-economic status, health, disability, age, sexual orientation and many other matters. To manage the risks and needs of an individual who comes into contact with the justice system will almost always require consideration of a complex combination of factors unique to each case. In many ways, the Northern Ireland Prison Service has one of the most challenging roles in that work, as its engagement with individuals is likely to be for months or years rather than hours or days. It is not a one-off risk assessment; it is an ongoing process for anyone in the justice system. Their development and behaviour in the system inform that ongoing risk assessment. Therefore, whilst there is a point-of-time risk assessment for the initial committal, that is not where responsibility for the risk assessment of a prisoner ends. It is foolhardy to suggest that you could, by legislation, in the way in which it has been suggested, manage that ongoing risk in a meaningful way as a person transitions through the justice system, with different levels of risk and different levels of challenge attendant to their case. From my many visits to prisons and discussions with prison staff and management, I know how seriously they treat those responsibilities and the efforts that they invest in getting it right. I provide the assurance that is, I trust, being sought that the rights, safety and dignity of every prisoner are taken seriously by Prison Service.

It is odd that this is the first time that we have had a debate about the welfare of inmates in our prison system. It is the first time that we have had the opportunity to talk specifically about that beyond healthcare matters. The wider issues of safety, security and dignity in our prisons have not been raised in the Chamber for debate previously. In that context, it is interesting that we are having the debate in this way. In my time visiting prisons, I have spoken to many of the women who have been discussed here today. I have spoken to the women in the women's prison and have listened to them. Many of them recount to me that they feel safer there than pretty much anywhere else that they have been in their recent lives. That stands as a testament to the fact that our prison officers know their job. They know what they are doing and are informed in order to be able to do it.

It is for that very reason that, some years ago, we completed a review of the procedures for managing transgender individuals, following engagement with the Equality Commission and the South Eastern Health and Social Care Trust. Prior to that time and in line with the views of previous Ministers of Justice, Prison Service had a long-standing practice in place to deal with transgender and, indeed, intersex prisoners. Let us remember that not everyone who does not fit neatly into the categories of male or female has made a decision to transition; some who are born intersex may also end up in the prison system and need to be housed safely. That also needs to be considered by those who want to play out culture wars.

This should be done on a case-by-case basis. There is no point tutting: when you raise those issues in the manner in which you have without seeking the facts or seeking to inform your position, it can be seen only as a cheap shot and not as an informed contribution to the discussion.

Following the deaths of two transgender prisoners in English prisons and the issues in Scottish prisons that have been referred to in the debate, a decision was taken to put in place a formal process and take on board the learning from both, because, of course, the problem in Scotland was that a black-and-white approach was adopted. It should never have been adopted and will never be adopted by the Northern Ireland Prison Service.

"Guidance on the care and management of transgender prisoners" was subsequently implemented by the Prison Service in August 2020. Far from being opaque, the policy has been available for anyone who wished to request a copy of it, read it, talk to me about it or talk to Prison Service about it. Interestingly, the only enquiry that we had was a question from Mr Gaston that came after the motion was tabled. No other Member asked to see that information or requested a copy. That is how concerned they are about the policy.

That is where their intellectual curiosity led. The policy is far from opaque; it is available in the Library. I hope that people will read it. Indeed, to be fair to Mr Gaston, I believe that he quoted from it today. He has paid attention to what is happening on the issue. That is the only credit that I am likely to throw in his direction in this debate

but it is credit nevertheless.

In general, when a person who is transgender is committed to an establishment as directed by the court, the Prison Service will consider their specific needs on a case-by-case basis in line with best practice. In doing so, it takes a person-centred and risk-based approach to decisions on accommodation and care, informed by advice from colleagues in the South Eastern Health and Social Care Trust. Under the guidance, specific arrangements can be made in respect of where the person is accommodated and how they access services in prison.

To be clear, the argument put forward by Mr Beattie that people were simply released into general population on every occasion is a nonsense. Of course that would not always be appropriate; it may never be appropriate. It will depend on a risk-based assessment of the individual. Prisons undertake that to ensure that prisoners, many of whom are vulnerable, can fully engage in the regime without detriment to their safety. Equally importantly, they seek to do so without detriment to the rights, safety or dignity of other prisoners. The assessment includes members of the health team, and it is close to Maurice Bradley's description of what he would like to see in prisons. Perhaps, when he takes himself to the Library and reads the policy, he will be reassured that we take a multidisciplinary approach. However, the motion today, if he and his colleagues support it, would mean the opposite of a risk-based approach, which is the very approach that Maurice Bradley said was the right way to go.

The Prison Service engages regularly with the Equality Commission and other appropriate organisations to facilitate the delivery of training to prison staff. It also works on an ongoing basis to ensure that the rights of women are respected and protected. To that end, a women's safety officer was appointed at Hydebank Wood women's prison in October 2019 to enhance the support available to women in custody. Many people come into prison with a range of unmet needs, contributed to by social exclusion, wider societal issues and inaccessibility of services in the community, particularly health and mental health services, or failure to access those services.

Mr Speaker: The Minister's time is up.

Mrs Long: In conclusion, the judiciary, PPS and PSNI do not decide where prisoners go. The motion is fundamentally flawed.

Mr Speaker: I call Timothy Gaston to make a winding-up speech on the amendment.

Mr Gaston: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Having listened to today's contributions, and considering the fact that my opponents simply did not engage with my arguments, I am more convinced than ever that there is nothing loving about housing men in female prisons. There is nothing progressive in rolling back rights that were won by women in the 19th century. There is nothing inclusive about excluding the words "women" and "girls" from policy papers, such as the one that I referred to, that have serious ramifications for what should be female-only spaces, such as women's prisons.

In his novel, '1984', George Orwell described how the state created Newspeak, a controlled language of restricted grammar and limited vocabulary that was designed to limit freedom of thought. It involved removing words from vocabulary and defining words that remained, forcing people to accept ideas that they knew made no sense. He summed it up:

That is why the Health Minister referred to "people who menstruate". That is why the Finance Minister introduced a Civil Service inclusive language guide, which she was permitted to do without objection from Executive colleagues. Civil servants are advised that, instead of the words "mum" and "dad", they should use "parent", "adult" or "caregiver". They should not talk about "husband", "wife", "boyfriend" or "girlfriend" but "partner" or "spouse".

Mr O'Toole: Will the Member give way?

Mr Gaston: Civil servants should not ask for a "Christian name" but for a person's "forename".

Mr O'Toole: I appreciate the Member giving way. As an Orwell fan, I am always pleased to talk about Orwell in the Chamber. Will the Member acknowledge that, in '1984', Orwell was talking about a totalitarian society in which one could not use those terms at all? The fact that the Member and other Members have, in the Chamber today, used, and are entirely free to use, terms that other people might find offensive is proof that we do not live in that type of society. The Member is free to say whatever he wants.

Mr Gaston: I thank the Member for his input. Members always seem to want to get away from the issue that is before us. It is a woman's rights issue; nobody else wants to talk about that, but that is what we always need to come back to.

I am grateful for the support of DUP Members in the debate, but I ask them to reflect on what is happening in their Ministers' Departments, particularly Education. Prior to the last Assembly election, some of them were prominent in the Let Kids Be Kids campaign. However, what have we seen? We have a DUP Education Minister who washes his hands of questions about a policy that allows pupils to be referred to by names and pronouns that do not match the biological reality. He does not know and has no desire to find out how many schools —

Mr Speaker: Will the Member come back to the scope of the debate, please?

Mr Gaston: — have introduced gender-neutral bathrooms. The Minister needs to get serious. The Education Authority is accountable to the Education Minister. It is not a body that he can conveniently palm difficult issues off to when he does not want to deal with them.

Mr Speaker: Mr Gaston, we are on a Justice matter. Will you return to the issue, which is about prisons and people who are housed in prisons?

Mr Gaston: I will move back to prisons, Mr Speaker.

In the 1961 musical 'West Side Story', a character sings the lines:

To bring it back to the idiocy that we are dealing with, I am far from convinced that labelling those lines as offensive and transphobic in 2025 represents any sort of progress. To be a lot more serious, I think of the words of Christ in Mark 10:

In truth, few of today's contributions sought to engage with the points that I made, but I will respond to some Members who did. I say to Deirdre Hargey that, as I made clear when I moved the amendment, I see the issue purely as one involving women's rights. Joanne Bunting made a number of common-sense remarks about the need to protect female spaces, which were sneered at by the Justice Minister from the nasty party. Maurice Bradley raised concerns about how the panels function, but he missed the key point: the fact that those panels have to be "gender-balanced". Are there two genders? How about nine? Are there over 150? I will give way to any Member who wants to put into Hansard how many people will need to be on those panels.

Mr Speaker: You will not give way, Mr Gaston, because you have about five seconds remaining. [Laughter.]

Mr Gaston: I thought that I would get an extra minute, Mr Speaker, because I took an intervention.

Mr Speaker: No; not when you are making a winding-up speech. Will you, please, conclude?

Mr Gaston: Thank you very much, Mr Speaker.

Mr Speaker: I call Robbie Butler to make a winding-up speech on the motion.

Mr Butler: Mr Speaker, do I have 10 minutes?

Mr Speaker: You have 10 minutes.

Mr Butler: It might not take 10 minutes.

I spent time over the weekend thinking about what I might capture and cover in the debate. That has been clouded, and rightly so, by the need to ensure that the language that we use in the Chamber is —. I am conscious that it is a controversial topic to debate. It matters to a lot of people. However, what we have seen, particularly from the Justice Minister, is an ideological politicisation of a topic that some people — not just politicians, but people from my constituency and from women's groups who have contacted me and who I have spent time with —.

Let me put this on the record very clearly at the start: no one will stand in the Chamber and be more passionate than me in talking about what it is like to work as a prison officer in the Prison Service and about what it is like to administer the policies and regulations created by the legislation that this place makes. I served in the Prison Service from 1996 until 2000, working under immense pressure. Most contributors spoke very kindly of prison officers. You have to remember that they have no say in the rules and regulations that are made. Indeed, the very fact that they work in a prison probably curtails their being stakeholders in any design of or consultation on what we do here. What we do here is really important, but let me make this clear: over the decades, for many and varied reasons, prison officers in this country have worked under huge pressure and at huge risk. They get up under risk every day and go to work to protect themselves, each other and the inmates, regardless of where they are from. Some contributions, although certainly not those from Doug Beattie or other Ulster Unionist Party Members, prevented an opening up of the debate sadly. We could have done that and talked honestly about the thoughts and feelings of people across this country.

I am going to read something out. There is no name on it; I am not putting a name to it. A lady sent me an email over the weekend from my constituency, Lagan Valley. She asked me to speak in this debate, stating:

She goes on to make various points about this debate. She says:

That is a lady in Lagan Valley. It is not a man: it is not Robbie Butler. It is a lady who is speaking up for herself and her wife. She has a position on the issue and has every right to speak in this debate. Anybody who says that the motion came from a misogynistic or transphobic position misses the whole point of the debate. You can critique the motion and say that it is not very good, but it is reasonable to have the debate.

Ms Nicholl: Will the Member give way?

Mr Butler: I give way to the Member for South Belfast.

Ms Nicholl: I genuinely appreciate it. Do you recognise that, in a number of the contributions that were made in support of the motion, the vast majority of the time was spent talking about things that were not related to prisons, prisoners and that work? That is why it is fair for us to conclude that the debate is based on a culture war.

Mr Butler: Absolutely not. The Member for South Belfast knows that I would not do that. I rate her very highly but she is not right about this debate. Some of the contributions may not have been helpful and strayed into other areas where language is really important, so I will give her that. However, most of the contributions were reasonably sensible.

I am going to be honest: I was very disappointed with the Minister's contribution. She is a formidable politician, a really good public speaker and passionate about many things, but she is wrong on this. She claimed that the Chamber has not debated prisoner welfare and safety. Actually, as far back as when Eamonn McCann from People Before Profit was here, we discussed inmate deaths in the Chamber. We absolutely did. I stood here and spoke about it from the perspective of the staff who put their lives on the line to protect and save people and, by the way, never get recognised for doing so.

I will move back to the motion. It is OK to have a difference of opinion. We have to be able to come into the Chamber and use appropriate language and not pigeonhole people as transphobic or misogynistic. I am not going to call anybody —.

Mrs Long: Will the Member give way?

Mr Butler: No. I will not, because you did not do me the same courtesy. [Interruption.]

Mr Speaker, she did not do me the same courtesy, and then —. [Interruption.]

That is what is wrong. It was OK for her to label everybody else for not giving way, but it was hypocrisy to then not give way herself, which is what a lot of the debate centres on.

I am at the five-minute mark, so I am just going to very quickly reference what a few Members said. My party colleague Doug Beattie compassionately read a perspective into the record. Many do not share that perspective — I get that — but he did not diminish anybody's rights. Rights are funny things, guys. We all know that. They do not sit in isolation: they come with responsibilities. Having rights without responsibilities is anarchy, because then you are in the space of competing rights. That is where we are. That is why we need to stand up and assess the responsibilities in this area. That needs to be taken into consideration.

I am sorry, Mr Gaston, but you sought to take out the LGBT bit in the motion, which was really important, because the LGBT community suffers from higher levels of mental health issues and discrimination. That is not the case in this instance, but the fact that your amendment seeks to take out the reference to the LGBT community means that we will not be supporting it.

Deirdre Hargey from South Belfast accused my party of grandstanding. Let me tell you this: in the prison system in 2024, we have segregated prisoner regimes. We still have paramilitaries and people from proscribed organisations in separated regimes because that is what they want. For too long, we have had a hierarchy here, where victims and perpetrators of crime are treated differently to people who come from proscribed organisations. That is something that we need to face into and on which I hope all parties can agree. Maybe there will be a debate on that, and we will then see Sinn Féin's money.

I am not going to be cross with Connie Egan at all because I thought that her input was quite reasonable and measured. Connie, I hope that that does not get you into any trouble with your party. [Laughter.]

I move on to Matthew O'Toole, the leader of the Opposition. We know the SDLP's position on these matters, but I thought that Matthew's was probably one of the best and most measured contributions, because he is willing to have a debate without labelling anybody, and that is important.

I was pretty sure about where Maurice Bradley was going to come from, but I will be honest and give him credit. He did not descend into a culture war. He did not descend into finger-pointing or accusing anybody of anything. He made it a useful debate.

I am sorry, but I cannot extend to Paula Bradshaw what I said to Connie, because she started off, as her Minister did, by labelling my party and me in a certain way. We are not wearing it; it is as simple as that. I worked in the women's prison at Maghaberry when it was there, putting my life at risk, and I understand the regime differences. We need to tease out lots of stuff, but, given the nature of the response from the Minister, the Chamber is not the place in which to do it.

Stephen Dunne homed in on the need to safeguard all spaces. He is not here for this part of the debate.

I move on to Gerry Carroll. My goodness, he may as well join the Alliance Party. I like Gerry quite a lot, but, unfortunately, he brings nothing to these debates. He comes in and does not listen; he just comes in to talk. He is not prepared to have a debate or to listen. He comes in and just labels, but there you go.

We then heard from the independent Member, Claire Sugden. Claire was trying to sit on the fence a bit, but, as a former Justice Minister, she made some good points. To be honest, I got a bit mixed up, because I am not sure how she can be sympathetic to biological sex yet not support the motion. [Inaudible.]

Mr Butler: It is all on the record, and people can play the recording back and watch it. The Minister talked about my chuntering and tutting: there is no party in the Chamber that does more chuntering and tutting than the party to my left. To be honest, I know no other Minister who does it as much.

That being the case, this is a serious debate. I hope that, after the votes, we can calm our jets, because this is a discussion that needs to be had. It needs to be had, because I know of no woman — no woman in my whole circle of life — who agrees with the position that the Minister advocates. They find it difficult to do so. Members are rolling their eyes. I understand that there are women's organisations that support trans women being in women's prisons, but there are other women's organisations, which I have met, that do not. We need to stop labelling one another, guys. That would be a start to this. If we cannot stop labelling one another, we will not move out of the cul-de-sac that we are in.

I will finish with this: the party to my left can say that the motion is not right and that it would not work. What is there at the moment will not work. It is not protecting —.

Mr Allen: Will the Member give way?

Mr Butler: I will give way.

Mr Allen: The Member says that the party to his left said that the motion is not right and that it would not work, but, when offered the opportunity to table an amendment to the motion to recognise that, it did not take it.

Mrs Long: We did. It was not chosen.

Mr Allen: Not in that regard.

Mr Butler: I thank the Member for his intervention. We cannot respond to an amendment that was not selected. If it was not accepted, it was not accepted because it was outwith the scope and capacity of the motion. That probably demonstrates that the Member is right.

I will end now, because my 10 minutes are up. We know what way the votes will go, but the discussion will not disappear.

Mr Speaker: The Member distracted me with his eloquence. I do not have to explain, but the only amendment that was accepted was the amendment that did not negate the original motion. Members will have the opportunity to vote against the motion and negate it in that way, if that is their desire.

Mr Speaker: I have been advised by the party Whips that, in accordance with Standing Order 27(1A)(b), there is agreement that we can dispense with the three minutes and move straight to the Division.

Mr Speaker: Members should take their ease until we move to the next item of business.

Mr Boylan: 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 in which to propose and 10 minutes in which to make a winding-up speech. All other Members who are called to speak will have five minutes.

Mr Boylan: I welcome the opportunity to speak once again on behalf of the autism community and those on the autism spectrum.

The Assembly passed the Autism Act 2011 and the Autism (Amendment) Act 2022 under the sponsorship of past chairpersons of the all-party group (APG) on autism. It thus acknowledged that the service and support needs of autistic individuals were unique and that measures to address them had been absent, which meant that the extreme measure of enacting the most comprehensive lifelong equality legislation in Europe was warranted.

As the current chairperson of the APG and its longest-serving member, I am totally invested in supporting the innovative implementation of legislation that we should all be proud of, as other jurisdictions look to us in the North for leadership on autism. However, the deepening crisis in our autism community is all too evident when we see the failure to identify and provide the specialist interventions that are so crucial to supporting autistic individuals with mental health challenges. It is therefore imperative that the Department of Health plans for change based on identifying, validating and commissioning evidence-based, autistic-specific research to shape unique responses to the accelerating crisis identified by its annually published autism prevalence and incidence data.

The Department's learning disability autism report, which supports the establishment of a specialist mental health service response for autistic people who have a learning disability, has created inequality and a two-tier autism mental health service. Correspondence from the Department to the all-party group, dated 12 November 2024, clearly rejected the lobby for a specialist mental health service pathway for autism based upon need, but confirmed:

I put it to the Minister: where are the plans for the other 70% of autistic individuals, who do not have a learning disability?

The motion urges the Health Minister to develop specialist autism mental health services. That call is supported by independent autism evidence, representatives from research and advocacy bodies, the mental health commissioner, the Department's own published autism data and unprecedented lobbying, as represented by over 25,000 petition signatories. This must be acted upon.

We are dealing with life or death for people with autism. Current research tells us that suicide is the leading cause of early death in the autism community. An autistic child is 28 times more likely to consider or attempt suicide than their non-autistic peers; autistic adults are nine times more likely to die by suicide than neurotypical adults; autistic women are more likely to die by suicide than non-autistic women; and approximately one in five women with anorexia is autistic. Mental health treatment needs to be adapted for autistic individuals, and those who work with autistic individuals need to be adequately trained on autism. Mental health issues in the autism community are often misdiagnosed due to poor communication and understanding between patient and practitioner. Crucially, being autistic or having a learning disability increases the odds independently of someone having mental health problems, but more so for people with autism.

Those facts, which are from the latest research by Autistica, were the focus of the autism and mental health symposium in 2023. That was sponsored by the all-party group on autism, organised by Autism NI and attended by Department of Health officials. I remind the Assembly that the Autism (Amendment) Act 2022 created the independent role of the autism reviewer to aid implementation through commissioned research and data analysis. That resource will be a vital part of any credible path forward in planning and delivery. The motion therefore calls on the Minister of Health to utilise the resource of the independent autism reviewer to inform future planning and delivery in the development of an autism mental health service. That should include the submission of a report on the matter by the autism reviewer to the Assembly, as set out in the Autism (Amendment) Act 2022.

I commend the motion to the House. I look forward to the Minister's response and to support from other Members in the Chamber. On behalf of the autism community, I hope that we will receive a positive response from the Minister.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Thank you, Cathal. I call Deborah Erskine to speak. Deborah, I remind you that you have five minutes.

Mrs Erskine: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. Like Mr Boylan, I welcome the opportunity to speak to the motion. I do so as vice chair of the APG on autism.

Mental health issues affect so many in our communities. Today is solely about mental health services for those living with autism, however. We all know the message "It's OK not to be OK", but what about those who live with a health condition that makes their ability to communicate their emotions much more difficult? That is a situation that many children, young adults and adults in Northern Ireland are experiencing today. They do not feel that there is a service available that understands them or their needs when it comes to dealing with autism and mental health difficulties combined.

When one looks at the research figures, they point to the extreme need to grapple with the problem, as has already been highlighted in the Chamber. Figures show that autistic adults are nine times more likely to die by suicide, while autistic children are 20 times more likely to self-harm. If we delve deeper, however, we see that there are families, parents and carers struggling with the stress and worry of how to help their child or young adult within structures that are currently bursting at the seams and that ultimately do not have the capacity or resources to cope. We have all dealt with constituents who are facing such issues.

Organisations such as Autism NI have been lobbying and fighting hard for a specialist mental health service for autism. There needs to be autism training for those working in the health service to be able to meet patients' needs and treat them effectively so that they are not disadvantaged in their care right at the point of need. Given the prevalence of autism in Northern Ireland, such a service is needed, and if we do not act, need will continue to grow. More crucially, lives will be lost.

At this juncture, I place on record my thanks for the work that our healthcare staff do. They are trying to provide services — through child and adolescent mental health services (CAMHS), in EDs or on wards — in pressurised environments. I am sure, however, that there will be mental health professionals who will say that training needs to be improved and that there needs to be a specialist mental health service here that will ultimately lead to better outcomes, potentially 10 times over, for people who are living with autism.

I ask the Minister of Health to ensure that he will be informed by service users, families, advocates and the autism reviewer when reviewing the service that is supposed to be in place to assist people impacted on by autism. Last week, the Minister of Education outlined his plans for developing SEN support and services in schools. I note that the Minister of Health was present for some of the ministerial statement or for questions on it. In order to support children and their development on their education journey, it is vital that there be mental health and well-being services available to support them. I hope that information sharing between Departments and the local impact teams that intervene will be effective from a cross-departmental perspective and that that is monitored to ensure the best outcomes for our children and young people.

Recently, Autism NI launched a public petition calling for a specialist autism mental health service. It received over 20,000 signatures. If that does not speak to the need, nothing will. Minister, if you have not done so already, I challenge you to look at the comments and not be reduced to tears at what families and other people have had to endure.

In the previous mandate, the DUP introduced the Bill that became the Autism (Amendment) Act (Northern Ireland) 2022. I recall the large amount of work that was undertaken to ensure that our services reflected need. This is therefore an area in which we must play catch-up very quickly in order to save lives.

I thank the proposer of the motion. The DUP will support the motion today.

Miss McAllister: I thank the proposer of the motion today. Before I move to my notes, I want to highlight the fact that, last week, when I spoke on social media about this motion's coming up in the Assembly, a number of people who live with autism or have family members who do contacted me directly to share their experiences. An overwhelming number of the responses were from mothers with children who have autism and also suffer from mental health issues and who are really struggling to access not only services but information about where to go for them. Although it was deeply frustrating to hear their experiences, it was also enriching, because I had never heard about some of the issues that they raised. It is really important that those of us who sit on the Health Committee acknowledge that we are not always across all the detail of a number of the issues that go through the Committee. I put on record my thanks to the parents and individuals who reached out and shared their lived experiences.

According to the 2022 census, over 35,000 people in Northern Ireland identify as autistic. We know that, unfortunately, those who live with autism are very likely to experience mental ill health as well. The Department's mental health strategy notes that seven out of 10 people with autism also have a condition such as anxiety, depression, ADHD or obsessive-compulsive disorder. Many of us assist people in our constituencies who live with autism and want to access education services or the health service. We also help constituents to access mental health provision. However, when two of those issues combine or, sometimes, when all three combine, that makes it even harder for the individuals. It is very important that, when we assess need, we do so on an individual basis.

Ms Flynn: I thank the Member for giving way. There is added complexity: think about the, potentially, many adults who are living with autism but have not gone through the process of being diagnosed. We have got better at diagnosing at an earlier age, but we are also dealing with a cohort of people who have possibly been living with mental illness and autism and have not received their diagnosis. It is so important that there is training in that regard, so that people are conscious of that.

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

Miss McAllister: I absolutely agree: there are many adults who receive a later diagnosis or are yet to receive their diagnosis, and there are some who do not even know where to turn in order to get diagnosed. A lot of them go privately, and if they have other conditions that are exacerbated, it is even more difficult to get prescriptions through the NHS. It is all interlinked and connected.

However, we have to acknowledge that work is ongoing on the legislation and policy here in Northern Ireland. The Member who spoke previously mentioned the DUP Bill that passed in the previous mandate. We have some of the most comprehensive legislation on autism support right across these islands, which is significant in and of itself. However, unless we see tangible action and progress, that means very little. As Autism NI put it when reaching out to all of us, we are witnessing NHS England's prioritising autism over the next 10 years, including creating specific guidance for meeting the needs of autistic adults in mental health services. Legislation in England is not quite as robust as what we have here, but we are lagging behind when it comes to policy and action. Although one might be better than the other, a holistic approach is needed.

If we are to make progress on the Autism Act, the autism strategy and the delivery plan, we need stable government. That is not up to just the Department of Health. It is very important that that is acknowledged. Many organisations will say the same.

There is bureaucracy around a lot of it. There is a consultation on the framework to inform the implementation plan. My understanding is that there was already a consultation and engagement on the strategy and how to move forward. I want to hear a little more about that. Is that consultation going to be the final input? Is there going to be co-production and co-design to make tangible progress? Where we have the framework, it is important that we also have the tools and action to move forward.

I am happy to support the motion today. Where we have the framework, we need to see tangible progress that benefits the people who need mental health services in Northern Ireland.

Mr Chambers: I welcome the chance today to speak on this really important topic. Autism is a condition that affects lots of people and in many different ways. As such, there is no one-size-fits-all approach to either diagnosis or support. What is clear, however, is that current provision is falling short of what is required, and that is deeply regrettable. It is widely accepted that early intervention is far more effective and impactful, particularly in the case of young people.

I very much welcome a focus on autism services today, but as MLAs debating yet another health issue, we also need to be honest with ourselves. Services at present clearly are not keeping up with demand. Over the past decade, more and more young people and adults have been facing growing waits for autism assessment and other related services. In the past, the various health trusts were able to take steps to help manage the growing demands. A key feature of those previous recovery plans was a greater reliance on overtime and additional hours to increase capacity. Parallel to that was the provision of additional funding to allow trusts to appoint staff into substantive posts. Unfortunately, however, in the current circumstances, that simply is not an option. Trusts are, regrettably, having to scramble to deliver increasingly difficult savings plans rather than focusing efforts on responding to patient needs.

A Member: Will the Member give way?

Mr Chambers: I am nearly finished.

Tabling motions such as this, requesting plans for further specialist services to be introduced, whilst at the same time passing Budgets that threaten the provision of even existing services, never mind the introduction of new ones, is entirely inconsistent.

Mr Durkan: I have always been passionate about driving forward the needs of autistic people, and I have been eager to ensure that they receive the right supports at the right time throughout their lifetime. As many of you are aware, my SDLP colleague Dominic Bradley successfully introduced the first piece of single disability legislation in the Assembly, the Autism Act, in 2011. That was a landmark piece of legislation and the first of its kind aimed at addressing the huge gaps in the provision of autism services regionally. It was and remains the most comprehensive piece of single disability legislation globally. However, since that legislation was passed, there have been many failings in relation to the efficacy of autism services and the delivery of regional autism strategies over the past 10 years, resulting in the need for and, fortunately, the passing of a second piece of legislation, the Autism (Amendment) Act, which was sponsored by Pam Cameron, in 2022. We cannot rest on the laurels of that legislation. We want and need to be world-leading in services and in support, not just in statute, otherwise the Executive are at risk of making and breaking yet more promises to the autism community. Sorry, folks, but, as Nuala McAllister said, five years with no Executive, no Assembly and no accountability did not help.

With the appointment of an autism reviewer in September of last year to oversee the current autism strategy, I hoped to see much better outcomes being achieved by our Department of Health and other statutory autism services. Autistic people and their families deserve a consistent level of service — a consistently good level of service. We need to stop autistic children and adults being pushed from service to service, as that causes avoidable stress, mistrust and anxiety, not just for them but for the entire family circle. Autistic people need to feel seen and understood, not that they are too complex to receive individualised appropriate care, and that is very much what the debate is about today. In recent years, as we have heard again today, there has been a huge increase in the diagnosis levels of children and adults as the identification and understanding of autism have improved. However, it is unacceptable — we should not and will not accept this — that, with that increase in diagnosis levels, there has not been a similar increase in investment in our autism services. One of those vital services is our mental health service. We have heard today from every contributor about the high incidence and huge impact of mental health problems across our autism community.

It is my understanding that our current mental health service and mental health screening tools have been developed for neurotypicals. That is a barrier to autistic people and their families accessing the appropriate level of support and therapy in the first place. Many of the therapies that are used may also be inappropriate for autistic people, including, for example, cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT). Therefore, we need therapies that will be tailored to autistic people's needs and delivered by professionals with expertise in autism.

Those concerns and failings have been outlined in Autism NI's petition, which has amassed over 25,000 signatures. It is also shocking that, when we read through the current autism strategy 2023-28, we find that there are no measurable targets and outcomes on how we will address the mental health of our autistic population. The autism strategy mentions an i-THRIVE programme for children, but that is a general programme. It is not designed for autistic children, and no research has been completed on how effective it is at supporting autistic children's emotional and mental health. There is no mention in the strategy of plans to support autistic adults with their mental health. The Autism (Amendment) Act states:

When the Minister is responding to the debate, I would like him to say how he proposes to do that.

Mr McHugh: As an MLA for West Tyrone and a member of the APG on autism, I welcome the opportunity to contribute to the debate in the hope that it will go some way to improving services for those young and not-so-young people with autism and their families who, day and daily, struggle to cope with the many issues with autism. I am sure that there is not an MLA in the House who is not constantly dealing with issues that arise for their constituents, whether it is about accessing services or experiencing the sheer lack of services for those who live with autism and their families.

Autism is not a mental health problem in itself. Yet, statistics show that those with autism are more likely to suffer from mental health problems, such as anxiety, depression, self-harm and even those that lead to suicide. Adults with autism are nine times more likely to die by suicide and autistic children are 20 times more likely to self-harm than the general population. Employment, or the lack of it, is also a major issue for those with autism. Those stats cry out for the development of a specialist autism mental health service where well-equipped specialists and trained professionals support the autism community.

I reiterate that that service should be accessible throughout the North of Ireland and not just in major cities or the like. Access to mental health services is crucial, but it also requires mental health professionals to be trained in autism to ensure the best outcomes for those who contact the service in the first place. Not only is the development of autism mental health services necessary to ensure better outcomes for those living with autism but it is a right for those autistic people to receive the proper mental health support that is tailored to the needs of each of them, as and when it is needed.

Autism is for life. In the same way in which it is recognised that those who live with autism see the world differently, it is time for those responsible for the delivery of services to look outside the box and begin to meet the ever-increasing demand for proper autism mental health services. At this point, it would be remiss of me not to mention those in the voluntary and community sector who make a major contribution to people with autism and their families. In particular, I think of a town in my area — I do not live there, but it is next to where I live — Strabane, where you have the Koram Centre and the likes of Autism NI delivering counselling services and facilitating family support groups. I thank them for their contribution. However, that, in no way, should deflect us from meeting the demand for a specialist autism mental health service of well-trained professionals who are specifically trained to deal with autism. I ask the Minister to make it one of his highest priorities to provide that specialist mental health service.

Ms Brownlee: I welcome the motion and give it my full, heartfelt support. It addresses a deeply significant issue: the urgent need for a specialist autism mental health service in Northern Ireland.

Autism affects more than 35,000 individuals in our community, including 15,000 school-age children. Many more adults do not have a formal diagnosis. Those figures, which were revealed in the 2021 census, reflect one of the highest rates of autism in the UK. Behind those numbers are real lives, stories of incredible resilience, families striving to navigate complex systems and, too often, tales of needs that go unmet.

The situation is alarming. Our mental health services are simply not equipped to address the unique challenges faced by autistic individuals. Waiting lists for autism assessments stretch endlessly, with some adults waiting over 300 weeks for a diagnosis. Those prolonged delays hinder access to essential support, leaving individuals and families to face their struggles without the help that they so desperately need. Mental health challenges, such as anxiety, depression and emotional dysregulation, often go unrecognised or are just put down to autism. Our systems are not prepared to provide the timely, specialised interventions that could make all the difference.

Since the introduction of the Autism (Amendment) Act 2022 — the Bill was sponsored by my Assembly colleague Pam Cameron — we, of course, have seen some positive steps in the right direction with the appointment of the independent autism reviewer, but we are all well aware that there is so much more to do. The autism strategy envisaged a society focused on inclusion and collaboration, a society that not only listens to but truly respects and supports autistic individuals and their families. However, for that vision to become a reality, we must see urgent, actionable change. The strategy emphasised the critical need for constant diagnostic pathways, improved collaboration across Departments and genuine co-production with those who have lived experience. Those measures are not just desirable but absolutely essential for fostering understanding and compassion.

At the heart of the issue are the voices of those with lived experience. Every day, we hear poignant stories from families and individuals who struggle to access the appropriate support at the right time and in the right place. The toll that that takes on their mental health is heartbreaking. One particular story has touched my heart. It is of a young man whose autism remained unacknowledged throughout his childhood. Without support in school, higher education or early in his career, he faced profound mental health challenges. The isolation brought on by the COVID-19 pandemic pushed him to the edge — to a suicide attempt. It was not until a caring counsellor, who was outside the formal system, recognised the signs of autism that he finally found his way to a diagnosis. For him, it was not just a label; it provided clarity, a sense of self-understanding and a turning point in his life.

That story powerfully illustrates the urgent need for mental health professionals who are not only trained but confident and compassionate in recognising and supporting our autistic individuals. It shines a light on the gaps in our system. Recently, during a Public Accounts Committee inquiry, we discussed how A&E services often become a default crisis point for mental health emergencies. For autistic individuals, the sensory overload of an A&E environment can be overwhelming and distressing. Staff members, sadly, often lack the necessary training, leaving patients and staff in difficult positions. I have heard too many accounts of autistic individuals being left in corridors or unsuitable wards that lack private spaces to endure indignities that should never occur.

In our all-party group discussions, we have identified many practical solutions to enhance those critical services. One proposal is the establishment of a register of trained staff who specialise in autism to ensure that those with the skills and dedication offer much-needed support to autistic individuals where and when required. Many members of our passionate workforce already have that training and are eager to help. By harnessing their expertise, we can greatly improve the experience of autistic individuals and their families in our service.

This obviously holds a personal place in my heart. As a parent, I am privileged to witness both the beauty and the challenges that autism brings to our lives every day. Autistic individuals are remarkable.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Cheryl, I know your passion for this, but you have come to the end of your time.

Ms Brownlee: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker.

Mr McReynolds: I welcome the opportunity to respond to today's motion as a sitting member of the all-party group on autism. Since being elected to the Northern Ireland Assembly in May 2022, I have sought to make sure that neurodivergence is better reflected here through my involvement in that all-party group and the all-party group on ADHD. In both, I have found that, for too long, politicians have brushed neurodivergence under the carpet, and people have been left to struggle without support. As we have heard many times today and as all of us who are taking part in the debate know, autistic people have higher levels of poor mental health, with increased likelihood of self-harm and death by suicide, and waiting times for assessment and interventions are lengthy. That should be reason enough for the Health Minister to urgently bring forward plans to develop specialist autism mental health services to meet the needs of those with autism, and I look forward to his response to the debate.

Minister, your input is so important, because the science and understanding of autism have improved significantly over the years, but we need to remember that people with autism did not just appear one day. They have not just popped up; they have always been there. In much the same way as, I believe, we have missed two generations of young people with ADHD, who have had to struggle alone since childhood, we have missed many people who live with autism, leaving them to cope alone and mask their condition in order to get by. That reminds me of a recent meeting that I had in my constituency of East Belfast with the mother of a man now in his 30s who lives with significant autism. During the conversation, she broke down in tears, because, given the lack of services for her son, she was concerned for his safety and hers in the event that he is unable to obtain the support that he needs to control his autism and how it affects him without interventions.

There are wider societal impacts of not supporting those who live with autism and their families, friends and carers. I have already spoken today about the bullying of a 23-year-old adult last weekend in Belfast, but that is a fairly standard parental complaint that I hear regularly as an MLA, and it will not go away unless we give autistic people the respect that they deserve across society, support them if they need it and give them their place in our society.

I hope that we hear a positive response from the Minister. I thank Kerry and Arlene from Autism NI for their support to make today happen and for their ongoing support for the autism community in Northern Ireland. I also thank Members for taking part in the debate, but I remind them that today will not be the end of the fight for improved autism services here. As Mr Durkan said, it is another reminder of the importance of the Assembly and the Executive operating all year round.

Mrs Cameron: I thank the Members opposite for tabling this important motion. I know that the House is committed to improving the lives of our autistic community. That has been demonstrated time and time again in the Chamber, including in the unified support for my private Member's Bill — now the Autism (Amendment) Act (Northern Ireland) 2022 — that I had the privilege of introducing in the previous mandate. We have seen, time and time again, debates in the Chamber in which Members come together to support our autistic community, and that has to be recognised today. Of course, both pieces of Northern Ireland legislation that have been referred to today are thanks to the work of the all-party group on autism. That work continues, ably supported by the Autism NI secretariat. I give particular thanks to the chair and deputy chair of the APG, Cathal Boylan and Deborah Erskine, for their continued dedication to supporting the autistic community.

This issue affects not only individuals on the autism spectrum but their families and society as a whole. There is an urgent need for a specialist autism mental health service across Northern Ireland. As we know, autistic adults experience significantly higher levels of poor mental health than the general population, with a staggering 80% of autistic adults reporting symptoms of depression. Furthermore — I will not apologise for repeating statistics that have already been read out today, because they are too important and too stark — autistic adults are nine times more likely to die by suicide, and autistic children are 20 times more likely to self-harm. Those statistics are not just numbers; they represent lives filled with struggle, pain and, often, a sense of isolation.

I will quickly share an account from one of my constituents, who bravely opened up about her experiences. She described her child's struggle with severe anxiety and depression, which were exacerbated by the lack of understanding and support from mental health services. She recounted a harrowing experience where her child was bounced from one service to another, each time feeling more hopeless and misunderstood. Despite numerous requests for tailored support, the care provided was generic and failed to address her child's specific needs. That family's story is a vivid reminder of the real-life consequences of our inadequate mental health services for autistic individuals.

Despite the alarming figures and personal accounts, autism services in Northern Ireland have been chronically underfunded. That gap in support led, of course, to the Autism Act 2011 and the Autism (Amendment) Act 2022. That is the most comprehensive disability legislation in the United Kingdom, yet we are still confronted with the reality that the emotional and mental well-being needs of autistic adults are not being adequately addressed. The Autism (Amendment) Act mandates that the Northern Ireland autism strategy focus on the needs of autistic individuals. However, too many autistic people face mental health inequalities, including lengthy wait times for assessments and treatments, and often receive low-quality care that fails to take their unique needs into account.

The increasing demand for autism referrals in our service has amplified the crisis. It has left many to navigate a system designed primarily for neurotypical people, which has resulted in overwhelming environments and a lack of understanding from healthcare professionals. It is imperative that we prioritise autism training for mental health professionals. We need experts who understand the complexities of autism and are equipped to provide tailored interventions that cater specifically for autistic individuals. A dedicated autism mental health service would not only lead to better outcomes for those affected but support individuals before they reach crisis point, which would alleviate pressure on other services, including schools and GPs.

Moreover, we must recognise the broader implications of neglecting mental health support for autistic individuals. Only 22% of autistic individuals in the UK are employed. We must ask ourselves how mental health plays a role in that statistic. Families also bear the burden, with many parents and carers experiencing breakdowns in their relationships due to the strain of managing their children's poor mental health. As we consider our approach to mental health services, we must learn from the example set by NHS England, which has prioritised autism over the next decade. Northern Ireland possesses robust legislation that should serve as a foundation for innovative practices and services. We have the opportunity and responsibility to lead the way in providing comprehensive mental health support for autistic individuals.

I urge the Minister of Health and his Department to take decisive action in developing a specialist autism mental health service. Together, we can ensure that autistic individuals receive the understanding, respect and tailored support that they deserve, which will pave the way for a healthier future for many in our community.

Mr Butler: I commend all the contributions so far. This has been an excellent debate. I pay tribute to Cathal Boylan MLA and Pam Cameron MLA. Since I became an MLA in 2016, I have had the privilege of being a member of the all-party group on autism, with those two individuals and a series of MLAs, some of whom have come and gone. Some have stayed the course, and others have left due to competing demands. Everybody who has played a part in that APG has had a heart for the transformation of the lives of the people who are affected. However, it is not just the individuals who have autism who are affected: the families of those people will try to support them throughout their lives with the help of medical professionals. That is the point that I want to home in on. We will support the motion, but everybody knows the context in which the Minister is operating, with constrained budgets. Nobody in the Chamber would stand up and say that mental health is not a priority, not just for the Ulster Unionist Party but for Mike Nesbitt, the Minister, because it was under Mike's leadership, many years ago, that my party led the charge on mental health, mainstreamed it as a conversation piece and then, working with other MLAs, identified the different communities that are disproportionately affected.

A lot of the chat has focused, not necessarily deliberately, on the medicalised mental health treatment of people with autism. I want to read into the record the need to recognise how vital the input of families, friends and the community and voluntary sector will be to what the solution looks like. Members rightly point out that part of the solution may not look like a mainstream methodology, because it will be a bit different. One of the most powerful events that I have attended, as mental health spokesperson for the Ulster Unionist Party, took place a couple of years ago in the Seagoe Hotel in Portadown. There was a mother there called Julia McKeever, who started a charity called the Autism Hive in response to the loss of her son, Luke. I noticed that she paid tribute to her son on Facebook to mark her third Christmas without him. Luke was an adult, and his life ended much too soon. Along with many other fabulous organisations — the mental health champion attended that event too — Julia brought out the fact that there is expertise within our families. There is experience there that needs to be harnessed and harvested, and that hard, raw experience needs to be fed in for us to mature into the solutions that need to be found. We need the voices of the parents, brothers and sisters who have travelled this path, at great cost to themselves, to ensure that Julia's ambition is fulfilled, lives are saved and services are better for people with autism.

Working with the community and voluntary sector and families, we can achieve much more, but we need not be fixed in a totally medicalised response. Even in the medical fraternity, when we are being honest, not all the professionals agree on how we go about this. I have been involved in conversations with psychiatrists, psychologists and mental health nurses who have different opinions. Our job is to represent those who are most affected and bring everyone together into a single train of thought so that we can see real change. That will be a challenge.

I pay tribute to some of the other fabulous work that is going on. Autism NI has been spearheading the APG tremendously and needs to be commended for its tireless advocacy. Eden Consultancy — I do not know whether Members know of it — also deserves recognition for its work. There are some people out there doing amazing stuff, and I hear testimony from my constituents about their impact on the lives of young people.

I am going to finish with this point. When we think about improving the access to mental health services and what we do in our partnership approach, we need to look at everything else that we do, including housing, education and job opportunities. There is little point and less value in fixing the problem in one place if we do not ensure that all the structures that young people are moving into in the world recognise and speak the language that they speak and portray things in the manner in which they see them. We all have a role to play in making this place a much easier, better and more prosperous place to live for those who have disabilities, both seen and unseen.

Mr McGrath: Given the description and nature of what a debate is, I suppose that one in which everybody has the same opinion should not be seen as a debate and could be considered boring. This debate, however, is an excellent opportunity for all of us from the various parties to have the same view. That is a tribute to the work that is carried out by the all-party group, the meetings of which I do not get to as often as I would like. I know that there is a common purpose and unity amongst its membership to improve the lives of people with autism. Full credit goes to the organisation and coordination in the background by the secretariat and Autism NI.

Notwithstanding everything that we have said so far, we can forget how far we have come on the issues. Think about the Autism Bill that Dominic Bradley introduced. Think about Pam's amending Bill, which strengthened that Bill, and the work that the Health Committee did on it in the previous mandate to get as many provisions as possible through. That legislation included the appointment of an autism reviewer. That person is now in post, and it is great that there is somebody with expertise to whom we can appeal and whom we can ask for help, support and direction with services. Compared with the previous situation and with other jurisdictions, we have come a long way. We should take comfort — not so much credit — from the fact that there are structures there. We now need to develop and improve those structures in order to make life much easier for people who have been diagnosed as having autism. When I met the autism reviewer, she taught me a lesson. It is a lesson that stuck with me, and it is this: where there are people, there are people with autism. Everything that we do in this place will be to assist people in our communities, so there will always be people with autism being impacted on by everything that we do. It is important to have that in mind.

I agree with some of the references to the connectivity between the autism strategy and the mental health strategy. We know that the mental health strategy is not funded to the level that it needs to be. If it were funded to that level, it would definitely help people with autism and improve outcomes for them. Doing that would be helpful. There are other examples of connectivity. While autism is not a learning disability, around half of autistic people may also have a learning disability. We await the publication of the learning disability framework and an associated funding package to support people. Again, that shows how every initiative that we deliver through the Executive has some connection to people with autism.

I support the motion. I welcome the fact that there is cross-party support for it, and I want to see us continue to deliver. The more we can do for people by reaching out to them, the more we will help their lives.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): I call the Minister of Health to respond to the debate. Minister, you have up to 15 minutes.

Mr Nesbitt (The Minister of Health): Thank you very much, Mr Deputy Speaker, and thanks to all Members who have contributed to this important debate. First, I recognise the passion and commitment of every Member who has spoken. Autism is not a stranger to my family, so I believe that I have some grasp of the challenges, concerns and needs. I absolutely agree that we need to ensure that all those seeking mental health support, including those with autism, have access to the right services at the right time. It is an issue, not least in waiting lists.

As Robbie Butler said, I have campaigned on mental health issues since I was elected here in 2011. One of the main reasons for that is that I came here from the Commission for Victims and Survivors, where you could not but be deeply moved by the level of poor mental health as a really toxic legacy of the 30 years of our violence. When I came here, however, I did not see anything like the same level of recognition. Some people seemed to be reluctant even to consider it a thing or certainly not a thing that was worthy of attention.

Indeed, one day, one MLA scoffed at me because I was campaigning on mental health. That was how disassociated they were from it. Awareness in 2025 is very high, but I hear the call from Members that it is not about awareness any more; it is about action.

When Robin Swann became Health Minister, I was delighted, because I knew that he would focus on mental health. He appointed the mental health champion and commissioned the 10-year strategy, which has 35 action points in it. I want to dwell on and put on the official record the three themes that underline those action points. The first is:

That is key to addressing the ongoing issue of the stigma that gets attached to people with mental health problems, which we will debate tomorrow. The second theme is:

That covers a range of person-centred service improvements, such as, for example, improvements in child and adolescent mental health services; community mental health services, which are absolutely key; and inpatient and specialist services. The third theme is "New ways of working". That sets out the changes that will support improvements across the system, including a single mental health service, workforce planning and research.

Overarching that, we have, as many Members mentioned, the appointment of the autism reviewer, Ema Cubitt. She will be and is an independent voice. Any Member who heard her first public comments will have been reassured that she will indeed be an independent reviewer and a strong voice for the community that all the Members who have spoken today wish to serve.

Autism, as has been made clear, is a lifelong condition, but better education for and understanding from all of us can help people to lead fuller and healthier lives and enjoy the same benefits and freedoms as the rest of us.

I am aware of significant delays in accessing autism assessments. That is partly what drives people to seek a private diagnosis. Today, I can say that, in the past financial year, trusts have carried out more assessments than in previous years. There remains a demand/capacity gap, and, consequently, the waiting lists still exist, but work is under way to standardise the diagnostic pathway across trusts while better meeting the needs at an early pre-diagnosis stage. That comes back to my theme of how we should find where the best practice exists and roll it out so that it is common practice across the five geographic trusts.

I want to make it clear that an autism assessment should not be required to access mental health services. At this stage, I commend Autism NI for raising awareness of the mental health inequalities that are experienced by autistic people. I am aware that over 25,000 people signed the petition that was mentioned and that there were over 400 comments from people and families on the mental health challenges that they have faced and the need for better provision. Whilst autism is not a mental health issue, it is common for autistic people to experience poorer mental health outcomes, and that can be partly attributed to a lack of access to mental health services.

We must also be cognisant that three in 10 people with learning disabilities will have a co-occurring diagnosis of autism, and that was mentioned earlier. Those people can present with an exceptional level of need, and they are typically over-represented in our mental health inpatient services. As referenced, seven out of 10 people with autism have co-occurring conditions such as anxiety, depression, ADHD or obsessive compulsive disorder. The mental health strategy recognises the need for services that can cater for those with disabilities, including physical and sensory disabilities, ASD and learning disabilities. That must also include help and support for parents and families.

While it is vital that such individuals have good and equitable access to mental health services and that those services are able to deliver on their specific needs, the Department does not consider it appropriate to develop dedicated mental health services designated to treat those individuals. Doing so would mean that people are treated primarily according to their underlying disability or circumstance rather than receiving the most appropriate intervention that they need for their mental ill health, which is different for everyone. Instead, the strategy aims to put in place a person-centred service that is focused on the presenting mental health needs of the individual with consideration of how best to meet those needs, given their underlying disabilities and/or circumstances.

It is fair to say that autistic people could be better served by our mental health system. However, that does not sufficiently make the case, in my view, for a specialist mental health service. The evidential, professional and policy position, as indicated in the mental health strategy, remains that most autistic people are best supported in a mainstream service that is autism-aware and with reasonable adjustments. At times, they will need to access specialist services such as those for eating disorders, substance abuse and forensic learning disability. Again, the evidence and the professional position remain that those services should be reasonably adjusted to provide access and treatments and should be adapted for autistic people.

Training is key to ensuring that appropriate adjustments are made for each autistic person and that our mental health service is person-centred, adapting treatment and care at every point throughout a person's journey. Health and Social Care staff have access to a range of autism training modules. Work is under way with the Middletown Centre for Autism to develop new modules to be launched in the spring. It is my expectation that that training will be mandatory for mental health professionals and that it will form the foundation of additional training to be developed in the future.

For autistic people with a co-occurring learning disability, specialist services are provided and continue to reflect a strong evidential and professional basis. That is not to say that it is a perfect system. I am aware that specialist learning disability and mental health inpatient services are significantly stretched and that there is an urgent need to develop a more robust community mental health system to prevent hospital admissions. In collaboration with the HSC Leadership Centre, my officials are in the process of finalising a review of the autistic population with a co-occurring learning disability who are known to services. That work will inform the implementation of the learning disability service model and the development of a delivery plan for the final three years of the autism strategy from 2023-28. It is important to recognise that wider factors can impact on a person's mental health and well-being. The autism strategy recognises that the challenges faced by autistic people are cross-cutting and require action through a collaborative, cross-departmental and multi-agency lens.

The strategy aims to meet the requirements of our unique autism legislation, setting Northern Ireland apart and, indeed, ahead of many countries, to ensure that public services understand the needs of autistic people and provide the right level and type of services. At this stage, I pay tribute to colleagues on the all-party group on autism for their work in progressing both pieces of autism legislation in the past 15 years.

As many of you will be aware, the autism strategy was developed and is being taken forward in a period of exceptionally constrained financial circumstances for all Departments, public bodies and Health and Social Care services. Whilst there is continued commitment to the implementation of the actions, that has necessitated a creative and innovative approach. The autism strategy sets out to deliver actions across health, education, housing and public services generally, including the Civil Service. The first monitoring report on year 1 progress is due with me imminently, and it will then be presented to the Assembly. While work is being progressed to make mental health services more accessible to those with co-occurring diagnoses such as autism, it is worth noting that the delivery of many of the actions in the mental health strategy will, once fully implemented, help improve access to mental health services for all service users.

I will highlight a number of those actions. Actions 1 and 2 of the strategy focus on promotion and prevention and are being progressed through a Public Health Agency-led early intervention and prevention action plan, with year-on-year actions covering a lifespan approach from infancy to older age. Importantly, the action plan will:

A new regional mental health service as part of action 31 will, once fully established, help ensure access to high-quality regionally consistent and locally based mental health services in local communities. To date, significant work has been progressed, such as the appointment of a number of key roles and the establishment of the collaborative board, which has its inaugural meeting scheduled for later this month. A review of the mental health workforce and response to action 32 was published in July 2023, and that set out 18 recommendations to ensure that we have a workforce that is fit for the future. An implementation plan for the delivery of the workforce review is being finalised. It will set out priority actions that are to be progressed, subject to budget availability. A comprehensive review of the scope, scale and capacity of the community and voluntary sector, as part of action 17, was commissioned last month, the findings from which will inform how best our community and voluntary sector can be true partners in the planning, development and delivery of mental health services, which should ensure improved outcomes for our population.

Lastly, a regional specialist CAMHS ID model is being developed to address the mental health needs of children with complex needs, who are typically those with a co-occurring diagnosis of learning disability and autism. On the subject of children, it is also important to recognise that mental health pressures can be reflective of gaps in social care. Members will be aware that I accelerated our work on respite, residential care and family support with additional recurrent funding of up to £13 million that was announced in October last year. It will take time to ensure that that funding is fully utilised, but I expect there to be measurable improvements to the lives of autistic children and their families.

While considerable progress has already been made to advance those key actions in the mental health strategy, alongside the delivery of a range of other actions, they are being progressed with minimal budget. I have repeatedly highlighted that to Executive colleagues since taking up post. The funding plan that was published alongside the mental health strategy in June 2021 identified a requirement of an additional £1·2 billion over the life of the strategy to fully deliver those 35 actions. This year, £5·9 million has been allocated towards the delivery of the mental health strategy actions for 2024-25, but that is against an estimated requirement of some £42 million for this year. That is £5·9 million versus £42 million. If we genuinely want to realise vital improvements in our mental health services to meet the needs of those with an autism diagnosis and, indeed, of the whole population, mental health services need real and sustained additional funding to ensure the full delivery of the strategy.

In closing, many Members have asked me for certain actions, including those to, for example, fulfil commitments that were made under section 2 of the Autism (Amendment) Act 2022 and that would deliver Mr McHugh's utopian vision. There is a reason why the three-year plan that I published recently for the rest of the mandate talks about stabilisation before reform and delivery. There is no magic bullet, and decisive action can come only when there is a budget. When we have £5·9 million against £42 million, we have a big problem.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Thank you, Minister. I call Liz Kimmins. Liz, you have up to 10 minutes.

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

I support the motion, and I thank all Members and the Minister for their contributions. As others said, it is really refreshing to hear the united support for this very important motion. It is also important to highlight the fact that, whilst the motion emphasises the need for specialist mental health services for people with autism, there have been some concerns that we are focused only on that. However, as laid out in the mental health strategy, there is a need for specialist mental health services for people with physical and sensory disabilities and those with intellectual disabilities. They, too, deserve access to mental health support to meet their individual needs.

The motion seeks to emphasise the key issues that are impacting on autistic people who are unable to access the crucial mental health support that they need. In recent days, we have heard about the lived experiences of hundreds of individuals and families who are struggling to obtain mental health support for themselves or their child or family member with autism. Many have waited for years for an appointment with services such as CAMHS, and when they finally get it, they are told that their child's mental health needs are a result of their autism.

As Members stated repeatedly during the debate, people with autism are at significantly greater risk of mental illness, yet we do not have the necessary supports in place to help them and, indeed, their families and carers when they need it. The value of having appropriate mental health support in place cannot be overstated, and that applies to all individuals who are dealing with mental health. For people with autism, however, that is essential to support their emotional well-being and help them to thrive in every aspect of their lives. One lady told us that her son had been suffering with crippling anxiety to the point that he could not leave home without being physically sick. She said that when he was referred to the mental health team, they did not know what to do with him because he had a diagnosis of autism.

The colossal waiting lists for many CAMHS services indicate the huge demand for mental health support for children and young people, which, in itself, is extremely difficult for parents and children to deal with. However, waiting for four or five years to be seen only to be told that they cannot help must be soul-destroying for any parent, and not least for the child at the heart of it. However, I must acknowledge the fantastic work that is being done by community and voluntary sector organisations, including Bolster Community and Crisis Café in my constituency, that have stepped in to deliver bespoke services in an effort to address the gaps in service provision for children and young people with autism. I know that that has transformed the lives of many.

Not everyone is lucky enough to have access to services such as those delivered in Newry. Access to mental health support should not be a postcode lottery; it should be a statutory provision, so, I welcome the progress that the Minister outlined. It is abundantly clear that enhanced services for mental health are required, with staff trained in specialist areas of neurodivergence. I look forward to hearing more about the work of the Minister and his Department to ensure that we all work to achieve that. Otherwise, we are all failing — we are failing all the children, adults and young people who continue to suffer alone.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Thank you very much indeed, Liz. Ladies, gentlemen and Minister, thank you very much indeed for the debate, which was held in a most dignified manner.