Official Report: Monday 10 February 2025

Mr Speaker: I have a few remarks to make this afternoon. I have been informed by the Chief Electoral Officer that Aoife Finnegan has been returned as a Member of the Assembly for the Newry and Armagh constituency following the resignation of Conor Murphy. This morning, Ms Finnegan signed the undertaking and the Roll of Membership and entered a designation in my presence and that of the Clerk to the Assembly. She has now taken her seat. I welcome her to the Assembly and wish her success in her new role.

Mr Speaker: Last week, we had a statement from the Education Minister. A number of issues arose — there were too many to respond to individually — so I will deal with some broad points today. It was right that, last Monday, the Minister came to the House to make his statement and that Members had the opportunity to question him. Strong views were expressed by different parties, and my Deputy Speaker Steve Aiken dealt with most of the issues at the time. I want to return to two brief points.

First, all Members and Ministers should know that good manners underpin our standards of debate, with Members demonstrating good temper, courtesy, moderation and respect. A good rule of thumb is that Members should focus on the issues rather than on the person. Secondly, points of order are for procedural points to be raised with the Chair. If Members abuse points of order to make political points, as they did, it serves only to delay the Assembly from moving to its next item of business.

I also want to comment on the scope of debate. Over the past few weeks, the Deputy Speakers and I have had to intervene on a number of occasions to ask Members to bring their remarks back to the scope of the debate. The requirement to follow the scope of the debate is important, and it comes in the wider context of our procedure and conventions. For example, the convention is that the House should not debate the same motion within six months, and Standing Order 17(7) provides for the Chair to intervene on a Member who:

We have had a number of occasions recently when Members have come to a debate, determined to make speeches on issues that are, at best, at a tangent to the specific content of a motion, regardless of whether they have previously spoken on that issue.

If Members could just speak about what they want at a given time, there would be no need to have an Order Paper or a Business Committee to agree it. I advise Members to note that it is not enough to seek to make a connection to one or two words that are in a motion without addressing its main thrust, which is commonly defined by the call that is made at the end of the motion.

Some latitude can always be given by the Chair, but it requires Members to have given some effort at least to address the main issues that are set out in the motion. It is for the Speaker, Principal Deputy Speaker or Deputy Speaker who is in the Chair at the time alone to make a judgement on whether a Member's remarks are within the scope of the motion. If the Chair interrupts a Member and asks them to come back to the motion, it should generally be taken as a helpful intervention to avoid the scenario in which a Member would be asked to take their seat. However, the Chair's decision is final; there is no debate to be had with the Chair on that matter. I will not revisit decisions that are made by the Chair of the day during a debate at a particular time.

That leads me to my final point, which is about the requirement for Members to respect the authority of the Chair. Standing Order 1(2) provides that the Chair's decision is final. That applies whether I am in the Chair or whether it is occupied by the Principal Deputy Speaker or a Deputy Speaker. Members should focus on the fact that, when they address the Chair, they are addressing the office of the Speaker, not a particular political personality. As Speaker and Deputy Speakers, we have to set those things aside when we occupy the Chair.

Whether it is the Principal Deputy Speaker, the Deputy Speaker or me, Members should recognise that we deal with matters from a procedural perspective and not the political perspective that we might express if we were participating on the Floor. I make that particular point because I note that, on some occasions, a number of Members and even Ministers in the Chamber, through the media or on social media have sought to play politics in reference to me, the Principal Deputy Speaker or Deputy Speakers and the decisions that we have made in the Chair. I will be very clear: that is out of order, and it is a challenge to the Chair's authority.

I note that, when we are in the Chair, we do not have a right to reply. I am permanently in the Chair, so I never have a right to reply. The Deputy Speakers can participate in debates, and that is a different matter entirely. Wider than that, as Speaker, I cannot engage in wider public debate. On those occasions in debates or on social media when Members or Ministers have sought to involve me on current issues that are in front of the Assembly on the basis of my previous role, that is entirely out of order.

A Member: Hear, hear.

Mr Speaker: Upholding the impartiality of the office of the Speaker is not just my responsibility or that of the Principal Deputy Speaker and the Deputy Speakers when one of us is in the Chair: it is your responsibility as Members of the Assembly. It will work only when you work with us on those matters. Therefore, Members and Ministers should be very careful in how they seek to involve the Speaker or, indeed, the Deputy Speakers in wider political issues. There are enough Members with whom to debate on the Floor of the Chamber without Members feeling the right to oppose the Chair. No matter which of us is in the Chair, we should all be treated with the same respect that is expected to be shown to the office of the Speaker. If Members cannot do that within and without the Chamber, we will take that into account when calling people to speak.

I hope that Members are clear on those points. Let us move on.

Mr Speaker: Mr Timothy Gaston has been given leave to make a statement on the Clonoe inquest findings that fulfils the criteria set out in Standing Order 24. If other Members wish to be called, they should indicate that by rising in their place and continuing to do so. All Members who are called will have up to three minutes in which to speak on the issue.

Mr Gaston: Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. The events of 16 February 1992 are exceedingly simple to understand. A stolen car and lorry were driven into the village of Coalisland. Terrorists then fired 30 rounds of armour-piercing ammunition at the local police station from a heavy machine gun that was mounted on the back of the stolen lorry. The other terrorists were armed with assault rifles. They then drove off at speed before arriving at St Patrick's Church at Clonoe where they were engaged by the SAS, with four terrorists being neutralised. It was at 10.45 pm in February. It was, therefore, dark, and the SAS unit was engaging with heavily armed terrorists who were more heavily armed than it was.

One does not go out for a quiet evening drive in a stolen lorry with a heavy machine gun welded to the back while armed with an assortment of assault rifles. When four fully armed terrorists go out on a murder mission, that mission includes their escape plan. If the continued threat posed by such fully armed terrorists is neutralised, that is a service to the public.

There was no warning from the IRA terrorists to those they set out to murder in the Coalisland RUC station.

Last week, we had another illustration of the coroner's system, for which Labour pledged to continue putting the security forces, but never the terrorists, in the dock. We have further evidence of republican double standards. On the one hand, they argue that they engaged in a legitimate war, yet, on the other hand, if anyone fired on republicans, they cried foul. It was OK when they shot an unarmed off-duty UDR man in the back but it was unfair when heavily armed terrorists were taken out by the SAS. What sort of war was that?

I do, however, want to use this opportunity to welcome another legacy judgement. On Friday, the High Court delivered its judgement on the judicial review by the Northern Ireland Retired Police Officers Association against the Police Ombudsman. In that judgement, we have had an overdue clipping of the ombudsman's wings. The language of the judgement is emphatic and clear: the ombudsman's role is investigative, not adjudicative. In issues of criminal conduct, or even misconduct, it is not for the ombudsman to act as judge, jury and executioner. Too often, the ombudsman has played to the anti-police gallery by throwing around findings of collusion or such behaviour. The ombudsman needs to take note of that judgement and stop making rulings that she has no power to make.

Mr Speaker: The Member's time is up.

Mr K Buchanan: On 16 February 1992, an armed IRA terrorist gang set out with the intention of murder when they attacked the RUC station in Coalisland. There is no doubt that they intended to murder. At 10.30 pm, a stolen car and lorry were driven into the centre of Coalisland and, from them, 30 rounds of armour-piercing, tracer ammunition were fired, at close range, into the station. A machine gun was mounted on the back of the stolen lorry. Make no mistake, the intention of the attack was to murder and maim police officers and soldiers. That murderous attack posed an immediate and ongoing threat, not just to security forces but to civilians. After the attack, when the IRA gang was returning to a rendezvous point, it was intercepted by the SAS. The SAS were faced with a heavily armed terrorist gang of approximately 10 and had to act decisively to neutralise the threat. Four IRA men were killed during the operation by the security forces, the others made their escape.

There is no place in any civilised society for terror. Not now. Not then. Not ever. There is always an alternative to terrorism and violence — always. Those four terrorists had an alternative that night, but they went out with the intent of taking lives and destroying property. Make no mistake: that was their intention. They could have been at home with their family or loved ones, like most other people. They could have been out socialising or working, but they made a choice. They made the choice to try to commit murder. The British Army had no alternative that night. How many warnings were issued by the East Tyrone brigade of the Provisional IRA to police, army and UDR personnel over the years of its campaign? My milkman and postman were both assassinated. They got no warning. They got no choice. They were doing a day's work and were assassinated like dogs on the side of the road. The guys who went out that night had a choice. If you engage in a so-called war, be prepared for bullets coming back at you. That is what war is about. Wars are wrong, but bullets will come back. That night, the terrorists chose their alternative, and, on that occasion, it was the wrong choice.

It is easy for some to look at events and come to the conclusion that an easier way could have been found. These people were not out collecting for the Red Cross. They were out to commit murder — murder. It was not an accident. It was not an argument outside an establishment. It was a committed and planned murder. Does the judiciary understand the impact of the ruling on the innocent victims across Northern Ireland? Those who were going about their daily lives — for example, my postman and my milkman — but were assassinated, and they did not deserve it.

Mrs Dillon: Last Thursday, at the High Court in Belfast, the coroner, Mr Justice Michael Humphreys, made a ruling finding that, in each of the killings of the four young men in Clonoe chapel car park on 16 February 1992, the use of lethal force by SAS soldiers was unjustified. In simple terms, that means that their actions constituted the murder of Irish citizens by the British state.

"Shoot to kill" was a policy decision taken in Westminster at the highest echelons of the British Government. In response to the hypocrisy of some on these Benches and those who sit in other Parliaments who attempt to convince us that the law does not apply to the very people who are supposed to uphold it, let me be clear: the law applies to us all. The irony of some of the commentary that Peter, Barry, Sean and Patrick were not held accountable for their actions on the night in question is not lost on any of us either. The fact is that there was an opportunity to arrest them and bring them before the courts to face due process under the rule of law, but, as we all know now, all four were shot. Two were shot while they were running away and then executed while they were incapacitated on the ground. The evidence shows that Peter was shot while he was on his knees with his arms in the air. That is not defence; it is execution.

Some have also referred to the fact that the inquest came 33 years after the killings, but what they have failed to acknowledge is that, had it not been for the courageous and difficult fight by the families, there would have been no inquest at all. The families of those four young men have campaigned at a huge personal cost that none of us could ever begin to understand to reveal the truth and debunk the false accusations spread by state agencies. There was no gun battle. Five hundred rounds were fired by the SAS. They shot the men in the back and whilst they were on the ground. They shot two of them in the face. Those are the details that the families have had to endure. They deserved that ruling. They deserve the truth. They will decide with their legal teams whether they want to pursue justice for the murder of their father, sons, brothers and uncles. We on these Benches must support all families — when I say "all", I mean all — to have access to truth and justice.

The British Government must proceed to fully repeal and replace the Legacy Act. That includes the full reinstatement of all inquests. There are so many other families who have never had access to a human rights-compliant inquest, which is the very minimum standard in a civilised and democratic society. These findings lay bare the rationale behind the British Government's determination to subsume all inquests within the Independent Commission for Reconciliation and Information Recovery (ICRIR). The British Secretary of State would decide what findings or information would be released to families: I think that we know what they would get. This ruling will strengthen the resolve of all those families to have their truth.

Ms Bradshaw: What happened in February 1992 was yet another appalling event during the Troubles. The mid-Ulster area, in particular, bore a horrifying toll throughout that dark period in the number of attacks on security forces and civilian deaths and injuries. It must be said that, by 1992, it should have been long evident that there was no future for the type of ambush that the IRA attempted that day. Sadly, it was not the end of IRA activity there; indeed, it was part of an overall cycle of violence in the east Tyrone and north Armagh locality that cost many lives at a time when such loss of life was achieving nothing but another cycle of grief and bitterness. To be clear, I have no sympathy at all for the actions of the IRA in Clonoe 33 years ago this week; no democrat should. They were not creating a new future; they were stealing it.

When we look back at such events during the Troubles, we face two particular challenges. First, we can be inclined to forget that all those who were killed had families and loved ones who were greatly affected by the profound sense of loss and grief. Secondly, while we struggle to define exactly what sort of conflict it was, it should also be evident that the Geneva convention applies to all combatants, including those of the state. We should indeed recognise that it is incumbent on us all, as democrats, to acknowledge that the use of lethal force is specific to well-defined circumstances, even in war and certainly in security operations. We live in a country where those issues are assessed independently, and that will always be important in ensuring that the rule of law is paramount.

Most of all, we must reflect that the ongoing and unnecessary loss of life in that locality over the years brought with it a heavy toll on all those involved and everyone in that community. Democracy and the rule of law must prevail so that we never face such a toll again.

Mr Beattie: On 16 February 1992, a heavily armed terrorist unit of up to 10 individuals was engaged by a special military unit under the rules of engagement — the so-called "yellow card" — which state that a challenge must be given unless to do so would increase the risk of death or grave injury to you or any other person. The judge disagreed that the soldiers were under threat, so let us give a little context if we can.

In 1989, a truck similar to the one used in Clonoe, fitted with a 12·7 mm DShK heavy machine gun — the same as the one used in Clonoe — drove into Derryard permanent vehicle checkpoint (PVCP) and engaged the soldiers there. It was commanded by a member of the east Tyrone brigade of the IRA. The result was two dead soldiers and two wounded soldiers. That is the context, and every soldier knew exactly what the context was when they were faced with a terrorist enemy that was armed — and the terrorist unit at Clone was heavily armed.

The patrol was not expecting them to come there. The patrol expected the attack to be mounted from the car park before the DShK was mounted on the vehicle, but they did not come. However, they came back, and the weapon was mounted. The commander at the time on that cold night — it was a cold, dark night — made a split-second decision that he had to engage. It is simple for people sitting in a warm courtroom or in here to say that he made the wrong decision. He made a decision because he thought that he was under threat. Therefore, I disagree with the judgement.

Let us remember that four young men lost their lives. Their lives were taken by other equally young men. However, somebody sent those four young men out to do that — somebody sitting in a warm office — and they have blood on their hands as well. When the families grieve, they must look to those individuals and the party on the opposite Benches, which eulogised, prompted and justified those sorts of actions, and say, "You sent my young man out to die while you sat in your warm office".

We need to understand that split seconds are exactly that. We could be talking about something different here, as we were in Derryard, which I know well because I have been there. There were two dead soldiers and two wounded soldiers, and there could have been more. On balance, the right decision was taken by the commander on the ground. That decision was to engage, and we got rid of four terrorists.

Mr McGlone: Like others in the Chamber, I have attended far too many unnecessary funerals and wakes brought about by campaigns of violence on our streets that were unnecessary. I am a member of the SDLP, which stood for non-violence and to provide the alternative and the leadership that, hopefully, has brought us to a peaceful new settlement and scenario.

In this instance, the use of lethal force by the SAS was found by Justice Humphreys to be unjustified. I have been with families in other cases who have, time after time, sought recourse and justice through the courts. Innocent people seeking justice through the courts should not be denied, irrespective of their background or whatever route they chose to take. Justice must prevail in any civilised, democratic society. The rule of law and justice must be applied equally and consistently to all, be they paramilitaries, agents of the state — we have seen the havoc that they wreaked — or members of the security forces. I stand by that just as we in the SDLP have done down through many decades of the Troubles and, thankfully now, the peace.

Mr Buckley: There is significant hurt in Northern Ireland today as a result of the ruling. On many occasions, Members from all communities have come to the House and highlighted cases of injustice, hurt and pain. This is not one of those. The men who set out that night had one intention: to take innocent life. The east Tyrone brigade was responsible for murder and mayhem across Northern Ireland, across the community that I come from and have lived in all my life.

In 1991, my great-uncle, Lance Corporal Bobby Crozier, went to his place of work, Glenanne army barracks, only to have an IRA bomb put down the side of a hill, killing him and his colleagues in an instant. No inquiries, no inquests, no justice. His loved ones: two young girls were left with no father; a wife with no husband. Those were the callous actions of the Provisional IRA. Those were the callous actions that many Members of Sinn Féin in the House set out to justify not just on this occasion but on many others.

I can say this: I am extremely proud of and believe that our society is fortunate to have had the intervention of the security forces on many occasions; on this occasion, the SAS. Not just at Clonoe but at Loughgall and on many other occasions when terrorists set out to take life, they were met by real soldiers. Every time we come to the lawfare that is being pushed on us by some in the media and some in the judiciary, they fail to mention this simple fact: had the terrorists not set out to take innocent life, they would have their lives today.

We have to set this in context, because this is not justice; this is lawfare. Those were not victims or innocents; they were terrorists. Sinn Féin talks about hypocrisy, but there was no engagement from Sinn Féin with the inquiry into Kingsmills, where men were butchered on the side of the road. Sinn Féin has sat silently in every other sphere. Perhaps it is time that it looked at its own ranks —

Mr Speaker: The Member's time is up.

Mr Buckley: — in particular those like Gerry Adams, who sent many of their young men to die — and for what?

Mr Speaker: The Member's time is up.

Mr Buckley: So that they could sit in the Assembly in cosy, warm rooms.

Mr Speaker: The Member's time is up. We will move on.

Mr Speaker: The next item in the Order Paper is Members' statements. If Members wish to be called, they should indicate that by rising in their place.

Ms Sheerin: I congratulate a school in my constituency — St Patrick's College, Maghera — on its successful attainment of the MacRory Cup yesterday. They came from behind to beat Abbey Vocational School from Donegal by one point. In doing so, they won a seventeenth MacRory — a massive achievement for the school. I offer hearty congratulations to the management, players and everybody involved at St Pat's. I am sure that they will enjoy the celebrations and rightly so.

Mr Middleton: I wish to speak about the shocking and disgraceful attacks on nine police officers in my constituency and in Strabane over the weekend. PSNI officers responded to ordinary calls only to find themselves being kicked in the head, having blood spat in their face, being charged at with knives and being subjected to other assaults.

As elected representatives, it is important that we send out a strong message to our police officers, who put on the uniform to protect our communities, that we stand firm and four-square behind them. I send my regards to the injured police officers. I have spoken to the PSNI leadership in my district to pass on the DUP's sympathies to those officers and to reassure them that they have our support going forward.

The sad reality is that our Police Service does not receive the respect that other emergency services receive. Our Ambulance Service, our Fire Service and our Health and Social Care workers deserve respect, and, rightly, there is zero tolerance of attacks on them.

Unfortunately, the PSNI does not receive the same respect. We need the Minister of Justice to work with our justice system to ensure that those who perpetrate such crimes against officers receive the maximum penalty possible. There is an onus on all of us in the Chamber to ensure that there is the political leadership not only to condemn those who attack our police officers but to support the men and women — mothers, fathers, sons and daughters — who put on the uniform. They must receive support from elected representatives.

Mr Mathison: The failure to secure a settlement on teachers' pay over the past number of days represents a genuine crisis point for our education system. Following the restoration of the institutions and the delivery of a pay deal last year, we should have been building on a platform of trust to restore relations. It is deeply regrettable that trust in this place now seems to be in such short supply. It is clear that teachers simply did not trust management and, by proxy, the Minister. They were required to commit to a period of industrial harmony if the deal was to be accepted. Teachers feel that they have been asked to forfeit rights — to give them up — and to take it on trust that the Department will deliver on long-overdue workload reforms. Concerningly, it seems that the unions have misjudged the strength of feeling among their members on the issue.

There is the potential for a substantial overreach by the Minister in the negotiation. He seems to be insistent that the pay deal must have strings attached. It is not being offered freely. For teachers who hear a lot of words about workload but see little evidence of real change in their day-to-day pressures, that has proved to be a bridge too far. I will be clear: action short of strike has a substantial and negative impact on our school system, and I make no argument on that point. The people who feel its impact most strongly are our children and young people. It is therefore in everybody's interest to avoid that happening. Teachers, school leaders, parents and all other stakeholders in the education system need to do the necessary work to ensure that action short of strike can be avoided. Surely the best and most effective way in which to avoid it is to deal with the issue that drives it, which is workload. The Minister needs to instil confidence that previous recommendations will be delivered on in a timely fashion.

This is not the time to be creating red lines. There should be no barrier on the management side to getting back around the table. Threats of "considering options" for teachers who are not carrying out contractual obligations should be withdrawn, and a resolution should be found. The Minister cannot be allowed to take credit for a pay deal when it is delivered yet take no responsibility when it is not. He cannot have it both ways. I urge all parties to take off the table the language that is causing suspicion and genuine concern among the teaching workforce and to get back around the table to deliver the pay deal and to put the money that has been secured to the purpose for which it should be used, which is to deliver a fair pay settlement.

Dr Aiken: On Saturday, Or Levy, Ohad Ben Ami and Eli Sharabi were released as part of the hostages-for-terrorists swap in the latest Middle East peace initiative. The three men were paraded for Hamas social media propaganda, with the despicable spectacle of the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) facilitating the terrorists' theatrics despite the clearly known requirement for impartiality and discretion. ICRC officials shaking hands with the terrorists for their propaganda needs is well short of what is expected from the Red Cross, a point that I for one, who has contributed to the charity in the past, duly noted. I will never support it again.

The interview of Eli by the Hamas terrorists was cruel and evil, even by their standards. The fact that Hamas had murdered his wife and two teenage daughters on 7 October 2023 and kept that information from Eli is beyond heartless, yet they made him talk about it in the interview. It is also clear that, unlike their capturers, jailors and torturers, Eli, Ohad and Or, having spent 491 days in captivity, are suffering from severe physical and mental deterioration, including malnutrition, decreased muscle mass, heart disorders and prolonged infection. Comparing their condition with that of the obviously well-fed Hamas members brings sharply to the fore the difference between the reality and the false narratives peddled by so many. The comparison of Or, Ohad and Eli with the victims of the Holocaust is apt. They should also be compared with the victims of ISIS, the Houthis and Hezbollah. They have all been conveniently ignored and forgotten by those who, in their antisemitic myopia, can only chastise Israel.

Quite a few reasonable people have noted the lack of commentary since Saturday to condemn the treatment of those three men. It is more than noteworthy that those Members of the Assembly who regularly chastise Israel for its actions, as well as the Irish president, the Taoiseach, the Tánaiste and the whole body of antisemitism on this island, have remained silent. That speaks volumes about their motives. We should all be worried about that. Or, Ohad and Eli deserve better. I hope that, for once, those naysayers will join me in wishing justice for the victims of 7 October, the release of all the hostages and peace in the Middle East.

Mr McNulty: On 28 September this year, the Pittsburgh Steelers will play the Green Bay Packers at our GAA HQ, Croke Park. The excitement and anticipation surrounding that global sporting contest's taking place in Ireland will reach fever pitch. I met Dan Rooney and former quarterback Kordell Stewart in Newry with Feargal McCormack when the seeds were being sown for the fixture a number of years back. The Rooney family, who are from Derrybeg on the Armagh side of Newry, have had a positive connection with Ireland for many years. The late Dan Rooney was, of course, the US ambassador to Ireland and was a great friend of my predecessor, Séamus Mallon. Dan Jr and Art are now very actively involved in running the Steelers organisation, and it was heart-warming to hear Dan referring to Ireland as his family's motherland.

I want to pay tribute to a number of people who have made the event possible: the Rooney family; Feargal McCormack; the GAA, including the current president, Jarlath Burns, for having the vision; Charlie McConalogue, the Irish Minister for sport; and, most of all, Peter Quinn. A long time ago, Peter Quinn had the vision to build Croke Park and make it a global sporting stadium. What dividends we have reaped since that time. I say that with a degree of sadness, because it is an awful pity that there is nobody here with that leadership, ambition and vision for our stadia in this part of Ireland.

Ms Flynn: The weekend just past marked one year since England's Patient Safety Commissioner published the Hughes report on options for redress for all those who were harmed by sodium valproate and pelvic mesh. The Hughes report provided a redress blueprint for those who suffered avoidable harm that was caused by systematic failings in the National Health Service provision frameworks. There was a recommendation to provide an initial one-off, lump sum payment of £25,000 to mesh-injured patients to address delay. Subsequent payments were to be subject to a formalised administrative redress scheme that would evaluate individual payments. To date, no payments have been made. Hopes are being raised and dashed by the unimplemented recommendations of the Hughes report and the Cumberlege report.

On 8 July 2020, the then Health Minister, Robin Swann, issued an immediate apology to victims of mesh and sodium valproate. In 2020, Minister Swann acknowledged the findings of the Cumberlege report and the need to explore financial and non-financial redress. In 2024, Minister Swann issued a similar response to the Hughes report recommendations. In December 2024, Health Minister, Mike Nesbitt, met local patient advocacy groups, although no glimmer of hope for change has been detected, unfortunately. To date, the mesh-injured women have not received a penny of financial redress.

The Department's lack of progress on redress is making victims of the scandal feel that the apology in 2020 was insincere. Regrettably, the mesh-injured women and the mothers and children who have been harmed by sodium valproate have very little confidence that there will be change, as they are being told that any progress here will depend on further discussions with counterparts in England.

Health is a devolved matter, and we should be able to reach our own determinations. Our devolved neighbours in Scotland have provided an alternative blueprint to follow for access to surgical treatment that has been commissioned abroad by NHS Scotland. Our local patients' dilemmas are compounded by our healthcare system's unprecedented waiting lists for surgery, the increase in age of the mesh-injured cohort and the decades of impact on their quality of life. The mesh-injured are without hope.

It is not the mark of an equal society nor a compassionate one when a section of our community — the mesh-injured women — feels abandoned. Behind all the headlines, they feel failed and that little has changed. An apology was made to them in 2020. It is now time for redress.

Mr T Buchanan: Today marks the commencement of the third week of the Omagh bomb inquiry, a human atrocity that tore the heart out of Omagh, claiming 31 lives, including two unborn children, and injuring over 220 people, leaving many families bereft of their loved ones, a grief and pain that they carry with them to this very day. Over the past two weeks, all those following the inquiry will, no doubt, have been greatly touched by the pain and continuing grief of those families, who have provided testimonials of their children, sons, daughters, mothers, fathers, brothers and sisters, husbands and wives who tragically lost their lives in that terrible atrocity carried out by the Real IRA.

For many of the families, this is the first time in the past 27 years that they have spoken publicly about the type of person that their loved one was and the great loss that they sustained on that bleak August afternoon. The tears and grief bear testimony to the pain of personal loss that they have carried over the past 27 years and their pursuit of truth and justice. Lives, families and homes were changed forever. Today, this question is still being asked: "For what?". What was the motive for such a vicious act of violent terrorism and cold-blooded murder?

Over the years, the families have fought a courageous battle for truth and justice on what was one of the deadliest atrocities of the Troubles. However, the blatant refusal of the Dublin Government to provide a structure for a parallel inquiry south of the border is totally appalling. The victims deserve truth, accountability and justice on both sides of the border. The Dublin Government cannot ignore the fact that the Omagh bomb was planned, prepared and transported to Omagh from the Republic of Ireland, yet it appears that they still want to provide a safe haven for those murderers. While the Taoiseach, Mr Martin, and his sidekick, Simon Harris, seek to justify their decision by stating that the Irish Government will ensure full cooperation with the inquiry, the fact remains that the UK inquiry has no authority to call witnesses from the Republic or compel them to give evidence. That creates a genuine concern amongst the families of victims that key evidence from the Republic may never be examined.

Today, in the House, I call upon the Taoiseach and Mr Harris, for the sake of the Omagh families, to have done with their hypocrisy and speaking from both sides of their mouth and to do the honourable thing by bringing forward a structure for a parallel inquiry in the South, rather than continuing to harbour and cover up for the perpetrators of that evil act.

Mr Donnelly: In February, we acknowledge Heart Month, a time to consider the importance of taking care of our heart and to improve our understanding of heart and circulatory conditions. The statistics speak for themselves. Heart disease causes nearly a quarter of deaths in Northern Ireland: around 4,200 deaths every year. Today, around 75,000 people live with coronary heart disease. That will only increase with our ageing and growing population. Heart disease impacts not only on older people. Around 1,100 people under 75 die from heart disease every year.

Northern Ireland has led the way in cardiovascular research, most famously through the work of Professor Frank Pantridge and his team at the Royal Victoria Hospital, who invented the world's first mobile defibrillator, fundamentally changing heart care and saving millions of lives around the world. We must support our research sector and universities here in their continuing to pioneer innovative research and organisations such as the British Heart Foundation, which also plays a vital role in developing and funding essential research into heart and circulatory diseases.

This year, the theme for our Heart Month from the British Heart Foundation is Go Red. It is running a number of fundraising events and encouraging others to organise similar events. Another ask is that people consider learning CPR, an invaluable and life-saving skill. I have used CPR and have taught it to others in my previous role as a nurse. Last year, my constituency office staff completed CPR training. I encourage businesses to consider that, especially those located in busy town centres. In the UK, eight out of 10 cardiac arrests happen at home, and knowing how to do CPR could save a loved one's life. On a more personal level, people can monitor their heart health through ECG and blood pressure monitors, which can easily be purchased.

As MLAs, we have a responsibility to act to protect our population and reduce the risk of heart disease. Shortly, we will discuss one very important action, the Tobacco and Vapes Bill, but we need further action. I welcome any update from the Minister of Health on his priorities for coronary heart disease in the remaining two years of the mandate.

Mr Sheehan: Téann teanga dhúchais amháin in éag i gceann gach aon choicíse. Ar na teangacha a cailleadh cheana féin bhí cuid a bhí á labhairt ar imchian an Artaigh agus cuid ar chósta na hAstráile. Cé go raibh difríochtaí eatarthu ó thaobh suímh, cultúir agus foghraíochta de, tá rud amháin ag nascadh fhormhór na dteangacha dúchais a chuaigh in éag: cailleadh iad de bharr an choilíneachais nó de bharr na dteangacha idirnáisiúnta a tháinig chun cinn de dheasca an choilíneachais. Ar feadh na gcéadta bliain rinneadh ionsaithe ar ár dteanga dhúchais féin lena cur den tsaol. Ach is léir gur sháraigh ar na cumhachtaí coilíneachta an teanga a scriosadh, nó tá sí ag fás léi, agus, leoga, tá an Ghaelscolaíocht ar an earnáil is mó a bhfuil fás fúithi sa Tuaisceart.

Tugann teangacha dúchais léargas ar leith dúinn ar an tír, agus nascann siad muid léi; tá siad fite fuaite inár gcultúr, agus tá ról tábhachtach le himirt acu i bhforbairt ár bhféiniúlachta. Táthar ag tuar go rachaidh idir 50% go 90% de theangacha dúchais ar ceal faoi cheann céad eile bliain.

Is iomaí iarracht a rinne muidne ar an oileán seo ár dteanga dhúchais a athbheochan — iarrachtaí ar éirigh go maith leo. Iarrachtaí ar nós bhunú Chonradh na Gaeilge sa bhliain 1893, iarrachtaí leithéidí Dhúbhghlais de Híde agus Phádraig Mhic Phiarais, go foghlaim na Gaeilge i gcásanna na Ceise Fada. Tá athbheochan úr faoi lán seoil anois i seomraí mar seo, i seomraí ranga, i gclubthithe de chuid Chumann Lúthchleas Gael, agus in amharclanna agus i hallaí ceolchoirme. Go raibh athbheochan na Gaeilge ina réalta eolais ag teangacha eile mionlaigh atá ag streachailt le fanacht beo.

Seo í teachtaireacht shoiléir Lá Idirnáisiúnta na Máthairtheangacha: beatha teanga í a labhairt.

Mr Harvey: One of the pillars of a democratic society is freedom of religion. From the Glorious Revolution until now, citizens in this part of the globe have benefited from individual rights and freedoms, not least in the area of faith. Sadly, that is not the case elsewhere, particularly for the global Christian community, which suffers more persecution than other faith groups. Over 380 million Christians face persecution and discrimination — that is one in seven believers worldwide. That figure represents an increase of 15 million since last year and represents one in seven Christians globally, according to Open Doors' worldwide watch list 2025.

At this year's parliamentary launch of the watch list on 15 January, MPs heard speakers from Bangladesh, East Africa and Nigeria. Indeed, North Korea remains number one on the watch list, a position that it has held almost every year since 2002. In early 2024, the North Korean Government announced stricter regulations and increased crackdowns. It has been officially reported that the North Korean authorities publicly executed about 30 young teenagers for watching a South Korean drama on a USB drive, and several 17-year-olds were sentenced to life imprisonment or death for similar reasons in June and July 2024.

I pay tribute to the incredible work of Open Doors and other charities working in that space to raise awareness and support those who are being persecuted by Governments across the globe. I also welcome the recent appointment of David Smith MP as UK special envoy for freedom of religion or belief, and I wish him well in that important role. It is important that, as leaders in our community, we all speak out against persecution internationally and that, as local legislators, we guard against any attempt to dilute freedom of religion and belief here, be it through word or action, however subtle it may appear.

Ms Sugden: This year, my constituency is, once again, hosting the British Open, one of the world's most prestigious sporting events. More than just a golf tournament, the Open is a major opportunity to showcase the very best of our local area and Northern Ireland as a whole. I acknowledge the work of the R&A; its commitment to bringing the Open back to Royal Portrush is a testament to the success of the event in 2019 and the quality of our local courses. Its investment and belief in our ability to host a tournament of that scale should not go unrecognised. I also commend Causeway Coast and Glens Borough Council and the various statutory agencies that have been working hard to put in place plans on transport infrastructure and event management to ensure that the tournament runs smoothly and that local people are engaged in the process.

I do, however, believe that the Northern Ireland Executive are missing opportunities. Events of this scale do not just bring short-term economic benefits; they have the potential to open up long-term gains in tourism, trade and investment, yet it seems that the Executive are limited in their approach to capitalising on these opportunities. Where is the ambition to secure future major sporting events? Where is the plan to promote Northern Ireland as a global destination off the back of millions of viewers watching this tournament, set in one of the most stunning links courses in the world? Where is the real engagement with businesses to help them to maximise the benefits, not just for the week of the Open but for years to come?

We know from the previous time the Open was here that, although it was a resounding success, there were challenges. Some businesses felt sidelined, transport and accessibility issues caused frustration and the wider economic potential was not fully harnessed. This time, we must and can do better. The Northern Ireland Executive and Tourism NI should work with local businesses and the hospitality sector to ensure that they reap the rewards of increased visitor numbers, both during and after the event. Our Government should be leading the charge in ensuring a lasting legacy, whether through improving sporting infrastructure, supporting small businesses or using this global platform to tell a positive story about Northern Ireland. Northern Ireland has proven that it can deliver world-class events, but we must do more than just host them. We must leverage them for long-term success, and the Open in 2025 is not just about golf but about our economy, our communities and our future.

Ms Forsythe: Yesterday, we paused to remember the date, 9 February, when, in 1971, five men travelled to Brougher Mountain in rural County Tyrone to repair buildings at a transmitter compound. On the track to the compound, their Land Rover activated a large explosive device and they were blown up by a Provisional IRA bomb. All five innocent men, going to do their day's work, were instantly killed by that IRA bomb in what can only be described as an evil and harrowing attack. Those in positions of leadership who fail to condemn the murders of innocent people and say that there was no alternative to that violence are disgraceful. History can never be rewritten.

Today, I remember those five men. The two BBC engineers from Great Britain were Malcolm David Henson, aged just 23, the youngest victim that day, and William Alan Thomas, aged 35. Three of the men killed were from a Kilkeel-based firm in my constituency of South Down, and the families firmly uphold their memory in our community today. George Beck, aged 43, was a devoted husband to Isobel and a loving father to Nigel and Gillian. He was a member of Derryogue flute band and of the Orange and the Black. He was an active member of Mourne Presbyterian Church and a singer in the church and male voice choir. John Eakins, aged 52, was husband to Lottie and father of seven children: Billy, Tom, Alex, Jennifer, Linda, Lesley and Rodney. At the time of his death, he had several grandchildren. He was a family man and a hard worker. He was a keen churchgoer and was sexton of Carginagh Church and a member of Derryogue Orange lodge and the local Royal Black Preceptory 208. Harry Edgar, aged 27, was the son of Robert and Thelma and a loving brother to Phyllis. A devoted family man, quiet and unassuming, he loved horses and football, which he enjoyed playing at Ballyardle. The funerals of those three Kilkeel men took place on 11 February, when the entire population of Kilkeel lined the streets.

The South East Fermanagh Foundation (SEFF) has worked with the families of those innocent victims of that terrorist atrocity to dedicate a memorial stone and represent them in a tapestry. Most importantly, it works with the families to provide support and to continue to tell the story of truth from that terrible day: five innocent men, going about their day's work, were brutally and cruelly murdered by the evil actions of the Provisional IRA. The families of those men will never forget them, nor will our community, and neither should anyone.

Mr Speaker: You have two minutes, Mr Gaston.

Mr Gaston: Thank you very much, Mr Speaker.

I will briefly touch on the underhand manner in which the Assembly Commission has progressed the Bill designed to give MLAs a massive pay increase. Why were only the parties that are on the Commission consulted? Why, prior to the debate last week, were MLAs outside Sinn Féin, Alliance, the SDLP, the DUP and the Ulster Unionists totally in the dark about the contents of the Bill? I was aware of the projected £19,000 pay bonanza for MLAs only because I read the Audit Committee's briefing to assist in its scrutiny of the Assembly Commission's budget for 2025-26. I was totally in the dark as to the contents of the Bill prior to its publication on the Assembly website. One suspects that the parties on the Commission hoped that I had not read the Audit Committee's briefing note. It was never sent to me, and I received it only after my office asked the Business Office whether there were any papers that could be studied ahead of the debate to approve the Commission's budget on 9 December last year.

Guidance from the UK Government is clear:

It states that consultation:

The Executive Office guidance on consultations also sets the standard period for consultation at 12 weeks. Consultation should be an important part of the legislative process, because it permits all parties, organisations and the public to feed into the policymaking process. In this instance, however, the Assembly Commission decided to consult only parties with representation on the Commission and never dared to let the public or other parties even see the proposals, much less have their say. Frankly, the whole process stinks —

Mr Speaker: The Member's time is up.

Mr Gaston: — from beginning to end. I look forward to debating the amendments to the Bill when it returns to the House.

Mr Speaker: I ask Members to take their ease for a moment.

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

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

Mr Muir: I am grateful for the opportunity to propose the motion. The Northern Ireland Environment Agency (NIEA) operates an annual charging policy for its regulatory activities. The charging policy covers eight separate charging schemes, of which the waste management charging scheme is one.

The waste management charging scheme requires legislation to be laid to make it operational. The NIEA charging policy is governed by the principles of 'Managing Public Money Northern Ireland' and operates under a full cost recovery model. That means that NIEA charges operators of regulated activities the full costs of those regulatory activities and that they are not subsidised by the taxpayer.

The fees and charges covered by the charging policy are uplifted annually. They are normally uplifted by the GDP deflator figure, which is issued by His Majesty's Treasury in December in each year. However, the charging policy allows for the Department to apply any other mechanism deemed appropriate to ensure full cost recovery. That prevents the costs of NIEA chargeable activities from having to be paid out of the public purse. After analysis by NIEA finance, it was agreed that fees and charges for 2024-25 should be uplifted by 9·5%. That covers two separate and distinct payroll years, with different rates applied, and it includes associated employers' pay costs. The uplift applies to schemes in the NIEA charging policy 2024-25. Had NIEA used the 2024-25 GDP deflator figure of 0·8% that was issued by Treasury, the agency would have lost an estimated £1 million in fees and charges across all charging schemes, and that would have had to be paid from the public purse.

Normally, the statutory rule (SR) required to bring the waste management charging scheme into operation each year is laid by negative resolution. However, these regulations are made under schedule 4 to the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, which stipulates that they will be subject to draft affirmative resolution procedure, unless they only alter a fee or charge to reflect changes in the value of money. Therefore, because the fees and charges are being uplifted by using a figure that is not a stand-free inflationary measure, the Waste (Fees and Charges) (Amendment) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2025 are required to be laid by draft affirmative resolution.

As an executive agency of the Department of Agriculture Environment and Rural Affairs, NIEA is a key contributor to the Department's vision of sustainability at the heart of a living, working and active landscape that is valued by everyone. Its aim is to protect and enhance Northern Ireland's environment and, in doing so, to deliver health and well-being benefits to support economic growth. The uplift to the agency's fees and charges is essential if that work is to continue. Accordingly, I commend the statutory rule to the House.

Mr Butler (The Chairperson of the Committee for Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs): The Committee for Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs met on 23 January and received an oral briefing from officials from the waste legislation branch and the environmental resources policy division on the SL1 regarding the draft statutory rule.

The Committee heard that the Northern Ireland Environment Agency operates an annual charging policy for its regulatory activities, covering eight separate charging schemes, one of which is the waste management charging scheme. We heard that legislation was needed to bring the scheme into operation each year. The Committee noted that the NIEA charging policy is a model of full cost recovery, meaning that those activities are not subsidised by the taxpayer and that the fees and charges are uplifted annually. The Committee heard that they are normally uplifted by the GDP deflator figure that the Treasury issues in December but that, after analysis by the NIEA finance branch, it was agreed that the fees and charges for 2024-25 should be uplifted by 9·5%. The uplift applies to the schemes in the NIEA charging policy for 2024-25, covering two distinct payroll years with different rates applied and includes associated employer pay costs. The Committee heard that, if the NIEA had used the 2024-25 GDP deflator figure of 0·8%, it would have lost an estimated £1 million in fees and charges across all the charging schemes.

The officials advised that the SR to bring the waste management charging scheme into operation each year is usually laid by negative resolution. These regulations, however, are made under schedule 4 to the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, which means that they are subject to the draft affirmative resolution procedure, unless they are only altering a fee or charge to reflect changes in the value of money. The Committee noted that, as the fees and charges are being uplifted beyond a statutory inflationary measure, the SR was required to be laid by draft affirmative resolution.

The Committee then asked a series of questions, two of which I will bring to the House's attention. First, we were interested in the fees and fines applied in the rest of the UK, and the officials highlighted the fact that the guidance that insists on full cost recovery is statutory and applies throughout the UK. Secondly, we asked whether the agencies in other jurisdictions also based their cost recovery on running costs and whether their model for cost recovery was the same as the NIEA's. The officials confirmed that that was indeed the case. The Committee then agreed that it was content to support the SR as drafted.

More recently, at its meeting on 6 February, the Committee considered the SL5 letter and the draft SR. The Committee noted that no changes had been made since the SL1 was submitted to the Committee and that the Examiner of Statutory Rules (ESR) had advised that the SR was to be included in the next ESR report and would not be drawn to the special attention of the Assembly. Since then, the ESR report has indeed been issued.

The Committee agrees to recommend that the draft Waste (Fees and Charges) (Amendment) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2025 be approved by the Assembly.

Mr McAleer: While the increases are higher than usual, they are a result of increased NIEA staff costs and a further projected increase in those staff costs. Inherent in 'Managing Public Money', which sets out the main principles for dealing with resources that public-sector organisations use, is the need for the NIEA to seek full cost recovery for its services. Not introducing the increases would result in a £1 million shortfall for the NIEA, affecting its ability to carry out its vital environment role. Apart from being slightly higher than usual, the increases are regular and routine, and we have no issue with supporting them.

Mr Muir: I thank the Members who have contributed to the debate. In summary, the Waste (Fees and Charges) (Amendment) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2025 will bring into operation the waste management charging scheme for 2024-25. That is required for the NIEA to charge for its waste management regulatory activities and includes an annual uplift to fees and charges, allowing the NIEA to operate under full cost recovery, as is required by the principles of 'Managing Public Money Northern Ireland'. I accordingly commend the statutory rule to the House.

Mr Lyons (The Minister for Communities): I beg to introduce the Sign Language Bill [NIA 10/22-27], which is a Bill to make provision about the status of and for the advancement of British Sign Language and Irish Sign Language.

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

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

Mr Nesbitt: Among the many and varied challenges that I accept as Minister of Health, addressing health inequalities is perhaps the most difficult, as nobody has shifted the dial on healthy life expectancy since devolution in 1998-99. I repeat: that challenge is an Executive-wide one. The international standard that we are working to indicates that clinical health initiatives contribute 20% of the solution; socio-economic initiatives contribute 40%; environmental initiatives contribute 10%; and the remaining 30% are down to individual behaviours, such as alcohol consumption, drug use and smoking. It is in that context that I seek the support of the House for the legislative consent motion (LCM).

Last year, the House voted to support Northern Ireland's inclusion in the previous Tobacco and Vapes Bill, which, unfortunately, fell on the dissolution of Parliament. The new Tobacco and Vapes Bill, which was introduced last November, is broadly the same as the previous Bill. It will create a smoke-free generation, making it an offence for anybody born on or after 1 January 2009 to be sold tobacco products. Going further than the previous Bill, it seeks to address the deliberate marketing of nicotine vapes and non-nicotine vapes to children. Consequently, the Bill will ban the sale of vapes and other nicotine products to under-18s, including from vending machines. It will ban advertising and sponsorship as well as free distribution. The tobacco retailers' register will be extended to include retailers who sell vapes or other nicotine products. The Bill will also provide a power to introduce a licensing scheme. Each of the four nations will have powers to extend smoke-free places and to designate them vape- and heated tobacco-free.

Why do we need those measures? It is because smoking kills. It is the number-one cause of preventable illness and premature death. Each year, 2,200 people in Northern Ireland die from smoking-related conditions. It increases the risk of over 50 serious health conditions. As I said, smoking is also a major cause of health inequality. Smoking rates in the areas in which deprivation is highest are three times those in the least deprived areas. The Bill's generational approach to eliminating tobacco use offers a groundbreaking way in which to address that public health threat. Smoking also impacts on non-smokers who are exposed to second-hand smoke and on families who have to deal with the illness or death of loved ones. Smoking affects us all.

Members will be all too aware of the financial pressures facing our health service. In 2019-2020, Northern Ireland hospitals spent £218 million treating smoking-attributable conditions, and there were 38,617 smoking-attributable hospital admissions. There are growing concerns about the harms of vaping. Recent data shows that, among year 12 pupils, vape use doubled from 11·7% in 2019 to 23·6% in 2022. The Institute of Public Health found evidence of a gateway effect between e-cigarette and subsequent tobacco use, so robust measures are needed to address the appeal of the products to children.

In respect of costs arising, the smoking measures are not entirely new, so we are not starting from scratch. While the exact costs will need further analysis, in the long term, some expenditure is justified, given the huge personal and economic costs of smoking. Some may be concerned that there are different legislative frameworks on either side of the border. However, the fact remains that we have a common goal of reducing smoking prevalence and tobacco harm. The case for consent remains as when the Assembly gave consent to the previous Bill. This UK-wide Bill offers the best opportunity to introduce the measures in this mandate and allow us to keep pace with the other UK nations. The Bill offers a huge opportunity to save lives and enable people to stay well for longer.

The response to the public consultation showed overwhelming public support for the measures. The Executive Office and Health Committees were briefed, and they agreed that we should be included in the UK-wide legislation. It is the right thing to do, and we would face considerable public criticism if we were to reject this once-in-a-generation opportunity. I am grateful to Professor Sir Michael McBride for his support for the Bill; indeed, the Bill is supported by all four UK Chief Medical Officers (CMOs).

I ask Members to support the motion in order to best serve our families, our friends and future generations.

The Bill is an opportunity to save lives. I urge Members to take that opportunity.

Mr McGuigan (The Chairperson of the Committee for Health): I welcome the opportunity to confirm the Health Committee's support for the motion that the Minister of Health has introduced. We are all too aware of the harm that is caused by smoking. Smoking remains the number-one preventable cause of death, disability and ill health here. It kills over 2,000 people in the North every year, and there are many more people living with the debilitating effects of smoke-related illnesses, such as heart disease and stroke, as well as many other life-limiting conditions.

Evidence shows that tobacco use is the leading cause of health inequalities, with smoking prevalence rates higher among people living in areas of social and economic deprivation. The lung cancer rate in areas where deprivation is highest is around two and a half times the rate seen in the least-deprived areas, while the smoking death rate is twice as high in areas where deprivation is the highest. Evidence also shows that children of smokers are often more likely to become smokers, creating a cycle of health inequalities. We, therefore, need to try to find a way to break that cycle and improve the health of all our communities.

The legislative consent motion is one of the tools that we can use to drive forward change. The Committee, therefore, welcomes the extension of the Tobacco and Vapes Bill, as the measures contained in it will, unquestionably, provide significant health benefits here, particularly for our young people. As the Minister outlined, by prohibiting the sale of tobacco products to people born on or after 1 January 2009, the Tobacco and Vapes Bill will introduce measures to stop people starting smoking and becoming addicted to tobacco products. The Committee wholeheartedly endorses that measure, which will surely go a considerable way towards realising the ambition of achieving a smoke-free generation in the future.

The Committee recognises that this is the second such LCM that it has considered and was disappointed that it was unable to be progressed by the previous British Government. However, the Committee welcomes the additional changes in this legislation, including the extension of existing tobacco advertising, sponsorship and brand-sharing rules to cigarette papers, herbal smoking products, vaping products and other nicotine products; the powers to allow regulation to be made to extend smoke-free provisions in public-sector spaces; and the extension of the NI tobacco retailers' register to include vapes and other nicotine products. It also welcomes the planned introduction of retail licensing provisions that will be commenced in the longer term.

The Health Committee looks forward to engaging with the Department of Health as the legislation is implemented over the coming period and in its development of a new tobacco strategy. The strategy must contain specific measures that will support existing smokers to quit and, in particular, measures that will target the groups in which smoking rates are highest.

I thank the Youth Assembly for taking the time to engage with the Committee, on a second occasion, on this legislation. Its input was valuable as the Committee considered the impact of the legislation. It is important that we, as a parliamentary institution, engage with those who will be most affected by legislation when it is brought forward. I encourage the Minister and the Department to ensure that, when legislation is brought to the Assembly, there is significant engagement with those who will be impacted on the most. I thank the organisations, including the Institute of Public Health and Cancer UK, that engaged with the Committee on the subject. I also thank the Minister and his departmental officials for their early briefing on the LCM, which allowed the Committee to be fully informed when making its decision on whether it would support the motion.

I highlight that the Committee's report requests that the Department engages with the Committee at the earliest opportunity on the development of local regulations for which the Minister of Health has responsibility and the wider regulations for which the British Secretary of State has responsibility. In recognition of the particular interest that the Youth Assembly expressed in relation to vaping, the Committee recommends that the Department of Health engages with young people, particularly the Youth Assembly, on the future regulation of vaping products and vapes.

From the Committee's point of view, I confirm the Committee's support for the Minister's motion that asks the Assembly to support the extension of the Tobacco and Vapes Bill. The Committee agrees with the Minister's view that the measures contained in the Bill offer a huge public health opportunity that cannot be missed and will go a considerable way towards achieving the ambition of creating a smoke-free generation. The Health Committee endorses and supports that ambition.

I will say a few words in my capacity as an MLA and Sinn Féin's health spokesperson. Some studies have indicated that nicotine is as addictive as heroin and cocaine. From my personal experience, as someone who used to smoke and who did so for over 20 years, I know just how difficult breaking free from that drug is. Given the addictive nature and proven detrimental health impacts, we must do all that we can to protect all our citizens, particularly children and young people, from its impact. Over 200,000 people still smoke in the North and are at risk of 16 types of cancer, heart disease, stroke and other related illnesses. The LCM is a worthwhile first step, Minister, but we can and need to do more. For example, we need a renewed tobacco control strategy urgently, more funded tobacco cessation services and a lung screening programme in the North.

Parents, teachers and health organisations have all raised concerns about the current availability of vaping products to minors. The rise in youth vaping is a major cause for concern, and immediate steps are needed to inform children and young people of the long-term harm that can be caused by it. The Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health called the use of vaporised nicotine products by children "an epidemic" and stated that the products not only cause more damage to children's lungs but:

Asthma + Lung UK stated:

The British Heart Foundation said that increasing the age of sale will:

Reducing the prevalence of cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk factors, such as smoking, is also crucial to alleviating further strain on our overstretched health and social care services.

Despite the law stating that those products cannot be sold to anyone who is under 18, it is clear that children are consuming them. Teachers have raised the issue of underage vaping with me, and I am certain that that is the case for other MLAs in the Chamber. The use of those products has, unfortunately, become commonplace in our schools. We absolutely need to do more. We need to stop vapes and other nicotine products from being branded and advertised to appeal to our children. The array of colourful vapes that are flavoured like sweets is an obvious draw to children. They usually come with colourful packaging, and some even light up. Disposable e-cigarettes are relatively inexpensive, costing around £4 to £5. Therefore, they are affordable to many children.

Sinn Féin welcomes the efforts being made in schools to inform and educate young people about the dangers of tobacco use, its addictive components and the long-term effects that it can have on health. We welcome the proposals to make it illegal for anyone who is born after January 2009 to buy cigarettes. We also recognise that there is a question around enforcement and how that might work. In particular, we live on the island of Ireland, so we need to see good cooperation between the North and South and the implementation of changes to ensure that it is not as simple as people crossing the border to buy products.

Before I finish, I thank the health organisations that made contact and provided helpful briefing papers in advance of the debate, such as the British Heart Foundation, Asthma + Lung UK, the BMA and Cancer Research UK, and recognise their work. I met representatives of Cancer Research this morning, and some of its members are in the Public Gallery. Sinn Féin believes that all efforts should be made to reduce the prevalence of smoking in society, and the Bill goes some way towards realising that.

Mr McGrath: I endorse all the remarks that have been made. We discussed the issue in Committee. It is pretty much a no-brainer. Smoking kills, and it kills lots and lots of people. It is not killing as many people now as it used to. Why? Because not as many people smoke. If we do everything that we can to provide the necessary leadership and guidance, it will, hopefully, help future generations to completely eradicate smoking one day so that nobody does it. That will help.

Like the Chair of the Health Committee, I was a smoker. I have been off cigarettes for over 20 years at this stage, although my current cold makes it sound as though I am back on them again. It is really difficult to give up smoking. I started smoking because, where I lived as a young person, we could get access to a vending machine. We were able to sneak in and pool our money to purchase a packet of cigarettes. The inclusion of elements that deal with removing vending machines as points of sale is really important. If the product has to be sold, it must be sold to people of an appropriate age and in an appropriate way.

There is also the issue of health inequalities. We know that smoking is more prevalent in areas of deprivation, and we know that the sheer cost of cigarettes nowadays means that it is putting a substantial drain on some families' income. Trying to eradicate smoking for future generations might take away a massive cost from some households. As matters continue, it will be incredibly difficult to police it — to have two people who are maybe just one year apart, and one can smoke and the other cannot. There may be some ways that cigarettes will be passed around. Of course, everyone knows that, in every town across the North, there are places that sell cigarettes at knock-off prices. If that continues to be the case in the future, it will provide that additional access. I hope that something can be done to try to clamp down on the access so that those who can get cigarettes do not avail themselves of that opportunity.

I welcome the fact that the legislation is being debated here today.

Mr Robinson: Like other Members, as a former 30-a-day smoker, I can stand in the House and say that quitting over 15 years ago was the most positive, health-defining decision that I have made. I fell into the category of the almost nine out of 10 people in the UK who took up smoking before the age of 21. Millions of our citizens, I am sure, will look back with regret about why they have not taken the decision not just to stop but to never have started a habit that kills up to two thirds of its users. It is the largest cause of preventable illness and premature death.

My smoking habit took many, many attempts to crack. I often wonder whether, if vaping had been freely available back then as it is today, it would have made the process of quitting easier. Smoking damages the heart and the lungs and is the key cause of many cancers. It has been linked to diabetes and dementia as well as stillbirths and miscarriages, and it damages teeth and gums. Quite simply, there are no good uses for tobacco. No one can argue against the significant harms caused by smoking.

During the recent debate in Westminster, it was noted that smoking costs the average smoker £2,500 a year, which is money that those people could spend on other goods and services. The Health Committee has had a number of presentations, all supporting moves to address smoking and vaping in the young, and has had written representation from Diabetes UK, Asthma + Lung UK, the British Medical Association (BMA) and Northern Ireland Chest Heart & Stroke, which kindly provided briefing materials. The Youth Assembly broadly welcomed the Bill and was supportive of attempts to create a smoke-free generation. The Committee did not, however, hear from the smoking or vaping industry, other than series of emails from Japan Tobacco International (JTI) warning that, under the UK's withdrawal agreement from the EU, the Bill may not apply here. We need to know whether the Bill can apply in the Province. We need to know whether all four corners of the UK will have a generational smoking ban. We encourage the Minister to detail his discussions in that regard and seek out a definitive response.

I can only surmise that the outworkings of the Bill, if enacted, will see the closure of a raft of vape shops on our high streets. I will, however, say that vapes being used by adult smokers to try to quit smoking is no bad thing. We would not want the offer of legal vapes to be lost, therefore pushing the smoker who is trying to quit back to the dreaded fag. The unintended consequences of the Bill concern me a little. What are the views of shopkeepers and their thoughts on the Bill, especially about trying, in the future, to say to a grown adult, for example, in their thirties or forties, that they need to produce identification and telling them that they are too young to purchase tobacco? What will be the implications for shopkeepers when violence against businesses is at an all-time high?

Vapes are disgracefully marketed in such a way that they are appealing to young people, with brightly coloured packaging, branded with cartoon characters and flavours that make them as appealing as sweets. All evidence points to the increase in children, in primary and secondary school, using vapes, with further emerging evidence that their usage is affecting children's ability to learn. Nicotine dependence can cause problems with attention and mood, and also sleep issues. There are simply no benefits for non-smokers who vape. Illegal vape products have been found to contain lead and nickel within the soldering of the pipe, pushing those substances into the lungs of young people. We must always remember that the demand for tobacco products is fuelled by addiction. When you reduce the availability of these products, you reduce potential addiction and demand.

Sensible, evidence-based and well-thought-out moves to address the outworkings of smoking, including the cost to our hospitals — over £200 million per year — and the deaths of 2,000 of our people each year, are to be welcomed. That has been borne out in the UK-wide consultation, in which 79% of respondents were in favour. Yes, my party welcomes sensible approaches that aim to stop addiction before it starts, especially in young people. Legislating to prevent dangers to our young people is no bad thing. Yes, we need to educate and raise awareness among children and adults, and not just on tobacco; we could start into the dangers of alcohol and unhealthy food. That will be for another day.

New Zealand brought forward a similar Bill under a previous Prime Minister, but that has been reversed under the new Government, who have opted to up awareness and offer practical tools to help people stop smoking. Some might say that we should follow that course. However, New Zealand's Minister of Health has cited that its smoking rates are around half of those of the UK and that it is already well on the way to achieving its smoke-free goals with less than 5% of its population being daily smokers. Many will also say that the big tobacco industry influenced the decision to go into reverse gear. Either way, we cannot allow that to happen. While the Bill may have unintended consequences, saving tens of thousands of lives, deterring any young person from taking up the habit, as I did, and reducing tobacco-related cancers and heart disease, while shifting healthcare from sickness to prevention, are the reasons that my party will support the LCM and its broad principle.

Mr Donnelly: I rise in favour of the LCM and would welcome Northern Ireland's inclusion in the Tobacco and Vapes Bill. I thank the Minister for bringing the LCM to the Assembly. Like other Members, I know how hard it is to quit smoking. It is certainly very addictive.

The main purpose of the Bill is to introduce a new offence to prohibit the selling of tobacco products, as well as herbal smoking products and cigarette papers, to anyone born on or after 1 January 2009. Clause 68 would introduce the provision into Northern Ireland law. If passed, the Bill would lead to Northern Ireland and the UK as a whole becoming a world leader in tackling the dangers that are posed by smoking, and moving towards a smoke-free society. It should be said that the Bill will not ban smoking for anyone who can buy cigarettes today, but increasing the age of sale will protect future generations from the devastating impacts of smoking and tobacco and prevent the cycle of addiction that has damaged our society for too long.

It is estimated that approximately 13% of Northern Ireland's population smoke. That is around 200,000 people. Every year, there are around 2,300 deaths from heart and circulatory diseases that are directly linked to smoking. Smoking is more prevalent in more deprived areas, where people are two to three times more likely to smoke than those in less deprived areas. That exacerbates the existing socio-economic divide in our society, which is already worse than in other parts of the UK as a consequence of our recent conflict.

Smoking causes huge damage to our economy. It is estimated to cost the Northern Ireland economy £0·4 billion each year; specifically, £0·2 billion to the Department of Health. The massive strain on our health service is worsened by smoking, with around 18,000 annual hospital admissions in Northern Ireland being attributable to smoking. A generational smoking ban would greatly alleviate the social and economic damage that smoking causes regularly. We would see both the immediate and more long-term benefits through passing the draft legislation.

We know from experience that the use of regulation against smoking works and that, in recent decades, the situation was much worse. Fifty years ago, 45% of the UK population smoked. The figure is now less than a third of that. One of the main reasons for that substantial decline is the use of regulation to remove smoking from places where people are vulnerable and to increase public awareness of the dangers of smoking. The Smoking (Northern Ireland) Order 2006 came into operation on 30 April 2007, nearly 20 years ago. It introduced measures to ban smoking in workplaces and enclosed public spaces. That has largely removed indoor smoking, which is particularly dangerous due to the risk of second-hand smoking. In 2021, second-hand smoke exposure was responsible for around 3,000 deaths in the UK. Without the 2006 Order and its equivalents in England, Scotland and Wales, that number would have been much higher.

There have been attempts to reduce the number starting smoking at a young age. Two thirds of smokers start smoking regularly before the age of 18, and most of those people will continue to smoke for the rest of their lives. Until 31 August 2008, the minimum age to purchase and consume tobacco products was 16. That was changed by the Children and Young Persons (Sale of Tobacco etc.) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2008, which brought the minimum age up to 18.

The Bill represents a more significant step towards preventing those who currently cannot buy tobacco products from ever buying them, thereby ending the early exposure to tobacco that has been so prevalent in our society for so long. The UK Government could have considered increasing the age of sale again — for example, to 21, as the Republic of Ireland has been considering, or higher, to 25 — but there is a risk that that would only raise the age at which people start smoking, as opposed to stopping people ever beginning smoking.

It is also important that the Bill includes a wide range of tobacco products, all of which carry a risk to health and can cause cancer. We cannot achieve a truly smoke-free society unless all such products are included. That is especially relevant following a study by Cancer Research UK that revealed that there has been a significant rise in the number of people who use non-cigarette tobacco products in the last decade, particularly young people.

The enforcement of the progressive smoking ban will be crucial. The Bill adopts what I believe to be a reasonable approach. The Bill criminalises not smoking but specifically the sale of tobacco to those born in or after 2009. It will also criminalise proxy purchasing, which is purchasing on behalf of someone below the legal age. Children and others covered by the Bill will not be punished; instead, enforcement officers will have the power to impose on-the-spot fines of £200 and to uphold the law and clamp down on underage sales. I am sure that other MLAs will be as aware as I am of young people, sometimes even in school uniforms, being sold cigarettes and vapes.

I also want to discuss the new regulations that will be introduced by the Bill around vaping and e-cigarettes. Vapes are relatively new and their long-term impacts unclear, but they cannot be considered risk-free. The evidence that we have shows that vapes are less harmful than smoking and can be useful in helping people to quit smoking. They have become the most popular smoking cessation tool. That should be welcomed and encouraged for adults who are looking to quit smoking, but we must be clear that children should not be vaping and should not be able to buy vapes. That is why we welcome the provisions in clause 76 that will make it an offence to sell a vaping or nicotine product to a person under the age of 18.

As previously mentioned, the flavours, names and branding of some of the products would suggest that they are being marketed directly at young people. The Bill introduces new enforcement powers for the Department of Health, and I would appreciate more detail from the Minister of Health on the steps that his Department will take to ensure that those provisions are fully implemented and enacted.

We also need district councils to ensure that they carry out a programme of enforcement action in their areas if appropriate, as under clause 81. That is important in relation to vapes. Although we welcome adults using vapes as an alternative to smoking, there is a risk of the opposite occurring: young people trying vapes and then escalating to smoking. There is a growing body of evidence that that is the case.

In conclusion, I welcome the LCM and particularly the urgency with which the new Labour Government have brought it to Parliament, along with the previous efforts of the former Conservative Government. It is welcome that there exists a broad, cross-party consensus on the issue in Westminster, with 415 MPs voting for the Bill at its Second Stage in November and only 47 against. I hope that we will see similar consensus in the Assembly.

I thank the Department of Health officials who attended the Health Committee, particularly for their useful updates and for outlining the differences between the Labour Bill and the former Conservative one, as well as the Members of the Youth Assembly for their valuable engagement on the issue. I also thank the organisations that have been in touch about the Bill, particularly Asthma and Lung UK, the British Heart Foundation and the BMA, all of which provided useful briefing papers.

I look forward to continued engagement with the Department and the UK Government on how Northern Ireland can become a world leader in tackling the huge damage caused by smoking. Our goal must be a smoke-free society, which is defined as less than 5% of our population smoking. The Bill is a key step towards getting there, and I encourage all Members to support it today.

Mr Butler: Today's vote and the Tobacco and Vapes Bill more generally are undoubtedly the right thing to do. That is what I have written down, but, inside, I feel so much better about what is happening today than what is typed up at the top of my page. Unlike probably all the Members who have spoken so far, I have no declaration to make. I have not been a smoker at any stage in my life. I am really not saying that in a pious way. In my family, I was surrounded by smokers. My paternal granny and granda smoked. My granda on my mum's side smoked quite heavily, as did most of my aunts and uncles, and my dad smoked. I am grateful that, for reasons unknown to me, I just did not like it. I did not like the look of it. I did not think that anybody looked cool when they were doing it. I certainly did not like the smell of cigarettes, and I grew up with an individualised aversion to smoking.

As a young person, I often wondered when the day would come when we would have an honest discussion on the subject. Yes, that discussion started around 20 years ago when some of the first legislation came in. If you remember, you will know that the discussion was primarily led by the health bodies outlining the impact of smoking on people. There was also the counter-lobby, which included those who had restaurants, bars and other places where people smoked while congregating and socialising and said that a ban would have a detrimental impact on them; in fact, the statistics show that it did not. The statistics also bear out the fact that we are in a better place because of the changes that were made. We see reduced hospital admissions, improved health among hospitality workers and reduced exposure to second-hand smoke.

We need to return to the issue of vapes every time that we talk about tobacco. When I was 11 years old and had just started secondary school, I remember getting an Ulsterbus to school. It used to pull up outside a shop to pick us up. It was my first day, and I was in my wee school uniform. I am not tall now, but I was even smaller then. The Minister said that 23·6% of year 12s, which is fifth year — I have to convert it into old money — vape and that vaping is potentially a gateway to smoking. I remember getting on to the bus, and, no word of a lie, you could not see the back of it. The layer of smoke was down to about 2 or 3 feet off the floor, and just about everybody whom I could see who was under 16 was smoking. All right, that was 35, 36, 37 years ago, but, if we fail to look at evidence from the past, we cannot combat the wickedness of the future. In tackling vape use, we have to encourage young people not to start vaping because it smells nice, looks nice or whatever: it does not. It hurts me when I am in my own town or anywhere and see young people in school uniform doing what, they think, looks cool and probably smells OK — it smells a lot better than cigarette smoke, to be fair — but, if vaping is a gateway to smoking, we need to look at it very seriously.

Many Members who have spoken have said that tobacco use is the biggest cause of cancer in Northern Ireland. Shockingly, it accounts for over 2,000 deaths here every year. My family has been impacted on. My grandfather died from a respiratory illness, and he was a regular smoker of Park Drives, a particularly harsh type of cigarette, I think. There have been instances of lung cancer in my family and in my wife's family that were almost certainly down to smoking.

Lives will be saved because of this legislation. That is why today is such a good day. It has long been proven that the vast majority of people who smoke became addicted as children, and that needs to remain a focus for us. I am not so naive as to think that, of itself, legislation will stop every young person taking up smoking, but it will do enough to prevent many, and we can help in that effort.

Tobacco use is a leading cause of health inequality in Northern Ireland. Everybody seemed to touch on that, and I will expand on the point a little. There are those in our communities — not just in shops — who are selling illegal, smuggled, counterfeit products, and they do so predominantly in areas of social deprivation. They are leaning on and squeezing the most vulnerable in our society. A multi-pronged approach is required, and there are other areas that we need to look at. It is a tragedy, although an avoidable one, that lung cancer incidence rates in the most deprived areas are about two and a half times those in the least deprived areas. That is why the focus needs to be on looking beyond health and even beyond the economy. There are people out there who are pushing counterfeit and illegal products into the hands of people.

I know that the Minister has a particular interest in and focus on tackling health inequalities, so the legislation is a step along that path. The previous public consultation showed that what the UK Bill and today's LCM will do has strong public support. It is greater here, in fact, than in the rest of the United Kingdom.

I bring Members' minds back to legislation that was passed in 2016 or 2017. It used to be a real bugbear of mine that, when you sat in traffic and looked at a car, you could see car seats with babies and children in the back of the car while one or two people were puffing away in the front. Thankfully, we do not see that so much now.

I congratulate my party colleagues Mike Nesbitt and Robin Swann, who moved at pace and worked closely with the UK Government last February to ensure that the Bill's provisions would extend to Northern Ireland. That did not happen by accident; it was done on purpose. I fully support the motion, and I pay tribute to all the departmental staff, clinicians and community and voluntary organisations that have been so critical in getting the Bill to this point.

Mr Gaston: I support the idea behind the legislative consent motion. I imagine that I am not alone in receiving a briefing paper from the British Heart Foundation that highlighted startling stats. From its helpful paper, we learn that smoking increases the risk of developing diseases such as heart disease, cancer and lung disease. We have heard during the debate that around 2,300 people die each year from diseases that can be attributed to smoking.

The human cost is staggering, but so are the financial costs. I will put them on record once again. According to the BMA, smoking is estimated to cost the Northern Ireland economy £0·4 billion and the Department of Health an estimated £0·2 billion annually. With around 18,000 admissions to hospitals in our Province each year due to smoking-related problems, action needs to be taken to relieve the stress that that puts on our NHS.

However, I fear that the laudable intent of the Tobacco and Vapes Bill will not result in "Northern Ireland's inclusion", as the motion states, regardless of the decision of the House. I say that because we in Northern Ireland, uniquely in the UK, remain subject to the EU's tobacco directive. We are subject to it because it is one of the 289 EU laws listed in annex 2 of the protocol that remain in force in a part of this United Kingdom. Article 24 of the tobacco directive states:

The legislative consent motion seems, on the face of it, to run counter to that. Indeed, there is an interesting precedent. In 2022, Denmark tried to do something similar. The legislation had to be withdrawn, because, as the Health Minister told the Danish Parliament on 6 April 2022:

What assurances can the Minister give the House that, after today's vote, MLAs will not simply find the democratic will of the elected representatives of Northern Ireland overruled by our EU colonial masters? I have no doubt that there are those with powerful voices in the industry who will seek to challenge the application of the law to Northern Ireland. We know what happened when similar issues arose with the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023 and the Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Act 2024. In both cases, the High Court ruled that laws that are not made by our sovereign parliament at Westminster or, indeed, this House are supreme. Rather, the court decided that EU law is supreme in Northern Ireland. If, as I suspect, that proves to be the case with this law, it will be scandalous, because, within our United Kingdom, only the people in Northern Ireland will be denied the protections that the Bill offers. I trust that the Minister will address that when he responds to the debate.

Mr Carroll: The Bill features a few welcome provisions, including those aimed at tackling the unacceptable marketing of vapes and other nicotine products to children. However, the Bill's key proposal of a progressive smoking ban is, essentially, a prohibitionist approach to a public health issue, and that is a recipe for disaster.

The most glaring example of the failure of a prohibitionist approach is the ban of alcohol in the US at the start of the 20th century. From the outset, there was no widespread acceptance of that policy. People wanted alcohol for various reasons and found ways to get it. Criminal organisations thrived in the black market. The things that the state was trying to prevent — organised crime and corruption —.

Mr O'Toole: I thank the Member for giving way. I am attracted to the question about prohibition. In some of these things, I am fundamentally a bit more libertarian, certainly when it comes to certain substances, but it is also the case that smoking does not have some of the social or community upsides that are seen from, for example, the consumption of alcohol. Would the Member take my offer of a comparison with the smoking ban in pubs? That came in 20 years ago, when I was still working in pubs. At that time, that ban was thought of as an example of prohibition that would not work and that was very negative, but it has probably saved lives.

Mr Carroll: I thank the Member for his intervention. I do not think that it is like for like. The comparison to alcohol is quite apt.

Mr Donnelly: Will the Member give way?

Mr Carroll: I will make some progress and then, hopefully, will give way.

The things that the state was tying to prevent — organised crime and corruption — ended up thriving during the Prohibition era. I am concerned that the same will be the case with vapes and other products when it comes to the people who will be affected by the LCM. The lesson is clear: prohibition does not work. It is a draconian policy that forces the sale of products underground, where there is no regulation whatsoever.

There is no doubt that smoking causes serious harm to human health. As we have heard, smoking is the leading cause of preventable death. It is responsible for one in four deaths from cancer. As the Health Committee member — I will give way to him in a second — stated, the Bill does not ban anyone from smoking; it only bans shops from selling cigarettes to an ever-expanding group of people.

I will give way to Mr Donnelly.

Mr Donnelly: Thank you. I go back to the Member's previous point about the comparison of alcohol and tobacco. Does the Member agree that alcohol is regulated? We can buy alcohol only in certain places, and we can buy it only above a certain age limit. As with tobacco, regulation of alcohol has made a dangerous product safer for people, reducing hospital admissions and diseases.

Mr Carroll: Exactly. The point that I am making is that, although smoking is regulated, to ban it would force it underground where there will be no regulation whatsoever, as happened with alcohol in America in the 1920s and 1930s. That is the point that I am making.

It is worth looking at the data. I do not believe that this has been said in the debate, but I may have just missed it: 50 years ago, 45% of the population smoked; today, around 12% of the population smokes. That is a huge drop. Unusually for the House, the current approach is working, leading to a dramatic fall in smoking. That has been achieved by adopting a public health approach to tobacco, including banning smoking indoors, which has been mentioned, and smoking around children as well as banning advertising and vending machine products. I commend those in the PHA, the trusts and the various organisations who advocate a public health approach to this very serious and important issue.

The age at which a person can legally smoke was raised from 16 to 18, which saw a 30% reduction in smoking in that age group. Many would suggest that the next logical step in an effective public health approach would be to increase the minimum age from 18 to 21 — there is data that shows that that could work — and to further develop prevention and education programmes. Instead, the Labour Government and now, seemingly, the Assembly are barrelling blindly ahead with a new, untested approach that was originally proposed by the Tories.

The Bill is a regrettable move away from treating smoking as a public health challenge towards treating it as a new chapter in the war on drugs. The global war on drugs has totally failed, largely because efforts are focused on a hard-line, law and order approach to reducing the supply of drugs. In the North, attempts to curb the supply of drugs via criminalisation have actually seen paramilitaries thrive and grow, jails filled and families absolutely destroyed. A public health approach would, instead, focus on the demand for a drug such as tobacco — the demands and the pressures of everyday life. A focus on demand, rather than supply, would involve measures such as licensing, taxation, product and advertising regulation and education. That is what has been proven to work. That is a public health approach.

The Bill represents a dangerous move away from what has worked — a public health approach to tackling smoking — towards a prohibitionist approach with untold negative consequences. Whilst I may be in a minority of one, I do not give my consent to it.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Question Time will begin at 2.00 pm, I suggest therefore that the Assembly takes its ease until then. The debate will continue after Question Time, when the next Member to speak will be Claire Sugden.

Mr Lyons: Mr Speaker, with your permission, I wish to group questions 1 and 4 and request an additional minute for the answer.

Regrettably, neither my Department nor Sport NI has any funding opportunities open to which grassroots sports clubs could apply. However, I can announce that Sport NI will reopen its popular crowdfunding programme in March. I recognise the important role that grassroots sports play across our communities, including in junior football. The physical health and well-being that sport and physical activity provide cannot be overestimated. Promoting the active living strategy, opening up participation opportunities for sport and physical activity and developing and improving sporting facilities are key areas for my Department. Grassroots sports are the first step in the lifelong journey to more people being more active, more often.

In 2024-25, my Department secured £500,000 for the Your School Your Club initiative to enable school sports facilities to be opened for community use outside of normal school hours. I hope that that funding opportunity will continue in future years. Despite the challenging budget position, I will continue to make the case for funding to support clubs across all disciplines of grassroots sport, including junior football. I encourage my officials to meet any grassroots sports clubs to understand the sector's needs, either for funding opportunities or for additional facilities to meet demand.

Mrs Mason: I thank the Minister for the answer. Is the Minister aware of the current project taking place in the Ballykinler camp? The Down GAA county board is undertaking a project to develop a centre of excellence for sport and a community facility. What support can the Minister give to that? Will he engage with those involved in the project?

Mr Lyons: I am more than happy to engage with the project. My understanding is that funding has been secured for the project through PEACE PLUS funding. Certainly, I am more than happy to engage and, if there are any specific issues that the project is facing, I am happy to discuss them.

Mr Martin: Thank you, Minister, for your answer. My interest is particularly in junior-level football. There are increasing numbers of players in the North Down primary schools. Is the Minister willing to come to North Down to see the level of enthusiasm at the junior level, perhaps kick a ball around and hear some of the coaches talk about the developments?

Mr Lyons: I am always happy to visit North Down and join the Member wherever it is that he wants to show me around. In many ways, the additional need that he is experiencing is a good problem. However, we know that it exists right across Northern Ireland, and I am keen to better understand the issues and see what my Department can do to help in that situation.

Mrs Guy: Minister, where a school and a sports club share facilities that require an upgrade, do you routinely direct them to the Education Authority's minor works funds?

Mr Lyons: There are a number of ways in which we can help when it comes to improving sports facilities at schools. Often, it is the case that the Education Authority has a role to play. As I previously outlined, we have the Your School Your Club programme, which helps us make the best use of the facilities that we have. Much of our sporting estate is found within the school estate, and I am keen that we can open that up, where possible, to make sure that as many people as possible have access to facilities that are funded with public money.

Mr McGrath: Does the Minister have any opportunities in the future for hardship funds, such as those that the Department previously ran up to a value of £0·5 million, for small grassroots groups? The difference between those organisations folding and staying open can often be a couple of hundred pounds. It is not a big amount of money, but it gives them the lifeline to survive and grow in the future.

Mr Lyons: I am always happy to work with clubs that are in need and looking for some support, either to direct them to funding or to make use of the funding streams that may become available in the Department. I am a big advocate for all sports. I want to make sure that as many people as possible have the opportunity to play and take part, because that brings benefits that go way beyond my Department — we can think of the health and educational outcomes. Certainly, I will always look for additional investment in that way. The Member will understand the limited budgets with which we are operating, but it is an investment and, therefore, a good use of money. I will always be an advocate for that.

Mr Lyons: My officials are working at pace to put in place the IT and other logistical arrangements necessary to make the one-off £100 pension-age fuel support payment. That payment remains on schedule to be paid before the end of March 2025.

Mr Robinson: I thank the Minister for his response. What longer-term support will there be, Minister, for those in the greatest need to get what they need?

Mr Lyons: First, I hope that the whole House will be behind me on this: we want to see the UK Government change course. They have made a mistake: they have decided to take £1·4 billion off those who need help to heat their homes. That, overall, is a small amount that the Government should have kept in place. It is small compared with the additional costs that will come to the Government because of that decision. There will be additional costs to the health service and from the additional number of people who have applied for pension credit, which is also a passport to other benefits. It is nonsensical. It will not end up saving the Government money, so I hope that they will change course.

However, I recognise that that may not happen, which is why we are taking the action that we can to help those who are in need. That is what we are doing through the fuel poverty strategy, which is out to consultation. It will be out to consultation until 6 March, and I hope that people will respond to it. I hope that, through that, we will have a strategy in place that provides support to give immediate relief to those in need and a longer-term strategy to make sure that we put in place measures that can help — for example, investment in energy efficiency to make sure that people in Northern Ireland have to spend less money to heat their homes.

Mr Gildernew: Minister, the £100 scheme is very welcome. Will those who receive money from the scheme, who live in residential settings, maybe where multiple people live, be expected to pay an additional charge to the residential setting that they live in?

Mr Lyons: No, it is not my understanding that any additional charge will have to be paid. There is, importantly, no application process either.

Ms Sugden: Minister, have you explored the opportunity to create a Northern Ireland version of the warm homes discount scheme?

Mr Lyons: All those issues can be considered through the development of the fuel poverty strategy.

Ms Mulholland: What engagement have you or your Department had with your DWP counterparts to ensure that our unique circumstances are taken into account in the UK Government's pending Green Paper on welfare reform?

Mr Lyons: I have met Liz Kendall and others in the DWP ministerial team. My officials have continued engagement at that level to make sure that our particular circumstances are taken into consideration. I have to say that, although there are similarities between what the UK Government are trying to do and what we are trying to do, it is to everybody's benefit that more people get into work and that we break down the barriers that prevent people who are not in work from getting into work. We have common cause, and I want to make sure that we work closely together to get the maximum benefit. Ultimately, our aim should be to protect those who need help and to ensure that we give the assistance necessary to get those who are not in work into work.

Mr Lyons: That will be part of the ongoing fundamental review of allocations. My officials will work with the Housing Executive as it carries out modelling, stakeholder engagement and appropriate consultation to inform its considerations. It is anticipated that the fundamental review, including consideration of primary social needs points, which is a new addition to the review, will be completed by autumn 2026, if not sooner.

Ms McLaughlin: It is clear that the current system is not fit for purpose and that the review is necessary and urgent. Is the current timetable sufficient to address the challenges quickly enough?

Mr Lyons: I want it to be done right now, but I also want it to be done right. There is a balance to be struck. I have full confidence in officials in the Department and the Housing Executive to make sure that we have in place a system that is, as the Member describes it, "fit for purpose".

Mrs Erskine: As an MLA, I receive reports of intimidation, antisocial behaviour and, sadly, domestic violence in social homes. It is important that we are able to support the people who are affected. How common is intimidation, in comparison with domestic violence?

Mr Lyons: In the 10-year period from 2014 to 2024, the number of cases of intimidation fell from 380 to 226. The number of domestic abuse cases rose from 721 in 2014 to 1,146 in 2024. It is a damning indictment of our society that, in the social housing sector alone, the total number of reported cases was 1,146. It is clear that there is wider work for the Executive and society as a whole to do to tackle the issue.

Ms K Armstrong: Minister, now that we know that the review of primary social needs criteria and points will report around October 2016, will you confirm whether it will include co-production with victims or be based on the current framework and add something to that?

Mr Lyons: For clarity, it will be 2026, not 2016. I can do many things, but I cannot travel back in time. I want to make sure that the review is comprehensive and that we consult as many people as possible. As I said in my answer to Sinéad McLaughlin, I want to make sure that we do this right. That means that we have to speak to as many people as possible and make sure that we have all the information at our disposal.

Mr Lyons: My Department has issued guidance notes to all eligible applicants to the performance programme of the Northern Ireland Football Fund. The guidance notes are also available on the Department's website. Applicants will need to satisfy the Department that investment in artificial grass pitches with rubber infill will offer value for money.

Mr Beattie: Thank you, Minister, for your answer. I understand that this is not just about your Department. I know that you will agree with me that we should not follow EU regulations on this matter but should get rid of microplastics. With eight out of 12 top-flight team pitches going plastic, this is becoming a real issue. I ask the Minister to look at it in the long term, as we must. Will he, working with other Departments, set up a fund to support clubs and other institutions once the regulation comes in?

Mr Lyons: Of course, we might have wanted to consider that. We could have debated it in this place. We could have decided whether it was the right move to make and whether the perceived benefits would have outweighed the additional cost, but we did not have the opportunity to do that in the House. We did not have the opportunity to decide whether it would work for us. I cannot commit to allocating additional funding at this time, but we will keep that and all such issues under review.

Mr Buckley: In keeping with the Minister's comments, is this not yet another example of the blind allegiance of some in the Assembly to EU regulation, with zero scrutiny and zero representation, leaving local people at a disadvantage?

Mr Lyons: Of course it is. All the evidence that we have is that the regulation will drive up costs. In the current system, we can ensure that the pitches have what is needed in them. That is being taken from us, and the alternatives are more expensive. This might have been a route that we wanted to go down. We may have decided that it would be right on the basis that the environmental benefits outweighed the additional costs, but we should have been able to make that decision in the House. It is a decision that we should have had the opportunity to debate and scrutinise in order to make sure that it was right for us. That has been taken from us.

It is right that we highlight the fact that there will be additional costs for people across Northern Ireland involved in various sports because of the implications of the regulation.

Mr Donnelly: What assurances can the Minister give to clubs with existing 3G pitches about support and advice when the pitches' surfaces reach the end of their lifespan and require replacement post 2031?

Mr Lyons: We can certainly give advice. I am aware that trials are being conducted on additional organic materials that may be able to be used. I hope that the Member agrees that, instead of needing guidance in the first place, it would have been better for us to have had those discussions in the House to work out whether we could keep what we currently have. The regulation will add costs. As someone who believes that we need additional pitch provision across Northern Ireland, I am concerned that this will add costs to our ability to deal with that issue. I hope that that is something that Members will take on board.

Mr Durkan: I welcome the impending and long-overdue opening of the Northern Ireland Football Fund. Its terms and conditions refer to the fact that match funding of 5% will be expected from successful clubs. In the case of a publicly owned ground, that increases to 40%. Given recent investment of somewhere in the region of £2 million by Derry City Football Club in the Brandywell — there is ongoing construction of the north stand — will the Minister give favourable consideration to including that as an example of match funding from a club?

Mr Lyons: I hope that the Member will read all the documentation that has been put out. Previous investment contributes towards higher points in the matrix, not just investment throughout the process. It is important that those who have been willing to invest already in their facilities benefit from having done so. I encourage the Member to read all the documentation, because he will see that the scoring matrix that we have put in place is very fair. That has been the response from most clubs so far.

Mr Lyons: My Department's plans for the Clifton Gateway public realm scheme have been significantly impacted on by the work being undertaken by the Department for Infrastructure to develop the eastern transport plan 2035 and the proposals for the next phase of the Belfast Rapid Transit programme. Donegall Street, Clifton Street and Carlisle Circus, which represent major sections of the proposed Clifton Gateway public realm scheme, are vital parts of the infrastructure network, are integral to proposals in the eastern transport plan 2035 and form part of the proposed route of Belfast Rapid Transit 2. For those reasons, my Department is unable to develop further its plans for the Clifton Gateway public realm scheme, and progress will not be possible until there is more clarity about the Department for Infrastructure's proposals for the area in the eastern transport plan 2035 and its delivery programme for Belfast Rapid Transit 2.

Mr Kingston: I thank the Minister for his answer. It reiterates what we have heard previously, which is that the uncertainty over the rapid transit scheme is holding up the progress of the Clifton Street public realm scheme.

Will the Minister update me on two nearby schemes: the lower Oldpark Road public realm scheme and the lower Shankill/Peter's Hill Gateway scheme? Is there any progress to be reported there?

Mr Lyons: For Peter's Hill, which is phase 1 of the Shankill Gateway scheme, work is ongoing to procure the works contractor. It is anticipated that the contract will be awarded in April of this year. Site works are expected to commence in spring or early summer and to take 12 months to be completed. That represents an investment in the Shankill of £3·6 million.

The lower Oldpark Road public realm scheme area commences just beyond the junction with the Crumlin Road and proceeds along the Oldpark Road, finishing at Deanby Gardens. Since the plans were developed, the Department for Infrastructure has identified the lower Oldpark Road as a route in the Belfast cycling network delivery plan. Officials from my Department and DFI are working together to explore any opportunities for collaboration on delivering improved pedestrian and cycling infrastructure within the public realm project in a way that avoids nugatory works, minimises the impact on the local community, maximises the benefits gained from public investment in the area and achieves value for money. That has had a significant impact on the planned DFC Lower Oldpark Road public realm scheme design in, for example, planning permission, budget and programme.

Mr Blair: The Clifton Gateway area is key in the delivery of phase 2 of the Belfast Rapid Transit scheme. That will, hopefully, serve not only North Belfast, of course, but some areas of my South Antrim constituency. Can the Minister give any further information on snag issues that might have arisen in the Clifton Gateway scheme that could be impacting on the delivery of that transport scheme?

Mr Lyons: Prior to the Clifton Gateway public realm scheme's being paused, design proposals had been developed, including engagement with key stakeholders. I suppose that the snag is that the design programmes will need to be reviewed and updated to take account of the eastern transport plan and Belfast Rapid Transit outcomes when the scheme is progressed.

Mr O'Toole: Minister, just down the hill from the Clifton Gateway, what is called the "Tribeca Quarter" is falling into dereliction, which is shameful. In response to a question for written answer from me in spring last year, you said that your officials were meeting Belfast City Council to discuss the vesting of that site. That was in July. What has happened since then, and what is your Department doing?

Mr Speaker: That is a bit off-topic, Minister, but it is up to you.

Mr Lyons: Mr Speaker, as you point out, that is not related to the question, but it is a good attempt by the Member to connect it, so perhaps I could write to him with that detail. Dereliction is an issue that needs to be addressed, and I look forward to seeing the dilapidation Bill coming forward from the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs.

Mr Lyons: The Department for Communities' regeneration policy focus is on urban settlements with a population of 5,000 or more. As rural villages and small towns have populations of under 5,000, they sit outside DFC's urban regeneration policy remit. Those smaller settlements fall within the remit of the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs. However, my Department has led on the delivery of the COVID recovery small settlements scheme, which was jointly funded by the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs and the Department for Infrastructure. In total, almost £29 million worth of projects are being delivered to smaller settlements across Northern Ireland. My officials are also working with officials from DAERA and DFI, as well as local councils, to develop a long-term, community-led approach to regenerating our cities and towns that would also include rural villages and smaller towns. I intend to make a joint announcement on that programme later in the year.

Mr McAleer: I thank the Member for his response. The Minister may not want to reveal details of his proposals, but will they likely encompass a successor to the small settlements scheme?

Mr Lyons: The Member is right: I do not want to give too much away on that. However, I hope that he recognises my commitment to making sure that we lead on the regeneration of cities, towns and villages of all sizes. Obviously, different responsibilities fall within the remits of different Departments, but I am pleased with what we were able to do under the COVID recovery small settlements scheme, and I will continue to make sure that we deliver.

We have already delivered in the West Tyrone constituency. We are providing funding of over £6 million towards the planned public realm scheme in Strabane, and significant city deal investment of £102 million is planned for Strabane that will include the canal basin and neighbouring sites. That will make a real difference in the Member's constituency.

Mr Brett: I am sure that the Minister will agree that the best small town in the North Belfast constituency is Glengormley. Just before Christmas, the Minister kindly listened to representations to award £2·5 million to Glengormley town centre for a public realm scheme. Does the Minister stand over that important commitment to regeneration in that part of North Belfast?

Mr Lyons: Yes, of course, absolutely. I know that that area is dear to the Member's heart, and I thank him for the continual, constant lobbying that he has been involved in up to this point. The commitment from the Department certainly stands.

Mr McGlone: Minister, in 2023, your Department funded a £110,000 scheme to explore regeneration projects in 10 rural villages. Will you give us an update on those specific locations, please?

Mr Lyons: I do not have that detail with me, but, of course, I am happy to write to the Member outlining what we have done in that regard.

Mr McMurray: I have also communicated with the Minister on this subject. The village catalyst programme was welcomed; it concentrated on historic buildings. Will the Minister confirm whether there are plans in the rest of the mandate to support bringing empty buildings back into use in rural villages and towns?

Mr Lyons: Absolutely. That is an important part of what we are trying to do through the housing supply strategy. We need to make sure that we do everything that we can to make use of the buildings that we have. Sometimes, that involves extra cost, but it is still beneficial for us to make sure that we use the buildings that we already have. I have engaged with the historic environment division (HED) in that regard, as well as other interested stakeholders who have experience of converting and reusing existing buildings. I hope that we see more of that not only to tackle the issues that we have in Northern Ireland in regard to housing but to see other ways in which we can reuse existing buildings for the benefit of our economy and people more widely.

Mr Lyons: Mr Speaker, with your permission, I will group questions 8 and 11 for answer.

I understand and acknowledge the sector's concerns about the impacts of recent UK Government Budget decisions, including the increase to employers' National Insurance contributions. My Department currently has two contracts with voluntary and community sector organisations. Both contracts provide demand-led services; therefore, contractual targets are not suitable for those contract types. My Department also provides grant funding to a number of voluntary and community organisations. Those funding relationships do not involve contractual targets; instead, organisations are funded to deliver agreed objectives in line with an outcomes-based accountability approach.

My Department adopts a flexible approach to grant-making. Where delivery partners working with my Department are facing significant unexpected cost pressures, my officials are willing to consider all reasonable requests for changes to agreed objectives. Organisations grant-funded by my Department can retain the full amount of any employers' allowance received, which offsets some of the employers' National Insurance contributions burden for small organisations. The substantial increase to employers' allowance included in the Chancellor's recent Budget announcement is expected to offset some of the increase. My Department encourages all eligible organisations to claim that allowance.

In recognition of the impact of the announcement, alongside the Minister of Finance and the Minister for the Economy, I have met the Northern Ireland Council for Voluntary Action (NICVA) chief executive and voluntary and community sector representatives to discuss this issue and the wider financial challenges faced by the sector. The Finance Minister subsequently wrote to the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, outlining the pressures that will be faced as a result of the policy decision. The correspondence requested that His Majesty's Treasury (HMT) consider providing support to those outside the central government sector who provide vital public services and receive funding from central government.

Ms Forsythe: I thank the Minister for his answer and his ongoing engagement with the voluntary and community sector, particularly for coming to the all-party group meeting recently to hear the sector's voice directly. Is the Department providing any additional support to the sector, given the challenging environment?

Mr Lyons: We are committed to the principle of full cost recovery in brokering funding arrangements with sector providers. Where delivery partners face significant unexpected cost pressures, we will consider all reasonable requests. I have demonstrated my commitment to the sector by providing a 5% uplift to key DFC funding programmes in this year's budget. That additional funding was provided as a contribution towards the pressures that organisations face from rising costs.

Mrs Dodds: Thank you, Minister. I know that you will agree that the voluntary and community sector directly helps those who are most in need at their point of need. We listened with interest to the Secretary of State's speech last week. Do you think that he has any idea of the impact that his Government's Budget decisions will have on the voluntary and community sector in Northern Ireland, particularly on the most vulnerable people in Northern Ireland?

Mr Lyons: I do not think that this Government have any idea about the implications that their decisions are having for people across Northern Ireland, be they farmers, pensioners or the voluntary and community sector, which is doing key work in making sure that we tackle some of the most pressing issues in society. All that they are doing is making things much more difficult, including for the voluntary and community sector. That is why I will continue to make the case against the increases.

Mr Speaker: We move now to topical questions.

Mr Lyons: The Member will be aware of the very tight budgetary conditions in which we find ourselves and the significant cost savings that I have had to make in the past 12 months in order to deliver a balanced budget. However, I am always willing to meet those who are making requests of the Government, especially if they are in line with the objectives that we are trying to achieve as an Executive.

Mr McCrossan: I thank the Minister for the answer. I also welcome the fact that he will meet the Men's Sheds Association, should it seek a meeting. In fact, it would be great if he could see its representatives today, briefly, as they are in the Building. As I am sure the Minister will understand, it will take a small amount to fund that important organisation and the work that it does, even considering the budget constraints. Will the Minister and the Health Minister work together to see whether they can find some funding, no matter how modest, to at least assist the Men's Sheds Association in its important work that will have considerable benefits for the health and well-being of those involved?

Mr Lyons: I am happy to look at any proposal that comes from the organisation that the Member mentioned. If appropriate, I will be more than happy to write to the Health Minister to see what can be done jointly, if the objectives that it outlines align with the Programme for Government.

Mr Lyons: Let me make this very clear: I do not believe that there is any room for men in women's sport.

Some Members: Hear, hear.

Mr Lyons: There are two reasons for that. First, fairness, and secondly, safety. Sport is inherently physical. The physiology of the sexes matters. Everyone should be getting behind the notion that women's sports are reserved for women. Most people will agree with that. In fact, it is regressive to think anything else.

Mr Buckley: I thank the Minister for his answer. Those same woke ideologies are being advanced and made available through Libraries NI to underage children. What will the Minister do to ensure that children are safeguarded and protected from inappropriate and dangerous content?

Mr Lyons: I have made my position on that very clear. Libraries NI should offer a safe place. Parents should and must have confidence in the books that are available, and we need to make sure that we do everything that we can to protect children. I have made my views clear to the board of Libraries NI — to the chairman and the chief executive. I hope that the people who agree with where the Member and I are coming from make sure that their views are made known, because I do not believe that the majority of parents would agree with some of the literature and books that have been made available in our libraries. It is right that we stand up and speak out against it.

Mr Lyons: I am grateful to the Member for raising that question, because it is really important. We must have regional balance when it comes to funding for the arts. Everyone deserves to have access to the arts, and that will be a central theme of the work that I am undertaking to develop a new arts policy, which I announced in July 2024. That policy will fill the long-standing vacuum, and it will be an important step forward in articulating and realising the benefits that the arts currently deliver and our potential to do more and go further. It will be based on several core principles and priorities that I set out in my written ministerial statement in July last year.

Mr Clarke: I thank the Minister for that answer and the importance that he places on the issue. Minister, I am sure that you will be forgiven for believing, like me, that the arts seem to focus only on a very small number of places. What can you do to assure all those other groups that deserve equal funding and balance that what you are introducing now will address that?

Mr Lyons: I want to find new ways to support the arts and maximise the contribution that it can make by driving equality of access and opportunity across socio-economic groupings, age, geography and so on. I want to encourage greater participation, particularly from people and communities that might feel that the arts are not quite for them or that their cultural or artistic activities and traditions do not quite fit.

I have written a letter about my expectations to the chair and chief executive of the Arts Council of Northern Ireland. We cannot maintain the status quo and simply hope for change. The arts should be enjoyed and experienced by every community equally in Northern Ireland, but that is not always the case. I recognise that some realignment of funding will need to accompany a realignment of priorities, and I also realise that that realignment will have implications for some existing plans and programmes. For that reason, I thought that it was reasonable to give the Arts Council timely notice in the form of that letter of expectations. In all that work, I will continue to advocate for the arts and to make the case for more investment but, importantly, investment that is well targeted as well.

Mr Lyons: First, Mr Speaker, I hope that you will let me record my sympathies and, I am sure, those of the House on the passing of John Cooney.

Some Members: Hear, hear.

Mr Lyons: My thoughts are with John's family and friends and all those in the boxing world who knew and loved him. It was a tragic event. I commend the medical team at the Ulster Hall and all staff at the Royal Victoria Hospital for their work.

I thank Mr Brett for raising this issue. I noted with interest the recent case that was settled between Daryl Clarke and the Ulster Boxing Council. I record the fact that I know Daryl in a personal capacity. I have heard his story. As part of the settlement agreement, the Ulster Boxing Council committed to a comprehensive review by the Equality Commission of the governance, practices and procedures applicable to it to ensure that they comply with the Fair Employment and Treatment (Northern Ireland) Order 1998 and any relevant codes of practice. It is important that that work is carried out by the Equality Commission urgently, because no matter who you are or where you are from, you should be able to progress in your sport if you have the talent and ability. No one should feel as though they do not belong.

Mr Brett: Amateur boxing is vital to my constituency of North Belfast, but I speak to representatives of the clubs daily, and their confidence in the leadership of those organisations is completely shot. Once again, we have a case concerning religious discrimination against a Protestant. What proactive steps will you take, Minister, to ensure that, regardless of class or creed, all young people in Northern Ireland have access to the same opportunities?

Mr Lyons: I completely agree with the Member. Following a meeting with Sport NI and officials from the sports branch in my Department, I have made clear the urgent need to progress that work and make sure that the report's recommendations are implemented. I am also considering what implications that may have for current and future funding arrangements. Sporting bodies should only receive taxpayers' money if they meet their equality obligations.

Mr Lyons: The Member will know that we have been working on that issue lately. I do not know whether the Member is referring to financial support. I can certainly provide that information. Through the Housing Executive and housing associations, there are a number of programmes in place to deal with that. I can get him the specific information that I do not have at hand right now.

Mr Mathison: I thank the Minister for his answer. The Minister will be aware of certain housing schemes where the influence of paramilitarism is really significant, such as Weavers Grange in Newtownards. Clanmil Housing has long been dealing with ongoing issues and managing the influence of paramilitarism there. Will the Minister provide an assessment of the level of data-sharing between housing associations and the PSNI to help effectively tackle the impacts of paramilitarism and paramilitary influence on housing schemes?

Mr Lyons: I certainly hope that any information that is required is passed on. If it is not, I will always make sure that it is. Let me make one thing very clear: there should be no role whatsoever for paramilitaries in any housing issue. If there is, it should absolutely come to an end. Housing should be allocated based on need and in accordance with the housing selection scheme.

Mr Lyons: For each of the past five years, the total non-COVID expenditure on temporary accommodation was £12·6 million, £13·7 million, £14·8 million, £26·4 million and £33·2 million. The provisional cost for 2024-25 is £35·4 million.

Mr Brooks: Minister, at a time of budgetary constraint and housing crisis in Northern Ireland, those figures will be concerning to anyone who hears them. What measures is the Minister taking to counteract that cost?

Mr Lyons: We live in times of unprecedented housing stress. That means that we must do things differently. The Housing Executive has a task and finish working group, which has started to curb the trend of spend on temporary accommodation. However, we need to do much more. For that reason, I will be making a significant announcement in the coming weeks, which will see us make more provision for temporary accommodation and significantly reduce the long-term cost.

Mr Lyons: That is an area of concern. The Member will be aware of the work that my Department has carried out on the overall safety of high-rise buildings and, specifically, with regard to making sure that those with a disability have access. If there are particular issues that he wants me to address, I will be happy to do that.

Mr Gildernew: I welcome the introduction of the Sign Language Bill today. What engagement has the Minister had on a range of disabilities to ensure everyone's safety?

Mr Lyons: We want to make sure that we have a clear plan for that. I will be bringing forward a wider disability strategy, which will mean that we have in place the support to ensure that the public sector and others know the actions that are required of them, so that those with a disability are fully included in our society and safe.

Mr Lyons: That is under review. I look forward to making a further announcement on it soon.

Mr McReynolds: On that basis, Minister, have you encouraged the Department for Infrastructure to update Northern Ireland Water's priorities to include housebuilding in order to meet the needs of the growing number of people living in homelessness across Northern Ireland?

Mr Lyons: I have raised that issue frequently with the now former Minister for Infrastructure at the Executive table and in correspondence and meetings with him. If we are serious about housebuilding in Northern Ireland and ensuring that we have the homes that people need, we need to address the waste water infrastructure issues. That means that we need to look at alternative solutions, because simply doing what we have always done will not cut it. It will not build the homes that we need.

Mr Speaker: Members may take their ease while we change the Chair.

Dr Archibald (The Minister for the Economy): My predecessor identified the aerospace sector as a strategic subsector in the 'Advanced Manufacturing, Materials and Engineering Sectoral Action Plan', which was published last year. That sector offers strong growth potential. The action plan sets out a range of activities including investment in people and skills, innovation, trade and investment and collaboration that aim to support the growth of the sector and help to provide high-quality, high-productivity jobs across the region.

Invest NI's dedicated aerospace team works closely with the sector. The team provides advice, guidance and support to companies to help them to create good jobs, improve productivity, increase export growth and support net zero ambitions. Invest NI also partners with the Department for Business and Trade (DBT) and the sector trade body, ADS, to showcase the sector's capability internationally and help companies to explore export opportunities in new markets.

Dr Aiken: I thank the Minister for her remarks so far. I declare an interest as chair of the all-party group on aerospace, defence, security and space.

Minister, you will be aware of the importance of apprenticeships. Indeed, last week, in the Assembly, we had a meeting on apprenticeships in aerospace, defence, security and space. However, there are real issues with apprenticeship training schemes and the ability of the further education sector to support them. One reason for that is the lack of support coming through from organisations such as Invest NI to enable the sector to remove those bottlenecks. What will the Minister do to sort out those bottlenecks and ensure that apprenticeships are capable of delivery?

Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for that. One issue that cuts across all of what we are trying to achieve economically is skills and people's ability to access appropriate skills and training. That is certainly a priority for me. Just this morning, I attended the launch of the Ulster University Economic Policy Centre's update of the skills barometer, which sets out the trajectory for the next 10 years. Certainly, I am happy to engage with the Member, Invest NI and further education colleges on that.

Mr Sheehan: Can the Minister provide an assurance that Invest NI does not support projects that help to arm Israel?

Dr Archibald: First of all, it is important to say that no Government should arm Israel. Invest NI has assured me that it does not support projects that arm Israel, and no evidence has been presented to the contrary. However, I have asked Invest NI to review its investments to make absolutely sure that that is the case. It is important that I, as Economy Minister, and the general public are reassured on that matter.

Mr Kingston: The Minister will be aware that Spirit AeroSystems is a major employer in Northern Ireland and that there is potential interest from other companies. Will the Minister do all that she can to ensure that the entire operation here will have a viable future?

Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for his question. My predecessor engaged with senior representatives from Boeing and Airbus on the sale of Spirit's local operation. My officials and I will continue to engage with all interested parties including TEO, the British Government, the business and other stakeholders to ensure the best possible outcome for the operation in the North. Obviously, commercial negotiations are ongoing, so it is inappropriate for me to comment further on them at this point.

Dr Archibald: All Departments' budgets are extremely challenging, as, I am sure, the Member will be aware. The Executive's fiscal position is extremely difficult owing to years of underfunding from the British Government. Indeed, my Department's resource baseline for 2025-26 is 5% less than it was for 2020-21. DFE has £83 million of resource pressures after the additional allocation of £24·9 million, which leaves a funding shortfall of £58 million. DFE was allocated £150 million capital for general allocation, and bids of £145·7 million could not be met as a result. Nevertheless, I will work within the budget available to deliver the best outcomes for the economy and for our citizens.

Mr Kelly: Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire.

More specifically, what impact will the Budget settlement have on the Magee expansion?

Dr Archibald: As the Member will know, Magee is one of my top priorities, and it is an Executive priority. While the Budget settlement is extremely challenging, Magee is an area that I have prioritised.

Ms Nicholl: With the ongoing reviews of further education and higher education student support, how is the Department planning to build in the potential budget that will be required to fund any uplifts to loans, grants or any other support?

Dr Archibald: As I said in my response to Dr Aiken, skills and access to education are key priorities for me. When I look at the draft budget allocation, I will try to put as much funding as possible into ensuring that we can deliver on education and training and on the priorities that we have in that area. We are still going through the budget at the moment and will have more to say on it in the coming weeks.

Mr O'Toole: This is a slightly surreal situation, Minister. You are saying that the budget that you gave to the Department that you are now in charge of is not large enough. Indeed, you are saying that the budget is down from 2021, when your predecessor, now Senator Murphy, was Minister of Finance. There is a slight irony there.

On the departmental budget, you now have a £50 million underspend in financial transactions capital (FTC). More than any other, your Department is one that could and should be making more use of that. Not much seemed to be done in the Department of Finance —

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Minister?

Mr O'Toole: — so what do you, as Minister for the Economy now, want to do with that unused FTC, and will you bring forward plans?

Dr Archibald: I see no contradiction in my position between what I said previously and what I say now. The consistent message is that we have been underfunded and need to be properly funded on the basis of our level of need in order to deliver for all our citizens.

The Member may be aware from my presentations to the Finance Committee in my previous role that, in fact, the bids for financial transactions capital in the coming year are up on previous years. Hopefully, we will be able to utilise fully what is available to us. That having been said, however, all Departments have more to do in that area, and, in my new role, I will seek to do that.

Mr Bradley: What funding have you set aside for Ulster University's Coleraine campus, considering that Coleraine is your home town?

Dr Archibald: Again, as I said in my earlier answer, access to education and skills is a top priority for me, and I will work with Ulster University on its plans for all its campuses. As the Member will be aware, universities are autonomous institutions, so it is for them to make decisions on how they spend their money. I will be absolutely committed to the campus at Coleraine, which, as the Member will be aware, is my home town as well as his.

Dr Archibald: We continue to make positive progress on community wealth building and the nine recommendations outlined in the 2022 community wealth building report that I am responsible for taking forward. Along with my colleagues the Minister of Finance and the Minister for Communities, I will be meeting Development Trusts and community wealth building partnerships in the coming weeks to discuss progress on the recommendations. Relating to recommendation 1, Minister Murphy created the social enterprise co-design group. That group was tasked with developing a three-year action plan, which launched on 4 December 2024. Already, 25 social enterprise champions are in place across Invest NI, InterTradeIreland and all local councils. I am committed to prioritising the implementation of that plan.

In August, my Department published significant research on the benefits and potential for growth of employee ownership models in line with recommendation 4. For recommendation 10, a credit union working group was established to improve the legislative framework for credit unions. That work will be completed within this mandate.

Ms Flynn: I thank the Minister for that response. Will the Minister detail how her Department intends to support the uptake of the real living wage?

Dr Archibald: Payment of the real living wage is a key element of a good job. The Department for the Economy gives financial support, providing £125,000 per year to the full-time living wage franchise here to encourage uptake of the real living wage and provide accreditation in the North for the first time.

A consultation on proposals for updating our employment law framework was recently completed, and that will inform a 'good jobs' Bill. The Department for the Economy has also commissioned research into the implications of setting new minimum wage levels here. That is a reserved matter, and taking it forward would require Executive agreement for which the First Minister and deputy First Minister would need to formally seek the British Government's agreement to make the necessary legislation to bring devolution into effect.

Mr Durkan: Cuirim ádh mór ar an Aire ina post nua.

How will the measures that the Minister outlined in her initial answer benefit the North West Community Wealth Building Partnership and the unique challenges of our region?

Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for his good wishes. Community wealth building has an important role to play in creating a more regionally balanced economy. I welcome the collaborative approach that the Larne partnership and the North West Community Wealth Building Partnership are taking. I recognise the huge potential that that pilot could have for other initiatives across the North. There needs to be a strong interdepartmental approach to the issues.

The Member will be aware of and, I assume, will support the intent behind community wealth-building partnerships, which is to utilise the expertise and institutions in local areas and develop the local economy. There is huge potential in working with the local economic partnerships that are just being set up as well. It is work that I am excited about taking forward and that has a lot of potential.

Dr Archibald: NISRA's labour force survey reported that, in 2023, approximately 40% of people here aged 16 to 64 held a qualification at level 4 or above. East Antrim compares favourably with that, with a rate of over 43%. I am committed to continuing the work of my predecessor in addressing subregional disparities such as those in tertiary education attainment rates across the North.

Last October, my Department published a subregional economic plan. That is a locally led approach that places regional balance at its heart and enshrines partnership working. As part of that plan, 11 local economic partnerships are being created. Those partnerships will identify local economic priorities, and my Department will work collaboratively to deliver them. The partnerships have dedicated funding of £45 million to help to pump-prime projects.

Ms Brownlee: I thank the Minister for her answer. I recognise the rate, but how is your Department supporting people with disabilities or special educational needs to ensure that they also have the opportunity to gain education and support at that level?

Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for that question. It is a really important issue that we need to address, and it is one that I am committed to taking forward. Ensuring that skills, training and education opportunities are available to everybody, regardless of their ability, is really important, particularly in relation to apprenticeships.

Last week was Apprenticeship Week, and I had the opportunity to meet some of the training providers and the mostly young people who were partaking in apprenticeship schemes. One of the key things that we have focused on is exactly that: ensuring that there are opportunities for people with disabilities, women and people from more disadvantaged backgrounds to take up such opportunities. We are focusing on that work and will continue to do so.

Mrs Mason: How is the skills fund in particular supporting educational attainment rates across the North?

Dr Archibald: The skills fund, which aligns with the economic vision, supports a range of initiatives, including a new SKILL UP programme for those aged 18 and older who are eligible to work here that aims to develop our workforce in priority sectors. SKILL UP courses range from entry level to level 7, are fully funded and are primarily delivered online, allowing access across all regions.

The skills fund is also focused on ensuring support for people with additional barriers to access learning and employment. New initiatives are being supported to provide training and additional support to individuals who face barriers to work and training, including programmes targeting those who are disabled or neurodiverse and have barriers to entering employment or learning. Additional funding has been provided for a series of initiatives for women returners to help individuals use learning to gain the confidence and skills to re-enter the workplace.

Ms McLaughlin: Minister, I wish you all the best in your new role and look forward to working with you. Do you agree that, without legislation to mandate a fairer, regionally balanced higher education policy, we will continue to see unequal provision of third-level education across the North?

Dr Archibald: The work being done through local economic partnerships, the particular focus that we have put on the development of the Magee campus and ensuring that we reach the target of 10,000 students and the task force that was put in place to report on that have been really positive and constructive. Our further education college infrastructure is also important to ensure that we have regionally balanced educational opportunities. There is more work to do, but we can deliver on it.

Dr Archibald: In January, my Department launched the tourism vision and action plan, which outlines 17 actions to drive sustainable, regionally balanced economic growth in the sector. Delivery will be overseen by the tourism partnership board. Actions include incorporating local regions into Fáilte Ireland’s regional brands; developing peace tourism; ensuring an adequate mix of accommodation across the North; developing skills in the industry; developing destination stewardship plans; and restoring appropriate funding to Tourism Ireland to increase tourism revenue from overseas. It recently launched exciting international marketing campaigns for 2025.

Summer 2025 also sees the return of the Open Championship to Portrush, bringing hundreds of thousands of visitors and showcasing our beautiful landscape to 500 million households across 150 countries. Tourism NI will work alongside Invest NI to maximise the benefits to act as a catalyst for future economic investment.

Mr Buckley: Tourism is crucial to the Northern Ireland economy, and the Northern Ireland tourist offering faces particular challenges when competing with the Republic of Ireland, which has VAT of 9%. With that in mind, how on earth is it appropriate that Northern Ireland Tourism's website for its marketing campaign and spring marketing toolkit has placed the Republic of Ireland and its offering before and more prominently throughout than Northern Ireland? Is the Minister aware of that? She is the Minister for tourism in Northern Ireland: will she ensure that her Department reflects that reality?

Dr Archibald: Tourism Ireland is responsible for marketing the entire island of Ireland. One of the Member's colleagues asked a question for written answer on that matter. I will share the answer with the Member.

Mr Buckley: I have asked —.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Excuse me. I call Kellie Armstrong for a supplementary question.

Ms K Armstrong: I congratulate the Minister on her new post. Like Sinéad, I look forward to working with you, Minister. Minister, you mentioned the Open. The Open's bringing so many tourists to the area puts pressure on accommodation and public transport. What discussions have you had with the Minister for Infrastructure to ensure that there is enough public transport and that it is accessible?

Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for her good wishes. Being from the north coast, I am particularly aware of that issue and have engaged with the council and with others, locally, in respect of that. I have not yet had the opportunity to engage with the Minister for Infrastructure, but I am more than happy to do so. The Open presents a huge opportunity as it brings a lot of visitors, but it is important that we provide a good experience. I am sure that we are all committed to doing that.

Ms Dolan: Minister, will you provide an update on the inclusion of the North in Fáilte Ireland's regional brands?

Dr Archibald: The incorporation of areas of the North into Fáilte Ireland's regional brands is a key driver for delivering regional economic growth and a key action in my Department's tourism vision and action plan. Tourism NI is working collaboratively with councils and operators to determine how broadening the reach of those brands should encourage greater numbers of people to visit, whether they are visitors from the South or international tourists.

Fáilte Ireland's regional experience branding represents an additional opportunity for our tourism industry to build on the success of the Embrace a Giant Spirit campaign with different brands targeting different market segments. I anticipate significant progress on the inclusion of the Fermanagh lakelands in the Ireland's Hidden Heartlands brand in the coming weeks.

Mr McNulty: Further to the previous question, the Minister will know that I, along with my colleagues on Newry, Mourne and Down District Council and Armagh City, Banbridge and Craigavon Borough Council, have led the charge on extending the Ireland's Ancient East tourism brand into counties Armagh and Down. What has the Minister done, and what does she plan to do for the rest of the mandate, to extend that important tourism brand into the North? Will she provide details of the Wild Atlantic Way tourism brand as well?

Dr Archibald: Progress is being made in relation to all three brands. I will be happy to write to the Member with further details on Ireland's Ancient East specifically and on joining up the Wild Atlantic Way with the Causeway coastal route.

Dr Archibald: My officials continue to work closely with the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG) through a joint working group to co-design the North's £150 million enhanced investment zone programme. The development of the programme must follow an MHCLG pre-agreed staged-approval process. The target for final approval is autumn 2025. Key to securing approval at each stage is clear demonstration that investment zone funding will drive productivity and leverage significant private-sector funding. Over the coming months, my officials will consult closely with the private sector and other stakeholders to refine the proposition in line with my objectives, which include regional balance.

Mr Brett: I am hugely disappointed. That £150 million fund was announced 12 months ago, and it seems that all we have had is engagement at official level. Minister, I know that you have only just taken up post, but we need political engagement in order to push the funding forward. We talk about a lack of funding in the Assembly and the Executive, but that £150 million is sitting ready to be spent. Will you state what action you will take, as Minister, rather than that which officials will take?

Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for his response. As he will know, navigating such programmes is a bureaucratic and lengthy process: our experience with city deals is testament to that. We put political weight behind such things and make progress. I will certainly do that and will engage to seek updates from officials on progress on the enhanced investment zone. Significant progress has been made, and there has been good engagement, but there is a process to be followed, and certain approvals are required at each stage of that process. Certainly, there is huge potential for this right across the North.

Miss Brogan: I welcome the Minister to her new ministerial role. Can the Minister outline whether tax reliefs are expected to be part of the enhanced investment zones?

Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for her question and her good wishes. Tax reliefs remain an option, but due to the complexity of modelling the tax relief itself and the need to change the legislation that will be required, it is unlikely to form part of the overall programme, but there will be sufficient alternative interventions that can be delivered more quickly and more efficiently that will deliver the outcomes that we wish to see.

Dr Archibald: Industrial land is an important element of our investment proposition, as it can enable the establishment and growth of locally owned businesses and attract inward investors. Invest NI's total landholding is 2,700 acres, the majority of which has been sold and developed. Since 2020, Invest NI has sold approximately 208 acres of its land, which has facilitated the expansion of 62 businesses. Invest NI has 475 acres of land available to support business investment. However, there are some areas where that is limited or there is no supply of available industrial land. We are working to address that in partnership with local stakeholders through the regional property programme. That 10-year programme gives a clear commitment to partnership working at a local level to identify specific industrial land and property needs.

Mr Martin: Thank you very much, Minister. Industrial land at Balloo South Business Park in Bangor, which is owned by Invest NI, has been left undeveloped for about 10 years. I cannot hold the Minister responsible for that. However, many businesses in North Down want that issue to be progressed. Will the Minister commit to meeting local stakeholders, as she indicated in her answer, including Ards and North Down Borough Council, to take the matter forward?

Dr Archibald: I am aware of the issue at Balloo South and that there has been no land sold there in the past 10 years. However, Invest NI will continue to market the estate as an attractive investment location and pursue property interests from those businesses that meet its intervention criteria. There is land available at Balloo South, and the regional property programme gives a commitment to partnership working to identify land and property needs. Invest NI is happy to explore those development opportunities, and I am happy to engage in conversations in relation to that.

Mr Honeyford: I know that the question was about land, but I am more interested in Invest NI developing jobs and economic growth in the area. Minister, surely with dual market access, where we are selling products, we should be focused on expanding the manufacturing industry and providing the land to enable that. You have highlighted the regional property programme. However, to highlight my constituency of Lagan Valley, we are on the Belfast-Dublin economic corridor, yet we have next to no Invest NI land left. What can the Minister do to address that and help to bring jobs and investment, not just to Belfast but outside Belfast?

Dr Archibald: Through the regional property programme, there is a commitment to that work on a local level to try to identify land and property and to work with local partners. I take the Member's point: we should be maximising the potential that we have with our access to both markets and encouraging our manufacturers to be able to take those opportunities. It is important that we put a focus on that.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Emma Sheerin, very quickly.

Ms Sheerin: Déanaim comhghairdeas leis an Aire faoina post nua.

What steps is Invest NI taking to develop industrial land in mid-Ulster?

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: You have one minute to respond, Minister.

Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for her question and her good wishes. I am aware of proposals to develop Desertcreat and the opportunity that that site offers to deliver much-needed industrial land in mid-Ulster. I understand that Invest NI has been working with the council to assist in the development of its proposals for the site and that that work is ongoing.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: That ends the time for listed questions. We now move to topical questions

Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for her question. She is right: I have already addressed that issue. Invest NI has assured me that it does not provide support for projects that arm Israel, and no evidence has been provided to the contrary. As I indicated to Pat Sheehan, I have asked Invest NI to review its investments to make absolutely sure that that is the case. It is important that we have that reassurance.

Ms McLaughlin: Thank you, Minister. I am glad that you have given that assurance, and I hope that it is true. Minister, the public are rightly outraged that public funding could be used in any way to arm Israel and will want transparency. Can the Minister explain why the confusion has arisen?

Dr Archibald: I echo the Member's words and understand the public sentiment behind them. We all abhor the horrifying scenes that we have seen in Gaza and Palestine over the past year and a half; most right-minded people do. We have consistently challenged the US, the British Government and others who provide arms to Israel and urged them to suspend all arms sales. As I said, we have sought reassurances from Invest NI, and I have been assured. It is important that we get that clarity.

Mr Brooks: The Member who asked the previous question and the Minister certainly do not speak for me on that issue.

Dr Archibald: I have not yet had the opportunity to engage with the consul general, but I am sure that I will in coming days and weeks.

Mr Brooks: Thank you, Minister. The fact that the US is negotiating its economic relationship with other nations is perhaps causing concern in the South given its ongoing operation as a tax haven of sorts. It would be advantageous for us to maintain the relationship that we have had with the United States. Will you undertake that engagement? Will you do so in Washington on St Patrick's Day?

Dr Archibald: I, like most people, recognise that the US is an important market for us. We export over £1 billion worth of goods and services to the US, so, clearly, it is an important relationship. As I said, I will seek to engage with US representatives in coming days and weeks.

Ms Ferguson: I wish the Minister well in her new role.

Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for her question. I was delighted to attend and speak at the launch of the 'Skills Barometer: 2023-2033' report this morning. I was encouraged that the sectors with the highest forecasted growth rates in the skills barometer align well with my Department's seven priority sectors. However, the skills barometer also highlights the long-term challenges posed by our ageing population. Quite simply, not enough young people are coming into the labour market to meet the increased demand for jobs. Given that Brexit has limited our ability to attract workers from the EU and that the British Government's immigration policy makes it difficult to attract workers full stop, it is vital that we get more people into work. It also makes it all the more important that we remove cross-border barriers for workers so that we can access a larger talent pool across the island.

It is important to support people who face barriers to getting back into employment. I noted at the launch of the skills barometer this morning that our skills base and opportunities to access skills underpin all the economic objectives that have been set for the Department. We need to equip people with the skills to deliver on that.

Ms Ferguson: I thank the Minister for her answer. Minister, I understand that the skills parameter will soon be published at a subregional level, which I very much welcome, particularly for the constituency of Foyle and the north-west. Does the Minister agree that that will benefit the work of our local economic partnerships and the drive towards regional balance?

Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for that follow-up question. Local economic partnerships will help to give us a better understanding of the economic needs and priorities in areas across the North. Clearly, skills are a critical part of our economic infrastructure, so this information will be really valuable for local partnerships. Once we are equipped with that information, we will be better able to tailor skills interventions to meet those local needs and, in turn, drive that regional balance. In October 2024, my predecessor launched a subregional economic plan, and I am committed to developing a regionally balanced economy in which everybody shares the benefits of prosperity.

As you mentioned, the Ulster University Economic Policy Centre intends to follow up its work on the skills barometer by developing a subregional skills barometer in due course that will give a more detailed analysis of skills profiles and skills deficits at a local level. That will be highly relevant to delivering on our regional balance objective.

Mr Bradley: Minister, it was remiss of me not to welcome you to your post. I do so now and wish you well for the future.

Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for his good wishes and for his question. There are differences between the structure of the energy market in the North and that in Britain. There are schemes that are provided there that are not provided here and vice versa. Obviously, energy policy is devolved, so we have the opportunities to respond to the needs of people locally. As the Member will know, the Department for Communities has lead responsibility for fuel poverty and any mitigations that might be put in place to assist with rising fuel costs. The Department for the Economy assists in developing energy policy, and I know that the Communities Minister has indicated that he is committed to bringing forward proposals as soon as possible on that issue. I am more than happy to work with him on that.

Mr Bradley: Thank you very much for your answer, Minister. Surely, this is a priority funding stream that should be in place to help meet the Assembly's climate change targets. Such a grant would aid low-income households and become part of the House's climate change initiative.

Dr Archibald: I do not disagree with the Member in any way. Obviously, we have the energy strategy, and we need to deliver on the targets in that. Also, this is about the people whom we all represent and the cost that it has for them. We have all been acutely aware of that over the past number of years as we have faced the cost-of-living crisis. Of course, even preceding that, we had higher levels of fuel poverty here, so it is important work. As I said, I will work in collaboration with the Communities Minister on it.

Ms Sugden: I congratulate the Minister on her new role. I am really pleased for our constituency.

Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for her good wishes and for her question. As a constituency representative, I have had engagement with Ulster University around these matters, and I know that it is introducing a new veterinary nursing course for the incoming academic year. That is a really positive development. The conversations around a veterinary school have been going on for some time. The Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs is leading on the issue, so I am happy to engage with the Minister.

Ms Sugden: I thank the Minister for her interest. It seems as though no one from the Northern Ireland Executive is leading on it; indeed, I have questioned both Departments about it. Northern Ireland needs a veterinary school, and Coleraine is the most obvious place for it. Will the Minister reconfirm her commitment to that, if that is what Ulster University wants?

Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for her follow-up question. As a constituency representative, I have had those conversations, but I have not yet had the opportunity to be briefed on the matter in my ministerial capacity. I am happy to be, just as I am happy to work with Ulster University on any proposals that it may have, but there is a clear need for cross-departmental working to demonstrate that it is achievable and affordable.

Ms Egan: Congratulations, Minister. I wish you well in your new post.

Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for her good wishes and for her question. As I mentioned, I was at the launch of the skills barometer this morning. It is really important work. It is insightful and useful to a number of audiences. For us, as policymakers, it poses questions about how we will meet the workforce needs when, clearly, not enough people are coming through the qualification and training pathways. It is really important that we reach people who face barriers to employment and training and support them into pathways and, ultimately, back into jobs. There will be opportunities to do that legislatively, given the policy intent of the 'good jobs' Bill, and through policy initiatives that improve access to pathways and training and that ensure that appropriate support is provided.

Ms Egan: Thank you, Minister. How will you drive productivity in our economy, which has been persistently low in recent years?

Dr Archibald: That has been a persistent issue over a long period. We have performed poorly in relative terms on productivity, and different policy interventions will be required to improve that. Skills is one aspect, but we also need to support our businesses appropriately by ensuring that there is a policy environment across the board, whether that means through environmental, business or employment law, to support the improvement of productivity. We have been making progress, and we have outperformed other regions on economic growth this year, but persistent work is needed to drive productivity.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Minister, you have two minutes.

Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for her question. I was really grateful to Women's Aid Armagh Down for taking the time to meet me. I was hugely impressed by the really dedicated team there, and I am delighted that work has started on an extension to its premises.

I completely agree that domestic violence is an economic issue. It undermines women's economic independence and their ability to work, and we all have a responsibility to work collectively to end violence against women and girls. I agree that violence against women is an economic as well as a societal issue. Domestic abuse and violence against women have devastating impacts on victims and survivors, affecting all aspects of their life, including their ability to maintain financial independence and participate in the workplace. That clearly has a negative impact on the economy, productivity, workforce participation and career progression. It is important that we all play our part in collectively responding to the challenge of eliminating violence against women and girls.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Sorry, Sinéad: we have run out of time. That is the end of Question Time. I ask Members to take their ease.

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

Mrs Long (The Minister of Justice): I am aware of the High Court judgement and will consider it and any implications that it might have in due course. However, I remind the Assembly that the Police Ombudsman operates independently of the Minister of Justice and of the Department. The ombudsman's office carries out a vital role in investigating complaints in regard to the conduct of police officers.

I note that the judgement acknowledged that each of the reports was the product of detailed investigation and significant hard work by the ombudsman and her team of officers. The judgement also clearly states that it is not intended to undermine or cast doubt upon the professionalism of the staff in relation to their investigatory work.

Mr Clarke: I hear what the Minister says. However, given that this is not the first time that the courts have found against the ombudsman for making sweeping statements, will you, Minister, continue to give the ombudsman cover or will you come out against her rather than hide behind what you just said?

Some Members: Hear, hear.

Mrs Long: There is no intent on my part to hide behind anything or anyone, nor would the ombudsman seek to hide behind me. The ombudsman is an appointee of the Executive Office. She is a corporation sole, and that is a different structure to pretty much any other public appointment that we deal with.

As I noted, I want to take time to consider that lengthy and complex judgement and give the issues that it raised some thought. The Member is, of course, right that it comes on the back of a prior judgement of a previous ombudsman in relation to language that was used in their reports and to which the current ombudsman then responded.

The ombudsman, however, is independent of the Minister of Justice. Those are the facts, however uncomfortable they may be for Members.

Mr Kelly: I understand that the Minister may not have read the full judgement. However, given what we know of it, does she agree that the judgement did not say that collusion by state forces did not take place?

Mrs Long: I have had the opportunity to very briefly read through the judgement, although I want to do that a few more times before I comment on its detail. It is clear that it was not striking down the entire report, but it said that, in making determinations, the power of the ombudsman's office had been exceeded.

The ombudsman will now require time to consider and reflect on that finding by the courts, as will the Department of Justice, in order that we are able to reach the right conclusions. However, to be clear, the judgement has not struck down the statements in question, and how the ombudsman chooses to respond to the court judgement is a matter for her and her alone to consider.

Ms Egan: Minister, will you clarify whether the judgement can be appealed?

Mrs Long: With any court judgement, that is always an option that is available to the person about whom the judgement has been made. It would not be appropriate for me to seek to influence the ombudsman or her office in that regard. She does, of course, reserve the right, if she wishes to do so, to appeal the judgement. However, I have no reason to believe, either way, that her decision has been taken at this stage, and I imagine that she will want to take time to reflect on the totality of the judgement.

Mr O'Toole: For the record and in contrast to some of the chuntering that we are hearing in the Chamber today, it is worth putting on the record that the people to bear in mind are the innocent men who were gunned down at the Heights Bar in Loughinisland, Sean Graham bookmakers and other locations. There is clear evidence of collusion in the security forces. That is not to smear everybody who served in the police and security forces, but there is clear evidence. Will the Minister agree that the way to deal with these issues is for the British Government and others to agree and deliver a proper article 2-compliant process that achieves justice and decency for the families of those innocent people?

Mrs Long: When reflecting on all these issues, I am conscious that the most controversial interventions that the ombudsman's office makes tend to involve issues that are about historical legacy cases. That was not the purpose of the ombudsman's office when it was designed, but it became the purpose of the ombudsman in lieu of anything else that would actually give people the answers that they were seeking. I have said many times on the record that I would much prefer that the legacy structures are separate, fully comprehensive and look at all these cases properly and with due process rather than infecting the policing and oversight structures of today with problems of legacy from the past. That remains my position.

Mr Buckley: The court has ruled that the Police Ombudsman reached conclusions outside her legal scope of office, and, in effect, Marie Anderson has acted illegally and, clearly, in a politically motivated way. I believe that she has compromised her office, and I also believe that she has brought dishonour on that office in more ways than one. Does the Justice Minister agree with that and, if so, what process can be put in place to remove Marie Anderson from office? It is clear that her position is no longer tenable.

Mrs Long: First, I do not agree with the Member, because the judgement does not say that it was by political motivation. It does reflect the reality, however, that, in the view of the courts, the determinations reached exceeded the scope of the ombudsman's powers. Therefore, we will have to reflect on that. As I have already said, the ombudsman is a corporation sole. She is appointed by the Executive Office acting jointly, and, to the best of my knowledge, the Department of Justice has no powers to remove or dislodge the ombudsman from office once appointed by TEO.

Mr Beattie: Minister, the ombudsman is there to hold the police to account, and that is fair enough. However, we have now got to a stage where the police have lost trust in the ombudsman. Graciously, you condemned the incidents that led to nine injured police officers in Londonderry, but I am hearing that police officers are failing to defend themselves because of fear of what happens through the ombudsman's office. Minister, do you think that it is time to have an independent review of the Office of the Police Ombudsman?

Mrs Long: With respect, the Member's question, whilst it is valid, is way outside the scope of this particular issue. This is about the vires of the ombudsman's office and its legal responsibilities. It is not about wider concerns about the operation of the office in modern-day cases. It is important that we keep focus on the narrow point of Trevor Clarke's question rather than going on a further fishing expedition to undermine anybody's office.

Mr Brett: Minister, you may not agree, but there clearly is public concern about this issue in relation to the Police Ombudsman, be it the failure of her office to release the Kingsmills report, a 17-month police investigation by West Midlands Police or, now, a damning court judgement. Do you, as Minister of Justice — it is a simple yes or no answer — have confidence in the Police Ombudsman?

Mrs Long: We always know that we are being lined up for one of those gotchas when somebody says that it is a simple yes or no answer. Of course, it is not, because, first, it would be entirely inappropriate for me to make any comment on an ongoing police investigation, so I will not be drawn into doing so, either in a single word or in multiple words. It would also be inappropriate for me to reach conclusions about the most recent case before the courts until we have had the time to reflect on the implications of that for the ombudsman's office and her responsibilities. We will reflect on all those issues in due course.

Mr Gaston: Does the Justice Minister believe that the ombudsman should apologise to the officers whom she unlawfully defamed? Will she ensure that all reports are speedily amended?

Mrs Long: The issue of whether someone owes somebody else an apology is not one that I am going to get into. The issue is about the robustness of the court judgement. The response of the ombudsman to that will be known in due course, when, like me, she has had adequate time to reflect on it. She will reach her own conclusions as to what response is required.

Mrs Dodds: We have heard a lot of deflection from the Minister of Justice today, and a lot of instances of her saying, "It's not my responsibility". However, there is a responsibility on all of us in the House to uphold the rule of law and to support those officers who uphold the rule of law. Does the Minister accept that the judgement in relation to the Police Ombudsman's office has undermined the rule of law, and has undermined the faith of ordinary policemen, such as those who were attacked by thugs in Londonderry at the weekend?

Mrs Long: I have been entirely clear, without any caveats, about condemning the attack on police officers at the weekend. People who put themselves in danger in order to protect the rest of the community deserve our cooperation and respect. They should not face attack.

I remind the Member who asked the question that our job, as Members, is to uphold respect not just for individual police officers but for the structures of oversight around policing, including the ombudsman and the board, and the Police Service itself. If we want there to be trust and confidence in policing in Northern Ireland, we have a duty to ensure that the public has confidence in all three.

Mr McNulty: Minister, who, in your opinion, is the independent authority or arbitrator in determining the extent of collusive behaviour between security forces and loyalist death and punishment squads and between security forces and IRA death and punishment squads?

Mrs Long: It is very clear that the court has indicated that, at this stage, it does not believe that the appropriate authority is the ombudsman's office. It is also clear that alternative structures are being created to investigate and, to a degree, adjudicate in matters that relate to legacy issues, of which the Independent Commission for Reconciliation and Information Recovery (ICRIR) is one significant part. Whether it will have the lawful authority to do so remains to be seen, because its judgements may also be subject to judicial review in due course.

The key is that, if an individual is accused of committing a crime, they have the right to a fair trial. That remains the case, whether they are a member of the Police Service or an ordinary member of the public, whatever role they may hold. If that is interfered with in any way by any action, the courts will, of course, be concerned about that, because, ultimately, it is for the courts to decide whether an individual is guilty. Whether that means that people can rule in general terms is a matter that is beyond me and will probably end up being determined by those courts.

Mr Kingston: We should record our debt to the Retired Police Officers' Association for taking the court challenge to the office of the Police Ombudsman and revealing that she has exceeded her powers in repeatedly finding the vague term "collusive behaviour" when, in fact, she found no evidence of actual collusion. Will the Justice Minister confirm, regarding the term "collusive behaviour" — whatever that means — that no such offence is defined in law, not a single prosecution or misconduct file using that term has been forwarded and no evidence exists of improper motive on the part of police officers?

Mrs Long: Again, I draw the Member's attention to what the judgement did and did not do.

It did not strike down the wider parts of the report; it acknowledged that each of the reports was the product of detailed investigation and significant hard work by the ombudsman and her team of officers; and it clearly stated that it was not intended to undermine or cast doubt on the professionalism of the staff in relation to their investigatory work.

The Member will know that the genesis of the term "collusive behaviours" was in response to a previous court judgement where the allegation of collusion, which is a criminal offence, was made. It was not, in the end, accepted that the court would allow the ombudsman to reach that conclusion without a full trial. In this case, they have simply said that the ombudsman does not have the power to adjudicate on that. They have not struck down the rest of the report, and I caution Members about exceeding the vires of the judgement in their commentary around it.

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

Mr Buckley: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. During questions to the Economy Minister, the Minister refused to answer my question, saying that, because there was a question for written answer in the system, she would answer that first. Will the Speaker give clarity: is that in keeping with guidance in Standing Orders on when Members should ask questions for oral answer?

Mr Speaker: I am not aware of this, so we will need time to clarify. Questions for oral answer are for Ministers to answer, not to avoid or obfuscate on. If there is a question for written answer in the system, that should not override the ability of a Minister to respond to a question for oral answer. We expect that, when Members ask questions, Ministers will answer them. It is a job of the Assembly to scrutinise and hold the Executive and Ministers to account. It is my job to facilitate you as Members in doing that. I will look at this and seek to ensure that that practice is followed by all Ministers.

Ms Sugden: I support the legislative consent motion (LCM), through which I see an opportunity for better public health, particularly in Northern Ireland, where smoking continues to be one of the leading causes of preventable death. In March 2024, then Health Minister Swann confirmed Northern Ireland's inclusion in the UK Tobacco and Vapes Bill, with the Assembly endorsing the plan later that May, thereby aligning this region with national efforts to phase out smoking for future generations and demonstrating a strong commitment to tackling smoking-related deaths. Today is the tangible outcome of our commitment to tackling smoking- and vaping-related harm by translating it into effective legislation. Furthermore, plans to ban the sale of single-use vapes by April 2025 demonstrate a proactive approach to public health as well as environmental concerns.

Smoking remains one of the biggest public health challenges of our time. It burdens our health service, devastates families and generates enormous economic costs. The introduction of smoke-free legislation ensuring that those born after 2009 will never legally purchase tobacco is a necessary step towards eradicating the cycle of addiction and ill health associated with smoking. Beyond traditional tobacco, we must also acknowledge the rise in youth vaping, which has become a growing concern. Take, for example, the case of a 17-year-old who began vaping at 12 and was hospitalised after coughing up blood due to severe lung damage. His story is not unique. Across the United Kingdom, hospitals treat increasing numbers of young people suffering from vaping-related illnesses. While vapes have been promoted as a cessation tool for smokers, they have also become alarmingly attractive to young people who have never smoked. The bright packaging, sweet flavours and targeted marketing towards teenagers have created an entirely new public health issue. The Bill seeks to curb that trend and rightly so.

We cannot afford to become complacent. I have seen at first hand the devastating impact of smoking. My father died of lung cancer caused by smoking 15 years after he gave it up. This is not just a policy debate; it is about protecting lives and ensuring that future generations do not suffer the same fate as me and my family.

We know that the vast majority of smokers take up the habit in their youth. By preventing young people from ever legally purchasing tobacco, we remove that gateway. One of the most valuable contributions to our consideration of the LCM has come from young people. The Northern Ireland Youth Assembly has expressed strong support for measures to regulate vaping and to prevent the next generation from becoming addicted to nicotine. It has also raised concerns about ensuring adequate support for those who are already addicted to vapes and the potential enforcement challenges of banning smoking in more public places. Their voices remind us that the legislation is not just for today or for us but for the future generations who will live in a healthier Northern Ireland because of the steps that we are taking today. Their concerns about enforcement and public awareness are valid, and it is incumbent on us to ensure that the regulations are not only robust but effectively communicated and implemented.

There have been discussions regarding the legal implications of the generational smoking ban under the Windsor framework and EU law. While those complexities must be addressed, they should not stand in the way of implementing critical public health measures. The expansion of the Northern Ireland tobacco retail register to include vapes and nicotine products will provide the necessary oversight to ensure compliance and enforcement of the new regulations.

As for the legal complexities, the Windsor framework once again highlights how Northern Ireland is uniquely constrained compared with the rest of the United Kingdom. Whilst England, Scotland and Wales can take decisive action on matters of public health, we remain bound by EU directives without democratic input or control. It is not just the case with tobacco legislation; Northern Ireland has diverged from the rest of the UK on multiple policy fronts, creating a situation where we are unable to implement laws that benefit our citizens. The fact that we must navigate EU rules while the rest of the UK is free to act underscores a wider issue of fairness and sovereignty. We should have the same ability to enact legislation that protects lives, yet the Windsor framework limits us in doing so. It is not a technical issue; it is a fundamental failure of democratic representation. If those legal challenges arise, they will be addressed, but we must recognise how serious the situation is becoming. Northern Ireland risks being unable to implement vital public health policies while the rest of the United Kingdom moves forward. It is an unacceptable constraint on our ability to protect lives.

The legislation alone will not solve the problem. We need to ensure that enforcement mechanisms are properly funded and that public awareness campaigns accompany the changes. Retailers must be supported in complying with the new regulations, and public health messaging must continue to evolve, particularly in relation to vaping. As others have said, education is also key. In GB, clinics have been set up with the aim of treating nicotine addiction amongst children as young as 11 years old. That highlights the scale of the issue and the need for intervention at both legislative and public awareness levels. We must ensure that schools, parents and young people understand the risks associated with nicotine addiction and that cessation support is readily available for those who need it.

I support the motion, because it is the right step towards a healthier Northern Ireland. It protects future generations, strengthens regulation and addresses the evolving challenges of tobacco and nicotine use. While there are complexities and challenges, we must not lose sight of the fundamental goal, which is reducing addiction, saving lives and easing the burden on our health service.

Mr O'Toole: I will talk a little about not only the generalities of the legislative consent motion, which we, obviously, support, but some of the ways that the debate has been used to complain about the Windsor framework/protocol. Clearly, that has been a significant part of the debate. I recognise and agree with many of the comments that have been made about the importance of the provision and of dealing with tobacco regulation and moving towards a smoke-free society and of better regulating and tackling the issue of vapes, given that they particularly affect young people and are, in many ways, a gateway to smoking. Those statistics have been quoted.

It is true that, under the protocol, Northern Ireland is bound by certain provisions under the European Union. From listening to some Members, you would think that there is a vast public health risk to Northern Ireland. They have not provided any evidence of there being a public health risk to people in Northern Ireland, and there is no sign that there will be. There have been reports about that and speculation about what might happen, but it is also the case that some of the public health and environmental regulations that we enjoy, such as product safety standards, have come in over the past half century because of EU regulations. They were not delivered by London, let alone Stormont.

I will share a bit of personal experience. People might shake their head, but the personal experience that I want to share is true. I remember that, in my old life, when I was still a UK government official, one of the very first things that happened after the Brexit vote was a discussion about what were the Brexit freedoms that people could avail themselves of. The Brexiteers inside the Tory Party could not think of any. One of the most recent —

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Matthew, could you take your seat, please?

Mr O'Toole: I am happy to take my seat.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): You will, no doubt, have heard that the Speaker was clear on this earlier today: when getting into a debate, we should be aware of where it is likely to lead, and we should keep on message. This debate is particularly about the issues relating to the measure that the Minister has brought to the House. The Member will also be aware that we allow a degree of leniency, but, in this case, I think that he has strayed way beyond what is required. Either bring it straight back to what the Minister said in relation to the motion or finish your contribution.

Mr O'Toole: Mr Deputy Speaker, the previous Member to speak gave a long disquisition on public health and tobacco.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Be careful.

Mr O'Toole: So I think that it is reasonable for me to include in my contribution the tobacco products directive that came into force in 2016. As Members have said, we are, as a result of the protocol/Windsor framework, still partly bound by that. The directive also banned menthol cigarettes. The reason why you cannot go into a tobacconist in Northern Ireland and buy menthol cigarettes, which are a bit like vapes in that they are among the products that, people think, are kind of tobacco-light, even though they are as carcinogenic as normal cigarettes, is that one of the public health arguments consistently made was that they were, effectively, a gateway. They allowed people who might not have enjoyed the taste of normal tobacco products to smoke and, therefore, were creating a public health risk. It is the same with vapes, and that is what is in the Tobacco and Vapes Bill. How did menthol cigarettes get banned in Northern Ireland? The EU did it.

It is important that, in the Chamber, we are accurate and detailed when we talk about the issues. That is all I wanted to do in my remarks today. It is important. I recognise the issues that have been raised, and I am glad that there is consensus, with the possible exception of Mr Carroll, today.

Mrs Dodds: I thank the Member very much for giving way. I listened carefully to his arguments around the tobacco products directive. I was in the European Parliament when we debated it. Of course, the difference between the Windsor framework and the legacy of EU laws and the new laws coming in is that we have no say in the new laws. The Member should note that and be accurate about it. When we debated the tobacco products directive, we were part of the EU. We have since left. Maybe the Member should acknowledge those accurate facts.

Mr O'Toole: I will draw my remarks to a close. I am happy to acknowledge that difference and will reflect on it in two ways. The Member was a very esteemed Member of the European Parliament; I acknowledge that. Obviously, I deeply regret Brexit, because I think that Northern Ireland and, indeed, the whole UK would be much better off inside the EU debating the issues. I also think that we should have MEPs —

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Mr O'Toole.

Mr O'Toole: — but I will draw my remarks —

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Mr O'Toole.

Mr O'Toole: — to a close there, as I feel that I am —.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Mr O'Toole, please take your seat.

Mr O'Toole: Thank you very much, Mr Deputy Speaker.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Yes, thank you very much indeed.

Mrs Dodds, you were deliberately pushing the boundary there. Let us not do that. I know where you are going, Mr Gaston, so do not even bother getting up.

Minister, it is over to you.

Mr Nesbitt: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, and thanks, of course, to everybody who has taken part in the debate. What I found pleasing was not just that we were almost unanimous, with the exception of People Before Profit, in supporting the legislative consent motion but that people were not prepared to simply let it go through on the nod, and everybody made significant and considered contributions to the debate. That is to be welcomed.

I should perhaps touch on a couple of points that Members made. People Before Profit brought up prohibition in the United States — the prohibition of alcohol — as a reason for refusing to support the LCM. If Mr Carroll were here, I would simply point out that, much more recently, when the smoking age in the United Kingdom was increased from 16 to 18, the consumption of illicit cigarettes, which is, I think, more pertinent, fell by 25%.

Smoking rates among 16- and 17-year-olds dropped by almost a third. I would gently suggest to Mr Carroll that that evidence base is perhaps a little more relevant than going back to the speakeasies of the Prohibition era in the United States 100 years ago.

Like Mr Gaston and others, I wish that the European Union did not have any potential to interfere in our legislative process. I accept that, under article 5.4 of the protocol, we have an annex that lists EU provisions that apply, and the European tobacco products directive is one such provision. Article 24.3 of that products directive states:

In my opening remarks, I made very clear the impact of smoking in particular on public health and the potential impact of vapes. It is not for me to convince the House, however. This is United Kingdom Government legislation, and it is for the UK Government to make sure that the Tobacco and Vapes Bill is compliant with the Windsor framework.

Mr Donnelly asked about enforcement. As he knows, age-of-sale restrictions already exist in Northern Ireland, while enforcement is councils' responsibility. My Department, through the Public Health Agency, funds tobacco control officers, who carry out test purchasing activity and engage with retailers to support compliance with tobacco legislation. That will continue. It is worth making one small technical point when we talk about the smoke-free generation, which includes anybody who was born after 1 January 2009. One Member may have said that it will be illegal for them to purchase tobacco. Rather, it will be illegal for anybody to sell them tobacco. The emphasis is on the vendor, not on the purchaser. I make that distinction for the sake of completeness.

Mr Donnelly: Thank you for giving way, Minister, and for providing that clarity. Will the test purchasing by councils, which your Department funds, continue beyond the 2009 age group to ensure that people are stopped from buying tobacco?

Mr Nesbitt: I thank the Member for his intervention. It is my intention that we will continue with test purchasing. We will continue to monitor it and ensure that we employ best practice. I am not saying that test purchasing activity will not change, but, if it does, it should be changed on the basis of evidence that shows that we can do it a little bit better than we are doing at the moment.

Today is a good day for public health in Northern Ireland. As I said in my opening remarks, smoking is one of the behaviours that makes up 30% of the challenge of addressing health inequalities. I look forward to continuing that work. Finally, it would be remiss of me not to welcome Mr McGuigan to his role as Chair of the Health Committee. I look forward to working with him. He confessed to being a former smoker, as, indeed, did Mr McGrath, Mr Robinson and Mr Donnelly. What can I say, Mr Deputy Speaker? I join that club, having given up smoking in 1998 in the car park of Castle Buildings when I was reporting on the lengthy negotiations — the endless negotiations — that led to the Belfast/Good Friday Agreement. I still ask myself whether it should have been where I took up smoking, given the stress of reporting those negotiations, but that is where I quit.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): I ask Members to take their ease while we change the top Table.

Ms D Armstrong: I beg to move

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: The Business Committee has agreed to allow up to one hour and 30 minutes for the debate. The proposer of the motion will have 10 minutes to propose and 10 minutes to make a winding-up speech. All other Members will have five minutes.

Ms D Armstrong: I rise today not just to pay tribute to one of Northern Ireland's best business sectors but to make the case for a fairer playing field for all those men and women who pull the pints, serve our world-class food and make this place the most welcoming in the world. The hospitality and tourism sector is a vital component of the outward-facing image of Northern Ireland. It is pivotal in demonstrating all that is good about our country — the stunning landscapes, the warm welcomes, storytelling, food, music and culture. Those things entice people to travel to different parts of Northern Ireland for recreation and pleasure. The enthusiasm and energy of destination providers, many of which are small family-run businesses, have really embraced the "Giant Spirit" that Tourism NI and other stakeholders in the sector promote.

In January 2025, the former Economy Minister Conor Murphy launched a 10-year tourism vision and action plan that commits to boosting tourism's subregional impact with a target of doubling the value of tourism to £2 billion per annum. Over recent years, however, the industry has experienced significant setbacks, including the COVID pandemic, the cost-of-living crisis and the cost-of-doing-business crisis. Hospitality and tourism have always shown admirable resilience, but there are three looming threats to the survival of the industry in Northern Ireland. Those are the disastrous fallout from the Chancellor's Budget, with the planned rise in employers' National Insurance rates and the national living wage; the introduction of the electronic travel authorisation (ETA); and, most recently, the Irish Government's announcement of their intention to lower VAT on hospitality in the Republic of Ireland from the current 13·5% to 9%. That VAT differential is the final straw for many in the hospitality trade who operate in close proximity to the border region, and it is on that topic that I wish to address the House.

The planned reduction in hospitality VAT in the Republic of Ireland will mean a substantial differential of 11% between ROI and UK VAT rates in hospitality. That will present a huge threat to the confidence of operators in the hospitality and tourism industry in Northern Ireland. It has the potential to undo all the gains that the sector and related industries have made in bolstering our economy by £1·9 billion to date. The feeling in the industry is that that is just the final nail in the coffin for those who are already struggling with higher input and operating costs. That leads many to question how the tourism strategy and its objectives can be achieved in the long term when, in the immediate situation, businesses are facing increases in wages and running costs and now a more competitive VAT rate, in some cases only five miles from where they are located, across the border in the Republic.

Figures supplied by the Northern Ireland Statistics and Research Agency (NISRA) for 2023, broken down by council areas, show that tourism in border areas is a significant driver for the local economy. For example, in my home patch of Fermanagh and Omagh, with attractions such as the Cuilcagh boardwalk trail, the Marble Arch Caves and the beautiful lakelands, it records 1·2 million night stays with a spend of £83 million. For Newry, Mourne and Down District Council and the majestic Mountains of Mourne, there were 1·6 million night stays resulting in a spend of over £79 million, and for Derry City and Strabane District Council, with the famous Derry walls and 'Derry Girls' acclaim, there were 820,000 night stays with a spend of £63 million.

A big part of the tourist experience is eating out at the many hospitality outlets at our tourist attractions. It is vital that those businesses are recognised not only for the role that they play in attracting revenue to the economy but for the role that they play in providing essential flexible employment and the opportunity, for young people especially, to learn lifelong skills in public-facing roles. Unless action is taken to reduce hospitality VAT now, the ramifications for growth and job creation will be hard felt, with some businesses having to close their doors for good, and the knock-on effect on the local supply chain will be devastating.

There is precedent in the request for VAT reduction. In the UK, VAT was temporarily reduced to 5% on most tourist and hospitality-related activities from July 2020 to September 2021. That was replaced by a 12·5% rate until March 2022, and increased to the standard 20% from April 2022, which now applies. That reduction in VAT spearheaded hospitality growth in the UK and helped to stabilise the sector following the pandemic. As my good friend the Member for Strangford Mr Nesbitt has told the House, derogation of VAT was applied before to another jurisdiction — the Isle of Man — to help to resolve a construction crisis, with much added benefits to its economy.

That was then, and this is now, and we must argue the special case that exists in Northern Ireland. I know that there will be Members who would be more than happy to advocate for a UK-wide reduction in VAT on hospitality. In principle, I would support that, but, given the tax direction of this Labour Government, who have betrayed farmers and the elderly, the case for Northern Ireland is much stronger than UK-wide.

I am sure that many of you heard Michael Cadden, who owns the Lusty Beg Island Resort and Spa in my constituency, tell BBC Northern Ireland last week that the reduced VAT rate in Ireland will make it harder to attract people over the border. He said that the disadvantage would have a greater impact on border counties as, post Good Friday Agreement, Ireland is marketed as one island for tourism but has to compete on a different base price. He added:

That has particular significance when scale is applied in the form of wedding or conference bookings. Once again in my constituency, a hotel such as the Killyhevlin faces the prospect of competing with another hotel just 23 miles away across the border, which would be able to offer a VAT saving of 11%. Its price offering will be a much more attractive proposition for cost-conscious customers. Based on 150 wedding guests, the saving on meals alone could be as much as £1,500, and for conferences hosting 300-plus delegates, the saving could be £3,000 to £4,000. In the current economic climate, you cannot blame customers for looking for the most price-competitive proposition. Clearly, as a result of that detrimental differential, our hospitality providers will be hit hardest, leading to job losses, reduced trading hours and potential closures.

It is important to note that this industry is cross-cutting. It provides opportunities to showcase Northern Ireland's agri-food sector, with locally procured products served in restaurants and hotels. Tourism, of which the hospitality sector represents 40%-plus of the region's direct tourism jobs, contributes significantly to the economy as the fourth-largest private sector in the Province, attracting £1·2 billion expenditure to March 2024. Therefore, that differential affects many parts of the Assembly's Programme for Government and, subsequently, our economy.

As someone who is passionate about the hospitality sector in Northern Ireland, I know that we can deliver growth and safeguards for the sector by lowering taxes. Our neighbours have demonstrated that that is possible with careful government support packages through Tourism Ireland and Fáilte Ireland. A VAT reduction will bolster the industry and promote employment. Reducing hospitality VAT to ROI's expected levels would help to generate higher employment levels with increased wages and training across Northern Ireland. A level playing field for hospitality VAT with our nearest neighbours would also create the opportunity for hospitality providers to invest in the industry, improve overall quality and pass down savings to customers. It would feed through to higher expenditure in other sectors of the economy, which, in turn, would generate further tax receipts through the tourism multiplier.

Many hospitality businesses across Northern Ireland have been pleading for help to weather the storm of increased National Insurance contributions and the rise of the national living wage in April 2025. Now is the time for the respective Departments to explore every possible avenue to identify support mechanisms to ensure the delivery of interim financial support. Some £60 million of Barnett consequentials will be coming to the Executive in April 2025 as a result of rate support given to GB hospitality. It would be good to see whether the same support could be given to the hospitality sector here in Northern Ireland.

I call the Minister for the Economy and the Minister of Finance to work jointly to engage with HM Treasury and put the case for the harmonisation of hospitality VAT directly to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. In addition, a delegation comprising Ministers and industry stakeholders should meet the Chancellor so that this important sector of the tourism industry can survive and play its role in the Northern Ireland economy and the future vision of tourism. Hospitality and tourism, and all those who work in the sector, need urgent assistance to ensure the survival of the many hospitality businesses in Northern Ireland. I ask Members to support my call, and I commend the motion to the House.

Ms Sheerin: I welcome the opportunity to speak on this sensible motion, and I thank the Member who proposed it for outlining its rationale.

During the COVID pandemic, we heard the phrase that "Ireland is one epidemiological unit" an awful lot. In my mind, Ireland is one unit in every sense, but it is clear that international visitors deem the island to be one unit for tourism. Any divergence between North and South therefore does no favours in the North or in the South.

The motion, which asks for the harmonisation of VAT rates for our hospitality sector, relates keenly to something that we have not tapped into properly across the North when raising the profile of our tourism offering and hospitality outlets. Given that Mid Ulster is a constituency that runs alongside the border, hoteliers and people who are engaged in different types of hospitality there are frustrated by having to deal with competitive rates already. Being at a clear financial disadvantage already to hotel owners who may be just 20 miles down the road, the changes will leave them at even further disadvantage. They are really concerned about that.

A lot of our hotels rely heavily on weddings and corporate guests, but they want to move further into the international visitor experience. An increase in footfall in any region in the north-west will lead to an increase in people's movement inwards and towards Belfast, so we do not want to see that decrease.

Harmonising VAT is a sensible approach. I welcome the fact that the Minister for the Economy and the Minister of Finance have begun conversations on that and on bringing it to the British Treasury, and I hope to see progress.

Mr Brett: I thank the Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone for proposing the motion.

Since the Minister for the Economy took office, less than a week ago, she has responded to two debates on hospitality and tourism. That is because Members from all sides of the House recognise the importance of our tourism sector and of the job creation in the hospitality sector that has been vital to the growth of our economy. The fact that tens of thousands of jobs in every corner and community of Northern Ireland rely on the hospitality sector has been articulated, and it is important that the House recognises the context in which the sector is operating. Hospitality businesses are not just recovering from the impact that the COVID pandemic had on them, but the impact on our hospitality sector of the changes that the Chancellor announced has been simply devastating. Members will have read newspaper articles or watched the news and seen that hotelier after hotelier and publican after publican are pausing plans for expansion or job creation because the increase in employers' National Insurance contributions and changes to the living wage are completely unsustainable for them.

It is important that we recognise the importance of the sector to the economy in Northern Ireland. As I made clear last week in my Adjournment debate, and as the Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone has made clear today, it is the welcome that people are given in our pubs and restaurants that makes Northern Ireland a special place. It is the warm offering that those people receive that makes them want to come back again and again. We cannot have a tourism market in Northern Ireland if we do not have pubs and restaurants where our visitors can eat and drink and hotels in which they can stay. This point has been picked up slightly, but it is important to recognise that, in its current scenario, Northern Ireland has the worst of all worlds. We share a land border with the Republic of Ireland, where the VAT rate is much lower than ours, but we also have businesses here that do not benefit from the same rate relief as businesses in other parts of the United Kingdom do. That is a double whammy for our hospitality sector, which continues —.

Mr Buckley: I thank the Member for giving way. He raises an interesting point. The VAT rate is not the only thing that Northern Ireland businesses face that is uncompetitive; it is also the case with corporation tax. Many hoteliers and businesses pay through the roof in corporation tax compared with their counterparts in the Republic of Ireland. Does the Member agree that the UK Government need to do much more? Frankly, businesses in the UK are being taxed to death.

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

Mr Brett: Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. The Member for Upper Bann has perfectly articulated the challenges faced by our business community. That ties into the fact that the current Minister for the Economy, in her previous role as Minister of Finance, commissioned important work on the cost of doing business in Northern Ireland. She will know from representations that she received from me and from other members of the Committee for Finance that it is important to encapsulate all the cost mechanisms that are currently placed on businesses in Northern Ireland, because they look to their counterparts in the Republic of Ireland, where there are lower levels of corporation tax and VAT, and then to their counterparts in other parts of the United Kingdom, where they have the rate relief that we do not.

I can speak only to the motion in front of us, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. My party supports the motion, but we have concerns about Northern Ireland having separate VAT arrangements to other parts of the United Kingdom. We put forward an amendment, but it was not selected. I will not breach any rules by speaking to an amendment that we proposed, but the intent of the Ulster Unionist Party's motion is important. The Fiscal Commission, in an important body of work, highlighted the difficulties presented by having a stand-alone lower rate of VAT in Northern Ireland and outlined some of the difficulties that our Scottish counterparts encountered when they tried to do put forward similar views.

When the Minister for the Economy speaks in the debate, it is important, although she has only been in office for a short time, that she sets out her strategy for supporting businesses in the here and now. It is important to have the 10-year tourism strategy that the previous Minister launched, and to have a "good jobs" Bill. If, however, we do not have providers to provide those services in 10 years' time due to the cost-of-doing-business crisis, and if we do not have employers who are able to grow and to offer further jobs and have a framework for good jobs, tourism growth will simply not happen.

I look forward to hearing the Minister outline what work she is going to do to support the vital hospitality sector. My party will support the motion.

Mr Tennyson: Like other Members, I welcome the opportunity to return to this important issue following the debate on 13 May last year. As the motion sets out, hospitality plays a key role in the success of Northern Ireland's tourism industry, with food and drink accounting for a significant portion of visitor spend. With 70% of tourism-related jobs situated outside Belfast, hospitality plays a key role in building a more vibrant, dynamic and regionally balanced economy. It also means that so many of those businesses are the heart and fabric of communities, particularly in rural areas.

When we discussed the matter on a previous occasion, we referenced the conglomeration of challenges facing hospitality businesses, including the scarring impact of the COVID-19 pandemic; Brexit-related labour shortages; concurrent cost-of-living and cost-of-doing-business crises; and the differential in VAT rates on the island, with the UK Government levying VAT at a rate of 20% on hospitality compared with the 13·5% rate in the Republic of Ireland. Regrettably, nine months on, the situation has got worse rather than better, despite our previous debate. The UK Government's planned changes to employers' National Insurance contributions will expand the cost base for hospitality businesses in Northern Ireland. Proposals from the Irish Government to cut VAT for food-led hospitality to 9% could open a further and starker disparity, with, as has been mentioned, particular consequences for hospitality businesses in border counties, which will be put at a disadvantage compared with their counterparts in the South. There is an obvious case to be made on the need for closer harmonisation of VAT rates across these islands, given the particular challenges posed for businesses in Northern Ireland. However, with the Labour Government boxing themselves into a strategy that has resulted in sluggish economic growth and little headroom in public finances, I am not entirely confident that the Government would be in a position to make a move on the issue, even if they wanted to.

Whilst we often focus on the steps that the UK Government should take, there are also important steps that we, as an Assembly and an Executive, need to reflect on and that could be taken locally. The Economy Minister will be aware, given her previous role, of my view that the initiation of sectoral research into the cost of doing business is welcome and will assist in making the case to Treasury about the impact of its approach on businesses in Northern Ireland. I am less convinced that the strategic review cycle of our rating reliefs meets what is required in terms of urgency and independence. A 10-year review cycle, in which the Department of Finance will effectively mark its own homework, will hardly instil confidence among businesses that face a cliff edge today. At the very least, we need to revisit the approach that Departments and the Executive are taking to the issue and look to establish interim support through the rating system for those in retail and hospitality. They are, understandably, looking at the significant business rates support that is available across the water, as Phillip Brett mentioned, where, in 2025-26, up to 40% of relief, up to a limit of £110,000, can be claimed by retail hospitality and leisure businesses.

As a Member of the Finance Committee, I am acutely aware of the constraints on public services and on the competing demands facing every single Minister. I am also of the view, however, that failing to intervene now and seeing otherwise viable and sustainable businesses go to the wall, because of the disadvantage that they are placed at in Northern Ireland and the worst-of-all-worlds scenario — I agree with Mr Brett on this — that they face, will be more costly to the Executive in lost rating income in the long term. Although there has been an understandable reluctance, given the constrained nature of our public finances, to look at a serious package of interim support whilst that strategic review cycle is ongoing, I urge the Economy Minister in her new role and the new Finance Minister to look at the issue again. If we do not act now, those businesses simply will not be there to avail themselves of support following the outcome of any review.

Ms McLaughlin: I thank the Member from Fermanagh and South Tyrone for proposing the motion. The reality is that our hospitality sector is the cornerstone of our local economy, accounting for four out of five tourism-related jobs. As a representative from the Foyle constituency, I know at first-hand how essential a strong hospitality industry is to our tourism offering and economic infrastructure, given how central the hospitality offering is to Derry city and the wider north-west city region. With a strong hospitality sector, footfall in our town centres will rise, economic activity will be boosted and local suppliers, such as farmers, brewers and entertainment providers, will be better off.

Unfortunately, that is not the reality that the sector is experiencing. The hospitality sector is currently and clearly suffering, and many are hard-pressed to keep their doors open. In fact, many have been forced to close or reduce the length of their working week. Many restaurants in my city do not open their doors on Mondays, Tuesdays and Wednesdays. The city centre can be a desert when it comes to finding a food offering in the early part of the week, and that is not good for business or the tourism industry.

Mr Buckley: I thank the Member for giving way. The Member makes an important point, because, post lockdown, we have seen a tendency for a lot of our civil servants who work in Belfast city centre to work from home, and, therefore, many such businesses feel that it is unviable for them to open on many days during the week. Does the Member agree with that assessment?

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

Ms McLaughlin: The vibrancy of our town centres is paramount, and we need to work collectively with many Departments to find out how we can support our town centres through the whole working week.

Rising costs, including energy, wages and supply chain pressures, often make it impossible or difficult to compete. The cost-of-living crisis, which has reduced consumer spending, has left many people simply unable to take advantage of the hospitality sector and has worsened the crisis. In my city, the level of disposable income is often a key factor when people are deciding whether they can go out and enjoy themselves in the city centre.

It would be remiss of me not to mention the damage that Brexit has done to the ability of the sector to recruit staff and deal with supply costs. The introduction of the ETA and the lack of an exemption are also set to worsen an already difficult situation, yet business rates and VAT levels remain high compared with other regions. As the motion points out, the Government in the South are set to reduce the VAT rate for food-led hospitality to 9%, thereby widening the gap between the North and the South to 11%. The damage that that difference will do in border areas such as mine cannot be overstated. Businesses in those areas, which were already vulnerable, will now be left in an even worse situation as customers choose cheaper options a few miles across the border. The reality is that a hotel in Derry will be charged 20% VAT, while a hotel two miles away in Bridgend, for example, will be charged 9% VAT. Unfortunately, we are used to the border creating economic disruptions. If the Minister wants tourism growth, it must be done through introducing measures to support the sector, rather than making it harder for those businesses to compete.

Solving the problems that our tourism industry faces is not limited to the Economy and Finance Departments, as has been said across the House today. Business rates, tax policy, skills shortages, licensing laws and town centre regeneration all play a pivotal role in the survival of the sector. Action must be delivered as a collective government. The case for a lower VAT rate for the sector is clear. It would create a level playing field with the South and provide breathing space for businesses, allowing them to remain competitive and retain jobs.

Other European countries have permanently lower VAT rates for hospitality, which recognises the sector's importance for economic growth. I agree that the Finance Minister should work with Hospitality Ulster, other business organisations and the Treasury to ensure that Northern Ireland is treated as a special case when it comes to VAT rates. However, we cannot afford to wait for Westminster to agree to a VAT reduction; we need action now. The action could include any of the following: business rate relief targeted at the hospitality sector; a temporary grant to offset VAT disparities; and a review of licensing and planning law to encourage growth in the sector.

The motion asserts that the Department for the Economy and the Department of Finance cannot plan for tourism growth, but such planning is essential for our tourism and hospitality sectors. Hospitality is more than just a business sector, it is part of the social and economic fabric of our communities. It is part of our culture. A thriving hospitality sector means jobs, investment, tourism and economic growth right across Northern Ireland. It is also about regional balance, and the hospitality sector has a significant part to play in that. We may be a small island, but we have so much to offer. We cannot let our businesses down and have them lose out because of government inaction.

Ms Dolan: I thank my constituency colleague for proposing the motion. We are both MLAs for a border constituency, and we know that the tourism and hospitality sector plays a significant role in our local economy. I am therefore acutely aware of the detrimental impact that different VAT rates can have on businesses. Every year, thousands of visitors make their way to sites such as the Marble Arch Caves, take a boat trip to the historic ruins at Devenish Island, tour the world-famous Belleek Pottery site or go for a hike on the Cuilcagh boardwalk trail, which is aptly named the stairway to heaven. Local hotels, restaurants and cafes all benefit from the footfall that the natural beauty spots of Fermanagh generate. There is no doubt, however, that the higher VAT rate in the North means that businesses in my constituency that have that additional financial burden are at a competitive disadvantage to those in neighbouring counties, meaning that people may visit our numerous tourist attractions yet choose accommodation in hotels that are just a short distance away in Donegal, Cavan, Monaghan, Sligo or Leitrim.

Tourism is one of six areas of North/South cooperation under the Good Friday Agreement. The sector is already concerned about the impact that the British Government's decision to introduce the electronic tourism authorisation scheme may have on all-island tourism, and the growing gap in VAT rates is a further tool that acts as a barrier to marketing all parts of the island equally. It also has a knock-on effect on attracting tourists to the north-west region as a whole, and I note the comments of one hotelier in Donegal, who said that he would also welcome a VAT reduction for visitors from Northern counties, as it would increase the overall package on offer to them. Currently, that part of the country is not receiving its market share of tourists who come to our shores annually, with 70% of international tourists who arrive in Dublin heading southwards. VAT harmonisation would therefore be another positive step in developing the all-island economy, ensuring an equal playing field for hospitality businesses. Of course, having different VAT rates not only impacts on our ability to attract tourists but means that local people and organisations have the option of travelling short distances to choose venues in neighbouring counties for events such as conferences and weddings, as those venues are likely to offer more value because of lower taxation.

As a major employer, the hospitality sector makes a significant contribution to the local economy, with many livelihoods depending on it. We need to see action from the British Government that supports our hotels, restaurants, pubs and cafes, all of which have struggled in recent years with increasing costs. I welcome the commitment from the new Finance Minister to highlight the issue with the British Treasury later this month. As the important work of strengthening our all-island economy continues, a harmonised VAT rate would represent a positive step forward and ensure a level playing field for all hospitality businesses in Ireland.

Ms Forsythe: I thank the Members who tabled the motion for giving us the opportunity to discuss what is a really important issue. Representing South Down, a border constituency, I encounter it week in and week out, with a number of businesses coming to me to say that they are seeing the very real effect of customers voting with their feet, especially when booking larger corporate events and weddings. The DUP recognises the importance of our hospitality sector and the significant challenges that it faces, as my colleague Phillip Brett outlined, with the pressure of increased employers' National Insurance, the failure of the sector to receive an equitable reduction in rates and the disparity in VAT rates.

As a party, we are committed to ensuring that businesses and employers have the tools and the right support in place to grow and thrive in what are challenging economic times. In particular, we believe that cutting tourism and hospitality VAT is crucial. We have said consistently that the difference in hospitality VAT rates between Northern Ireland and the Irish Republic in particular is an impediment to creating a more competitive environment locally and to building on the sector's standing as an engine for growth and job creation. Local businesses in Northern Ireland face a comparative disadvantage as a result of the reduced rate in the Irish Republic. Department of Finance data in the Irish Republic, published last year, stated that cutting the VAT rate to 9% for the entire hospitality sector would cost €764 million annually. That would fall to €545 million if it were applied only to food and catering services. The corresponding figure in Northern Ireland would also be deeply significant. Whilst we recognise the spirit of and support the UUP's call for interim support, there needs to be a recognition of the practicality that such a proposal would cost the Executive, at a minimum, tens of millions of pounds.

Prior to the rate of VAT returning to 20% after March 2022, the all-party parliamentary group (APPG) on hospitality and tourism endorsed calls for a lower rate of VAT that would be applicable across the United Kingdom. It suggested that that would support the viability of businesses; improve the rate of employment; have a positive impact on Treasury revenue; support regional growth; improve international competitiveness; and ease cost-of-living pressures. It is therefore not a question of whether we should act but how we should act to support this vital industry.

We do not believe that the necessary capacity exists to devolve those additional fiscal powers. Our view is based on a number of pragmatic considerations, and we question whether devolving those powers would bring timely benefits to affected firms. There are other actions that Ministers can collectively take to ease pressures and promote a more resilient and competitive landscape for our hotels, restaurants, pubs, breweries and others with a keen stake in the sector.

There is also the question of who foots the bill. Devolution of VAT is presumably viewed by the Members who tabled the motion as a means to an end, with the end being the ability to vary and reduce the hospitality VAT rate relative to other UK regions. How would that impact on the Executive's ability to fund, deliver and improve vital public services? How would the shortfall impact on our block grant? Where is the evidence or plan that shows that medium- or long-term growth would outweigh the short-term cost of devolving those powers?

A UK-wide approach to reducing VAT rates would provide a level of assurance about unintended fiscal consequences for Northern Ireland. We appreciate, however, that high VAT is not the only issue of concern to the sector. There is huge potential for our Ministers to work together to find solutions in order to provide the necessary support for our hospitality sector.

Mr Honeyford: I have spoken on this issue before, and I have raised it a couple of times. The motion lays out the importance of hospitality and the stats on it, so I will not repeat them. As the economy spokesperson for Alliance, I regularly meet the industry. Only a matter of weeks ago, Colin Neill of Hospitality Ulster and I chatted through some of the issues. I listened again so that I could understand the concerns about the problems that the increase in employers' National Insurance contributions in the new financial year will cause to the industry. Ideally, this would be about the work that we can do to help.

It has been recognised that, compared with GB, we have a unique demographic of hospitality businesses. Most of our operators are local, and the national chains do not trade here, so most of our businesses are small in terms of turnover and jobs. That can be viewed as a risk for the industry, but it should be seen as a real positive and a strength for us, as each business offers a unique experience that is an expression of the community around it. We do not have repeats of the default chain offering in each of our towns and villages, but we have cracking local businesses. We have cracking pubs that produce high-quality food and drinks and that are part of the community in which they trade. It is local people about whom we are talking and supporting. We should thank those businesses and celebrate what they have achieved.

However, that demographic means that the burden of taxation, whether in VAT, rates or corporation tax, falls heavily on our local hospitality businesses. They do not have either the buffer of the economies of scale of the larger chains in GB or the lower costs that come from their greater purchasing power. Importantly, post COVID, they have had neither the three years of 75% reduction in rates that businesses across the water have enjoyed nor the 50% reduction this year, which has not been replicated.

I find it frustrating when we talk about stuff and all agree but no action ever follows. I find it absolutely baffling that, last week, when we debated a motion on a shared island and discussed working together as an island to improve local public services, such as those in health, and our economy, the Ulster Unionist Party voted against it.

A week later, we debate a motion in which the Ulster Unionist Party asks for all-island alignment on taxation. I just do not get how that view can change in such a short time. That brings cynicism to politics in Northern Ireland that is not helpful.

I am happy to support the motion, but we need to get real. Our hospitality businesses do not need photo opportunities, Facebook posts or tokenistic, populist calls and talk in here: they need help and action. They need the reduction in the tax burden that they have been calling for for a long time. Everyone agrees, but we need to see the action lived out into our businesses. We do not need more talk: we need delivery.

Businesses do not care what you call the tax. What affects them is the gross amount that they pay in tax, whether you call it "VAT", "rates" or "corporation tax". Whatever form it takes, it is the bottom line between profit and loss. It does not matter what you call that tax. We need to look at that. The elephant in the room is where the motion calls for Ministers to meet and discuss. I stress again that we need action to help, and we need to start allowing our businesses to trade, grow and flourish. Our hospitality businesses need that now. They expect the Minister and the Assembly to help. They need it now. That help can and should be delivered.

We can do that now in rates relief. The Alliance Party has continually called for the delivery of a small business rates review that will look at enabling a progressive rating system that is fair for all businesses, a system that is not a blunt instrument and that looks at a band with a progressive percentage rate that is fair for everyone. That would help to invigorate our high streets as the community assets that they are and to balance the burden of tax across our community. Our hospitality businesses need help now.

Mr Frew: I thank the Members who tabled the motion, because, at least, we are talking about something that is critical. There might be frustration in the Chamber as to what we can do about it. It may well be simply because we are a devolved Assembly and so there will be frustrations.

We need the Labour Government to acknowledge the hurt that they are doing to business and people. This is a debate about VAT. Next week, we could have a debate on National Insurance contribution rises. The week after that, we could talk about the minimum living wage increases, noble as that is. When you add all those ingredients into one big pot, it is an absolute disaster. It is a disaster especially — David Honeyford made this point — for our independent retailers and hoteliers, the people who cannot rely on other branches or other parts of their business to cut fat. They are as lean as they can be; they are lean to the bone.

When you have an increase in the minimum living wage, which is noble, and you have National Insurance contributions rise, the elastic will snap. We need the British Government to step in and rescue this, not only for our businesses, border regions and tourism industry but, in honesty, for all of the UK. They need to reverse the decision on National Insurance contributions. That is the only way.

Mr Buckley: I thank the Member for giving way. He relates a very important point. Does he agree that this is testimony to the fact that Labour's policy of higher taxation will not deliver growth to the UK economy or for our local businesses? I am sure that the Member understands, as many of our small businesses do, that continued increases across the board on costs mean one thing: higher costs for consumers when they buy whatever item it may be.

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

Mr Frew: Thank you for the extra minute, and I thank the Member for his contribution, because he is absolutely right: we are hurtling towards recession. We have had high inflation caused by the lockdown philosophy, which we cannot and have not recovered from, and now our businesses are hit with this.

It is the cost of doing business. I think that it was David Honeyford who said that businesses do not care what taxation is or what it is called, but what we see here is independent retailers being hit from all sides: bottom, top, sideways, left field, right field. They are being hit everywhere. I can tell you now that our independent retailers are threadbare. They are trying to resolve their issues one by one. They are trying to downsize, and I can give you an example from my constituency. A company — an independent retailer — is trying to downsize, and it is thwarted in every way. It will cost that company more to downsize, and it will not get the rate relief that it requires. There are massive issues.

Let us look at what is facing businesses. First of all, because of inflation, people do not go out and buy the same. The cost of food is sky-high, and then, when you go to a restaurant, you complain that the prices have gone up. That is because the restaurant has to pay for food at a higher rate too. There is a massive markup. Those businesses are very lean and have nowhere to go, except to put the cost on to the customer, which means that the customer stops going. We are in a dire situation.

It is not only the VAT, the hike in wages and the minimal National Insurance contributions; it is the cost of doing business across the board. On energy costs, we know and have known for some time that Northern Ireland has faced the highest rates of commercial energy — electricity — on these islands and in Europe. We compete with Italy. That is a factor that rarely crosses the Government's threshold.

We can do something here. We do not have to rely on the Labour Government, but it does not fill our retail sector or hospitality sector with much confidence when it will take 10 years — 10 years — to review all the rate reliefs, and I could nearly forecast that most of those rate reliefs will go away, as opposed to being enhanced. We look at the two areas that the Finance Committee has picked up on to date. They are going to take away savings from prompt payments. Again, that will not lead to a large amount of money being raised, but it will hurt people who have budgeted and saved up in order to pay their rates in full. That is in a domestic setting. What will it be like for commercial properties when they go through those rate reviews in the next 10 years? The fact that it will take 10 years tells businesses everything that they need to know about the speed of government and how we do things.

Those businesses need something now. They need relief now. Where are the Executive?

Mr O'Toole: I probably speak in too many debates in the Chamber. I am sure that some of my colleagues will agree. I am sure that, privately, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker, you will agree that I open my mouth too often in the Chamber.

I was not planning to speak in this debate, but I will do so because, first of all, it is an important topic and, secondly, it is important that we are honest and consistent in the Chamber about what we do. As has previously been referred to, I think, by Mr Tennyson, we debated a motion that called on the Executive to do something very similar. It was not exactly the same, but the motion was fairly similar to this one and was debated during an Opposition day in May 2024. That debate was responded to by the previous Finance Minister, who just happens to be the current Economy Minister who will respond to this debate. Her party did not divide on that motion. In fact, there was no Division; the motion was agreed by acclamation. That was nine months ago. I would have expected, as would, I think, people who watched that debate, some meaningful follow-through.

People in the hospitality industry face huge, real pressures. Independent publicans, cafe owners, hoteliers and restaurateurs face extraordinary pressure. We talk about it and rhetoricise about it in the Chamber, but they struggle to make payroll. They are providing something hugely important. The tens of thousands of jobs have been mentioned and the extraordinary gross value added (GVA) to this region, but people would rightly expect that the Executive, the Finance Minister and the Economy Minister, having already committed to look at this and bring forward a package of proposals, would have done so, not least because things have got worse since we last debated this. However, they have not, and we have not seen that yet. There is a cost-of-doing-business review, which came after the new costs that were created by the UK Government's autumn Budget, but we have no clear policy intent.

I presume that the motion will be passed today; I would be surprised if it were not. There has been much to agree with in the debate. Of course, we will probably all end up agreeing or largely agreeing with the motion, but pointing out some of the inconsistencies that happen in the Chamber is a bit like being in a twilight zone. First, we have heard parties lambast the existence of the Northern Ireland protocol, which is there in part to protect and recognise the essence of the all-island economy: the fact that we exist on an island. There are two different jurisdictions, whether, politically or constitutionally, you like it or not. My party and I do not, but, on the basis of today's debate, we all recognise that there are two jurisdictions on the island that are economically intertwined. The performance of one is dependent on the other. You would not think that some of the parties that advocated that and talked about the variance and the awful situation created by the presence of an international border were the same parties that are resisting any form of protection for the all-island economy and, in fact, were offended by the use of the term "all-island economy". It is true to say that Ireland is a single unit when it comes to an offering for tourists. Many tourists are not aware of political boundaries; they simply come to the island of Ireland. That is why Tourism Ireland exists. It is why we and others have called for greater alignment in branding. Yes, alignment of VAT would be welcome.

Of course, we already have certain other types of tax alignment that are theoretically in existence but have not been enacted by Ministers, and I want to point out the inconsistency. It is all well and good talking on a Monday about how we need to have greater all-island alignment economically and then, on the Tuesday, railing against something in international law that is designed to protect not just economic partnership but economic entities — businesses — that are affected by the presence of the border. Another inconsistency is the fact that, for the past year, the Sinn Féin Economy and Finance Ministers have done nothing in terms of greater fiscal devolution to align us on an all-island basis. They have not brought forward any practical measures, whether in relation to the Fiscal Council, which Minister Murphy first appointed and announced in 2020, or some of the newer measures that we passed. As I said, we passed a motion on this in May last year.

I have the hospitality industry in my blood. I grew up working in pubs. I still have that on both sides of my family. I care deeply about our tourism offer. I represent in South Belfast a large part of the city centre of Belfast, including our amazing hospitality offer here in the city, which is intimately connected. As we know, the significant majority of our visitors to Northern Ireland arrive in — shock horror! — Dublin Airport, because we are viewed as one small island to visit. You will never find our party wanting when it comes to championing the all-island economy and standing against the awful electronic travel authorisation and all of those things. We tabled a motion saying basically the same thing last May. Parties supported it, including the party that holds the Economy Ministry and the Finance Ministry.

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

Mr O'Toole: Nothing thus far has been done. By all means, let us pass the motion — I support it — but let us get real.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: OK.

Mr O'Dowd: Let us do our job and stop passing motions without doing anything about it.

Mr Gaston: I did some research ahead of the debate and discovered that there is no example of VAT being varied in such a fashion anywhere else in the United Kingdom. Why would a unionist party seek to change that and give us a situation in which, when it comes to hospitality, our VAT rate is no longer decided by anyone in the UK but aligned with the Irish Republic? It would be much more sensible to push for a reduction of VAT on hospitality across the United Kingdom. Why would we seek to merely match the rate across the border? If a lower VAT rate gives businesses in the Republic an advantage, why should we not push for a situation that would give hospitality in Northern Ireland the edge? Why should we vote to align our VAT rate on hospitality with Dublin when the people of Northern Ireland do not elect anyone to sit in that foreign Parliament? I have no desire to give the harmonisation process another boost by starting to line up VAT rates.

Furthermore, I note that, because of the protocol, which is so beloved of some in the House, there are aspects of our VAT regime that neither this place nor Westminster controls.

Under the protocol, Northern Ireland continues to follow EU rules around VAT and goods. As a result, goods in Northern Ireland are overseen by EU VAT rules. As a result of that, businesses in Northern Ireland that are trading goods with the EU class their trade as intra-EU supplies; products sold from Belfast to Dublin are treated as they would be if two EU nations were trading with one another; and goods crossing Northern Ireland to and from Great Britain are treated as imports and exports, triggering more extensive documentation and compliance. Why? Because goods moving from here to Great Britain are treated as exports with zero rating of VAT, and goods moving from Great Britain to Northern Ireland are treated as imports from a foreign country. I am disappointed that the House is not debating the amendment to the motion that I tabled. It would have permitted a more extensive discussion on this important subject.

I want the Assembly to consider a final point on the matter. What would be the Barnett consequential of the motion? When this place had an obsession with the devolution of corporation tax, HM Treasury was clear on the issue: any reduction in the level of corporation tax would have to be offset by a corresponding reduction in the block grant to Northern Ireland. The Holtham commission considered the devolution of corporation tax to Wales and concluded that it did not want it because it would:

Have the proposers of the motion considered how changes in VAT in Northern Ireland that break parity with the rest of the UK would impact on Northern Ireland's Budget? Have they discussed with the Health Minister how much less funding he would have if the proposal in the motion were carried?

I have, first, an economic objection to the motion. We should be calling for a UK-wide reduction that leaves us below the level in the Republic. Secondly, I have a constitutional objection to the motion. The people of the UK should decide our VAT rate. That responsibility should not be outsourced to Dublin. Lastly, I have a block grant objection to the motion. The motion may sound good to some, but, in my book of unionism, it is, clearly, ill thought out. I am surprised that it has taken until the last contributor from unionism for some of those issues to be raised.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Our next Member to speak is the Minister for the Economy, Caoimhe Archibald. Minister, you have 15 minutes to respond.

Dr Archibald (The Minister for the Economy): Go raibh maith agat, a Phríomh-Leas-Cheann Comhairle.

I thank the Members who tabled the motion, and I am grateful for the opportunity to speak on this important issue. I agree with Mr Brett about the importance of hospitality and tourism to our local economy. The figures have been quoted already this evening. Together, our tourism and hospitality sectors employ over 75,000 people. Some 70% of those jobs are outside Belfast, so, clearly, they contribute significantly to regional balance.

Tourism and hospitality have grown significantly, and an action plan, co-designed with the industry, has been developed to further support the sectors. Actions will include investment in marketing, skills, events and connectivity. However, policy decisions taken by the British Government are damaging the industry and creating a significant disparity across the island. The increase in the minimum wage is positive for workers, but, given the low margins in the industry and the fact that many of the businesses are small, it would have made more sense for higher wages to have been offset by lower taxes for employers. Instead, the British Government have increased employers' National Insurance contributions and, at the same time, introduced the electronic travel authorisation scheme. Tourists are an important market for our hospitality businesses, but the ETA creates another barrier in the North for international tourists. Tourists who fly into the North already pay air passenger duty, which has been abolished in the South. With the introduction of the ETA, tourists arriving in the South will now also have to pay fees if they want to enjoy all that the North has to offer. Another differential across the island is VAT, which is currently 13·5% and likely to return to 9% for hospitality businesses in the South, compared with 20% here.

My Executive colleagues and I are working together to lobby the British Government on those issues. When I was Finance Minister and Conor Murphy was Economy Minister, we engaged regularly with the hospitality sector and made continual representations to Treasury. Later this month, Minister O'Dowd will press the Chief Secretary to the Treasury again on those issues.

I will bring clarity to some points that were made. Contrary to Ms Armstrong's comments, we are losing £58 million from our baseline due to the reduction in rates support for hospitality and tourism in Britain this financial year. As for the Barnett consequentials for employers' National Insurance contributions, the Executive will in fact face a shortfall of approximately £100 million just for the public sector. Partly in response to those particular issues, the Department of Finance is undertaking research on the cost of doing business. Phillip asked about the issues that will be considered as part of that. The differentials will be considered, but there will also be opportunities for businesses and business representatives to engage with the Economic Policy Centre, which will help to give coverage to some of those issues. That research, which will be completed next month, will help to build an evidence base to press the British Treasury to act on some of those issues, but it will also potentially inform any interventions or support that the Executive are able to give, whether through policy or otherwise.

Mr O'Toole: I thank the Minister for giving way. I will make a suggestion. She mentioned one of my favourite subjects: APD. Given that we spend two million or three million quid a year on subsidising non-existent long-haul flights and that the ETA is being forced on the region — we all agree, I think, that the ETA should not happen, but the British Government seem to resist those appeals — could there be a negotiation because of the impact of ETA, and could we perhaps look to withdraw the APD? Could we do something specifically for VAT in those circumstances?

Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for his intervention. I know that he frequently raises the issue of air passenger duty. That fiscal power was in fact devolved to here, and, unfortunately, the intended benefits have not been reaped. Representations need to be made specifically on the issues that were highlighted today. Of course, Executive Ministers will continue to do that.

This is not my responsibility any more, but I will pick up on the point about rate relief. It is, of course, not possible to amend rate relief at short notice, given the importance of rates for our public finances. The one that we have chosen to look at in the incoming financial year is the small business rate relief scheme, and that is because of the representations that were made by businesses. There will be an opportunity for businesses to engage with that.

Members of the Assembly recognise the value of the hospitality and tourism industries to our local economy. My Department clearly does so as well. We have taken a number of actions to support both sectors, including skills development and capacity building. However, we all must collectively continue to press the British Government to do likewise by recognising the value of those sectors to our economy.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Minister. I call Steve Aiken to conclude the debate and wind on the motion. I advise you, Steve, that you have 10 minutes.

Dr Aiken: Thank you very much indeed, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. I thank every Member for the debate and for its tone, which was very productive. It was important, because we recognised the central importance of the hospitality industry in Northern Ireland and the fact that it has the potential to grow considerably and needs support to do that. As I go through my contribution, I will not repeat what everybody said, because you all made your points very clearly and eloquently, but three key themes ran through the debate. Minister, I will address my remarks to you, because it will be quite germane to your work.

Minister, you will be aware that the third paragraph of article 8 of the Northern Ireland protocol talks about a derogation to do with VAT and the importance of where that sits in the all-islands economy. I use that word "all-islands" very clearly. If we look specifically at where VAT is, we see that it is quite clear that there are issues that could and should be raised with the Joint Committee. I do not believe that that is an area with which the Joint Committee has engaged itself seriously. I know that the Minister, the leader of the Opposition and others present are fully aware of the protocol and some of the issues in it. Article 10, which talks about state aid and its implications, has been used previously as a reason not to look at making changes to APD and other issues. When one looks at the protocol, however, that is not what it states. If we look at article 11, the issue is how we engage with the Joint Committee. Article 11 specifically mentions necessary areas of cooperation, one of which is tourism, and it talks about the North/South issues involved. There is no doubt that a VAT rate that is currently at 15% but is to go down to 9·5% is anti-competitive. Indeed, if it were the other way around, we would be looking at taking a case, through the various structures available, to be able to engage on that issue.

Other nations — for instance, Norway — have done similar things. That is therefore an area that we should be looking at pursuing through the Joint Committee. That is what we refer to in our motion, Minister. It is a question of using the protocol, as much as we like or dislike it — I know that Mr Gaston raised issues, and I have real concerns about the protocol and all the rest of it — to push the case for businesses in Northern Ireland in order to make them work.

Mr O'Toole: Will the Member give way?

Dr Aiken: No, I will not. Just wait. I will let you in later.

That is important. Conversations are happening now in the lead-up up to next year's review of the trade and cooperation agreement (TCA), so the Minister, other Ministers and the Executive themselves should be making representations to the Joint Committee. As part of that conversation, it is key that we look at the whole idea of having a level playing field. Rightly, other Members have raised the issue of the rise in National Insurance contributions and the increase in the national living wage. Those are costs for businesses, but they are not the most significant costs with which our hospitality industry is having to deal.

There are other issues involved as well. We have heard about air passenger duty. There are specific rules and regulations in the protocol and in the Treasury's own rules about looking at derogations when they come through. What is very clear is that there is a significant cost from the Irish Sea border, and that is a fiscal cost. As numerous Prime Ministers — there have been quite a few, some of whom are probably more akin to vegetables — have pointed out clearly, we should be looking at where the costs lie for things such as the Irish Sea border. There should be ameliorations made to where those costs lie, and those particular ameliorations could be looked for through the review of the TCA but also through the Joint Committee.

Yes, please, Mr O'Toole, come and speak to me.

Mr O'Toole: Thank you, Dr Aiken, for giving way. I appreciate it.

I am delighted that the Member mentioned article 11 of the protocol. He has obviously been reading the SDLP's policy paper 'Our European Future'. It sounds as though he was agreeing with our suggestion that the Executive and Ministers here should follow up on that. Article 11 is about protecting all-island cooperation — North/ South cooperation — and it mentions tourism in particular. The Executive, perhaps through the mechanism of Lord Murphy's review of the protocol, should consider appealing to the UK Government and the EU jointly to see how the issues around differential VAT rates for tourism on the island of Ireland might be addressed. That may be something on which Lord Murphy can reflect and then add his voice to that of devolved Ministers making the case.

Dr Aiken: I declare an interest, because I was talking to Lord Murphy less than two weeks ago in the House of Lords, and that was one of the issues that I raised, so thank you. Lady Ritchie was probably listening in in the background and then decided to push on with that idea as well.

It is significant, because it is an area that we should be looking at. The ability to have differential VAT rates is something that is allowed for and was in provisions that we had previously. Doing so does not necessarily take it out of the Barnett formula. There are mechanisms in place whereby it does not have to come across from the Barnett formula for the reason of the excessive cost of the Irish Sea border. It is the Irish Sea border that has created the problem, so we need to ensure that we get a level playing field across this island, and these islands, particularly in specific areas.

One area that we need to look at is the hospitality industry. It is not just a question of differential VAT, which is important, but, if the Republic of Ireland goes back down to 9·5%, we should look at that and try to achieve it as well.

I think that one of our learned friends mentioned corporation tax. That is also a significant issue. Again, given the significant costs of the Irish Sea border, there is no reason why that should have to come off the Barnett formula, bearing in mind the peculiar circumstances that have been created by the Irish Sea border and that nobody in the Assembly wants or wishes to support .

I will talk about a few other issues that were raised. They are important. We have already mentioned air passenger duty and connectivity. People will be aware, of course, of the issue with Dublin Airport's capacity. Dublin Airport is at capacity. There is an opportunity for enhanced air operations on the island. The ideal place to do it — I declare an interest as an MLA for South Antrim — is Belfast International Airport. Considerable investment should be made in Belfast International Airport to improve the tourism product on the island. Many people in Northern Ireland would wish to be able to go straight into and out of Northern Ireland, particularly to the United States and other places. We should push for that as well.

On rate relief, I will make another declaration of interest — I think that it is my third —.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: It is your fourth. [Laughter.]

Dr Aiken: It is my fourth. There you go, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. I keep to the rules.

There is the important question of small business rate relief and the burden on small businesses. Many tourism and hospitality businesses are in the SME sector. The larger firms do not have the same degree of difficulty, because, as has been pointed out, they can spread their burden across other sides of their industry and business. For the SME sector, that will be critical. We have to look at that. I urge the Minister to look at it expeditiously and to push ahead with it as quickly as possible.

I think that I have wittered on enough. A bit like my learned friend on the other side of the Chamber, I have spoken an awful lot today. I am chairing the next debate, so I will probably speak ever more. I encourage everybody to support the motion. I thank my esteemed friend Diana Armstrong for bringing it to the Floor. Ladies and gentlemen, thank you for the debate. Over to you.

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

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: The Assembly may sit until 7.30 pm if necessary. Members may take their ease.

Mr Carroll: I beg to move

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

Gerry, please open the debate on the motion.

Mr Carroll: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. From the outset, I want to make it clear that the motion's call for a carer's allowance supplement scheme or carer's recognition payment is simply a token of society's appreciation of the work that carers do every day. In addition to a carer's recognition payment, what is needed is wider support for unpaid carers that includes appropriate services and respite care, as well as paid carer's leave. For that reason, I support the Alliance Party amendment, and I thank the Members for tabling it.

Unpaid carers are the invisible hand that keeps the economy going. The economic contribution of unpaid carers in the North is £5·8 billion a year. To put that in context, that equates to around 75% of the Department of Health's entire budget. The non-economic value of the work of unpaid carers is even greater. Last week and today, I had the privilege of hearing from carers and those who work with carers about their experiences. Some are in the Public Gallery today, and I welcome them.

I heard from Barbara, who is the parent of and carer for two children. She had to give up her job when her employer, the Civil Service, refused to allow her to reduce her hours. In the end, Barbara's request for just a two-hour reduction in her working hours was denied. Now, the only form of employment that works for her is self-employment. She struggles to afford heating, petrol for 40-mile round trips to the hospital and shopping for her children's specific dietary requirements. In her words, she feels completely forgotten about and ignored, and that is true for many carers.

It is also the case that some carers, especially those who care for an adult child with complex needs or for older people with dementia and whose caring responsibilities are so onerous that employment is completely out of the question, have to provide it 24/7, 365 days and nights of the year. Respite does not exist for those people. Their loved one's complex needs mean that they often provide what is, essentially, nursing care, yet they work far longer hours than any nurse, often just to keep their loved one alive.

I also heard from Deborah, a single parent who cares for an adult child with complex mental health needs as well as her mother, who has dementia. Deborah had to give up her full-time job as a nurse in order to care full-time for her family. Caring has left her physically and mentally unwell. She has been diagnosed with PTSD and anxiety. Unfortunately, there is a high level of PTSD among many carers; some have said that it is on a par with people who have been involved in fighting wars. Deborah said that she looks at the post every day to see whether there is anything else coming in apart from bills looking for money from her.

I also want to mention Brian, who is a constituent of mine but could not be here today. He is a carer for his mum, and his part-time job offered him a lifeline and gave him a sense of independence and purpose outside of his caring role. When he lost that job, his mental health suffered massively. He is now a full-time carer and struggles to cope financially and mentally. His universal credit (UC) overpayment deductions are absolutely crippling him. Universal credit insists that he is well enough to work, but his GP, the clinical expert who knows him best, says otherwise.

I want to mention the young carers whom I met today and the many young carers throughout our society who do Trojan work but are often patronised and dismissed and have to jump through hoops and over hurdles just to get basic information and, in some cases, services that they do not always get.

We have seen the number of carers providing more than 50 hours of care per week increase dramatically from 56,300 in 2011 to almost 69,000 in 2021. The state depends on those carers, yet, in reality, it does next to nothing to protect their physical and mental health.

As our health and social care system slowly collapses as waiting lists spiral and access to primary and community care is increasingly limited, the state relies on unpaid carers to shoulder the burden. We know and, I think, the state knows that those carers will not walk away from their responsibilities. I would say that the state exploits the bonds that unpaid carers have with their loved ones and pays them a pittance in return.

One in four unpaid carers in the North lives in poverty. For those in receipt of carer's allowance, the poverty rate is a shocking 46% — almost one in two. Moreover, 64% of people on carer's allowance struggle to afford electricity and gas, while 60% struggle to afford clothes and shoes. You could not make this stuff up. That is really no surprise when we consider that the carer's allowance provides just £81·90p a week, and that is for only those who provide unpaid care for at least 35 hours per week. That means, in reality, that carer's allowance is paid at a rate of £2·34p per hour — £2·34p per hour for a full-time job. Is that what we really think carers are worth?

A single penny over the earnings threshold of £151 a week means that a person will lose their entire carer's allowance payment. That is how the Executive treat the people who are propping up our NHS, our economy and our society. That should be a source of shame for every politician and every Executive party that have continually let carers down year on year.

A carer's allowance supplementary scheme — a recognition payment — was recommended by the independent review of welfare mitigations and the Carer Poverty Commission for the North. That would provide a payment of around £270 every six months, mirroring what is already in place in Scotland. It is critical that that payment is disregarded as income for means-tested benefits so that people are not penalised. A carer's allowance supplement would immediately lift 3,400 carers out of poverty and 2,500 out of deep poverty. For that reason alone, it is worth supporting such a small cost to the centre, to the Government and to the Department. The independent review of welfare mitigations concluded that a supplement would effectively target low-income households, women and families with a disabled child and, especially, families with a disabled adult. The cost of implementing a carer's allowance supplement would be around £26 million a year. My message to the Minister and the Executive is to get on with the scheme and implement it.

We need to see more than a token of recognition. What is urgently and desperately needed is proper investment in services for carers and people being cared for. For decades, carers have been asking for more respite services and for day services that are appropriate and safe for their loved ones. For those caring for adult children, when their child was in school, the school was able to safely care for them during the day, and that gave the parents a much-needed break — a chance to get a few hours' sleep, do the shopping or have a coffee with a friend. However, once a child with complex needs turns 19, the chances are that they will transition from school to being stuck at home, dependent on their parents, usually their mother, for care and company 24/7, 365 days a year. That is unfair and totally unacceptable for the carer but also for the disabled person, who has a right to be part of society and to have a break from their carer just as the carer might need a break from them.

Rather than an increase in respite placements and day services for those with complex needs, however, we have seen the number of respite beds being cut, cut and cut again. Whilst day opportunities, rather than day centres, may be best for many disabled people, for those with complex needs, specialist day centres are the only way to ensure that they have a social outlet and a place to meet people outside their immediate family. That is something that everybody needs and deserves. Without provision of those essential services, a carer's recognition payment will be just a drop in the ocean of what is really needed.

I pay tribute to the organisations that support and advocate for unpaid carers, organisations such as Carers NI, Action for Children, Barnardo's, the Colin Neighbourhood Partnership, Young Lives vs Cancer, the Women's Support Network, Alzheimer's Society NI, Cause, Action Mental Health and many, many more organisations and individuals.

Finally, I thank the 222,000 unpaid carers across the North.

Without your unseen and undervalued work, society could not function; it would absolutely collapse. It is time that your work is recognised, appreciated and valued and that you have the support that you deserve. I hope that Members will support the motion and the amendment.

Ms Mulholland: I beg to move the following amendment:

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): The proposer of the amendment will have 10 minutes in which to propose and five minutes in which to make a winding-up speech. All other Members who are called to speak will have five minutes.

Ms Mulholland: I thank Gerry Carroll for tabling the motion, which is really important and offers tangible solutions to the challenges faced by so many unpaid carers. It does not address all the challenges by any stretch, but it is a crucial starting point and highlights an issue of paramount importance. Like Gerry, I will focus attention on a long-standing inequity that has been ignored by successive UK Governments: the relentless struggle of unpaid carers in Northern Ireland, whose invaluable contributions are too often met with poverty, hardship and worsening mental and physical health.

Our amendment adds an important dimension and another solution by emphasising the need for a cross-departmental approach to tackling the issue. The challenge is inherently cross-cutting, which is why we also call on the Economy Minister to prioritise paid carer's leave as a fundamental component of the solution. Additionally, the amendment broadens the scope by urging the Department of Health to consider providing adequate access to respite services. A joined-up approach like that is essential if we are to address the profound challenges that carers face and deliver the real, meaningful change that they so urgently deserve.

As Gerry pointed out, there are more than 222,000 unpaid carers across our community. That represents one in eight adults. They dedicate their lives to supporting loved ones with disabilities, long-term illnesses or age-related conditions, and their contributions are staggering. The figure of £5·8 billion annually equates to 85% of the Health Department's entire budget. I loved Gerry's analogy of the invisible hand that keeps the economy up, but all that those carers face are immense challenges and insufficient support. The Carer Poverty Commission found that the poverty rate for carers in Northern Ireland stands at 28·3%. That is considerably higher than the poverty rate amongst adults in Northern Ireland who do not have caring roles, which stands at around 17·4%, and that for carers in the rest of the UK. That is unacceptable. I will outline why change is needed, how we can potentially bring about change and the enormous benefits such change will deliver not only for carers but for those whom they care for, their employers and our wider economy as a result.

Recently, I spoke to a woman who provides full-time care for her mother, who has advanced dementia. She described how her savings have all but disappeared. She relies on credit cards to cover her everyday essentials. The stress of mounting debt keeps her awake at night, and she constantly fears the bill that will come in that she just will not be able to pay. She told me that, despite all that, her biggest concern is ensuring, first, that her mum has no idea of the mounting debts and that she has everything to make her feel safe and comfortable. Tragically, her story is not unique, as Gerry explained. We know from the state of caring survey published by Carers NI in January that 28% of carers struggle to make ends meet. That figure rises to 44% for those who receive carers' allowance. Some 63% worry about their living costs, and 15% report being in debt because of their caring responsibilities. The system punishes people for stepping up and stepping in for those who need them most. It has to change.

Carers are not only grappling with long-term financial insecurity. Many endure daily hardship. According to the same survey, 58% of carers struggle to afford their electricity and gas, and 34% cannot afford food. Of those who struggle with food costs, 62% have skipped meals to ensure that the person whom they care for has enough to eat. A young carer told me, "I have had to turn down job opportunities because they just do not fit around my caring responsibilities. I miss out on so many other things that people my age take for granted, like spending time with my friends or saving to go to university, but my dad depends on me, and I would not want it any other way".

Too many carers suffer in silence, concealing their struggles to avoid burdening, or feeling as though they are burdening, those whom they care for. That should not be the reality of caregiving in our developed society. I want to change that narrative. Carers want to work, but barriers stand in their way. Our caring system sometimes forces them to choose between caregiving and earning an income. Many workplaces lack the flexibility that carers need. I know that that is not your responsibility, Minister, hence our amendment, by which we seek to introduce a cross-departmental approach. Even with the increase in earnings limit last year and the recently announced uplift, carer's allowance is so restrictive that many carers are forced to choose between reducing their hours or leaving their job altogether. That is why we want to see that cross-departmental solution. We have been calling for a tapered approach to carer's allowance, as with other welfare benefits, to give people that flexibility.

The survey that I mentioned shows that 55% of carers are in employment but that 75% find that balancing work and care is really stressful. Nearly a third have had to leave their jobs, saying that caring responsibilities have impacted on their ability to save for their retirement, therefore impacting on their future. That is not just personal inconvenience; it is a massive loss to our workforce and economy. Making those changes is not simply about fairness; it is about unlocking immense benefits for carers, the people whom they care for, employers and the wider economy. When we support carers, the ripple effects are profound: for carers, there is financial security, peace of mind and an improved quality of life; for the people being cared for, having happier and healthier carers means that they receive a higher quality of care; for employers, it means retaining skilled employees, reduced staff turnover and improved workplace well-being; and, when it comes to the economy, supporting carers to remain in employment could save millions, increase productivity and boost tax receipts.

We have to focus on practical solutions. The 'Policy measures to tackle poverty among unpaid carers in Northern Ireland' document from October 2023 highlights that one such solution is the carer's allowance supplement, which is mentioned in the motion. It could be a payment of £270, paid twice annually, mirroring the Scottish scheme. That model has been shown to help carers in Scotland to cover their essential expenses, reduce debt and improve their mental health and well-being. It enjoys widespread support among unpaid carers and stakeholders in Northern Ireland, who see it as an ideal starting point for reform. Crucially, the supplement would lift 3,400 carers out of poverty immediately, with that figure rising to 4,400 by 2033, reducing the deep poverty rate by 2·8 percentage points.

Equally vital are statutory paid carers' leave and flexible working arrangements. We think that those measures could empower between 4,800 and 8,900 unpaid carers to stay in employment, as reported in 'Making the case for change: supporting unpaid carers in Northern Ireland' from October 2024. In the Carers NI survey, 82% of carers identified paid carer's leave as being essential for balancing work and care. Those policies have the potential to save the Government over £40 million, with businesses benefiting from millions of pounds of savings from employee retention.

We have to reform our social care system in order to provide reliable, high-quality replacement care. In the survey that I mentioned, 74% of carers said that "affordable, accessible and reliable" replacement care is crucial. Expanding our respite services, domiciliary care services and day services, as well as having tailored support for young adults with special needs, would not only give carers the chance to rest but improve the well-being of those for whom they care.

This may be a difficult issue, but it is solvable. If we fail to act, we will continue to condemn carers to a life of poverty, burnout and isolation. If we take decisive action today, we can transform the lives of thousands of unpaid carers, giving them financial security, employment opportunities and the social care that they deserve. They are not asking for luxuries; they are asking for fairness, recognition and support. It is our duty to deliver that. Like anything in life, the more we give, the greater the effect will be.

Mr Gildernew: I thank the Member for tabling this important motion. Carers play a vital role in our society, yet it is fair to say that they do not get the recognition or support that they deserve. I have worked as a social worker with carers who have had to fight for every minute and penny of support that they receive. Providing care for family members who are elderly, disabled or suffering from chronic illness can be a time- and labour-intensive responsibility, which could be thrust on any of us at any given moment.

Caring for loved ones comes at a personal cost, physically, emotionally and financially. Many of our carers sacrifice their well-being to provide round-the-clock care, which can and does lead to burnout and isolation. As we heard previously, there are roughly 222,000 unpaid carers here in the North providing essential care to those in need and supporting our economy and health service through their unstinting commitment and dedication. The service that carers provide alleviates massively the pressures on our health service and on, for example, domiciliary care workers trying, in difficult circumstances, to provide the same service in the community. Unpaid, informal family carers are often forced to take time off work or to reduce their hours to look after family members, which can often lead to financial hardship.

The current rate of carer's allowance is £81·90 a week, and there is an earnings limit of £151 a week, so it is not difficult to see why so many carers are struggling financially. The British Government need to do more to support carers financially and ensure that they are fairly compensated for the work. One of the things that could be a game changer in supporting unpaid carers is paid carer's leave. That would allow carers at least some of the time that they need to focus on their loved ones without the added financial stress that so often accompanies the role. It would be a step towards recognising the value of their work and acknowledging that caring for others is not just a personal responsibility but is, indeed, a societal responsibility.

Another essential support to carers is respite care services. Those services are absolutely vital for many carers in ensuring that they are able to take a very occasional break, allowing them to recharge while ensuring that their loved ones are still receiving the care that they need. Those services are vital for preventing carer burnout, offering much-needed relief and allowing carers to maintain their own mental and physical health to some degree. Yet, in my constituency and others, respite services often fail to meet the needs of so many. On several occasions in the past few years, at short notice, people in my constituency have been subject to the withdrawal of provision altogether as a result of other pressures. Without respite care, carers risk becoming overwhelmed, which ultimately impacts on the quality of care that they are able to provide.

The Minister of Health needs to prioritise these services going forward and ensure that there is adequate provision of respite services across the North. It is a basic step towards recognising the value of their work and acknowledging that caring for others is a role for all of us.

In conclusion, unpaid carers are the unsung heroes of our communities. It is high time that we recognised and supported their efforts appropriately.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Thank you very much, Colm. Before I call the next Member to speak, I advise everybody that we have 10 names on the list. We are trying to keep within time, so, if you do not mind, I will not allow any interventions, and that will allow Members to make their points. Brian, over to you.

Mr Kingston: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker.

Carers play a vital role in our society. We recognise how challenging that role is for full-time carers and for carers who also work or are trying to gain employment. Across Northern Ireland, we have more than 220,000 people providing unpaid care for a sick or disabled family member, neighbour or friend. Carers do tremendous work caring for others. It is work that would otherwise need to be covered from the public purse. It has been calculated that unpaid carers in Northern Ireland provide care worth £5·8 billion each year. That takes huge pressure off public resources, and we need to properly support them.

I often talk to people who have factored the care needs of others, particularly family members, into their career and work choices, perhaps reducing their work hours or even leaving work in order to provide that care. While carers take pressure off the public purse, they can face significant financial difficulty. Carers NI has highlighted the fact that 28% of unpaid carers in Northern Ireland currently live in poverty. The DUP Communities Minister has taken action on that, and, from April 2025, the earnings limit for carer's allowance will rise to the equivalent of 16 hours, in line with the recommendation of the review of welfare mitigations.

There is significantly more to be done. However, finance is a limiting factor. Raising the weekly earnings limit further will enable carers to earn more money from paid work while retaining their entitlement to the carer's allowance benefit. However, we recognise that that does not go far enough.

In Northern Ireland, there are around 48,000 in receipt of carer's allowance, with payments worth £81.90 a week. A carer's allowance supplement scheme would cost around £28 million each year. It is estimated that a recognition payment would immediately lift 3,400 carers out of poverty. We will support the Alliance amendment, and we welcome all proposals to provide greater support for our carers. The reality, however, is that, on a practical level, a supplement scheme cannot be provided in the absence of additional funding from the Department of Finance, as is the case in any instance in which we break parity with the benefits system as funded by Westminster. It must be balanced against demands for Executive support for other agreed priorities.

The Minister is committed to considering the Carer Poverty Commission's recommendations, and, where there is bandwidth to progress additional support, the Minister will work with Executive colleagues to that end. Most important, support needs to be sustainable for carers and for the vital work that they undertake.

Mr Butler: I will highlight the indispensable contribution that Northern Ireland's unpaid carers make. There are around 220,000 individuals, nearly 60% of whom are women, who are the indispensable thread that helps hold our society together. They provide daily care for children with additional needs, as Mr Carroll points out in his motion, and care for the elderly, those with disabilities and those with chronic illnesses. Without them, as the Member for Strangford Kellie Armstrong aptly states in an article:

For that, we absolutely thank them.

Despite the monumental role that they play, however, our carers face significant challenges. Many have been let down by inadequate social security support, leaving them to struggle financially and socially while they dedicate their lives to caring for loved ones. The reality is stark. Carers are often forced to balance the demands of paid work with overwhelming unpaid responsibilities. That is a combination that takes its toll on them financially, socially and emotionally.

Today, I hope that the Assembly recognises those challenges and agrees with the motion and the amendment, both of which call on the Minister for Communities to introduce a carer's allowance supplement scheme, as recommended by the Carer Poverty Commission NI. Such a scheme would provide financial relief to carers across Northern Ireland. In relation to the amendment, we see value in a cross-departmental approach to support unpaid carers more broadly, including the provision of paid carer's leave and improved access to respite services. Those measures are essential in order to ensure that those who care for others are not neglected themselves.

In 2021, before Stormont was collapsed, the Ulster Unionist Party took proactive steps to highlight the plight of carers. The then Health Minister, Robin Swann, detailed a £4·4 million initiative, the support for carers fund, managed by the Community Foundation NI. The grant scheme was available to community and voluntary sector organisations with a charitable purpose and marked an important step towards offering our carers tangible support. While that was achieved via additional COVID moneys, the fund was indeed justified and perhaps offers us a template for how we can do better.

We must also acknowledge the often overlooked struggles of young carers. Many young people bear the burden of caregiving at a critical stage in their life. I apologise for using the word "burden", which is probably a cumbersome word, because they do not see it as a burden. It is an honour to provide care, but the reality is, as I have said before, that it comes at a financial, social and sometimes emotional cost. Studies show that many of those young people — as many as one in four — face serious disruption to their education and personal development. That cannot be right. If we passed any of those problems through a child's rights impact assessment, they would fail. Their futures are at stake. The Ulster Unionist Party supports the motion and the amendment.

Mr Durkan: I thank the Member who tabled the motion. The SDLP will support it and the Alliance amendment. Both could go further, but not every motion can do everything. My colleague Daniel McCrossan had been working on an amendment that does not seem to have made the cut. In that, we called for a carers' charter, similar to the one proposed by Carers NI, that would have gone further than the motion and the amendment. In June, my colleague Daniel McCrossan presented to the Speaker a petition with almost 1,500 names on behalf of Carers NI. It called for the introduction of a carer's allowance recognition payment as recommended by the independent review of welfare mitigations.

This issue affects 48,000 people in the North who struggle to make ends meet on carer's allowance. Carer's allowance is the main social security benefit for people providing unpaid care for sick or disabled family members or friends. It is available only to those who care for a loved one for a minimum of 35 hours a week, although, for a significant number of recipients, as others have alluded to, the caring role is around the clock. It is 24 hours a day, seven days a week and 365 days a year.

Other Members mentioned the lack of respite opportunities, and the Health Minister and we, as an Assembly, really need to get that addressed. People need the opportunity to recharge. In exchange for their Herculean efforts, carers receive a weekly payment, as Mr Carroll reminded us, of £81·90, which equates to less than £2·50 an hour or nearly five times less than the national living wage. It is hardly surprising that nearly half the people who rely on carer's allowance in the North are living below the poverty line. Over 40% are having to cut back on essentials such as heating, and one in seven of our carers have been forced to use a food bank. The shocking rate at which carer's allowance is paid represents nothing less than the exploitation of the love, devotion and dedication of those carers. You cannot put a price on that love, but look, as others have said, at the pressure that they are taking off and the money that they save our Health and Social Care system for one. A recognition payment will not fix the carer's allowance payment for everyone, but it would be a crucial starting point in delivering the financial support that unpaid carers need.

Carers need more than money, though: they need a charter of rights and more support. They need the right to live free of poverty; the right to regular breaks; the right to be treated as equal and valued partners in the health and social care system; the right to have access to education and employment opportunities; and the right to proper and timely information and support. Our carers make an immeasurable contribution to society across the North every day, and, in return, they deserve so much more than a social security benefit that forces them to go hungry and sit in the dark. It is time that government cared for our carers, because God only knows where we would be without them.

Mrs Dillon: I associate myself with most if not all of the commentary that has been made. You could not put a sheet of paper between what any of us are saying, to be fair. That is because there really is an agreed approach. As the Member who spoke previously just said, we need to show that we care about our carers. I thank the proposer of the motion, Gerry Carroll, and the Alliance Party for its amendment. I will support both.

We know that, behind every statistic on unpaid carers, there is a real person — someone who has sacrificed. We have listened to some of the personal stories today. They have sacrificed their financial security, their health and sometimes even their future to care for someone whom they love. The former US First Lady Rosalynn Carter said:

Her words are a powerful reminder that this is not an issue that affects a small section of our society. It will touch every one of us and our families at some point in our life; for many of us, that has probably already happened. Whether we care for a parent, a child with additional needs or a partner with long-term illness or we are receiving care, we all have a stake in ensuring that carers are supported, valued and treated with dignity.

Across the North, 220,000 unpaid carers provide support that the Government and our health system could not function without — as we have heard, nearly 60% are women — yet they remain an invisible workforce, undervalued and undersupported. According to WPI Economics, 130,000 people have been forced to leave work or reduce their hours because of their caring responsibilities. The evidence is clear that unpaid caring is one of the biggest drivers of poverty, especially for women. The reality is stark: the current system forces carers into a financial trap. If they work too many hours, they risk losing their carer's allowance; yet, if they do not work, they face poverty. That is why a carer's allowance supplement is so important. It would provide a financial lifeline to carers who are currently being penalised simply for caring. We have seen from economic modelling that supporting carers to remain in work reduces poverty, improves economic growth and leads to long-term savings for the Government. That means long-term savings for everybody who lives here.

While all unpaid carers face hardship, those in rural communities, such as in my constituency, Mid Ulster, suffer even more. Rural carers are isolated, often living miles from hospitals, GP surgeries and support services. Public transport is unreliable or non-existent in many areas, and broadband black spots mean that carers are often locked out of the digital services that could provide support. They have higher costs, greater travel burdens and fewer opportunities for respite care. If we are serious about supporting unpaid carers, we must address rural inequalities.

We also need to rethink employment policy for carers. Paid carer's leave and flexible working policies could transform lives, allowing carers to stay in work while continuing to support the people whom they love. As we all know, there is an inextricable link between support for carers and the failure to address the massive gaps in social care provision. Studies have shown that increasing access to paid social care services would help carers to return to employment, boosting household incomes and reducing the risk of long-term dependency on benefits, yet we continue to expect carers to simply cope without those essential supports. It is just not fair. It is economically short-sighted.

I commend my colleague Dr Caoimhe Archibald for her instrumental role in introducing the Civil Service guide, 'Supporting Carers'. That initiative is a significant step towards acknowledging and supporting carers in our workforce. We need a cross-departmental approach to carer support. We must ensure that rural carers are not left behind. Integral to that is focused work by the Health Minister to address the recruitment and retention of those who provide social care in our communities. We must also ensure that women do not continue to bear the financial and career cost of caring and that no one is forced into poverty simply because they care for someone whom they love.

Let this be the day that we stop failing our carers and start delivering the support that they deserve by working cross-departmentally in a genuinely joined-up approach to support the people who need us most.

Mr Bradley: I thank the proposer of the motion. I will support the motion and the amendment.

A recent report highlighted growing evidence that the demands of caring increasingly impact on carers' physical and mental health, with a further survey showing that lack of support and recognition from healthcare services is taking its toll on unpaid carers. Providing the support that carers need will require input from across the Executive in the areas of welfare, respite and employment.

Unpaid carers dedicate themselves to looking after others, providing valuable care, often at great personal sacrifice and cost. They cannot do that alone. They need regular and reliable respite. Remember, without the support of unpaid carers, our health and social care system would collapse.

Northern Ireland is predicted to have one of the largest increases in dementia prevalence in the UK — an expected rise of 51% to over 43,000 by 2040. The largest cost associated with dementia is the cost of unpaid care. Carers need more holistic support to continue in that role. Support for carers must be sustainable for years to come because, as our demographics continue to change, the situation will get worse. The common-sense approach for carers ought to be UK-wide, safeguard Northern Ireland's budget for public services and provide equity and cohesion across the United Kingdom. That is where the focus must be.

On a personal note, I know a lady who cares lovingly for her mother, 24-hours a day, seven days a week, 365 days a year. She has no family support. The things that we take for granted, she cannot avail herself of; that is, she cannot work. She cooks and purees every meal for her mother, who is lovingly hand-fed. This means that the daughter gets no trips to the hairdresser or to the shops for clothes. She is reliant on her friends to get groceries and to order and pay for heating oil. The daughter relies on anyone who is available to get emergency medical attention when it is needed. The daughter has medical needs herself, but cannot get to see a doctor. Those are just a few of the things that we take for granted, and they are only the tip of the iceberg of things that carers have to endure, especially those who care for elderly people for 24 hours a day, seven days a week. That is why I intend to support the motion and the amendment.

Ms Nicholl: I thank Gerry Carroll for tabling the motion. Support for carers, including children who are caring for parents or siblings, is absolutely vital. It is an issue that I first became aware of when I was Lord Mayor of Belfast and one of my charities for the year was Action for Children, which does amazing work with young carers. I had the privilege of meeting that support group. One case study keeps coming into my head. It involves a family with two kids, 13 and 15 years old, who are caring for their parent who is very sick and receiving cancer treatment. They do all the cooking and cleaning. They budget, and they help their parent get dressed. They try to manage and, as things get increasingly expensive, they live with so much anxiety. Then I thought of a friend of mine, who, over Christmas, made the difficult decision to leave her job. She is an unpaid carer for her child, who has complex additional needs. The time and energy required to provide the care was just too great to juggle with her work. She wanted to do that: she wanted to look after her child, and it was right for her, but she just did not have the support to continue doing more. Every day, there are people who are weighing up these decisions about how they look after and provide for their family, and, with over 220,000 people providing unpaid care for their family and friends in Northern Ireland, everyone in the Chamber knows someone in that position.

The more I speak to carers, the more I become convinced that, as a society, we need to change how we value care. Something that I have often said about people who work in childcare, in early years education, is absolutely true of unpaid carers: they do some of the most valuable work in our economy but are not valued enough for it. What do we mean by value? How can we ascribe value to the work of unpaid carers? I thought about what Mark H Durkan said about love and devotion: you cannot put a price on it. It is not just about economics, but there are real and practical policy solutions at our disposal that must be implemented to show how we value our carers. Providing paid carers' leave, improving flexible working practices and supplying adequate respite services are practical policy solutions that can help us square the circle of balancing care and work and deliver a fairer deal for unpaid carers.

The modelling from Carers NI shows that flexible working and paid carers' leave could, together, increase the number of unpaid carers in employment by between 6,800 and 14,700, help more carers who work part time move to full-time work and take on additional overtime. When I talk about unpaid care at the Economy Committee, people always come back to me and say, "I have just made that decision. I have just had to take that decision to leave work". Highly skilled people are having to leave the workforce because they just do not have the flexibility that is required.

The significant roles for Communities, Economy and Health highlight the fact that this is a cross-departmental approach, and that is not just desirable but absolutely fundamental if we are going to secure the support that our carers deserve. That is what the amendment is really about, and my colleague Sian highlighted that so well.

So many of the points have already been made, but I close by saying that carers are so often described as invisible labour. However, it is not invisible; we just have not learnt to see it properly. Therefore, having this conversation in the Chamber today is really important. Unpaid carers are doing work that would otherwise be taken on by our already overstretched social care system, but, more than that, they are providing dignity, attention and value to those who really need it. We need to see the Communities, Economy and Health Ministers setting out their approach and delivering on things that they have control over to better deliver for our carers.

Ms McLaughlin: I begin by thanking the proposer, Gerry Carroll, for tabling the motion. We will also support the amendment.

Unpaid carers are the backbone of our health and social care system, providing essential support to loved ones each and every day in our communities. Our healthcare system — our health system in general — is on its knees, but, if our carers were not doing the job that they do with love and giving dignity to those whom they look after, we would be in complete chaos and there would be collapse and failure at every level of the health system. Essentially, they are supporting the system as it stands. They care for the elderly, parents, disabled children, partners with long-term illnesses and those with complex needs.

I heard first-hand about the sacrifices that carers make when I recently attended the Carers NI 60th anniversary event here in Stormont. It was not only a moment to celebrate the work of Carers NI and those who go above and beyond in looking after their loved ones but it was a moment of reflection. I personally reflected on how our system would simply collapse if these unpaid carers disappeared and, despite the contribution that they make, just how far we have to go to support unpaid carers. The reality is that their work saves the public purse billions of pounds every year, yet they receive little recognition or financial support.

As the motion rightly states, many carers are experiencing acute poverty due to the lack of support, and many are forced to take on more and more debt in order to make ends meet. Many have said here that the burden of responsibility predominantly, but not exclusively, falls on women. I know many, many women who are providing care for a loved one, and that will be a cost to them when they reach pension age as well. Therefore, we are perpetuating poverty among women right through their lives. With the burden particularly and disproportionately falling on women, as I said, the Government have too often chosen to turn a blind eye to the financial challenges that those women have taken on board. Financial support is limited, with carer's allowance standing, as has been said, at £81·90 per week, making it one of the lowest benefits of its kind in the UK. Not only are carers unable to work due to their responsibilities but they are doubly prevented from doing so due to the earnings threshold, which caps their ability to earn money at £151 per week when claiming carer's allowance. The whole system is tilted against them, and it is government policy that has tilted that system against them.

I welcome the fact that the Minister plans to increase the carer's allowance weekly allowance limit to the equivalent of 16 hours at the national living wage. That is a step in the right direction, but it must be accompanied by a full review of carer's allowance to ensure that it is fit for purpose. As the motion points out, many parents of children with additional needs cannot access childcare that meets their child's requirements. That is another policy failure. It often leads to parents having to give up their career in order to provide their child with the support that they need. That trend is not helped by the cost of specialist care and therapies, which far exceed what is provided through support schemes. Ultimately, that vicious cycle forces parents to become carers and leads to further financial hardship and isolation. We must do more to ensure that carers are not left struggling, and that the full value of their work is recognised and rewarded. That is why we should seek to introduce a carer's allowance supplement. Across the water, the Scottish Government took that step in 2018. Such a step has been recommended by the Northern Ireland Carer Poverty Commission, which found that the introduction of the scheme would immediately lift 3,400 people out of poverty and lead to a 3·7% fall in the poverty rate amongst carers who receive carer's allowance.

Support for carers cannot be secured through financial means alone. As the amendment suggests, there is a need to provide wider support to unpaid carers —

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Will the Member draw her remarks to a close, please?

Ms McLaughlin: — through the expansion of respite services and the introduction of paid carer's leave.

Mr Gaston: I welcome the opportunity to debate the important motion. I commend Mr Carroll for bringing it to the House. Once again, a motion from this corner of the Chamber is shining a spotlight on issues that are too often ignored by the Executive parties and the official Opposition. This issue should not be ignored. I have no doubt that Members across the House can, like I can, think of specific cases — perhaps even in their own family — in which someone goes above and beyond every day to care for the needs of another. The motion, rightly, turns our attention to the fact that that is particularly the case when it comes to children with additional needs. It is also an issue in which there is a gender inequality: those caring responsibilities often fall to mothers. Many women, because of their dedication to placing the needs of their child before their own, simply cannot go out into the workplace, or, if they do, it can be on only a part-time or temporary basis, and only then if they can find an understanding employer prepared to work around their needs. Consequently, they all too often find themselves struggling to make ends meet.

A briefing paper from Carers NI that was issued ahead of the debate makes for sobering reading, and we should all sit up and take notice: 28% of unpaid carers in Northern Ireland are living in poverty, with 48,000 people in receipt of carer's allowance. As we have already heard in the debate, that benefit is worth a token gesture payment of £81·90 a week. That is available only to those providing unpaid care for a minimum of 35 hours per week, meaning that payments are worth a maximum of £2·34 per hour. Not only that; if one penny over £151 per week is earned by the recipient, they lose the entirety of their carer's allowance payment.

As I read those facts, I could not but reflect on the comments of a Member who told us last week that MLAs with young families struggle to get by on £52,500, which is £1,000 per week before tax, plus office-holder allowances. Members who sit on the Assembly Commission receive £6,000 a year on top of that. A member of the Assembly Commission earns almost as much on top of their MLA salary —

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Mr Gaston.

Mr Gaston: — as someone on carer's allowance —.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Mr Gaston.

Mr Gaston: I am making a comparison, Deputy Speaker.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Mr Gaston.

Mr Gaston: I am making a comparison.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Mr Gaston. Back to the subject of the debate.

Mr Gaston: As I was saying, Deputy Speaker, I am making a comparison —.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Mr Gaston. Back to the subject of the debate. Over to you.

Mr Gaston: Thank you very much. Is that strike 1?

I was making a comparison: a member of the Assembly Commission earns as much as extra salary as a carer gets in a year. My goodness. It is obscene that that is the reality.

Moving on, let us consider the situation in other parts of the UK. I note that, in Scotland, there is a carer's allowance supplement scheme. When a petition calling for a similar scheme was presented to the Communities Minister last June, he said that such a scheme would require support and funding from the Executive. Members, if the Assembly can find the money to propose that MLAs get pay parity with Members of the Scottish Parliament, there is money in the coffers to meet that modest request.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Ah, Mr Gaston, can you resume your seat?

Mr Gaston: I support the motion and the amendment.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Well done. You have sat down just as I was telling you to sit down.

Ms Sugden: I support the motion and the amendment. I commend Mr Carroll for bringing his first motion to the House after nine years in the Assembly, which is remarkable. The importance of the motion is to acknowledge the essential yet undervalued role of our unpaid carers. Thousands across Northern Ireland give their life to caring for loved ones, often at great personal and financial cost. They do not do it for recognition or reward, but that does not mean that they do not deserve more fairness, dignity and meaningful support from the Assembly and the Executive. As others have said, imagine what our society would look like without paid carers. The health and social care system in Northern Ireland would collapse; it is on the brink. We are taking their commitment for granted. Despite sacrifices, carers continue to be overlooked in our social security system. The reality is stark. Many are living in poverty, unable to afford even the basics, all the while providing the care that our overstretched health and social care system is not able to provide.

Carer's allowance remains shockingly low, equating to just over £2 an hour for providing full-time care. Worse still, strict eligibility criteria mean that many who dedicate themselves to caring receive no financial support at all. That cannot continue. This is not a financial issue; it is a moral issue. Were it a financial issue, we would be asking for more. We must ask ourselves how acceptable it is that those who give so much to others are left struggling to survive. I recently spoke to a constituent who had to give up her career to care for her husband. She had no choice. The financial strain has been overwhelming for her, and the stress of navigating an inadequate support system has only added to that. She is not alone in that struggle, as we have heard from across the House. I strongly support the introduction of a carer's allowance supplement, because the evidence is clear: similar schemes elsewhere, such as the one in Scotland, have made a tangible difference in lifting carers out of hardship. It is a simple yet effective way to acknowledge their contribution and provide some financial breathing room for those who give so much of themselves. However, as others have said, the debate has to go beyond financial support, because being a carer is not just a role. It is an all-consuming responsibility that comes without proper respite and support. That respite does not exist. A constituent who was recently diagnosed with progressive cancer has an adult son with learning disabilities. He is terrified about what will happen to his son, not least because he cannot get respite now whilst he is here.

People are being left physically, mentally and emotionally drained. Too many find themselves isolated, burned out and struggling to cope. If we truly value our carers, we must provide access to proper respite services, paid carer's leave and practical workplace support to allow them to balance caring responsibilities with employment, which is a significant part of their life.

The stories speak for themselves. Many carers go for years without a break, sacrificing their own well-being. In a modern, compassionate society, which we would like to think that we are, that should not be the norm. We must create a system in which carers are not forced to choose between their survival and the well-being of those for whom they care.

This is about principles. It is about recognising that, at some point in our life, every one of us may become a carer or rely on one. If we do not act now, we send a message that carers' sacrifices are expected but definitely not respected. I urge the Minister to explore bringing forward an additional carer's allowance. I appreciate the financial constraints, but we must start the conversation and get the ball rolling. I call on the Executive to deliver a cross-departmental approach that ensures that carers have the support that they need in the round.

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

Mr Lyons (The Minister for Communities): Thank you very much, Mr Deputy Speaker. I thank the Member for West Belfast Mr Carroll for tabling the motion and all the Members who have contributed to the debate. I was going to say a number of things in response, but many Members, from across the House, have already said them. We are, I think, united in this place this evening in recognising the value, effort and sacrifices of carers right across Northern Ireland. I add my tributes to those who play such a vital role in our local community. They give so much to others, and I sincerely thank them for the enormous contribution that they make to those who live with severe health conditions and disabilities.

It is evident that there are many root causes of the challenges that unpaid carers face. Support for that group is a matter that cuts across the remit of many Departments. My Department has responsibility for carer's allowance, the principal benefit in the social security system that is targeted at unpaid carers. We all know what the primary purpose of carer's allowance is: to provide a measure of financial support for people who give up the opportunity of full-time employment in order to provide regular and substantial care of at least 35 hours a week to a severely disabled person who is in receipt of certain disability benefits. It is not and was never intended to be a carer's wage, nor is it a payment for the services of caring. How could it be? It does not come close.

Since taking up my ministerial post 12 months ago, I have received a high volume of correspondence and responded to Assembly questions for oral and written answer about carer issues and about the carer's allowance being reformed. I have heard many calls for the eligibility criteria and the main rules for receiving the benefit to be reviewed, as well as requests for the weekly rate to be increased significantly or for top-up payments to be provided. It is therefore important that I highlight the parameters within which the social security system here operates. We are aware of the legislative framework, which places a duty on the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions and me to seek to maintain a single system of social security between the two jurisdictions. That legislative framework, combined with the statement of funding policy, means that we are fully funded by the UK Government for benefit costs, as long as parity is maintained. Any deviation that involves additional expenditure needs to be met out of the Northern Ireland block grant and must compete with other Executive priorities.

Carer's allowance has one of the most complex interactions with other benefits in the social security system. Any decision to diverge from parity could have significant financial and other administrative implications. I assure Members, however, that I recognise the challenges that many unpaid carers face, such as balancing employment with caring responsibilities. As was mentioned, the Government announced in the recent Budget that, from April, the weekly earnings limit for carer's allowance will be linked to a formula that is equivalent to 16 times the rate of the national living wage. That means that, from April, the weekly earnings threshold will increase from £151 to £196. It is the largest increase in the earnings limit since the benefit was introduced in 1976. It will enable carers to earn more money from paid work while remaining eligible for the benefit. I confirm that my Department will shortly introduce legislation to ensure that carers in Northern Ireland benefit from that important change to carer's allowance. It is estimated that around 2,500 more carers will be able to access carer's allowance by 2029-2030 as a result of that change.

Of course, carer's allowance is not the only financial support that is available to unpaid carers. Depending on individual circumstances, a carer may be eligible for a range of help through the welfare system. Those carers who are on a low income may be able to access additional financial support through income-related benefits, such as UC. Those benefits also include extra premiums and elements for caring. It is also important that unpaid carers be aware of my Department's Make the Call service, which can carry out an entitlement check to ensure that people are accessing all the benefits, supports and services that are available to them. I ask that Members be aware of that service and use it, because we have been able to leverage tens of millions of pounds in additional support for people across Northern Ireland through it.

Recommendations relating to additional support for carers in Northern Ireland were made in the independent advisory panel's report on the future of welfare mitigations, which was published in October 2022. Those measures include the introduction of carer recognition payments, which would be paid twice a year, similar to the carer's allowance supplement that is paid in Scotland. The latest estimated cost for a carer recognition payment is £90·18 million over a three-year period from 2025-26. That does not include administrative costs. Any future mitigation package, including further support for carers, will need to be assessed in the current financial climate, taking into account other priorities across my Department and the requirement to ensure that budgets remain sustainable over the coming years. However, I have heard what has been said in the Chamber today. I recognise as well the cross-party support that has been expressed for the move. However, ultimately, it will be for the Executive to decide on any future mitigation package and to consider the allocation of the additional funding that that might require.

Last month, I met representatives from Carers NI, and we discussed a number of issues that impact on carers, including carer poverty. We know that poverty is complex and multifaceted, and addressing its root causes is a key priority for me. Given the fact that responsibility for supporting carers is a cross-cutting matter, I agree that a better coordinated approach is needed across Departments, whether that is through the anti-poverty strategy or strategies that are specific to the needs of unpaid carers. My Department is already involved with the cross-departmental senior officials group for unpaid carers, which was established by the Department of Health and provides a forum for an integrated, cross-government approach to supporting unpaid carers. That group will identify opportunities for collaboration and develop a work plan to meet cross-departmental objectives.

I remain committed to developing effective and sustainable solutions to tackle poverty, in all its forms, for our communities right across Northern Ireland through the implementation of a robust anti-poverty strategy that will aim to address poverty and the impacts of socio-economic disadvantage. It will set out the Executive's commitment to a joined-up, long-term approach to address poverty while prioritising the issues that make a tangible difference to people's lives, including those of our young people.

While my Department is leading on the anti-poverty strategy, it remains an Executive strategy, and final decisions on the content and implementation will be subject to Executive agreement, but I am committed to working with all my Executive colleagues to ensure that it is taken forward in the most effective way possible. We need to take account of departmental budget allocations and develop a prioritised and deliverable strategy action plan. A cross-departmental working group has been established, and DFC officials are engaging with senior officials across all Departments to identify key actions that will have a meaningful and lasting impact on socio-economic disadvantage in our society. I intend for the work to be taken forward at pace, with a paper being presented to the Executive in early 2025.

I have listened to concerns highlighted by those in the sector, such as Carers NI, the Carer Poverty Commission, and by the local political community, including those Members who have contributed to the debate today, about the adequacy of the support that is provided through the welfare system for unpaid carers. I have seen the strength of feelings that there are for changes and improvements to be made. Therefore, I commit to engaging with the Department for Work and Pensions to highlight those issues and urge it to give due consideration to improving support for that group in our society. I am also fully committed to working with other Departments here to review the adequacy of the support that is provided across government to unpaid carers and to advocate for a more coordinated approach to considering the needs of that group, who undertake such a valuable and dedicated role when looking after some of the most vulnerable people. Thank you.

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

Ms K Armstrong: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I thank the Minister for his comments today. The number of unpaid carers across Northern Ireland has grown massively over the past five years. Looking at the benefit claimants extract from the Minister's Department, in December 2024, it says that 77,400 people are in receipt of carer's allowance. Others quoted figures such as 220,000. That shows that 35% of carers in Northern Ireland receive a carer's allowance.

Those people receive an allowance that is not means-tested but is deducted from the other benefits that they receive. From April, if you earn £197 per week — £1 more than the £196 limit — you will lose the whole thing. There is no easing into it or anything like that. It is just gone.

I declare an interest as a carer. I thank Gerry Carroll from the People Before Profit Alliance. Gerry, you do not get many motions in the House, and for you to commit your time for a carers' motion is much appreciated. I also thank my colleague Sian Mulholland, who has really grasped the subject and taken it to her heart. As we have said here with one voice, we all care what happens to carers.

I have been a carer for most of my adult life. It started with my disabled brother, who, sadly, has passed away. Now I have the joy of caring for my father, who will love me talking about him. I have to say that I am lucky as a carer because I can go out to work every day. The stress and pressure is difficult, but I count myself lucky because I am not one of the people who are sitting, like my dad used to be, at the beck and call of the person whom they are caring for 24 hours a day. They cannot work. My dad had to leave work at the age of 47 to look after his disabled brother when my mother passed away. That means doing everything from feeding them, washing them, dressing them, making sure that they have the right food all day and that they take their medication, taking them to doctor appointments — everything — to putting them to bed at night. For that, you do not get to work and are treated as somebody who, from April, is worth only £90-odd a week.

It is difficult to think that some of the most important people we have, who are delivering care in the community in Northern Ireland — the real care in the community that was all planned for years ago in the reform of our health system — are being forced to live on the poverty line. The Minister has talked about the budget. I do not believe that it is solely a Communities budget issue; it is a cross-departmental issue.

I am delighted that there has been agreement on Sian's amendment, because, if you were to take the £5·8 billion per year that carers save Northern Ireland's health service and added to that the cost of domiciliary care to replace the 77,400 people and the costs for those people if they could not work at all, my goodness, we would be looking at a humongous amount of money. Why can we not afford what could potentially be £43 million for a carer's allowance? I calculated it out based on the figure of 77,400 and £550 a year; a bit like the Scotland model. It comes to £42·5 million. It sounds like a huge amount of money, but, as a carer, if I were handed £550 — now, I do not get carer's allowance, so I would not be included — that would pay for electricity and oil for the house. It would pay for groceries for my dad, not for me. Some people may be able to use that to pay someone else to sit with their loved one so that they can go and get their head showered for a while. It may pay for — I know rightly what carers are like — a new bed, part of a mattress or whatever for the person whom they care for. It is rarely the carer's intention to take money to use for themselves. However, in giving them that money, the Government could acknowledge their worth and tell them, "You deserve a break".

I have to say that one thing that makes me most cross when I go to a GP's surgery is that there is no prescription for respite for a carer, only for the person whom they care for. The carer could be at breaking point, at their wits' end and devastated, yet respite is not provided for them. Those people are left behind in the health service, and carer's allowance will be deducted from their universal credit. It is a kick every way they turn.

The Assembly should want to create a society that recognises, values and supports carers. However, the experiences of carers were shared in the Carers Northern Ireland report on caring in Northern Ireland now and in the future.

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

Ms K Armstrong: They said that the challenges that they face hit them every day. We have the opportunity, as one House, to speak on their behalf and to support them.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Thank you, Kellie.

Gerry, you have up to 10 minutes to make your winding-up speech on the motion.

Mr Carroll: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I thank Members for their contributions. I am in the unusual position where people are thanking me for bringing a motion to the House. I am happy to do it more regularly if people want me to. It has been an honour for me to fight for carers with the motion. Hopefully, we will have tangible solutions, as Sian said.

The motion and the amendment do not resolve all the problems, but all Members who contributed to the debate raised important aspects, including paid carers' leave and the financial difficulties faced by carers, which Sian and other Members mentioned. Sian and Linda Dillon spoke about carers being forced to leave jobs, which is something that I have been hearing about even over the last few days. A huge number of people have been impacted by that.

Colm Gildernew mentioned that carers' work saves the health service large sums of money and resource, and that sentiment was echoed by Robbie Butler. Colm advocated better paid leave arrangements for those who look after their loved ones, and he said that it should be a societal responsibility, not an individual one.

Brian Kingston said that carers play a vital role in society, but he pointed out that finance is a limiting factor, and that was echoed in some of what the Minister said. Brian supported the amendment; I assume that he supports the motion, and I am happy for his party to do so if, as it seems, that is the case. Robbie Butler also mentioned support for cross-departmental working. The amendment teased that out, which was important for the debate and for a strategy going forward.

Mark Durkan supported the motion and the amendment and talked about the Herculean efforts made by carers, which, obviously, is the case. He talked about carers facing the poverty level, and he said that the Government need to care for carers. Linda Dillon echoed that point, and it is absolutely true. She talked about the sacrifices that carers make and how caring touches the families of all of us here. It does, and, if it has not yet done so, it will. She also talked about how the welfare system does not support carers, and she hoped that this is the day that we stop failing carers; I hope so as well.

Maurice Bradley indicated his support and talked about the sacrifices of carers and how services would collapse without them. I thank him for his support. He also referenced a carer in his constituency who provides 24/7 care, 365 days a year. Kate Nicholl spoke about two young carers whom she came across a number of years ago, who were caring for their parent with cancer. The work done by young carers is a Trojan effort that is under-recognised and undervalued. She also mentioned an unpaid carer who had to leave her job.

Sinéad McLaughlin said that unpaid carers were the backbone of our society and that the health system, which is already on its knees, would be worse without carers. That is absolutely true. She also mentioned childcare, and I note that, today, a provider announced an increase in the cost of childcare of an extra £8 a day. I have already been messaged by a health worker who is considering leaving her job in the health service because of the cost of childcare. That is, obviously, a connected issue.

Timothy Gaston talked about the issues that come from this corner, shedding light on matters that are not being addressed by the Executive or the Opposition, and I tend to agree with that position. He talked about the inadequacy of benefits and support for carer's allowance whilst MLA pay is increased, and I also agree with that. Claire Sugden talked about people giving their lives to caring roles and responsibilities. She said that carers do not look for recognition or reward but deserve it, and I concur. She talked about the health and social care system being overstretched.

The Minister said a lot. I cannot go through it all, but he said that he supported carers. That is welcome, and Members expressed that support throughout the House. I and my party welcome that support, and I assume and hope that carers welcome it. The reality is, however, that there is a lack of support services, especially respite. That would suggest that, so far, that support is only rhetorical.

The Minister also talked about the difficulty of divergence in welfare support and payments. I would say that divergence exists and is already in place. There is more financial support available for carers in Scotland that is not available here. The motion proposes that such support should be introduced. Carers and people who work in the sector in England say that support and services are available there that are not available to carers here. There is already divergence, but it is divergence that does not suit people and their carers here. What is the point of devolution if the Executive are not willing to break with a broken welfare system that already punishes the poor? The Minister talked about finance as well, but I say that we cannot afford not to implement a support scheme.

I will make a few more comments before I close. We heard a lot of good words and warm words from MLAs and Executive parties about the invaluable work that carers do, but, over the decades, we have not seen much action from the Executive. The carers' strategy, for example, is almost 20 years old. The support for carers fund helped many organisations to run projects that provided vital support for carers, but, shockingly, the fourth and final funding round was two years ago. Short-term injections of funding into the community and voluntary sector will not cut it. Carers need long-term, sustainable services to meet their needs across the community and voluntary sector and the statutory sector.

In June last year, as was mentioned, a petition with 1,300 signatures calling for a carers' recognition payment was handed to the Minister. At the time, he said that delivery would be dependent on supporting funding from the Executive, and he said something similar today. If all Executive parties vote for the motion, which, it seems, will be the case, I hope that that can be considered support for a recognition payment — who will oppose it? — as well as a young carers' recognition payment. If cross-party support exists for the motion, it will follow logically that funding will come.

As was mentioned, the cost of implementing a carer's allowance supplement would be around £26 million per year, but I think that the Department has updated its estimated cost of all the additional welfare mitigations recommended by the independent review, including the cost of the recognition payment. The Minister should commit to publishing those updated costs. Assuming that the cost is around the £26 million figure, the Executive could find that in various avenues already. A sum of £3·4 million spent on temporary accommodation is largely going into the pockets of landlords and hotel owners. Invest NI is spending £20 million on companies with questionable human rights practices, to put it mildly. Executive parties handed over £73 million last year in rates relief to big companies such as Coca-Cola, Moy Park, Kingspan and many more.

Updates to the relevant IT systems should not be cost-prohibitive or complicated. The change has already been made in Scotland. I welcome the Minister's commitment to engage with the Department for Work and Pensions, but I suggest that we need to move at speed on the issue. I and many other people ask, "If the Executive are able to find cash for landlords, big businesses and arms companies, why can money not be found for carers?". That is a fairly reasonable question.

Some Members raised the issue of the gender dimension of unpaid care. That is an absolutely vital and important point. Those who look after our children, older people and those with physical and mental illnesses and disabilities are usually women, and young carers are often girls. For many years, women have been described as the shock absorbers of poverty. They lessen the harsh impacts of austerity through their unpaid labour, and it is labour. That includes unpaid care, which acts as an invisible subsidy to the global economy.

I commend the motion and urge the Minister to operate at speed to implement a carer recognition payment. I welcome his commitment to engage with DWP, but he needs to set up a scheme urgently. This is too important an issue to leave carers behind.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Thank you, Gerry, and thank you everybody for the debate.