Official Report: Monday 10 March 2025

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Before we move to the first item of business, I inform the Assembly that the Budget Bill received Royal Assent on 6 March. It will be known as the Budget Act (Northern Ireland) 2025, and it is chapter 1.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: If Members wish to be called to make a statement, they should rise in their place. Those who are called will have up to three minutes in which to make their statement. I remind Members that interventions will not be permitted and that points of order will not be taken on this or any other matter until after the item of business has finished.

Mr Kelly: A Phríomh-LeasCheann Comhairle, as you know, yesterday was a momentous day for North Belfast and the Reds fans across the North. The build-up to the final of the BetMcLean Cup was incredible, with thousands of fans getting behind the team and showing their passion and belief, and the players delivered when it mattered most.

The final was a testament to the grit and determination that define Cliftonville Football Club. In a thrilling match at Windsor Park, North Belfast's own Joe Gormley etched his name deeper into the club's history with his incredible 289th goal for the Reds. Joe secured victory in extra time, showcasing once again why he is affectionately known as "Joe the Goal". Let us also mention the young substitute Ryan Corrigan for his pass to Joe that helped to set up the goal. The victory, as they would say themselves, is not just about the players on the pitch; it is about every supporter who filled the stands, every coach who dedicated countless hours and every volunteer who worked behind the scenes. It is about the young fans who now dream of following in the footsteps of their heroes and the seasoned supporters who have lived and breathed Cliftonville all their lives.

In the spirit of good sportsmanship — there may be some Glentoran fans here; there is one who is brave enough to put up their hand — let us acknowledge Glentoran for its spirited performance. Such matches highlight the passion and talent in the league. As the achievement is celebrated, let us carry forward the momentum — the Irish Cup awaits. With the same passion, dedication and community spirit, there is no limit to what can be achieved. Let us continue the passion and support — support that the team has earned — and inspire the next generation of Cliftonville legends. Comhghairdeas

to the players, the staff and all the fans.

This victory is for them all to cherish. Up the Reds.

Mr Martin: I congratulate Ballyholme Primary School in my constituency on winning in four very different events over the past week. That is an incredible achievement across a diverse range of sporting and non-sporting activities. Ballyholme Primary School is my alma mater. I am proud that the school has retained the same values and ethos that I enjoyed whilst I was there, albeit a few years ago.

On Saturday, the boys' football team won the Gerry Armstrong Cup at Bangor Football Club. Yes: I am old enough to remember that legendary goal by the big fella for Northern Ireland against Spain in 1982. Then, the 10-and-under and 12-and-under teams both achieved first place in the relay at the Swim Ulster Primary Schools Cup and Championships. The school's gymnasts competed in the Northern Ireland Schools' Acrobatic Gymnastics Championships and were also successful. The under-11 pairs placed second and third in their sections, and one of the under-11 teams of six was awarded first place and will now go on to the British schools championship in Stoke-on-Trent. Finally, last Tuesday, the choir won the Barnardo's National Choir Competition in Birmingham Symphony Hall. Ballyholme was awarded junior winner in the popular music category with its rendition of 'Can't Help Falling in Love'. My wife wanted me to sing a few lines this morning, but I think that that is probably a bridge too far for the Assembly.

Those outstanding achievements all happened in the course of a week. I congratulate the pupils who took part; the principal, Pamela Rothwell; the teaching staff; and the families behind those pupils, who sacrifice so much in pursuit of excellence. Well done, Ballyholme.

Ms Bradshaw: The COVID Day of Reflection is important not just because of the huge sense of loss that we all feel but because of how we should better prepare ourselves for when, inevitably, the next pandemic strikes. It is a day when we think about the families and friends of the 3,445 people who died here in Northern Ireland directly as a result of the virus. It is also a day when we reflect on the sacrifices of our health and social care staff and front-line workers and the many volunteers who made that dreadful period just a little bit less distressing for us all, particularly those who were most vulnerable and marginalised right across our society.

We will all feel the sense of loss arising from the COVID pandemic in different ways. Some of us who lost loved ones during the pandemic, whether or not it was directly as a result of the virus, feel the loss of that loved one because of our inability to even bury that person with the full dignity and proper send-off that they deserved. That sense is not just about loss during the pandemic but applies to the lost opportunities and the sense that we were severely restricted from the lives that we wanted to lead. Educational, social, economic and countless other opportunities were lost. We also know that the impact on the health of the general population was profound and troubling. Life expectancy declined, mental health worsened and we are still living with the consequences of the social breakdown that we all experienced.

It is easy to play the blame game, but it is probably unhelpful. What is helpful, however, is to consider how we prepare for the next pandemic. Although the COVID pandemic came a century after the previous pandemic of a similar global scale, in a world where we are so interconnected now, we should expect the next one to happen before too long. The UK COVID inquiry notes early in its module 1 report:

There were two specific reasons for that. One was that the UK lacked resilience; there had been a slowdown in health improvement and health inequalities had worsened. In other words: the population was already simply sicker than in most comparable countries, and thus it was always likely that we would suffer worse than elsewhere. The other reason was that the UK — and others, it must be said — prepared for the wrong pandemic, basing assumptions on what would usually happen in a flu pandemic.

Today, we must all reflect on what happened in the past, but we must also commit to improving in the future.

Dr Aiken: As a declaration of interest, I say that I am the vice chair of the board of governors at Kilbride Central Primary School — a school noted throughout south Antrim for its strong school leadership and great teaching staff, in one of the most friendly and nurturing rural environments. In many ways, it is a thriving school. It helped my two daughters to progress to their secondary education. In short, it is a school that we can all be proud of, which lacks only one thing: a sports and assembly hall that could be dually used to provide proper dining facilities. That need was first identified over 30 years ago, and, indeed, in 2016, we even had a project agreed on, plans drawn and planning approval about to be made when the £450,000 project, which was then just under the £500,000 minor works threshold, was miraculously re-costed by the EA to £850,000 — a small matter of 95% out in forecasting.

To say that our school was sceptical of the EA's ability to project manage was an understatement, but, thankfully, at long last, with reason having been seen, our school was included in Minister McIlveen and then Minister Weir's school enhancement programme (SEP). I am thankful to those Ministers who, regularly, as the record in Hansard will confirm, reiterated our place on the SEP to me and other South Antrim MLAs in the Chamber.

We have now completed all the numerous EA hoops of tranches, planning rounds, endless meetings on the process, detailed architect drawings and design approval, and we had even got to site surveys and ground sampling. All that we waited for was the passing of the business case. We waited, and we waited, until Friday, when, after delaying the meeting with the school — wait for it — the Education Authority's officer — the project senior responsible owner, major capital delivery service, infrastructure and capital development — told us that, as was communicated at the steering group meeting on 7 March, the RIBA stage 1 technical feasibility report was issued for business case preparations on 6 December and that, due to other prioritisation on some unidentified projects, after three decades, we are being put on hold again.

Today, I have written to the Minister of Education to ask him when the policy on SEP was changed to exclude our school and, if so, when MLAs were informed about it. I have also asked, a matter of urgency, whether he and Mr Pengelly, the chief executive officer of the Education Authority, will meet our school, including its governors and parents, to explain, please, in plain English what his quango's Orwellian speak actually means. I also ask the Minister to critically examine the EA and ask why thousands of pounds of work, consultancy fees and architect's fees have been wasted yet again. We might also ask the Comptroller and Auditor General to examine the EA's costs, which, by this stage, are in all likelihood in excess of what it would have taken to build the hall in the first place.

Mr O'Toole: Today, I warmly and delightedly welcome the fact that the Fleadh Cheoil na hÉireann will come to the great city of Belfast next year. It is the 75th anniversary of the Fleadh Cheoil na hÉireann. In 2026, it will come to the North for only the second time and, for the first time, to this brilliant city — Ireland's second city — which is rich in Irish traditional music and dance and a whole range of dance and culture. The news comes after enormous hard work, particularly from Comhaltas Ceoltóirí Éireannn in Ards and Belfast and a range of others, to deliver it to this city. It will be amazing for Belfast's economy. It will bring hundreds of thousands of musicians, dancers and people who just want to participate in the festivities and the culture. It will be truly brilliant.

Anyone who has been to a Fleadh Cheoil — there was famously a terrific one in Derry in 2013; the first one ever to come to the North — will know how amazing an experience it is. It is truly a huge opportunity for Belfast. It is also an opportunity for us to proudly put on display the diversity of culture in this city. I acknowledge and indeed point to 2013 when the Londonderry Bands Forum was a huge and emotionally resonant part of the fleadh in Derry. I am sure that that level of pluralism will be on display in Belfast when the whole island of Ireland and, indeed, the whole world will see the extraordinary diversity of culture on this island and the way that the city best embodies that extraordinary culture.

I look forward to the hundreds of events, to the tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of visitors, to the economic contribution and to the huge cultural impact that the fleadh will have.

With your indulgence, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker, I will use the time that is left to me to acknowledge the passing of a very significant figure in Down GAA: the former Down county chairman Eamonn O'Toole, who is my uncle. Eamonn passed away in the past day. As well as being president of Loughinisland Gaelic Athletic Club (GAC), a club that he helped shape over the past half century and more, he was chairman of the Down county board at the turn of century, a role that he carried out in a reforming and significant way. As well as being a profound loss to his family, who are deeply proud of him, and to the community in Loughinisland, he is an illustration of the amazing contribution that Gaels make to their community and of the amount of energy, patience, diplomacy, volunteerism and service that the GAA embodies. He gave a huge part of his life to serving his community and to building the GAA in Loughinisland, Down and, indeed, Ulster. He was also a civil servant of long standing in the Department of Education and is held in much regard.

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

Mr O'Toole: Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker.

Mr Carroll: Last week, a £1·6 billion deal with Thales for 5,000 air-defence missiles was announced. The deal will involve the creation of 200 new jobs —

Some Members: Hear, hear.

Mr Carroll: — and the opening of a third Thales site in the North. The contract will be funded by a deal that is underwritten by UK Export Finance. Last October, the UK Government announced that UK Export Finance:

There you have it. Invest NI has handed over more than £14 million of taxpayers' money to Thales, which —

Some Members: Hear, hear.

Mr Carroll: — is a company that is owned by French billionaires. The Members to my right hesitate to talk about that.

The deal is not about creating jobs in the North or bolstering Ukraine's defence against Russia but about the control of natural resources and the siphoning of billions of pounds of money from the public purse into the pockets of billionaires. On top of that, Keir Starmer has determined that he will increase defence spending by more than £6 billion a year.

Some Members: Hear, hear.

Mr Carroll: The Members to my right may not like to hear this, but, with £6 billion, we could abolish the two-child limit, reinstate the winter fuel payment and have £1·5 billion left to spare, yet the UK Government say that money is not available to do that. That £6 billion could alternatively pay for 26,000 nurses, 1,000 new ambulances or 28,000 social homes. There are no cheers to my right for that. People in east Belfast and across the North do not want boots on the ground and planes in the air. Rather, they want a social security system that they can rely on when they need it. They want safe, secure and affordable homes, access to the NHS for their kids, and for their kids to be taught in schools that are not crumbling around them.

There are also questions for the Minister for the Economy to answer. What about the 'good jobs' agenda? Do good jobs involve the manufacture of weapons of war? Are those classified as good jobs? There are massive questions to be asked about a deal to create 200 new jobs in an arms company in a so-called post-conflict society. People who work in weapons manufacturing could quite easily transition to working in green and renewable energy jobs such as wind turbine technology, solar panel installation and energy storage. Where are the 200 jobs in green and renewable energy that would help meet the net zero targets and avoid literal climate breakdown? Instead of creating such jobs, Keir Starmer and others are pouring fuel on the fire of imperialist competition in Europe.

Polling suggests that the people of Ukraine want a ceasefire. We are always told that there is no money for the poor, but that deal shows us that, once again, there is always enough money for war. It is no coincidence that, at the same time as Keir Starmer has found billions of pounds for war, his Government are set on a new round of cutbacks to welfare —

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Time is up, Gerry.

Mr Carroll: — and a further tax on our public services. It is time to stand up —

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: OK.

Mr Carroll: — and time to fight back.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Thank you.

Mrs Mason: I associate myself with Matthew O'Toole's remarks about Eamonn. I am a blow-in to Loughinisland — I have lived there for 12 years — from a neighbouring village. The villages are harsh rivals on the football pitch, but Eamonn was always so welcoming to me. I had many chats with him about history. I offer my condolences to Matthew and the whole O'Toole family.

The early years of a child's life are the foundation on which their future is built. Those formative years are the bedrock of a child's cognitive, social and emotional development, shaping their ability to learn, grow and thrive throughout life. Quality early childhood education is not just beneficial but essential to their future and the future of our society. Across the North, the non-statutory community and voluntary childcare sector plays a critical role in delivering that care, ensuring that our children have the best possible start. Despite their dedication, however, those providers face mounting challenges that threaten their ability to continue that vital work. I have spoken to early years practitioners who are deeply concerned about the future of preschool education.

The implementation of standardisation, whilst obviously well intended, has placed many preschools, statutory and non-statutory, in an impossible position. Some are being allocated standardised places far below their actual capacity, forcing them to make heartbreaking decisions about which children receive the support and which do not. No provider should have to choose between children who are in need.

Instead of focusing on providing the best care and education, non-statutory preschools are being pushed into financial insecurity, with the burden of rising costs falling on parents and providers alike. Meanwhile, unfair funding allocations, excessive inspections compared with those in the statutory sector and severe staffing shortages are compounding the crisis. The recruitment and retention of qualified professionals have become major obstacles, threatening the sustainability of the sector.

Those issues demand urgent action from the Minister of Education. If we are serious about delivering high-quality and affordable early years and childcare, we must commit to fairness, proper funding and genuine support for those who care for our young people. Standardisation should be about ensuring quality and access, not creating unnecessary barriers for families and providers. I urge the Minister to acknowledge those acute challenges and take meaningful steps to protect and strengthen the non-statutory early years sector. We must ensure that every child, regardless of their circumstances, has access to the care and education that they deserve. The future of our children depends on it.

Mr Brett: I associate myself with Mr Kelly's remarks. As a Crusaders man, it is hard for me to say it, but congratulations to Cliftonville on the win yesterday.

I raise the farcical issue of Belfast City Council's dual-language street-sign policy and abuse of the democratic processes at Belfast City Council. Just last week, survey results were returned for two streets in my constituency. A majority of residents who responded to that consultation opposed the introduction of dual-language street signage in their street. You would think that the parties opposite would respect the will expressed by those residents. Of course, that was not the case: the parties opposite overturned the democratically expressed view and imposed Irish street signs, despite the residents of the street rejecting them.

Belfast City Council spends hundreds of thousands of pounds carrying out surveys of residents. I pay tribute to the Alliance Party, which has been true to its word on the issue: when a majority of residents expresses an opinion, it supports that opinion. That is also the position that this party adopts. If a majority of residents of a street expresses a desire to have street signs in another language, that should be supported. What should not happen is for local residents to be asked to have their say and, then, for politicians to completely ignore that.

In Sunningdale Park North and Ben Madigan Park South, residents were surveyed three times. Not content with the first answer, the parties opposite asked that we resurvey them. A majority of residents again responded to say, "No, we do not want dual-language street signs". On the third time that they went out, it was rejected again by local residents. Instead of surveying them again, the parties opposite, which claim to champion equality and democracy, simply said, "We will no longer ask the residents what they want. We will ignore their wishes and implement the signage regardless".

If this were a unionist-dominated council, the response of the majority of residents was that they wanted a dual-language street sign, but unionist councillors opposed the will of the street, the front pages of the newspapers would say that Ministers should be dragged before the Chamber, and so-called equality organisations, which are publicly funded, would be out in droves. However, there has not been a single word on the issue. That exposes the myth that those who sit opposite stand, as they claim, for equality and democracy.

Ms Mulholland: I welcome the announcement that the world's largest festival of Irish music and dance is set to take place in Belfast in 2026. Fleadh Cheoil na hÉireann will be held from 2 to 9 August in Belfast. It will be only the second time that it has been hosted in Northern Ireland, with Derry holding the festival in 2013 and attracting 400,000 people.

I pay tribute to the Ards branch of the Comhaltas, particularly Niall, Bronagh and Mervyn, who have worked hard along with the Comhaltas in Belfast and Belfast City Council to bring the fleadh to Belfast to coincide with the 50th anniversary of the branch. A massive comhghairdeas libh

.

Dr Labhrás Ó Murchú, the director-general of Comhaltas Ceoltóirí Éireann, called the fleadh the:

He predicts that the Belfast event will attract about 800,000 visitors, including 20,000 performers from across Ireland and beyond. He emphasised:

He said that the experience over the past 74 years — this year, it will be 75 years — has been:

I declare an interest: I have two ceoltóirí beaga

in my house. Whilst there are evenings when I could do without hearing the 'Ballycastle Polka' on the tin whistle and the accordion, I see the incredible benefit that my children get from being involved in the Comhaltas.

The fleadh is not just a festival but a celebration of shared cultural traditions. The power of music, tradition and culture — whatever tradition that might be — is the unifying power of music, and it is so important. It could be the Irish fiddle and the Lambeg drum coming together for a truly unique session. For that, I want to thank and pay tribute to the work of Belfast City Council, which has already reached out to the Belfast Bands Forum and the Orange Order to ensure that the cultural legacy of the fleadh spreads across all traditional music backgrounds as a powerful example of how music can transcend barriers and be an example of celebration and reconciliation.

One of the fleadh's greatest strengths is its inclusivity, and everyone from seasoned professionals to young learners, like my two, have the chance to take part, which reinforces its reputation as a global phenomenon. People come to the fleadh not just to compete — of course, there will be competitions — but for the sessions, and the streets of Belfast will be full of music anywhere that a tune can be played.

Economically, of course, previous hosts have seen a significant financial boost. The fleadh in Wexford generated approximately €60 million, which benefited local businesses. There is a real opportunity to bring that to Belfast. Comhghairdeas libh agus fáilte roimh

will come to Belfast.

Mr McCrossan: I pay tribute to a local housing champion and outstanding public servant. Noel McNulty, who is from Strabane, served the Housing Executive and the people of Strabane for 41 years, which is an incredible achievement. Throughout those 41 years, he was there at first hand supporting with absolute kindness and compassion people to find quality housing and navigate the various challenges that they faced. Over the past 10 years, as a public representative for West Tyrone, I found Noel to be extremely accessible, very helpful and understanding of the various challenges that people face.

Noel's retirement follows that of Bernie Houston, who retired a number of months ago from the local office after over 40 years of public service to the people of the area. They were two pillars of the Housing Executive in the area, who will be deeply missed. Their retirement will be acutely felt locally: knowing that there is someone who understands the challenges faced by our local people has been an important aspect of the service.

On behalf of the House, I pay tribute to two outstanding public servants and wish them well on their retirement. On behalf of my constituents from right across West Tyrone, particularly the Strabane and Derry area, I thank them for their years of outstanding service. Forty-one years of service is quite an achievement, and I wish them well and thank them for all that they have done for the people whom I represent.

Mrs Erskine: I stand proudly in the Chamber today to mark Commonwealth Day, which is celebrated across the world. Today marks the day when nations join together in an act of unity.

The Commonwealth is an important and not insignificant body. It is home to 2·7 billion people and includes advanced economies and developing countries. Thirty-three of its members are small states, including many island nations. Countries continue to sign up to and join the Commonwealth. In 2022, Gabon and Togo joined the Commonwealth, so it is thriving, despite being one of the world's oldest political associations of states.

Events and activities will take place throughout March, including civic and faith gatherings, school assemblies, cultural celebrations and flag-raising ceremonies, including ion this Building today. It is wonderful that we can join the hand of friendship with those throughout the world. A special service will be held this afternoon in Westminster Abbey that will celebrate the diversity and unity of the Commonwealth.

This year's theme is "Together We Thrive", celebrating the enduring spirit of the Commonwealth family, which comprises 56 independent member countries that are united by shared values enshrined in the Commonwealth charter. The Commonwealth is rooted in the principles of family, unity and peace. Only together can we continue to promote those values and work to ensure that they are respected throughout the world.

I will finish with the important words of the late Queen Elizabeth II, who said in 1953:

Today, those words are more important than ever, as is the need to promote those vital values, including in this Chamber. I am proud that we are part of the Commonwealth and of the principles that it continues to hold.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Thank you. That ends Members' statements.

Mr Brett: On a point of order, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. I do not seek to challenge your ruling from earlier today, but, on the issue of the Comptroller and Auditor General giving a disclaimed opinion on the Department for the Economy accounts, which is an unprecedented step involving a huge amount of public funding, my question for urgent oral answer was not selected. Can you give me guidance on how the House can debate that important issue?

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: You are challenging the Chair. You would not have done that if Edwin Poots had been in the Chair. In fairness, I will ask officials to go back and look at that. You can certainly raise the matter at the Public Accounts Committee (PAC).

Mr Brett: On a further point of order, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: If you are you going to try to go for a further point of order that is not a point of order —.

Mr Brett: It is a point of order.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: I will decide whether it is a point of order, so I am just warning you. Go ahead.

Mr Brett: Madam Principal Deputy Speaker, I am not a member of the PAC, as you have just stated: that is incorrect. Can you provide me with guidance on how I can raise this important issue?

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: You are Chair of the Economy Committee, and you are a very competent MLA. Certainly, I will get information for you in writing on how you can raise the matter through one of your Members on the PAC.

Is that us? Thank you, Phillip.

Members, please take your ease.

Mr O'Dowd (The Minister of Finance): I beg to move

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

Mr O'Dowd: As Members will be aware, the order is made annually to set the regional rate. Members will also be aware from the written ministerial statement of 19 December 2024 of the regional rates levels on which the draft Budget was predicated. Those levels were agreed by the Executive in January to ensure that rates bills issue on time in April. Today's debate sees the Assembly undertaking its role in the annual process, debating the poundage agreed by the Executive and reflected in today's order. Before moving to the technical detail of the legislation, I will make a few points about the importance of the order.

The regional rate provides a vital source of income to fund public services. As Members will know, it provides a supplement to allocation via what is known as the "block grant" and constitutes between 4% and 5% of our overall spending power in the Budget. The regional rate is expected to raise in the region of £730 million in the forthcoming financial year. That will raise revenue that is vital to helping to fund our health service, childcare, education, public transport, roads and other essential public services and investment. The rating system as a whole provides significant revenue for both the Executive and councils, with well over £1·6 billion now being collected in rates — regional and district and domestic and non-domestic.

As well as the regional rate, the rates bill is made up of the district rates set independently by councils. Members will be aware that the Executive have no direct role in that decision-making process. This year, the Executive and councils had to undertake the rate-setting process in the difficult circumstances brought about by the Chancellor's autumn Budget at Westminster. The impact of specific decisions taken at that point on National Insurance contributions has led to well-documented concerns about increased costs for business, charities, the community and voluntary sector and central and local government. We are not alone in that, of course, with local authorities in England, Wales and Scotland increasing council tax by levels similar to the uplifts agreed by the Executive and our councils.

Given the impact of the Chancellor's autumn Budget on businesses, the Executive took the deliberate step of agreeing that the regional rate increases for our local businesses should be 2% lower than those for households. The 5% and 3% increase for domestic and business rates respectively in today's order is an attempt to balance the clear need to raise money for vital public services while recognising ongoing challenges for businesses and households.

I am also announcing today that separate legislation has been taken through by my Department to extend the small business rate relief scheme for 2025-26, thus continuing to provide about 30,000 ratepayers here, in a tax base of 75,000, with reductions of between 20% and 50% in their rates bills. That is just one element of the over a quarter of a billion pounds of support that is provided to businesses through the rating system. Later today, the Assembly will have the opportunity to affirm the extension of the Back in Business scheme and the rural automatic telling machines (ATMs) exemption, both of which were restored by my Department last year.

Looking ahead, for stats on businesses in the rating system, my predecessor commissioned an Ulster University Economic Policy Centre study of the ongoing costs of doing business. In light of the autumn Budget and once that work is complete, my Department will review two support schemes in the business rates system: the small business rate relief scheme and the non-domestic vacant rating exclusions. Those two areas have been selected to reflect the priorities of business stakeholders, and I am happy to prioritise them. I stress that "review" does not mean "removal".

For household bills, as I said, the domestic regional rate has previously increased at a similar level to the uplifts across England, Scotland and Wales; indeed, the increases in some local authorities in Britain are considerably higher, as all jurisdictions face the challenges posed by the autumn Budget. As an Executive coming into 2025-26, we continue to provide extensive support for businesses and households, including means-tested support for those on the lowest incomes.

I move to practical matters. The legislation before the Assembly reflects the uplift for domestic and business rates respectively that underpin the Executive's draft Budget for 2025-26. If the Assembly approves the order, it will mean that a domestic property with an average capital value of £123,000 will pay 60p a week more on the regional rate element of their bill. For businesses with a rateable value of £50,000, it will mean an additional £8·37 a week on that element. It will fix two regional rates in the pound for 2025-26: one for households and the other for business ratepayers. As I have said, the new rates have been set carefully to strike the right balance between generating income for vital public services and limiting increases as much as possible. The order; the extension of the small business rate relief scheme; continued industrial derating support worth over £70 million; the Back in Business scheme; and the retention of the relief for rural ATMs were all secured in the past year by my Department and the Executive. It represents our ongoing delivery, in less than 12 months, to strike that balance.

Our work continues in this area as we progress our strategic road map for rating, which was outlined last year. We will continue that process as we move into year 2 of the strategic review of our rating system.

A consultation is ongoing on making the domestic rating system more progressive, and reviews of the aforementioned business rates scheme will be coming up in the next weeks. How radical the improvement is will be a matter for the Executive as a whole to consider. For my part, I continue to progress policy to the point of Executive decision and build a progressive rates system based on the principles of fairness and equity, which aligns with and underpins the Executive's priority, stimulates our economy and supports the growth of our tax base by creating the conditions for businesses to thrive.

I move on to what is covered in the order in more technical terms. Article 1 sets out the title of the order and gives the operational date as the day after it is affirmed by the Assembly. Article 2 provides that the order will apply to the 2025-26 rating year through to 31 March 2026. Article 3 specifies 29·8p in the pound as the commercial regional poundage and 0·5294p in the pound as the domestic rate poundage.

I look forward to hearing the comments that Members make in relation to the order, and I commend it to the Assembly.

Mr O'Toole (The Chairperson of the Committee for Finance): I will speak first in my capacity as Chair of the Finance Committee and then in my role as leader of the Opposition.

I thank the Minister for his remarks. In my comments as Committee Chair, I will reflect on the scrutiny that members have performed on this order and then on the other rates orders that we are debating today.

The Committee has considered the statutory rule (SR) to stipulate the amounts of regional domestic and regional non-domestic rates that are to be used in the assessment of rates and the billing of ratepayers in Northern Ireland for the year ending 31 March 2026. Affirmation of the rule will facilitate rates bills being issued to ratepayers on 1 April 2025, reflecting decisions taken by the Executive for the 2025-26 Budget.

The policy proposal, in the form of the SL1 letter, was first considered by the Committee on 22 January 2026. At that time, the members received a useful briefing from the director of rating policy in Land and Property Services (LPS) on the current issues in rating policy, which included some items of subordinate legislation, including the SRs we are debating today.

At that time the Committee noted that, due to the legislative timetable and procedures to be followed for affirmative resolution SRs, it was necessary to consider the policy process in parallel to the Budget process progressing at Executive level. That is not ideal, but it reflects the situation that we often find ourselves in, where timescales are compressed because of a range of factors, including those external to the Executive.

At that time, when we had a discussion on the principle, there was broad consensus to support the proposed SR, but Gerry Carroll and I put it on the record that we would oppose this SR when it came to the Floor of the House.

Obviously, I will cover my remarks politically later on, and I am sure that Mr Carroll will too.

At that Committee meeting, as is usual practice, the Committee noted assurances provided by the Department in relation to the position in Britain, the regulatory impact and the financial impact. Obviously, Britain is different because there is council tax in GB for domestic payers. We also noted the regulatory and financial impacts.

The Rates (Regional Rates) Order (NI) 2025 was subsequently formally laid in the Assembly Business Office on 14 February as SR 2025/27, and, at the Committee's meeting on 26 February, members noted that the Examiner of Statutory Rules had reported on the rule and not drawn it to the attention of the Assembly.

At the same meeting, members noted information from the Department indicating that, for the purposes of funding public expenditure for 2025-26, the regional domestic rate for 2025-26 was set at 0·5294 pence in the pound and the non-domestic regional rate for 2025-26 is set at 29·89 pence in the pound, which, as the Minister indicated, is a rise of 5% for households and 3% for businesses. I again indicated that, in a personal and political capacity, I was not content with this rule; however, there was broad consensus across the Committee to support the statutory rule, and the Committee agreed to recommend that the SR be affirmed by the Assembly. Therefore, I can report that the Committee for Finance supports the motion to affirm.

I will now make some remarks in my capacity as leader of the Opposition. First of all, it is important to say that, as a constructive Opposition, we have always acknowledged the importance not just of our rating system in the abstract but of effectively using the revenue-raising tools that are at our disposal locally to pay for public services and to better manage our economy. The regional rate and the district rate, which is set by councils, are basically the only revenue-raising tools that we have in Northern Ireland. I will come on to talk a little about the fact that we have heard no clarity yet from the Minister or his predecessors about other revenue-raising fiscal tools that they would like to use, but we have heard lots of talk about them. However, as we stand today, the only tool that we have is the regional rate, and it is going up. It is going up by 3% for businesses and 5%, which is significantly above inflation, for households. It is important to pause and be clear with the people of Northern Ireland about that. If you are a householder, your rates are going up in real terms, not just in cash terms: you are paying more than the current rate of inflation next year. The Executive have agreed to that.

This, by the way, is the first substantive debate that we have had on the regional rate, which, as the Minister said, was brought to us in a written ministerial statement. The entire 2025-26 draft Budget was in a written ministerial statement that was delivered to MLAs without an oral statement and with no ability to scrutinise or challenge the Finance Minister or the Executive more generally on it. We still have not had that, by the way, because we still have not had a full debate on the 2025-26 Budget. That was slipped out just before Christmas when the Assembly had ceased to sit in plenary. Then, after Christmas, I found out via a written answer to a question that the Executive had agreed that regional rate: again, 5% for households and 3% for businesses. It is welcome that, although it is going up for businesses, it is at least being kept closer to the rate of inflation. However, it is going up. Households are paying more. I am sure that the Minister will say that that is in part to cover the costs of the additional employer National Insurance contributions, but the truth is that we still do not know exactly how much those will cost. We are told that the UK Government will provide more clarity when we get to the Main Estimates process at Westminster. That will not be until later this year, but we are effectively voting through an above-inflation rise in rates for the public in Northern Ireland, and we are kind of doing it today in a bit of a rush, having not talked about it in public. Well, the Opposition have talked a bit about it, and we have talked a bit about it in the Finance Committee. It is important to put that on the record.

It is also important to put it on record that, although the First Minister and other Ministers were keen to run away from the concept of revenue raising last year, when the Executive returned, revenue raising was agreed as part of the process between the Treasury, the NIO and all the parties that formed the Executive. It was agreed in black and white in the letters that were exchanged between the UK Government and the new Executive that revenue raising would be part of the process. The newly appointed First Minister said last year that she did not think that you could hit the people in the North with new charges when public services were in the state that they were in. Public services have not massively improved in the past year, but we are hitting people with new charges.

Let us be clear: we, as a constructive Opposition, have never said, "No, nay, never; don't ever look at taxes or at how you raise revenue"; in fact, we have encouraged the Executive to look at measures to raise revenue and take more powers here. We want them to take responsibility and be accountable for money that is raised here on the basis of a plan to improve public services, but we have neither of those things. We have a rushed-through regional rates order with an above-inflation increase, but there is no parallel set of clear plans to improve public services. I am sure that the Minister will say that that is all in the Programme for Government (PFG), but I, of course, do not think that it is. The Programme for Government comes nowhere near being a clear, targeted and time-bound plan for improving public services.

When members of the public, whether business owners paying non-domestic rates or householders paying above-inflation rates, are being asked to pay more, the least that they can ask is what that money will be used for. The Executive have not delivered that. Perhaps that is why there is a desire to slightly subtly sneak this through, without any debate until today's. The official Opposition will oppose the motion, not because we do not think that rates should be raised ever, but because an above-inflation rise is being forced on households in the absence of clear, deliverable plans to improve public services. I am happy to give way to any Member who can point me to where that plan is or to when people can expect to see waiting lists coming down.

I will talk about something that the Minister mentioned. As I said, we have encouraged more ambition on revenue and fiscal powers. We have heard lots of warm words and — to use an old Irish expression — plámás

about fiscal devolution, but we have had nothing of substance. I am bewildered that anyone serious could say that the answer to how you do rates better is to have a 10-year review cycle. There are few things in life or in any business that are reviewed on a 10-yearly basis. If you are reviewing something over the course of a decade and, effectively, giving yourself a decade to find out whether to do something, you are not serious about doing it. That is not just a platitude; it is gaslighting people. It is not taking responsibility. Householders, who face the above-inflation increase, are being told, "There'll be an above-inflation increase in the rate this year, but don't worry: we're looking at how it works, and we're going to review it perhaps in a decade's time, when we have a little more information". That is utter nonsense.

I will also talk about a couple of other things that have been said about rates reviews and fiscal policy. We have heard a lot about the fiscal framework, but we need to hear more about what is happening with it. A lot was said last year about how punishing the revenue raising increases were going to be. I have just got a response to a question for written answer that suggests to me that the revenue raised by the Executive after the restoration package was less this year than it was in previous years on the same measurement. I am intrigued as to how the narrative of great ambition and fundamental strategic review can be sustained. Everything that I have seen betrays a lack of ambition and a lack of a serious plan to reform.

Our vacant property relief, for example, costs us tens of millions of pounds a year and is much more generous than in other parts of these islands. Clearly, it incentivises dilapidation, because owners can sit on properties that are becoming ever more derelict and unused, getting further and further away from useful economic activity, and avail themselves of an open-ended relief.

That does not happen south of the border or across the water, but the Minister, and the Minister before him, have done absolutely nothing to review the situation. We have been told that there will be a 10-year cycle of review, but nothing radical has been proposed to improve our public services here, and there is no clarity or vision for the people of Northern Ireland.

When we got the Programme for Government last week, we expected it to contain at least some indication of how a Budget would be produced for delivery on a clear one-year basis, but the PFG does not even contain a Budget table for 2025-26. That is the Budget that is already in draft form. The Executive should at least be able to produce a table with two columns that show the Departments and their respective amounts of money. The document does not even have that, nor does it have an indicative multi-year Budget for the kinds of allocations that the Executive would like to make or say anything about what that would mean for spending, what block grant the Executive think that they might get and what that might mean for the ambition for revenue raising and for the additional revenue raising that the Executive think that they may have to do, for example, in order to rescue the health service or to start investing in waste water infrastructure. Those are the kinds of honest trade-offs that the Opposition have called for. We have not been desperate and opportunistic. Rather, we have simply said, "Give us the plan. Tell us how it is being worked out. Be honest with the public in Northern Ireland about the challenges, and we will work with you". We do not have any of that, however. Instead, we have verbiage, platitudes, vagueness and, frankly, gaslighting at times. We now have a forcing through of a —.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Mr O'Toole, I ask you to focus on the order being debated and not on the PFG more broadly.

Mr O'Toole: I am happy to take your guidance, Mr Deputy Speaker. I am coming towards the end of my remarks anyway. I make no apology, however, for connecting the Rates (Regional Rates) Order to our Programme for Government, because this is the only time that we come to the Chamber to debate a revenue-raising tool. We often come to the Chamber to debate non-binding motions. We table motions, and Members, including the First Minister, post on social media, "We are debating a motion on x, y and z" and expect the public to buy it. They expect people to like such social media posts. What we are voting on today concerns a taxation increase. It is serious stuff. It is what we come here to do. It is the power that we have. Members will vote on increasing taxation for people. In most democratic societies, the social contract is predicated on the idea that the people who get to vote through taxation increases tell the people who are being taxed what the plan is for using the taxation. I therefore make no apology for linking the order to the flimsy, flawed document that is the Programme for Government.

The Executive have not produced a clear, coherent plan. If they were to do so and say, "This is why we want to raise revenue", "This is what an increased rate will be used for" and, "By the way, we are doing this increase because we need to find other sources of revenue to deal with the crisis with our waste water infrastructure and to transform our health service", the Opposition would have to be constructive in engaging with them. The Executive have not done any of that, however. They have simply plodded along, gaslighting and producing verbiage and platitudes, and they are finally asking us to vote through an above-inflation rates increase for ordinary householders in Northern Ireland. There is now an Opposition to call that out and challenge it, and we intend to continue doing so. We will therefore vote against the order today.

Ms Dolan: I thank the Minister for bringing the Rates (Regional Rates) Order to the House. As the only major tax over which the Executive have control, the regional rate is a vital source of income that supports the delivery of our public services.

In setting rates annually, it is important that a balance be achieved between recognising the circumstances that local businesses and households are experiencing and providing funding that will help sustain the front-line services on which people rely every day. An increase of 3% for businesses and 5% for domestic rates, when combined with the district rate, will raise over £1·6 billion, which will be used to invest in areas such as the health service, education, support for parents with childcare costs and programmes that help tackle serious issues in our society, including ending violence against women and girls.

Recent decisions that the British Government have taken, such as raising employers' National Insurance contributions, have put an additional strain on businesses. The lower increase for them recognises that fact and will help mitigate the impact that another rise in operating costs would have on businesses that also suffered through the pandemic and that have suffered from high levels of inflation in recent years. Small and medium-sized businesses are the backbone of our economy, providing jobs and services. I am therefore pleased that other measures to support them with meeting the cost of rates, such as the small business rate relief and the Back in Business scheme, are due to continue.

As an MLA for a large rural constituency, I recognise the value that the rates exemption for rural ATMs has had in my community. It has helped that community to retain access to cash at a time when we see banks abandoning our high streets and villages. I am also conscious of the fact that many households continue to struggle with the cost of daily living, so maintaining measures that help protect the most vulnerable in society is welcome, as is keeping the domestic rate at a level that is sustainable and recognises the need to raise revenue to provide for our public services. I support the order.

Mr Tennyson: I support the regional rates order, and I will support the related orders that are before the Assembly today. There will, no doubt, be Members who will, in the course of the debate, oppose any uplift to the regional rate. I encourage any Member who takes that stance to articulate how they would fund their proposed approach. As others have said, rates are the most significant lever available to the Executive to raise vital funding for health, education and other vital public services, and a crucial funding stream for local government, in particular. Our focus should be on balancing value for money for ratepayers and the pressures facing hard-pressed households and businesses with much-needed investment in our public services. The Department's target on gross collectable rates for 2024-25 was set at 93%, translating to £1·8 billion by the end of the current financial year, and, in the 2025-26 draft Budget, it is estimated that rates revenue will generate almost £730 million for Departments.

Rates are not only important for investment in our public services; there is a requirement, from the financial package, for the Executive to raise £113 million from local funding streams. As a counter to what the leader of the Opposition says, that is a requirement that was not agreed by any of the Executive parties, but imposed on them, and there would be a consequence were we not to meet it, because that financial package has delivered an additional £430 million for our public services.

Mr O'Toole: Will the Member give way?

Mr Tennyson: I will, of course.

Mr O'Toole: The Member is right that there was no detailed discussion on this necessarily, but does he accept, and does he agree, that lots of the things that were done to raise revenue were not due to difficult political decisions being made, but related to uprating Ordnance Survey fees and hospital canteen issues? The idea that all of these difficult decisions had to be made is, therefore, a little bit outré.

Mr Tennyson: I am not going to comment on the difficulty, or otherwise, of individual decisions, but the reality is that there is an onus on the Executive to find that money. All Ministers need to look within their Department at the means that they have to raise money through the fees that they charge for services, for example, so that we get a balanced approach and minimise the burden that we place on people through the rating system. That is what has been attempted to date. I agree with the wider ambition in respect of going further with fiscal devolution and progressive revenue raising, but it is important to highlight the fact that there would be a consequence were we not to meet that target. The £129 million that was invested in GP services for multidisciplinary teams, the speeding up of our justice system and the demand for special educational needs, for example, flowed from that financial package and is dependent on us reaching our conditions around revenue raising. Therefore the decision that we are taking today is not an unimportant one. It is important that we take these decisions seriously and recognise the consequences were we not to meet those objectives.

I support the approach of decoupling the domestic and non-domestic rates, given the enormous pressure facing businesses as a result of the National Insurance hikes that were introduced by the UK Government: of course, part of the reason why the decoupling is so necessary is the huge cost that will be borne by the public sector in that respect. However, it is regrettable that we are, once again, considering a rates order in the absence of any meaningful reform of rating reliefs. It remains the Alliance Party's view that the strategic review of rating policy over 10 years lacks the urgency or the independence that is necessary to deliver a progressive rating system that is fair and supports economic growth. The Department should, instead, move to establishing an holistic, independent review of reliefs without further delay.

In addition, interim support measures are absolutely necessary to support, in particular, the hospitality, retail and leisure sectors, which have not been in a position to benefit from reliefs available elsewhere in these islands. Whilst I will be the first to acknowledge the huge funding constraints facing the Executive, it is also the case that failure to intervene now could be more expensive in the long term, as otherwise viable businesses go to the wall as a result of the pressures that they face. I hope that, in future years, the rates order is not the only means of revenue raising that we debate in the Assembly. I invite the Minister to update the House on his position in respect of the powers that he is seeking through the permanent fiscal framework, if he is in a position to do so.

Mr Carroll: The Executive have finally agreed an inflation-busting increase, but it is not a pay increase for our public-sector workers; it is a 5% hike to the domestic regional rate. Whilst the domestic regional rate has risen by 5% this year, the non-domestic regional rate has risen by 3%, which reflects the pressure that businesses face as a result of the National Insurance increases. However, I ask this question: why should ratepayers here face another hike — another increase — in their bills because of terrible UK economic policy? Once again, the Executive are doing the bidding of the austerity enthusiasts in London. Labour refuses to introduce a wealth tax, increase corporation tax or equalise capital gains tax and income tax, and the Executive have nothing to say on those matters. Rather than using revenue-raising powers at their own front door, such as ending industrial derating or completing the devolution of corporation tax so that they can increase it, the Executive are plunging people even deeper into poverty and destitution. How much more punishment can the Executive inflict on working-class communities? I am almost afraid to ask that question.

The Minister talked about a 60p increase in rates for some people. His figure was based on an average house price of £123,000, but the average price of a home is £221,000. He did not say that rents are rising faster here than in anywhere else in the UK or Ireland, having risen by 10% in the past year. Almost one in four children lives in poverty — in my constituency of West Belfast, that figure is one in three. The winter fuel payment has been cruelly stripped away from a quarter of a million pensioners, and it now looks as though sick and disabled people in the North will suffer because of the inhumane cuts to personal independence payments (PIP) and universal credit, yet people are still told to dig deeper in their pockets, even if they have nothing to give. The Executive parties show time and time again that they will bend over backwards to enable British austerity, whether it is done by the Minister, the Tories or Labour. The demand or call for revenue raising always goes in one direction: kick and hammer the poor.

It is undeniable that our public services need serious investment, but it is a lie that the burden of revenue raising must fall on households whose rates increase year after year. Why should working-class people be landed with the bill while Coca-Cola, Moy Park and Kingspan get tax breaks to the tune of £73 million every single year? A truly just and fair rates system should be based on income on profit, which another Sinn Féin Finance Minister has refused to implement. Doing that would see those with the broadest shoulders pay the most towards our public services. It is finally time for the rich to pay their way. The Minister and the Executive have not taken that approach, but they should. I oppose the order.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): That concludes the list of contributors. I call the Minister of Finance to conclude the debate and make a winding-up speech on the motion.

Mr O'Dowd: Go raibh maith agat, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle.

I thank the Members who contributed to this important debate. A range of interesting but, perhaps, not always accurate views was expressed.

The key to these matters is what we do with every pound that we raise through rates increases. It is never popular to come into a political Chamber and say, "I support a rates increase" or "I support a tax increase", but you have to put that in the context of what you want to achieve through those increases. The increases that the Executive and I propose will raise an additional £42·6 million. A total of over £700 million will be raised through the regional rate, and well over £1 billion will be raised through the regional rate and local councils' rates.

Let us look at the regional rate and put the additional £42·6 million in context. With every £1 million that we raise, we can employ 25 to 30 teachers, 25 to 30 nurses, 40 classroom assistants or 40 auxiliary workers. We can start closing the gap in childcare. Last year, we invested £25 million in childcare. Next year, we propose to invest £50 million in childcare through the Budget and £5 million through the June monitoring round. You can achieve none of those things if the regional rate remains static. You can make grandiose speeches and lambast the Executive. You can do all those things, but here is the reality: you will not have raised a single penny or increased investment in education, health, childcare or any other important matters that relate to our citizens' needs.

Mr O'Toole set out the Committee process. I welcome the Committee's work on the matter, and I note that it supported the order, albeit Mr O'Toole and Mr Carroll oppose it. Mr O'Toole went on to tell us about all the bad things that the Executive were doing and what they should and should not be doing. Nowhere in his speech, however, did I pick up on what the Opposition would do. If Mr O'Toole were standing in my place today, I wonder what the regional rate would be. Would it be 5% across the board? Would it be 4%, 2% or 1%, or would it be 0%? Nowhere did he tell me what it would be.

Mr O'Toole: Will the Member give way?

Mr O'Dowd: I will let you in in a moment.

He went on to tell us what is not in the Programme for Government or in this document or that proposal or the other. I put on record now that I am happy to sit down with you, Mr O'Toole, and work with you in a constructive manner on any proposals that you have on revenue raising or on the revenue or finance issues that relate to my Department. I will work with you constructively. What I find bewildering is the constant negativity about what the Executive should or should not be doing in the absence of any proposals on what you would do.

Mr O'Toole: I appreciate the Minister's giving way. He is generous and always up for a debate. He and I agree that there should not be a border on this island. I do not think that there should be a border in democratic culture. He will agree that there is a very robust Opposition in Dáil Éireann. In fact, they are fighting for more rights there. Does he agree that an Opposition to challenge Ministers is an inherent, core part of any democracy and that if it is good enough for the Irish people on one side of the border, it should be good enough for the Irish people up here too?

Mr O'Dowd: I am not objecting to your opposition; I am objecting to your style of opposition. I am objecting to the absence of alternatives. The Opposition in the South have to offer up an alternative Budget. They offer up an alternative Programme for Government. They offer up alternatives. I am asking you for the alternative. Today you are going to vote against £42·6 million extra going into the public finances, so the question is this: what are you going to cut from the Budget? The Budget is predicated on that additional money going into it. What are you going to cut off it?

Mr Carroll said that there was no proposal today for an increase in public-sector pay. You are wrong, Mr Carroll — absolutely wrong. Where do you think the £42·6 million is going? It is going into public services. In order to deliver public services, you need public workers. Public service workers have received pay increases over the past number of years, and there are proposals on the table for further pay increases. My first meeting as Finance Minister, by the way, was with the unions. I look forward to sitting down with the unions and others to discuss how we move forward in a three-year or four-year Budget and ensure that public-sector workers are properly and fairly paid in that period.

He talked about the other punishments that the Executive are going to impose on working-class communities. I am going to continue to invest in public services, just like the Executive did last week. We allocated £61 million to Health for multidisciplinary teams; £27·5 million to the Department of Education for special educational needs; £20 million and £2·9 million to Justice; and £15 million to the Department for Infrastructure's urban drainage programme and £3 million for its proposals on transforming planning. All those are for the benefit of the public.

As I said, I have no difficulty with there being an Opposition in the Chamber; in fact, I think that it could bring value, but it has to bring alternatives.

Mr Carroll: I thank the Minister for giving way. He said that no alternatives had been proposed. He mentioned the £42·6 million and asked where the money would come from. Is he content with the industrial derating policy that gives a handout of around £72 million a year to corporations, including Caterpillar, Coca-Cola, Moy Park and Kingspan? Is he happy to stand over that policy, or will he review it in order to fill that £42 million gap?

Mr O'Dowd: All rating policies are under review and will be over the next number of years. A saying that is very true, particularly when you are working in the Department of Finance, is that every action that you take has a positive and a negative reaction.

If I take action in one area of rating, what impact will that have on the sector in which I take that action? It may have a negative or a positive impact.

Whether I agree with some of the policies or international connections of some of those companies, all of them provide employment here. Every one of them is putting a salary into a home. All companies support workers' families and communities. When we talk, quite rightly, about workers, we need to support the businesses that provide the employment and ensure that they treat those workers fairly. I will not make decisions without fully understanding their implications for the broader rates base and the broader economy and their impact on workers' families and communities.

I again recommend the order to the House. I believe that we are presenting a fair rates increase for businesses and domestic customers. I accept that no one likes to place further burdens on taxpayers, but the challenge from taxpayers will rightly be this: what difference will it make to public services? We all have a collective responsibility — more so in the Executive, I accept — to ensure that our public services improve.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Minister, thank you. Before we proceed to the Question, I remind Members that the motion requires cross-community support.

Mr O'Dowd (The Minister of Finance): I beg to move

Before dealing with the order itself, I will set out the background to the measure. The purpose of today's legislation is to extend the Back in Business scheme, which was reintroduced in May last year. The scheme serves to incentivise the occupation of property on the high street that is long-term vacant — property that has been unoccupied for the last 12 months and is therefore highly likely to remain unoccupied in the absence of any incentive. The scheme was first introduced as part of a package of measures aimed at assisting ailing businesses and improving the appearance of our town and city centres after the economic downturn.

The original scheme provided a one-year concession that allowed a 50% reduction to apply for the new occupier for one year. That was available where a qualifying property had been empty for at least one year previously. In 2022, the then Finance Minister, Minister Murphy, amended the scheme to extend the duration of the 50% tax concession to 24 months in order to build a solid platform for new business occupations in the longer term.

The scheme is viewed as a vital step in boosting footfall for all businesses, new and old, and in helping to restore a vibrant business landscape.

Since last May, 31 new and expanding businesses have availed themselves of the scheme, and that number continues to grow, along with a greater awareness of the provision. Today's extension of the scheme will allow Land and Property Services (LPS) to continue to receive new applications to the scheme up until 31 March 2026 and, critically, will allow the revised scheme, which has been in place for less than a year, to become better established.

The policy serves to make a stable and substantive difference to helping grow businesses, particularly in our town centres and on arterial routes. Critically, it moderates the business rate liability in a difficult first two years of trading, providing businesses with some certainty about their overheads and helping them budget. It will also help them adjust to full rates liability in due course and grow the tax base. At the same time, the Department will generate the same revenue as it would have done had the property remained vacant. As was outlined at the time of its reintroduction last year, the Back in Business scheme is one of those rare taxation policies that can create a long-term win-win outcome. The Department has scheduled a review of the exclusions that apply in the derating of commercial property for the new rating year. As a Department, we hope that that process will build on the foundations established by the Back in Business scheme to address the issue of vacant commercial units in our towns and cities.

Members of the Finance Committee received advice on the detail of the statutory rule (SR). At the SL1 stage, Committee members indicated that they were content for the scheme to continue until 31 March 2026. Article 1 of the order sets out the citation and the commencement date, while article 2 provides for the amendment of article 31D of the Rates (NI) Order 1977 by substituting a new end date of 31 March 2026. I look forward to Members' comments. I commend the Rates (Temporary Rebate) (Amendment) Order (Northern Ireland) 2025 to the Assembly.

Mr O'Toole (The Chairperson of the Committee for Finance): I am pleased to speak about the Committee's scrutiny of the statutory rule, and I thank the Minister for his comments. The Committee considered the statutory rule, which provides for the continuation of the Back in Business rebate scheme until 31 March 2026. The scheme will allow any new business that occupies a long-term vacant property valued as a retail unit to pay rates at the vacant rating level of 50% for two years. The Committee first considered the policy proposal in SL1 letter format at its meeting on 22 January 2025, at which Committee members received a useful briefing from the director of the rating policy division in the Department of Finance on the current issues in rating policy, which covered some items of subordinate legislation, including the SRs that we are debating today. As is common practice, the Committee noted assurances that the Department provided on equality impact, financial implications and regulatory impact, as well as information on similar schemes in Scotland, England and Wales. Committee members also noted the Department's position on section 24 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 and on EU implications. In particular, I will highlight information that the Department provided on monitoring the effectiveness of the scheme. Members noted and, like me, welcomed the scheme's success in supporting 101 new businesses during its previous period of operation. Since its reintroduction in 2024, it has helped a further 29 businesses, with a good spread across all 11 council areas, and there are a further 13 applications in the pipeline.

At the briefing, the Committee was encouraged to hear about the work being undertaken to promote the scheme further in the coming months. Committee members were content with the Department's policy proposal. They agreed, however, to seek some additional information on what work had been carried out on vacant properties. At its Committee meeting on 19 February 2025, members noted work being undertaken to provide the scheme:

That work is aimed at allowing businesses eligible for both schemes to factor that into their planning. Committee members also noted information provided on the homes on upper spaces for everyone (HOUSE) programme that LPS has been working on with Belfast City Council. It is a targeted process aimed at gathering information from property owners, owner-occupiers, investors and developers who own unused spaces on upper floors in Belfast city centre.

The Rates (Temporary Rebate) (Amendment) Order (Northern Ireland) 2025 was subsequently formally laid, as SR 2025/29, in the Assembly Business Office on 14 February 2025. At the Committee on 26 February, members noted that the Examiner of Statutory Rules had reported on the rule and not drawn anything to the attention of the Assembly. Therefore, the Committee agreed to recommend that the rule be affirmed by the Assembly. The Committee for Finance supports the motion to affirm.

I will now say a few brief words in my capacity as leader of the Opposition. We support the extension of the Back in Business rebate scheme until 31 March 2026. As we have always said, we support any measure that helps small business, particularly a measure that helps encourage and incentivise the take-up of vacant properties. I want to make a couple of points that are germane to this order and, as they are connected, address a couple of points that the Minister made in the previous debate. I welcome the fact that we are having a debate: that is exactly what the Chamber is about. The reason we have an Opposition here is to force issues, challenge and scrutinise. Occasionally, that will prompt a response, which I welcome.

One of my frustrations is that we are not seeing more ambition of this kind. This is exactly the kind of area in which we should be seeing it. With the previous motion, we voted through an increase in rates. I accept that it is an inflationary increase — it does not go above the rate of inflation, as calculated by the Office for National Statistics (ONS) — but we did vote through an increase that will affect small businesses disproportionately. As Eóin Tennyson noted, there is a disproportionate burden on retail and hospitality on the high street. which we have accepted for a long time. That is at the core of so many of our communities. It is not just an economic question; it is one of community resilience and of supporting rural and urban communities, like the one that I represent. It is critical to how we build and sustain thriving communities in the places that we represent. This measure is a small but positive contribution to that effort. My only frustration is that it is a bit lonely: I would like to see a lot more measures like it. I would like to see a lot more ambition from the Finance Minister, and the Executive more generally, in supporting the high street.

We talk about the Back in Business scheme, which encourages businesses to take up long-term vacant properties and get a rebate at the vacant rating level for a two-year period. The other way of looking at that is to ask this: what happened for years and years in advance of that? Properties that have been vacant, sometimes straying towards or even falling into dereliction, have been getting a 50% relief the whole time. The Minister challenged me — it is a completely fair challenge — and asked, "Where are the Opposition's ideas?". I could spend the rest of the sitting day telling you about all the proposals that we have put forward. Last week, my colleague Colin McGrath made one on emergency departments. However, specifically on rates, we have said — I have said in the Chamber and outside it — "Let us look at reforming vacant property relief". Our vacant property relief is poorly targeted. Frankly, it sustains and incentivises dereliction and having properties lie empty. The Back in Business scheme is one small part of encouraging people back into those properties. However, the people who are taking up the property — those who are putting their capital at risk and employing people to open a business on the high street — get the same relief as the landlord who just allowed the property to lie empty for years and years. I accept that there are specific economic circumstances in which people who own properties cannot let them, but should we not look at reforming vacant property relief in order to redirect some of that money to encouraging, stimulating and incentivising more of the kinds of people whom we are supporting through this rates order?

There is a positive, constructive proposal that we have made before and that I make again today to the Finance Minister. I hope that he is looking at it and that he is looking at it with a little more urgency than the 10-year cycle. A 10-year cycle is such an absurd timescale. I wish the previous Minister had never introduced it. It is, frankly, taking the hand out of people who want to see the reform of our rate system. Saying that you need to review something on a 10-year cycle means that you are not really reviewing it at all, because there is no urgency and no real political deadline.

I strongly support the extension of the Back in Business scheme. However, it is one small extension — we need to see much more. I have given one practical proposal and suggestion. If the Minister were to introduce that on the Assembly Floor and it were well directed, he would have the Opposition's support. There: I have given him a clear answer, and we have had a constructive, useful debate specifically on that.

We want to see much more ambition. Bluntly, we want much more support for people who want to open hospitality, retail and other businesses on our high streets. At the minute, they simply do not get that support. They are the lifeblood of our communities, yet we place a disproportionate rates burden on them and clearly are not doing enough to support them. They face swingeing increases in employer National Insurance contributions. They will also have to deal with the costs brought about by the increase in the national living wage, which I strongly support, because it will put money back into people's pockets and, ultimately, recycle it back into those businesses and high streets, but it is a cost that those small businesses need to face.

Yes to the extension, but let us see a lot more ambition. All that we are doing is cycling forward something that we had. I welcome it, limited though it is, but I want to see much more ambition. I encourage and support the Minister to tell us when we will see that. The Opposition will support it when we see it.

Ms Dolan: The extension of the Back in Business scheme is a welcome intervention that helps to encourage businesses to take on new retail premises that have been lying vacant, thereby supporting the reinvigoration of our high streets. The closure of businesses in our town centres not only has a devastating impact on those directly connected but can reduce footfall across the board, increase the pressure on other businesses and put further jobs in jeopardy.

The reintroduction of the scheme last year was well received by the business community and has the potential to be more of a success in the longer term as it becomes better established. It is a tool to support business owners in what is usually their most challenging period. It mitigates costs for the first two years, which is when owners have to deal with the initial overheads to get their business off the ground.

I look forward to the continued growth of the scheme and to seeing it utilised by businesses to create more jobs in our economy and support the regeneration of our town centres.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): That concludes the contributions from the Members who wished to speak. I call the Minister to conclude the debate and make a winding-up speech on the motion.

Mr O'Dowd: I thank Members for their useful comments about the order. The scheme is an integral element in rebuilding the high street, as a number of Members referenced; in fact, the scheme was developed here and copied elsewhere. It was developed by my Department and copied in England, Scotland and Wales. The scheme was home-grown here.

Vacant commercial property is a blight on the appearance of our high streets across the North, as many Members have pointed out. By continuing the scheme, we can help to ensure that long-term empty commercial properties get another lease of life. That acts to improve the appearance of towns and create jobs in communities across the North.

The fact that the review process has taken over 10 years has been mentioned a number of times. That ignores the fact that we are looking at the individual elements of the rating system, rather than simply doing a review. We are looking at each element to bring forward decisions. Members might be interested to know that reviews were carried out in 2007, 2012, 2016, 2017, 2019 and 2024. We now need to bring forward proposals for action, and that is what I intend to do during my time with this portfolio. I will look at the elements of our non-domestic and domestic rating schemes, bring them forward for decisions and move on to the next programme of work.

I will meet the business sector later this week. I am more than happy to take a look at Mr O'Toole's proposal — we need to be imaginative and bold in our approach — but I will place on it the same premise as I used in the earlier debate: it will have to be evidence-based and data-driven, and we have to fully understand the positive and negative impacts of any decisions that we make not only on the rates base but on the broader business community and the economy. However, I am open to ideas and persuasion on all those matters.

The order before us today is a good measure, and, as I said, it has been copied elsewhere.

Mr O'Dowd (The Minister of Finance): I beg to move

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

Mr O'Dowd: The order serves to retain the rural automatic telling machine (ATM) rates exemption scheme for the 2025-26 rating year. The scheme is an important localised measure with the policy objective of sustaining the provision of ATMs in rural areas. Previous research and analysis confirmed that stakeholders wanted to see the scheme retained, and it was one of the key requests from business organisations in the run-up to the Executive's return last year. I recognise that, as my officials have advised the Finance Committee in its engagement on the issue, the legislation goes some way towards helping the retention of specific ATMs in rural areas. The statutory rule (SR) extends the scheme to the end of March 2026.

The scheme will continue to apply to stand-alone rural ATMs that are individually valued in their valuation list, for example in separate units, on main streets or completely stand-alone units. For ATMs that are located in and valued as part of banks or building societies, the value of those machines is subsumed within the overall value of the property, meaning that they have no stand-alone rates liability. The current revenue loss associated with the measure continues to be modest, costing less than £50,000 in forgone rates revenue.

Although a modest measure in its scale and cost, the scheme continues to assist the retention of rural ATMs, which are important to many of our rural communities. The Finance Committee recognised that. In the period ahead, as Members will be aware, I will launch a review of the small business rate relief (SBRR) scheme, and, as part of that work, I want to look at what further measures can be taken to promote and sustain access to cash in urban and rural areas.

I turn to the statutory rule. Article 1 of the order sets out the citation, the commencement and the interpretation of provisions. Article 2 specifies a later date of 1 April 2026 for the purposes of the definition of "relevant year" in article 42(1G) of the 1977 Order, with the result that the exemption will continue until 31 March 2026. Article 3 revokes the Rates (Exemption for Automatic Telling Machines in Rural Areas) Order 2024, which had previously extended the exemption until 31 March 2025, prior to the measure expiring.

I look forward to Members' comments, and I commend the order to the Assembly.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Mr O'Toole, I ask you to note that, should your remarks last until the commencement of Question Time, I will ask you to stop and you will recommence following Question Time.

Mr O'Toole (The Chairperson of the Committee for Finance): Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. Although I often detain my colleagues with elaborate speeches, on this occasion, discretion may be the better part of valour, and I think that my drawing my remarks to a conclusion —

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): That is impressive.

Mr O'Toole: — in time will be appreciated. Perhaps I will get some applause and maybe hugs of appreciation.

I will speak on the order largely for the Committee for Finance, and I may then say something extremely short in an Opposition capacity. There is widespread support for the measure, and I thank the Minister for his comments.

The Committee considered the statutory rule to extend until 31 March 2026 the rates exemption for separate entries in the valuation list associated with ATMs in designated rural areas. The Committee first considered the policy in SL1 letter format on 22 January 2025, when members noted that the exemption applies to any ATMs that are valued individually, for example those located outside petrol stations or on high streets. ATMs located in banks, building societies or shops tend to be valued as part of the building so are unlikely to be eligible. During that meeting, members again received a useful briefing from the director of rating policy on current pertinent issues.

Members also noted that the scheme is essentially about maintaining the ATMs that are already in rural areas; it is not necessarily about incentivising banks and building societies to put in new machines. It is an area in which the Finance Committee is particularly interested, given our current inquiry into banking and financial services. Whilst members noted that only 180 ATMs across Northern Ireland are valued separately and are on the list and, of those, 26 are in rural areas, which is 14% of ATMs, members also wished to be updated on any plan that the Minister may have on other measures to enhance the access to cash as part of the small business rate relief review. The Committee also had a general discussion about whether there is a case to provide an exemption for all separately rated ATMs, considering issues here with access to cash.

As per common practice, the Committee noted assurances provided by the Department on equality impact and financial implications, the latter indicating that the estimated maintenance cost for the scheme for 2025-26 is under £50,000. Members also noted that there are no directly equivalent statutory instruments in Great Britain and that the Department considered previous regulatory impact findings as still valid. Members noted the Department's position on section 24 of the NI Act and EU implications.

At the Committee's meeting on 22 January, members indicated that they were content with the proposal for the statutory rule. However, additional information was sought on stand-alone ATMs, and the Committee considered the response to that at its meeting on 19 February. Members noted confirmation from the Department that, in 2024-25, the average rating charge for stand-alone ATMs, excluding those entitled to the rural ATM exemption, was £1,399.

The Rates (Exemption for Automatic Telling Machines in Rural Areas) Order (Northern Ireland) 2025 was formally laid in the Business Office on 14 February as SR 2025/28. At the Committee's meeting on 26 February, members noted that the Examiner of Statutory Rules had reported on the rule and not drawn anything to their attention. The Committee therefore unanimously agreed to recommend that the rule be affirmed by the Assembly. The Finance Committee supports the motion to affirm.

It would be helpful if the Minister could indicate whether the Department is looking at extending the measure to other stand-alone ATMs that are independently rated. The issue is not just in rural areas. On the Ormeau Road, a famous and busy thoroughfare in South Belfast, my constituency, we are losing ATMs. There is an ATM in a shop that effectively serves as the ATM for a large part of the road. Exempting such ATMs from rating would improve access to cash. I draw Members' attention to the ongoing sterling work of my Committee on the banking and financial services landscape.

I commend and support the motion.

Ms Murphy: I thank the Minister for bringing the order to the House and welcome the opportunity to contribute to the positive impact that it will have on our rural communities.

The order will continue a small but significant scheme that grants rates exemptions to ATMs that are situated in rural areas. As an MLA for Fermanagh and South Tyrone, I know the essential service that ATMs provide in our rural towns and villages.

Rural dwellers still rely heavily on cash to access goods and services, and, in many towns and villages, ATMs are the only means of accessing cash. Many people prefer to use cash to pay for things, which is a personal choice that must be respected. Unfortunately, it is becoming more and more difficult for rural dwellers to access cash, as towns and villages across the North lose their ATM provision. In recent years, many of the major banks have closed rural branches, effectively abandoning communities and leaving them without face-to-face banking services. My home town of Lisnaskea lost its last bank branch last year. The loss of that bank has been a huge blow to the area and has caused much disruption to businesses and residents alike, leaving them with no access to a 24-hour ATM or a complete banking service.

Banking hubs have been a lifeline for many communities, but it has so far proved impossible for the community of Lisnaskea to avail itself of one. However, given the recent change in LINK criteria, I have lodged an application to have the town reassessed, which will, hopefully, provide the town with a banking hub and 24-hour cash access.

The cost-of-living crisis and the rise of large online retailers make it difficult for rural businesses to turn a profit. ATMs are an essential driver of economic activity on our rural main streets and have a key role to play in rural regeneration. The order is an important step in protecting the remaining rural ATMs, and I hope that it will also act as an incentive for rural businesses to provide ATM services in future. I wholeheartedly support the order.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): As Question Time begins at 2.00 pm, I suggest that the Assembly takes its ease until then. The debate will continue after Question Time, when the next Member to speak will be Diane Forsythe.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Questions 1 and 15 have been withdrawn.

Mr Givan (The Minister of Education): Since 2022, the Education Authority (EA) has been working towards a new model of delivery for its SEN pupil support services. This involves a network of local impact teams in which all the EA SEN specialists can work together to tailor support around the individual needs of the child or young person and their setting.

Each local impact team will be responsible for supporting the settings in their immediate geographical area. Each setting will have a direct contact route to a named officer in its local team. At the start of each academic year, each setting will have a strategic planning meeting with its named officer and its named educational psychologist. Throughout the year, the setting's special educational needs coordinator will also be able to request involvement from the local team, either in respect of a specific child or young person or in respect of training and guidance. Since January of this year, all such requests can be made via a digital portal, allowing schools to track the progress of the request.

In September 2024, the EA removed the need for an educational psychology assessment prior to requesting stage 2 support services, and an enhanced support offer was put in place for settings. The network of local impact teams will be overseen by a single regional management unit, which will be responsible for performance management, quality assurance, service development, administrative management and resource deployment across all the local impact teams.

Mr Harvey: Minister, how do the local impact teams fit with the SEN reform agenda and delivery plan?

Mr Givan: I thank the Member for that question because he knows, as do colleagues in the House, that I published the special educational needs reform agenda and delivery plan on 4 February this year. The reform agenda is about moving the focus to the actions that are needed to ensure that our children and young people with SEN can benefit from greater inclusion and receive the right support from the right people at the right time and, importantly, in the right place. This is the most ambitious programme of SEN reform in a generation, and it will see our children with SEN truly thriving in education. The successful roll-out of the local impact teams will be integral to that.

Mr Baker: Will the Minister tell us whether there are enough qualified allied health professionals (AHPs) available to the Education Authority to service the local impact teams?

Mr Givan: The Member raises the important point of AHPs being available. We are working on that not just with the Education Authority but, importantly, with the Department of Health. Those local impact teams are to be stood up and in place later this year. Some are making progress, but we want them all to be up and running. Having AHPs available is important for that. We recognise that we need to have more, and that is why my Department is working with the Department of Health to get a greater pipeline of allied health professionals coming through to support of the work of Education because where you have young people in settings that need additional medical support, we need to have health professionals available to carry out that work.

Mrs Guy: What is the Minister's assessment of what can be delivered in this mandate, following the allocation that his Department received from the transformation board to deliver on his SEN reform plan?

Mr Givan: I thank the Member for her question because she highlights the funding that was secured through the transformation board. It will provide some of the funding needed to get things started, but it is only a start. As I indicated in the Assembly, the SEN reform and delivery plan will require additional funding in the region of just over £100 million per year, each year for the next five years. The transformation funding comes to less than £30 million. Yes, it is welcome, but it is only a start for what we actually need to deliver. I will be able to provide more details as to the outworkings of that allocation in due course.

Ms Hunter: While SEN needs grow across the North, I am being contacted by parents, teachers and young people who are waiting up to four years for autism and ADHD assessments. What is the Minister's Department doing to quicken up these waiting lists?

Mr Givan: The Member raises an important point. It is why I published the detailed SEN reform and delivery plan on 4 February. We carried out the detailed work of the end-to-end review, and we have moved towards the implementation of how we are going to address these issues. I have indicated that we need to get to a place where we are providing those services at a much earlier stage through that early identification. We should not have to have recourse to a statement of educational need to get the support in place, and even when you get that, we are still not able to provide the support. The system has not been working, but the detailed plan that I have outlined will allow us to get to a much better place with the appropriate resources being allocated to it.

Mr Givan: I intend to bring a comprehensive and ambitious early learning and childcare strategy for Executive consideration and public consultation by autumn this year. While I understand the anticipation around publication of a strategy, it is important to reiterate the tangible progress that has been made over the past year. We have invested more in a range of existing early years programmes and embarked upon a major expansion of the preschool education programme. One of the key initiatives that I have introduced is the Northern Ireland childcare subsidy scheme, which has provided eligible working parents with a 15% reduction in their childcare bills. To date, the scheme has provided over £6·5 million in savings for working families. That is £6·5 million that Northern Ireland parents have in their pockets as a direct result of a scheme that we introduced just six months ago. When that is combined with tax-free childcare, it is estimated that those working families will have saved over £14 million since September 2024.

I am also pleased to confirm today that the scheme will continue into the next financial year without interruption. I am also aware that many childcare providers are planning to increase their fees over the coming weeks, and, in anticipation of that, I have decided to increase the monthly subsidy cap for the scheme by 10%. Additionally, I will increase the administration payments for participating providers in recognition of their increased operating costs and to ensure that those are not passed on to parents. The Early Years organisation will shortly advise providers and parents of the full details of those changes, which will take effect from 1 April 2025. We have made good progress, but there is more to be done, and I am considering what further enhancements may be possible within the allocation that I have secured in the draft Executive Budget.

Mr Blair: I thank the Minister for that reply, especially the information about the increase in the subsidy scheme cap. Further to that, going back to the strategy, will anything be included in the strategy to expand the choice of childcare available for children with special educational needs?

Mr Givan: I thank the Member for welcoming the announcement that I have made today about increasing the cap by 10%. We are building on the work that we have done. Work has started on the comprehensive strategy. We have got on with the job of delivering the measures that are now up and running, but there is now work to develop the strategy. However, because of the scheme that we have introduced, we now have data that provides a much clearer picture of the general market, such as the number of providers, the number of childminders in Northern Ireland and how much families are typically spending. We now have much better data as a result of the information that we have got through the schemes that have been introduced. All of that will help inform us, but part of that strategy has to be about supporting all our children, including those who have additional needs and require that support. Of course, when it comes to special educational needs, we have to make sure that the childcare strategy is representative of everybody's needs in our society.

Mrs Erskine: I thank the Minister for bringing forward the 10% increase, because childcare is so important. I know that because a number of parents have been in touch with my office, and it is vital for our economy as well. I thank the Minister for what he is doing on childcare while others are lacking in their development of initiatives. What initiatives will the Minister take forward with the £50 million that is earmarked in the draft Budget for 2025-26?

Mr Givan: I thank the Member for those kind remarks and for her campaigning on the issue. The draft Budget for 2025-26 includes an allocation of £50 million for the delivery of the childcare and early learning strategy. The Executive need to agree a plan before funding can be released to my Department. Although the £50 million is double what was allocated in the 2024-25 financial year, it is important to say that the previously allocated £25 million was to cover a seven-month period. People can do the maths about what that means. I need to plan for the next 12 months with the £50 million of expenditure, and I will give careful consideration to what is affordable during that period.

It is crucial that we also sustain the real improvements that have been made across all strands of the package, including additional support for children who face disadvantage and for those with additional needs. That will be a priority. We also need to continue the roll-out of the standardisation of preschool provision to remove the inequity in the current model and offer as many children as possible a full-time place from September 2026. That needs to be carefully managed, in line with the state of readiness of our school providers. Many Members have asked about those that have received an increase and about when those that have not will receive one. I can take forward the standardisation process only in line with the resources that are made available to me. I would like to do more. However, I will continue to roll out the programme for the next academic year.

Mrs Mason: The Minister mentioned childminders, which, as we know, are a vital part of the childcare and early years sector. Has the Minister engaged directly with childminders to hear about their issues with ratios? Has he engaged with the Minister of Health on the review of the minimum standards when it comes to ratios in particular?

Mr Givan: Yes, I have met the Childminding Association, of which Patricia Lewsley-Mooney is head, on a couple of occasions as part of the roll-out of the scheme. I put on record my thanks to that organisation. The scheme's introduction created some challenge for people to get the appropriate processes in place. The Childminding Association was very helpful in my doing that. It also facilitated engagement opportunities for me to meet childminders for them to relay to me the environment in which they work. Ratios, which the Member mentioned, was one issue that was brought to my attention. The Member, rightly, highlighted the fact that that matter sits with the Department of Health in terms of child safety and safeguarding, but, where we can make progress as to what is proportionate, we should do that. My officials continue to engage with the Department of Health on that issue.

Mr McNulty: Minister, literacy and early learning go hand in hand, yet the teaching of systematic synthetic phonics in England has coincided with decreased rates of literacy. Will you reassure the House today that you will not constrain effective learning and teaching to that phonics system alone?

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Minister, it is up to you to decide whether to respond to that question. It is not related to the primary question.

Mr Givan: I am happy to respond. That issue is wholly unconnected, but it is good to get the building blocks in place in our childcare facilities when it comes to literacy. The evidence indicates that the complete opposite of what the Member outlined is true. Systematic synthetic phonics has been the norm in England since 2006, during which time England has risen rapidly up the international levels. We have a strong phonics-based approach, but the evidence suggests that systematic synthetic phonics is the best approach to building a strong literacy foundation. The context for using phonics can also be applied, but the evidence indicates that the best approach to literacy for our young people is through systematic synthetic phonics.

Mr Givan: I thank the Member for the question. There are currently no plans for a new school build for Dundonald High School. The Education Authority's minor works team has advised that additional accommodation provision was completed at the school in September 2021, which was achieved through the refurbishment and reconfiguration of existing school buildings.

Given the current limitations on the Department's capital budget and the projects that are already in the pipeline, there are no immediate plans for a call for new major capital works. Should a future call be made, it will be a matter for the managing authorities to prioritise the schools most in need of major capital investment. Submitted schools will then be assessed against the funding eligibility criteria set out in the Department's protocol for the major capital works programme or school enhancement programme, which is published on the Department’s website.

I look forward to visiting the school later this term, following the invitation from the Member and her colleague Mr Brooks to do so.

Ms Bunting: I am grateful to the Minister for his answer. He will be aware that, not long ago, Dundonald High School received adverse publicity about its condition. He mentioned that my colleague David Brooks and I are eager for him to see for himself just how much the school does with very little. I fully understand the Minister's budgetary pressures. What reassurance can he give to parents of existing pupils that Dundonald High School remains on his radar and to those looking at schools that it is certainly worth considering, as it is a good school?

Mr Givan: I very much look forward to visiting the school. I have now visited well in excess of 150 schools across Northern Ireland. Dundonald High School, like many other schools, is rightly asking — indeed, demanding — that we, as elected representatives, support it. I want to support all the schools across Northern Ireland, including Dundonald High School, but we are not able to do so in the financial environment in which we currently operate. Only through significantly increased investment in our school estate will we be able to make the difference. Despite that, Dundonald High School offers our young people an excellent education. The Member is rightly proud of the school, which is in her constituency, and she is a strong advocate for it. She has certainly made the case to me, and I look forward to joining her on the visit.

Mr Dickson: Minister, given that, as you have set out clearly, it requires finance to build and repair schools, can you explain the reasoning behind your recent decision to pull finance from the school enhancement programme, specifically that for Greenisland Primary School in my East Antrim constituency, which has been waiting a number of years for school enhancement? Many thousands of pounds of public money have already been invested in preparation for that project, yet, last week, the —

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: You have asked your question, Stewart.

Mr Dickson: — project was put on hold.

Mr Givan: I thank the Member for his question. Other colleagues have raised similar concerns. I have discussed the matter with my officials today. I have not taken any decision to end the work taking place on school enhancement projects. My officials are urgently engaging with the Education Authority to find out why it has taken that approach. I certainly do not agree with it.

Mr O'Toole: Minister, three years ago, your predecessor as Minister of Education announced nearly 30 schools that were to be put on the major capital works programme, including an amazing school on the Ravenhill Road in my constituency, St Joseph's College, which, like most of the other schools, awaits any news of developments. Can you give it any hope as to whether or when progress will be made? You will say that there are budgetary constraints: that is fine, but —

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: OK, Matthew. Question?

Mr O'Toole: — was it right to create all that hope three years ago?

Mr Givan: The Member answers his own question by mentioning the financial resources that are needed. I have been in post for a year, but I have not been able to put out a call for major capital funding to attract people to make an application, because there are so many schools in the pipeline, and those are not being delivered. I would be giving false hope if I were to make such a call, given how many schools are waiting to get support. I want to support all our schools.

We also face a real challenge with the increase in our special educational needs provision. That is part of the tension in the Education Authority. In this financial year, at least £50 million has been spent on putting in place specialist provision in mainstream settings and on enhancing some of our special schools, and that will continue to be the case in the next financial year. The Department has not had a corresponding increase in its funding allocation.

Special educational needs takes priority, rightly and understandably, but many other parts of the school estate require capital investment. I submitted a bid for hundreds of millions of pounds more than what has been included in the draft Budget. I appeal to Members to join me in the efforts that I am making to enhance the financial resources that are available to my Department so that I can deliver for the school that the Member has outlined and for the other schools that, as other Members bring to my attention, need support.

Mr Givan: The Education Authority is in the latter stages of procuring the new term service contracts for maintenance and minor works. Two contracts have been awarded, with a planned commencement date of 1 April, and the other four are well under way. It is anticipated that the new contracts will be implemented across Northern Ireland on a phased approach by September 2025. The new delivery model will include key performance indicators to monitor quality of workmanship and adherence to response and completion times. There will also be cost certainty, which will provide assurance and transparency to school leaders.

While the service transitions to the new model, there are contractor contingency arrangements. Unfortunately, that is impacting on delivery on the ground in schools in some areas. The Education Authority is aware of the ongoing issues and is ensuring that works are appropriately triaged and implementing alternative contingency arrangements, where required.

In addition to the new term service contracts, the Education Authority's maintenance service is reviewing how it can provide the most efficient and effective model for schools to procure low-value maintenance works while ensuring compliance with health and safety standards and quality standards. That will be for maintenance works that form part of tenant responsibilities, such as painting and carpeting. It is anticipated that any changes will be implemented in the coming academic year. The Education Authority will advise schools when the change has come into operation.

Mr Gaston: I declare an interest as a governor of Buick Memorial Primary School.

Many primary schools, such as that of which I am a governor, struggle to carry out basic, routine maintenance. The school has to fundraise for such simple things as painting the walls. At what point will budgets be rebalanced to ensure that schools have enough resources to carry out basic, routine maintenance such as painting the walls and other everyday things to keep their buildings in tip-top shape? The budget that is there at the minute —

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Timothy.

Mr Gaston: —simply is not enough.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Thank you.

Mr Givan: The Member highlights a real challenge. At least 60% of our schools are in a deficit position, but that indicates that there are schools in a surplus position. It is always worth looking at the underlying reasons for how things stand and at how the common funding formula is pulled together when it comes to the allocation of funding to particular schools. There are many component parts, including whether it is an old building or a rural building, that influence how much funding goes into a school. The number of pupils in a school is another factor, and that is why it is important that we have sustainable schools. The point around the financial needs in schools and trying to increase their budgets is well made. I have increased school budgets, but, of course, more funding needs to be allocated. If I have that resource, I will want to put it into schools.

We are carrying out important work with the Education Authority to make it easier for schools to address some of the issues so that, when they commission the work, they are able to do so in a way that is more affordable to the school. That is part of what I spoke about in the Chamber previously; I have reiterated the work that is ongoing to do that. We need to balance and be proportionate in ensuring that we get value for money for the taxpayer and that schools are able to get low-level work carried out. That is why I have increased the threshold for that sort of work from £5,000 to £10,000. I am keeping that under review, and, if I believe that it could be higher, I will be prepared to consider that.

Mr Mathison: The Minister will be aware of the attention that has been paid to minor works projects and how they are prioritised. Does he support undertaking a review at EA and departmental level of how those projects are prioritised so that the public's confidence can be restored that it is the most deserving projects that will go forward in any financial year?

Mr Givan: It is important that people have confidence. The Northern Ireland Office carried out work regarding its view on the minor works projects. When that report was compiled, it provided some assurances in that respect.

The Committee has looked at a particular issue. When we carry out a review, it is important that it is based on credible evidence, not on a contrived concern that was wrongly articulated about one particular school by those who used that school. I hope that those Members have taken the opportunity to apologise to the principal. Some of them did not seem to know how to contact him or did not have his mobile number: I am happy to provide it to Members, should they feel the need to do that.

I have confidence that the governance of the processes that are in place in the Education Authority and the Department of Education is appropriate. However, I will not carry out a review because of contrived mis-concerns that deliberately targeted a particular school from one particular sector.

Mr Carroll: Minister, at Ionad Uíbh Eachach and Gaelscoil na bhFál, an Irish language primary school and childcare facility in my constituency, a large railing fence collapsed in the storm a few months ago. The school and I have reached out to the EA, the council and other government bodies for advice on how it can be repaired. Can the Minister or his officials advise where the school and the centre, as well as other organisations that are in a similar position, can go about that?

Mr Givan: I am happy to look at the issue that the Member has raised. Procedures are in place in the EA for maintenance works that need to be carried out. It has a help desk, and there is a way to contact it. I am happy to look at the particular issue that the Member has raised and provide that information to him.

Mr Givan: First, I appreciate the many benefits of our young people learning about the Ulster-Scots culture and language in our schools, including through the means of musical instrument tuition.

When it comes to the benefits of instrument tuition more generally, music is a statutory requirement of the Northern Ireland curriculum under the arts area of learning. Encouraging pupils to love and play music in schools is important, and providing opportunities for them to learn musical instruments should also be encouraged. Pupils benefit not only from learning musical instruments but from the development of their creativity, social skills and confidence as individuals and as members of a group. Playing an instrument can also enhance memory, attention and problem-solving skills. Music education provides more than short-term benefits; it fosters a lifelong appreciation of the arts.

My Department is aware of the Ulster-Scots Agency's work in primary schools, which aims to use Ulster-Scots traditional music to offer young people opportunities to explore the historical origin of the instruments and the music itself. Pupils have other opportunities to learn about Ulster-Scots culture and language in the classroom. At Key Stage 3 level, the "Local and global citizenship" strand of the "Learning for life and work" area of learning provides pupils with opportunities to investigate ways in which individuals and groups express their identity through, for example, dress code; language; musical and sporting traditions; and religious and political opinion and beliefs.

Ultimately, our schools and teachers have the freedom to choose the contexts, topics and themes that are most appropriate to their learners. It is entirely a matter for individual schools to determine how they use their delegated budget to support delivery of the curriculum, including which external providers to engage with to enhance the delivery of lessons in the classroom. Schools are best placed to assess the needs of their pupils.

Mr T Buchanan: I thank the Minister for his comprehensive response. Does the Minister agree that the programme merits further development and building on?

Mr Givan: Yes. I very much agree with the Member about the importance of that work. That is why I outlined in detail the reasons why it is important to support it. The Ulster-Scots Agency does good work in that area. It is, though, an arm's-length body of a different Department, and I know that having support to carry out its work is always a challenge.

Mr McGlone: Minister, any assessment of the Scoil Spreagtha scheme demonstrates the enormous benefit that it represents in the promotion and encouragement of the Irish language in schools. Recognising that Gael Linn believes that the scheme will cease in June, if more supporting funds are not found, will you indicate what measures your Department is taking to assist in its maintenance?

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: There are 40 seconds for a response.

Mr Givan: OK. I am happy to look at that issue. I am meeting one of the Irish language groups in the next half hour or so. That may well form part of that conversation.

I have indicated that I very much want to support all of our sectors. When I have visited schools that provide education through the medium of Irish, I have been very encouraged. The results speak for themselves.

Those schools are important to their communities, so they are important to me. If there are issues that need to be addressed, I am happy to look at them and where I can act, I will.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: That ends the period for listed questions. We now move to 15 minutes of topical questions. Question 2 has been withdrawn.

Mr Givan: I assure the Member that, while curriculum review may not be in the Programme for Government, I am taking it forward. I did not have to wait for a Programme for Government to be agreed in order to get on with a huge amount of work in my Department. The review of the curriculum is an important piece of work. Everyone would agree that we need to ensure that our curriculum is fit for purpose, so a review of it is timely. I look forward to that work being concluded by Lucy Crehan, whom I commissioned to carry it out for me. We will look at what that says, and we will take forward further work as a result.

Ms Hunter: I thank the Minister for his answer. In an Education Committee meeting, one of the teachers' trade unions said that there is a growing fear that our schools are becoming exam factories. Will you reassure us today that that will be addressed in your curriculum reforms and that any changes will be subject to Executive agreement?

Mr Givan: As we take forward the review of the curriculum, one of the areas that I want to build on primarily is a review of literacy and numeracy. Those are the two key areas of any education system that provide the basic building blocks. Unless you are proficient in literacy, you will not be able to read your history or geography books. Therefore, it is critical that we maximise the number of young people who are competent in literacy and numeracy. However, that is also one of the key drivers for closing the educational gap that exists between those who have and those who have not.

For young people from disadvantaged backgrounds, the opportunities that our schools provide are their only hope. We need to make sure that we provide the right support to every single school in Northern Ireland. If we can do that right, we will be supporting the life opportunities for those young people. Of course, where there are issues on which I need support from Executive colleagues to carry out the Department of Education's work, I will seek it. There are, however, many pieces of work that I am able to take forward in my Department that fall within my purview. I am determined to continue to drive forward that progressive review of our curriculum that I am carrying out.

Mr Givan: I thank the Member for raising that matter. I will attend and speak at an event on Wednesday evening in the Long Gallery. I met Alma, Caleb's mum, and I absolutely understand her concerns. They speak to the need for many of our Departments, including Education, Economy and Health, to work together on the issue so that, when children and young people come through the formal education process and are transitioning to post-19, the proper support and pathways are in place for them to do that. That has to be achieved through a collaborative approach that includes those three Departments.

Mr Butler: I thank the Minister for his answer. I know that he is absolutely honourable in his commitment to the matter. However, we have only two years left of the mandate. Will he outline what he believes is achievable in the mandate, and given that this is how I would proceed, does he agree that the Department of Education could take the lead on it in the next mandate?

Mr Givan: When I look at the issue, I ask myself how we can support children and young people who are coming through the education system. I have been in schools that demonstrate to me how, as they create those post-19 pathways, they work with the Department for the Economy and, in some cases, Health to make the transition process work very well. There are good examples of that work, and it is about creating the ability to be independent of the education system while continuing to be supported by the Government.

As the Education Minister, I can also say that, in the previous academic year, we had to create over 1,400 new places for children with additional needs. I am engaging with the EA because the environment that we face for the next academic year presents real challenges. While we have hundreds of young people aged three, four and five who do not have placements, we also need to make sure that there is support for the young people who are leaving the formal education system and are transitioning to become the responsibility of other Departments. There is more work to be done to get those pathways right.

I look forward to the event in the Long Gallery on Wednesday, when we will be able to see and hear from some of the young people. It is important that their voices are heard in all of this.

Mr Givan: I thank the Member for that question because it raises the important issue of the financial needs that we have, and I have spoken about those already.

The challenges that we are facing in the current financial year are difficult. We are facing an overspend but are working incredibly hard with the Education Authority to bring our budget into line this year. A huge amount of work has to be done to achieve that. I am confident that we will be able to reach a break-even position in this financial year but that will be a result of our not putting resources into areas in which we should have. We have challenges with our capital budget, but I am confident that we will be able to bring the capital budget into line. The next financial year, though, presents a really difficult challenge.

Mr Brett: Looking to the next financial year, Minister, you secured important commitments in the Programme for Government, but they will require Executive resourcing. Will you outline the implications of the draft Budget for your Department?

Mr Givan: It is a challenge that I have. Colleagues around the Executive table all have challenges, but, in Education, they are particularly acute. The latest assessment of the draft Budget for my Department indicates an inescapable resource pressure totalling £261 million. The £261 million shortfall means that the Department will not be able to fund a number of areas, including the EA's block grant when it comes to SEN non-pay pressures and maintenance pressures. That is increasingly a cause for significant concern. I refer Members to the Audit Office report on managing the school estate. There will be increasing school deficits. Non-SEN pressures that are funded by the EA block grant include, but are not limited to, home-to-school transport, catering and ICT. There are other high-priority pressures of around £76 million.

Those pressures that are deemed to be inescapable and high priority come to £337 million, and there is a forecast gap in my capital budget of £91 million, so the picture for the next financial year is really difficult. I say that to colleagues around the Chamber who rightly challenge me to do more for schools. I can only allocate what I have available to me. To be fair to the Executive, whilst it is my job to advocate for my Department, all my colleagues are facing these challenges, and the Executive as a whole are not being funded at a suitable level. However, we need to give Education the priority that it deserves.

Mr Givan: The Member highlights a challenge due to speeding motorists that, unfortunately, is not unique to Fivemiletown Primary School. I appeal to those who are driving past schools to slow down and take their environment into account. Often, road safety measures are only as good as the individual behind the wheel of the car. Even when we have 20 mph limits outside schools as a result of projects taken forward through the Safer Schools scheme, which DFI supports, you still have reckless individuals speeding. Addressing that requires those individuals being much more sensible as well as a policing response. Unless people's behaviour improves, we will always have those challenges.

Typically, traffic management schemes at schools, which are taken forward as minor works, do not score highly in the current environment that we face. In some situations, such schemes can help to improve the flow of traffic around a particular school. The point is well made. Government have a responsibility, but so too do the people — they have to take responsibility for their own behaviour.

Ms D Armstrong: Minister, it was disappointing that representatives from DFI did not attend the meeting this morning to give us their thinking on what can be done in the form of a solution. Will the Minister engage directly with the Department for Infrastructure to expedite this and find a solution?

Mr Givan: I am happy to take up the case that the Member has brought to my attention. I have engaged directly with the Department for Infrastructure on behalf of some other schools. I am sure that the Minister for that Department is listening and will want to respond. I certainly will ask my officials to engage with the Member and get the details, and I will happily raise the issue with the Department for Infrastructure on her behalf.

Mr Givan: It is always important to reflect on not only the expertise that exists in our country — there is expertise — but what is happening in other areas. I had the opportunity to visit a number of different schools, one of which was the Michaela Community School in London. The principal there is heralded as the strictest principal in the United Kingdom and is currently engaged in a bit of a battle with the Education Secretary. I do not want to weigh in on that issue; I have enough of my own challenges.

You can learn from schools in other places and the way in which they go about their education system. If there are lessons to be learned, we should do that. There are good examples of where that takes place. I have engaged on, for example, improving pupil attendance. We have looked at how that happens in other jurisdictions in the home nations. An independent evaluation of the extended schools programme was commissioned, which included an examination of best practice in England, Scotland, Wales and the Republic of Ireland. We have looked at the Fair Start programme. We have also looked at the four nations' equity in the education group. To answer the Member's question: yes, we should look at international best practice as well as the expertise that we have in our country.

Mr Martin: I thank the Minister for his answer. Are any of the examples that he highlighted in his answer transferable to Northern Ireland?

Mr Givan: I know that some schools in Northern Ireland have, for example, incorporated elements of the Michaela approach. So, yes, you can disseminate that best practice.

Importantly, the Education and Training Inspectorate (ETI) has a key role to play in Northern Ireland when it comes to identifying best practice and sharing that information, as well as identifying where there may be issues in schools, not least those around the safeguarding of children. Our inspectorate can go in and get that information, and it is there to support schools. However, as a result of the action short of strike, our inspectorate is, once again, being prevented from getting into our schools. That situation is not only regrettable but should not be happening, because we cannot then disseminate best practice, and, importantly, we cannot have the inspectorate in our schools to identify any child safeguarding issues. I do not think that that is a tenable position.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: You have 30 seconds, Minister.

Mr Givan: I do not have the precise figures for the Member right now, but I will get them. I know that they were released in a question for written answer to her colleague Michelle Guy.

There has been a significant decrease in the number of individuals who have not had their safeguarding paperwork carried out.

The Member can be assured that, when the issue was brought to my attention, I was aghast. I made it clear that the situation was in no way satisfactory or defensible. I immediately engaged with the Education Authority on what steps it was taking to ensure that the appropriate paperwork was being carried out. However, individuals should not have commenced their employment without it. I have raised the issue of their employment status. If they have not completed the paperwork, why are they continuing to be employed by the school?

Work is taking place to address the issue. I want to get to the point where those numbers at not at the high level that they are at now. I have made it explicitly clear that we need to get to grips with the issue, because we can never compromise when it comes to child safety.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Paula, there is no time for a supplementary question. We must move on to questions to the Minister of Health.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: We will start with listed questions. Questions 14 and 15 have been withdrawn.

Mr Nesbitt (The Minister of Health): One of my duties is to ensure that Northern Ireland has timely access to clinically effective and cost-effective medicines. We do that through a formal link with the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). As givinostat is a new treatment, routine access in the Health and Social Care (HSC) system is based on the outcome of considerations from NICE. NICE is currently evaluating givinostat. Final guidance is not expected until July.

There is a route through an early access programme (EAP) ahead of NICE decisions, but responsibility for participation in those EAPs lies with the trusts. A compassionate use scheme such as that works well for therapies and conditions in which no close monitoring of patients is required. However, when monitoring is required, which is the case for givinostat, clinical centres need additional resources — for example, to carry out blood tests and hold additional clinics — to undertake the monitoring safely and sustainably. Although medicines under EAPs are typically provided for free, additional implementation costs will fall to the relevant trust, which is, in this case, the Belfast Trust. Having considered the resource required to administer givinostat safely and efficiently, the trust has advised that it is not able to facilitate this early intervention. Members will be aware of the huge budgetary pressures and saving targets facing all trusts at this time.

It would be inappropriate for me or my Department to intervene in the trust's decision, as that risks undermining our well-established processes with NICE that ensure that our population has access to new medicines that have been demonstrated to be clinically effective and cost-effective. Should NICE recommend givinostat, my Department will consider it under the usual processes and endeavour to make the drug available as quickly as possible.

Mr Blair: My apologies, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: I beg your indulgence to mention my late brother Adrian. I simply cannot let the moment go without doing so. I recall his diagnosis and his days with Duchenne very clearly. I remember him with pride and gratitude for having had him as a brother. We have made some progress since those days. I hope that the Minister can give us more hope of seeing further progress in these days. Can the Minister give us any further information on discussions or consultations that are taking place with relevant groups or representative bodies on this?

Mr Nesbitt: First of all, I was entirely unaware of your brother. I pass on my condolences to you.

I do not want to provide false hope. It is up to NICE to decide whether it is safe to administer or recommend givinostat. NICE is a non-departmental public body (NDPB). It is sponsored by the Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC) in London. It produces national guidance on the promotion of good health and the prevention and treatment of ill health. It makes its recommendations independently. As I have said previously, it would be entirely inappropriate of me to intervene with the Belfast Trust to try to expedite the matter, unfortunately.

Mr McNulty: A 12-year-old Newry boy, Alfie Pentony, has inspired us all with his impassioned and courageous campaign to raise awareness of Duchenne muscular dystrophy. Access to givinostat would dramatically improve outcomes for children such as Alfie. However, given the Minister's earlier comments, what action can his Department take to give hope to families such as Alfie's and others?

Mr Nesbitt: I am aware of the young boy whom the Member has mentioned, and my sympathies lie with him. However, I have to progress within the rules and recommendations and do so safely. The Belfast Trust provides a regional paediatric neuromuscular service through the Royal Belfast Hospital for Sick Children, and that would include the boy to whom the Member has referred.

While there is currently no cure for DMD, a variety of treatments can help to manage the condition. Treatment and intervention are provided in the Royal Belfast Hospital for Sick Children through a multidisciplinary team (MDT) approach, and that includes specialist clinicians from neurology, cardiology, respiratory and endocrinology. Physiotherapists are also involved with the patients' care. I hope that that gives the Member some idea of the attention that is paid to young people who, unfortunately, suffer from Duchenne muscular dystrophy.

Mrs Dillon: I thank the Member for sharing his personal experience. Unfortunately, a number of families in my area of Coalisland also have children with Duchenne muscular dystrophy.

There is a pathway to bring in medication prior to NICE —.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Question, Linda.

Mrs Dillon: Will the Minister outline whether it is possible to look at it under that guidance?

Mr Nesbitt: I thank the Member for her supplementary question. As I said, there is an EAP, but it is available only from one of the 23 participating so-called NorthStar clinical centres in the United Kingdom. That programme is a clinical network of UK-wide healthcare professionals who are focusing on the best clinical management of DMD.

As I said, the Belfast Trust is the regional provider of paediatric neuromuscular services here, so it is the only clinical centre eligible to participate in the NorthStar programme. Provision of givinostat EAP is being offered by the drug manufacturer only through the Belfast Trust in Northern Ireland. It has said that, because of the follow-up and the monitoring required, it is not prepared to do it. I cannot intervene.

Mr Nesbitt: With your permission, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker, I will answer questions 2 and 12 together.

I acknowledge the challenges facing many patients, particularly those not registered with a dental practice, in accessing dental care when they need it. One of the underlying reasons for that is that general dental practitioners are spending less time treating health service patients and more time meeting the strong demand for private work, and, as independent contractors, they are able to do that. As independent contractors, dental practitioners are under no obligation to register new health service patients, and nor does the Department have a role in deciding the location of new practices; that is a business decision made by the practice owners.

Access to health service dentistry remains a focus for me and my Department. We are specifically targeting investment this year at improving access for priority groups. An investment package of £9·2 million has supported general dental services in the current financial year. That includes £1 million for newly registered child patients, through the re-establishment of the enhanced child examination scheme; £4·3 million to fund a 30% enhancement to fees paid to dentists for priority treatments; and £3·9 million for the treatment of high-priority unregistered patients through a dental access scheme. Currently, 30 practices are participating in that access scheme, seven of which are in the Southern Trust area, with two in Newry itself.

Efforts to improve access for all patients will continue to be the short-term focus as dental reform is progressed. I met the British Dental Association last month to discuss the issues facing the industry. Officials held a follow-up meeting on investment options for the 2025-26 financial year, and that is targeted at improving access.

Mr Irwin: I thank the Minister for his response. The Minister said that he met the British Dental Association. Its representatives have outlined their concerns about the funding of the service. What action will the Minister take to put in place a general dentistry model that reflects the true cost of dental care?

Mr Nesbitt: I thank the Member for his follow-up question. I regularly meet representative bodies of the various branches of Health and Social Care, all of which have concerns. They have concerns about their budget, about the cost of services and about the amount of money that we can devote to them. In fairness, all of them are determined to deliver better outcomes.

One agreement that I came to at the meeting was that we would undertake a cost-of-service survey, because I do not think that any of us around that table was particularly aware of what it costs to deliver dental services in Northern Ireland in 2025. That will be the fundamental research that will give us the evidence base on which to move forward.

Ms Bunting: The Minister mentioned demand for private practice, but there is an impact on that demand, because people cannot register for NHS services. What can the Minister do to make it easier for people to find out which local dentists accept new NHS patients, without having to ring round up to 10 practices to find out what is available in their area? It is increasingly difficult. It is a matter of import, given that NHS dentistry is becoming extinct, with —

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: OK.

Ms Bunting: — people being priced out of being able to visit the dentist.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Thank you. Minister.

Mr Nesbitt: As I have said, dentists are independent practitioners. It is up to them to decide whether they want to take on new patients and register them for health service work. I am afraid that the Department's position is that we will provide a list of local dentists to anybody who approaches it seeking to be registered with an HSC dentist. I am afraid that it is for individuals to phone around to see whether they can get registered. It would place an enormous administrative burden on the Department if we were to do that for every individual and every family who contacted us with that problem.

Mr McGrath: The Minister previously detailed to me that, as of June 2024, there were 40 whole-time-equivalent dentists employed in hospitals across the North but just over one and a half employed in the Southern Trust. Why is there such a disparity?

Mr Nesbitt: Those decisions are taken by the trusts. I will certainly look at what appears to be a disparity in the Southern Trust. As a matter of principle, I would like to see the five geographical trusts move to having standardised regional services so that there is no question of a postcode lottery in dentistry or in any other part of the Health and Social Care system. The Member raises an interesting point, and I am prepared to take it away with me.

Mr Nesbitt: My Department has taken a leading role in preparing the cross-departmental strategy to address long-standing inequalities across our public services. Despite a very challenging financial and political context, my Department continues to develop the new cross-departmental autism strategy for 2023-28, which was published in late 2023, and to align it with legislative requirements. My Department continues to deliver against the duties set out in the legislation to develop, implement and monitor the autism strategy.

Along with the autism strategy for 2023-2028, a two-year delivery plan for 2023-25 was published that focuses on the implementation of the requirements in the Autism (Amendment) Act (Northern Ireland) 2022. My Department recently published a monitoring report for the first year of implementation. It sets out progress and achievements across government, including the development of guidance for employers, in collaboration with the Equality Commission; over 600 staff trained in autism awareness in the Northern Ireland Housing Executive (NIHE); several actions taken forward via the special educational needs (SEN) reform programme to better respond to the needs of autistic pupils, including continued collaboration with the Middletown Centre for Autism; the launch of GP training videos to improve equity of access and outcomes; and two significant reviews undertaken by the HSC Leadership Centre. The outputs from that work, wider year-1 progress and the next monitoring report, for 2024-25, will inform the development of actions and measurable targets for the remaining years of the strategy. It is also important to stress that input from the independent autism reviewer, Ema Cubitt, will be crucial to informing the next three-year delivery plan, work on which is due to commence shortly.

Ms Brownlee: Thank you, Minister. We can all agree that all we want to do is improve the lives of those with autism. What steps are being taken to ensure that sensory-friendly adjustments, such as quiet areas, sensory toys, trained staff and better changing facilities, are available in hospital environments, particularly A&E, to better accommodate individuals with autism and their families?

Mr Nesbitt: I thank the Member for her supplementary. As she may be aware, following the additional winter pressures, after Christmas, I visited seven of our emergency departments. One of the takeaways for me was that bright light and excessive noise are two things that, if you suffer from autism, are extremely off-putting. I believe that work is ongoing to try to create a much more appropriate environment for those who suffer from autism and have to present at hospital, particularly an emergency department.

Mr McGuigan: Minister, what support is available to individuals and their families whilst they await an assessment?

Mr Nesbitt: Once again, it would be up to the trust to put in place the sort of facilities that the Member refers to. The strategy is supported by increased collaborative working across sectors. We have a two-year delivery plan, which contains a range of actions across Health, Education, Communities, Economy and a range of statutory and independent sector delivery partners, so it is a cocktail. A cross-departmental monitoring and funding approach is necessary. A report was published recently, setting out progress including the outcomes that have been achieved and how they have been measured. The report also captured, where possible, funding that has been allocated to support and deliver the commitments of the strategy. Good work is being done, on that cross-departmental and cross-sectoral platform, to try to deliver better outcomes.

Mr Donnelly: Minister, people do not "suffer from" autism; they have autism.

What discussions have you had with the Minister of Education about the provision of nurses in special schools?

Mr Nesbitt: I take the admonishment from the Member: that was loose and inappropriate language; I apologise for my use of it.

The Education Minister and I have met the principals of a number of special schools in this Building. We had a discussion on the issues that they face. On foot of that, the Chief Nursing Officer and I have visited at least two special schools to see for ourselves the sort of health requirements that some of the pupils who present with pretty severe learning difficulties experience. I believe that community children's nurses have a role to play. I have asked the Chief Nursing Officer to look at the way forward and to bring forward proposals at pace.

Mr Durkan: Minister, you mentioned the autism reviewer. Her appointment is also progress, and she seems to have hit the ground running. Will you give us some detail on the support, resourcing and engagement provided to the reviewer by the Department of Health, and state whether it is adequate?

Mr Nesbitt: I am sorry: did the Member ask what support the autism reviewer is being given?

Mr Durkan: Yes.

Mr Nesbitt: I have had a conversation with Ema Cubitt about support. The sort of things that she was looking for to get up and running were simple things like a website, business cards and access to information and research. I have subsequently had a report back that she is satisfied with the level of cooperation that she is getting from the Department of Health and, to be fair, from the Department of Education. She is satisfied with the interplay there, as well.

Mr Nesbitt: I recognise the vital work that the Belfast Inclusion Health Service offers to individuals who are homeless and need access to timely health and social care provision. I, like many in the Chamber, was shocked by the series of events that necessitated the relocation of that vital service to a new temporary location in Belfast. In that context, it is vital that the new permanent location be safe for those accessing and delivering services. To assist with that, Belfast Health and Social Care Trust is actively looking for suitable permanent premises. The work has involved engaging with a range of key stakeholders, including Belfast City Council, the Northern Ireland Housing Executive, community and voluntary groups and Land and Property Services (LPS), as well as with the staff and users of the inclusion health service. It is necessary to get their input on the optimum location for the service.

The trust has also actively viewed a number of properties. Recently, one was identified as potentially suitable. Trust representatives are engaging with the relevant landlord to discuss a potential lease of the property, including any specific refurbishment work that would need to be completed before it could be agreed. Given that the talks are ongoing, I am not in a position to provide the Member with a definitive timescale for when the inclusion health service will be relocated to a new centre, but I can assure him that it will be done as soon as is practicable.

Mr Kingston: I thank the Minister for that comprehensive answer. As he may be aware, the all-party group on homelessness met nurses from the inclusion health service two weeks ago and heard about their important work with the homeless and vulnerable people who are not registered with a GP. The Minister has covered all the points that I wished to raise. Will the Minister push the matter again with his officials? I am mindful that those nurses are often in a vulnerable situation themselves.

Mr Nesbitt: I thank the Member for his interest. I am absolutely prepared to go away and make a further push. It is important because the services are important. The range of services will be, more or less, as before, but it will be reconfigured differently in the temporary accommodation. At the moment, service delivery is via the mobile health bus, hostel facilities and day shelters. A GP and out-of-hours service is operating on the Crumlin Road, but I agree with the Member that we want to see a new permanent home.

Ms K Armstrong: We heard from the nurses at the all-party group meeting that there is supposed to be one inclusion health service nurse in each health trust area, with more in Belfast because of the pressures there. We heard that the Northern Trust does not have anyone. When will we see a full cohort of those nurses recruited and in place to help homeless people?

Mr Nesbitt: I thank the Member for pointing out that disparity. To my mind, that is an inequity and a potential health inequality. Therefore, as I have said previously, it is something that I will wish to tackle. On my watch, we will always, I believe, have five geographic trusts, rightly or wrongly. Those five trusts should deliver standardised, region-wide services, and the Member has pointed out an area where that is not happening. I would like to see that addressed. Once again, I will take that away from today's sitting.

Mr Carroll: The previous point aside, given that one in 32 people here is homeless, does the Minister think that it is adequate to have one inclusion health service nurse in every trust?

Mr Nesbitt: I thank the Member for his question, which I will answer much more generally. As we walk through a very complex health and social care system, the number of doctors, nurses and consultants in just about every walk of life is probably not adequate. We need more. Yes, we need buildings. Yes, we need equipment. Yes, we need medicine. Yes, we need funds. However, if we do not have an appropriately sized, qualified and motivated workforce, the rest is as nothing.

Mr Nesbitt: It is important for any parent going through the terrible experience of losing a child to have the option of a post-mortem examination to help to provide answers about their loss and that, if they decide to proceed, they are fully supported at all stages of the process. Members will be aware that the current service for hospital-consented post-mortems for families in Northern Ireland is provided by Alder Hey Children’s Hospital in Liverpool, and that has been the case since 3 January 2019. My first preference would be the restoration of a dedicated paediatric pathology service for Northern Ireland, but that remains incredibly challenging, I am afraid, as those services are under pressure not just across the UK but globally due to a shortage of paediatric pathologists. I remain very keen on exploring the feasibility of an all-island approach to those services in the longer term. That might mitigate the need for infant remains to be transported overseas.

I had a number of conversations with Minister Donnelly about the possibility of future cooperation with the Government of Ireland on the issue. I recently raised it with the new Irish Health Minister, Jennifer Carroll MacNeill TD. While it is at the early stages of consideration, the conversations, I can report, have been positive. The Minister reiterated her agreement to take the matter forward, which will allow the feasibility of an all-island approach to be considered, but I must say that any post-mortem service is likely to take time to develop even if it is feasible. In the meantime, as those services move to more and more centralised models nationally and in the absence of any viable alternative at this time, my priority remains to ensure that bereaved parents continue to have access to a high-quality post-mortem service that provides the medical answers as well as the care and support that families need and deserve. Access has therefore been secured by a further extension of the arrangements with Alder Hey in Liverpool.

Mr Gildernew: I really welcome that progress, Minister. My substantive supplementary question was going to be about contact with Minister Carroll MacNeill. I welcome the fact that that has taken place and that the issue is being progressed, given that there have been difficulties on both sides. Can you outline any type of timeline for when that work might come to fruition?

Mr Nesbitt: I thank the Member for the supplementary question. That is perhaps a sixty-four thousand dollar question to which I do not think there is an answer. However, I can tell you that I have been working recently with officials in my Department on how we will develop the all-island model. They are particularly keen to look at modern developments, which would include non-invasive procedures. The first thing that we want to do is make sure that the thinking of officials in my Department aligns with that of officials in the Department of Health in Dublin, because this goes beyond post-mortems into a broader sense of paediatric pathology. These things, as the Member will know, can take time. Even if we decide that that is the way to go, and I really hope that we go for the all-island solution, the biggest issue is the recruitment of a sufficient number of pathologists to service the whole island. In fact, getting enough to service one jurisdiction will be a challenge. Doing both will not just double the challenge but will probably treble or quadruple it.

Ms Mulholland: What do you see as the biggest barriers to the recruitment and retention of paediatric pathologists? There seems to be a skills deficit at the moment.

Mr Nesbitt: I thank the Member for her supplementary question. I believe that it is just not proving to be an attractive profession. As I said, this is not just for us; I think that two paediatric pathologists retired in recent years. We have made several efforts at recruitment, unsuccessfully. As part of our research into that, it has been made clear to us that it is not a Northern Ireland problem and is not even a UK problem; it is a global problem. Everybody is tending to specialise. Alder Hey is being asked to absorb more work from elsewhere — from beyond the north-west, which is the Liverpool area. It is content to continue with us. Our deal lasts well into 2027. Hopefully, that will be enough time for us to work with the Government of Ireland to see whether we can bring in a new service. It seems to me that it is just not a particularly attractive line of work in healthcare.

Mr Beattie: Like the Member who asked the original question, I am glad that the Minister recently met his Irish counterpart. Will the Minister detail what support is out there for bereaved families?

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Minister, you have a minute to respond.

Mr Nesbitt: I thank the Member for his question. A lot of work has been undertaken in partnership with key charities and with families who have been affected by bereavement. That is because we want to ensure that arrangements are as sensitive and dignified as possible, so we have been listening. Thorough oversight continues to ensure that any baby or child who requires a hospital-consented post-mortem, as well as their family, is treated with the utmost care, respect and compassion.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: That ends the period for listed questions. We move to 15 minutes of topical questions.

Mr Nesbitt: I thank the Member for a very detailed question that I am not in a position to answer, as he may well have suspected. I am sure that he thought, "The Minister is waiting for a question about ambulance services and W45"; you have got me.

Mr McGrath: Minister, would the W45 —? No, I will stick to my question. What assurances can the Minister give that resources up to and including inpatient bed facilities will be available to social workers who are undertaking Mental Health Order assessments? Will he intervene urgently to ensure that the action that NIPSA suggests that it will take from Wednesday is averted in the interests of everybody's public health?

Mr Nesbitt: I guarantee that I will look at that and engage at official level with NIPSA. I am more than happy to meet the Member to discuss it one-to-one.

Mr Nesbitt: I thank the Member for his question. He will be aware that, over the winter, the flow through our hospitals was not as it should have been. Although the focus was on emergency departments, that was only where the problem manifested itself. The problem was at the back door, in getting patients who were medically fit for discharge a care home bed or a domiciliary care package. On Tuesday of last week, we had a successful, well-attended opening session to look ahead to the winter of 2025. There were about 120 people in the room, all professionals with things to say, and there was a waiting list. We will work on that in the next few weeks. To try to make the profession more attractive, I have committed to introducing the real living wage for social workers in this calendar year.

Mr Irwin: I thank the Minister for his response. He will be aware — he has touched on it — that, at any time, between 500 and 600 beds are occupied by patients who have been deemed fit for discharge. Does the Minister agree that the delivery of care packages is key to addressing the bed shortage in our hospitals?

Mr Nesbitt: Yes. There is a cocktail of reasons why there were 500 to 600 people — certainly that was the figure in the early days of January — in beds in our acute hospitals who were fit for discharge. If you delve into those reasons, you will see that beds, step-down beds, care beds and domiciliary packages are at the top of the list. That is why, together with colleagues, I am putting a focus on those things as we look towards the winter of 2025.

Mr Nesbitt: I thank the Member for his question. As he is aware, the minor injury units (MIU) at Ards and Bangor are making way for the urgent care centre, which will be within the curtilage of the Ulster Hospital; indeed, it will be adjacent to the new emergency department. I had the pleasure of visiting it some months ago. It is under construction. The current date for completion is March of this year. There will then be a short commissioning process, and the centre should be fully operational by June.

Mr Dunne: I thank the Minister for his positive answer. We certainly look forward to that. As he said, the rationale for closing the Bangor and Ards MIUs was that the urgent care centre was coming. Can you assure my constituents that there will be no further delays to the opening of this much-needed facility, given the pressures around the corner in the emergency department, of which you are well aware, as well as the public's frustrations about access to GPs?

Mr Nesbitt: I cannot give the Member an absolute guarantee that there will be no further delays, because I cannot look into the future. I am not aware of and have not been briefed about any potential hiccups or banana skins between now and the completion and commissioning of the urgent care centre. It is a positive move. It will be open seven days a week for 12 hours a day. It is adjacent to the emergency department. Let us not forget that it is on the site of an acute hospital, so scans and X-rays and all the other facilities that might be needed will be within arm's reach. It is a positive development.

Some people resisted the move from Ards to the Ulster Hospital, but it is 4·6 miles on a dual carriageway, so I do not think that it puts enormous pressure on people to ask them to travel that short distance for better care.

Mr Nesbitt: I thank the Member for his question. Media coverage today relates to existing gender identity and expression policies in the health and social care trusts. In relation to changing and toilet facilities, the policies refer to putting in place arrangements that everybody is comfortable with and which respect everybody's dignity. That is, of course, the ideal; achieving it is probably easier said than done and will be a challenge. We are dealing with conflicting rights in some cases. More widely, the whole issue of trans rights has become wrapped up in quite a toxic online culture war, where any notions of sensitivity and respect have been totally abandoned.

I understand the argument for single-sex spaces in certain circumstances, but I also want the health and social care system to be a welcoming and supportive place for everybody who works there, regardless of class, creed, race or identity. I understand that gender identity policies are under review at a number of the trusts, and that is an important process. I will seek more information on that and what else may need to be done to provide greater clarity and protection.

Mr Beattie: I thank the Minister for his clarity on that. Does he agree that it is important to take on board as many views and concerns as possible in developing such policies? On that note, I welcome his recent agreement to add the Northern Ireland branch of the Women's Rights Network to his Department's consultation list.

Mr Nesbitt: I thank the Member for his supplementary question. I absolutely agree. We have to start from a position of respecting everybody as an individual. Every individual has rights and views and should be listened to respectfully. That is the case in this, as with anything else that we deal with in the Chamber.

I think back to 1998 and the very first commitment in the Belfast/Good Friday Agreement, which was a fresh start in developing relationships. We are going to have to develop relationships with people and make sure that we offer them the best that we can possibly offer. On this specific, part of the way forward may involve the development of single-use and stand-alone facilities that can be used on an individual basis, regardless of gender, regardless of that view, but it is to be done with privacy and respect.

Mr Nesbitt: I thank the Member for the question. We have had significant and ongoing engagement with the UK Government over the Hillsborough law and it falls into a broader set of policy considerations that are under way. The Member may be aware that we are consulting on a Being Open framework. I have also made a commitment to look, during this mandate, at the possibility of a duty of candour on an organisational basis. I know that a significant number of Members of the House would also like to see a duty of candour on an individual basis, with criminal sanctions, and I have to say again that I think that that is a very negative way in which to phrase the concept. The Hillsborough law will play into that. There is quite a complex picture developing, and I assure the Member that we have a real focus on this and are liaising constantly with the UK Government about their proposals, which will be released in a short number of weeks. Remember that the Prime Minister promised to publish a Bill before the next anniversary of the Hillsborough disaster.

Mr Blair: I thank the Minister for that answer. The hyponatraemia-related deaths, the Muckamore Abbey abuse allegations, the neurology scandal, the infected blood scandal and much more have demonstrated very clearly the importance of having robust mechanisms in place to ensure honesty and transparency when things go wrong in health and social care. Can the Minister commit today to learning from those tragedies and playing his part in delivering statutory, individual and organisational duties of candour in the public services in Northern Ireland for which he has responsibility?

Mr Nesbitt: I can certainly promise the Member that I am determined that all of us involved in health and social care delivery learn the lessons. The Member has given us a long list — a very long list, to my mind — of where things have gone wrong, and I certainly do not want that list to be added to on my watch. I gently say that a specific duty of candour on an individual basis, with criminal sanctions, may have a deep chilling effect on the recruitment and retention of essential health and social care staff. Again, I ask the House to reflect on that. We are all constituency MLAs. In every constituency, we have allied health professionals, nurses and doctors. Speak to them. Listen to them. Ask them what they think the impact of that individual duty of candour, with criminal sanctions, might be on healthcare delivery in the future.

Mr Nesbitt: I thank the Member for the question. The cross-border reimbursement scheme remains enduringly popular, certainly judging by the correspondence that I get from Members of the House, among others. Personally, I would very much like to reintroduce it. The Member talks about the Programme for Government commitment. I have to say that that commitment is qualified, because if you read what it says about waiting lists, you will see that it says, "with Executive support", we will get some money. It also says "up to £135m". It does not say that it will be £135 million. Therefore, I am hoping that the other £80 million, which is there to make sure that the waiting lists do not get any longer, will be forthcoming, because the key is to try to stabilise those waiting lists and not allow them to become any bigger. The £135 million was to start reducing waiting lists, and, as I have said before, we would need to spend that £135 million five times. It is over five years. I am not at all confident that the £135 million will become available during the financial year 2025-26. I am seeking clarity on how much I can expect to get, and I am also seeking clarity on when that money may start to flow, but I am instinctively thinking that what I should do is proceed at risk. That means thinking about a cocktail of new initiatives: talking to the trusts; talking, whether Members like it or not, to the independent sector; and thinking about reintroducing the cross-border scheme.

Mr Gildernew: Minister, you will know that all of us — users of the health service and the health service itself — have lost access, as a result of Brexit, to the wider European scheme. Is there any work ongoing to see whether we can restore access to that scheme?

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: You have 30 seconds to respond.

Mr Nesbitt: I will respond very quickly. The answer to that is no, there is not. However, we are tending, because of the pressures on the budget, to work hand to mouth and day to day and to live in the day, and we need to try to lift our heads up, difficult as it is, and start thinking a little bit more strategically.

If there is more money coming, we will look at all the options. If there is a lot of money coming, it could be difficult to spend it in a timely manner. That is why we need a cocktail. I will certainly look at that. The cross-border scheme is the one to go with.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Colm Gildernew has given notice of a question for urgent oral answer to the Minister for Communities. As Minister Lyons is not available to respond, I advise Members that the Minister of Education will respond on his behalf. I remind Members that, if they wish to ask a supplementary question, they should rise continually in their place. The Member who tabled the question will be called automatically to ask a supplementary question.

Mr Givan (The Minister of Education): My colleague the Minister for Communities is unavailable at present. Therefore, I answer the question on his behalf.

Minister Lyons's Department has noted the findings of the court, and officials are considering them in detail. He has noted that the case brought against him as Minister for Communities was dismissed, and he welcomes the fact that the court recognised his intention to produce an anti-poverty strategy in the near future for consideration and, if appropriate, adoption by the Executive Committee.

It is Minister Lyons's intention to present a paper on the anti-poverty strategy to the Executive by the end of March. Final decisions on consultation and implementation will be subject to decision by the Executive. Therefore, it would be inappropriate for him to comment further on the matter until after the judge has ruled on potential relief in the case.

Mr Gildernew: I thank the Minister for stepping in on behalf of the Minister for Communities.

Given the extensive work done by the co-design group on the strategy, what changes have been made since the draft was supplied to the Minister when he came into office? Will the Minister commit to re-engaging with the co-design group prior to the publication of the strategy?

Mr Givan: The Member will know more about this than I do, so I seek to relay as much information as I can to him. He will know that there are three pillars that form the anti-poverty strategy: minimising the risk of falling into poverty; mitigating the impacts of poverty; and assisting people to exit poverty.

I know that my colleague has been working on the issue over the months since he took up his position as Minister. He has engaged with stakeholders. He has committed to bringing a paper to the Executive within the next number of weeks, so it is his intention to have a paper with the Executive before the end of this month. I understand that he is considering that Executive paper right now while he does his duties in the United States of America representing the people of Northern Ireland and continues to do his work as Minister.

The paper will come to the Executive. It will then be for the Executive to agree it, which, I trust, they will. It will then go out for public consultation. There will be further opportunity for stakeholders to engage during that public consultation period.

Ms Mulholland: Thank you very much, Minister, for stepping in.

While the case against the Minister for Communities was dismissed, the Executive were found to be in breach of their statutory duty. What accountability mechanisms will be put in place to monitor the Executive's progress in developing and implementing the anti-poverty strategy, as it will be a full Executive strategy, rather than one at the behest of a single Department?

Mr Givan: The Member has articulated that, when it came to the finding, there was a breach by the Executive because of their duty. Minister Lyons has been progressing the work since he took up office. The court recognised the work that he has taken forward. The court dismissed the challenge from the Committee on the Administration of Justice (CAJ) relating to a failure on the part of the Minister for Communities. The CAJ also challenged the First Minister and deputy First Minister about complying with their obligations, and, again, the judge dismissed the case.

It is important now that we get on with the work of concluding the Executive's consideration of the paper when it comes forward. That will allow a consultation to take place on the strategy, which will give people further opportunity to engage with the process. My colleague has applied himself very much to the job of getting the strategy done. It did not need a court case for him to do that, because he has been getting on with the job. We will see the fruition of that over the next number of weeks.

Mr Kingston: The court's ruling last week was that, while the anti-poverty strategy is an outstanding commitment of the Executive as a whole, no individual Minister was in breach of their duty in the matter. Can the Minister confirm that Gordon Lyons, the current Minister for Communities, has stated repeatedly that he and his officials have been engaging across the Executive and that he plans to bring the draft anti-poverty strategy to the Executive Committee before the end of this month? In all these years —

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Sorry. It is not speech time —

Mr Kingston: — it has never been closer to realisation.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: — but supplementary question time.

Minister, if you do not mind.

Mr Givan: Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. I can confirm that Minister Lyons has raised the issue at Executive meetings. I can bear testimony to the fact that he has raised it and has kept Executive colleagues updated on the progress that has been made to get us to this stage. We are now close to having a paper presented to the Executive and, hopefully, a positive decision taken on it. We will then be able to make progress. Minister Lyons believes very much in providing support to people who need to be supported. He has been acting on that belief, and I believe that we are very close to making the progress that we need to see.

Mr O'Toole: It is slightly bizarre to hear Members and, indeed, the Minister fall over themselves to say that no Minister was found to be in breach. The Executive were found to be in breach of their legal obligation to produce an anti-poverty strategy. That is shaming for the House.

I ask the Minister, who is standing in for his colleague who is across the water — the big water, as it were — whether his colleague the Minister for Communities, given that he has said that he will produce the paper by the end of the month, has had any conversations with the Minister of Finance about whether the anti-poverty strategy will be funded.

Mr Givan: That is an important question. In bringing forward the strategy, what resource will be made available for it? That will be the real test. We need to get the strategy right, and it needs to be comprehensive. As with the strategies that I am pursuing, we need to make sure that they are the right ones. They need to be backed up with resource, however.

My colleague has been applying himself to the strategy. Indeed, when I was Minister for Communities, I had been making progress on it, but the Executive were then collapsed and not by me. I suspect that we would have had —.

Some Members: Not that time.

Mr Givan: Thank you. You got there.

As I was saying, when I was in post, I was making progress with the strategy. Gordon Lyons has now picked up the mantle and has been effective in getting us to this stage, but we need to get to the other side of an Executive decision and allow the public consultation to take place. The strategy needs to have a meaningful impact, however. Setting aside the political points that are being made, we all have the same objective, which is to help the people most in need in our society. That is a test not just for the Minister for Communities but for the entire Executive.

Miss Brogan: Day in, day out, community and voluntary groups and many other groups that deliver public services deal with the consequences of poverty in our communities. They are deeply frustrated by Mr Lyons's failure to produce an anti-poverty strategy to date. Does the Minister agree that the absence of a strategy inhibits our ability to tackle properly the root causes of poverty?

Mr Givan: You would have had an anti-poverty strategy had your party not collapsed the Assembly when I was in post. It would have been out of the door and in place.

Minister Lyons is very much applying himself to addressing the issue. He has engaged extensively on the issues and will bring a paper to the Executive in the next number of weeks, and I trust that it will be supported.

The Member makes a point about frustration. When we get the strategy through the Executive, the frustration will not be over the failure to have a strategy but over what resource is applied to it. It is the Member's party that holds the purse strings when it comes to what resources will be applied to the strategy. We will see how that test is passed or not.

Ms Forsythe: Will the Minister confirm that the Communities Minister has engaged across the Executive on the forthcoming anti-poverty strategy and that it will include actions for every Department and, ultimately, be a strategy for the entire Northern Ireland Executive, not just one Department?

Mr Givan: The Member is absolutely right about that engagement, including with my Department. I have engaged with the Minister and indicated the need to facilitate the outworkings of the strategy when it comes to education. One area that Members have raised as a concern is the holiday hunger payment, which the Department of Education cannot take forward — it does not have the resources to do it. However, I have asked whether the Department of Education and our schools can play a role in helping to address some of the issues.

Once the strategy is agreed by the Executive, it becomes an Executive-endorsed strategy; it will be a collective effort to see it taken forward. Minister Lyons has very much been leading on it, and I trust that, in the next number of weeks, he will secure Executive agreement for the paper that he intends to bring forward.

Ms K Armstrong: Minister, I appreciate that you are not the Minister for Communities, but will you provide clarification? An Executive strategy is within the remit of the Executive; the Minister for Communities is not in charge of the Executive. Will you explain how we will monitor and measure the effectiveness of the anti-poverty strategy when it eventually appears — 18 years late — given that other Departments will be involved and Committees are blocked from asking questions of those Departments?

Mr Givan: I hope that no Committee or Member will be prevented from asking questions about the implementation of this strategy or, indeed, any other strategy. I know that the Member is tenacious in how she goes about her work, and I am confident that she will get accountability and answers to the questions that she asks. I would expect Departments to provide answers to Members when they ask questions.

When it becomes an Executive-agreed strategy and there are commitments for other Departments to follow — as the Member highlights, the Minister has led on it, but it then becomes a collective, cross-cutting departmental commitment by the Executive — all of us will be held to account, my Department included, in how we go about meeting the objectives in the strategy. I would expect Departments to facilitate Members. As would be the case in any democratic institution, MLAs are elected to seek answers on behalf of their constituents, and I would expect them to be facilitated.

Mr Carroll: There was creative dodging and weaving on the Minister's part, but the court found the Executive to be acting unlawfully by not progressing the anti-poverty strategy. Why did it take a court case for the Communities Minister to finally move on the strategy? Will every social inclusion or language strategy be subject to a court battle?

Mr Givan: We live in a democratic society where people are entitled to seek recourse through the courts. It is an entitlement of any citizen to hold the executive branch to account through the courts. I welcome the opportunities that our citizens have. Many places across the world do not provide such freedoms to their citizens; we do. However, it did not take a court challenge for my ministerial colleague to get on with the job of bringing the strategy forward, nor should it take court challenges in other areas.

I assure the Member that the work has been taken forward by Minister Lyons. A paper will be presented to the Executive, I trust, before the end of this month, as he has committed to doing. We will allow the public consultation, and that will give people an opportunity to provide feedback. We will then be able to get on with the job of helping, protecting and supporting the most vulnerable in society — an objective that, I believe, the Member and I share.

Mr Durkan: I thank the Minister for coming to the Chamber and stepping in for his colleague.

Minister Givan has been quick to point the finger of blame squarely at Sinn Féin for its collapse of the Assembly and this delay. Does he accept the role that his party's subsequent two-year collapse of the institutions has played in the lamentable lack of an anti-poverty strategy and that there is collective fault for that collective failure?

Mr Givan: Test the commitment that Minister Lyons has shown: he brought the strategy forward and engaged with the work, and he is now bringing a paper to the Executive on it. I trust that the strategy will be put out to consultation and made available to enable the public to see what it contains. We will then have the responses to that consultation process. Good work has taken place. There is more to do, and I have every confidence in my colleague that he will continue to drive the work forward.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Minister. That concludes the item of business. I ask Members to take their ease for a moment, if they do not mind.

Ms Forsythe: I welcome the motion. Cash is king in Northern Ireland, and I welcome any motion that does its best to secure its availability. Individuals and businesses in Northern Ireland should have the right to access their cash free of charge, especially in rural areas, such as South Down, which I represent. The order, which brings in a rates exemption for ATMs in rural areas, is so very welcome. I urge the Minister to consider whether there is the potential to do any more, as it would be greatly welcomed. In areas such as mine, you often have to travel quite far to get cash, which means that individuals and businesses are quite cut off. At times, such as during the recent storm, there are prolonged periods without power and internet connectivity, so people's access to electronic banking and their finances can be a challenge. I welcome the order, and I encourage the Minister to consider whether there is anything else that he can do to help people in rural communities to continue to access their cash free of charge, because that would be most welcome.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): I call on the Minister to wind on the debate.

Mr O'Dowd: Go raibh maith agat, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle.

I welcome the contributions from Members on the order, which relates to the rates exemption for ATMs in designated rural areas. As things stand, the scheme is worth continuing for those who live in isolated rural communities and still depend on the availability of cash from ATMs. It will help to ensure that eligible ATMs are preserved in rural areas, providing greater access and support to those communities. I have listened to Members' comments about whether we can extend the scheme to urban settings and, perhaps, to rural settings further afield. I will look at that when we look at the small business rate relief scheme.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): I am looking for a Health Minister; you can never find one when you want one. He was here a minute ago. Ladies and gentlemen, take your ease for a moment or two while we get ready for the next item of business.

Mrs Dodds: 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 published on the Marshalled List, the Business Committee has agreed that 15 minutes will be added to the total time for the debate. Diane, please open the debate on the motion.

Mrs Dodds: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I am going to make some important points at the start of my speech, so it is to be regretted that the Minister is not here to hear them. [Interruption.]

I am sorry, Minister; thank you. It is good to see you.

I tabled the motion because I believe that the debate is hugely important not just for the Department of Health but for other Departments. Health visitors have a hugely important role in recognising when things are not quite right with children or when they are not reaching their milestones. That will have an impact on every Department. It will have an impact on the Department for Communities through poverty and social cohesion and so on, but it will also have an impact on the Department of Education. We cannot throw our hands up in horror in the Chamber and pretend that we did not know that the children concerned had all those difficulties or that they require statements when they arrive aged 3 or 4 into nursery school or P1 if we do not document those difficulties in the year 1 review.

It is really important to recognise that our children are not only our most vulnerable but our most precious of citizens, and we want to make sure that they are properly looked after and given the best start in life that we can possibly provide. This is about the importance of the role of the health visitor and their relationship with families. We want that to be valued and resourced, because we know the difference that they can make to young lives by maintaining children's good health and well-being. That can also be a huge safety net, however, and it is essential for prevention of and early interventions in ill health.

Health visitors are valuable in helping parents to understand cognitive development, nutrition and the importance of immunisation. The Healthy Child, Healthy Future (HCHF) programme offers a series of reviews to support parents to make choices to give children the best chance of being healthy. The year 1 review includes a family health assessment as well as topics such as growth, language development, oral health and dental registration, parenting support and health promotion.

In 2023-24, 15% of children did not receive a year 1 review. In the Southern Trust, an area that I represent that includes large areas from Dungannon through to Banbridge, Lurgan, Portadown, Newry, Armagh, Kilkeel and Annalong, the percentage of cases in which no contact was made rose to an alarming 46%. That is deeply regrettable and detrimental. A missed year 1 review is a lost opportunity to monitor, among other things, growth, feeding status and speech and language development. The Southern Trust had been struggling with unfilled vacancies, and full provision of all interventions appears to have resumed.

There were commitments that everyone would get their yearly review. I would appreciate the Minister's confirmation that that continues to be the case. At one point, as I understand it, as a result of workforce pressures, the Public Health Agency (PHA) issued interim guidance to trusts that the one-year contact would be omitted in specific circumstances. I understand that those interim measures have been stood down, with a marked rise in the number of contacts taking place on time.

Where one trust is trailing far behind the others, consideration needs to be given at a Northern Ireland-wide level as to how we do more to ensure an equivalent level of service. That goes back to what I continually reference in the House: there are social and economic inequalities in health, but there are also deep structural inequalities, which are perpetuated by trusts not having the same level of service across various parts of the health service. We should have a situation in which staff can work across boundaries. There is no magic wall between the Southern Trust and the South Eastern Health and Social Care Trust or the Western Health and Social Care Trust: staff should be able to work across boundaries and they should do so. That is very important. Minister, you have looked at a regional approach to breast cancer referrals, so maybe that is something that we should be looking at in this case. In September, there were 23 vacancies across our trusts and recruitment was actively under way to fill them, including six vacancies in the Southern Trust and six in the South Eastern Trust.

I was contacted recently by parents, and have been looking into the issue of skeletal dysplasia and the support that children with the condition receive so that they can engage in daily activities in as similar a way as possible to their peers, thrive and realise their full abilities. I tabled a number of important questions on the issue, and, so far, have been discouraged by some of the answers. That is an area where health visitors, through developmental reviews, will help ensure that children are referred to the appropriate services for assessment and receive the appropriate additional support.

The findings of an Institute of Health Visiting survey of health visitors across the UK, which was unveiled in January, showed a rising need among families that face increasingly complex health and developmental challenges, with support becoming harder to access. Service gaps were also flagged, with massive differences in the availability of services across the United Kingdom. Health visitors spoke of being under immense pressure with challenging workloads, and that is no different in our part of the United Kingdom. Mental health problems were considered to be the main reason for increased demand, with the behavioural problems of the child, including growing concerns about neurodevelopmental issues such as autism or ADHD, being the second most common reason for families needing extra help. Practitioners said that work was more dominated by social concerns, with more families impacted on by poverty and safeguarding concerns. That goes back to the coherent service that children and young people should expect from the Department and the lack of social work access experienced by many families, which is particularly acute for families of children with disabilities.

Again in the Southern Trust, I have had conversations recently with families who have real concerns about the development of their children but have not been able to access appropriate social work help. We need to look not only at the health visiting needs but at continuing that work by having a coherent service for children and young people.

In a recent conversation with the Southern Trust — I digress a little because this annoyed me so much — I felt as though the officials were simply going through the motions: "I have to deal with this difficult MLA, and I'll have to have the call and the meeting". Behind that call was a family in real distress. Everybody is under pressure, but it is really important that we look at how we help children to access services at the earliest stage but also as they progress through their lifetime.

Help for mothers who may have difficulties with the birth or development of their children is another issue. I know that you have been doing some work, Minister, on exclusion in areas of social and economic deprivation. This issue neatly fits into that programme. I want children, no matter where they are born in Northern Ireland, to have access to services and to be able to grow up, develop and thrive in the best way possible.

In Northern Ireland, unlike some parts of the United Kingdom, there has been some rise in the birth —.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Diane, will you bring your remarks to a close?

Mrs Dodds: Yes, of course, Mr Deputy Speaker.

Minister, it is a really important debate. It attacks the most fundamental part of a child's development and progress. I hope that you will have some positive things to tell us.

Mrs Guy: I beg to move the following amendment:

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Thank you. You will have 10 minutes to propose the amendment and five minutes in which to make a winding-up speech. All other Members will have five minutes. Please open the debate on the amendment.

Mrs Guy: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. This great motion is really worthwhile, and I thank the proposer for moving it. Our amendment does not seek to remove anything from the original motion; it seeks to do two other things. First, it makes reference to the importance of delivering an updated Healthy Child, Healthy Future framework, which, I know, is advanced in its progress. Secondly, it recognises and underscores the important intersection between health and education in relation to child development. The intention of the amendment is to strengthen and reinforce the central tenet of the original motion that the one-year assessment is a vital tool for tracking a child's development progress in health and early education.

We reference two important, credible reports: the independent review of education and the Executive-endorsed 'A Fair Start'. Both highlight how crucial the health visitor role is in the educational outcomes of our children. I am sure that Members on the Health Committee share the frustration of those of us on the Education Committee about the sheer volume of evidence that shows how vital early intervention is but how relatively little it happens in practice.

Early years assessments provide a perfect opportunity for effective collaboration. Health visitors are one of the clearest examples of the power of early intervention. They play such a wide-ranging role, providing parental education and support, providing positive parenting advice and health advice, safeguarding, assessing development milestones and ensuring early identification of additional needs and interventions. They are there for the child, but they are, importantly, also there for the parents and carers.

There is a growing body of evidence that the first 1,000 days of a child's life, from conception to age two, are absolutely essential to their long-term outcomes. That is why the 'A Fair Start' report highlights the fact that the highest rate of return in terms of childhood development will come from investing as early as possible. That is crucial in reducing the educational attainment gap, which begins at a very young age and continues to widen.

Parenting can be incredibly difficult, especially for those who are struggling financially, those dealing with health issues or those who have little family support. Health visitors can guide and reassure parents. They are a source of trusted information on the daily challenges of parenthood. With social media and the huge amount of non-evidence-based advice that is going around, parents need those trusted sources more than ever.

Given how important the role is, I was extremely concerned when I read the latest Healthy Child, Healthy Future review statistics. They showed that only 59% of year 1 reviews were completed within the accepted time frame, and, as the motion references, 15% were not done at all. In the Southern Trust, 46% or over 2,000 year 1 reviews were recorded as not completed. When I asked about those missed year-1 reviews in a question for written answer, the Minister, in his response, noted the workforce challenges faced, in particular, by the Southern Trust, and that, for those who missed a review, an appropriate in-person review has now taken place. It clearly shows a system that is under great pressure. I do not know whether the impact of a delayed review can be clearly demonstrated.

The current Healthy Child, Healthy Future framework was produced in 2010 and is due to be replaced imminently. It notes that the year 1 review is to include an updated family health assessment, monitor the growth of the child, review speech and language development and promote oral and general health, including dental registration. Those are all vital, let alone the issue of safeguarding, which I have already mentioned, and the role that health visitors play in ensuring that issues are prevented or reported.

Through our amendment, my party is keen to hear from the Minister about whether the new Healthy Child, Healthy Future framework, which has long been delayed, has taken on board the recommendations from the 'A Fair Start' report and the independent review of education. 'A Fair Start' noted:

It recommended that the Department:

The report specifically highlighted the importance of the reviews at one year and two and a half years from an early education perspective, noting that, while those reviews may be of lesser significance than earlier reviews from a health perspective, they are crucial in relation to cognitive development; for example, in relation to speech and language. In a similar vein, the independent review outlined just how vital health visitors are and recommended that the programme of assessing beyond six to nine months should be reviewed to ensure that cognitive development is properly tracked.

We have had little information about the development of the new Healthy Child, Healthy Future framework following the workshops with the voluntary and community sector that took place in 2022. It is my understanding that there will be no formal consultation process. The voluntary and community organisations that provided expert advice during the workshops have not been kept up to date with the progress of the framework.

There is a lot to get reassurance and clarity on from the Minister. What is clear is how fundamental health visitors are — maybe more now than ever before — but the value that they bring through the early assessments can be realised only if they happen and happen consistently. We need reassurances from the Minister that there will be safeguards in place to ensure that the level of missed appointments noted in the motion never happens again, especially as the new Healthy Child, Healthy Future framework is produced.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): I call Philip McGuigan. Philip, you have five minutes.

Mr McGuigan: I thank the Members opposite for tabling this important motion. I will begin by saying that, as the father of four children and daideo

— it is Irish for "grandfather" but sounds much younger

— to two gariníonacha

, I recognise and have witnessed first-hand the vital role of health visitors and the work that they do, whether that is monitoring a child's developmental milestones, providing support and advice to parents where required, the prevention and early detection of ill health or developmental challenges or identifying babies and children who are potentially at risk. The role of health visitors is clearly important in ensuring that children have the best start in life to allow them to fulfil their potential and improve their long-term health outcomes. That, in turn, has had a positive impact on those children, as they have developed through life, and on their families, their schools, the health service and the economy as a whole.

Early detection for health and/or developmental challenges is vital, especially at a time when support is becoming harder to access due to growing waiting lists. As we know, schools are struggling with the increasing levels of support required when children enter preschool and primary school. I recognise the difficulties of workforce strain and stresses from the pressures of huge caseloads, but the number of missed year 1 visits and no contacts is concerning, particularly, as the Member across the Chamber outlined, in the Southern Trust area, where those figures are much higher. Regional inequality is being perpetuated as a result of gaps in the accessibility of health visitors in some areas; those gaps can create and exacerbate existing health inequalities.

Sinn Féin will support the motion and the amendment and agrees with their key ask that the Minister should:

Sinn Féin also agrees that the Minister should:

As the Member who moved the amendment said, while it is primarily a health issue, it has implications for the education of our young children. She outlined the 'A Fair Start' action plan, which was submitted by the expert panel on educational underachievement to the then Education Minister in 2021 and was endorsed by the whole Executive. It is an New Decade, New Approach (NDNA) commitment. It aims to ensure that children get the support that they need from birth and throughout their early years, up to and including the time when they start school. It prioritises investment in early years and gives prominence to emotional health and well-being. Actions relating to health visitors include that the Department of Education should undertake a review of the Sure Start staffing structure to ensure that there is access to the necessary health professions, including health visitors and midwives. The Department of Health should expand the developmental role of the health visitor/community midwife to provide early support, education and signposting. We have called for it to be fully funded and for the implementation of its recommendations.

The independent review of education commenced in October 2021 and is also an NDNA commitment. The final report was published in December 2023, and, while its key recommendations were education-focused, it noted:

I agree with the proposer of the motion: it is an important issue. It is vital for the health and well-being of our children, and it merges into the educational well-being of our children. We look forward to hearing from the Minister and hope that he will make some good pronouncements on the issue in his conclusion.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): I apologise from the Table that we did not reset the clock. You took just about five minutes, so that was spot on.

Mr Chambers: There is no doubt that home visits are a vital source of support for new parents and their children. The first few weeks and months of a child's life can be a nervous time for any new parent, no matter how experienced. That is why the visits from midwives and health visitors are so important. Those visits and the one-year review also provide a valuable chance for parents to discuss any concerns or observations that they have in the comfort of their home. It is widely recognised that the care given during a child's first stages has more influence on their future than that at any other time in their life. If there are concerns, it is essential that they are identified and responded to at the earliest opportunity.

No doubt, the longer that the Minister is in post, the more staggering he is finding the true scale of health inequalities. The outcomes for children are not immune from health inequalities. Whilst there is a multitude of explanations, children living in households in the lowest socio-economic groups have significantly worse health outcomes than other children. Therefore, it is a matter of concern that a number of one-year reviews are being missed.

The Department told me that it was alert to the problem and that steps were being taken to resolve it. Having recently received a further update on the matter, I was glad to see that real progress has been made. Whilst I hope that the Minister can today provide a further, similarly positive update, I urge his Department to maintain sufficient monitoring and oversight mechanisms to ensure that such variations do not appear again at a later date.

Mr McGrath: In addressing the motion, it is important that I set it in the context in which we find ourselves. The motion makes the important points that the fact that 15% of children across all health trusts are not being seen by a health visitor is alarming, that the fact that that percentage rose to 46% in the Southern Trust is deeply concerning and that, yes, we:

Another point that is just as important needs to be made, however. In 2022-23, the year previous to the year that is dealt with in the motion, the number of children who were not being seen across all trusts for their year 1 health review was 33%, so we improved by 18% in 2023-24. In the Southern Trust in 2022-23, the number of children who were not being seen was a staggering 65%, so, again, we managed to improve by 19% in a year. The overall figure for year 1 health reviews across the North that were completed within the accepted time increased from 46% to 59% during the period. There is therefore improvement in the sector, but, in congratulating ourselves on that improvement, we should not overlook the fact that a massive number of children are not being seen in time.

The proposer of the motion will undoubtedly agree that a motion could have been tabled much earlier had this place not been collapsed during the two years that we are talking about, in which time matters were at their absolute worst. We can see that it was through the resilience, determination and hard work of staff in the sector that matters were addressed. We politicians are now able to reflect on that.

Mr Allen: Will the Member give way?

Mr McGrath: Yes, of course.

Mr Allen: Importantly, the Member highlights the fact that we could have already debated a motion had this place been up and running. Equally, however, we could have had a Minister pulling ministerial levers to try to address the problem.

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

Mr McGrath: I will not need it, but thank you very much, Mr Deputy Speaker.

That is the very point that I was making. Had we had a Minister in place, and had this place been up and running, we could have addressed the matter, but it was instead left to the staff to do so. Thankfully, they did the work that they had to do to turn around the figures.

It is really important to note that we can always do better. That much is clear. All of us, regardless of our age or background, want only the best for our children. We want to give them the best start that they can get in life. I spoke to health visitors about the motion, and they detailed to me the work that they do and how they are able to identify certain traits or characteristics in children during those early formative years. Although it is regrettable that 15% of children were not seen by the age of one, there is little that could have been done differently had traits been identified at that age. Even if traits were to be identified at two years of age, we currently see only 93% of children by that age. What can we do at that stage if we do identify traits, however? Health visitors tell me that they notice nuances in behaviour that may indicate autism or ADHD and that may need to be addressed. When children are seen by our expert health visitors, they can identify those particular traits, but there is nothing that they can do about autism until a child is three. By the time that a child gets to that stage, there is a three-year waiting list. Autism could therefore be identified at the age of one or two, yet nothing can be done about it until children are three, and even then they only get placed on a long waiting list.

Many children have the traits of ADHD. Those children cannot be seen until they are seven. At that stage, there is a two-year waiting list. Traits may be noticed at the age of one, two or three, but, again, nothing can be done about them. It is therefore important that the Minister give some consideration to what we could do if we were to identify those traits early. Are there interventions that could be made that would make a difference? It must be deeply frustrating for health visitors when they notice something but know that it may be five years before it can be addressed by an expert.

We have no issues with the amendment. We welcome it. The Healthy Child, Healthy Future framework is 15 years old, however. It is currently under review, and we need to nudge it over the line. Safeguarding has changed, for example, as has the family model. Lots of things are evolving daily, never mind having as our guide a strategy that was implemented 15 years ago. Getting that review completed and those changes implemented will certainly do what we are all looking to do: to give our children and young people the best possible start in life.

Ms Flynn: I support the motion and the amendment. I thank colleagues for proposing the motion, which emphasises the critical importance of the one-year-old health review and the indispensable role of health visitors in ensuring our children's well-being.

I had already prepared my speech, but on Friday night, as part of the celebrations to mark International Women's Day, I attended a lecture by Dr Avni Amin at Queen's University. She has worked for the past 30 years in the World Health Organization on issues specifically around ending violence against women and girls. Some of her remarks linked to how health systems and health workers can help deal with that issue. I am digressing a wee bit, but we talk about the importance of health visitors in ensuring the well-being of our babies and children; they also play a critical role in supporting the well-being of the mothers whom they go out to visit in their homes. On Friday night, the contributors talked about our context: sadly, since 2020, 25 women have been violently murdered. When a health worker goes out to a mother's home, at that particular time when she has a young baby, it is a key opportunity to pick up on whether any violence is occurring in that home. The broader conversation on what training we can offer to health and social care workers, particularly health visitors, to try to pick up women who may be suffering violence in the home is one that we can maybe have at a later stage in the Health Committee to bring the issue to the Minister's attention.

I return, with apologies, to the specific issue of the motion on the well-being of our children and the importance of our health visitors going into homes. I want to concentrate on my constituency of West Belfast, which, as the Minister will know, is similar to other areas in that these issues are particularly pressing there. West Belfast faces significant health challenges that demand urgent attention. I have to say that the recent inclusion of parts of the Falls Road and Shankill Road in the Minister's Live Better programme is absolutely a step in the right direction in trying to improve health outcomes for our communities.

That initiative seeks to ensure that every child, regardless of background, has an equal opportunity to grow up healthy and thrive. However, much more needs to be done. The fact that 15% of children across the North missed their one-year-old health review in 2023-24 is deeply concerning. Even more alarming is the figure that the Southern Health and Social Care Trust mentioned: nearly half of the children there missed that vital check. The stark postcode lottery means that children's access to essential health services is being determined by where they live, which is unacceptable. In West Belfast, where the socioeconomic challenges are pronounced, the inequalities are even more severe. Higher rates of poverty, unemployment and limited access to healthcare only exacerbate the problem. That is why programmes such as Sure Start are so vital: they provide essential support for families, improving child development and well-being, particularly in disadvantaged communities. The evidence shows that Sure Start reduces hospital admissions and enhances school readiness, making a difference in children's lives. However, nearly two decades of British austerity has led, sadly, to the closure of many Sure Start centres, threatening the progress that has been made. That cannot continue.

It is imperative that the Minister of Health works closely with all trusts to ensure universal and timely access to health reviews for all our children, with a specific focus on areas such as West Belfast and the Southern Health and Social Care Trust region, which face the greatest challenges.

Mr Martin: This is an issue in which I have been interested for some time, as it links health and education directly. As mentioned by the Member for Lagan Valley, the first 1,000 days are critical. The first 1,000 days are the time in the womb and post birth. Specifically, it refers to the period until a child turns two, and the child's brain capacity and structure are shaped at an exponential rate during that time. Some 80% of brain development is in the first 1,000 days. It is the period when we notice a child's auditory, visual and learning abilities and when their memory and information processing systems are formed. It is worth highlighting the fact that the first 1,000 days have a lifelong effect on the well-being and health of the child as they grow up. Things such as stress, poverty and violence experienced in the home will have, in many cases, lifelong negative health effects on that baby.

That is why the debate is so important. Very often, we talk about early intervention. In fact, not a week has gone by since I joined the Assembly when somebody has not talked about early intervention in the Chamber, and it is great and important that we are talking about it today, but this is early intervention. Short of prenatal care, it is one of the pathways that identify the earliest intervention mechanisms, whether it is health visitors — the crux of the motion that we are debating today — or the midwives who visit shortly after birth and, perhaps, at 14 days. The Minister rightly talks about what he calls "shifting left", and I agree that shifting left is the right thing to do, as long as it pushes earlier and faster interventions.

The motion is important because the visits that we are talking about today identify speech and language therapy issues. Speech and language therapists can have profound effects, as long as that therapy is introduced early. They can highlight cognitive development issues, and, as the Member opposite mentioned, provide support and help to young mums. Everyone who has spoken so far in the debate, regardless of political party or affiliation, has agreed that the roles are critical. Even if we leave aside the clear benefits to the child and the family, it makes economic sense. The earlier that issues are identified, the more cost-effective and, usually, more effective the intervention will be.

Today, I urge the Minister to address the crux of the motion and the amendment, which we will support. It is to drive down those numbers, not least to give children in Northern Ireland the best possible start in life. If the Assembly is serious about early intervention, that must start when the baby is in the womb. After the baby is born, the next most critical time is the next 700 days. That is why those visits are important, and I ask the Minister to prioritise that area.

Mr Carroll: Discussions about our health and social care crisis often focus on ambulance waiting times, packed emergency departments and the unsustainability of general practice, pharmacy and dentistry. However, another crisis bubbling underneath the surface is one that involves babies and children missing out on basic healthcare and the opportunities for early intervention.

We have heard that 23% of children who were waiting for their one-year-old review were seen late, and 15% were not seen at all. The statistics are a real indictment of our health service. In Belfast, just 54% of one-year-old reviews were held on time, which is a shocking statistic. Those health reviews are not just casual check-ins or an extra bit of reassurance for families; they are timely, comprehensive child health reviews that promote strong bonds and attachments between parents and their children. I am concerned that the reviews are not happening, and I do not blame those healthcare support workers.

I blame those who have cut and gutted the health service for so many years through the Budget process in this Building.

During preschool health reviews, health visitors identify safety concerns as well as early issues with developmental delay and ill health. Health visitors promote breastfeeding and good nutrition, but the impact of their work extends far beyond the home. Early intervention sets children up for better short-term and long-term health outcomes. It reduces the risk of social exclusion and increases readiness for school.

We also need health visitors who are fluent in Irish and those who are trained to support families whose first language is not English. I am concerned that the Department and the trusts do not gather the data to monitor the number of children who receive appointments from their health visitor through Irish. I suspect that it is probably zero. It is not a luxury. I declare an interest as a father who is raising children through the medium of Irish. I am really concerned that language development and communication skills cannot be monitored if no Irish language is available through the health visitor. Therefore, I implore the Minister to act on that as well.

The current workforce pressures on public health nursing are undoubtedly having an impact on children's health reviews. The PHA previously issued guidance to trusts that the year 1 review could be omitted, and that is completely unacceptable. Children should not be made to pay for the continued failure to invest in the health and social care workforce. Consistent, high-quality and child-focused health reviews are crucial for giving every child the best start in life and to locate neglect or abuse, as we heard.

It is undeniable that children who are born in the most deprived areas are at a stark disadvantage when it comes to access to healthcare. Class shapes everything in this society, including the connection of mother and baby. The rate of breastfeeding in the most deprived quintile of the North is 39%; in the least deprived quintile, the rate is 68%. Mothers who live in the most deprived areas are more likely to give birth prematurely. Babies who are born in low-income areas are almost twice as likely to be born at a low birth weight. Infant death is increasing in the most deprived areas. For families in the most deprived areas, reviews from health visitors are a literal lifeline that can help to reduce health inequalities. Without those regular reviews and interventions from the earliest stages, those health inequalities will only grow as children get older. Children who miss out on crucial opportunities for early intervention will be more likely to experience homelessness, social isolation and mental health issues when they are older.

To give all children the best start in life, they need to grow up in a society that is free from poverty and inequality. Sixteen per cent of children who live in my constituency of West Belfast are impacted on by the two-child limit. That means that 16% of children are being financially punished for being born into a larger family. I declare an interest as somebody who comes from a larger family and was raised through welfare system support and whose mother and father could not have survived without that support. It is a shame that it is not available to constituents in my constituency and beyond.

We need universal free school meals to promote public health and educational attainment and to fight poverty, but, at the most basic level, we need an anti-poverty strategy that is based on objective need with clear outcomes for children and young people. I support the motion and the amendment for those reasons.

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

Mr Nesbitt (The Minister of Health): Thank you very much, Mr Deputy Speaker. I thank the proposer of the motion and the proposer of the amendment for bringing this important issue forward for debate today.

One of the first Committees that I sat on when I was first elected was the Education Committee, and I became a fanboy of the late Professor Ken Robinson, who talked about the "element" that is in a pupil. It reminded me that, as a school governor, I used to talk about "the spark". Inside every child, without exception, there is a spark of ability, creativity and talent, and it is our duty as a society to create the environment where they can find out what that spark is and fan it out into a great forest fire of passion for learning and for life. If we want to afford every child the best possible start in life, surely our first base is to deliver on our commitments. If the commitment is to an assessment for every child in the first year, the only acceptable percentage has to be 100%. Every time that we drop below that, we need to ask why. Sometimes there may be legitimate explanations, but 100% has to be the target.

I thank Peter Martin for pointing out that these assessments are entirely consistent with my desire to shift left. Absolutely; healthcare should be delivered at home or as close to home as possible, and that should include prevention and early intervention to give the child and the family the best possible start. I acknowledge the crucial work that our health visitors deliver daily. They are integral to supporting families in the first few years of life; they are a vital part of the health and social care ecosystem; and they are instrumental in identifying developmental concerns. They provide advice that is often critical to parents, particularly new parents who are wondering how they are going to manage, and they ensure that families have the support that they need to provide the best start in life for their children.

As Members have acknowledged, I have a commitment to addressing health inequalities, which, I am glad to say, is also reflected in the Executive's Programme for Government. The work of health visitors is key in helping to address health inequalities by promoting early intervention, ensuring the health of our children and ensuring that future generations have the best start. Their expertise in child health, child development and family well-being is crucial, and their work is fundamental to ensuring that our children have that best possible start.

I recognise the concerns raised by the motion and the statistics that it highlights on year 1 reviews in Northern Ireland generally and the Southern Trust specifically. The fact that 15% of children here did not receive their year 1 review in the financial year 2023-24 is more than concerning to me. The regional disparity due to the position of the Southern Trust in the same period is also troubling. The figures are unacceptable. Every child in Northern Ireland deserves equal access to healthcare, regardless of postcode. The year 1 health review is one of a number of important health contacts in a child's development, allowing us to identify and address potential health issues and ensuring optimal growth and development.

The Northern Ireland-wide figures highlighted in the motion relate to 2023-24. Regrettably, during that period, health visiting services in some of our trusts faced significant workforce challenges with a large number of unfilled vacancies. Those issues were particularly critical in the Southern Trust, which experienced significant workforce challenges with a large number of unfilled vacancies that impacted on its ability to fully deliver year 1 reviews as recommended in the Healthy Child, Healthy Future policy. The Southern Trust has worked to increase recruitment to its complement of health visitors to allow it to deliver the services that are required. My Department has supported that increase in recruitment by funding significant training opportunities for nurses and midwives who wish to specialise in health visiting. I am pleased that the trust has been able to resume full provision of the Healthy Child, Healthy Future programme, and I have been assured that, based on current internal monitoring processes, uptake has improved significantly. Throughout that period, the trust took action to assess, manage and mitigate the risks involved. It has also reviewed its health visiting caseload and provided assurance that, in any case in which the year 1 review was not completed, an appropriate review has now taken place.

The House will be aware of the wider workforce challenges that we face. The health visitor workforce has, like many other parts of our health and social care system, been under strain. Health visitors are working with and managing much higher levels of complexity in our society, and the recruitment and retention of health visitors has been challenging, which will inevitably impact on service delivery.

Work continues across all trusts to address those challenges through workforce planning and recruitment exercises and the prioritisation of health visiting contacts as appropriate. I reassure the House that any decision to stand down any element of core health visiting reviews, as defined in the existing Healthy Child, Healthy Future framework, will be subject to a risk assessment by the trust in question.

I absolutely agree with the motion's call to end regional inequalities. The early years are critical to a child's lifelong health and well-being, and every child in Northern Ireland therefore deserves the best possible start. It is our responsibility to ensure that health and social care services are equitable, effective and accessible to all. Members will be aware that Healthy Child, Healthy Future is the framework for the universal child health promotion programme in Northern Ireland. The framework outlines the core health visiting and school nursing reviews that all families with children aged from nought to 19 can expect to receive. It is recognised as being central to improving child health across a range of issues and giving every child and young person the best start in life. I am pleased to be able to confirm that a refreshed framework is nearing completion, and I expect to publish it in May of this year. The refreshed framework will bring increased focus on providing additional support in the first two years of life, from conception to age two, and on tackling inequalities by focusing on families at risk of marginalisation and social exclusion.

As the number of children requiring additional support in schools is rising, the framework will have an increased focus on early identification and support, and this should enable children to be school-ready and ready to learn. Improving health outcomes for our school-aged population is a key principle of the refreshed school nursing programme. Improving the emotional health and well-being of our schoolchildren through helping to build resilience and encouragement in the development of healthy lifestyles, together with the promotion of health literacy, is fundamental in improving outcomes for children and young people.

As Members have noted, I have also launched a Live Better initiative, which has one strand and a sole focus on starting well. While not solely focused on the year 1 review, the Live Better initiative presents a unique opportunity to work collaboratively to improve access to early years healthcare in communities experiencing deprivation, and it should also help inform future collaborative work more generally.

The health and well-being of our children must be a high priority, and the year 1 health review is not just a tick-box exercise but a crucial opportunity to support child development and family health. I am committed to working with all health and social care trusts to ensure that every child in Northern Ireland receives that vital health review within the accepted time frame. The refreshed Healthy Child, Healthy Future framework will play a key role in that.

Mr Carroll: I thank the Minister for giving way and outlining all that. As part of the framework, will he indicate whether children whose first language is not English are being looked at? I am concerned that, potentially, there could be people with developmental or other problems that might not be picked up on if the health visitor does not speak the appropriate language.

Mr Nesbitt: I thank the Member for his intervention and understand his concern in that area. I will double-check, but I do not have any concerns that anybody who needs to access healthcare in our HSC system, who lives in Northern Ireland and who does not have English as their first language, experiences any difficulty in getting translation services. However, as I say, I am more than happy to check that.

We owe it to our children to give them the best possible start in life, and that means ensuring that every child, regardless of where they live, receives the support that they need in those critical early years. By strengthening our health visiting services and addressing those regional inequalities, we can and should build a healthier, more equitable future for all our children. I am committed to working alongside health visitors, local communities and all relevant stakeholders to achieve that.

Finally, Deputy Speaker, I address Mr McGuigan, the Chair of the Health Committee. Every day is a learning day: is it Daideo?

Mr McGuigan: It is.

Mr Nesbitt: Congratulations. I do not know how long you have been a Daideo, but I am sure that you are enjoying it.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Thank you very much indeed, Minister. I call Michelle Guy to make the winding-up speech on the amendment. Sorry, we have your name down, Michelle, but I shall allow Daniel to do it. I call Mr Donnelly to make a winding-up speech on the amendment. You have five minutes.

Mr Donnelly: Thank you Mr Deputy Speaker. I thank the proposer of the motion and all who spoke for their contributions. I will make a few points before highlighting some of the points raised by Members who spoke previously.

As my colleague from Lagan Valley said when proposing it, our amendment does not seek to change the motion, which is already very good, but to improve it with two additional points. First, the importance of delivering an updated Healthy Child, Healthy Future framework, and, secondly, to recognise the overlap between Health and Education in child development. As mentioned, the first two and a half years of a child's life are extremely important, and these six reviews are a key part of that. Health visitors can play an important role in assessing children and reassuring their parents. That is particularly important given the rise of misinformation on social media, including advice that is promoted without sufficient evidence.

The Minister has stated here and in answers to questions for written answer that workforce pressures are the key problem in respect of the missed one-year-old health reviews, as evidenced by the 2023-24 statistics that other Members have raised. That report also highlights the roll-out of Encompass, and while that will be beneficial in the long term, it can create short-term problems. I encourage the Minister to look into best practice from our other trusts in their roll-out to date, given that the Southern Trust will launch Encompass in less than two months. I also welcome the update from the Minister on the refresh of the Healthy Child, Healthy Future framework, and I look forward to further updates from the Minister in the near future.

I now turn to some of the comments made by other Members during the debate. My Lagan Valley colleague Michelle Guy pointed out that the value of these assessments is that they happen regularly, so they must be able to do that. Our Health Committee Chair, Philip McGuigan, or Daideo

, called for the Department of Health to expand the role of health visitors in health and education. Colin McGrath highlighted the regional disparity in service delivery, with 46% of children in the Southern Trust currently not being seen. He also highlighted the fact that that was previously 65% and noted the improvement, albeit with lots more work to do. He also pointed out that the issue got bad when this place was not functioning and that a Minister could have been in post a lot earlier to address that. He is right, of course: when this place goes down, services are impacted on and people suffer. Protecting services such as this is another reason why we need to reform our political institutions to prevent any one party from blocking the formation of a functioning Executive.

Órlaithí Flynn raised the opportunity for health visitors to pick up on the signs of domestic violence in the home, which is obviously a huge issue for women at this vulnerable time. Peter Martin talked about the pace of brain development — 80% in the first 1,000 days — and the lifelong impact of events that take place during that time. He also highlighted the fact that those health visits are early interventions, and there is clearly a lot of cross-party support for those interventions. Gerry Carroll raised concern about the lack of Irish language services available to health visitors and to families who speak Irish. He also raised the impact of poverty on life opportunities and called for the implementation of an anti-poverty strategy.

The Minister of Health, Mike Nesbitt, mentioned the spark within each child and stated that the only acceptable target for assessments is 100%. He said that they are entirely consistent with his desire to shift left and tackle inequalities. He also announced that the refreshed framework will be published in May to help children to be school-ready and ready to learn.

There is a good degree of agreement around the Chamber on the importance of health visits and early intervention, and our intervention —. Sorry, our —

Apologies.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Amendment.

Mr Donnelly: Our amendment; thank you. Our amendment is to build upon an already strong motion.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): I call Alan Robinson to wind up the debate. Alan, you have up to 10 minutes.

Mr Robinson: OK. Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker.

I very much appreciate all the contributions, and I thank everyone who contributed. I thank the proposer of the Alliance amendment, which focuses on recommendations that remain outstanding from the 'A Fair Start' report and the independent review of education. As was said earlier, we are content with the amendment.

The health of young people in Northern Ireland is certainly an issue that the Minister's Department needs to get a grip of, and he has certainly given commitments today that that is what he intends to do. The one-year-old health review is key in the early years of a child's life. It helps to identify potential health concerns and provide parents with guidance and support, but it also ensures that children have the best possible start in life. The fact that 15% of children across Northern Ireland miss their health visitor review at that key stage and the fact that, in the Southern Health and Social Care Trust, that figure has soared to a shocking 46% should be sending alarm bells to the Minister's Department. As has been said, missing the one-year-old review could well lead to many lost opportunities to detect developmental delays and the ability to provide an early intervention that could change the trajectory of a child's life.

Whilst health visitors are responsible for monitoring a child's growth and development, they are also an important support pillar for parents. They provide guidance on nutrition, sleep, immunisation and mental health, and they are often the first to identify when a child may need additional support services. Their work ensures that concerns are dealt with and that families do not fall through the sometimes complicated health system. For many parents, especially those facing socio-economic challenges, health visitors offer reassurance, advice and signposting to services that can make an enormous difference in a child's early years.

Missing out on a health review could see some children go without the support that they require, leading to greater difficulties down the line, such as with speech and language development, motor skills and overall well-being. Missing the one-year-old health review can also be a lost opportunity to detect early signs of developmental delay, to support a family struggling with postnatal mental health, or to provide information on immunisation and nutrition. How many times have we heard it said in the House — we have heard it here today — that early intervention is key to improving outcomes? That could not be truer for children. Studies consistently show that, if developmental delays are identified and addressed early, it leads to significantly better outcomes in education, mental health and overall well-being. Missing out on health reviews means that developmental delays may go unnoticed until a child starts nursery or even primary school, by which time interventions are much more difficult, more costly and less effective.

The disparity between different health and social care trusts raises concerns about equity in access to services. Why should a child in one part of the Province have a dramatically lower chance of receiving a health review than a child in another? The postcode lottery flies in the face of the aim of ensuring that every child has an equal chance of a healthy start in life. The Minister must ensure — I am glad, as I said earlier, that he has committed to it — that all health and social care trusts ensure that every child receives their one-year-old health review within the accepted time frame. The Department cannot allow another year in which nearly half of the children in one health and social care trust miss out on their health review.

I will comment on some of the contributions. My eloquent colleague Diane Dodds talked about the importance of the debate. She said that, although it is important for the Department of Health, it is an issue that cuts across a number of Departments. She said that children are precious, which could be the most critical thing that has been said in the Chamber today. Diane also spoke of there being no magic wall between trusts. I am sure that the Minister agrees that all trusts should work and think as one, particularly when it comes to this important issue.

Michelle Guy, in proposing the amendment, talked in depth about the Healthy Child, Healthy Future framework. She also highlighted the importance of the first 1,000 days of a child's life. I am sure that all of us who are parents agree. Philip McGuigan, the Chair of the Health Committee, focused on early detection's being so vital and on the importance of the motion, for which we are all grateful. My Health Committee colleague Alan Chambers talked about the importance of the outcomes for children. He said that he hoped that the issues would not occur again. We all concur. Colin McGrath from the Opposition said that children should always have the best start in life, in keeping with the theme of others who took part in the debate. Órlaithí Flynn talked about the postcode lottery, and the importance of Sure Start. Peter Martin my party colleague also talked about the first 1,000 days and about those starting in the womb. He also talked at length about early intervention. Gerry Carroll talked about this issue's being another crisis in the health service. He said that children should not be made to pay for the problems in the health service.

We are grateful, Minister, for your saying that the target needs to be 100% and that children should have the best possible start in life. That is the crux of the motion. The Minister also said that the figures before us are unacceptable. Furthermore, he talked about the workforce challenges in the Southern Trust, but it would have been good to hear about whether it would have been possible to draft in health visitors from other trusts to fill the void. It was good to hear that a refreshed Healthy Child, Healthy Future framework will be published in May. We look forward to your returning to the House so that we can debate the matter in more detail.

I very much appreciate everyone's contributions today, and I thank Diane Dodds for tabling the motion with me.

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

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

Mr Dickson: I beg to move

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): The Business Committee has agreed to allow up to one hour and 30 minutes for the debate. The proposer of the motion will have 10 minutes in which to propose and 10 minutes in which to make a winding-up speech. Two amendments have been selected and are published on the Marshalled List, so the Business Committee has agreed that 30 minutes will be added to the total time for the debate.

Mr Dickson: We are here to discuss an issue that should have been consigned to history a long time ago. More than a quarter of a century after the signing of the Good Friday Agreement, Northern Ireland should be free from the shadow of paramilitarism. It should be free from the fear and intimidation that paramilitary groups inflict, free from the control that they exert over communities and free from the crime and violence that they continue to perpetrate.

Instead, we find ourselves once again debating their existence, their influence and the deeply flawed suggestion that they must somehow be coaxed into disbandment.

That the UK and Irish Governments propose appointing an independent expert to engage with paramilitary groups in an effort to explore their so-called transition is nothing less than shameful. Let us be absolutely clear: that is the wrong approach. It is an insult to the victims of those criminal gangs, who suffer from their drug dealing, loan sharking, child abuse and prostitution; it is an affront to justice; it lends credibility to those who have spent decades refusing to relinquish their hold on our society; and, most of all, it fundamentally misdiagnoses the problem. Criminal gang paramilitary groups do not exist because they lack a pathway to transition, and they do not persist because they are waiting for the right deal, the right offer or the right inducement. Let me be clear: they continue to operate because they choose to. Their leaders profit from extortion, drug dealing and organised crime, and they hold communities in their grip through fear and coercion. Instead of dismantling their structures, too often they have been permitted to evolve their criminal empires, still carrying the trappings of the past, including their murals, which intimidate. They invoke a warped legitimacy that they do not and never did deserve. There is no compelling barrier to disbandment other than their refusal to leave the stage.

To encourage paramilitary groups with meetings feeds and endows them with a credibility that they do not deserve. They have had decades of political and economic cajoling and social transformation to step away, move on or let go, yet they continue to exert control over the present. They exploit young people and groom them into criminality: that is nothing short of child abuse. They exploit poverty and deprivation and entrench their influence; they prey on businesses through intimidation and protection rackets; they poison our streets with drugs; and they trade in fear and violence. At every turn, they justify their existence with a hollow pretence that, somehow, they are protectors when, in reality, they are nothing more than organised criminal gangs. Why, after all these years, is there a willingness in some quarters to treat paramilitaries as something different from what they are? The idea that an official, funded, government-sanctioned process is required to explore their future only reinforces the dangerous notion that they have a future at all. The only future that they should have is one in which they disband immediately, without negotiation, and face justice for their criminality.

The Executive's programme on paramilitarism and organised crime has made progress in tackling the issues, exposing the hidden harms, disrupting operations and ensuring that future generations are not drawn into the same cycles of coercion and criminality. In my view — the Alliance Party's view — that is the correct approach. It is based on law enforcement, community resilience and shining a light into the dark corners of the reality of paramilitary control, rather than pandering to their demands.

The funding allocated to the scoping exercise must be redirected to where it is actually needed: supporting communities to break free from the grip of paramilitarism and ensuring that every individual who wants to leave behind a life of violence has access to the legitimate support structures that they need, not under the supervision of the very groups that exploit them but through independent and trusted organisations that put people before criminal interests, organisations such as Christians Against Poverty, which operates in my constituency, working with those caught in the trap of criminal gang moneylending.

We must call out hypocrisy where we see it. Time and time again, we hear condemnation of paramilitary influences from those in power, yet we see decisions being made to legitimise their presence. We see money funnelled into projects where the very groups that cause the harm are invited to take the lead and to sit at the table to, supposedly, fix it. We see Ministers and some Members of the House sit down with representatives of those groups. We see shared housing developments where quiet agreements are made that certain flags will not be flown, not because of a genuine commitment to shared communities and peacebuilding but because a deal has been struck in the background with those who believe that they have the right to dictate the terms of community life.

In my constituency, we see cases such as that of Glenn Quinn, from my home town of Carrickfergus, who was murdered in his home. His family were left grieving, and those responsible still walk the streets. How can we tell victims' families that it is the right approach to engage with the very groups that inflict such harm?

Today, the Assembly must send a strong and united message. That is why we ask the House to support the motion. While the amendments have their benefits, they nevertheless invite us to indicate to the two Governments that we could maybe say, "Give it a go". No — it is over. No more treating those groups as anything other than what they are.

The motion is about reaffirming a principle and ensuring that no Government, no political leader and no institution lends credibility to those who seek to control communities through fear and criminality. It is about standing up for the rule of law, for victims and for a society that has suffered far too long under the weight of such gangs. The United Kingdom Government do not need to appoint a go-between to tell paramilitary groups that they should disband; they simply need to tell them in no uncertain terms that they must disband. The Government must ensure that resources are given to the appropriate law enforcement agencies, and they must ensure that those who refuse to disband are met with the strongest possible response from law enforcement. Anything less would be a betrayal of the progress that we have made.

I urge the Assembly to back the motion, to reject the dangerous proposal that is being put forward and to stand firmly and unequivocally against paramilitary influence in any form. That is not a matter for negotiation. It is about justice, security and the right of every citizen in Northern Ireland to live free from the shadow of such groups. Shame on the Irish and United Kingdom Governments for contemplating anything other than enforcing the law.

Mr Beattie: I beg to move amendment No 1:

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): You will have 10 minutes to propose amendment No 1 and five minutes to make a winding-up speech. Please open the debate on amendment No 1, Mr Beattie.

Mr Beattie: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. As I stand here, I am conscious that every person in every corner of the Chamber is united on one thing: there is no place for paramilitary crime gangs. There never was, and they should go now. They must disband immediately. They have no credibility, but they have a negative, coercive grip on our communities. We are united on that, but how do we progress this?

The motion proposes that the Assembly:

The motion is premature, not in the sense that we do not want to get rid of paramilitaries — we do — but in the sense that its intent is premature. Indeed, the Justice Minister agrees with me. In response to a question for written answer from my colleague Colin Crawford, she states:

with the interlocutor

The Justice Minister is saying, "Let's find out what they are planning and make a decision". Members can shake their heads, but I have it in writing and am happy to read the whole thing out and save their blushes.

Our amendment is the right approach. The right approach is to note what the Governments are saying. What we have in our amendment, which is that we should note that, is what Sinn Féin has in its amendment. What we are really saying is, "Give us the details, and we will reserve judgement until we see them."

Our opinion is formed by engaging with communities and with the police. Here is where, the police think, we are at this moment. Each paramilitary organisation pretty much has three subgroups, the first of which is the people who are completely inactive but may still have membership. Then there are those who are using their energy positively. Whether we like it or not, I know of some who stand on peace lines of an evening to make sure that communities are not fighting with each other. That is positive engagement. They are out there whether we like it or not. Those are two of the groups. The third group is those who are lining their pockets — those who have their feet on the necks of our communities. Those are the people whom we need to target.

If we look at this through primary colours, we could simply suggest that the scoping exercise should target the first two subgroups and, in doing so, separate them from the third. What would that do? We already have that in part. The Communities in Transition programme, which, granted, was in only eight areas, clearly uses and speaks to former paramilitaries and those who are still active. Again, it does that whether we like it or not, and it is done to create community resilience.

Having isolated the first two groups, we could then focus our limited resources on tackling the third group, which is those who are intent on lining their pockets and abusing their communities. That means that the funding of the paramilitary crime task force, which is around £5·5 million, could then be focused on tackling those criminal parasites.

The first element in dealing with paramilitaries is police, justice, enforcement and jail. If they do not wish to stop their activities, we must systematically dismantle them at source by targeting their structures, recruitment and illegal activities. Nobody — absolutely nobody — is intent on giving a free pass to those involved in criminality, drug dealing, extortion, coercive behaviour, sexual abuse, child abuse, moneylending, murder or maiming while flying a UDA, UVF, INLA or IRA flag of convenience. Nobody is giving them that. We are trying to find the elements whom we can move away from that.

Secondly — this is where the initiative has merit — there must be community transition towards empowerment and support for the rule of law. That can happen only if conversations are held and pathways identified. We have to talk, but let us be clear —.

Ms K Armstrong: Will the Member give way?

Mr Beattie: Of course, yes.

Ms K Armstrong: I agree absolutely with the Member that those transitional works have to be done in communities. However, there is absolutely no reporting of outcomes or of any achievements from any of those. I sit on the Committee for Communities, and I have looked and looked, and I see no outcomes. We know the bums on seats who attend classes, but we have no outcomes to say that paramilitary intimidation and control of those areas have gone.

Mr Beattie: I thank the Member for that, but I have to say that the Communities in Transition project, of which the Justice Minister is a part-owner, is giving us outcomes. It is telling us that it is giving us outcomes. Part of the proposal that we have today is your saying that there are outcomes. Your motion states that there are outcomes, and I am saying that there are outcomes. However, I am really saying that we should separate the ones whom we can get outcomes from and target the ones who are not intent on moving.

Let us be clear: there can be no further funding; no money inducements; no prisoner releases; and no sentence reductions to incentivise transitioning. Nobody should or can be above the law, and turning a blind eye to past crimes cannot form part of any new process that aims to bring about paramilitary groups' transition to disbandment.

What do we have to lose just waiting to see what the Governments propose? What do we really have to lose? John Hume began talks with the IRA to bring about peace. Without his courage and that of David Trimble, we would never have had the Belfast Agreement. They made a decision to talk, and that is what we are talking about now. I notice, even today, that people are saying that talks are going on with the Real IRA to get it to disband. Nobody in the Chamber and no party in the Chamber has stood up to say, "They should stop", so why should we stop trying to target those who class themselves as loyalist paramilitaries? We should not.

I agree with the call in Sinn Féin's amendment for:

That is a fair way of looking at it: look at it and see what we can do rapidly. It goes back to the very premise of what our amendment and the Sinn Féin amendment say: let us note the plans and see what the Governments intend to do. Until we have the details, we simply do not know. As the Justice Minister said, it would be premature to make a decision.

I reiterate that the proposal by the UK and Irish Governments is to appoint an interlocutor to see whether there could be a process; it is not the start of a process. It is right to wait and see whether that will bear fruit, while, at the same time, ensure that the paramilitary crime task force — the PSNI, the National Crime Agency (NCA) and HMRC — continue their work with the support of the Assembly. If either Government plan to offer funding, prisoner release, sentence reduction or a crime amnesty, we, as a party, will not support it. In the meantime, I hope that the Justice Minister, using the political advisory group, which is useful to have, can shape that scoping exercise, because we have to do something or else we will be sitting here in another 10 years saying, "How do we get rid of them?".

Our amendment is fair. It is long — I did not want it to be that long — but it was important to lay out exactly how we see this. We need to separate the paramilitary groups into the three subsections that I talked about. If we can get rid of two of them, our police can focus on the ones who are intent on criminality and coercive behaviour and who are absolutely destroying our society and communities. They are the ones that the motion talks about, and what we are doing is making sure that we put a plan in place to deal with them.

Mr Kelly: I beg to move amendment No 2:

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): The Assembly should note that the amendments are mutually exclusive, so if amendment No 1 is made, the Question will not be put on amendment No 2. Mr Kelly, you will have 10 minutes to propose amendment No 2 and five minutes in which to make a winding-up speech. All other Members who speak in the debate will have five minutes. Please open the debate on amendment No 2.

Mr Kelly: Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle.

On behalf of Sinn Féin, I, along with other colleagues, took part in the Fresh Start negotiations in 2015. The tackling paramilitarism, criminality and organised crime programme emerged from those negotiations. Since then, on behalf of Sinn Féin, I have been a member — this was mentioned by Doug — of the political advisory group for the tackling paramilitarism programme and have attended its meetings on a regular basis, as have other Members in the House.

Some 27 years from the Good Friday Agreement, there is no tolerance or, indeed, role for armed groups of whatever label — I think that we all agree with that — to continue to exist and remain active in our society. Their continued existence constitutes the remnants of our troubled past and serves no positive or meaningful contribution to our shared future. They must go out of existence, and their former members must abide by the key Mitchell principles of resolving political issues through solely democratic and exclusively peaceful means. Any exit strategy should not involve any form of financial inducement or reward. The twin-track approach to tackling paramilitary and armed groups remains a vital strategy. It incorporates a comprehensive criminal justice response, alongside the targeting of deep-rooted socio-economic conditions in areas of high deprivation that cultivate the conditions for such groups to emerge.

Armed groups cannot and do not make any positive contributions to remedy quality-of-life issues in working-class communities. Indeed, the opposite is, of course, the case: their only contribution is measured through the pursuit of control, criminality and coercion. That point was heavily articulated by the previous two Members to speak. Last summer, the PSNI confirmed that some members of those groups were heavily involved in racist attacks on vulnerable families and business premises that were owned by ethnic minorities. It would be remiss of me not to take the opportunity to applaud the good work that is being done by a range of community groups, NGOs and statutory bodies in delivering the various programmes that are funded under the tackling paramilitarism banner. They are referenced in the recent Independent Reporting Commission (IRC) report and are making a difference in communities that are exposed to the scourge of paramilitaries and armed groups.

I must make another point about the PSNI. The police are taking a robust approach to criminality. It is wrong to think that that has not been happening or that it will not continue to happen, and all that. While, in communities, we get certain reports coming through about the effect of that from time to time — well, fairly regularly, actually, at the Policing Board —

I lost my place there.

The IRC has put forward, in its reports for the past three years, a recommendation to introduce the concept of group transition. The initial programme was predicated on individuals making the transition from paramilitarism. It should be said that, actually, quite a lot of that has happened. It now believes that the twin-track approach should be augmented by introducing an external, trusted individual to conduct a scoping exercise with those groups within a tight time frame and devoid of any financial inducements. I should emphasise that it is asking for an individual of standing, who will be trusted to scope out and come up with ideas. That is what the job is. It is not another way to repeat what has happened in the past. The whole point is that we have got this far. This is about saying, "Let us have a fresh look at it".

As armed groups are still in existence 27 years on from the Good Friday Agreement, the initiative by the two Governments should proceed and the response should be analysed as I described. There are no guarantees of its success. We know that before we start. However, it is worth pursuing within the tight time frame that has been outlined, because we do not want it to go on for years and years. Those groups must realise that that initiative represents a genuine, but final, attempt to facilitate a process of long-overdue transition for all armed groups. I urge them to avail themselves of it.

While I believe that most Members, including me, will agree with many of the points that are made in the Alliance motion, Sinn Féin believes that the time-bound initiative that is proposed by the Irish and British Governments should not be dismissed out of hand but should, instead, be tested. That is all that is being asked for here. There is little to lose and, at least potentially, a lot to gain for those communities and individuals who suffer from those paramilitaries and crime gangs. I urge Members to support the Sinn Féin amendment.

Mr Kingston: The Democratic Unionist Party recognises that political parties in the Assembly, Departments and, in particular, the criminal justice system all have a collective responsibility to challenge robustly the existence of paramilitary organisations. It remains our position that, where there is evidence that any individual is a member of a proscribed organisation or is otherwise involved in criminal activity, that individual should face the full rigour of the law.

Mr Tennyson: Will the Member give way?

Mr Kingston: Well, I have only started, but I will give way briefly.

Mr Tennyson: I thank the Member for giving way. I agree with his remarks so far. When his party's Ministers met the Loyalist Communities Council (LCC), which purports to represent active paramilitary organisations, did they ask the LCC to hand over any details of those who were involved to the PSNI?

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

Mr Kingston: I will come on to engagement with paramilitary-linked groups later. When we look back at the past conduct of the Alliance Party, you may say that it was done for the right reasons, but others will see hypocrisy in your position now.

Let me be clear: paramilitaries have no place in our society. The Democratic Unionist Party is clear that members of those groups who are engaged in criminality, intimidation, oppressing their communities and all the other examples that we have heard should not just stop but should leave the scene entirely. They provide a seedbed for criminality and are a negative role model for our young people who have many positive opportunities ahead of them in life.

There is consensus across the Chamber that paramilitaries must go away. However, as we have heard, there is a diverse range of views on how the same can and should be achieved. The DUP is extremely mindful of how such proposals around group transition impact on victims who have suffered at the hands of terrorists in Northern Ireland. Indeed, we are mindful that tomorrow is the European Day of Remembrance for Victims of Terrorism and also of the poignant event that was held in the Senate Chamber this morning. There are those in our ranks who live with the scars of past terrorism each and every day.

It is also the case, however, that there is a range of views among victims and survivors on the way forward. It is clear that simply wishing that the paramilitaries and the organised crime gangs that operate in that space did not exist has not worked. Therefore, we see merit in the Government's decision to act on the Independent Reporting Commission's recommendation that an independent and time-bound exercise should be taken forward to scope out the potential and explore what might be involved in a process of group transition. Let us give the independent expert who is appointed the time and space to conduct their work. Crucially, part of the scoping exercise will be to gauge levels of support for such a process, and we expect it to capture the appetite for engagement not just of paramilitary organisations but of those who are impacted on or victimised by their unacceptable activities.

We do not agree with the Alliance Party's response to dismiss out of hand the suggestion of exploring the potential for transition. The Alliance Party has rightly been accused of hypocrisy in refusing to countenance any engagement now with the paramilitary-linked groups that it was very content to engage and align with at the time of the Belfast Agreement vote. We are clear that the concept of transition — [Interruption.]

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Members.

Mr Kingston: — whether applicable to an individual or an organisation, can only occur where that individual or organisation is fully committed to leaving their past behind. That is a voluntary act that requires their cooperation. It is admittedly an uncomfortable reality, but the Justice Minister cannot close her eyes to it.

We have previously said that de-proscription must not be considered for organisations that are still involved in criminality and that continue to blight their communities. Otherwise, it is a blunt instrument. Any proposals for de-proscription or group transition will ultimately have to be underpinned by a monitoring mechanism, which is capable of giving an honest appraisal of the group's activities. The IRC recommends appointing an independent expert to assess the potential for transition — that is the extent of the proposal — in its seventh report. It is worth progressing that in the interest of ending paramilitarism in Northern Ireland.

Mr O'Toole: It sometimes feels that this place is not progressing at all. It can feel a bit bewildering and head-scratching at times for people who are watching from the outside when they are told that armed paramilitary gangs continue to exist and that many of those armed paramilitary gangs are not engaged in active, as it were, political violence, but retain arms either to be armed for some hypothetical future political violence that they wish to wage or because it enables them to protect financial or criminal interests that they are pursuing, up to and including inflicting misery on communities, dealing drugs, extortion, loan-sharking, violence and all the unbelievably appalling things that have been listed.

I was away from here for 20 years. I have been back for five years. Like lots of other people who go away and come back, I am a bit baffled that we are still in a situation where we recycle the same frustrations again and again about the existence of these organisations, but things never seem to move on. I think things do move on, slowly, but it is clear that the continued pernicious presence of paramilitaries in our society is something that is a profound stain on society. It is one of the most intense manifestations of how abnormal, unreconciled and divided this society is. We cannot simply tolerate it.

I will touch on a few points that have been made and make a few points of my own. We have broad sympathy with the Alliance Party motion and will support it with caveats. We submitted amendments that would have put our phraseology and context into the motion. It is true that the paramilitaries have their feet on the necks of working-class communities in particular. I represent working-class communities in which coercive control is still exercised by people who reserve the right to say when flags go up and when they come down and demand the right to say what type of housing goes where and what colour of people live where and all the rest of it. It may be that, on other days, some of those people go to meetings, avail themselves of public funding and play the game, saying, "Aren't I a great fella? I'm doing my best. It's the other fellas that you need to watch". That is abnormal. Nevertheless, it is true to say that the Executive fund it and have been funding it for basically the entire existence of the institutions.

Doug Beattie mentioned the Communities in Transition project, of which it is true to say that the Department of Justice is a stakeholder. It is also true to say that, as was the case with her predecessor, it is within the Justice Minister's power and that of her Department to look at criminal justice reform and create new offences that could lead to more prosecutions. As her predecessor could have done, she could create new and tightened sentencing regimes for such crimes. Some of that has been looked at as part of the tackling paramilitarism programme.

Sometimes we express our outrage and anger at what London and Dublin are doing when it would be better for us to look internally at what is happening in these institutions. Some of what has been said today about some of what has happened in these institutions is exactly right. With regard to what the UK and Irish Governments are doing, it is important that we recognise that they will probably do it anyway, no matter what happens in the Chamber. That is a harsh, blunt reality. It is pretty shocking that they will go on and engage with paramilitaries and probably seek some mechanism to prolong those conversations because they deem it to be in their interests. The interests of the people of Northern Ireland are in those organisations getting off the stage and going away, and how we go about getting them to do that is, I am afraid, muddied by the fact that a huge amount of obfuscation, double-talk and, frankly, gaslighting goes on among parties in this place and, at times, in both Governments.

We will support the motion so far as it goes. I am sympathetic to some of what is in the amendments, but there are a lot of things that the SDLP would have phrased slightly differently. The most important thing is for those organisations to no longer exist and no longer feel that they have the right to impose their will on the public discourse. The fact that Ministers still meet the Loyalist Communities Council has been mentioned: what gives those people the right to feel that they can dictate the pace of debate in this society in 2025 or sue elected representatives when they wish to make their views known? All those things —

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Your time is up.

Mr O'Toole: — are not conducive to a normal, healthy, democratic society. We need to move on. We support the motion, but we also call for more nuanced debate —

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): OK. Thank you.

Mr O'Toole: — on how these things go forward.

Ms Bunting: I declare that I am a member of the political advisory group to the Executive programme on paramilitarism and organised crime (EPPOC). I commend the sterling work that is done through EPPOC's projects, as well as its knowledge, statistical evidence gathering and world-leading approach to trauma-informed practice, all of which, hopefully, will continue not just to bear fruit for affected communities but to keep young people away from everything and everybody that can harm them and their chances and opportunities in life.

We in the DUP are clear that there was never any justification for paramilitarism or violence. There was always an alternative. The time when paramilitaries should have gone away is long past. Our view remains that people left their cause behind many moons ago and moved into the territory of criminality and parasitism. A number of those groups feed off their own communities, keep them down, peddle drugs to them and use names of and links to proscribed organisations to settle scores and exercise influence and control. We also know that there are those who want to and are trying to move on. They aim to keep others, including young people, away from those organisations. Without question, those people should be supported in their endeavours.

That said, we recognise the need for caution and safeguards to avoid transition rewarding or being seen to reward paramilitaries. The UUP amendment embodies those fears about sentencing, prisoner release and financial incentives. We agree that any future process of engagement must contain inbuilt safeguards against such incentives, as well as against abuse and exploitation. No public body or publicly funded organisation should act in any way that sustains or assists criminal activities, nor should people be afforded status or credibility through any such processes.

The notion from the IRC is not new. Previous reports placed great emphasis on the fact that a process of political engagement was needed to bring the Troubles to an end and that discussion with those previously involved in violence and criminality was central to that. It is ironic, however, that those who normalised the erosion of the principles of lawfulness and justice by supporting terrorist prisoner releases now react with incredulity at the prospect of a fresh process of engagement with paramilitary groups. Their hypocrisy and double standards know no bounds, it would seem. We in the DUP did not support the release of prisoners. We do not support two-year sentences as a result of the Belfast Agreement. Indeed, we have been vocal about all of that for years, because we knew the damage that it would cause, the harm that it would do to the innocent victims and communities and the impact that it would have on people's confidence in the justice system, so the pearl-clutching from some in the House is difficult to listen to.

We also should not gloss over the fact that the IRC recommendation is over three years old. The Government have not rushed into progressing the proposal. The criminal justice response, however, has not yet been used to maximum effect in the intervening period. Little has been done by the Minister of Justice since the restoration of the institutions to advocate for additional resources for policing, additional police officers and the additional wherewithal to take on paramilitaries. Even then, it came only after the Chief Constable wrote to Downing Street. The PSNI has dangerously low officer numbers — the lowest in history — fewer neighbourhood officers, fewer detectives and fewer specialist search teams. How much —?

Mr Tennyson: Will the Member give way?

Ms Bunting: No, I will not.

How much do she and her party expect the police to do? How often do we hear the Justice Minister use the operational independence of the police to deflect Members' questions in the Chamber? On this occasion, however, the Alliance Party is content to ignore the clear operational assessment by the PSNI that it would be impossible to arrest everyone involved in paramilitarism and criminality and bring an end to that scourge solely through those means.

The problem for us all is this: wishing does not make it so. Unpalatable as all of it is to many of us, something needs to change. Action is required, or we will trundle on with the same old, same old. In fact, the danger lies in the rewriting of history; in the glossing over of the utter brutality and senselessness; in the romanticisation of terror campaigns and murder; and in new generations being indoctrinated by myths and falsehoods, being angered by a history that is not based on truth and growing up heroising psychopathic killers. New generations are justifying and glorifying what happened rather than seeing it for the barbarity that it was.

At this stage, all these years on and with the criminal justice route narrowing, there is little to be lost from scoping, but it certainly should not be protracted. The law-abiding people of Northern Ireland have had enough.

Ms Egan: I support my party's motion calling for the Assembly's opposition to proposals from the UK and Irish Governments to appoint an independent expert to scope out a new process of engagement to bring about paramilitary group transition and disbandment, which have come about following recommendations in the seventh report of the Independent Reporting Commission. Alliance has put on record its opposition to the recommendation many times over, including Justice Minister Naomi Long, who called the proposal "absolutely flawed".

Proscribed organisations still have a chokehold on many people across Northern Ireland. They continue to limit the ambitions of this place 27 years after the Good Friday Agreement. Their methods may look different, but the chill factor that they create across all our communities is undeniable.

I say respectfully to colleagues in other parties that we will not support the amendments. While there is much in them with which we agree, such as paramilitaries having no place in our society, we want the message from the House to be that we reject the proposals from the UK and Irish Governments. That is why we will support the amendments.

Paramilitary activity is criminal activity. Leaders of paramilitaries are leaders of criminal gangs and perpetrators of organised crime. In any other context, in any other place, it would be unthinkable to negotiate with them in 2025. The proposal to scope out a new process of engagement actively legitimises their presence on the ground in our local communities. It is not just me saying that: that is what people from our local areas and communities who experience paramilitary control have told me.

The scourge of criminal activity is holding hostage the potential of our future. I am one of the younger members of the Assembly. I was not even born when the ceasefires were announced, yet here we are, 30 years later, still debating paramilitary activity in our communities and discussing their place in our society. Across Northern Ireland, an average of 45% of young people are still affected by paramilitary-linked harm; in some areas, the figure is as high as 80%. Those are the futures that we put at risk by legitimising proscribed organisations. The coercive control of organised crime gang leaders over young people, whether it is forcing them to deliver drugs or into other dangerous situations, is not to be tolerated.

The methodology in the Executive programme on paramilitarism and organised crime provides a path to transform our communities via an evolved public health approach to violence reduction. It is an approach that has been endorsed and co-produced by the people at the interface. It works alongside a robust justice system response and enables the work of the voluntary and community sector, which has worked tirelessly to end the glorification and influence of the groups locally.

In my constituency of North Down, we have two areas — Kilcooley and Rathgill — that are part of the Communities in Transition programme. However, paramilitary activity is, unfortunately, not limited to those two areas. I have heard reports from constituents about their reality of living with paramilitary influence in their community. I have heard from parents who are worried about their children's futures; from survivors of domestic abuse who cannot access community support without being threatened by local gangs; and from small businesses that pay out so-called protection money to the groups that inflict the harm on them in the first place. It is the community networks, women's shelters and local agencies that are left to pick up the pieces. The notion of sending an independent facilitator to engage and negotiate with those crime gangs is a slap in the face to the people who, to this day, put themselves at risk to help our constituents find peace in their homes and on our streets.

It would be remiss of me, as my party's spokesperson on ending violence against women and girls, not to mention paramilitary-related, gendered coercive control. The recent 'When you know what they are capable of’ research report explores the connection between intimate partner violence and community-based paramilitary social control. Its findings show clearly that women live with double the fear.

Ms Bradshaw: I thank the Member for giving way. What is the Member's opinion of the recently published research, commissioned by the Department of Justice, on adverse childhood experiences (ACEs) and the impact of the existing paramilitary presence on the future of young people?

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

Ms Egan: Thank you. That is important research, and I look forward to reading it further.

Women in those communities are depicted as a tool in the proscribed activity and objectified as belonging to a member of the criminal gangs. They feel owned and exploited and have no control: that is the true reality for women on the ground. Taking steps to negotiate, via the potential independent facilitator, is nothing less than pandering to the perpetrators of that abuse.

I urge all parties to support the motion. We do not need an independent facilitator to tell paramilitaries to disband. The law should apply to those groups in the same way as it does to every other criminal organisation.

Mr Brett: I am conscious that tomorrow is international day for the remembrance of innocent victims. My party has always and will always put victims — innocent victims — at the centre of how we approach the legacy of our troubled past. As a representative of North Belfast, I see daily the destruction that was caused to the community that I am proud to represent. However, I also see daily people from all sections of our community who have stepped forward to show a clear leadership role. Engagement in paramilitarism five years ago, 25 years ago or even 40 years ago was completely wrong.

Sometimes when I drive to this place, I think that I am in a parallel universe, not just because I still find it bizarre that people voted for me but more so because I come here and take lectures from some political parties in the Chamber. The greatest corruption of justice and the greatest insult to victims of terrorism here in Northern Ireland was the early release of prisoners. So, let me be very clear. I will not sit here and take lectures from any political party about the impact of terrorism or how we approach the past. When political parties decided that the price for peace in Northern Ireland was that those who had maimed and murdered their neighbours, based on the fact of their religion or their political belief, could be released from prison, they lost any moral authority to speak about the issue of our past.

Ms Bradshaw: Will the Member give way?

Mr Brett: I will happily give way.

Ms Bradshaw: Thank you. I will pick up on your point that you cannot believe that people voted for you and elected you to here. We have a mandate, and the people who voted for us very much stand behind us on our policy and our attitude to this. So I do not think that you should be dismissing that in the Chamber.

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

Mr Brett: You are very much entitled to your opinion, Ms Bradshaw, but it is my opinion and the opinion of my party that your party's decision to release terrorists from jail was an absolute disgrace and that you should be ashamed of yourselves for doing it.

I will get back to the remarks that I was making on the motion. It is like being in a parallel universe to hear other Members speak about the past when, in recent days and weeks, the most heinous of crimes that were carried out in my constituency of North Belfast continued to be glorified. We wonder why paramilitaries and those engaged in disgraceful behaviour continue to be engaged in it. They turn on their television and see their self-proclaimed First Minister for all say that there was no alternative to mayhem and murder. They look at the leader of Sinn Féin in the Irish Republic, who says that a man who blew up a 17-year-old girl was a hero and a patriot of Ireland. What type of message does that send, and where were the remarks from the Chair of the Executive Office Committee, who has just stood up to challenge me on this issue? There was not a single remark about the actions of Sinn Féin, but, because it is a unionist who speaks, seemingly, that is when the Alliance Party attacks. So, I will not take any lectures whatsoever from the Alliance Party on the issues of dealing with the past.

Mr Donnelly: Will the Member give way?

Mr Brett: I will happily give way.

Mr Donnelly: Will the Member agree that the Good Friday Agreement brought peace to Northern Ireland and saved many lives?

Mr Brett: I believe that what brought peace to Northern Ireland was the fact that the vast majority of people from all communities and none, every single day, Danny, got up and said that terrorism was wrong, not like the people who continue to glorify terrorism. The people who were put in jail for murdering our neighbours and friends should still be in jail. If it were not for the actions of your political party and others, they would still be in jail where they belong.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Mr Brett —.

Mr Brett: So I will not take any lectures on these issues. Returning to the motion —.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Mr Brett, you had an extra minute there, by the way. I remind Members not to go on the attack. You may disagree with some of the comments that others have made, but they are quite entitled to make those comments, as you are to challenge them. At all times, Members should exercise good manners and make no direct attack.

Mr Brett: I appreciate that ruling, Mr Deputy Speaker.

Day and daily, across North Belfast, our communities continue to move forward, and I will continue to stand with anyone of any political persuasion and none who wants to move our community forward. Anyone who is engaged in paramilitarism or illegality should be brought before the courts and placed in jail. That is the clear position of this party, and it should be the position of all parties that are represented in the House. The Communities in Transition programme, as other Members have outlined, is an important programme that we should all support, and I call on the Justice Minister and the Executive Office to look at how we extend that in North Belfast. It currently covers just Ardoyne and New Lodge, and the pariah of paramilitaries extends far beyond those two communities.

Our party will support the Ulster Unionist amendment. I believe that it encapsulates the importance of the debate that we continue to have. However, let me very clear. These Benches will take no lectures on the past from those who corrupted the past and who, day and daily, insult the memories of innocent victims right across Northern Ireland.

Ms K Armstrong: The UK and Irish Governments may believe that they are working towards peace by engaging with so-called paramilitaries — every paramilitary is illegal; for anybody who has belonged to a proscribed organisation, in the past or now, if they still hold membership, that is illegal — but, in their naivety, they will be engaging with active criminals whose activity includes drug dealing, prostitution, illegal lending and racist targeting. Hiding behind the terms of the Troubles, those criminals care more about the money that they can make than they do about any constitutional ideology.

I come to the House to uphold the law. It is illegal to be a member of a proscribed organisation. I take umbrage at Mr Beattie's saying that there are good paramilitaries and bad paramilitaries. There are no good paramilitaries. Evidence of the threat that those criminals pose to civil society is easy to find. In my constituency, people have been put out of their home, houses and cars have been set on fire, illegal lending is rife and masked men have stood outside a courthouse trying to intimidate witnesses. Their behaviour is more like that of private militia and white supremacist groups that mobilise against local targets in order to maintain control and continue moneymaking.

Intimidation by so-called paramilitary groups can have a chilling effect on participation in democratic processes or can stop people making reports to the PSNI by forcing individuals to choose between risking their safety and making their voice heard. An undercurrent of intimidation impacts on daily life across places where the most vulnerable live. In the past year, thugs have threatened Housing Executive staff in an attempt to prevent homes being allocated to people whom those thugs perceive as not being welcome, whether that is because of the colour of their skin, their religion or simply because the criminals want the home for a family member.

Ministers met so-called loyalist representatives of a group that is well aware of the criminal activities that are taking place, but what did those meetings achieve? There has been no move towards an end of drug selling or the prostitution of young boys or girls to pay off debts. All that that achieved was to give a voice to the people who want to keep control and increase segregation. Coordinated intimidation is poisonous. No Government should entertain groups or individuals who are determined to control the community, particularly those that are in areas of deprivation.

The risk of paramilitary violence in Northern Ireland today looks different from how it did in 1998, but the situation remains gravely dangerous. Paramilitaries are engaged in unlawful efforts to bully, harass and force their perceived opponents out of the public square. Left unchecked, that creates a tinderbox for further unrest across Northern Ireland. It is in that context that the Irish and UK Governments are engaging with people who should have left the stage a long time ago.

I will take you back to a 2016 interview by Kevin Magee from BBC Northern Ireland, when a member of the UDA outlined how he could not escape the control of paramilitaries. The UDA member claimed that the paramilitary group was heavily involved in serious crime in the south-east Antrim area. The BBC reported:

The man claimed that the UDA controlled "100%" of an illegal drug network in the south-east Antrim area:

When he was asked why he had changed his mind about being a member of a paramilitary group, the man said:

In the same report, former Assistant Chief Constable Alan McQuillan was quoted as saying that the comments did not surprise him:

Ms Bradshaw: I thank the Member for giving way. Does she agree that Naomi Long, as leader of the Alliance Party —?

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Sorry, time is up on that speech: we have hit the five-minute limit. I call Timothy Gaston.

Mr Gaston: Thank you very much, Mr Deputy Speaker. This morning, I had the privilege of hosting the European Day for Victims of Crime 2025 event in the Senate Chamber. We heard testimony from Pamela Wilson, whose father was an RUC officer murdered by the IRA on his son's eighth birthday. He also left behind a 10-year-old daughter and an eight-month-old baby girl. We also heard from Colette Murray, whose brother, Cyril, was shot dead by loyalist terrorists on 8 July 1992. I was honoured to introduce Caroline D'Eath whose father, Gerald, was murdered by the UVF while he was working on the building site of a new Christian Brothers school in 1975. I was also privileged to meet David McCaughey, whose cousin Dougald McCaughey was one of three off-duty Scottish soldiers who were lured from a city-centre bar in Belfast, driven to a remote location and shot.

I was glad to see colleagues from the Alliance Party in attendance this morning. I asked them to reflect, in light of what they heard, on the simple question: is it right or moral to draw a distinction between paramilitaries before and after the Belfast Agreement? Surely, on reflection, you will agree that, while there is no justification for the existence of terrorist groups that inflict so much suffering on all sections of society, there was also no need for them 25, 35 or even 45 years ago.

In its motion, the Alliance Party should have gone further. In failing to do so, it plays into the disgraceful "no alternative" narrative from some in this House. When my party leader addressed in the Commons the issue of a scoping exercise, he characterised it as a nursemaid for paramilitaries. I agree with his assessment. It is quite clear that the end point of such a process is the de-proscription of terror groups proposed by the Independent Reporting Commission. Such a move would result in the sickening spectacle of wicked murder gangs being able to openly glorify and celebrate their depraved exploits. That is somewhere that none of us should want to go.

While agreeing with the assessment of the Alliance Party, insofar as it goes, I have to point out the irony of it bringing a motion like this before the House whilst serving in an Executive alongside Sinn Féin, the party of no alternative. Does anyone remember why the Independent Reporting Commission exists? It was formed in 2015 after a paramilitary assessment by the Government in the aftermath of the Provisional IRA murder of Kevin McGuigan. That assessment stated that the Provisional IRA retained an army council that oversaw the Provisional IRA and Sinn Féin with an overarching strategy. It retained departments with specific responsibilities and weapons that had not been decommissioned. If you believe that paramilitaries have no place in Northern Ireland, what are you doing in a coalition with a party overseen by the so-called army council of the most murderous terrorist group in western Europe? Whether you like it or not, the Chamber and these institutions operate under what Seán O'Casey would describe as 'The Shadow of a Gunman'.

One of the testimonies that we heard this morning was from Colette Murray. As I said, her brother was murdered by the UVF. Unlike many victims, Colette saw men stand trial for that murder. Two individuals were later convicted and sentenced, but, as a result of the immoral Belfast Agreement, they served only a minimum of four years and a maximum of eight years for their heinous crimes. If you use the Belfast Agreement as a yardstick by which things should be judged, you are only ever going to go further down the moral sewer when it comes to paramilitaries. Whilst I have concerns about where the substantive motion has come from, I will vote for it. I certainly will not vote for any of the amendments.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): I thank the Members who have spoken. I call Gerry Kelly to make a winding-up speech on amendment No 2. Mr Kelly, you have up to five minutes.

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

I do not think that I will need five minutes. Members have listened to the debate all along. There is much agreement on the body of the motion and the amendments. There is clearly some disagreement.

About 25 years on from the Good Friday Agreement, paramilitaries should be disbanded. Everybody has agreed to it. Robust law enforcement continues. I just need to emphasise that. That has not gone away. It has not disappeared. It has been there all along and will continue, no matter what we decide here tonight. There should be no incentives. There should be no community workers by day and drug dealers by night. However, simply calling on them to disband has not achieved that goal, and all parties demanding their disbandment can now sound a bit like they are sloganeering as opposed to any actual movement because of where they are.

The two Governments' proposal, as I said earlier, might not be successful, but bringing in an independent expert to look at the issue afresh is the thing to do. It will do little harm and will possibly help. There will be a conclusion and a report at the end of the study, and we can look at it then and talk about it during it. Again, let me emphasise that there must be a short time frame. Give it a chance. I urge Members to vote for the Sinn Féin amendment.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): I call Robbie Butler to make a winding-up speech on amendment No 1.

Mr Butler: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. Before I reach into the motion, it is really important that we listen to what each of us says, because we have been living here all our lives and have all experienced the Troubles in a different way. Some of us have served and put our lives at risk daily, some of us have taken other measures and some of us have an opinion, and that came across in spades today. Every one of those opinions is valid to the community from which they come, because we do not choose the family that we are born into. We are born into a family and born into experiences, and we bear the collective trauma that had an impact right across this little country for so many years. I am very aware that some Members of this Chamber had that wrought on them, so I will be as careful as I can with my words.

The Alliance Party's motion would be fine. However, to look at where we are and where we have come from and not learn from the past is to do it all again, rinse and repeat, because it is a contradiction. Everybody in the Chamber and every party is facing in the same direction, whether it is Sinn Féin, the DUP, Alliance, the SDLP, the Ulster Unionist Party or the TUV. Nobody is standing here and saying that there is any place for any paramilitary in 2025. Most of us will agree that there was not any place at all, but we have a lived reality in Northern Ireland, and if it was as simple as applying the law — the Alliance Party has held the Justice portfolio for 10 years; Minister Long has been there for almost four years — and I wish it was that simple, we would not be having this debate tonight. In fact, one of my earliest debates was on the separated prisoner regime in Maghaberry. We tabled a motion, and the Alliance Party voted with Sinn Féin to say, "Let's have an independent expert look at it". With hindsight, that was probably the right approach, because you have to talk to people.

I was at an event two or three years ago to mark the 25th anniversary of the Good Friday Agreement.

Ms Bradshaw: Will the Member give way?

Mr Butler: Not at the moment. I will give way in a wee second, if that is OK.

There were a couple of big players in that room. However, listen to the former leader of the DUP: they asked him about his chief regrets over the years, and he said, "I wish that we had started talking sooner". Talking is important, but listening is more important, because good practice has happened, and we are not where we were, but neither are we where we could be.

I will let the Member come in.

Ms Bradshaw: I thank the Member for giving way. The Justice Minister is not in the Chamber to respond to this debate because it is related to the Terrorism Act, and terrorism is not a devolved matter. If it was as simple as the Justice Minister's taking this forward, do you not agree that she would have been able to do this by now?

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

Mr Butler: This is a Chamber, and I am sure that the Minister could have come here as an MLA and made statements. It would not have been the first time that a Minister has said, "I am speaking on behalf of my party, as a Minister or as the leader of a party". That is absolutely fine. The Minister excuses herself very often because of operational reasons. In reality, it is very plain to see where the Alliance Party is on the issue. It is not in a good space. We all want to get to the same place, which is why I do not want the debate to descend into finger-pointing; that would not be of any use. All that the motion needed to do was recognise the position that we are in and say, "It would be good to have an independent expert". As Mr Kelly rightly pointed out, it would not be about accepting the expert's findings; it would be about looking at what the expert pulls out of the conversation and saying yes or no, and, if it were not enough, we could act.

Doug Beattie set out our position really well. I will give you an opportunity to redress this, Kellie, because I usually support you, but you stated that he said that there were good and bad paramilitaries. He absolutely did not say that. I ask you to retract that allegation.

Ms K Armstrong: Thank you very much. I do not retract it. Mr Beattie did say that there were members of paramilitary organisations who were OK.

Mr Butler: I have worked with the gentleman for years. He has served his country and put his life at risk. He has led this party in holding to account paramilitaries of all hues, regardless of whether they say that they are orange or green.

How long do I have, Mr Deputy Speaker?

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Six minutes.

Mr Butler: OK. I am going to have to race through the next wee bit. I am sorry that the Member did not take that opportunity. I thought that she had misspoken, but obviously not.

Ms K Armstrong: No, I did not.

Mr Butler: That is fine; you have made your point very clearly.

Brian Kingston called for the full rigour of the law. There is absolutely no doubt that we all agree. He asked for paramilitaries to leave the scene entirely. That is exactly what we all want to achieve, but unfortunately, as I said, we have a reality, whether we like it or not. None of them has any skin in the game except in our communities that we are trying to free from their grip. They need us to be honest in what we are saying. That is just the reality of it.

Matthew O'Toole said that the debate was bewildering and head-scratching. He then used what I would call a Presbyterianism: the "pernicious presence of paramilitaries". That is the truth. We grew up with it. I was misquoted once as saying that I was close to joining. I was not close to joining; what I meant was that people whom I grew up with joined. I knew that they had joined, and I knew that they had been radicalised. Thankfully, I did not. I never even thought about it. However, I know that some of my friends did. Sadly, whether we like it or not, some of our young people are still being radicalised.

I will finish by talking about the reality of not getting this right. Within the past couple of years, there was an attempt on the life of DCI Caldwell. There are two things that are wrong here, guys. One is the fact that, if we glorify the past, we will allow people to make those mistakes in the future. That is something that needs to be addressed. Secondly, if we do not get off on the right step now and get this right for future generations of our young people, which means supporting the Ulster Unionist Party's amendment, we will just —

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Time is up.

Mr Butler: — rinse and repeat.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): I call Eóin Tennyson to conclude and wind up the debate. You have 10 minutes.

Mr Tennyson: Thank you, Deputy Speaker. The motion provides an opportunity for the Assembly to take a stand against the disgraceful suggestion from the UK and Irish Governments that an interlocutor be appointed to scope out and lay the groundwork for a formal process of engagement with active paramilitary organisations. Paramilitarism is a stain on our society for which there should be zero tolerance, acceptance or acquiescence. It is bewildering that, 27 years on from the Good Friday Agreement and more than 30 years since the ceasefires, anyone in the Governments, or anyone in the Chamber, would countenance sitting down and negotiating with those organisations as though they are either legitimate stakeholders or credible community representatives. Whatever their flag of convenience, paramilitaries are driven fundamentally by greed, making money by controlling, exploiting and terrorising some of the most vulnerable in our community through drug-dealing, extortion and coercive control. Far from breaking down the coercive grip that paramilitaries enjoy over communities, the Governments' plans would simply enhance it. A formal process of engagement would simply confer on them a platform, a status and a veneer of legitimacy that not only do those organisations not deserve but which would be unthinkable anywhere else in these islands. I have no doubt that it would be wielded as part of their wider arsenal as they seek to further gatekeep and control communities in the future.

Despite asking on numerous occasions, I have yet to hear articulated a single legitimate barrier to those organisations leaving the stage at any point over the past 30 years. They could, of course, voluntarily cease recruitment, withdraw threats of reprisal against those who seek to leave of their own accord and end their illicit activities. The only conceivable barrier to disbandment is the commitment of those involved to continue lining their own pockets and profiting at the expense and misery of some of the most marginalised in society. How will any Government conceivably play a role in removing that barrier, unless, of course, the Secretary of State is willing to countenance some sort of payday, which, he says, he is not? That is inevitably where that sorry gravy train leads. Nor have I heard any answer to the question of what such organisations will transition into. Are we seriously suggesting that, with a helping hand from the Governments, those involved in the malign activities of dissident republican and loyalist paramilitaries will simply become a benign old boys' network?

Those unanswered questions lay bare the folly of the Governments' approach. Our foremost consideration, however, must be the impact that any process of formal engagement would have on the victims of paramilitary crime. I say this to the Secretary of State, the Tánaiste and Members in the Chamber: put yourself in the shoes of the small business owner who is asked to pay protection money; of the young mother who is exploited through drug dealing and loan sharking; of the child who is abused; or, indeed, of my constituents, who had a policing and community safety partnership meeting disrupted by sinister elements. What message does it send to them that those responsible will be invited in for a fireside chat rather than being held accountable? That would not be tolerated for constituents in Dublin or London, and it should not be tolerated for our constituents here in Northern Ireland.

Rather than moving us closer to a future free from paramilitarism, the Governments' proposals will serve to undermine the progress made to date through the Executive's programme to tackle paramilitarism, for which my colleague Naomi Long serves as the lead Minister. That should concern us all. The programme has focused on delegitimising those organisations whilst building resilience in communities, providing robust criminal justice interventions, working to ensure that future generations are not exploited and traumatised in the same way as those who have gone before and shining a light on the often hidden harms that paramilitaries visit on communities.

Of course, that proposal had its genesis in reports by the Independent Reporting Commission, as Members have referenced. The IRC, however, has highlighted the real impact that the Executive's strategy is having and has recognised its tangible effect in communities in which paramilitaries operate. The commission has also cited the downward trend in the number of paramilitary-style attacks, for example, and the reduction in the terror threat level from severe to substantial, acknowledging that progress has been made whilst, rightly, warning against complacency. That is evidence that the existing twin-track approach is working, albeit more slowly than any of us in the Chamber would like it to. I do not, however, accept the argument that the twin-track approach of robust criminal justice interventions alongside efforts to tackle socio-economic vulnerability has been exhausted.

Although I fundamentally disagree with the recommendation pertaining to group transition, there is much in the IRC's report that I can support and is to be welcomed. In the criminal justice sphere, for example, the IRC has called on the two Governments to ensure that sufficient resources are available to fund the work of tackling paramilitarism. I echo that call. The commission also recognises the importance of neighbourhood policing to support work, in tandem with that of the paramilitary crime task force, while recommending a number of interventions that are being addressed through the speeding up justice initiative and the creation of new criminal offences for organised crime as part of the Justice Bill. There is also work to do on community resilience, including the long-overdue anti-poverty strategy; work to tackle educational underachievement; work to support those struggling with addiction; and the pressing need to tackle paramilitary flags, symbols and emblems in our community. That is our job, which we in the Chamber are too often not doing. I do not accept that those avenues have been exhausted when there is still so much work to do. I ask Members in the Chamber to reflect on that.

Crucially, continuous and stable government will be required to avoid a vacuum that paramilitaries will seek to fill and to lead the sustained change that is required to tackle the socio-economic disadvantage that they so gleefully exploit. The task is enormous, but, unlike others, I am not willing to surrender to a counsel of despair. Clear and unequivocal political leadership is required from all of us in the Chamber and from the two Governments. I fear that that leadership has been sadly lacking in the Chamber today. It is absent in the two amendments. I am particularly aghast at Sinn Féin's amendment, which directly contradicts the position that the First Minister stated at Question Time last week. As for Mr Beattie's contribution, I heard him categorise paramilitaries and members of paramilitary organisations in three broad terms. From where I sat, it sounded as if he was implying that there were good, bad and indifferent paramilitaries

which is an outrageous implication to make in the debate.

Let me be clear: the Alliance Party will not be found wanting in working to deliver the twin-track approach of robust criminal justice measures and efforts to tackle socio-economic deprivation in our society. By doing so, we will build a stronger, safer, more equal and more vibrant community in which paramilitarism is finally consigned to the history books and in which people can live at peace with themselves and their neighbours, free from intimidation and harm.

The time for pandering to those organisations is long past. The UK and Irish Governments must now abandon their plans to sit down for tea and biscuits with them and instead work with us in the Assembly to put them behind bars, where they belong. I commend the motion to the House.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Before I put the Question on amendment No 1, I remind Members that, if it is made, I will not put the Question on amendment No 2.

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

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