Official Report: Tuesday 18 March 2025

Mr Kearney: At the outset of the Gaza ceasefire, I spoke of the hope of children in Gaza that they would be able, for the first time in a year, to look to the skies with hope and not fear. However, I also cautioned about what was required to ensure that the ceasefire would apply: adherence to the terms of the ceasefire and the importance of having guarantors that would underpin the implementation of the ceasefire.

This morning, I woke to messages from Palestinian leaders in Gaza and the West Bank urging action against the latest atrocity by the Israeli regime and showing images of children's butchered, cold and lifeless bodies. Up to 400 people have been killed in Gaza since the attacks this morning, and more will die as a result: the death toll will increase.

In recent weeks, since the ceasefire began, over 100 people had already been killed. Israel has violated all the terms of the ceasefire since its beginning. It has blocked tents, homes and aid. In the past 12 days, all aid has been blocked from getting into the Gaza Strip, and electricity supplies have been stopped. Those are acts not of peacebuilding but of terrorism. The terrorist regime of Netanyahu has determined that it will continue to wage its genocide in Gaza by other means. The genocide in Gaza is not just a war against Palestinian children and women; it has become a war against multilateral systems, international law, diplomacy and humanity.

It is inconceivable that action cannot be taken against the Israeli regime at this time. To fail to act is to be complicit in the destruction of the Palestinian people and their homeland. All red lines have been crossed. Only one moral and diplomatic choice is left, which is to isolate Israel internationally and enforce boycott, divestment and sanctions.

The reality is clear. Israel can have security only through peace. It will never have peace through war crimes and atrocities.

Mrs Little-Pengelly: I pay tribute to an absolute hero, John "Paddy" Hemingway, who passed away yesterday. John Hemingway, who was known as "Paddy", was born on 17 July 1919 and died on 17 March 2025, aged 105. We often talk about heroes, but, my goodness, this man was a hero. He was the last survivor of those who were known as "The Few" — those who fought with Fighter Command in the Battle of Britain. He was extraordinarily proud of being a member of the Royal Air Force and of being an Irishman. He signed up to 85 Squadron in April 1938 and flew Hurricanes and Spitfires. Read his obituary: my goodness, the things that he experienced.

What a generation; the things that they did, what they sacrificed and the things that they saw are absolutely incredible. It is right that we pay tribute to that incredible generation. Of course, we grieve the passing of the last of "The Few". I am glad that, on his 105th birthday, at the British embassy in Dublin, he had a celebration marking his extraordinary life and the things that he achieved. It is also right to recognise how humble he was right to the last. On that occasion, he said:

John "Paddy" Hemingway, 17 July 1919 to 17 March 2025: an absolute hero.

Ms Mulholland: I rise ahead of the statement that is to be made in Westminster this afternoon by the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions on disability welfare cuts. To be honest, I have had more contact over the last week about rumours and conjecture about what a Minister might or might not say than anything else that I have experienced before. Constituents were ringing my office on Monday morning, crying down the phone, not having slept all weekend because of the rumours that came out on Friday night. That was at a time when people who are on benefits could not ring for advice or get answers to their questions about what had been leaked and talked about on the news. As yet, we still wait for answers.

It is a false economy to cut benefits to those who are most vulnerable in our society without a security net below them. Northern Ireland has the highest rate of people claiming disability benefits and the highest prevalence of mental ill health in the UK. We have healthcare and support systems that are clearly overwhelmed and cannot support those people. Cutting support to those who are in need of money and resources to help them live a basic quality of life is, frankly, shameful.

We see the narrative that people who claim the personal independence payment (PIP) are wasters or dossers who need to get back to work. The reality is that PIP is a working benefit. People who claim PIP can also already be in work. I have constituents who use their PIP money to get taxis to work because they cannot walk or drive owing to their disabilities. To cut that would be to cut their lifeline.

Northern Ireland will be disproportionately impacted on by the cuts. Anything that comes about needs to have people at the centre of it. If we are looking at welfare reform as a way to save money, we are forgetting that the people at the heart of those benefits and support systems already face barriers in their everyday life. I urge every party in the House to back anything that we can do to put pressure on Westminster not to go through with some of the rumoured cuts that we are hearing about. In this House, we must do everything that we absolutely can within our power to show that we are a society that values people, regardless of their disability, who need dignity in their everyday life just to have a basic standard of living. I urge everybody to support that.

Mr Butler: Today, we celebrate not just one or two but three outstanding sporting successes. Mr Speaker, I am sure that you will join me in saying that Lagan Valley and beyond can take a bow because we are officially a powerhouse of sporting greatness.

First up is the unstoppable Lucy Best, with two gold medals and a bronze at the Special Olympics World Winter Games in Turin. Lucy, you did not just compete; you conquered. You raced down the slopes in the giant slalom and super-G events, despite having trained on dry mats. That would be like training for Wimbledon on a trampoline. Lucy, along with other skiers, was skiing against people who had trained on and were accustomed to snowy slopes. Lucy showed the world true Northern Irish determination and what that looks like. Lucy's success has been celebrated far and wide, with congratulations from her friends at the Live Life Well-Being Centre, the First Minister and the deputy First Minister and, of course, an unforgettable moment when our Special Olympics team met the Irish rugby team at the airport. From looking at the pictures, I think that the Irish rugby team enjoyed it more than our other victors. It was not just Lucy. Caolan McConville from Aghagallon was another gold medal winner at the games. What an achievement and proof that, when it comes to talent, Northern Ireland delivers at every level on every stage.

Speaking of historic victories, Wallace High School, on 17 March, after years of near misses, finally lifted the Schools' Cup, defeating Royal School Armagh 24-15 at Kingspan Stadium. I give a special shout out to man of the match, Rio McDonagh. He led the charge with two crucial tries, and he helped captain Jon Rodgers become the first Wallace player to lift the trophy outright, fulfilling a dream that his father started in 1989. I played football with Rio's dad, but I think that he would have been more fit for the rugby pitch. Stevie McDonagh, you missed a beat, but your son did not.

Whether it is skiing, rugby or pure Northern Irish grit, we are unstoppable. Lucy, Caolan and Wallace High, congratulations, and thank you for sharing your moments with us.

Mr Speaker: Thank you, Mr Butler. As I think that I am the only former pupil of Wallace High School in the Chamber, I have to offer my congratulations to my old school.

Mr McCrossan: This morning, the judicial review on the A5 is before the High Court, and I had the pleasure of standing with the families and the campaign groups outside the court this morning, along with colleagues from the Assembly. People today are united in their fight for the A5. Indeed, that road, although it has been a symbol of devastation and pain, unites us in our drive to get its upgrade fully delivered. For the past number of years — for decades, in fact — that road has claimed countless lives. It does not discriminate. It has taken the lives of people from all age groups and all backgrounds: husbands, wives, sons, daughters, grandparents, neighbours and friends. Daily, all who travel on that road are at risk for a very simple reason: it is, in my view, the most dangerous road on these islands. That is what justifies the need for its immediate and absolute upgrade.

The road upgrade has been fraught with delays, difficulties and many challenges over the past number of years, and a small number of individuals are adamant about seeing out their objection. They have their right to do that before the court, however the value of human life is paramount. In fact, it is above all else. I understand some of the arguments that are being made. There are concerns about the environment and land, but none of that should trump the value of a single human life.

It is important today that a unanimous and clear message comes from all politicians across the House that the upgrade of the A5 is essential to ensure that we save human lives, that we protect human lives and that we ensure the safety of the people travelling there. That is before we even get to the economic arguments about the benefits that that road will bring to that part of the island. For people who have the luxury of living on the doorstep of trains and good public transport links, people in Tyrone do not enjoy those benefits. We are forced onto that road on a daily basis.

Every town and village in my constituency leads to the A5. We have only one mode of transport should we want to get anywhere in a timely fashion: in a car or another vehicle. Every day, through no fault of our own, our lives are therefore at risk.

My message this morning is simple. Enough of the delays, enough of the challenges and enough of the deaths. It is time for the A5 to be delivered in its entirety so that we can fulfil the promise that was made to the people in the west of the island and ensure that no one else loses their life travelling to work, travelling back to their family or making a daily journey.

Ms Sheerin: I extend hearty congratulations to the players and management team of St Pat's College Maghera, who, yesterday in Croke Park, won the Hogan Cup for the sixth time in the school's history, which is a fantastic achievement. I congratulate the entire staff and all the pupils of St Pat's, which takes students from south Derry and beyond, on such a well-deserved achievement. They will rightly enjoy their celebrations now.

Mr Givan: As Minister of Education, I say that sport is a huge part of what happens in our schools. Many competitions are run during the school year. For example, Kilkeel High School won the High School Cup treble in hockey — the first time that that has happened — with its girls' under-14, under-16 and under-18 teams each lifting the trophy: no pressure on the boys at the school. St Pat's Maghera has just been mentioned for winning its competition.

I will speak about Lagan Valley, my constituency. The Ulster Schools' Cup is one of the oldest rugby competitions in the world, having been founded in 1876. The Wallace High School has competed in six finals, the first of which was in 1989, when the father of yesterday's triumphant captain, Jon Rodgers, captained the school's team. Yesterday, Jon was able to lead the team to victory. It was a historic occasion, being the first time that the school has won the trophy outright, because it was shared with the Royal School Armagh when the final was not played during COVID in 2020.

The win for the school has filled Lisburn with great pride. Yesterday, people whom I met were speaking about the final before it had been played. There was a great sense of anticipation. In Lisburn, we are proud of Wallace High School. For the proud parents who lived every tackle made by their sons on the pitch, hoping that they would get up again, and who then saw Wallace lift the trophy, there was great relief but also great joy.

The victory was many years in the making. I pay tribute to the entire team at Wallace High School, under the leadership of Derek Suffern. The chant "Derek Suffern's blue and white army" rang out, and people made their voices very loud at Ravenhill yesterday. It was a tremendous victory, and one achieved over a number of years. What a legacy it is for the principal, Deborah O'Hare, who retires this year, to leave the school with a victory under her leadership. I pay tribute not just to the school's sporting success but to its healthy mix of academic and sporting activity, which provides a balance for the young people there. I watched the game with Neal Lucas, the chairman of the board of governors — also my brother-in-law — and a former head boy of Wallace High School, and witnessed his pride in seeing the trophy lifted.

I say a huge congratulations to everybody who was involved with Wallace High School's becoming the 2025 rugby champions.

Some Members: Hear, hear.

Ms Egan: I draw Members' attention to ovarian cancer, a disease that is continually overlooked, resulting in its symptoms and diagnostic pathways being incredibly misunderstood. March marks Ovarian Cancer Awareness Month. In Northern Ireland, over 200 women are diagnosed with ovarian cancer every year. Like many other diseases and conditions in women's health, ovarian cancer is subject to numerous assumptions and misconceptions about its diagnosis, symptoms and treatment. I recently met the team at Target Ovarian Cancer, which is working to change those views, and I learned a lot from the statistics that they told me about. They are staggering. Thirty-one percent of women in Northern Ireland who are diagnosed with ovarian cancer will not survive one year. Only 39% of women who are diagnosed here are diagnosed at an early stage. We all know that early intervention is vital to improving health outcomes, and some myth-busting is needed: 46% of women in Northern Ireland believe that a cervical screening will detect ovarian cancer; that is simply not true.

I want to highlight the symptoms that every woman should look out for when it comes to early diagnosis of ovarian cancer: bloating, feeling full, pelvic or abdominal pain and needing to wee more often. I urge every Member around the Chamber today, and anyone who may be listening, to share the information on those symptoms with their loved ones and their communities.

Finally, I thank one of my constituents, Stephen, who lost his wife, Julie, to ovarian cancer in June 2024. Every day, he campaigns to help women to ensure that they are aware of what he calls "the sneaky symptoms". I know that Stephen has contacted many elected representatives in the Chamber to put the issue on our agenda. He has ensured that I, as his MLA, am aware of the impact that ovarian cancer has and what more needs to be done. His efforts and determination in raising awareness are entirely commendable. He works to prevent any other family having to experience what he has gone through. I thank him and the many women and their families who have spoken out about their experiences of ovarian cancer to ensure that others in Northern Ireland have better health outcomes.

Mr Gildernew: I rise to voice my serious concern about the Labour Government's plans to cut disability benefits. My office has been inundated with messages from worried constituents asking what those changes will mean for them and their families. I have also received many messages asking for politicians here to take a strong stand against those cuts. It is truly shocking that a Labour Government would seek to punish disabled people in this way. The callousness shown by the Labour Government towards vulnerable people shows that they are as bad as and perhaps, in some ways, even worse than the Tories.

The detail on what changes will be enforced is due imminently. The application process could become much more stringent, especially for people with mental health issues, and support could be decreased significantly. Every one of us here today will have had constituents in their offices seeking assistance with personal independence payment (PIP) applications. The idea that that process could be made even more onerous and complicated beggars belief. Entitlement to PIP is based on the added difficulties that disabilities can bring to people's lives. It is designed to ease the additional financial burden that people face as a result of their disabilities. The idea that disabled people are a burden on the taxpayer goes against everything that Sinn Féin believes in.

Our social security system is in place to give people who cannot support themselves a good quality of life. Many disabled people would like to work, but the support is simply not there to allow them to fulfil their potential. The reality is that many people who have disabilities are unable to work. Those people should not be punished.

The Labour Government need to turn away from the failed ideology of austerity and start investing in our people and our communities. The Minister for Communities needs to lobby the Secretary of State urgently, conveying our opposition and stressing the need for a rethink, particularly given that the cuts will have a disproportionate impact in the North. All the parties in the Chamber must stand together to oppose those disastrous cuts.

Mr Dunne: I warmly congratulate Bangor Hockey Club on winning the prestigious Anderson Cup after an exciting final against South Antrim last Wednesday evening. It is a remarkable achievement. The 3-2 win at Havelock Park last week marks Bangor's first ever piece of major silverware. The club can be rightly proud, given that it last reached the final in 1989. The team displayed outstanding determination throughout the competition, which culminated in a nail-biting final, where their resilience and teamwork shone through as they came from behind to win the prestigious trophy — thanks to a hat-trick from Ryan Burgess — much to the delight of the travelling supporters, who came out in force, and everyone involved with Bangor Hockey Club.

I pay particular tribute to the players, coaching staff, management and all the dedicated volunteers for their skill and hard work throughout the season, which culminated in this success. Like many local sporting clubs across North Down, Bangor Hockey Club is run entirely by volunteers who give up their time to young men, women and children so that they might enjoy the sport that they love, learning many and valuable life skills of hard work, teamwork, commitment, discipline, friendship and so much more. Those are some of the values that we all know that sport brings to everybody.

Bangor and the North Down area has a great and very proud tradition of hockey, and Bangor Hockey Club continues to thrive, with almost 300 adult and over 400 junior members competing at every level in Ulster hockey throughout a very competitive season.

I also commend Ulster Hockey for its work and leadership as the sport's governing body in promoting hockey. We must ensure that hockey continues to get the investment and support that it deserves.

Once again, I give my warmest congratulations to Bangor Hockey Club, and I wish it every success going forward.

Mr Honeyford: I echo the comments that have already been made about the success of Lucy Best and Caolan McConville at the Special Olympics World Winter Games. I was at the launch several months ago at the slopes in Craigavon. That day was full of excitement, and it was fantastic to see. What a journey they have been on.

I also congratulate your old school, Mr Speaker. I salute Wallace High School's success in finally winning the Schools' Cup yesterday for the first time. It is such a fantastic achievement for the boys, and it was an absolute pleasure to be there yesterday to cheer on the school and watch the kids of friends of mine play and excel on that team. That is really well done, and I pass on my congratulations to everyone who was there.

Such wins are delivered by a team or a squad over 70 minutes, but there is much more to that squad of players than who is on the pitch. A shout-out has to go to all the parents. I have been that rugby dad, and I know about the journeying, driving around and taxiing every morning and afternoon. The parents deserve a lot of credit as well. There is the coaching staff, and Derek Suffern has been mentioned. He has been there for quite a while and has worked away for years. Successes such as this do not happen in one season; they are built over many years. I pass my congratulations on to the coaching team at Wallace. Deborah O'Hare is the principal, and this is her final year, so what an achievement this is for her as she retires and moves on. I am delighted for her.

Well done Wallace, Lisburn and the wider area. Enjoy the celebrations. I know that quite a few of the team are going on to professional sport, but I hope that those who are not will get involved in their local clubs and enjoy sport in the community.

I also want to point out that over half that team play for Dromara Gaelic Athletic Club in Down. It is fantastic that we are starting to see the breakdown of barriers and our community being brought together. Having a Down player on that team and having those changes are brilliant to see in Lagan Valley.

Finally, I give a shout-out to Danske Bank. Danske has supported youth and school sport for many years. We appreciate the finance that goes into sport to allow all those things to happen.

Ms Forsythe: I put on record a massive, heartfelt congratulations to Kilkeel High School, which last week had huge success in girls' hockey. I thank the Education Minister for putting on record his congratulations for that.

Kilkeel High School completed the High School Cup treble, winning the under-14, under-16 and under-18 competitions, all of which happened last week. That is an absolutely outstanding achievement, and I congratulate all the players, coaches, teachers and families and supporters who travelled to support the team. I was privileged to join the supporters at the under-18 final on Thursday morning in the Stormont Pavilion, and it was a pleasure to be a part of the celebrations. I very nearly ended up in the Public Accounts Committee with maroon and blue face paint. I escaped that, but I am very proud to celebrate with my home school.

As a former deputy head girl, house captain and hockey captain, I am so proud to congratulate Kilkeel High School on its continued success, decades on. I also wish the boys all the very best tomorrow, as they are in the Burney Plate final. I am very proud to congratulate my home school and celebrate the mighty, mighty Mourne.

Mr Gaston: Since the House last met, some of our unionist Members have had the opportunity to meet President Trump.

I trust that, in those meetings, they presented the case for Northern Ireland when it comes to the protocol. The president has correctly identified that, when it comes to international trade, the European Union is a protectionist racket that seeks to take advantage of everyone outside its borders. It would not have taken a genius to work out, therefore, that one would have had a sympathetic ear in the White House when it came to the protocol, and, for that very reason, it was important that unionism attended those events.

While the Prime Minister has been clear that he would like to see a trade deal between the UK and the US, it is likely that Northern Ireland will be excluded from important parts of any such agreement. It is therefore more than probable that we will find ourselves excluded from the opportunities that such a deal would present because of the protocol, which means that we are left stranded in the EU customs union and the single market for goods. That is not only a scandal as far as sovereignty is concerned; it will reduce the size of the market available for the United States in the event of a trade agreement with the Trump Administration.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): I call Gerry Carroll. Mr Carroll, you have one minute.

Mr Carroll: OK.

I will speak on the need to combat fascist organisations in our communities. At the weekend past, graffiti went up with my name on it and cross hairs attached to it — a disgraceful and pathetic attempt to intimidate me and others who speak out against racism in our city. I thank people in the House and in the community for reaching out and sending their best wishes to me and my family. That intimidation will not work and will not stop me from speaking out on anything.

It is also worth mentioning, in the brief time that I have, that, in the last month, thousands of people have attended events as part of Fáilte 25 in west Belfast and other community organisation anti-racist events. This Sunday, United Against Racism is organising rallies in Belfast and Derry, and people will be out in force, sending a clear and loud message that racism and fascism are not welcome in any part of our communities, which is the best way to respond to fascist intimidation of any kind. The fascist fringe groups that are trying to stoke division and hatred, do not represent the ordinary people of West Belfast and do not speak for the vast majority of people anywhere in the North.

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

Mr Carroll: They are isolated and mostly operate online.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): That concludes Members' statements.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): I call the Minister for Communities, Mr Gordon Lyons, to move the Bill.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): As no amendments have been tabled, there is no opportunity to discuss the Child Support Enforcement Bill now. Members will, of course, be able to have a full debate at Final Stage. The Further Consideration Stage of the Child Support Enforcement Bill is therefore concluded. The Bill stands referred to the Speaker.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): The next items of business are motions to approve three statutory rules, all of which relate to welfare supplementary payments. I will ask the Clerk to read the first motion and then call the Minister to move it. The Minister will then be invited to commence the debate on all three motions as listed in the Order Paper. When all Members who wish to speak have done so, I shall put the Question on the first motion. The second motion will then be read into the record, and I will call the Minister to move it. The Question will then be put on that motion straight away. That process will then be repeated for the third motion. If that is clear, we shall proceed.

Mr Lyons (The Minister for Communities): 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 Lyons: Thank you very much, Mr Deputy Speaker. I seek the Assembly's approval for three sets of regulations in relation to the welfare supplementary payment schemes, namely the Welfare Supplementary Payment (Extension) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2025, the Welfare Supplementary Payment (Universal Credit) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2025 and the Welfare Supplementary Payment (Universal Credit) (Social Sector Size Criteria) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2025.

As Members will be aware, my Department currently administers a number of welfare mitigation schemes that are designed to alleviate the impact of some of the welfare changes that were introduced from 2016. The mitigation schemes provide financial support to people affected by various welfare changes, including the benefit cap; the social sector size criteria, which is more commonly known as the "bedroom tax"; the time-limiting of contribution-based employment and support allowance (ESA); and the reassessment from disability living allowance (DLA) to personal independence payment (PIP). Members will be aware that most of the welfare mitigation schemes, excluding that for the social sector size criteria, were due to end on 31 March this year. However, as I announced in December, the schemes that were due to end this year will be extended until 31 March 2028. The mitigation of the social sector size criteria continues to have no end date.

To ensure that that important financial support continues, I bring three sets of regulations to the Assembly for approval today. I will briefly summarise the purpose of each set of regulations.

The Welfare Supplementary Payment (Extension) Regulations will provide for mitigation payments to continue to be paid until 31 March 2028 for people affected by the benefit cap, employment and support allowance time-limiting, the transition from DLA to PIP, the loss of disability-related premiums and the loss of carer payments. The legislation will also ensure that certain exclusions from mitigation in relation to the benefit cap and the social sector size criteria that were removed from 10 February 2022 will not be reapplied. For example, the legislation means that entitlement to a benefit cap welfare supplementary payment will not be restricted to when a person first had their benefit capped. Furthermore, mitigation of the social sector size criteria will continue if someone moves property and continues to under-occupy.

The Welfare Supplementary Payment (Universal Credit) Regulations and the Welfare Supplementary Payment (Universal Credit) (Social Sector Size Criteria) Regulations will provide a statutory basis for welfare supplementary payments to be made to people claiming universal credit (UC). Since the introduction of universal credit here in September 2017, my Department has used the authority of successive Budget Acts to provide mitigation payments to people claiming universal credit. That has ensured that universal credit claimants affected by the benefit cap and the social sector size criteria have received the same protection as people claiming legacy benefits.

The regulations before the House today will provide a statutory basis for those welfare supplementary payments and provide more certainty to affected people who are claiming universal credit. Importantly, the legislation will not change the conditions of entitlement that my Department has applied to universal credit claimants since 2017. The mitigations will ensure that an estimated 36,000 people will be protected from the social sector size criteria, while approximately 1,600 families with children will be protected from the benefit cap each year. That will provide much-needed certainty to so many families across Northern Ireland. I trust that Members agree and will approve the regulations today.

Mr Gildernew (The Chairperson of the Committee for Communities): I support the three linked sets of regulations. They are essential in ensuring that some of the most vulnerable people in our society continue to receive the financial support that they depend on. The Committee has carefully considered the regulations and is content for them to proceed. However, while we welcome their continuation, we express our frustration at another short- to medium-term extension of welfare mitigations rather than the implementation of a long-term, stable legislative framework.

The regulations include the Welfare Supplementary Payment (Universal Credit) Regulations (NI) 2025, which is a necessary step to ensure that the support for universal credit claimants is placed on a firm statutory footing. Since universal credit was introduced in 2017, many claimants have received mitigation payments only through administrative means: payments that depend on annual Budget Bills rather than dedicated legislation. That has always been a less secure arrangement. Unlike statutory entitlements, administrative payments can be altered or removed more easily, as they rely on annual budgetary decisions rather than firm legal protections. The new regulations correct that weakness by making universal credit mitigations a legal entitlement, giving claimants greater stability and security. It is important to stress that that does not expand entitlement; it simply formalises the existing system, ensuring that payments continue without reliance on year-to-year discretionary allocations.

The Welfare Supplementary Payment (Universal Credit) (Social Sector Size Criteria) Regulations deal with what is commonly known as the "bedroom tax". As Members will be aware, the policy reduces housing support for social tenants deemed to have more bedrooms than they require, which affects housing benefit claimants and those receiving the housing cost element of universal credit.

However, the policy ignores the realities of housing here. Many of those affected — older tenants, separated parents and disabled people — have genuine reasons for needing the additional space. Mitigation payments have protected thousands from the financial consequences of the policy, and these regulations formalise that protection for universal credit claimants, aligning them with those entitled to housing benefit. That is a welcome step, as it ensures medium-term security rather than leaving claimants at the mercy of shifting budgetary decisions.

The final set of regulations, the Welfare Supplementary Payment (Extension) Regulations 2025, extends the wider package of welfare mitigations until 31 March 2028. They include payments that mitigate the impact of the benefit cap, which disproportionately affects larger families; the time-limiting of contributory employment and support allowance, which impacts on those unable to work due to illness; and the transition from disability living allowance to personal independence payment, which has resulted in many claimants losing out on vital financial support. Without the regulations, all those payments would end in March 2025, creating a cliff edge for thousands of households. It is therefore absolutely vital that the mitigations be extended.

While the Committee welcomed the extensions, it did so with relief. They do not address the fundamental problems. We are still dealing with mitigations as short-term fixes rather than permanent protections. Mitigations were intended as temporary measures under the Fresh Start Agreement, yet here we are, almost a decade later, still relying on extensions every few years. Obviously, we hope that the Assembly will be in place in 2028, when the mitigations will doubtless be on the agenda once again. We cannot ignore history, however. Political instability has left vital decisions in limbo before. If the mitigations were to suddenly expire, thousands of families would be thrown into severe financial hardship with no immediate solution. For that reason, the Committee is keen to understand what work and what consideration of other solutions is being undertaken at this time. The Committee strongly urges the Minister and the Executive to undertake evidence-based work now that could place the mitigations on a much longer-term legislative footing.

It is also crucial to recognise that, while the regulations extend existing protections, they do not address new and emerging welfare challenges. Groups such as the Cliff Edge Coalition have repeatedly highlighted the fact that the current mitigation package does not go far enough. Specifically, the two-child limit on benefits is driving families into deepening poverty. Scotland is now committed to fully mitigating that policy from 2026: should we consider the same approach here? The five-week wait for universal credit is pushing claimants into debt and financial crisis. That remains one of the most widely criticised aspects of the system, yet it has still not been addressed. Support for private renters is entirely absent from the current mitigation package, despite rising rents placing enormous pressure on low-income households. The cost-of-living crisis has made the financial pressures on claimants even more severe. We cannot assume that the current package is sufficient to meet today's needs.

The three sets of regulations are essential and should be supported. They prevent an immediate welfare crisis, ensure continued support for claimants and place some payments on a more secure statutory footing. However, the Committee urges the Minister and the Executive to act now to ensure that welfare mitigations are placed on a longer-term legislative footing. We cannot continue operating in short-term cycles, leaving thousands of vulnerable people uncertain about their financial future. Furthermore, we must acknowledge that the current package of mitigations is incomplete. The two-child limit, the five-week universal credit wait and the lack of support for private renters are serious gaps that must be addressed.

On behalf of the Committee, I am content to recommend that the Assembly approve the regulations, but I urge Members to reflect on how we could provide long-term stability and security to those who rely on these vital supports.

I will now make a few brief remarks in my role as Sinn Féin spokesperson for communities. The passage of the legislation will come as a huge relief to many in our communities. There was, perhaps, some concern that, if the appropriate legislation were not in place in time, the mitigations could lapse after the 31 March deadline. As has been outlined, the regulations will extend the existing mitigations until March 2028 and give statutory cover to claimants who are in receipt of universal credit and are also eligible for supplementary welfare payments. Sinn Féin was opposed to the Tory welfare reform that gave rise to the bedroom tax and the benefit cap, and the mitigation package secured by the Executive was extremely hard-fought-for. The mitigations are a vital protection for the least well-off in our society.

As we all know, poverty is on the rise across society, with one in five people now estimated to be living in relative poverty. The cost-of-living crisis has had the greatest impact on working-class communities, particularly on the people who are in receipt of social security. If the mitigations had been allowed to lapse, it would have been devastating for thousands of families, and many people would have been pushed further into financial hardship. I thank the Cliff Edge Coalition, in particular, for its campaigning on the issue and for highlighting the impact of removing the mitigations.

Finally, a three-year extension, while welcome, serves only to kick the issue down the road for another period. We need a permanent solution that will give long-term certainty to the people who are in need of the mitigations. We also need to see a road map for the introduction of additional mitigations, particularly on the two-child limit. The Minister has committed to bringing forward the anti-poverty strategy before the end of this month. That anti-poverty strategy should set out clearly a way forward for welfare mitigations. Again, I urge the Minister to publish the anti-poverty strategy as soon as possible.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): I call Daniel McCrossan.

Mr McCrossan: Sorry, Mr Deputy Speaker, I did not realise that I had been put down to speak. I agree with everything that the Chair has said, and I am happy enough. The Minister will be pleased to know that.

Mr Carroll: The extension of welfare supplementary payments is testament to the tireless work of anti-poverty campaigners, including the Cliff Edge Coalition, as the Chair has stated. I pay tribute to its work. Welfare mitigations are an example of successful superparity, where the North has made policy choices that diverge from other parts of the UK. Welfare mitigations have shielded citizens here from some of the worst aspects of Tory welfare reform, but that does not mean that they have been totally immune. It is worth remembering that three out of four Executive parties voted in favour of welfare reform, back in 2015. Extending the mitigation payments must be an admission of regret for that awful decision. However, since we all now seem to agree that the impacts of welfare reform are so harmful that they justify mitigation, maybe we can also reflect on the brutality of our wider social security system.

The benefits system has been cut to the bone by successive Tory Governments, the now Labour Government and Ministers here. Obviously, they are obsessed with a system of sanctions. They are intent on cracking down on extremely rare instances of benefit fraud rather than going after tax-dodging multi-million- and billion-pound corporations and obscenely wealthy individuals. The austerity state is hell-bent on punishing the poor rather than expanding the social safety net for the sick, elderly and disabled people whose lives depend on a strong and reliable social security system.

The latest assault on the sick and disabled comes from the Labour Government who, last year, called food banks:

Now, they are seemingly cutting benefits to pieces — something that will, surely, increase reliance on emergency food parcels. It is no coincidence that the British Government are desperately making cuts to the welfare system while planning to boost defence spending. Keir Starmer and his party are taking money from the pockets of the poor and marginalised people to give to the billionaire shareholders of arms companies. They announced those decisions in the exact same week. There is nothing subtle about it: it is an attempt to strip away welfare in order to fund warfare.

Now is the time to build on the success of our existing welfare mitigations, which helped some 38,000 households last year. We need to mitigate the two-child limit — a cruel policy that disproportionately harms women and children here, especially in my constituency. We also need to prepare to mitigate the disastrous welfare cuts, which are, probably, to be announced this afternoon. I would appreciate it if the Minister could provide an update on whether his Department has engaged with the British Government on that issue and on what contingency plans his Department intends to make if the Labour Government continue down their disastrous, cruel path. Will the Executive parties learn from the lessons of the past and break from the punitive Westminster welfare reform or will they continue to follow their austerity path? We wait to see.

Ms Mulholland: I thank the Minister very much for coming to the House to introduce the regulations. I support the draft welfare supplementary payment regulations, and I acknowledge the vital role that those mitigations have played in alleviating financial stress for many families across Northern Ireland. Extending the measures for another three years provides an element of stability, as stated by the Chair, amid the particular ongoing economic challenges, which, we know, our community faces. I thank the Minister for that.

Like the Committee Chairperson, however, I regret the fact that there could not have been a longer-term fix rather than another medium-term cliff edge. Although the mitigations are essential, they sadden me. Today was an opportunity to be a bit bolder and help lift people out of poverty by mitigating the worst of Tory austerity cuts and what could regrettably happen in the next couple of hours as a result of Labour cuts.

The independent advisory panel on welfare mitigations, led by Les Allamby, presented a comprehensive suite of recommendations aimed at mitigating and alleviating poverty for those most in need. One of the biggest injustices that could have been tackled is the two-child benefit limit. One in 10 children in Northern Ireland — more than 45,000 children — is affected by the policy. The Minister has previously told the House about the administrative costs associated with mitigating that cut, but, given what we are facing now, with rising child poverty levels, mitigating it is something that we need to consider, instead of saying that we do not have the money to do so. If we do not have the money now, we will end up paying for the cuts down the line. The Minister has also said that.

I had such a heavy heart coming to the Chamber today because of the rumours and conjecture about what our communities are about to face. When we look at the regulations before us and at the costs involved, we can see that they are essential. The mitigations will raise people out of really dire situations, but they are not going to be enough. That is from where my heavy heart comes. I know that what is about to come down the line will be so much worse for the most vulnerable cohort of our community.

I have just done away with my speech, because that is the crux of where we are at today. Although the regulations are really welcome, they are not enough. We have to call for a legislative programme that is linked to our anti-poverty strategy, which the Minister has committed to bringing to the Executive by the end of the month. The strategy has to be coupled with investment and support, however, especially if we are looking at cuts that will take from the purse of the most vulnerable. What are we putting in place? For what kind of society are we trying to legislate? The regulations, particularly the benefit cap, will take some of the sting out of the cuts, but what else are we going to do? Minister, what are you planning to do about what our most vulnerable people could be facing?

Mr Carroll: Will the Member give way?

Ms Mulholland: I know what you are going to say, Gerry, but I will allow you to say it.

Mr Carroll: I am not going to say what you think that I am going to say. Does the Member agree that it is really concerning that the Labour Party, although it did not specifically mention the cuts in its manifesto, is seemingly ploughing ahead with them? To my knowledge, no party from here in the Assembly or at Westminster mentioned any such attacks on welfare in its manifesto, but this Labour Party seemingly still wants to proceed with them. Does she agree with me that there is a huge democratic deficit involved?

Ms Mulholland: I really appreciate that the Member did not use that as a wee opportunity to mention the very difficult situation that we faced as a result of previous welfare reform. I absolutely agree with him. There was a lot of hope when people heard that Labour was coming into power. I know that I felt hope, particularly after the years of devastating policies from the Tories. There was hope, so what is most devastating is that we have recently seen cut after cut focused on the most vulnerable in our society. I do not think that any MLA, past or present, would want to be seen to justify the attack on and removal of benefits from the most vulnerable.

Although I understand that there are cost issues involved and that there is an economic argument being made, I hope that the Minister can give us an update on the anti-poverty strategy. Will we see it before next month? What measures will be put in place to provide support for those who will be left behind as a result of the regulations? Finally, can he update the House on what he has heard is coming down the line from the Department for Work and Pensions?

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): I call the Minister to conclude and make a winding-up speech on the motion.

Mr Lyons: Thank you very much, Mr Deputy Speaker. I am pleased with the consensus in the Assembly on the regulations.

Let me deal with three particular issues that were raised. First, I refer to the announcement that will be made later today. Unfortunately, I have not yet had a chance to chat with my counterparts. I am not able to chat to them this morning because I am in the Chamber, but I hope to have a call with Ministers at DWP before that announcement is made. I assure the House that I will provide whatever information I can and that my Department will work quickly to look at the impacts that it will have on Northern Ireland.

Secondly, straying from the debate slightly, the anti-poverty strategy was raised. I am working on that. I am determined to meet the deadline to make sure that the strategy goes to the Executive. However, I warn Members that I have an ambition for people in Northern Ireland that is greater than simply their receiving benefits. I want to make sure that, yes, a proper social security net is part of how we help people, but I have a far greater ambition than that. I want to make sure that people are better off and that we break down the barriers to getting people into employment.

The third issue that I want to raise relates to the review. The reason that we do not have an indefinite extension of some of the mitigation schemes is simply because a number of the welfare reforms have largely completed any transitional phases and the number of people who receive benefits that relate to, for example, employment and support allowance time-limiting and the loss of disability-related premiums and carer payments has declined significantly. We do not know where those numbers will be in one, two or three years, so it is only right that we keep those schemes under review.

The Welfare Supplementary Payment (Extension) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2025 enable the Department to continue until 31 March 2028 with the welfare supplementary payments for the benefit cap, employment and support allowance time-limiting, the transition from DLA to PIP and the loss of disability-related premiums and carer payments. The legislation will also ensure that certain exclusions from mitigation in relation to the benefit cap and social sector size criteria, which were removed from 10 February 2022, will not be reapplied. The regulations that concern UC will enable the Department to pay welfare supplementary payments to those in receipt of that payment and put it on a statutory basis.

I thank the Committee for Communities for its proactive engagement with the future of the welfare mitigations and for its support for the approval of the regulations.

Mr Lyons (The Minister for Communities): I beg to move

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): The motion has already been debated.

Mr Lyons (The Minister for Communities): I beg to move

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): The motion has already been debated.

Mr Lyons (The Minister for Communities): 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 Lyons: Thank you very much, Mr Deputy Speaker. The statutory rule (SR) makes amendments in relation to the lump sum payments under the Pneumoconiosis, etc., (Workers' Compensation) (Northern Ireland) Order 1979. It is also known as "the 1979 scheme", which is much easier, I think. The regulations will increase the lump sum payments made via the 1979 scheme. There is no statutory requirement to increase the amounts paid through the scheme. However, as has been the case in previous years, the amounts are being increased from 1 April in line with inflation. The lump sum payments will increase by 1·7%. The inflation rate is measured by September 2024's CPI. That is also in line with the increase to industrial injuries disablement benefit, to which the scheme is linked. The regulations will ensure that lump sum payments here are paid at the same increased amounts as those payable through the corresponding scheme in Great Britain.

The aim of the 1979 scheme is to pay compensation to people who suffer from certain dust-related diseases or to their dependants. The five respiratory diseases that it covers mainly relate directly to asbestos exposure. They are mesothelioma; unilateral or bilateral diffused pleural thickening; asbestos-related carcinoma of the lung; byssinosis; and pneumoconiosis, which includes asbestosis. The 1979 scheme is intended to compensate people who have been exposed to asbestos during their employment and have contracted a specified disease through that employment but have not been able to get compensation from the employer.

The length of time between being exposed to asbestos and being diagnosed with one of those diseases is often long. Usually, it is many years before symptoms are displayed. In some cases, an employer may no longer be in business. To be eligible for a payment via the scheme, there has to be no current or previous claim for damages in respect of the disease for which the person is claiming. There must be no relevant employer who could be pursued through the courts, and the person must have been awarded industrial injuries disablement benefit.

The lump sum payment via the scheme is paid in addition to the weekly industrial injuries disablement benefit that relates to the same disease. Dependants can make a claim if the person who had the disease unfortunately passed away before making a claim. Payments of the lump sum are based on the age of the person with the disease and the level of disablement at the time of diagnosis. People whose condition is diagnosed at an earlier stage and who have high levels of disability will be entitled to a higher lump sum payment. Lower amounts are payable to dependants who make a claim after the sufferer has died. The maximum amount that can be paid through the scheme is being increased this year to £116,152 for a person aged 37 or under at diagnosis. That increase will help to ensure that payments provided by the scheme maintain their value.

While Members will, no doubt, agree that no amount of money could ever compensate a person affected by any of those terrible diseases, I am sure that they will want anyone who is diagnosed and makes a claim after 1 April 2025 to receive the higher amounts. Therefore, I ask the House to support the regulations.

Mr Gildernew (The Chairperson of the Committee for Communities): I rise as Chair of the Committee for Communities to support the approval of the regulations, which continue an important commitment to workers and their families affected by severe life-limiting industrial diseases. The regulations ensure that those who suffer from conditions such as pneumoconiosis, asbestosis and mesothelioma caused by exposure to harmful dust in the workplace receive compensation payments that keep pace with inflation. Those diseases are progressive, irreversible and often fatal. Many of those affected worked in industries such as mining, shipbuilding, construction and manufacturing, where exposure to hazardous substances was common before modern safety regulations were in place. Tragically, for many workers, symptoms emerged only decades after exposure, meaning that, by the time that they were diagnosed, their condition had worsened significantly, leaving them unable to work or support their family.

As the Minister said, the regulations will increase lump sum payments by 1·7% in line with the consumer price index. It is extremely important that timely and fair compensation is provided to give a degree of financial security to individuals who paid the ultimate price for their years of hard work. The Committee considered the regulations at SL1 stage at our meeting on 23 January 2025 and was content for the Department to proceed. The Committee then approved the draft statutory rule at its meeting on 6 March.

The changes will align the North's compensation scheme with Britain, ensuring parity for workers and their families. We should remember, however, that it is not just about financial support; it is also about fairness and justice. Many of those workers became ill not by choice but because of failures in workplace protections. They gave years of service in harsh and dangerous conditions only to suffer devastating health consequences later in life. The payments cannot undo the harm done, but they serve as a recognition of the injustice that those workers endured and a commitment that their families will receive some measure of financial stability.

On behalf of the Committee, I am happy to recommend that the Assembly approve the regulations. They ensure that workers and their families receive fair and appropriate compensation, maintain parity with other places and reinforce our collective responsibility to those who suffered due to workplace exposure.

Mr Kingston: As a DUP member of the Committee for Communities, I welcome the regulations. They were passed unanimously at the Committee and are now expected to pass in the Assembly. As the Minister said, the inflationary increase in the levels of compensation will maintain parity with the levels set in the rest of the United Kingdom.

It is appalling that many workers were exposed to breathing in dust over long periods during their work duties due to proper protection not being in place. That included those working in Belfast docks and in construction in previous decades. It is tragic that, due to a lack of awareness at the time, not all who died from the resultant lung conditions received the compensation that they and their families should have received, and I have met some of those families. We acknowledge the people who suffered from those conditions and remember them and their families. We are told that various forms of pneumoconiosis, including asbestosis, can take up to 50 years to develop after initial exposure. The resultant lung scarring can have long-lasting effects and, for many, prove fatal.

It is only right that the uplift in compensation be approved, and we welcome it that that will now be the case.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): I call the Minister to conclude and make a winding up speech on the motion.

Mr Lyons: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I am grateful for the support of the Committee and the House. I commend the motion to the House.

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

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

Mr O'Dowd: Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle.

The legislative consent motion (LCM) relates to the Property (Digital Assets etc) Bill. It is a short Bill, containing just one substantive provision, and the proposal is that it be extended to this jurisdiction.

The law relating to personal property rights in this jurisdiction, as is the case in England and Wales, was developed by common law, whereby private law principles and associated rights relating to personal property were traditionally divided into two broad categories: things in possession, which include things that are tangible and capable of being physically possessed, and things in action, which are legal rights or claims enforceable by action, such as debts or the right to sue for breach of contract.

With the emergence of digital assets in the modern world — for example, crypto-tokens — the Law Commission of England and Wales reviewed the extent to which those types of assets challenged the two traditional categories in order to determine whether the law required reform to accommodate them. The commission found that the courts in England and Wales were moving towards recognition of a distinct third category of personal property — things to which property rights relate — and that they have accommodated and protected features unique to certain digital assets. However, there is as yet no definitive judicial position on the matter, and there is no certainty as to when the position will be arrived at.

The commission's report concluded that, although digital assets do not fit within the two traditional categories, certain types of digital assets are things to which property rights relate and, as such, should be regarded as belonging to a separate category. The majority of respondents to the commission's consultation were in support of that approach, with the senior judiciary calling on the commission for provisions that would facilitate the most effective development of common law. The Bill provides statutory clarity and will unlock for the courts the opportunity to develop common law principles, with a more efficient focus on the attributes or characteristics of the thing in question and of the legal treatment that should be offered to it.

The Property (Digital Assets etc) Bill, which was introduced in the House of Lords on 11 September 2024, gives effect to the commission's recommendation for the introduction of minimal legislation to confirm, on a statutory footing, the existence of a third category of personal property rights capable of accommodating the unique characteristics of certain digital assets in the modern world. The previous Finance Minister accepted the offer to extend the Bill's provisions here. She initiated a short, targeted consultation with local stakeholders, which ran as the matter progressed through Westminster's timetable, in parallel to seeking Executive approval, which was obtained on 21 November. She also referred the Bill to the Committee for Finance. Officials provided oral and written briefings to the Committee.

Following receipt of written and oral evidence in the House of Lords, the Bill was debated in Westminster on 3 February, during which it was amended to include this jurisdiction in its territorial scope. I laid the legislative consent memorandum on 10 February, and the Committee for Finance agreed through its report to the Assembly, which was published on 12 February, that it was content with the proposal to extend the provisions of the Bill to here by way of an LCM. I thank Executive colleagues and Finance Committee members for their support and timely consideration of the matter.

I will briefly mention the consultation with local stakeholders. Two responses were received: from the Law Society and the Federation of Small Businesses (FSB). Both were positive and highlighted the fact that the extension of the Bill to here will create clarity and legal certainty sooner than might otherwise be the case through the courts and that such a delay could lead to divergence and put businesses in this jurisdiction at a disadvantage compared with those in England and Wales.

I turn now to the motion under consideration. Essentially, it is a short, technical Bill. It does not create any new rights, obligations or legal duties. It does not remove or dilute any existing rights or obligations or force or encourage the use of digital assets. It confirms in statute the existence of another category of things that can attract personal property rights, thereby seeking to reduce ambiguity in transactions involving digital assets. However, the Bill does not define the boundaries of a third type of property or determine its legal treatment. It leaves that for the courts to develop via common law. In doing so, it will reduce the time spent by the courts here on questions of the categorisation of objects under personal property rights and will allow them to focus instead on the substantive issues before them, reducing legal fees for the individuals and businesses involved. The Bill ensures that our laws are modern, up to date and future-proofed and that we are an attractive place in which to deal with digital assets.

I commend the Bill to the House.

Mr O'Toole (The Chairperson of the Committee for Finance): I will reflect the scrutiny that the Finance Committee undertook with regard to the legislative consent motion.

As Members will be aware, digital assets play an increasingly vital role in modern society and the contemporary economy. They are used in growing volumes and for an expanding variety of purposes, including as things in themselves and as means of payment.

As the Minister outlined, the Bill gives effect to the recommendation by the Law Commission in England and Wales for statutory confirmation that:

— here we get into some slightly technical legal language —

The recommendation responds to the development of new types of assets, such as cryptotokens, which challenge traditional categories.

The Ministry of Justice in England and Wales introduced the Property (Digital Assets Etc.) Bill to the House of Lords on 11 September 2024. It is a short two-clause Bill. Clause 1 provides that a:

Things that are neither in action nor possession may, therefore, be recognised as attracting property rights. There may be other reasons, however, why a thing cannot be personal property, such as the fact that the thing in question does not satisfy the general indication for personal property. The effect of the clause is not to say that any and all "things" are property. Clause 2(1) sets out the territorial extent of the Bill; that is, England and Wales. Clause 2(2) makes provision for the Bill to come into force. An amendment was made to reflect the addition of Northern Ireland to the territorial extent of the Bill, which was formally agreed on 3 February.

The Minister of Finance wrote to the Committee on 31 October 2024 to advise that she, as it was at that time, would seek Executive agreement for the extension of the Bill to Northern Ireland via an LCM, and, in parallel, would seek the views of the Committee for Finance. The Minister said that, on 11 September 2024, the UK Government sought feedback on the potential application of the Bill to this jurisdiction and offered to include it through an LCM. The Minister expressed support for that approach, noting that legislative constraints would prevent a specific Assembly Bill in the same time frame during the mandate. The Minister also outlined how the Department was carrying out a short engagement exercise with potential local stakeholders, though it was considered unlikely that there would be much specific local interest. As the offer from the UK Government to legislate on behalf of Northern Ireland had not followed the normal process, the Minister wrote to the Committee prior to the Executive's agreement and the formal laying of a legislative consent memorandum. Executive approval was given on 21 October 2024.

At its meeting on 6 November 2024, the Committee considered correspondence from the Department about the background to the Bill, with members agreeing to schedule an urgent oral briefing with departmental officials. The Committee also requested that any responses to the Department's engagement exercise should be copied to the Committee and that the Department should provide the Committee with details of any ongoing conversations between the Department and Westminster where a position had not been finalised; any financial, human rights and equality implications, including article 2 of the protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland; any regulatory or rural impact; and any data protection implications.

The Committee further considered information from the Department on cryptotrading figures in Northern Ireland, and I will come on to that in a minute. The Committee received a written briefing on the Bill from the Department on 15 November, which responded to a range of those queries. The Department wrote to a range of local stakeholders. The Department also indicated that the provisions of the Bill are considered compatible with the Human Rights Act 1998 and there are no associated equality implications. The Bill does not create any new rights nor dilute or remove any existing ones. The Department envisages that it will not have any implications that relate to article 2 of the protocol or the Windsor framework. The UK Government have stated that there are no financial implications from the Bill.

Officials provided oral evidence to the Committee on 20 November 2024. The timeline for introduction and the consultation to date were discussed. The officials noted:

The Committee wrote to the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) asking it to elaborate on the figures included in the 2023 online cryptoassets consumer research report. The FCA responded with a reference to its research, which goes back to what I mentioned about levels of ownership, that stated that crypto-ownership is highest in London and Northern Ireland — something that is of interest to the Committee. The FCA emphasised that work to identify further underlying reasons is challenging without more research. However, the Assembly and MLAs will want to consider that in a range of areas going forward. Outside London, perhaps surprisingly, we have the highest volume of crypto-ownership in the UK, which surprised me and other members of the Committee.

On 6 December 2024, officials advised:

On 7 February, the Department informed the Committee that two responses were received to the consultation, from the Law Society NI and the Federation of Small Businesses, a fact that the Minister reflected in his opening remarks. Although the Executive agreed, on 21 November 2024, to the extension of the Bill's provisions by LCM, the LCM was not laid by the Department until 10 February 2025 following the Special Public Bill Committee Stage at Westminster, which took place on 3 February.

At its meeting on 12 February 2025, the Committee agreed that it was content with the proposal to extend provisions in the Property (Digital Assets etc) Bill by way of a legislative consent motion. I can therefore confirm that the Committee for Finance supports the LCM and endorses the principle of the extension of the provisions of the Property (Digital Assets etc) Bill to Northern Ireland.

I will make a couple of brief observations — they are not political points. The first, which is for those who have been following cryptocurrency, is not intended to damn or demean cryptocurrency, because this is useful legislation that we are going to extend to Northern Ireland and, clearly, there are people who hold cryptocurrency as financial assets, so it makes sense that legal provision be made. It is true, and a wry irony, however, that, over the past number of years, those who have been the biggest enthusiasts of cryptocurrency such as Bitcoin and other forms of non-traditional asset are those who have railed against the state and who believe that the infrastructure of the state, whether that be legal restrictions, regulations or the operation of central banks, is the stuff of the devil. Their reason for having and holding cryptocurrency is to get away from the traditional structures of the state. In this part of the world — in the UK and at a European level, as well as in America, where cryptobros, as they are known, are trying to get the US Federal Reserve to take holdings of cryptocurrency — it appears that states and legal frameworks are not so bad after all. That is an irony that I simply wanted to put on the record and that we, as legislators, will have to be cognisant of. Nevertheless, it is sensible that we extend this provision to Northern Ireland, given that, clearly, there are ordinary investors who hold cryptocurrency such as Bitcoin as part of a portfolio. It would be worth us understanding exactly how — we may interrogate this a little bit more in the Committee for Finance — Northern Ireland has come to have what is, perhaps, a surprisingly high volume of crypto-ownership amongst small investors.

The other brief point is that, although this is a financially adjacent concept that we are talking about — it is clearly not traditional finance — that is not the reason that the Minister of Finance has tabled the motion. He tabled the motion because it involves civil law. We are talking, fundamentally, about a civil law Bill. Indeed, the officials who are in the Chamber today are civil law officials. That reinforces something I have talked about at the Committee, which is the odd and anomalous situation that the Minister of Finance, to whom I often give a hard time but who has a lot on his plate — his Department has a lot to do — is in. It would be more sensible — I think that lots of people think the same — if the Northern Ireland Department of Justice were to cover civil law, as is the case with all other Departments of Justice; those in the UK and Ireland, certainly, as well as those in most parts of the Western World. The LCM that we are debating is, rather than being about financial services, fundamentally a legal reform that will have an impact on the courts. It is not about financial services, so it makes sense that the Department of Justice would finally expand its remit into civil law. That anomaly has gone on long enough.

Ms Dolan: I welcome the opportunity to make a short contribution to the debate on the LCM. The Bill is a positive step that will help to address concerns that have arisen about the legal status of digital assets and will ensure that they are not excluded from property rights. It is important that the law keeps us up to speed with developments in modern society. Given the ever-increasing role that digital assets play in today's world, the legislation provides clarity and greater legal certainty on how those types of assets will be treated, whilst enabling common law to develop it further. It will also reduce ambiguity in transactions involving digital assets and provide legal certainty for businesses in risk assessments and investments, which should reduce disputes over ownership and lead to there being fewer legal proceedings.

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

Mr O'Dowd: I thank Members for their contributions; I have nothing further to add. I welcome Members' support during the consideration of the LCM on this short law-reform Bill.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): I ask Members to take their ease while we make a change at the top Table.

Miss Brogan: I beg to move

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

Miss Brogan: Tá áthas mór orm an rún seo a mholadh inniu díreach i ndiaidh Sheachtain na Gaeilge rathúla eile. Le linn na féile, ghlac níos mó ná milliún duine ar chúig mhór-roinn páirt in imeachtaí a dhéanann ceiliúradh ar an Ghaeilge.

I congratulate and thank all those who organised events for Seachtain na Gaeilge, including those in the Fermanagh and Omagh District Council area who hosted events ranging from coffee mornings and drama festivals to storytelling workshops and a special Irish language edition of the 5-kilometre parkrun. I attended a very successful Gaeltacht-at-home experience in the Glenpark estate in Omagh. It was great to see a wide range of people with varying Irish abilities enjoy a weekend of Irish language classes and social activities, including yoga as Gaeilge

.

Chomh maith leis sin, the Ceann Comhairle

hosted an excellent event in the Senate Chamber on 4 March to launch Seachtain na Gaeilge. All those events contribute to the success of Seachtain na Gaeilge gach bliain

.

Is dea-scéala é go bhfuil Fleadh Cheoil na hÉireann ag teacht go Béal Feirste in 2026. Déanaim comhghairdeas le gach duine a raibh baint acu leis an imeacht a thabhairt go dtí an Tuaisceart. Is ceiliúradh iontach í an fhleadh ar cheol, ar chultúr agus ar theanga dhúchais na hÉireann, agus is iontach an rud é a bheith i mBéal Feirste. Déanfar ceiliúradh ar 75 bliain de Chomhaltas Ceoltóirí Éireann. Seo an dara huair ariamh a reáchtálfar an fhleadh uile-Éireann i dTuaisceart na hÉireann.

Events at the fleadh range from large concerts with well-known acts to street and youth performances and community céilís.

There will also be competitions in music, song and dance. I hope that many people take the chance to get involved with the fleadh and enjoy everything that that celebration of Irish culture has to offer.

There is no doubt that the Irish language has made huge advances in recent years. The Irish language community is vibrant and thriving. Irish-medium education is the fastest-growing sector in education. We see more and more bilingual road signs. Last week, the Infrastructure Minister, Liz Kimmins, launched a pilot scheme to have traffic signs in Irish and English in the Gaeltacht Quarter in west Belfast. That is a welcome development. With the international success of Irish language groups such as Kneecap and the fact that we can address the Assembly as Gaeilge anois,

it is clear that the Irish language is going from strength to strength across the North. It saddens me to say that the Irish language community has achieved all that without the help of the entire Executive.

Earlier this month, Irish language workers went on strike for the first time in history in protest at cuts to Foras na Gaeilge funding — cuts that were caused by the DUP preventing reforms to the funding process. The Communities Minister continues to delay the introduction of an Irish language strategy that was first announced a decade ago. Last week, we, as members of the Committee for Communities, heard evidence from Conradh na Gaeilge. The sheer frustration of those hard-working organisers and activists was palpable. We heard about how people in the sector are at their wits' end, how jobs and vital community programmes would be lost and how those working on the co-design group are on the verge of walking out. We heard how multiple attempts to organise a meeting with the Minister to discuss those urgent concerns have repeatedly been rejected. It is becoming more difficult for Minister Lyons to deny that a deeply concerning pattern is emerging in whom he will and will not meet.

The Irish language belongs to all of us. The vast majority of our place names come from Irish and, in doing so, tell us a story about our shared history. I came this morning from Tír Eoghain,

the land of Eoghan, to Béal Feirste,

the mouth of the ford. This is our shared heritage, and, with the right support, it can be a cultural, social and economic driver that we all benefit from. I hope that the Minister finds the arguments compelling and delivers on the Irish language strategy.

I look forward to the other contributions to the debate.

Mr Butler: I beg to move the following amendment:

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

Mr Butler: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I propose what I believe to be a straightforward, fair and, above all, inclusive amendment. This is not about taking anything away from the Irish language or questioning its significance in our society; instead, it is about ensuring that, when we talk about language strategies, we recognise the rich and diverse linguistic heritage of Northern Ireland in its entirety. We all acknowledge the deep cultural and historical importance of the Irish language. It has been spoken on the island for centuries and has survived significant challenges, and it continues to flourish in education, music, film and community life. That is something to be celebrated, as people have every right to do, but so is the Ulster-Scots language, which has helped shape our literature, our storytelling, our traditions and the very identity of many communities across this place.

That is why the amendment is necessary. It does not seek to remove anything from or undermine anything in the original motion; it simply seeks to ensure that Ulster Scots receives the same recognition as Irish. We ask not for special treatment for one over the other but for fairness, for equal recognition and for commitments to both linguistic traditions to be made and honoured. That is what a shared and respectful society should look like.

There are stats that underpin why we think that this is important. Since the 2011 census, there has been a widening of knowledge of both the Irish language and Ulster Scots. Awareness of Irish has increased by 1·7%, and awareness of Ulster Scots has increased by 2·3%. However, let us be honest: language in Northern Ireland has too often been weaponised. It has been turned into a political football by both sides rather than being treated as the cultural asset that it actually is. We are repeatedly told that language should not be something to fear, and I am sure that we all agree with that. However, when language is politicised and phrases such as:

are used, it is easy to see why some people feel uneasy and that there is ground to be made up. That kind of rhetoric, which comes from the past, did nothing to promote the Irish language, nor did it make it any more accessible to people such as me. In fact, it did the opposite: it created and fostered division where it did not need to be. It fostered mistrust and alienated not just me but communities of those who might otherwise have embraced the language much earlier.

Let us talk about how language has been promoted. If we want communities to embrace linguistic diversity, we need to promote it in a respectful and organic way. Unfortunately, what we have seen in some cases with the imposition of street signs without broad community support, which happened in Belfast City Council, does little to encourage goodwill. Instead of bringing people along, it has driven them away. That is the real problem. Language should be something that unites us rather than something that is forced on communities or used to create division.

Let me make one thing clear: my party has never been against promoting language, and I certainly have not. We have a proven track record of delivering on linguistic commitments. When my colleague Michael McGimpsey was Minister of Culture, Arts and Leisure, we took steps to support and develop the Irish language. Under his leadership, Foras na Gaeilge was established, creating a structured cross-border body to support the Irish language. During that time, Irish was lodged under the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages, fulfilling the commitments made under the Belfast Agreement. Those were not empty gestures but real, substantive measures taken by a Minister from my party. Since then, member groups for speaking Irish and Ulster Scots have grown rapidly. For instance, Conradh na Gaeilge has over 200 member groups, and the Ulster-Scots Community Network has over 400. When we look at that, we see real appetite and interest.

Real leadership is about fairness, however, and that means recognising both of Northern Ireland's main linguistic traditions. That is why the commitments to the Irish language strategy and the Ulster-Scots language strategy were made together and why they must be delivered together.

The Minister has said that his Department is progressing key anti-poverty and disability strategies, both of which are vital and deserve our full support, but let us not forget that other important strategies, including those for Irish and Ulster Scots, gender equality and sexual orientation, remain undelivered.

It is time to stop prioritising one language over the other and to ensure that both receive the attention and investment that they deserve. In reality, Ulster Scots has as much of a place in Northern Ireland as Irish. Its contributions to poetry, music and storytelling are just as significant. The Ulster-Scots Agency continues to do fantastic work in promoting and preserving the language — we commend it for that — but it too needs proper support. That is why the amendment matters. It ensures that we do not simply pay lip service to one tradition while neglecting another. In 2025, we are surely past that moment.

Today, I ask Members across the Chamber to look at the amendment in the spirit of fairness and inclusivity. It is not about diminishing Irish but about ensuring that Ulster Scots is treated with the same respect. It is about ensuring that language policy in Northern Ireland is built on equality, not hierarchy, and it is about sending a clear message that we, as an Assembly, respect all traditions, not just some.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Brian, you have up to five minutes.

Mr Kingston: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. Let me be clear at the outset that the Democratic Unionist Party believes that everyone in Northern Ireland should feel comfortable expressing their national and cultural identity, including those who cherish the Irish language and those who cherish Ulster-Scots language, heritage and culture as part of our indigenous cultural wealth. However, the way forward and our approach to that must be balanced and fair to each tradition, recognising and reflecting the delicate balance of community relations in Northern Ireland. Our United Kingdom has a rich and interwoven tapestry of language and heritage that is beloved by many, and there is no reason to be fearful of other people's identities and languages. Northern Ireland is big enough to accommodate everyone. Cultural and language provision must be about facilitation rather than imposition.

The development of an Irish language strategy must be brought forward in parallel with a strategy for Ulster Scots. Both pieces of work are cross-cutting and will require Executive consideration and approval and widespread consultation. The Irish language strategy, alongside the Ulster-Scots language, heritage and culture strategy, is being developed through a co-design process, on which the Department for Communities is taking the lead on behalf of the Executive.

In 2017, the DUP indicated that it could not support legislation for Irish on a basis that would elevate the Irish language above English or reduce career opportunities for those who did not speak Irish. The same principles must apply to any strategy that is brought forward. We regret that the Sinn Féin motion is limited to the Irish language. We welcome the Ulster Unionist Party amendment, which is more balanced and inclusive as it recognises the Ulster-Scots aspect.

Burdens placed on public authorities must respect language services if they are to be fair and proportionate. The most recent census results demonstrate that the majority of people in Northern Ireland use English as their main language, as we all know. That is followed by Polish and then Lithuanian. In the Northern Ireland census of 2021, 12·4% of respondents — around 229,000 people — reported some level of ability in Irish, and 10·4% of respondents — around 191,000 people — reported some ability in Ulster Scots. Reasonableness must be a key consideration in future actions and the obligations that underpin language and cultural strategies, given the unprecedented pressures facing our public services.

As has been mentioned, at Committee last week, we received a delegation from Conradh na Gaeilge. At that meeting, I raised dual-language street sign policies in councils. In particular, I raised what has happened in Belfast, where there was a long-standing policy of allowing a dual-language street sign, most often in Irish, where a majority of residents wished to have it. That threshold has been radically reduced in recent years by nationalist parties and the Alliance Party to a ridiculously low 15% of residents. That has caused dissent in areas that are quietly mixed, where residents get on together, and it has caused tensions.

Just two weeks ago, there was the case of two streets in my constituency of North Belfast. When a survey was done, the majority of residents did not consent to having an Irish street sign added. In Sunningdale Park North, 22% of residents were for an Irish street sign and 33% were against one. In Ben Madigan Park South, 23% were for the Irish street sign and 26% were against. However, in both cases, nationalist councillors pushed the matter through at committee. That threshold is clearly undemocratic and unfair, and it needs to be changed. It disrespects the views of residents, who view it as cultural branding of their area.

Mr Buckley: Will the Member give way?

Mr Kingston: I will give way briefly.

Mr Buckley: I thank the Member for giving way on a crucial point. Does he agree that that is happening not only in Belfast but in other councils across Northern Ireland, where the advancement of such cultural supremacy is causing worry and angst among those who are legitimately concerned?

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Regrettably, the Member has run out of time.

Mr Kingston: Do I not get an extra minute?

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): No, you are not getting an extra minute. [Laughter.]

Ms Mulholland: I will not speak in Irish because, at the moment, my Irish is confined to my telling my sons to put on their shoes and asking them where their school bags and school jumpers are. I do not think that the Chamber needs to hear that.

First, I thank the Members who tabled the motion. It is an issue that I am passionate about: the Irish language is for everyone and should not be feared or seen as a tool to divide. I find it regrettable that, in the past, there have been attempts to use it as a weapon rather than a gift.

The strategy would offer the choice to all communities or, should I say, our community as a whole to embrace a language that could belong to everyone. Such a strategy has the potential to preserve and promote the Irish language; support the rights of vulnerable communities and minority languages; open the doors further to bilingual education; and to enhance the social, cultural and economic opportunities for all. The impact can be far-reaching and provide benefits not just to the Irish-speaking community but to wider society.

I will focus for a moment on our young people, as I am the party spokesperson for children and young people. I have seen first-hand the many benefits that bilingualism brings to children. I see the positive impact on academic performance, cognitive skills and cultural awareness through having an immersive second language. Those advantages are not limited to Irish language education. Being bilingual in any language offers tremendous benefits to children, particularly in brain development. Bilingualism is a cognitive powerhouse. Studies have shown that bilingual children have stronger problem-solving skills, better multitasking abilities and enhanced memory. I can attest to that from the experience of my household. Bilingual children excel academically and demonstrate greater creativity. For children, regardless of their background, bilingual education is about more than learning a language. It is an immersion in a vibrant culture where they gain a deep understanding of history, music, literature and identity. In today's globalised world, languages are a valuable currency and attending an Irish-medium school can foster a child's interest in learning Irish and inspire a broader desire to learn other languages, especially as those pathways are built in the brain.

The need for an Irish language strategy has never been more pressing. It should be a strategy that not only protects and promotes the language but supports the rights of a minority language. We need to be clear about this: the strategy is not just a nice-to-have but a legal commitment underpinned by various agreements and solidified by the Identity and Language (Northern Ireland) Act 2022, which enshrined it in law, introducing strategic statutory protections and mandating for its creation.

It is an embarrassment that we now see the instigation of yet another legal challenge to the Department regarding the lack of implementation. To be honest, from the Gaeilgeoirí

whom I have spoken to recently, there is hurt, anger and a profound sense of frustration that their language and culture has to be dragged through the courts rather than its being celebrated through the Chamber. By providing a framework for the Irish language, we will be making an explicit commitment to ensuring the rights of Irish speakers in our shared community. The strategy should not only provide for the language but ensure equal access to education, employment and cultural resources for all, especially those from vulnerable or marginalised communities.

The concerns raised by Conradh na Gaelige about the development of the strategy or lack thereof are not to be taken lightly. It highlights the fact that, despite years of discussion and hours of meetings and contributions, there is still no clear, actionable plan and not even a draft strategy on the table.

Ms K Armstrong: I thank the Member for giving way. During the session at the Committee for Communities last week, we heard from Conradh na Gaelige that the strategy was there and was almost ready; it just needed to be signed off. Does the Member agree with me, therefore, that the barriers to progress that are being put in place should not have to end up in court and that they should just get on with it?

Ms Mulholland: That is a very succinct way to say it.

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

Ms Mulholland: Thank you.

"They should just get on with it": I quite like that. That is directed at you, Minister, just in case you did not realise it.

We have seen —.

A Member: Through the Chair, Sian; through the Chair.

Ms Mulholland: Apologies. I was just amplifying my colleague's succinct sentiment.

We have seen the positive examples of language strategies in other countries. In Wales, the Government implemented a long-term strategy to protect and promote Welsh language. The aim is to have a million Welsh speakers by 2050, with measurable targets for language acquisition and use. The Irish language strategy must be similarly ambitious, with clear goals for increasing the number of Irish speakers.

We will support the amendment from the UUP, and I appreciate the Member's words, which have definitely reassured me that it is not a case of, "If we talk about the Irish language, we must talk about Ulster Scots". At times, there is a little bit of that. It is very degenerative and can feed into the politicisation of the language. Therefore, I am relieved to hear the comments of the Member.

I urge the Minister for Communities to take immediate action to deliver the long-overdue Irish language strategy and not to let it be the case that he is the Minister presiding over a Department that is found wanting for a third time by the courts in not bringing forward the strategy to the Executive.

Much like music, which is often said to be the language of our soul, language serves as a bridge to connect our minds, share ideas and express our identities. While the Irish language may be seen by some in our community as a source of division, I argue that it can be a powerful tool for fostering deeper connections with one another.

Mr McGlone: Ar dhóigh amháin, cuirim fáilte roimh an rún atá os ár gcomhair inniu, ach, ar dhóigh eile, aisteach go leor, fógraíodh straitéis i gClár Rialtas an Choiste Feidhmiúcháin cheana féin. Cibé ar bith, tacaím leis an rún agus leis an leasú.

Ach, ar ndóigh, tástáil na putóige a hithe. Cuir i gcás foras uile-Éireann ár dteanga, Foras na Gaeilge. I dtaca le comhaoiniú an fhorais, tá Rialtas na hÉireann toilteanach a chuid a íoc, ach Coiste Feidhmiúchán na bhfocal deas — beidh le féacháil.

Fillimis ar an straitéis agus ar na tosaíochtaí. Ar an chéad dul síos bhí an teanga le haitheantas oifigiúil agus creatlach dlí a fháil. Ba chóir go leanfadh an straitéis ar aghaidh leis na forálacha a tugadh isteach faoi Acht Féiniúlachta agus Teanga (Tuaisceart Éireann) 2022, a thug stádas oifigiúil don teanga. Ba chóir go gclúdódh sé seo ceapachán Coimisinéara Gaeilge agus bunú Oifig um Fhéiniúlacht agus Léiriú Cultúrtha le tionscadail teanga a mhaoirsiú agus a chur chun cinn. Ba chóir don straitéis aghaidh a thabhairt ar oideachas agus oiliúint múinteoirí, nó tá gá le cur leis an líon scoileanna lán-Ghaeilge. Ba chóir don straitéis na nithe seo leanas a dhéanamh: tacú le forbairt bhreise na nGaelscoileanna; cur le clár oiliúna na múinteoirí le go dtig leo freastal ar an éileamh mhéadaithe ar oideachas trí mheán na Gaeilge; forbairt a dhéanamh ar Ghaelcholáistí i gceantair ar nós Bhéal Feirste, Chathair Dhoire, iarthar Thír Eoghain, agus, ar ndóigh, i mo cheantar féin lár Uladh.

Tá an cheist seo agam ar an Choiste Feidhmiúcháin: an bhfuil fáth leis nár luaíodh an Ghaelscolaíocht sa Chlár Rialtais a d’fhógair siad?

Is príomhphointe iad fosta na meáin agus cur chun cinn an chultúir. Ba chóir go gcuirfidh an straitéis le tarraingteacht na Gaeilge tríd na nithe seo a leanas: tacú le craoltóireacht, litríocht, ceol agus imeachtaí cultúrtha agus spreagadh a thabhairt d’ealaíontóirí agus do ghrúpaí a úsáideann an Ghaeilge mar chuid dá gcultúr agus dá gcleachtadh cruthaitheach. Ba chóir don straitéis béim a chur ar sholáthar seirbhísí pobail tríd an Ghaeilge; ar chomharthaíocht dhátheangach i gceantair ina bhfuil ráchairt ar an Ghaeilge. Ba chóir dlíthe tábhachtacha a aistriú go Gaeilge, mar a mhol Comhairle na hEorpa. Tá ról tábhachtach ag an Choiste Feidhmiúcháin uilig ina leith siúd.

Ba chóir go gcuirfí béim ar fhorbairt na Gaeilge ar leibhéal an phobail trí mhaoiniú a thabhairt d’ionaid phobail ina bhfuil ranganna Gaeilge agus imeachtaí sóisialta; ba chóir líonraí Gaeilge, mar shampla, in iarthar Bhéal Feirste agus i gCarn Tóchair, a fhorbairt agus a chothú; agus —.

Mr Durkan: An nglacfaidh an Comhalta le hionchur?

Mr McGlone: Cinnte, a chara.

Mr Durkan: Gabh mo leithscéal: tá mé as cleachtadh, agus tá meirg ar mo chuid Gaeilge. An síleann an Comhalta go gcuireann Seachtain na Gaeilge go mór le haitheantas a thabhairt don Ghaeilge?

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

Mr McGlone: Ar ndóigh. Molaim go hard Oifig an Cheann Comhairle as ucht an mhéid eolais agus oideachais a tugadh dúinn le linn na hócáide a reachtáil an Ceann Comhairle maidir leis an teanga Ghaeilge agus an teanga Gàidhlig. Bhí sé iontach spreagúil.

Sa deireadh, ba mhaith liom rud a rá faoin chomhthéacs polaitíochta agus cultúrtha, nó tá na pointí an-tábhachtach fosta. Tá sé tábhachtach go gcuirtear an Ghaeilge chun cinn ar bhealach atá cuimsitheach agus measúil ar éagsúlacht chultúrtha Thuaisceart Éireann. Ba chóir don straitéis díriú ar chomhthuiscint agus ar chaidreamh maith idir na pobail éagsúla. Tá sé sin barrthábhachtach sa chruth is go mbeidh tuiscint againn ar a chéile. Tá sé lán chomh tábhachtach go gcuireann an Coiste Feidhmiúcháin tús ar an straitéis, má tá siad le bheith fíor dá gcáipéis féin.

Ms Sheerin: Ar dtús ba mhaith liom a rá gur chaith mé an deireadh seachtaine i nGaoth Dobhair, áit a maireann ár dteanga dhúchais agus áit a bhfuil sí beo beathach agus láidir i ngach áit sa cheantar.

When you leave a Gaeltacht region, you think to yourself, "Why can we not have that everywhere?" The vibrancy and visibility of the language — it is a living, breathing thing in the places where the language was maintained and where they could not wipe out our language. I was in several restaurants, pubs, supermarkets and other places over the course of the weekend and saw signage as Gaeilge

everywhere, but I did not see anyone running away or being terrified of the language. It is open to everyone and belongs to us all. It should be that way.

Being half-Donegal and half-Tyrone, Tír Chonaill

is a place that is close to my heart. My great-grandmother was one of the last native speakers in an area in which the language was subsequently wiped out. I feel very strongly about the issue. I was in Donegal at the weekend with a group of Irish language learners from my area to attend classes organised through Glór na Speiríní. The work that is being done is fantastic. As the Member who spoke previously mentioned, we have Irish language groups across all areas of mid-Ulster, including in Carn Tóchair

, Machaire Fíolta

, Glór na Speiríní and my own Baile na Scríne

. The message that I get from the people who are working on the ground to revitalise our native language is the same: although the work that they are doing is so important and brilliant, they want to do more, but they are not receiving the support that they need. We all know that what gets measured gets done. That is why a strategy is so important. It would provide objectives and working remits to allow people to see how well things are being delivered.

The language is open to everyone. You get joy from being amongst people who are speaking in such a way. It has meaning in our area. As has been articulated, the place names that we use every day come from the Irish language. When you make that connection, it feels as though a light bulb goes off. The people who do that vital work on the ground, including the campaigning, which has taken us so far in the Gaelic revival, need to see the support delivered on. It is important that we support the motion.

Mr Bradley: Our rich cultural and linguistic heritage here in Northern Ireland deserves respect and balance. Many have cúpla focal

in the Irish language and a wheen o words in the Ulster-Scots tradition. Both are vibrant aspects of our society, flourishing in music, dance, education and media. Ulster Scots is widely spoken in the areas that the Minister and I represent and throughout north Antrim. Wouldn't it be great to see Ulster Scots incorporated into the Gaeltacht?

We support the promotion of both languages, but it must be done in a way that is fair, practical and does not place undue burdens on public services or finances. The appointment process for language commissioners in the Office of Identity and Cultural Expression is under way. Following proper public appointment procedures, those offices will play a key role in shaping future policy. We must ensure that their work is rooted in fairness, not political advantage or disadvantage. However, there remains a stark disparity in broadcasting funding: £61·4 million has been allocated to the Irish Language Broadcast Fund since 2004, compared with just £14·1 million for Ulster Scots. That is an equality issue and an imbalance that must be addressed.

Our party respects those who cherish the Irish language, but language policies must be reasonable, proportionate and fair to all communities. Irish and Ulster Scots have similar levels of use, yet Irish receives far greater financial support. That must be addressed under equality law. It is also crucial that strategies for Irish and Ulster Scots be developed in tandem. No single tradition should be elevated above another or relegated below another. As our Ministers engage internationally, we continue to highlight the immense contribution of Ulster-Scots heritage, particularly in the United States. Ulster-Scots migrants helped to shape American history. Their language deserves recognition on equal terms. Ultimately, we must ensure that any future language policies command broad support, respect diversity and uphold fairness. The days of one language's receiving preferential treatment over another should be ended.

Ms K Armstrong: I am fluent in Ulster Scots; I was very fortunate to grow up in an area in which Ullans is spake all the time.

My grandmother was probably the most fluent Ulster-Scots speaker whom I have ever heard, and you didnae want to get on the wrang side of her.

Today, we can all accept the historical, cultural and social significance and strength of the Irish language and Ulster Scots across our entire community. The Irish language or Gaeilge and Ulster Scots are more than means of communication: they are living evidence of our shared heritage and identity. In recent years, we have witnessed a remarkable resurgence of both languages in various cultural domains, including music, film, radio, television, festivals, events and sports.

I commend all the participants in Seachtain na Gaeilge, an annual festival that celebrates and promotes the Irish language across our island. The event fosters unity and pride and encourages fluent speakers and novices to engage with the language in meaningful ways. I thank Conradh na Gaeilge for its presentation — in Irish — to the Committee for Communities that also highlighted its frustration at the lack of movement on the Irish language strategy.

Despite those cultural advances, there remains a pressing need for formal support through a comprehensive Irish language strategy. 'New Decade, New Approach' explicitly mandates the development of such a strategy:

In its report 'Provision for Indigenous Minority Languages in the BIPA Jurisdictions', the British-Irish Parliamentary Assembly (BIPA), stated:

In the same report, BIPA confirmed:

It is disappointing, however, to read BIPA state:

That is something that we should be doing here.

I turn to Ulster Scots. The 1999 Northern Ireland life and times survey found that 2% of Northern Ireland residents said that they could spake Ulster Scots or Ullans, which would mean a total speech community of approximately 30,000. Most of them probably live in Ballymena, along the Northern Irish coast heading towards Scotland and on the Ards peninsula. Other estimates range from 35,000 in Northern Ireland to a total of 100,000 in Ireland, mainly on the east coast of Donegal, where half my family is from.

It is frustrating to me that the Identity and Language (Northern Ireland) Act 2022 had to be passed by the Westminster Parliament after attempts to pass similar legislation at Stormont encountered political difficulties due to disagreements over the status of Irish and Ulster Scots. Regrettably, to put it kindly — very kindly — progress has been sluggish. The Northern Ireland Executive have faced and continue to face legal challenges due to their failure to implement the Irish language strategy, which highlights the urgent need for us to affirm our commitment in the House today.

The Irish language and Ulster Scots provide a vibrant thread that is woven into the fabric of our society. Their resurgence in music, film and education is a testament to their enduring relevance. To truly honour and preserve that integral aspect of our heritage, however, we must move beyond celebration and instead take concrete action. I urge the Minister for Communities to expedite the delivery of the long-overdue Irish language strategy, thereby fulfilling our collective responsibility to protect and promote Gaeilge for current and future generations. There is no excuse for continuing to fail to deliver or for delaying any language strategies. Let us stop politicising the Irish language and Ulster Scots and instead get on with delivery together. Not progressing strategies is a failure of the Executive to meet their legal requirements and says a lot about the Assembly's inability to recognise and celebrate the wealth of our shared culture.

Mr McHugh: Is geal liom deis a bheith agam labhairt ar an rún seo agus iarraidh ar an Aire Pobal straitéis Ghaeilge a chur i bhfeidhm faoi dheireadh thiar thall.

Chuala muid ag an Choiste Pobal an tseachtain seo caite an díomá atá ar Chonradh na Gaeilge go bhfuil straitéis Ghaeilge go fóill gan déanamh agus nach bhfuil an tAire sásta buaileadh leis an eagraíocht sin ná amlíne a thabhairt maidir le straitéis Ghaeilge. D’éist mé leis an Aire le déanaí agus é ag tabhairt isteach an Bhille um Theanga Chomharthaíochta agus é á rá gur thuig sé an tábhacht a bhaineann le teanga, le cultúr teanga agus an tionchar atá ag teanga ar an tsochaí i gcoitinne ó thaobh comhionannas deiseanna de. Mar sin de, cuirim an cheist seo: Cad chuige a nglacann sé an oiread sin ama le straitéis Ghaeilge a fhorbairt?

Tá sé de dhualgas ar an Aire straitéis Ghaeilge a thabhairt isteach, straitéis lena leagfar amach go soiléir spriocanna i dtaca le dul chun cinn agus forbairt na Gaeilge go ceann 20 bliain, agus lena gcinnteofar go mbeidh maoiniú cuí ann leis an straitéis a chur chun feidhme. Aithním an dul chun cinn a rinneadh faoin choimisinéir teanga atá le ceapadh agus an Acht Féiniúlachta agus Teanga a ritheadh i bParlaimint na Breataine i dtaca leis, agus is ar an ábhar sin atá frustrachas orm go bhfuilimid go fóill ag fanacht sa dlínse seo le straitéis Ghaeilge, straitéis leis an bhealach chun cinn a leagan amach do phobal na Gaeilge atá ag fás i méid agus i mbrí i rith an ama.

Tá a shárfhios agam faoi na constaicí i mbealach phobal na Gaeilge, go háirithe na constaicí a cheapann an fás. Ní hé amháin go bhfuil géarghá le tuilleadh múinteoirí oilte i ngach ábhar le freastal ar an éileamh atá ann sna Gaelscoileanna, ach ina theannta sin, tá gá le múinteoirí a bhfuil Gaeilge acu agus atá oilte go leibhéal a 5 i gcúram leanaí le riar ar an éileamh ar áiteanna réamhscoile trí mheán na Gaeilge. Dhéanfaí saincheisteanna mar sin a thabhairt chun solais agus a réiteach le straitéis Ghaeilge.

Is doiligh deireadh iontais a dhéanamh d’fhás na teanga, ní hé amháin i measc na ndaoine a bhfuil an teanga acu cheana féin, ach i measc an phobail i gcoitinne atá ag tnúth leis an teanga a fhoghlaim. Tá níos mó daoine ag glacadh leis an teanga, go háirithe an mhuintir óga a fhaigheann spreagadh ón dóigh a bhfuil ag éirí le grúpaí óga ard-éirime ar nós Kneecap nó le daoine eile sna scannáin Ghaeilge.

Is í an Ghaeilge teanga dhúchais na tíre seo agus, leoga, tá sí ar cheann de na teangacha is sine ar domhan. Tá sí thart timpeall orainn in ainmneacha na gcontaetha, na mbailte fearainn, na mbailte móra agus na gcathracha againn. An té a bhfuil Gaeilge aige, tá cur amach aige ar na logainmneacha agus ar an cheantar a ndéanann sé cónaí ann.

Baineann teanga leis an chumarsáid, an tuiscint, an meas, an cultúr agus an ghaois. Ní thuigim, mar sin, cad chuige a mothaíonn duine ar bith faoi bhagairt ag an Ghaeilge. Is ar an ábhar sin ba cheart straitéis Ghaeilge a bheith ann: leis an lánpháirtíocht a spreagadh; caidreamh pobail agus tuiscint an phobail a chothú; agus deiseanna a chur ar fáil do gach duine.

Mr Gaston: I oppose the motion and the amendment. I will do so in the knowledge that my words and actions in the House today have the support of the unionist community not just in North Antrim but across Northern Ireland. I say that so confidently because of polling that was commissioned by Analogical Research, a not-for-profit initiative. I am grateful to Analogical Research for permission to share the findings with Members. The polling, which was conducted by LucidTalk, was carried out last month and sought to establish whether there was a chill factor among unionists and Protestants when Irish language signage is erected. Unlike much of the polling on the issue, the questions asked were simple and straightforward and were designed not to get answers that could be spun but to get to the truth. The poll had a representative sample of 1,050 people.

The first question asked people what their reaction would be if the local council were to put Irish-language street signs on the road where they live. Respondents were asked whether that would make them more likely to move or less likely to move or make no difference. Some 71% of those who voted for a unionist party and 63% of those identifying as Protestant said that it would make them more likely to move. For TUV voters, the figure was 84%; for DUP voters, it was 71%; and, for UUP voters, it was 57%.

The second question asked respondents whether, if a road had Irish-language street signs, that would make them more likely to move there or less likely to move there or make no difference. Some 88% of unionist voters and 82% of Protestants said that they were less likely to move there. The responses from different unionist party supporters were very similar. For DUP voters, it was 89%; for TUV voters, it was 86%; and, for Ulster Unionist voters, it was 84%.

The third question related to council-run leisure centres. People were asked whether their leisure centre having Irish signage would make them more or less likely to use the facility or make no difference. Some 75% of unionists and 69% of Protestants said that Irish signage would make them less likely to use the leisure centre.

The reality is that, while the Irish language is appreciated and celebrated by some, it has a significant chill factor for many others. Forcing it in areas, as has happened in Belfast and will, doubtless, happen more widely, now that the DUP has agreed to set the wheels in motion for the appointment of an Irish language commissioner, is regressive and will result in a more polarised society.

People who do not regard Irish as part of their culture, such as me and the people whom I represent, have no difficulty with the language being cherished by those who appreciate it. Equally, resisting its aggressive promotion in places where it is not wanted does not make them bigots. The truth is that Irish can be and is used as a cultural weapon, which will result in a more divided and polarised society. Lots of people pushing it like to talk about equality, but the truth is that, when it comes to equality for the Irish language, it is the Gerry Adams version of equality that many aspire to. Apologies for the unparliamentary language, but it is important to quote Mr Adams accurately:

The motion is a Trojan Horse. The amendment is wrong-headed, as it carries all the hallmarks of coming from those taken in by the Trojan Horse.

The commitment in the Programme for Government to develop a strategy is wrong and should never have been made. The Irish language community has Sinn Féin to thank for it being a chill factor to unionism.

Mr Carroll: Is mionteanga í an Ghaeilge. Tá dhá rud de dhíth uirthi: cearta agus acmhainní.

Tá pobal na Gaeilge ag fás. Tá líon na ndaoine óga atá ar Gaelscoileanna ag fás. Tá líon na ndaoine fásta atá ag foghlaim na Gaeilge ag fás. Tá maoiniú agus tacaíocht cheart de dhíth ar an phobal sin. Tá an maoiniú agus an tacaíocht sin tuillte aige. I mo cheantar féin, tá seirbhísí i mbaol. Tá múinteoirí faoi bhrú, agus tá scoil ann, Gaelscoil an Lonnáin, atá gan foirgneamh ceart go fóill. Tá sé iontach tábhachtach go gcuireann Stormont stráitéis na Gaeilge i bhfeidhm, stráitéis lena gcuirfear acmhainní cearta ar fáil don teanga. Táthar ag baint moill aisti ar feadh i bhfad rófhada.

Deir na páirtithe móra go minic nach bhfuil go leor airgid ann. Ach is bréag é sin. Thug sibh na milliúin do Invest NI ar na mallaibh – cé go bhfuil scéal ann faoi airgead le Invest NI bheith á úsáid le heitleáin de chuid Iosrael a dheisiú.

Cuir stad leis na leithscéalta. Cuir stad leis an phlámás. Cuir i bhfeidhm, agus maoinigh, stráitéis na Gaeilge anois.

For too long, the Irish-medium education sector has been too reliant on goodwill and unsustainable, ad hoc funding. Comhairle na Gaelscolaíochta recently completed an audit of the progress on the review of Irish-medium education. It found that, since 2008, zero progress has been made on a quarter of the recommendations that were made in the review of Irish-medium education. Absolutely no progress has been made in 17 years on accommodation issues, support for children with special educational needs, informal learning through Irish and Irish language support for children at home. Areas of particular concern include staff training in the Irish-medium sector. Education workers report that DE and the EA do not understand the challenges that are associated with immersive education in a target language. Institutional inertia, as many have described it, is failing the needs of Irish-medium education and its learners. A well-resourced Irish-medium education strategy should also be a priority for the Education Minister. I urge him to get on with it.

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

Mr Lyons (The Minister for Communities): Thank you very much, Mr Deputy Speaker. Language is a central element to any place and its people, as the ways that things are spoken about can in turn influence how things are thought about. It is important that we respect each other, and that means respecting each other's culture, heritage and languages. The work, however, is not straightforward. We have heard in the debate that the journey towards the strategies has been a long one, and, as Minister, I can only speak about the most recent year of that journey whilst being conscious of the years preceding it.

There are clearly challenges in relation to costs and funding. There are many calls on our public finances and there are decisions to be made, many of which centre on how we prioritise spend. It is clear that many components of our heritage, culture and creativity can improve personal and community well-being and community cohesion, reduce recidivism and improve skills. It is therefore important that we seek to find funding for those activities, and I very much include language in that space, as it is a key component of our wider heritage and culture. We must remember, however, that finances are limited. Not everything that we aspire to do is possible, and not everything that would make a positive difference can be funded.

Language can enrich our communities, our learning, our media and publications, our cultural lives and our economy, but it can also be used as a tool to divide. There has been much talk about rights, such as the right to speak in and celebrate a certain language, but that needs to continue to be set against the right of all to choose not to use or connect with a particular language. It is in that context that the Executive's Ulster-Scots language, heritage and culture strategy and action plan and the Irish language strategy and action plan are being developed.

As we heard, the development of the strategies has moved through a number of phases. In 2022, expert advisory panels provided recommendations on what the strategies should seek to address. Co-design groups of stakeholders were brought together in October 2021 to provide input on the development and content of the strategies and action plans. The groups are chaired by a sectoral stakeholder and a senior official from my Department. I am grateful for all the work that has been undertaken and all the knowledge and expertise that has been shared through the work of the co-design groups. I am grateful to each member of the two co-design groups. In 2022 and 2023, they focused strongly on action plans to implement the strategies. The plans were ambitious when it came not only to cost but to the number of people and the resources that would be required, the skills development that would be needed and, in some cases, the technology that was necessary.

In 2024, the group's focus was more on the draft narrative strategies. In October 2024, the co-design groups completed their drafting work on the two narrative strategies. The outputs from that phase of the work of the co-design groups were then passed to my Department for consideration. A key element of that consideration needs to be the achievability of proposed actions and how they fit with broader departmental and Executive priorities and with work that is already under way. It may be, for instance, that work is already under way in a Department that will deliver the intent of an action but via a different route.

The next stage of the work is central to the role of the cross-departmental working group (CDWG) of senior officials. That group first met in February 2022 and has, to date, largely been operating in shadow mode, tracking the work of the co-design groups. With the delivery of the co-design groups' draft documents, the CDWG is able to move out of shadow mode. The group has met roughly every six weeks over the past year and has spent some time considering its approach. I intend to bring a paper to the Executive imminently, asking my colleagues to confirm or amend their Department's member of the group and give that member authority to engage across their Department to consider and agree appropriate actions, including developing costs. After that phase of work, which, given the range of potential action areas and other work that is going on across Departments, will take a few months, I will be in a position to consider draft strategies and action plans for bringing to the Executive for approval for public consultation. As Members will appreciate, there will be further necessary stages following that consultation: consideration of the comments; potential amendment to the documents in the light of those comments; and then approval by the Executive of final drafts for publication.

I should also touch on the concept of co-design. It is absolutely right that the Government take full account of the views and expertise of people across our society. It is, however, for the Government to govern. Therefore, I am grateful for all the work that has been done and time that has been committed by every member of the two co-design groups. That has allowed us a basis from which to move to the next stage of the work that is for us. Nonetheless, I have committed, and I have reaffirmed today, that the co-design groups will have a chance to review and comment on the draft documents before they move to public consultation and that I will, at that stage, meet the co-design groups. My reasoning for not meeting at an earlier stage has been that I would not have had proposals to discuss with the co-design group members.

At this stage, it is appropriate for me to address some of the disingenuous comments that have been made by the Chairperson of the Communities Committee, which have been reinforced by the Deputy Chair. He has claimed that I refused to meet Conradh na Gaeilge. That is not the case. Conradh na Gaeilge has had extensive input to the decision-making process. I have committed to meeting it when the next stage of work is done. The Chair knows that. I have explained it to him. He has been briefed on that, but he continues to peddle the line that I do not acknowledge the contribution that has been made by those groups. That is not true. I am following a process. I know what he is up to and what he is trying to do, but I have committed to a certain action —.

Mr Gildernew: Will the Minister give way?

Mr Lyons: Give me a second. I have committed to a line of work, and I will do that. I am happy to give way to the Member so that he can clarify his comments.

Mr Gildernew: I thank the Minister. I am sure that he will recognise that Conradh na Gaeilge has existed for well over 100 years, represents a huge community and wishes to speak to him about many issues, including the development of the strategy. You have made no attempt at all to engage with it on other issues, thereby showing a lack of regard for the work that it does.

Mr Lyons: My understanding is that it has been in contact to discuss work on the strategy. If it wants to raise separate issues, I am happy to discuss them. However, I have put in place a process. The Member is well aware of it, because it is exactly the same as the process that I have put in place for the other key strategies, including the anti-poverty strategy, which he continues to call to be published even though I have already committed to ensuring that it goes to the Executive by the end of the month.

Mr Gildernew: Will the Minister give way?

Mr Lyons: I will give way to the Member again.

Mr Gildernew: I agree that the Minister has set out a process. What I said, and what I believe other Committee members have said, is that that process is not giving proper recognition to the groups that put in so much effort to assist the Minister's Department with those strategies, including under the previous Minister, and, significantly, drafting strategies that they are now seeking to reiterate and have further input into.

Mr Lyons: In all those strategies, they have had incredible input, because the way in which they were set up by my predecessor gave them the access and information that they needed to co-design them with us. We are going through a process now with the various strategies with the cross-departmental groups, and the Member is aware of those. He may disagree with that, but he is well aware of the process that I put in place. He may disagree with that, but he is being disingenuous in the way that he is presenting it, and I will be calling that out.

I hope that that makes clear the processes that I have been following. I say again: they are the same for the language strategies as for the social inclusion strategies. I recognise that the work of the cross-departmental working groups is to review, assess and critically evaluate the inputs from the co-design groups. That is taking time. I know that that is frustrating the members of the co-design groups and others, but it is a vital stage of ensuring that we have strategies that address the issues, are deliverable and will not create division.

Having explained the process of developing the strategies and the current stage in that process, I return to the important role that language plays in the life of Northern Ireland and of each of us. I have stated on numerous occasions in the Chamber and to the Committee that I fully respect the rights of people with regard to their cultural and linguistic heritage. However, it is vital that we balance those benefits with the costs and impositions that that might involve. It is on that basis that I will manage the process that now moves into the cross-departmental working group stage.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Thank you, Minister. The Business Committee has arranged to meet at 1.00 pm. I propose, therefore, by leave of the Assembly, to suspend the sitting until 2.00 pm. The debate will continue after Question Time, when the next Member to be called will be Doug Beattie to wind up on the amendment.

Mrs O'Neill (The First Minister): We welcomed the publication of the report on 6 March. It provides important data on areas that are key to the well-being of our population, such as loneliness, levels of happiness and anxiety and whether people think that the things that they do are worthwhile. Overall, higher life satisfaction and worthwhile scores indicate an improvement in individual well-being compared with previous figures. Thirty-four per cent of people reported very high levels of life satisfaction. Thirty-seven per cent of people reported very high levels of happiness, and 42% reported very high levels of feeling that the things that they do are worthwhile. Sixty-six per cent of people reported very low or low levels of anxiety. There was a significant decrease in the number of people who reported feeling lonely at least some of the time.

Not everyone in our society experiences the same levels of well-being. People who reported their health as very good reported better levels of well-being than those who reported their health as bad or very bad. People with a disability reported lower levels of well-being than those without a disability. People living in the most deprived areas reported the lowest levels of individual well-being compared with those in all other areas. People in employment reported better levels of well-being than those not in employment. Our Programme for Government (PFG) highlights our commitment to working together to improve the well-being of everyone who lives and works here.

Mr Dunne: I thank the First Minister for her answer. How will the information included in such reports be used to track the Programme for Government's progress in tackling issues as anxiety and loneliness, which, as outlined in the report, remain alarmingly high right across Northern Ireland?

Mrs O'Neill: When you reflect on the report, you see that there have been some improvements, but there are some areas on which we need to keep a very close eye. The Programme for Government measurements are well-being indicators that will be used to chart our advances and progress across all those areas. The fact that those will be continuously updated will give us a chance to see where we are making progress and, perhaps even more importantly, where we are not making progress and where people's outcomes have not improved. There are 51 indicators in total, all of which will be updated at various points throughout the year, in line with their source of publication, because they all come from different sources. We will update those on an ongoing basis. To give you an example, data on the indicators for life satisfaction, self-efficacy and loneliness were published as part of the 'Individual Wellbeing' report on 6 March, and the well-being framework was updated to include those indicators just five days later, on 11 March. That gives you a sense of how, in real time, those things can be updated.

Ms Ennis: Does the First Minister agree that the Programme for Government is a key statement of intent from the Executive to work together to improve people's lives?

Mrs O'Neill: Yes, I certainly do. It is about our effort to work together and to share in an ambitious programme for the Executive. The PFG has been designed to make things better; to improve people's lives and their lot; to do better in areas such as health, by tackling waiting lists, the environment and childcare; to grow a globally competitive economy; to provide more social, affordable and sustainable homes; to build safer communities; to end violence against women and girls; and much more. A collective focus and sustained commitment will be required if we are to deliver real and positive differences to people's lives here. That is what, I believe, we are all ultimately here to do. There will, of course, be tough financial challenges ahead, but we know that. We can — indeed, we must — make a real difference by improving people's lives. That is why our focus is all about delivery. For my part, I want to continue to work with all around the Chamber and across our Executive to deliver the positive change that people want to see on the issues that matter most to them and their families.

Mrs O'Neill: As part of our commitment to supporting victims and survivors, we have ensured that the funding for the Victims and Survivors Service has been consistently protected from cuts. We continue to keep the level of funding under review. In this financial year, we have provided over £21 million to the VSS to ensure continued help and support for victims and survivors of the conflict, historical institutional abuse, mother-and-baby institutions, and Magdalene laundries and workhouses. Support is also provided for those accessing the victims’ payments scheme.

The VSS provides funding to community groups to deliver essential support and services to victims and survivors. In addition, this year, over 6,000 people have been supported through self-directed assistance payments alone. The VSS is also the lead partner for the €25 million PEACE PLUS programme, which aims to improve the health and well-being of victims and survivors by increasing their access to high-quality, trauma-informed services. The VSS is now engaged with our officials on preparing a new victims' support programme from April 2026. The programme will allow support and services that the VSS and its community partner organisations provides to continue. It will also play a vital role in achieving the outcomes outlined in the strategy for victims and survivors.

Mr K Buchanan: I thank the First Minister for her answer. What is her assessment of how the fund is distributed to the relevant groups? Based on their outputs, how is it assessed?

Mrs O'Neill: Funding is distributed through an open call that the VSS manages directly. All the groups have delivery plans, which are renewed annually and align with their budget allocation. The plans are then agreed with the VSS, and delivery is monitored by it quarterly. There is therefore a fair degree of oversight of how the funding is delivered to those groups on the ground that provide excellent services to support victims.

Miss Brogan: Will the First Minister provide an update on the appointment of a new VSS chair and board members?

Mrs O'Neill: I can confirm my commitment to appointing a new VSS chair and board members as quickly as possible. Interviews for the posts concluded on 11 March 2024. We received an unranked list of successful candidates at the end of March, as per the Commissioner for Public Appointments (CPANI) code of practice. In June, we issued to our officials a list of our preferred candidates, who were informed by HR Connect that they had been successful. By 8 August, it was confirmed that all pre-employment checks had been completed, and we were then provided with completed political activity forms and draft formal appointment letters to sign. Again, that is a CPANI requirement. I hope that the successful candidates will take up post without further delay, as their doing so will ensure that the VSS can continue to do its great work and that it has a full board at its core at all times. I therefore commit to getting that done as quickly as possible.

Mrs O'Neill: We are pleased to advise that the deputy First Minister and I will shortly meet the candidates who have been deemed suitable for appointment by the selection panel. The appointment of a new commissioner is essential in order to inform the development of policies and to help ensure that the longer-term needs of victims and survivors are represented by a strong independent voice. As we have previously informed Members, the appointments process is regulated by the Commissioner for Public Appointments, and, as such, it must comply with the code of practice for ministerial public appointments.

Ms Bradshaw: I asked the question in the context of the work of the Northern Ireland Office and the UK Government on the replacement for the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023. The new commissioner, and the people with whom he or she works, will play such a pivotal role in advising on amendments to the new legislation. Is there any talk of that function being specific to the role?

Mrs O'Neill: We have an opportunity. As I said, we are at the end stage of the appointments process. The deputy First Minister and I will be interviewing in the coming weeks to allow us to make a successful appointment, after which we can let that person get on with doing what they believe is right for the needs of our victims and survivors community. That is really important. As the Member is very aware in her role as Executive Office Committee Chair, the commissioner's role is vital, particularly for advocacy, history and education, as well as for young people. The role is very much about improving the lives of victims and survivors, but it is equally about making sure that the services that are in place are always fit for purpose. There is therefore a huge in tray waiting for the new appointee. I look forward to getting to the point at which we can make the appointment as quickly as possible.

Mr Sheehan: I welcome the commencement of a public recruitment competition for the new Irish language commissioner. Does the First Minister agree with me that that appointment will be hugely welcome among Gaeilgeoirí and the Irish language community in general, and represent another step forward in building a society that is underpinned by rights and respect for all?

Mrs O'Neill: Go raibh maith agat.

Yes, the fact that that post is out for appointment is a significant milestone. I think that that is very much appreciated by Gaeilgeoirí. The influence of the Irish language can be seen in every corner of life. Yesterday — St Patrick's Day — was a good example of that, with celebration across society: community groups, the media, arts, education and politics. It is very much a living language. It is everywhere. Is teanga bheo í an Ghaeilge.

The Irish language belongs to all of us. I want to continue to work hard to promote its development and to build on the tangible progress that we have made in our society.

I am glad to be able to confirm that competitions have been launched to recruit the director and other members of the Office of Identity and Cultural Expression and the commissioner for the Ulster-Scots and the Ulster-British tradition. Each commissioner will play a leading role in enhancing and protecting language in our public services and everyday life. I look forward to that coming to fruition as we seek to build a society that is underpinned by rights and respect for all.

While we are talking about commissioners, I note that we have appointed a new Commissioner for Older People, which is a post that has very much been welcomed. I know that Members of the House will welcome that as well.

Mr McNulty: When the First Minister and deputy First Minister were asked previously about the appointment of a Commissioner for Victims and Survivors, we were told that it would happen "early next year". Now that we are into the third month of that year, can you confirm that there will be an appointment before summer recess?

Mrs O'Neill: As I said in my initial answer, we are at the stage of being able to move to interview. We are very close. We are very much at the end of the process. I look forward to getting the appointment over the line and announcing it in the coming weeks.

Mrs O'Neill: The establishment of a memorial is the final outstanding recommendation of the Hart inquiry report, and we remain committed to its implementation. Following our engagement with the four main victims and survivors’ groups, we are pleased to confirm that there is support for fulfilling that recommendation through having a memorial plaque in Parliament Buildings. We will write to the Speaker to seek approval to progress that and are grateful to him for his support to date.

We recognise that some survivors wish to see a broader programme, including localised memorials. Officials have spoken to local authorities, and we have sought input from representative groups and people who are not associated or affiliated with a particular group. Once potential locations are confirmed, we will work with the Arts Council to ensure that the views of victims and survivors are central in designing a memorial.

Mr Dickson: Thank you for your answer, First Minister. Given that, as you said, some of the groups are not happy or comfortable with the proposals, how will your office take into account the sensitivities and breadth of concerns expressed by victims and survivors?

Mrs O'Neill: I assure you that we will do everything that we can to make sure that their views are taken on board. Those people have been failed at every turn over the years. It is important that we get this right. We are committed. The deputy First Minister and I have met some of the groups and individuals and want to continue to engage with them, because their voices are crucial.

We must get the remaining part of the jigsaw — memorialisation — right. We are making strides with memorialisation in this Building, but, wider than that, we will work with the Arts Council on what other form of memorial would be appropriate. As the Member recognised, there are different views. Some feel that an education programme would be the best way to go, and some feel that plaques are appropriate. Everybody will have a different view, but we must make sure that we have a forum in which everybody's view is heard, and I can assure you that that is the determination of the deputy First Minister and me.

Mrs Dillon: I am glad to hear of the intention for a wider programme. First Minister, will you detail how you will ensure that the voices of victims and survivors are heard and that they are engaged throughout the widening of the programme?

Mrs O'Neill: As I said, the deputy First Minister and I have met some of the groups because we want them to know that they are being heard in our office and that, as we advance the memorialisation, we do so in a way that will be received well by them and will make a difference to them and their experience. We will ensure that their voices are heard. As I said, we have made progress in this Building, but, as part of our next steps, officials will continue to engage directly with victims and survivors not only through the representative groups but by direct outreach to those who are not affiliated with any of those groups.

We also envisage that the additional element to all that will be that the Arts Council will provide a structured forum for victim and survivor input. Therefore, they will get to help shape the final memorial and what it might look like, what form it might take and what its wording might be. They will be part and parcel of helping to shape memorials in a way that reflects their personal experience and their wishes. We hope that that broad approach will be the best way for us to ensure that the widest possible range of voices is heard as we develop the plans further.

Mrs O'Neill: The Programme for Government 2024-27 acknowledges that we must work together across government and society to end the epidemic of violence, abuse and harm against women and girls. Our long-term focus is on early intervention and prevention. We have already made significant progress on the steps that we committed to undertaking in the Programme for Government. We have launched the ending violence against women and girls (EVAWG) change fund, representing a £3·2 million investment for community and voluntary sector organisations and grassroots communities in partnership with local councils.

We have also launched the Power to Change campaign with partners in the Department of Justice and the PSNI to challenge unacceptable attitudes and reduce harmful behaviours of men and boys. We have established key sectoral working groups to improve outcomes for women and girls in educational, workplace, social and night-time settings. Through the small business research initiative (SBRI) challenge fund, we have invested in organisations to explore how to use technological innovation to improve understanding and prevention and to improve the safety of women and girls everywhere. We are going to continue to work with Executive colleagues to support delivery and communications as well as to advise on innovation and good practice.

Mr Buckley: I welcome the strategy, which aims to protect women and girls from violence. Today's society poses many real threats to women and young girls, including from biological males who masquerade as females. Does the First Minister share my concerns, those of many women in our community and the common-sense view that biological men should not be able to compete in female sport and that female safe spaces, particularly female changing rooms, should never be accessible to biological males — no ifs and no buts?

Mrs O'Neill: I am not going down that route. Our strategy, which you asked me a question about, is very much about ending violence against all women in society. It is not focused on perpetrators; it is focused on ending violence against women, who are always at the receiving end of such violence. I am not taking you up on going down a one-way street of marginalising one section of the community over the other. That is not helpful. I am all about protection for women; I do not think that there is anybody in the Chamber who is not.

Mrs Mason: Will the First Minister provide an update on the ending violence against women and girls change fund?

Mrs O'Neill: I thank the Member for the question. I confirm that £3·2 million has been allocated to the change fund under two work strands, both of which were launched in January, to assist local groups and organisations as well as eight community and voluntary sector expert organisations in their work to end violence against women and girls. As part of the EVAWG local change fund, £1·4 million has been allocated across councils. That will make grants of up to £25,000 available to community and voluntary sector organisations, which are operating in a very local way to provide funding direct to grassroots community groups to build capacity and allow them to take local action.

I was with a young women's group for International Women's Day, and I was quite surprised to learn how that funding has filtered down to the grassroots level. Clonoe young women's group is a small rural community group that bid to the local council for a small pot of funding that would allow it to develop a device that helped young women in the community to feel safe. I felt so proud that a strategy that we agreed in the Chamber was making a difference on the ground with teenagers — young women and young men from across society — who were talking about ending violence against women and girls. That young women's group had devised something that was funded through the programme, which shows a high-level strategy working in action. I was proud of that work and proud to see that happening.

Across all of our councils, applications are open until the end of this month, and delivery will commence from April 2025. On 21 January, we announced £1·2 million of investment under the EVAWG regional change fund, and that funding, again, will be available up until the end of March 2026 with the support and partnership of eight community and voluntary sector expert organisations that already lead the way across the North in preventing violence against women and girls. Additionally, we have provided £600,000 across the council areas.

Mr Speaker: Minister, your time is up on that question.

Mrs O'Neill: Thank you. Lots of work is happening on the ground, and I can see our strategy filtering onto the ground, which is more important.

Ms Hunter: First Minister, page 33 of the ending violence against women and girls strategy mentions creating a technology challenge fund to address digital violence towards women and girls online. Will you detail today how or if the funding mentioned in the Programme for Government will contribute to that?

Mrs O'Neill: As the Member is acutely aware from her personal experience, the online experience of so many women is horrific, to say the least. That is why it is important that, as part of our strategy, we look at that very area. The situation is evolving, as new software comes online and there are new ways to engage online. As part of our office's work, Ofcom briefed our junior Ministers last week on its work, its regulatory framework and the passing of the Online Safety Act 2023.

Cases such as yours and other recent high-profile cases have really demonstrated why we need to get more active in the field and stay ahead of the technology. Increasingly, we all want to get ahead of the technology as best we can in this complicated world. The way in which young people engage with the online platforms is challenging. In the framework, we have built in agility to lend ourselves to those problems as they arise, particularly in relation to expanding on how we will end online harm and technological abuse, including sexually explicit deepfake imagery.

Mr Gaston: Further to Mr Buckley's supplementary question and the non-answer that he got, what is the First Minister's take on a biological man beating up a woman in the boxing ring because he claims to be a woman?

Mrs O'Neill: That is not related to the question. As I have told you on every occasion that you have asked me that, I am not playing your game. Every time you ask me the question, I will give you the same answer.

Mr Speaker: Miss McAllister is not in her seat. Question 8 was withdrawn.

Mrs O'Neill: We are delighted to have appointed Siobhan Casey as Commissioner for Older People. Siobhan will be in post from 7 April 2025. We recognise the role of the commissioner as being vital in safeguarding and promoting the interests of older people here and ensuring that the welfare and rights of the sector are respected and protected and that their voices are heard. We look forward to engaging with the new commissioner as she sets her priorities for the year ahead and champions the rights and needs of older people.

Mr Irwin: I thank the First Minister for her response. Does she agree that the rights of older people are important? Many older people feel that decisions are made without their consent even though they have the capacity to make those decisions themselves.

Mrs O'Neill: Yes. That is why it is important that the commissioner is in place. I am sure that the deputy First Minister would agree that, when we interviewed Siobhan, we saw that she had real passion for being an advocate for older people. She has a great depth of experience from her previous role, which will really enhance her offering to our older population.

The role of the commissioner is quite wide in promoting an awareness of matters that relate to older people and their safeguarding. It includes challenging discrimination and promoting positive attitudes, and I can tell you from my experience of her interview that Siobhan will be energetic on behalf of older people.

Mr Speaker: Mr Clarke is not in his place.

Mrs O'Neill: The Executive Office has led an effective and coordinated local humanitarian response to support those arriving here following Russia's invasion of Ukraine. To date, we have welcomed over 3,400 Ukrainian citizens under the visa routes established by Westminster.

Our Department has ensured that appropriate safeguarding checks have been undertaken to allow arrivals to be welcomed in the homes of local sponsors and, indeed, to ensure that the sponsors are supported. Each arrival has received a £200 immediate cash support payment, and eligible hosts have received monthly "Thank you" payments. Over £689,000 has been paid in immediate support, and more than £5·1 million has been paid to more than 1,000 hosts.

The Department has also facilitated and coordinated support provided by other key Departments, statutory bodies and voluntary and community sector organisations in vital areas such as health, education, benefits and immigration advice. Officials are also in regular contact with the Ukrainians in NI community group.

Dr Aiken: The Minister will be aware that the reason why we have so many Ukrainian refugees is that Russia is attacking them. There are near-daily air attacks. Will the Minister reflect on her remark that she was incredulous that we would support the Ukrainians by giving them the opportunity to defend themselves? Does she not think that that goes counter to her answer to my question? How could she be incredulous?

Mrs O'Neill: I stand over my remarks, and I will repeat them today. There is no escaping the fact of Russia's invasion of Ukraine and what it has meant, with the devastation that is left behind. We all witness that every day and want it to end. It is a flagrant breach of international law. The best way to end such things is with diplomacy to create a situation in which we have lasting peace; that is important. I want to see genuine engagement, constructive dialogue and an end to the conflict. I want Ukrainian people to live in their homeland and be happy, peaceful and prosperous. That is, unfortunately, not where we are today.

The world is in flux; we are looking at a rearmed Europe; and today we are discussing welfare cuts for people who have disabilities and who are sick. The British Government cannot find money to support those people, but they can find money to arm. That is not the right approach for anybody to take.

Mrs O'Neill: We recognise the immense economic, historical and reconciliation potential of the site and are committed to working with the Maze/Long Kesh (MLK) board to maximise those opportunities for the benefit of all.

The board met the TEO permanent secretary on 27 February 2025. We have since received advice from officials on the options for the board and on the immediate priorities. That is under consideration in our office, but no decisions have been made yet on the future of the site.

Mrs Guy: First Minister, thank you for your answer. Have you been presented with options for the MLK Development Corporation on a way forward, and have those been considered? What are the next steps?

Mrs O'Neill: As I said, we recently received information on the specific options. We have to meet our permanent secretary to discuss those. No decisions have been made. We have to discuss them, because, as I have said in the Chamber, we need political agreement on the enormous economic potential of the site; you know that. I know that you agree with that, as do many others here. It could be a game changer for our local economy, so I hope that we can get political agreement and that we can open the site in a way that will bring huge benefits to our local economy.

Mr Speaker: Mr Brett is not in his place.

Mrs O'Neill: We are flying through them today.

The Executive faced significant challenges in setting a Budget for 2024-25, and the financial position remains very difficult due to the interim fiscal framework. We therefore have insufficient budget, and conversations about that are ongoing. As a consequence of that, all Departments face tough decisions to manage their budgets and live within their funding allocations.

This year, we had to agree a 2024-25 Budget ahead of the Programme for Government to make sure that Departments had the certainty needed to run public services.

That enabled the Departments to plan ahead to deliver our joint priorities. Over the past 12 months, the Executive have delivered significant outcomes for workers, families and communities, including public-sector pay, improvements in childcare provision and a strategy to end violence against women and girls, and much more.

Equally, we know that there is an awful lot more still to be done across the remainder of the mandate, and we want to continue to build upon what we have been able to achieve for people in the first year. The draft Budget was agreed on 19 December. Consultation on it closed just last week on 13 March. It is now for the Executive to agree their final Budget and work together to develop and agree the detailed policies as we move to delivering the commitments that we all signed up to in the Programme for Government.

Mrs O'Neill: It was right for us to make the good, strong and articulate case for why people needed to have compensation. Unfortunately, that is not how it has transpired. There was a lot of effort, as we said at the time, and a lot of credit needs to go to all our agencies that responded in live play at that time to support people and get them reconnected. There is no doubt that people had their lives disrupted, and it is disappointing that the Utility Regulator could not find its way to providing the compensation that we all articulated was absolutely needed.

Mr O'Toole: With respect, First Minister, neither you nor the deputy First Minister is Advice NI. It is not your job simply to be articulate and to make cases; it is your job to lead. When thousands of people heard you, the deputy First Minister and the then Economy Minister say that compensation should be paid, it created an expectation. Those people have been let down. Will you perhaps reflect that, in the future, governing takes more than simply warm words?

Mrs O'Neill: I will not apologise for standing up for people. I will not apologise for working hard on people's behalf. As regards the storm response, I believe that every agency put its shoulder to the wheel. Everybody got on the ground immediately to try to assist. I believe that we gave out the right warnings to try to get people ahead. Of course we were going to make the case for people to have compensation: it was the right thing to do and, if needs be, I would do it again tomorrow. Let us work to ensure that, where lessons are learned, for a future storm, which we know, given the climate, is unfortunately where we will inevitably be, we need to look at how best we can support people in times of crisis. I think that that is what we all want to do.

Mrs O'Neill: Last night's air strikes on Gaza were nothing short of a brutal and inhumane assault on people who are defenceless. These are people with nowhere to go, no roofs over their heads and no food in front of them. Children are trapped in a nightmare with nowhere to run. What we have seen over the course of the past 24 to 48 hours is Israeli bombs raining down again on the people of Palestine. For the love of God, what could ever suggest and who could ever think that that is remotely acceptable? It is a gross failure of leadership and utterly reprehensible that world leaders are standing by. World leaders, including the United States, are standing by and nearly, in some ways, cheerleading what Israel is doing in Palestine. What we witnessed over the course of recent days was another act of genocide on the part of Israel; another act to murder and maim the Palestinian people. I appeal again to the international community for everybody to bring their efforts to the fore. It is time now to act. We need to see a resolution for everybody in the Middle East. We need to see a resolution that is a two-state solution that will give peace to Palestinians and Israelis.

Ms Dolan: The Palestinian people in Gaza have endured horrendous slaughter at the hands of the Israeli occupying forces over the past year and a half in particular. Do you agree that Israel needs to stop its attacks and respect the ceasefire?

Mrs O'Neill: Yes. I call on the Israeli Government to reinstate and respect the ceasefire that was achieved. However, the international community, including in Britain and Dublin, needs to ensure that all pressure is exerted to avert what is happening right now. Israel cannot just be allowed to continue to breach international law, to annex the Palestinian people and to basically attack them daily. It cannot continue. Where is the international community at this moment when the Palestinians need it?

Mrs O'Neill: As the Member is aware, I did not attend Washington last week for reasons that I have just referenced: the situation in Palestine and the stance of the US Administration. I simply will not turn the other way when I see such a breach of international law and the genocide of the Palestinian people. I tell you all, when people reflect on this period, they will see that there were those who decided to look away and those who did not. I am proud to say that I did not look away.

I believe that we can take that principled position but also work to promote our local economy, which I am glad that we were able to do during the recent week. It showcased the North as a great place in which to live, work, invest and study. We very much took that message when the deputy First Minister and I led a Chamber of Commerce delegation to mark the 1st anniversary of the memorandum of understanding with the North Carolina Chamber. That, in itself, was an opportunity for us to promote our vision for our economy and also to say that this is such a fantastic place with such innovators and world-leading businesses. It gave the deputy First Minister and I great pride to lead such a strong delegation of local business people. It gave us an opportunity to extend an invitation to the North Carolina Chamber and its political representatives to come here at some stage, hopefully this year. That will allow us to further the relationships that we have built.

As you know, the deputy First Minister then went to Washington and carried out a whole programme of events, again with those messages of this being a great place for investment, with great agility and a small community that can be world-leading in many areas.

Mr Chambers: Focusing on the economic benefits, does the First Minister agree that her full attendance in Washington, in her position as a First Minister for all, would have added value to the visit?

Mrs O'Neill: I am content with the decision that I made. I am sure that the deputy First Minister is also content with her decision.

Mrs O'Neill: As I said, it was a real pleasure to visit North Carolina with the Chamber of Commerce and for us to have the opportunity to lead that delegation of local business leaders. We had the chance to set out our stall to some of the world's leading businesses. We took the opportunity to showcase the strength of our economy. We have a very good and positive story to tell. We have an incredibly talented workforce, and we made the case as to why American businesses should invest here. Some of the businesses that travelled in the delegation are world-leading in innovation and the work that they do. It was very much about attracting major investment, creating better jobs here and delivering exciting opportunities for people. That is a priority that we have set out in our Programme for Government. North Carolina was well worth visiting, and I look forward to other international visits that align with what we are trying to do for our local economy.

Mr McGuigan: Will the First Minister continue working to promote the North as a vibrant place to live, work and invest in?

Mrs O'Neill: Yes, I am determined, as is the deputy First Minister and our entire Executive, to continue to promote our wares and sell what we have on that international front. We have great people, a happy population, a talented workforce and a young, strong cohort coming out of our universities. We have a very skilled population base. The story that we tell is a good story and one that resonates well on the international stage. When we look towards the future, growing our economy and our opportunities, we equally look at our challenges. Tariffs are probably up there with those at the moment.

We have an enormous opportunity ahead of us to create more jobs and better people's lives because we have unique access to the European and British markets. We have a thriving all-island economy. All those things put this place firmly on the map as a great place in which to live, invest and do business. I am wholly committed to that and hope that we can continue to keep working together to maximise all that potential. I have no doubt that we will do so.

Mrs O'Neill: I have not seen the full detail, but I know that cuts have been announced. We absolutely have to raise that issue with the British Government, and I am sure that the Department for Communities will likewise want to raise issues with them. It is more of the same from the Government in London. They are constantly reaching for people who need our support more than others do. The Government brought in the National Insurance hike that will be so detrimental to our local businesses and cut the winter fuel payment for pensioners, and they are now reaching for people with disabilities and those who are sick and vulnerable in our society. Those are political choices that are being made in London, and they are impacting detrimentally on people's lives here, yet we do not have a say in them. Targeting the most vulnerable in our society through punitive taxes is clearly a political choice in London, but it does not serve the interests of the people here. I can assure the Member that, yes, we will take every opportunity to raise the issue with the relevant people in London.

Mr Gildernew: Does the First Minister agree that the levels of funding supplied by the British Government to the Executive are simply not enough?

Mrs O'Neill: Dealing with funding levels was one of our day-1 priorities, and every party grouping that is represented in the Chamber certainly signed up to that being the case. The British Government have recognised that we have been underfunded, but we are feeling the detrimental impact of 14 years of Tory austerity, which is now being continued, as a political choice, by the new British Government. Their decisions are impacting on our public services every day and on our ability to deliver transformation in healthcare and education and all the other things that we said that we want to do. We have to continue to make our case, and we have to continue to build the case for why we need a proper funding model. We are asking not for special treatment but for what is appropriate. The people here pay their taxes and National Insurance, and, as such, they deserve good public services. We therefore have to continue to make our case to the Treasury in London and ensure that our voice is heard. We have made some progress here, but we still have a long way to go in order to ensure that we have properly funded public services for all the people whom we represent.

Mr Speaker: Question 6 has been withdrawn.

Mrs O'Neill: Yes, the Women in Business Awards is a great initiative. It is always such a positive event at which to celebrate all that is great about women in business and to celebrate all the innovators right across the business community. I commend Women in Business itself on the work that it does to support women to ensure that they have the skills with which to step forward, be that as an entrepreneur or through working in the social economy, or even for them just to do better in their career. When we look across society, we can see so many positive changes that are evident. In the Chamber, we can point to the number of women in politics as an example of progress. Likewise, around the Executive table, we can point to the number of women there as progress. I see it every day. At all my engagements, I see women leading from the front in all areas. On the occasion to which the Member referred, it was about celebrating women in business.

Miss Brogan: Will the First Minister recommit to tackling issues facing women and girls in our society?

Mrs O'Neill: Yes, I will. The Member may have seen at the weekend that Justine McCarthy wrote in 'The Irish Times':

That is a real wake-up call. Together, we have to break the cycle of violence and support those women and girls who refuse to be silenced. All of us in the Chamber have a role to play in doing that and in challenging, confronting and exposing, where we see it, what is called casual, everyday sexism. There is nothing casual about it, and that is why, from day 1, it has been an Executive priority. Our strategy tackles the root causes of that violence and is very much about prevention. As I have said, the strategy will have a positive and lasting impact on wider society here. We have that impact when we work together. All the parties in the Chamber must work with our partners across society and do everything that we can to break down barriers and to challenge sexism and misogyny where they occur. I am committed to doing that, and I know that Members are also up for doing so.

Mrs O'Neill: I am not sure that I picked up the question correctly. If I did not, given the time, I will write to you.

One of the beauties of our strategy is the fact that so many partners came together to devise it, including groups that work with young people. I think that that is what you referred to, Andy. I am sorry: I did not hear you properly. I will check Hansard and write to you.

I think that you asked about adverse incidents and how we change that. Another beauty of the strategy is that it is agile, which means that we can respond to issues as they arise. If we pick up information that is not reflected in the strategy, we can adapt. If that is not what you asked me about, I will write to you.

Mr Speaker: Time has elapsed for questions to the First Minister. Members should take their ease for a moment while we change the Chair.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): The next Member to speak will be Doug Beattie, who will make a winding-up speech on the amendment. Doug, you have up to five minutes.

Mr Beattie: Thank you, Deputy Speaker. The Ulster Unionist Party believes that the Irish and Ulster-Scots languages and cultures should be respected, promoted, funded and cherished. They are as much ours as they are anyone else's. I remember attending a Turas awards event with Linda Ervine a while back and handing out awards to people who had achieved various levels in speaking the Irish language. It was a genuinely warm event that felt inclusive. The people receiving awards, who were not put off by my poor attempts at speaking Irish, really looked happy with their achievements.

The amendment is about adding an Ulster-Scots element to the motion. I hope that the Assembly will support it. It acknowledges, celebrates and advances the historical, cultural and social importance of Ulster Scots in Northern Ireland alongside Irish. When I visited an Ulster-Scots Agency outreach programme near Londonderry, I heard about the rich cultural heritage, including music, poetry and film. 'Stories Frae the Loanen' is a series of six short educational films for kids to learn the language. Forged in Ulster's series of films is as varied as it is informative. Ulster Scots are key to what happens globally. Forged in Ulster's series shows how Ulster Scots shaped the most powerful country in the world: the United States of America. No fewer than 20 US presidents have Ulster-Scots heritage. It was an Ulster Scot, John Dunlap, from Strabane, who printed the first US Declaration of Independence. Another Ulster Scot — Charles Thomson from Maghera — helped to design the US Great Seal. We cannot forget the elite US 75th Ranger Regiment, which was formed from Rogers's Rangers, the leader being Robert Rogers, the son of Ulster-Scots settlers. His standing orders are still used by that regiment.

Ulster Scots has a major influence on country, folk and bluegrass music. It is music that tells a story with the use of highland and lowland pipes, fiddles and drums. Rhythmic poetry defines Ulster Scots, with poets such as Samuel Thomson, Francis Boyle, Sarah Leech and James Orr, a Presbyterian from County Antrim and one of the United Irishmen involved in the 1798 rising. He wrote in a similar vein to Robbie Burns about rural life and did so in vivid terms.

It is intriguing that we have so much crossover in culture and language in Northern Ireland and across the whole island of Ireland. One of the reasons why I believe the amendment to be appropriate and necessary is that it puts into context the diverse cultural melting pot that we all belong to in part or in whole. It is a living expression of who we are, where we have come from and how we understand ourselves and one another.

In recent years, we have seen a remarkable resurgence of interest in Irish and Ulster Scots, particularly among young people. As we commend the Irish language sector, which we should, it is important that we equally commend the Ulster-Scots Agency for its tireless work in promoting and developing the use of Ulster Scots. Its hard work has ensured that Ulster Scots continues to thrive as an important part of Northern Ireland's shared cultural heritage. The Ulster-Scots sector is not as developed as the Irish language sector, but, with support and recognition, we can help those who work hard to develop it.

An Irish language strategy is important, as is an Ulster-Scots strategy. They do not need to be mutually exclusive. Neither one should feel that the other is taking away from it; instead, they should feel complementary in what they are trying to achieve. I hope that all Members will support the amendment.

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

Mr Gildernew: Go raibh maith agat, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle. Ar dtús, ba mhaith liom buíochas a ghabháil le gach duine a ghlac páirt i ndíospóireacht an lae inniu.

I especially thank the Members who indicated their support for our motion.

As a proud Gael, it brings me great joy to speak on and speak up for our native language in the Chamber and the thousands of native Irish speakers whose dedication and hard work has kept our language alive and allowed it to thrive. The motion acknowledges the vibrancy, colour, strength and dynamism of the Irish language at this time, as we bring Seachtain na Gaeilge to a close. I acknowledge the event hosted by the Speaker, Mr Poots, in the Seanad as part of Seachtain na Gaeilge, which very much underlined the importance and long-standing history of the language and how it unites us across the North with Scotland and beyond as part of a rich shared history.

I thank all the activists who put so much of their time and energy into promoting and protecting our language. The Irish language, a chairde,

is experiencing a significant revival in the North. More and more people, young people in particular, are taking an interest in learning the language. The Irish language is more visible today than it has been for many years. Irish language signage is readily available in many of our council areas, and I welcome the progress made by my party colleague Liz Kimmins in developing a pilot scheme to have dual-language signage in the Gaeltacht Quarter of west Belfast.

Ms Ennis: I thank my colleague for giving way. Does he agree that countries all over the world have multilingual signs but have not collapsed into chaos? Perhaps the Minister should be more focused on delivering for all communities here instead of on some imaginary linguistic bogeyman.

Mr Gildernew: I absolutely agree that we need to ensure that all communities feel welcomed, supported and appropriately developed. That point was made forcefully at the Communities Committee on Thursday, when it was pointed out that some people belong to several communities and have needs that the Department for Communities is responsible for. We need to see intersecting and progressive movement on those issues.

Mr Kingston: Will the Member give way?

Mr Gildernew: Yes. Go ahead.

Mr Kingston: I listened to what the Member said about dual-language street signs. Does he not acknowledge that, if, in a survey, residents have indicated that they do not want a dual-language street sign, one should not be imposed on them against their majority wishes and against the wishes of unionist representatives? Such signs are being forced through by nationalist representatives, which increases the perception of the politicisation of the language.

Mr Gildernew: The Irish language is already on signs throughout Belfast: Béal Feirste

and Seanchill

are Irish words. They threaten no one and should be embraced in the same way as they were embraced in the Chamber throughout the week. I ask all parties in the Chamber to condemn those who vandalise and attack dual-language signs across the North.

I also place on record my appreciation for the current Mná na hAthbheochana

exhibition at the Public Record Office. It celebrates the women who revived the use of the Irish language in the late 1960s and early 1970s and were involved in setting up the first urban Gaeltacht and gaelscoil. I commend the young women from Coláiste Feirste who helped put that important exhibition together. The growth and strength of the language is organic and grassroots-led. Many new Irish language schools are being established, which is a sign that the demand for Irish is very much growing. Those schools will be instrumental in increasing access to Irish-medium education across the North.

We must also recognise the important role that our political institutions and legislation can play in encouraging the growth of the language and ensuring that speakers of the language are treated equally to speakers of other languages. As other Members have said, we have made huge progress in recent times. The Identity and Language Act 2022 was a notable milestone for those of us who wish to see full equality for the Irish language. The Act recently allowed for the ban on the use of Irish in our courts to be repealed. That ban was another reminder of the horrendous persecution that Irish speakers suffered in generations past, and the righting of that historic wrong was long overdue. The Act also set the stage for the appointment of an Irish language commissioner, and we heard last week that the appointments process for that position has begun.

A chairde,

it is also important to recognise the advances that the language has made in film and music. Artists such as Kneecap, through their music and their award-winning film, are bringing the Irish language into the mainstream in a way that we have never seen before. I also recognise the progress made in the Chamber in accommodating the Irish language and thank the translation team for providing an excellent translation service.

We have certainly come a long way since the days when the Irish language was openly mocked by Members of the party opposite, but we must recognise that there are still significant challenges to be overcome and understand that there is huge frustration among activists in the Irish language sector at the lack of progress. An Irish language strategy was agreed by all parties in the St Andrews Agreement in 2007. Eighteen years have passed, and we still have no strategy in place, despite there having been two successful judicial reviews.

Last week, Conradh na Gaeilge presented to the Communities Committee in a powerful session. Regrettably, the Minister has refused to meet Conradh on three occasions, despite it being integral to the work of the co-design group. Minister, in relation to the comments that you made earlier, I have seen the letters that Conradh wrote to you, making it clear that it wanted to speak to you about the strategy, as well as funding issues. I have also seen your reply, in which you make it clear that you do not intend to meet them. That is a mistake. Given that you are the Minister for Communities — all communities — you should meet them. That position, Minister, leads to a widely held view that you do not respect the Irish language or the people who cherish, speak and use it every day.

I am also curious and keen to find out more about the reappointing of departmental groups, which you referenced earlier. I am not aware of any precedent for that, and I am not sure what the purpose —.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): I ask the Member to make his remarks through the Chair and not directly to the Minister.

Mr Gildernew: Tá brón orm.

I am keen to understand the precedent for that, the purpose of such reappointment and how it will not simply be a further delay.

Mr Lyons: Will the Member give way?

Mr Gildernew: Yes, I will give way.

Mr Lyons: There will not be further delay. Departments will be asked to reaffirm the members whom they put forward and, importantly, as we want to make progress, confirm that they have the authority on behalf of their Departments to make the necessary decisions.

Mr Gildernew: In light of that, I would like to know the timelines and deadlines for that process so that we can ensure that it does not act as a further delay. I am keen to hear all of that.

I underline the fact that the Minister has a responsibility to demonstrate his respect for the Irish language and those who use it or wish to learn it and to set out a clear timeline for when he will present a final draft strategy to the Executive.

Mr Lyons: I appreciate the Member giving way. I have said from the outset that I fully respect the rights of others to engage in different languages, be that Irish or Ulster Scots, and I will continue to do that and to make progress. I remind the Member that I have been in the office for a year. He is throwing considerable criticism my way for not delivering the strategy. I note that there has been no criticism from him of the Sinn Féin Members who held the ministerial portfolio from 2020 to 2022, which is longer than I have been in post.

They did not make any progress on the strategies. That might be something that he also wants to take into consideration.

Since he avoided the question that was asked by Mr Kingston, will the Member tell us whether he agrees that the views of a minority should be able to override the views of a majority in local areas? We talk about respect for each other —

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): The Minister [Inaudible.]

Mr Lyons: — but it would be good for Sinn Féin to be clear and tell us what it actually believes on that.

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

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

I do not believe that the visibility of the Irish language represents a threat to anyone.

Mr Lyons: That was not the question.

Mr Gildernew: That is the case.

There is a series of strategies that urgently need to be progressed. They are interlinked and interdependent. My colleagues were involved in setting up significant co-design processes and getting groups involved. Those groups are now telling us that they feel that they have been cast aside and have no input to the process at this stage, at a time when we do not have clear timelines for delivery.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): I ask Members to take their ease before we move to the next item of business.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): In conjunction with the Business Committee, the Speaker has given leave to Nicola Brogan to raise the matter of the Education Authority's published admission number allocations for community and voluntary playgroups in West Tyrone.

Before we kick off, Nicola, it would be appropriate if we had the Education Minister present, because I do not think that it would be much of a debate if he were not here. Members may take their ease, and I shall remain in the Chair, until we have the Education Minister before us.

Mr Speaker: I call Nicola Brogan. You have up to 15 minutes, Miss Brogan.

Miss Brogan: Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle.

I am pleased to have secured an Adjournment debate on behalf of a number of community-based playgroups in West Tyrone. I thank the Minister for attending to respond to the debate this afternoon. I will take the opportunity to discuss a number of issues that are plaguing community and voluntary playgroups in West Tyrone. While I will speak specifically about community-based playgroups in my constituency, it is worth acknowledging that these and other issues are faced by rural playgroups and preschools all over the North.

I commend the excellent work of the teachers, group leaders, staff and volunteers in those groups. They provide a service that is not only of the highest standard but vital to the functioning of safe, fair and thriving rural communities. Playgroups help to prepare children for school, develop their social skills and foster a sense of community. They provide local jobs, boost the rural economy and, crucially, allow parents, particularly those who are women, to return to the workforce. The sector faces multiple issues that the Assembly has a duty to address: staff recruitment and retention; inequality in funding and pay scales; support for children with special educational needs; and support for playgroups in areas of deprivation. However, I will focus on the Education Authority's (EA) rigid approach to pupil allocation numbers (PAN).

Using attendance figures from previous years is a perfectly reasonable way to estimate future attendance needs, but the key word is "estimate". Populations rise and fall, and birth rates fluctuate. Just because a playgroup had nine children last year does not mean that it will need space for nine children this year. That approach is perfectly fine to use as a guideline, but there must be some wriggle room within it for the realities of life. Representatives from playgroups in West Tyrone have approached me and said that they have the provision and demand to take on 16 children, but they have only been allocated nine spaces this year. Other groups have said that they have only been given nine spots, but they are the first-preference choice for 10 children, all of whom are equally qualified and equally deserving. It is not as simple as saying that parents should just find another playgroup. In rural areas such as West Tyrone, that may not be so easy. Some may have to travel well outside of their village or town to attend another playgroup. Other groups may not be convenient for work. The children's relatives may attend the preferred playgroup or it may be a feeder preschool for a school that their siblings are at.

The playgroups have tried to work with the Education Authority. Their commitment to the local community is such that some have even suggested taking on an extra child without EA funding, but, despite those extraordinary efforts, the Education Authority has not tried to meet them halfway. Instead, it responded by telling them that, if they do not accept the lower allocation number, they will lose all their spaces for the year. That is simply an outrageous way to treat hardworking community groups that provide a vital service.

I call on the Education Minister to look into the issue as a matter of urgency. I further urge the Education Minister and the Education Authority to work with groups in West Tyrone to find the best possible outcome for preschools, for parents and, most importantly, for the children in the area. Community-based playgroups in West Tyrone and right across the North play a vital role in our communities. They deserve to be supported by the Department of Education and the Education Authority. I hope that the Minister hears our calls, works with the playgroups and increases the PAN allocations.

Mr McCrossan: I thank my constituency colleague Nicola Brogan for securing this important Adjournment debate. The issue obviously is not unique to West Tyrone — it affects many constituencies across the North — but we are acutely aware of it in our rural constituency. It is also appropriate to record our sincerest appreciation to the staff and teachers for the huge amount of work that they do and the important role that they play in providing that vital service. As my colleague outlined, that enabling service has many benefits for local families in our community.

Every year, my office, like those of many others in the House, is contacted by concerned parents and providers about the allocation of preschool places. It is a recurring issue that continues to cause considerable worry and frustration. The Education Authority determines the number of funded non-statutory preschool places annually based on an assessment of local need, but the reality is that the community and voluntary providers are not guaranteed a minimum allocation and, sometimes, not even a single funded place, which is causing numerous concerns. That approach creates a divide between the statutory and non-statutory sectors and undermines community and voluntary settings. It puts them at a disadvantage and limits the choice that is available to parents. Those providers are vital to our local communities. They offer trusted, high-quality early years education, often in areas where statutory provision simply does not exist, yet, year after year, they are left to struggle in uncertainty to secure places and funding without any actual reassurance, certainty or clarity and often without any fairness whatsoever.

I acknowledge that steps are being taken. The Department for the Economy is carrying out a scoping exercise to assess business support needs across the early learning and childcare sector, and we are expecting a report soon in that regard. I also welcome the increase in funding from £2,150 to £2,550 per child per year from September 2024 and the one-off payment of £100 per child, which, although small, is also a recognition of the pressure that those settings are facing. Let us be honest, however: that is only part of the solution. What providers need is long-term stability and a fair, transparent allocation system. They need to be treated as equal partners, not as second-class providers.

I have already been contacted by several such providers in West Tyrone who are very frustrated and concerned, not just because of the number of places that are allocated but because, in their opinion, there is no transparency about how those decisions are actually reached. They are asking who decides what criteria are used and how that can be appealed, if, indeed, there is any mechanism whatsoever. Those are entirely reasonable questions. They deserve answers. We cannot continue with a system that leaves providers in the dark and forces them to plan staffing and service delivery around unpredictable and unclear decisions and timelines. That is not sustainable. It is putting the sector at risk, and it is simply not fair or practical.

The impact is real: community settings lose places or, in some cases, close entirely; families are left with fewer options; parents struggle to access childcare; children miss out on vital early learning experiences; and rural working-class communities are hit hardest. It is about more than numbers. It is about fairness, equality and giving every child the best start in life regardless of where they live or what type of setting they attend. We need a funding model that recognises and supports the vital role of all providers, statutory, community and voluntary alike; one that gives them the stability that they need to plan, grow and continue to deliver for our children.

I will end my remarks with this appeal: let us listen to those on the ground — those who deliver these services day in, day out. Let us build a system that works for them and, most importantly, works for children and families right across West Tyrone and beyond.

Mr McHugh: I would like to comment on the same issue. I declare an interest as the chairman, or cathaoirleach

, of Naíscoil na Deirge, which offers independent preschool provision. I will not talk about Naíscoil na Deirge, however, because, in fact, it has healthy numbers and is well allocated with the places that we require. I will talk about other preschool provision in my area about which people have contacted me. It is the second or third year on the trot that I have written letters on their behalf to the likes of the Education Authority. It is a perennial problem, year after year.

Those providers' very existence is threatened. I will just clarify for people that the type of provision that we are talking about needs to have at least eight children in order to be on the preschool education group (PEG) programme. You can see how precarious it is for a setting to have its places capped at nine children. Within a year, it may have fewer than nine and, all of sudden, find that it is threatened because it does not have the numbers to stay on the PEG programme.

The PEG programme essentially pays for the teachers for that type of provision, so it is important that, in the first instance, providers have the numbers required to sustain their programme.

Year after year, two playschool providers in the Derg area — one in the Glebe and the other in Clady — come to me with the problem of their not being able to increase their preschool numbers, even though there is, without doubt, demand for places. That demand is as a result of smaller communities having the resilience and strength to protect their local provision. If it is not provided locally, problems often arise from children having to travel to a town 3, 4 or 5 miles away. If no transport system exists, parents are, all of a sudden, under pressure. It is therefore important that we embrace the issue and make provision for children to attend preschool.

I keep using the term "preschool", but that is not the correct term as such. Children, however, should be accommodated, so the Education Authority needs to think about how restrictive its conditions are at present. When I make an application to the EA for it to increase provision, I am given the same reasons for its not doing so. It will make an exception for a twin, for a child with special needs or for security reasons. Otherwise, places are very limited, so families who have traditionally gone to a particular provider now find that access is not just as easy as one might think it would be. Should the provider have more applicants than there are spaces available, they find themselves under pressure. I therefore ask the Education Authority to reconsider its conditions or expand the number of available places in order to facilitate applicants.

I have one more point to make before I finish. If a particular provider does not get the numbers that it requires, why can those places not then be allocated to other providers in the locality? I have always wondered what the reason is for not allowing that.

Mr McAleer: I welcome the opportunity to speak about the pressure that is being put on community and voluntary playgroups in my constituency. As has been said, the cap that the Education Authority has placed on providers is squeezing many of them. A lot of community and voluntary playgroups are very much involved in, and, indeed, are at the heart of, the community. In my area, families have been going to them for generations. Many of the groups that have contacted me have outstanding inspection reports, and the pupil:teacher ratio of eight pupils to one teacher makes for a very good learning environment.

The groups provide a vital service in communities, particularly in areas of deprivation and in rural areas. A number of Members have said that, in isolated rural areas, there may not be another provider in the community or one close enough, meaning that getting to another provider could involve driving some distance. Public transport is not as widely available in parts of West Tyrone, and Fermanagh, as it is in other places. The groups that have been in contact are telling us that the EA cap is putting the squeeze on them. They need a more flexible approach from the EA, so they are calling for a level playing field from their statutory partners.

Mr Mathison: I thank the Member for securing the Adjournment debate. It is focused on West Tyrone, so I will try not to take up too much time or speak about other areas, but I welcome the Member's comments at the start that it is an issue that affects every part of Northern Ireland. I am sure that, at this time of year, every Member, whichever area they represent, is being contacted by preschools that are impacted on by how the PAN policy is applied.

I begin my remarks by tracking back to the independent review of education, which clearly highlighted the discrepancy between statutory and non-statutory preschool provision. Non-statutory providers — the sorts of groups that we are talking about today — are clearly disadvantaged by the current funding model and child ratios, which we are all aware of. When the Minister responds, I would like to hear him set out what he will do about the clear recommendation in the independent review on addressing the disadvantage that non-statutory providers face and whether he will take that forward.

As I said, I receive a high volume of local contact on this matter. Most of the issues have been covered here already, but the impact of the policy cannot be overstated. Those excellent settings provide high-quality early years provision, yet, every year, the Department affords them no stability. They cannot plan financially for investments in their setting. Crucially, the livelihoods of the dedicated staff who choose to work in those settings and who provide high-quality early years education — it is early years education; they deliver exactly the same level and quality of provision that we find in our statutory settings — are threatened on an annual cycle, year in, year out, and that is not acceptable. It cannot be that, every February, those staff have a concern that they will get that notice: "Sorry; the PAN for your setting has been reduced, and there is no job for you". That does not paint a good picture about how we value those staff.

The issue also impacts on parental confidence in the system. We have a system that relies heavily on parental choice, yet, in many communities, parents who apply to the local non-statutory setting, which may be right in the middle of the community in which they live, and to which they want to send their child, have no confidence that they will get a place, because, if the Department cuts the numbers, those places will not be available, even if parental demand is there. That often means that parents in rural areas — this is the case in my constituency, and I am sure that it is the same in West Tyrone — are asked to travel unrealistic distances to get to the next setting. I know that the Department has a policy on provision within a five-mile radius, but that often places families who rely on public transport in a scenario where there simply is no other viable option for them. A family recently contacted me about that. They were asked to make close to a one-hour bus trip to get to a setting that is technically within the five-mile radius, but, if you do not have a car, that is not always appropriate.

One of the big frustrations that non-statutory settings raise repeatedly is that statutory settings — I am not trying to denigrate their provision; there are brilliant statutory settings out there, and we are really lucky to have such great provision across Northern Ireland — are being funded to provide places for non-target-age children. Our non-statutory settings struggle to understand how it can be that a statutory setting down the road is funded to bring in non-target-age children when they have to turn away parents of target-age children because of the PAN. That does not make sense to those settings, and they do not understand how it is appropriate. They also have to charge for non-target-age children, which makes their setting less desirable.

There are a lot of issues that affect non-statutory settings. I want to hear clearly from the Minister today whether he will review the policy. It is easy to bash the EA, but, in many ways in this scenario, the EA is just implementing a policy that has been passed down to it from the Department, and it is a policy that does not afford a lot of discretion. On that basis, it would be good to hear from the Minister whether, given that standardisation is coming in, which is a big change in the system and is welcome, the policy on how we deal with non-statutory settings will be reviewed. There is so much inequity in the system, and it is not a level playing field for those settings. It would be good to hear the Minister's response to those points.

Ms D Armstrong: Thank you to the Member for securing the Adjournment debate. I hope that she does not mind my making a few brief comments on the topic. She will understand that it is an issue that faces many community playgroups across the west of the Province, and it impacts, of course, on Fermanagh as well. There are many similarities between West Tyrone and my constituency of Fermanagh and South Tyrone, given their rural peripherality and strong community ethos. Not wishing to fall foul of your direction, Mr Speaker, I will focus my remarks on the recent reduction in admission numbers for community and voluntary playgroups across the west.

The Member is right to talk about the EA cap, as many people are concerned about it. I am concerned about those who have been impacted on by recent reductions in admission numbers in West Tyrone and beyond. Those changes have been primarily driven by adjustments to early years education funding. The funding pressures in the early years that have been on display in recent years have, once again, shone a spotlight on the fragility of our early years set-up in Northern Ireland. I am conscious that the Minister has a plan for early years education with the roll-out of the standardisation programme, which I support, but I am concerned that paying for such a scheme will be to the detriment of the smaller rural playgroups.

I have been contacted in recent weeks by numerous playgroups that have received their pupil allocations for the upcoming academic year. I admit that they are mostly from west Fermanagh and not West Tyrone, but, like others, many feel dissatisfied with the process and worried about the upcoming years. Members have clearly articulated the impact not only on the incoming children but on the staff and beyond.

I have raised my concerns with Chris Scott, the chair of the preschool education group, but the debate is a welcome opportunity to do so again in the Chamber. The reductions in numbers in rural areas, such as West Tyrone and my constituency of Fermanagh and South Tyrone, will have a knock-on effect not only on employment for those who dedicate themselves to early years education but on the families who are seeking to get their children into their local playgroup. I join others to commend the teachers and staff who are connected with the community and voluntary playgroups, which are an integral starting point in the early years education journey for our young children.

Therefore, I appeal to the Minister to work carefully and in consultation with rural communities, which may feel the brunt of the standardisation roll-out, while seeing limited benefits until there is a fuller roll-out.

Mrs Guy: I thank the Member for securing the Adjournment debate. I have been contacted about the issue in my constituency of Lagan Valley, and, as we have heard today, it is impacting across the board. The independent review of education recognises that the preschool education programme is delivered by a mix of providers: statutory, community, voluntary and private. The review highlighted the fact that the mix delivers an approach that:

However, it notes the inconsistencies between the different providers in ratios, employment model, funding and admin support. It notes:

Many community and voluntary providers face additional challenges despite delivering the same preschool curriculum for our children.

When it comes to the published admission number allocations or simply the number of children whom they are funded to accept, the providers again appear to face additional challenges. In the experiences that I have heard about, the admission numbers for non-statutory settings can fluctuate significantly. That can be in response to low birth rates or changes in the local demographics, but it is incredibly hard, if not impossible, for those settings to plan every year. They have overheads and staff to pay, and they cannot continue to operate the way that they are if the admission numbers fluctuate significantly from year to year or if they cannot respond to local demand.

I am dealing with a charity-run preschool provider that has been in the local community for more than 40 years, delivering funded preschool places for more than 20 years. Its admission number for the coming year is based on the 2024 figure. It predicts that it could grow if given the chance. It notes that other local settings are already at full capacity and that more families are moving into the area, yet its logical and modest request for a small increase has been rejected. The reality is that local children will have to travel further for preschool places, and that will add to the costs for parents who can ill afford it. If that continues, the setting could become unviable.

As we heard, many people are in the same position across Northern Ireland, not just those in West Tyrone. Ultimately, what is best for children and families should be at the centre of the issue. The community and voluntary providers are often at the heart of communities, are staffed by local people and deserve to be treated with the same respect and on the same level as statutory providers. I hope that the Minister can outline the Department's long-term vision for preschool delivery in our community and voluntary settings and, in the short term, outline how we can ensure that those organisations are treated fairly.

Mr Speaker: I call the Minister of Education, Mr Paul Givan. Minister, you have up to 10 minutes.

Mr Givan (The Minister of Education): Mr Speaker, thank you. Today's debate is a useful opportunity to provide an update on the provision of a funded preschool education place for every target-age child in Northern Ireland whose parents want one. Thank you, therefore, to the Member who secured the Adjournment debate and to the Members who have contributed.

We have a right to be proud of the preschool education programme. Every child in Northern Ireland has access to a year of fully funded, high-quality, curriculum-based education before they enter compulsory education, which, research demonstrates, provides children with the best possible start to their education journey. My aim is to provide every child with 22·5 hours of preschool education per week, which will enhance that even further. Last year, I made a commitment to use the funding made available by the Executive to help stabilise the sector and support 100 settings to deliver 22·5 hours of preschool education per week to 2,200 additional pupils from September. I have delivered on each of those commitments and more.

I have approved significantly increased funding for non-statutory providers, including the largest increase that my Department has ever made in the funding rate, bringing the rate to £2,550 per pupil, which is slightly higher than the rate for part-time statutory nursery units. That investment means that non-statutory providers will receive approximately £3·2 million more in the 2024-25 academic year. For an average setting, 16 funded places will be provided, which represents an extra £8,000. In West Tyrone, approximately £235,000 of additional funding has been allocated to non-statutory providers. That also benefited my constituency, where a number of preschool providers that were concerned about the impact of rising costs, one of which was in Moira, sought support. I moved to provide that support.

Some Members talked about non-statutory settings being disadvantaged, but the evidence shows that the decision that I took to inject £3·2 million into the sector has very much closed the gap. We have made significant progress, and the intervention that I was able to make was very much welcomed in those settings in my constituency. That was in addition to the £100 one-off payment that went to every setting in August last year.

Mr Mathison: I thank the Minister for giving way. I acknowledge the extra funding and the fact that it was welcome. However, Minister, do you acknowledge that not having the approved admissions number on which a statutory setting relies as the basis for its planning creates uncertainty for those settings and a real challenge in making them viable in the long term?

Mr Givan: That is a valid point about the stability of the sector, and it has been brought to my attention. The programme also provides the flexibility to have a responsive system in place. As demographics change and birth rates decline, we need to ensure that we can respond. That is what the programme provides for by offering flexibility. I will come to that point in due course.

I have approved 106 preschool settings, which will deliver full-time preschool education to over 2,500 more children from September. I have also approved seven statutory settings to voluntarily remove 234 excess places that were placing a strain on the Education budget. My Department and the Education Authority have worked closely with the preschool sector to implement those changes in an incredibly short timescale. I am delighted to confirm that all 106 settings are on track for September 2025, with even the knives and forks for lunchtime ready and waiting. Not only will full-time preschool provision provide children with the best start in education, it will make a significant contribution to parents' childcare considerations, facilitating arrangements that are more akin to those for primary-school children. That will mean that parents will not incur the cost of full day care, as they would have in the past.

That initiative does not stand in isolation. I have also introduced the Northern Ireland childcare subsidy scheme, whereby eligible working parents receive a 15% reduction in their childcare bills. To date, that scheme has provided over £6·5 million of savings for working families. That is £6·5 million that is now in Northern Ireland parents' pockets as a direct result of a scheme that we introduced only six months ago. When we combine that with tax-free childcare, it is estimated that those working families will have saved over £14 million since September 2024.

I am also aware that many childcare providers plan to increase their fees over the coming weeks. In anticipation of that, I have already 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 they are not passed on to parents. I am considering what more I can do in the current year, and I will bring proposals to my Executive colleagues when the Budget is agreed.

The EA has responsibility for the allocation of funded places to non-statutory preschool providers via the allocation of the pupil allocation number. My Department does not have a role in that process. It is important to remember, however, that providers have a role. All preschool management types are represented on the EA advisory group that determines the PAN allocations, including community and voluntary providers. Their voice is important, and that is why they are involved.

In allocating PANs, the EA must match the supply of funded places as closely as possible to the overall level of need. Allocating too few places risks children being unable to access preschool education. Allocating too many risks expensive over-provision and threatening the stability of the programme overall. The EA has written to preschool providers to explain the PAN allocation process in detail. In simple terms, for the majority of settings, the provisional PAN is based on their enrolment in October of the previous year, with adjustments made as necessary to reflect the overall level of demand in an area. The majority of settings have received an indicative PAN allocation that is the same as their enrolment at October 2024.

At this stage of the process, the EA has allocated over 22,000 funded places to accommodate 20,636 applications. Therefore, there are sufficient places to accommodate every child. As expected, however, the popularity of full-time provision has led to an overall increase in applications for settings that are transitioning this year. It is important to remember that full-time and part-time provision, operating side by side, has been a feature of our system for many years. The situation that is being created by standardisation is not a new one.

Nonetheless, it is not surprising that some settings have required extra reassurance. I have received correspondence from settings that are transitioning and are naturally keen to secure as many places as possible and from settings that are part-time and have concerns that they could suffer, if full-time providers are prioritised by the EA. At this time of transition, it is essential that all are treated fairly. The EA has made it clear that settings that have transitioned to full-time provision will not be given preferential treatment in PAN allocations. In practice, that means that, while the EA might increase PANs to meet overall need in an area, it will do so irrespective of the session length offered by settings. That provides equity and stability for all, while the standardised session length is rolled out. Settings that have not yet standardised must not be penalised or put at risk in favour of those that have standardised first. The overall aim of providing a funded place for every child whose parents want it must not be jeopardised.

I conclude by acknowledging that many settings would prefer a higher PAN allocation than the one that they have received from the EA. If you consider only one preschool setting in isolation, it may seem that there is no real harm in increasing the PAN. The reality, however, is that birth rates are falling and fewer children require a funded preschool place compared with last year. Therefore, increasing the PAN for one setting above the overall level of need inevitably means a reduction for another setting, potentially putting it at risk and, importantly, risking overall under-provision of preschool places for target-age children. Much as we would all like every setting to have its preferred PAN allocation, that is simply not possible.

The EA's allocation process is intended to treat all settings equitably, maintaining stability in the sector, avoiding unnecessary costs of over-provision and ensuring that all target-age children can access a funded preschool education place. In each of the last six years, at least 99·8% of target-age children were offered a place in a preschool setting of their parents' preference by the end of the admissions process, with places available each year for those who were not yet in that position.