Official Report: Monday 07 April 2025

Mr Speaker: Eóin Tennyson has been given leave to make a statement on the impact of US trade tariffs on Northern Ireland that fulfils the criteria set out in Standing Order 24. If other Members wish to be called, they should rise in their place and continue to do so. All other Members who are called to speak will have up to three minutes. I remind Members that interventions are not permitted. I will not take any points of order on this or any other matter until the item of business has finished.

Mr Tennyson: Last week, the US president launched a destructive and damaging trade war. Donald Trump is following a path of populism and isolationism, which will damage the global economy for years to come, irrespective of how for long his tariffs are in place. The upheaval comes despite all the selfies in Congress and at the White House and the Prime Minister's almost sycophantic approach to the president in recent weeks and months. Despite what we have heard about the UK's Brexit advantage, the UK has been slapped with exactly the same tariffs as the Taliban. It is outrageous to be in a position in which a US president is attacking and slapping tariffs on his allies, including Ukraine, rather than focusing on his enemies.

In the Chamber, our collective focus must be on protecting jobs, livelihoods and businesses in Northern Ireland during these turbulent economic times. That means that, first, we need to engage proactively with the UK and Irish Governments to ensure that Northern Ireland's unique position is well understood at a European level. We must stand firm with our allies and use collective bargaining to place pressure on the US Administration. Yes, of course, negotiation must be the first step in our response to mitigate the impact of the tariffs and see their removal, but we must also be willing to, where necessary, find a backbone.

I say to the Prime Minister that if the price is removing the digital sales tax on tech companies; undercutting our agricultural producers or refusing to regulate toxicity on social media, it is a price that is too much to bear. As I said, we need to work with our allies to bring the tariffs to an end but also collaborate closely with our European partners to strengthen the UK economy and exert growth.

I say to the Economy Minister that we can do much at a Northern Ireland level to support our businesses and manufacturers. We need to see efforts towards a "shop local" scheme for Northern Ireland, progress on a manufacturing strategy and support and advice for our businesses at this turbulent time. This is a global issue, but it will have severe consequences for the Northern Ireland economy. Irrespective of our differing political views and beliefs, it is incumbent on all of us in the Chamber to work together to overcome the tariffs.

Ms Sheerin: I thank the Member for bringing this Matter of the Day to the House. He made a lot of salient points about the regrettable actions that the president of the United States has taken at a time when our whole world is in turmoil. We are seeing the continuing genocide of the Palestinian people, people closer to home struggling to pay their bills as it is, a lot of worries for our local businesses and employers and our most vulnerable being attacked again by the new British Labour Government.

I note that the Member who tabled the Matter of the Day referred to actions that the Economy Minister can take. Caoimhe Archibald met businesses and trade unions this morning to try to plot a way forward and see what actions we can take here to mitigate any damage that the tariffs will do to local businesses. This is a time for cool heads and a planned, measured response — it is vital that we exercise caution — and the Minister has met her counterparts in London and Dublin in an attempt to agree a response. It is important that we see a lack of divergence between Britain and the EU. We want to recognise the special place that the North is, recognise our unique circumstances and support our local businesses. That is what we really need to see at the heart of this. We need to see stability and resilience embedded in our local businesses, and I hope that we can all work together to do that.

Mr Buckley: It was once remarked that, when the United States sneezes, the whole world gets a cold. That could be true today. There is a lot of righteous concern about the tariff announcement made by the president of the United States from those who have investments in the stock markets, but it is only fair that we set out the rationale for it. What is President Trump's rationale for tariffs? The US national debt is over $36 trillion, its trade deficit is around $122 billion and government debt is rising faster than GDP. The situation in the United States was unsustainable. Action had to be taken.

When I look at the situation, I say this clearly: nobody should want to see trade barriers — nobody. I do not call for tariffs, and I am pretty sure that every Member in the House has said that they do not agree with tariffs, but actions speak louder than words. That is why Mr Tennyson's words on the matter are hollow. He wants to champion and shout about a European Union that is the most protectionist racket in the world. We see that in its protectionism with regard to subsidies and barriers to entry, whether by stringent regulations or protection of the single market. It wants free trade but only on its terms.

I hope that this is a short-term action by the United States and that, globally, countries can break down trade barriers and come to a level playing field, because that is what is needed. We need to see trade barriers broken down. Mr Tennyson talked about the Members — I think that he was alluding to me — who went to the United States to speak to President Trump and articulate a Northern Ireland-first perspective. That perspective is always missing when he goes out to champion his cause. Look at the past: he and, indeed, Alliance, the SDLP and Sinn Féin run to Europe — in fact, rather than putting Northern Ireland first, they got a train down to Dublin — to shout about Northern Ireland being tied to the European Union's hip. He talks about the UK. There is a 10% tariff rate for the United Kingdom and 20% for the European Union. I hope that Mr Tennyson will be as quick to scurry down to Dublin and over to the European Union to call for it to protect —

Mr Speaker: Time is up.

Mr Buckley: — Northern Ireland, because those are actions of his that he is bound to repeat.

Mr Speaker: The Member's time is up.

Dr Aiken: Today, the turmoil in the global stock markets continues and is heading into territory that has not been seen since the COVID pandemic. A 10% tariff on our exports to the USA kicked in this weekend. For our neighbours, that figure is 20%. While the pharma sector is yet to be sanctioned, the impact of tariffs on that large part of the Republic's economy will not be far off. Some think that that differential tariff is somehow good news and that it will give a boost or advantage to our economy. If the Windsor framework debacle has taught us anything, it is that trade diversion, excessive bureaucracy and punitive measures add only costs and uncertainty.

We will all soon become very familiar again with article 16 of the protocol. If any United Kingdom company, including those that are based here, gets any perceived advantage, you can rest assured that the European Union will implement countermeasures. Have we forgotten how the EU strove to cut access to COVID vaccinations? Sadly, our own Government have failed to defend our economy and did not even engage the Stormont brake mechanism when they needed to. The deputy First Minister has highlighted the potential problems, but the Prime Minister must put the protection of our economy and Northern Ireland workers first. If the European Union seeks to implement countermeasures, we should use the joint mechanisms to put a hold on all Windsor framework provisions.

I have spoken many, many times of this being the worst of both worlds with the Irish Sea border. We will now see whether the EU implements a hard border on this island as well, but, no matter what, the next weeks and months will be particularly challenging but not enough, yet again, for our very own Windsor Framework Democratic Scrutiny Committee to generate some curiosity. Some things apparently never change.

For Northern Ireland, we need our Prime Minister and our Government to work together strongly against trade dumping and the overzealous application of the article 16 provisions of the European Union protocol, because rest assured, Members, those are coming and we will not be able to get the best of both worlds — indeed, the best of any worlds. That is where we are.

Ms McLaughlin: I thank the Member for tabling the Matter of the Day. We are certainly living in very difficult and dangerous times. Watching the news outlets this morning after 8.00 am when the markets opened and seeing them slump was very scary indeed.

President Trump has introduced a sweeping new tariff regime, with a blanket 10% for all imports to the US. EU goods face a 20% levy, and UK goods are subject to the 10% baseline. Those tariffs are not just numbers on a spreadsheet. They represent a real and immediate threat to local jobs, regional investment and the future prosperity of communities right across Northern Ireland. Many of our key exporting sectors, including manufacturing, agri-food and advanced engineering, rely heavily on access to the US market. Those businesses are already navigating really complex post-Brexit trading realities, and they are now being asked to absorb yet more costs in an already difficult global trading environment.

While there has been some suggestion that Northern Ireland may gain a competitive edge over our neighbours in the South, since the Republic of Ireland's goods will face a 20% tariff under EU designation, that is far from a guarantee. There are no winners in this risky game. Relative advantage is not the same as security. Tariffs hurt everyone, and no one should mistake that for an opportunity without acknowledging the serious risks. Northern Ireland is in a unique position. Our ability to access the UK and EU markets through the Windsor framework gives us a platform that no other region enjoys.

The question is this: how will we and what are we doing to take that advantage further? The Minister for the Economy must set out the steps that the Executive plan to take not only to protect our exporters but to ensure that working people are not forced to carry the cost of economic decisions that are made elsewhere. We must not allow local workers, families and small businesses to become collateral damage in a global trade war. Yes, we are a small region, but we should not be passengers. We must be active participants in shaping the response. That means working with Westminster and Dublin, engaging with Europe and, crucially, taking strategic cross-departmental action right here in Stormont to support our local economy. The tariffs are a flashing red warning light about the direction of global trade. We have already seen where isolation leads. We cannot afford to go down that road again.

Mr Gaston: A number of points deserve to be made in response to President Trump's announcement. Unsurprisingly, they have passed by the Member who tabled the Matter of the Day. The first is that the EU is not some champion of free and unfettered trade. President Trump is correct when he says that the US has been taken for a ride by the EU. The EU is an aggressive entity; a protectionist bloc that stifles free trade by imposing tariffs on anyone seeking to import into it. The US has now called time on that. That is entirely understandable from a US perspective. In normal circumstances, Northern Ireland would face the prospect of being able to benefit from that situation, as the tariff on UK goods is half that on EU goods. However, businesses can thank Mr Tennyson and the entirety of the nationalist and republican alliance in the House for making the situation far from clear. The protocol has left us in the EU customs code, so, when Brussels imposes counter-tariffs, anything coming from the USA into Northern Ireland will be subject to them. Great Britain will not face that problem.

Furthermore, I have little doubt that, if the EU seeks to use Northern Ireland as a back door into the US, Washington will clamp down on that. Therefore, while the announcement from President Trump highlights the benefits of being free from the shackles of Brussels for GB, it highlights once again the folly of the protocol, which leaves Northern Ireland in a foreign customs code. It also reminds us that, when the leader of the DUP, Gavin Robinson, wrote in the 'News Letter':

he was lying to the people of Northern Ireland.

Ms Sugden: I appreciate the opportunity to address the impact of US trade tariffs on Northern Ireland, particularly on our small and medium-sized enterprises. Northern Ireland's SMEs are a vital part of our economy, driving innovation, creating jobs and supporting local communities. Many of those businesses rely on exports, with the US market being a key destination for sectors such as agri-food, whisky and manufacturing. Tariffs increase costs, and for SMEs already operating on narrow margins, the burden is difficult to absorb. As a result, businesses are faced with either raising prices for consumers or losing competitiveness in the US market. Moreover, the EU's potential retaliatory tariffs in response to the US measures add further uncertainty. Northern Ireland businesses could face tariffs on exports to the EU as well, compounding the problem.

For SMEs in Northern Ireland, the stakes are high. Without the right support, they risk losing access to vital markets. The UK Government must engage directly with the US and the EU to mitigate the tariffs and explore exemptions or reductions, particularly in sectors where Northern Ireland plays a key role. The Northern Ireland Executive must also step up and ensure that local businesses receive the support that they need, including clear guidance, simplified regulatory compliance and financial assistance where needed. The UK Government and the Northern Ireland Executive must act quickly and decisively to support our businesses. SMEs cannot be left to face the challenges alone. With the right backing, Northern Ireland's SMEs will be able to continue to thrive and maintain their position in global markets, but only if we address the issues head-on.

Northern Ireland's membership of the United Kingdom internal market provides a key competitive advantage, but that advantage is at risk if businesses cannot navigate the growing trade barriers and rising costs.

It is vital that we protect that advantage by supporting our local businesses and ensuring that they have the tools that they need to succeed.

Ms Forsythe: The tariffs are hugely significant globally, and we need to quickly figure out what it means for us here in Northern Ireland. It is clear that the UK Government must take some urgent steps to protect Northern Ireland's interests and ensure that our place in the UK internal market is fully safeguarded. There is still a lot of detail that needs to be worked through, but what is clear is that President Trump's tariffs will have a far-reaching impact on international trade. Importantly for us, Northern Ireland is vulnerable to being caught in the crossfire of any EU retaliation, and my party leader, Gavin Robinson, made the same case to the Prime Minister last week. The Prime Minister has said that he will protect the national interest, and that must include Northern Ireland. Our DUP MPs will continue to raise that at Westminster.

This is another key example of why it was so important for us to be in Washington last month, making the case for Northern Ireland. I am proud that Emma Little-Pengelly took those opportunities at every chance that she had when she was over there. We will continue to fight daily to safeguard Northern Ireland's economic interests, and the best way to do that is by fully restoring our place in the UK internal market. Anything less leaves us at risk.

Mr Honeyford: It is DUP/TUV bingo today. We get the usual lines trumpeted out just because it is a Trump tariff. They talk about Northern Ireland first, yet all we have heard about today is the priority of American companies and the tax that they will pay coming into the EU, not realising — I am not sure what has clicked — that we do not pay tariffs into the EU. Therefore, I do not know why we have had minutes and minutes about the risks to America. We are here to speak for Northern Ireland and for our companies and businesses, but it is interesting to hear the DUP speak in support of and give the opinion of America rather than give the opinion of Northern Ireland.

Mr Buckley: Says the EU's fanboy.

Mr Honeyford: If you want to continue shouting on, go ahead. Do you want me to give way?

Mr Speaker: There is no giving way.

Mr Honeyford: There is no giving way, so sit down.

Actions speak louder than words, which is what Jonny said a minute ago. Let us talk about red tape, which he talked about a minute ago. Let us talk to all our sporting clubs that have had levelling-up funding and let them hear about red tape. It was way easier when we were in the EU and had funding that was easy to access for all our groups. You can scaremonger and talk and you can be addicted to being on the wrong side of the argument all you like, but the tail is wagging the dog, with one Member at the back, and you are jumping to it.

Let us call it for what it is: taxes are tariffs and tariffs are taxes, and these are our businesses that we are here to stand up for. They are the ones that are paying the taxes; it ain't you. We have people who are coming to pension age and whose pensions are falling through the floor, and you are in here getting social media clips to look hard and look the big man on TV. It is ridiculous that you have constantly called for borders and barriers, and Alliance will continue to speak up so that we do not have trade barriers and we do not have tariffs on our companies

Mr Buckley: Take a breath.

Mr Gaston: The protocol ensures that we do have them.

Mr Buckley: Take a breath. [Laughter.]

Mr Gaston: We should be part of the GB —.

Mr Honeyford: This is a time when we should be working closely with our partners —.

Mr Gaston: Mr Honeyford.

Mr Speaker: Order. The Member needs to be heard.

Mr Honeyford: We should be working closely with the UK Government, with the Southern Government and with the EU to make sure that Northern Ireland's voice is clearly heard. We have to maximise the voice of the Assembly to speak as one. This is a time when we should be investing in innovation and R&D. We should be increasing the number of products that we have to sell and we should be giving support to our businesses. We need a manufacturing strategy. We need stuff to come through that actually delivers for business. What we do not need are cheerleaders for a Trump Administration who are taxing the very people and causing —

Mr Gaston: Rigorous implementers —.

Mr Honeyford: Bingo! I will end with the DUP/TUV bingo. Here we go: the usual slow, thick lines that come out every single time. Let us have calm heads and not be cheerleaders for Trump.

Mr Speaker: Thank you, Mr Honeyford. We now move to the next item of business. Members, you were getting a bit excited there. Just calm down a bit.

Mr McGuigan: I wish to express my concern at the most recent statistics for waiting times for cancer patients. Those statistics were published last week and are relevant for the period from October to December 2024. The figures do not make good reading. Only 87·5% of cancer patients started treatment within 31 days of a decision to treat, instead of the target of 98%; only 37·9% of patients started treatment within 62 days following an urgent GP referral for suspected cancer, when that target is set at 95%; and just 31·7% of people were seen within 14 days by a breast cancer specialist following an urgent referral, despite the fact that all urgent breast cancer referrals should be seen within a two-week period.

I acknowledge that there are several caveats at play with any statistics, so some caution should be exercised. However, it is clear that the expectation that people will have when beginning their journey of cancer tests and, if appropriate, diagnosis and treatment is falling far short of reality. Any delay in diagnosis or treatment will clearly impact on patient outcomes. It is important to remember that the figures that I have mentioned are not just statistics: those percentage figures equate to real people. For too many, the delays are their lived experience, and, for others, they are the experience of partners, family members and friends.

I note that the Health Minister has a confirmed budget and ring-fenced money for red-flag cancer and time-critical treatment. We are in the third year of a 10-year cancer strategy, and we must do better. We need to see the Minister building on the recommendations in the cancer strategy. We also need to see the wise investment of the money that the Minister has available to him and the target waiting times for cancer to be met.

Mr Kingston: On Saturday afternoon, I attended a community commemoration on the Shankill Road to mark the 50th anniversary of the bomb and gun attack on the Mountainview Tavern by the IRA. That attack on Saturday 5 April 1975 resulted in the death of five civilians and injuries to over 60 people. On Saturday, I spoke to various people who were injured or bereaved in that atrocity. As it was this year, that date in 1975 was Grand National day, and the bar was packed with people who had enjoyed watching the race. Republican terrorists drove to the bar, and two shot into the entrance area while another planted a bomb just inside the door and lit the fuse before making their getaway. When the bomb exploded, it blew a hole in the ground floor ceiling and brought people crashing down from the upper floor. Four people were killed in the explosion, and a fifth died later in hospital.

Those killed were Joseph Bell, Alan Madden, Nathaniel Adams, William Andrews and Albert Fletcher. On Saturday, I spoke to Kenneth "Digger" Whiteside and Billy Whyte, who were injured in the explosion. Having played football that afternoon, they were upstairs when the bomb exploded and fell down as the floor beneath them was blown away. Billy Whyte sustained considerable leg injuries and spent six weeks in Musgrave Park Hospital after surgery to insert metal pins and screws. He was unable to work for seven months and was never able to play football again. Kenny Whiteside suffered neck and hand injuries in the explosion. Another survivor Dennis Larmour told me that he was working in the upstairs bar when the bomb exploded. He had five operations to help restore his hearing. Many survivors also suffered post-traumatic stress disorder.

To my knowledge, the IRA never claimed responsibility for that heinous, murderous, sectarian attack on a civilian target that was designed to cause multiple deaths and injury. Perhaps that is an indication that, even by the IRA's warped standards, the attack could never be justified. The getaway car was found abandoned on the nearby Springfield Road. On the Shankill, the atrocity is remembered alongside other republican bombings of civilian targets during the Troubles: at Balmoral furniture showroom and the Four Step Inn in 1971; at the Bayardo Bar in 1975; and at Frizzell's fish shop in 1993. We must never forget that atrocities took place and that they were evil and wrong. There was, of course, an alternative to that campaign of terrorism. Ultimately, what did it achieve? Only a lot of death and suffering, which endures to this day.

Mr Speaker: The Member's time is up.

Mr Kingston: My thoughts, today, are with those who were killed, injured and bereaved. We will remember them.

Mrs Guy: Last Thursday, some parents woke up to admission emails from the Education Authority (EA) regarding preschool and P1 places for their children. Those emails came as a surprise, given that parents had been told by the EA to expect that announcement on 9 April.

It may seem like a small issue, but, for the parents, children and schools impacted on, it is not. It caused additional anxiety for parents who received an email and even more anxiety for those who did not. Those who got a place for their child were left questioning whether that place was confirmed or whether the email was a mistake. For those who did not get the place that they wanted or any place at all for their child, it caused additional confusion on their next steps. Of course, those who got no update were left in the dark, wondering why they had not heard from the EA and what that meant for their child.

Because of the confusion, schools were, naturally, contacted by worried parents and had to pull together updates quickly. Since Thursday, the EA has confirmed that the issue was with its IT system. I thank the staff who answered calls and tried to reassure and advise parents. Families, however, need to know that lessons have been learned and that it will not happen again. Telling parents which school their child is going to is one of the absolute basics for the EA. We need to have confidence that it will not happen again.

Today, the EA portal is due to open for parents to accept preschool places and for some parents to begin the second round of applications for a place. I hope that the process goes smoothly. Being a parent is difficult enough without having additional anxiety. I hope that the EA will outline clearly what changes have been made.

Ms Ennis: In April 2021, we all watched in horror as fire tore through the Mournes. We were promised swift action then. We were promised a comprehensive fire prevention and management plan to ensure that such devastation could never happen again, but here we are: it has happened again. As I stand here, the mountains are ablaze. Massive damage has been caused by a 2 mile-wide fire front. The risk to life and property has been severe, with terrified people moved from their homes in the middle of the night.

What people want to know is this: where is the plan? Four years on, we still do not have the robust strategy that was pledged. The communities around the Mournes, the groups that work daily to protect and conserve the Mournes, those whose livelihoods depends on the mountains and those whose homes and lives were put at risk at the weekend deserve leadership and action. I pay tribute to and thank the heroic Fire and Rescue Service, which has been battling to control fires in the Mournes not just at the weekend but over recent weeks.

While we wait for a plan, the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs continues to allow controlled burning in the Mournes and across the North right up until 14 April. The emergency is not over. The mountains are burning. Controlled burns are anything but controlled. The regulations, safeguards and enforcement mechanisms are clearly not working. How many more fires will there be? How much more damage? How much longer do we have to wait? I call on the Minister to review urgently the current burn period and to deliver on the promise of a fire prevention and management plan for the Mournes. It is not just about protecting our natural heritage but about safeguarding communities, about biodiversity and about the future of our environment. The Mournes are burning as I speak, and we can wait no longer for somebody to start doing something about it.

Mr K Buchanan: I commend Killyman District on its fundraising event, "Killyman Does Strictly", on Friday and Saturday night. I am hard to impress — in fact, I am very hard to impress — but, on Saturday night, I was certainly impressed. The dancers were excellent, as was the planning, and a considerable amount of money was raised for the Killyman project and for the Air Ambulance.

In closing, I will say that there were moves on the dance floor that I had seen before, moves on the dance floor that I had not seen before and moves on the dance floor that I do not want to see again. [Laughter.]

Mr Speaker: Thank you for some levity, Mr Buchanan. It is always useful.

Mr Blair: I bring to the House's attention a recent report on the impact of climate change on Northern Ireland. The study, which was led by the University of Bristol and linked to Queen's University Belfast, provides critical insights into the increasing climate risks that our rural areas face, particularly regarding health and agriculture. The localised research that was conducted focused on towns across Northern Ireland, including Castlederg in County Tyrone, which holds the records for Northern Ireland's hottest and coldest temperatures.

The lead author, Dr Alan Kennedy-Asser, who is from Moira in County Down, said that the research emphasises the valuable insights that we can gain from local experts, such as those in Castlederg, which already faces the impacts of global warming: changes that other areas of Northern Ireland are likely to encounter in coming years. For instance, the study shockingly shows that extreme heat in Northern Ireland could result in nearly 100 deaths each year, primarily affecting rural communities. The statistics highlight that, as climate change intensifies, heat-related health issues such as cardiovascular and respiratory complications will emerge as more significant public health challenges.

In addition to public health, the report findings show that the impact on our agriculture sector will be significant. We can anticipate more disruptions from flash flooding, which will hinder operations and extend drought periods, necessitating more water for crops. Furthermore, such unseasonal weather can have disastrous effects on farm planning and management and pose risks to animal health and welfare.

The report suggests that we might experience the peak of those effects in just 50 years' time. Nevertheless, we already see those issues arise, including increased water temperatures affecting Lough Neagh, along with biodiversity and species decline. Climate change is not a future threat: it is happening now and impacting on our farming methods and the well-being of our rural communities.

The report contributes to the increasing evidence of the ongoing harm that we are causing to our planet and the anticipated impacts on our daily lives. As Members of the Assembly, we need to face that truth, as we are swiftly running out of time to undo the harm that we have caused and are still causing. The Alliance AERA Minister has already been working actively to address the effects of climate change, and such efforts require equal commitment from all parties. We have a responsibility to future generations to make sure of that.

It is probably important to mention today, with the backdrop of the report that I have referenced, that, although some scepticism has been expressed by some parties on the appointment of a climate commissioner and, indeed, on climate change in general, existing and emerging science shows that we must work at pace on climate action. That is especially important given that various collapses of the Assembly and gaps in delivery have resulted in Northern Ireland falling behind —

Mr Speaker: The Member's time is up.

Mr Blair: — when we could have been making progress —

Mr Speaker: The Member's time is up.

Mr Blair: — on those issues.

Mrs Dillon: Last Wednesday, an email was issued in error by the Education Authority regarding preschool and primary 1 placements. The error in itself caused confusion and anxiety. The start of a child's educational journey is a significant milestone for families, one that is already stressful. The email only added to the concern and uncertainty of many families in my area. The Education Authority has since said that it was investigating why it happened. It is vital that it takes steps to ensure that it does not happen again. The error has also created a situation in which any parent wishing to appeal the decision regarding their child's placement is unable to do so, as the appeals form will not be available until later this week, when parents should have received the placement notification.

I have been contacted by many parents and preschool providers in the statutory and community sectors about a severe shortage of nursery placements, and that is across urban and rural areas of Mid Ulster. As in all these things, rural areas are often hardest hit because of already limited provision. Many working parents are being told that there is no available preschool placement for their child. That is not acceptable. Every child should have the opportunity to avail themselves of a preschool placement to ensure the best possible educational experience and outcome for all our children.

The Minister needs to have a flexible approach to the number of placements in community settings. I have spoken to many providers that have said that they had capacity and would be willing to take additional numbers but that would require the Minister to give clear direction to the Education Authority on a flexible approach. The Minister needs to listen to and work with providers, parents and families to deal with the current challenge. It is simply unacceptable in this day and age that children would not be able to access a preschool placement.

Before I finish, I congratulate Coalisland Na Fianna on its unbelievable fundraising efforts for children from Palestine to come here to be operated on in Dublin. It raised over £53,000. Déanaim comhghairdeas leis Na Fianna, Oileán an Ghuail, a bhailigh airgead ar son páistí ón Phalaistín le déanaí.

Mrs Erskine: I declare an interest, as I have family members who live along the A5.

This is a reminder to all in the Assembly that road infrastructure projects are for everyone in Northern Ireland. I say that because, unfortunately, comments from the GAA president, Jarlath Burns, last week seemed to miss that point. He claimed that the A5 was "a GAA road". I can only the imagine the outcry if the grand master of the Orange Order called it "an Orange road". There are people who seek to dismiss those comments, but those who do so have little concept or understanding of the feeling on the ground.

I represent an area in which the upgraded A5 will be constructed. To classify a road as belonging to one section of the community is crass and does not take into account the fact that people from all sections of the community have lost their lives on the A5. Nor does it recognise that the funding was not won by the GAA, never mind the fact that the farmers and landowners who care for the land are trying to manage their own businesses and their future viability at this time. Last week, the DUP agriculture spokesperson, Michelle McIlveen, and I met landowners on their farms to hear their concerns. All that landowners ask for is fairness when they give up their land. Mr Burns's comments are ill founded and disgracefully tone-deaf, given the wider issues that are under consideration. It is taxpayers' hard-earned money that pays for road infrastructure projects in Northern Ireland. No road can be claimed by a sole entity or person.

Everybody in the Chamber will recognise, sadly, the number of lives that have been lost on the A5. We send our sympathies to every family. It is important that respect is given to all. I have written to Jarlath Burns to ask that he retracts his comments and recognises the hurt caused to families, some of whom I have spoken to in recent days, who feel that their loss was not reflected by the GAA president's comments. I trust that Mr Burns will reflect on the hurt that he has caused.

Mr Buckley: It is appropriate to place it on record that my prayers and deepest sympathy go to the family of young Morgan Henry, who, at 18 years of age, was killed on the Dungannon Road, Portadown, on Sunday morning. Today, they face the devastating task of preparing for the funeral of a young family member and the life sentence of grieving his loss. My thoughts and prayers are with those who were injured in the accident, many of whom are in hospital with severe injuries.

It gives me great pleasure to recognise the outstanding achievement of a special group of athletes in Upper Bann. I am sure that the House will join me in congratulating the Portadown College under-16 girls' football team on being crowned the Schools' Cup winners with their 2-0 victory over Parkhall Integrated College last week. Goals from Heidi Baird and Sasha Thompson helped the girls to secure the trophy for the second year running. It is more than just a trophy; it is a testament to the hard work, determination and team spirit displayed by those girls throughout the season.

It is fair to say that women's football is really starting to capture a lot of attention. The girls' wins in Portadown simply reinforce that. Many of them left the football game immediately to go and prepare for a hockey game straight afterwards. That is the true grit and determination that I expect from Upper Bann. Huge congratulations to the players, coaching staff and all those who supported them on a special day at Windsor Park. Prior to that, the girls had also lifted the Mid Ulster Schools' Cup on Monday, retaining the title for the second year in a row. You have made the school and the people of Portadown proud and shown what it means to represent Portadown College with pride and excellence.

I also pay tribute to and commend the efforts of Craigavon Senior High School team, who competed in the Under-16 Boys Schools' Cup final on the same day. While the result may not have gone your way, reaching a final is a fantastic achievement in and of itself. It reflects your talents, dedication and hard work throughout the year. It takes real character to get to a final, and you have done your school proud in all your efforts. Hold your heads up high, and thank you for doing Craigavon proud.

Ms Sugden: Last month, I launched a public consultation on new legislation to tackle age discrimination in the provision of goods, facilities and services, which should have been addressed in Northern Ireland long ago. At present, it is still entirely lawful for someone to be treated unfairly simply because of their age when trying to access everyday services from insurance to financial products, car hire to travel and, in some cases, even healthcare. Other parts of the United Kingdom and Ireland have already legislated to stop that. Northern Ireland is now the only region without that protection. That failure sends a clear message that age-based discrimination is tolerated here and that people, older people in particular, are not valued equally. I cannot accept that, and I know that many others across the House will not accept it either.

When I first entered the Assembly over 11 years ago, I made it a point to get into the heart of my constituency. The most active and organised voices that I encountered were from older people's groups, and this was the first issue that they raised. That led me to establish the all-party group on ageing and older people, and I have worked closely with the sector ever since.

My motivation has come from those conversations with older people, but the legislation will protect people of all ages. Age discrimination can affect younger people too, whether it is in financial services, access to housing or how they are perceived when trying to access services. Everyone deserves to be treated fairly, regardless of their age. The legislation is not about giving anyone special treatment; it is about equality. It is about ensuring that people are judged on their circumstances and needs and not their date of birth. It is also about the bigger picture and how we value people in our society.

We have an ageing population. Many live longer, often with complex needs and without the support networks that they once had. At the same time, we have seen cuts to transport, community services and benefits. Isolation is rising, and issues such as elder abuse remain under-recognised and under-reported. I saw that at first hand as Justice Minister. One of the first events that I supported was a conference on tackling elder abuse, an area where the silence has been deafening. Yet, despite all that, Northern Ireland has still not delivered on that basic protection.

It is the last major equality legislation left to enact. For a region that talks so often about equality and rights, that omission is hard to justify. Therefore, I encourage Members from across the House to support the consultation and to encourage their constituents, local groups and service providers to respond. It is time to bring Northern Ireland into line with the rest of these islands. It is time to show that age discrimination in any form has no place in our society.

Mr Brett: I welcome the fact that Northern Ireland looks set to host the 2035 Women's World Cup as part of the United Kingdom bid. It is the first time that Northern Ireland will host such a prestigious tournament, and it is a huge opportunity for the economic, cultural and sporting development of this part of the United Kingdom. In recent years, women's football has gone from strength to strength in Northern Ireland, and, just like our men's national team, our women's national team brings people together from all sections of our community to proudly play for it. The economic opportunities are hugely impressive. The 2022 Euros, which were held in GB, provided a huge economic boost, and I look forward to welcoming the World Cup to Northern Ireland.

One of the most exciting aspects of our bid is that our national stadium at Windsor Park will soon be upgraded and further extended. I thank Conrad Kirkwood, the president of the Irish FA, who, unlike others, does not simply talk the talk; he walks the walk. I look forward to the forthcoming expansion of our national football stadium, and I am sure that all members of the House will proudly support our national team — Northern Ireland — as we host the 2035 Women's World Cup.

Mr Gaston: I appeal to the Education Minister regarding the current allocations for community-based playgroups in North Antrim. To date, TUV has received representations from See-Saw Playgroup in Mosside; Kirkinriola Early Years Playgroup; Rasharkin Community Playgroup; Glenravel Community Playgroup; and Cloughmills Early Years. All those playgroups have the same problem: their pupil allocation numbers for this year are too low to deal with the number of parents listing them as their preferred preschool choice. Each playgroup can take more children than the number allocated to them for this year.

Take Cloughmills Early Years as an example. Over the past five years, it has had an average enrolment of 14. Last year, the Education Authority threatened to remove its funding, as it had below the minimum of eight children due to a low birth year in the village.? Thankfully, the EA saw the folly of its decision, and the playgroup picked up its eighth child during October. This year, instead of allowing the playgroup to return to its previous numbers, it has been told that it can accept only eight, with 11 parents listing it as their first choice.? For next year, it already has 14 parents who have signalled that they want their child to attend that playgroup. ?The staff in Cloughmills have poured their hearts into the playgroup over the past 12 months to ensure that they would not find themselves in the same position as they were in last year. The group now boasts one of the best facilities in my constituency, and its reward is that the Education Authority has slapped a cap on it, whilst children from the village have to go elsewhere to get a preschool place.

?Let us look at See-Saw in Mosside. The?facility can offer 24 places. It has 24 first-preference applications but is being limited to 19 places. The enrolment number over the past number of years has been between 24 and 26, yet the powers that be, like in Cloughmills, are forcing children who can be catered for in their first-choice setting to go elsewhere. That puts?unnecessary stress and hardship on parents.

What makes matters worse and, indeed, discriminatory is that the criteria provide that, in the Irish-medium sector, all first preferences are guaranteed their place of choice.? However, in Cloughmills, Kirkinriola, Glenravel, Rasharkin and Mosside, the EA is slamming the door in the faces of local children destined to progress through the controlled sector. Where is the fairness in that, Minister Givan? I trust that you will act on that great injustice.

Mr Speaker: That brings to a conclusion Members' statements. Members may take their ease before we move to the next item of business. Thank you.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: I have received notice from the Minister of Finance that he wishes to make a statement. Before I call the Minister, I remind Members that they must be concise in asking their questions. It is not an opportunity for debate or long-winded introductions, so, without further ado, I call the Minister.

Mr O'Dowd (The Minister of Finance): Go raibh maith agat, a Phríomh-Leas-Cheann Comhairle.

Thank you for the opportunity to make a statement on the final Budget 2025-26.

The Executive agreed their final Budget for 2025-26 on 3 April, and I made a written ministerial statement on the same day. Given the pressures that the Executive faced and the limited resources available, the Executive have strived to provide a Budget for 2025-26 that focuses on providing funding for the delivery of our Programme for Government (PFG) priorities. We have considered the consultation responses from our stakeholders, organisations and citizens alike. The Budget reflects our Programme for Government commitments and shows the Executive's determination to work together to deliver.

The Budget includes £16·8 billion of investment in public services, plus £2·4 billion in capital spending, with Health receiving £8·5 billion; Education £3·3 billion; and Justice £1·4 billion. That means that those three Departments alone account for some 80% of the funding for the day-to-day spending that is available, providing vital funding for our health service, schools, policing and the wider justice system. It sets out the direction of travel, which shows that the Executive are prepared to do things differently and use our limited resources to do what matters most.

We all know someone on a waiting list — a mother, a father, a child or a grandparent. The Budget will mean £215 million going towards cutting health waiting lists and supporting investment in elective care, with £165 million of that earmarked in Health’s final Budget settlement and a further £50 million to be provided in June monitoring.

Our children are the future, and we must invest in them. The Budget doubles our investment in the early years and childcare strategy to £50 million, with a commitment to provide a further £5 million in June monitoring to support our children and help hard-working families. It provides an additional £15 million for special educational needs (SEN) and delivers a further £8 million for skills, bringing the total to £15 million to build the skills needed now and in the future to grow our economy.

The Budget provides an additional £5 million to make our communities safer and £2 million towards ending violence against women and girls. It recognises the importance of Lough Neagh and our desire to protect it through a £5 million ring-fenced investment. It supports our agriculture, agrienvironment, fisheries and rural development with £332·5 million ring-fenced for this, recognising the importance of the sector to our economy and local farming communities. It also provides £21·3 million for transformation projects in health, justice, infrastructure and special educational needs and £100 million to create more social housing. In line with that commitment, we are also investing £105·7 million in water infrastructure. There is also a capital allocation of £12·3 million for the just transition programme, in line with our commitment on climate change.

The Budget shows that the Executive are prepared to do things differently and prioritise the limited funding that we have available to make real change for the better in people’s daily lives.

There is no doubt that the financial outlook remains incredibly challenging, particularly given the Westminster Government’s continued policy of austerity. The Chancellor’s spring statement continued the austerity agenda by choosing not to invest in public services and, instead, cutting benefits and targeting those most in need. It provided limited additional resources: £12·5 million resource departmental expenditure limit (DEL) and £1·6 million capital DEL for the Executive in 2025-26. That, together with the £146 million employers' National Insurance contribution support, will be included in the Executive’s DEL totals following Main Estimates in May/June, meaning they will be available for allocation in the June monitoring round. Given the need to provide Departments with the ability to plan, indicative June monitoring allocations for those funds have been agreed in the final Budget. As there is no additional funding for the final Budget, the allocations made were to distribute the funding held centrally at draft Budget and the unallocated financial transactions capital (FTC).

Recognising the important work of our public servants, the draft Budget sets aside £26 million to meet the costs of the pay settlement for those on Civil Service terms and conditions. That pay award has now been agreed, and the funding has been allocated to Departments in the final Budget.

Some costs are inescapable, and the Budget provides funding for the costs associated with the Open and for statutory salaries. To provide further support for the health sector and recognise the important role that family health services play, £3·5 million has been earmarked to provide support for the impact of National Insurance increases on GP practices, dentists, pharmacists and other family health service providers. The final Budget also gives each Department a general allocation to be used towards wider pressures, including pay and employer's National Insurance increases.

The Executive gave a commitment to provide funding of up to £20 million capital on an equal basis to Education and Infrastructure, if it became available. Therefore, the final Budget provides both Departments with a general capital allocation of £7·7 million, with a further £1 million each as an indicative June monitoring allocation.

The final Budget also sees the allocation of £8·4 million in financial transactions capital that remained unallocated in the draft Budget. The Department for the Economy will receive £6·1 million towards Invest NI capital grants to businesses, and the Executive Office will receive £2·3 million towards interest payments.

For the first time, the FTC funding has been oversubscribed, and with the DFE bid exceeding the available funding, an indicative June monitoring allocation of £1·1 million has been agreed to. That reflects the amount that will be carried forward from 2024-25.

There is no doubt that the Executive's finances remain under pressure. While the 2025-26 financial position remains challenging for all Departments, the Budget agreed by the Executive clearly prioritises their Programme for Government priorities, and, excluding earmarked allocations and in-year transfers, provides every Department with an uplift on its 2024-25 budget position. With the indicative allocations included, the Budget provides Departments with £19·3 billion funding. That money will be spent on running our public services and investing in our infrastructure. There will never be enough money to fund all our ambitions, but we can make a positive difference.

Regrettably, it seems likely that the second phase of the spending review, which will be announced in June, will be a continuation of the austerity agenda that the Treasury is pursuing. On behalf of the Executive and the people whom we serve, I will continue to make the case for better funding not just for the Executive but for all public services. It is incumbent on us all to manage our budgets efficiently and effectively. All decisions should be taken with the intention of making things better, and every pound should be treated with the same care as that with which we would treat our own money. I will continue to work with Executive colleagues to support workers, families and communities.

As Members are aware, I intend this to be the last single-year Budget, now that the Treasury has committed to undertaking a multi-year spending review. I believe that the introduction of a multi-year Budget will be a game changer, providing Departments with the ability to undertake longer-term planning. The five-year departmental financial plans will play a crucial role in that. Behind the figures of millions and billions of pounds are people and families. It is incumbent on all of us in the Chamber to work together to improve their lives and opportunities for the future. For now, I commend the final Budget 2025-26 to the Assembly.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Go raibh maith agat, a Aire.

I call Colin McGrath to ask a question on behalf of the official Opposition.

Mr McGrath: Thank you very much, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. Given that the First Minister said last week that the Executive are investing to deal with waiting lists but that it transpires that the so-called investment is merely the ring-fencing of existing money — the First Minister says "investment", the Finance Minister says "ring-fencing" and the Health Minister says "creative accounting" — do you think, Minister, that the Executive owe the public, those languishing on waiting lists and our hard-working and dedicated healthcare staff an apology for their gaslighting and fake news about the money to deal with health?

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Answer that in whatever way you wish, Minister.

Mr O'Dowd: Let us be very clear: the Executive have ring-fenced £215 million to tackle waiting lists. Be in no doubt about that. Things are going to be done differently. We cannot continue to be in a position of continually uplifting the Health budget and expecting different outcomes but not getting those outcomes. The Executive have made their position clear: we expect a different outcome from this Budget. We have ring-fenced £215 million of the Budget to start to tackle Health waiting lists. The Health Department has received over £200 million additional funding this year. What the Health Minister chooses to do with that funding is a matter for the Health Minister, but the Executive, in agreement with the Health Minister, have set out quite clearly what they wish to do.

I took the time to read your press release on the Budget, Mr McGrath, which is entitled "Underwhelming". Yes, it is. It is also absent an alternative Budget. I look forward to reading his alternative Budget — [Interruption.]

Mr McGrath: Have you an apology for the people?

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Order, Members.

Mr O'Dowd: I look forward — [Interruption.]

Mr O'Dowd: I look forward to reading his alternative Budget and seeing how the Member intends to deal with waiting lists.

Mr McGrath: an apology for the people?

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: OK. Will Members chill their jets, please?

Ms Forsythe (The Deputy Chairperson of the Committee for Finance): I thank the Minister for the statement on the Budget. This week, the impacts of Labour's Budget decisions are being felt acutely across the country through the increases in wages and employers' National Insurance contributions. In the Minister's Budget statement, we heard an acknowledgement that our core Northern Ireland public sector will be short £55 million this year towards the increases in employers' National Insurance contributions, and that our GPs and community pharmacies will be short more than £30 million. Minister, going into 2025-26, what are you doing to address those upfront shortfalls?

Mr O'Dowd: The Executive made a conscious decision to redistribute the £158 million extra funding that they had as a result of Barnett consequentials in the way that they did. Around £50 million of that will go to tackling waiting lists; £8 million of it will go to tackling the skills deficit; £5 million will go to Lough Neagh; and £15 million will go to special educational needs. Those are priorities in the Programme for Government. I do not suggest for one second that the challenges faced by the sectors that you read out are not real; they are real. However, the Executive made a conscious decision to direct their limited resources in a certain way, and that was the correct decision.

I will continue to engage with the Treasury. I have made a robust case to the Treasury, as have the other Administrations, that its funding mechanism for National Insurance contributions is unsatisfactory. We will continue to make that case. Ahead of the spending review, we will continue to make the case for a needs-based analysis for the Executive. The Executive continue to be underfunded significantly by the Exchequer and the Treasury.

Miss Hargey: Thank you, Minister, for this important statement. You mentioned the allocation to Lough Neagh. How does that reflect the Executive's commitment to dealing with the important issues pertaining to Lough Neagh and how those are being prioritised in the Budget?

Mr O'Dowd: The Executive continue to recognise the challenges that are faced on Lough Neagh. We also recognise that it will take considerable investment and time to correct the mistakes of the past. In the Budget, we have ring-fenced £5 million for the AERA Minister to engage with sectors and continue to take on the challenge of pollution in Lough Neagh, as is only right and proper.

Mr Tennyson: Thank you, Minister, for your statement. You mentioned both our underfunding and the second stage of the spending review, which is due in June. Given that Professor Holtham was appointed only this year to undertake a review, are we in the eleventh hour and is there a risk that we are too late?

Mr O'Dowd: No. A lot of work has already been undertaken, and Professor Holtham will have access to that research and data. I am confident that his report will be available in sufficient time for us to submit it to the Treasury ahead of the spending review. The case was originally made by the Fiscal Council. We continue to make that case, and Professor Holtham's work will add to it.

Dr Aiken: I thank the Minister for his statement. I welcome that £215 million is ring-fenced for health waiting lists. However, I note that £50 million of that is due to come from June monitoring, which is three and a half months away. Is there a risk that that monitoring money may not be available? What faith have you that we will get sufficient funds in June monitoring to deal with that vital issue?

Mr O'Dowd: We took a conscious decision to allocate the funding in this way at this time. We cannot include it as part of the Budget spending, because we have yet to receive the letter from the Secretary of State confirming it — we are dealing with a number of technicalities here — but, in reality, £50 million is set aside for tackling health waiting lists. It is only right and proper that we inform the Health Minister that it is available now to allow him to plan for that spend from June. We have taken the appropriate action.

Ms Dolan: I thank the Minister for his statement. Given that it is one of the Programme for Government priorities, how does the Budget support investment in skills?

Mr O'Dowd: Again, that is a strategic investment by the Executive: we have almost doubled the investment in skills. In the draft Budget, it was £7 million. The Executive have taken a decision to increase investment in skills to £15 million. That is a huge boost for upskilling the current workforce, for bringing new workers into the workforce and for the economy.

Mrs Erskine: I thank the Minister for his statement. In his written ministerial statement of 3 April, he highlighted the fact that the Department for Infrastructure had identified an easement of £15·7 million. As Chair of the Infrastructure Committee, I put it on record that the Committee was sadly not briefed on that during any of our budgetary sessions. Given the pressures in the Department, will the Minister outline from where the easement has arisen and whether it was ring-fenced?

Mr O'Dowd: My understanding is that it is from the A1. More details on the easement will be made available to the Member. How the Committee engages with the Department is a matter for the Committee and the Department. I have no concerns about the identified easement, however. The Department has a proven record of investing its limited resources — all Departments' resources are limited — in front-line services.

Mr Honeyford: Research and development, innovation and skills development are vital if we are to grow our economy and deliver a more productive, globally competitive economy. The Minister mentioned additional funding for skills, which is really welcome. How will the Budget support research and innovation across Departments, including by delivering the funding that is required for R&D in our universities?

Mr O'Dowd: I have given Members the headlines about the additional funding that has been allocated to Departments as a result of Barnett consequentials and expected Barnett consequentials. The funding and the projects that were identified in the draft Budget stand. Departments' responsibility to outline their projects also stands. I have allocated the funds to Departments, and we have ring-fenced, on this occasion, significant amounts of funding. How Departments now spend their allocated funding is up to them.

Mrs Dodds: Thank you, Minister, for your statement. You talk about the Executive doing things differently. Ministers also need to do things differently, however. What interrogation is your Department, along with the Department of Health, conducting of the situation in which the management costs of the Belfast Health and Social Care Trust (BHSCT) of £63 million are more than the management costs of the Southern Health and Social Care Trust (SHSCT) and the Western Health and Social Care Trust (WHSCT) put together? Bureaucracy and administration should surely be managed in such a way as to allow more money to be spent on reducing waiting lists.

Mr O'Dowd: I do not have responsibility for micromanaging Departments, although I obviously have an overview of and an interest in how funding is delivered in them. We need to take a long, hard look at bureaucracy in how we deliver public services and at the number of public bodies and quangos that deliver those services. It is clear that we will continue to have significantly constrained Budgets, so every penny counts. If delivery of public services is overly bureaucratic, I therefore encourage Ministers to remove the bureaucracy and put the savings made into front-line services.

Mr Crawford: Minister, on the back of the Chief Constable's recent comments, have you given any consideration to ring-fencing funding for the PSNI?

Mr O'Dowd: Contrary to popular belief, a business case is not sitting on my desk. A business case is in the Department of Finance, where it is being appropriately scrutinised by the relevant officials, who are working with the Department of Justice and will, at the appropriate time, provide me with a report. I await the outcome of that scrutiny of the business case. When it comes to me, I will continue to engage with the Minister of Justice on supporting policing and on ensuring that investment in policing is sufficient, is delivering the safer communities that all our citizens want and is being delivered in a front-line services way. There is a process to follow — it will not be sped up by googling or doing anything else — and I will follow it.

Ms Bunting: Further to my colleague's question, the Chief Constable has indicated that the PSNI will struggle to carry out its basic functions and, indeed, some of its statutory responsibilities as a result of the Budget. I note from the Minister's statement last week that he intends to allocate £5 million to the safer communities programme and to make a £4·7 general allocation to the Department of Justice.

In light of the Chief Constable's comments, will the Minister outline how the Budget will prioritise keeping people safe, if the people tasked with doing it indicate that they cannot do that with the money allocated to them?

Mr O'Dowd: The five-year business plan presented to my Department obviously covers five years, and this would have been the first year. As far as I am aware, the amount of additional expenditure in the first year was limited and would not have had a significant impact on policing numbers or plans. As I said, there is a process to go through. I am sure that the Member will want to ensure and will want me to ensure that any bids for quite significant additional funding will be spent appropriately and will be fully required. We cannot run our public finances according to who gets the most dramatic headline on whatever day of the week it is. We have to run our public services on the basis of the Programme for Government's priorities and by ensuring that the limited public resources that we have are best utilised.

Ms McLaughlin: I thank the Minister for his statement. Minister, it is welcome to see additional funding for childcare. However, with families protesting on our streets at the weekend because of the high costs, the funding barely touches the sides. Do you agree that the Budget means that we will continue to underfund childcare in comparison with elsewhere on these islands?

Mr O'Dowd: The Executive and, indeed, the Assembly have to be commended. From a standing-still point last year, we are now spending £50 million on early years and childcare, and we have pledged an additional £5 million in June monitoring. That is £55 million from the standstill point this time last year.

Thousands of families are benefiting from the Executive's decisive action in that regard. There is more work to be done. As I said, I look forward to seeing the Opposition's alternative Budget. I will study it closely to see their suggestions. I am always keen to engage on that basis. However, it is £55 million compared with zero.

Mr Brett: I thank the Minister for his statement. The Minister will be aware of the Executive's priority to grow the economy. In his statement, he mentioned that £6·8 million had been allocated to Invest NI. Will the Finance Minister confirm whether that is a new grant support scheme or the continuation of a current scheme?

Mr O'Dowd: As I understand it, it is the continuation of a current scheme, and it fulfils projects that would not go ahead without the money. It is a welcome investment in the economy along with the skills investment.

Mr Frew: The Budget is in danger of being called the "yes, but" Budget. The Health Minister has said:

What does the Finance Minister have to say about that extraordinary language? What does that commentary do to public confidence? Who is gambling with the future of our elderly and vulnerable people? Who is performing sleight of hand here?

Mr O'Dowd: It is vital, whether you are a Minister, an MLA, a chief executive or a public servant, to be careful about the language that you use and that you do not unnecessarily raise anxiety and concern among the general public, patients and, particularly, the health service workforce. We all must act responsibly in these matters. Therefore, I caution everyone who will be on the airwaves or seeks to be on the airwaves to be extremely cautious with the language that they use.

The sentence in the Health Minister's letter that stands out to me — I commend him for it — is this:

That is the challenge for all Executive Ministers, but it is a challenge that we have to take on. We cannot simply throw our hands in the air and say, "It can't be done". We have a duty to do better.

Mr Kingston: I thank the Minister for his statement. I note that, in the welcome announcement of £100 million for more social housing, the Minister stated that, in line with that commitment, there will be investment of £105 million in waste water infrastructure. We are aware that waste water infrastructure is often the major issue with planning applications. Will the Minister impress on his party colleague, the Infrastructure Minister, the need to ensure that the investment in waste water infrastructure is allocated across all parts of the community and will stand up to scrutiny in an equality impact assessment?

Mr O'Dowd: I do not have to impress that point on the Infrastructure Minister. The Member will be aware, however, that that funding will be allocated to NI Water, which has a chief executive and a board who are ultimately responsible for how the money is spent.

Mr Durkan: Why did the Minister neglect to mention the £15·7 million DFI easement, which was raised by the Chair of the Committee, but present the reallocation of £7·7 million of that money back to DFI as a new capital allocation? The Minister laments the lack of an alternative Budget, but it is fair to say that we are seeing plenty of alternative facts.

Mr O'Dowd: If I were to go through every financial transaction and movement that occurs in the 2025-26 Budget, we would be here until midnight. I have given Members the headlines, the movements of finances and, attached to the statement, tables of all the financial transactions under the headlines.

Look, it is understandable and right that the Budget is open to question. I have no difficulty with that; in fact, I fully support it, because we end up with a better, more transparent system. However, I would like to compare it with something. I would like to compare it with the Opposition's Budget. Thus far, I am unable to do so, because you have not produced one.

Miss McAllister: Minister, I agree with your remarks: we cannot keep doing the same thing in the health service and keep getting the same negative results. We need to do things differently. Given that the Executive have ring-fenced the money for waiting lists, what engagement have you had with the Health Minister about how things might be done differently? History has taught us that, when it comes to the Department of Health and all the trusts, there is a reluctance to change.

Mr O'Dowd: I have had some engagement with the Health Minister, but the £50 million extra is on the proviso that the Minister bring forward a plan for how it will be invested. In the Health Minister's budget, £165 million is ring-fenced, and the £50 million of additional funding that I am bringing forward for him is on the proviso that he brings forward a plan for how it will be invested to tackle waiting lists. I am not challenging the Health Minister in that regard, because, in fairness to him, he is on the same page.

Mr Gaston: Does the Finance Minister dispute the Chief Constable's contention on Friday that the policing budget has reduced by 6% since policing was devolved in 2020 — to the tune of £836 million — without accounting for inflation? If not, why is he giving additional money to the Executive Office instead of to policing, when it comes to tackling violence against women and girls?

Mr O'Dowd: We can all be very thankful that policing is in a different place from where it was in 2010 and that our society is a much more settled place than it was then. That needs to be reflected when comparing policing budgets over that period. As I said to some of your colleagues, there is a business case with the Department. My officials are analysing that, as they would any business case. When it is appropriate to do so, it will be brought to my attention. I will continue to engage with the Justice Minister at that stage on how we move financing for policing forward. I am sure that, if someone were looking for an extra £200 million of very limited public resources, the Member would be the first to tell me that he expected proper process to be followed. Proper process will be followed.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Minister. That concludes questions to the Minister of Finance on his statement.

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

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: In accordance with convention, the Business Committee has not allocated a time limit for the debate.

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

I welcome the opportunity to open the debate on this incredibly important legislation. The Bill is an important step forward for our registration services.

Few things touch the lives of everyone who lives here in the way that the registration of births and deaths does. Many families have had the positive experience of registering the birth of their child, providing formal recognition of the joyful news of the arrival. Sadly, other families have had the very different experience of registering the death of a loved one or a stillbirth. Regardless of our background and whether we are young or old, births and deaths are part of our shared lived experience, and how we record them matters. As legislators, our job is to make positive change. The Bill will, with Members' approval, afford families who suffer losses early in pregnancy the same formal recognition as those who experience the death of a loved one. It will remedy disparities in birth and stillbirth registration processes for some same-sex couples. It also represents the modernisation of the registration service. It is a Bill that will impact on a great number of people whom we are here to represent, and I hope that it will gain the support of MLAs.

I will now consider the three areas of the Bill's focus in turn. First, the Bill will make permanent the temporary provisions of the Coronavirus Act 2020 that relate to the registration of deaths and stillbirths. Those temporary powers have enabled those registrations to take place remotely and provided for the electronic transfer of documents between parties. Rather than coming into a council office, grieving members of the public can make arrangements to register a death or a stillbirth from their home. They can be assured that the key documents that enable a timely burial will pass electronically between doctors, officials and undertakers. Over the last five years, that has become the normal way in which the vast majority of such registrations take place. The provisions have enabled our registration service to be more modern, more efficient and more effective, and they have enabled us to provide an empathetic service to people at a difficult and often emotionally challenging time around the death of a loved one or following the terrible circumstances of a stillbirth. It is right that we should put no new burden on grieving families and should run our public services in a way that supports them and makes their lives easier. The Bill will therefore put those temporary arrangements on a solid statutory footing; provide permanent powers that sustain remote registration and electronic transfers of documents; and end the use of the Coronavirus Act 2020 powers in the context of the registration service, which Members on all sides are, I know, keen to see.

Secondly, the Bill will provide a statutory footing for a baby loss certificate scheme. As Members on all sides will sadly be able to testify, the impact and trauma of losses early in pregnancy are significant. Estimates of how many pregnancies end during the first 24 weeks vary. The charities Sands and Tommy's suggest that there may have been around 4,000 such losses here in 2021, but, because of a lack of reporting, that could underestimate the true figure. For those families, the loss of a baby early in pregnancy is a tragedy. The very real hurt that they feel is often borne in solitary silence, with little formal recognition and little support as they navigate their grief. Under existing law, the registration service can recognise only losses during pregnancy that occur after 24 weeks: losses after that point are treated as stillbirths. However, the Bill will change that and make provision to recognise losses that occur earlier in pregnancy.

A new baby loss certificate scheme will offer the opportunity for those who have experienced a baby loss prior to 24 weeks to have their loss formally recognised. While no certificate can undo their pain and grief, the new scheme will help to support families at a very difficult time and provide a voluntary way of acknowledging and recognising their loss. It will confirm that their baby existed and can be used to start a conversation with siblings or other family members. Certificates can help them to start to navigate the grieving process. Where such certificates have been introduced, they have been widely welcomed. That support has been reflected in the large number of questions that my Department has received about the proposed scheme and in the supportive and often personal letters that have been received on the matter. I am grateful to all those who have been in touch and have, often bravely, talked about their experiences.

It is important to me that families, charities and third-sector organisations have the opportunity to shape the certificate scheme so that it meets their needs and expectations.

To that end, we will hold a public consultation on the new scheme. That consultation will help to determine the details of the scheme, including consideration of who can apply for a baby loss certificate, the time period that it will cover and the content of the certificate. Once the consultation is complete, secondary legislation will be brought forward to implement the scheme. I am grateful to the Minister of Health, whose officials have worked with those in my Department to bring forward the legislation. I look forward to working with Minister Nesbitt to specify the detail of the scheme that will follow. If those matters progress smoothly, I anticipate that the scheme will be operational by the end of the year.

Thirdly, the Bill will rectify differences in the registration process for some couples. Under current law, different birth and stillbirth registration options exist for same-sex and heterosexual couples who are neither married nor in a civil partnership. Same-sex female couples that are in that position cannot jointly register a birth or stillbirth in the same way as heterosexual couples. Some second female parents do not have the same birth and stillbirth registration options as the father in heterosexual couples. The Bill will fix those disparities, ensuring that unmarried, non-civil-partnered couples have the same choices about how to register a birth or stillbirth, regardless of whether they are a same-sex or a heterosexual couple. That change will remedy our legislation in order to ensure that there is equality in the registration process.

As I outlined, the Bill will impact on a large number of the people whom we are here to represent, often at some of the most difficult and challenging times of their life. It contains provisions that make permanent the steps that we have taken to modernise the registration services. It introduces important remedies to disparities in our birth and stillbirth processes. It provides the statutory footing that is required for a new baby loss certificate scheme. I urge Members to support the Bill, and I commend it to the Assembly.

Ms Forsythe (The Deputy Chairperson of the Committee for Finance): In the absence of Matthew O'Toole, the Chair of the Committee for Finance, who is on paternity leave, I will speak about the Committee's scrutiny of the Bill. I thank the Minister for his comments.

The Committee very much welcomes the Bill. I know that other members of the Committee will agree that it has been quite a journey to get here. However, that does not diminish the importance of the Bill or the very positive impact that it will have. Members will be aware that it was the Committee that pressed for baby loss certificates to be included in the Bill. The presence of an enabling power to bring forward the certificates is very welcome. The Committee takes its legislative scrutiny role extremely seriously and will be diligent in its approach to examining and reporting on the Bill if, as expected, the House agrees that it be referred to the Committee for consideration.

I do not plan to repeat what the Minister said about the content of the Bill other than to say that the Committee is supportive of the provisions in the Bill, which make the processes to report deaths and stillbirths and to transfer documents less onerous on all parties concerned. That is important at a time that will already be very difficult for all those concerned.

As Members will be aware, the House previously supported the introduction of baby loss certificates, and that it was the Committee that urged that they be included in the Bill.

The Committee notes that there has been no consultation on the Bill. As per normal procedure, the Committee will undertake a call for evidence on its provisions, should the Bill be referred to the Committee following the debate.

The Committee previously agreed statutory rules made under provisions of the Coronavirus Act 2020 relating to the recording of deaths and stillbirths. Those changes allowed the registration of deaths and stillbirths by telephone, without an informant's signature and the electronic transfer of registration documents between the various parties in the process. The Committee agreed at its meeting on 10 April 2024 to extend the use of the provisions of the Coronavirus Act 2020 until 24 September 2024 through SR 2024/57 on the proviso that that would be the last time that the Coronavirus Act would be used. Departmental officials indicated to the Committee at that time that they would proceed to make the changes permanent so that the continued use of the Coronavirus Act 2020 would no longer be necessary and that that could be accomplished using delegated legislation. Although the Committee was supportive, it was sceptical about whether that would be possible through the use of delegated or secondary legislation. However, the Department's initial discussions with the Departmental Solicitor's Office seem to suggest that statutory rules could be introduced under the Civil Registration Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2012, following an amendment to those regulations that would alleviate the need for primary legislation. The Committee was content for that to happen so as to allow the Department to move away from the extensions under the Coronavirus Act, which was not designed for that kind of long-term application. Due to that reassurance from the Department, the Committee considered two proposed statutory rules, and the Committee indicated at its meeting of 8 May 2024 that it was content with the proposals. The two statutory rules were, however, never laid in the Business Office.

The Committee was notified on 19 June 2024 that the Office of the Legislative Counsel had ruled, and the Departmental Solicitor's Office had subsequently agreed, that there was insufficient scope in the regulations for the changes and that primary legislation would be required to make the changes permanent. Thus, the hope that the changes could be made permanent via delegated legislation was dashed. The Committee received an urgent oral briefing on the issue from the permanent secretary at its meeting of 3 July 2024, when the Committee confirmed its disappointment in the requirement for new primary legislation, having previously outlined its scepticism over that being possible and being reassured that it was. Members went on to express concerns about the delay, which would inevitably lead to the provisions of the Coronavirus Act 2020 having to be extended again.

It was confirmed to the Committee that the Department had also looked to see whether there was any appropriate upcoming legislation that could be piggybacked on, which the Committee would have supported. However, nothing appropriate was identified, leading to the need for primary legislation. The Committee had an evidence session with the Registrar General on 11 September 2024, when members expressed regret that the changes could not be made through delegated legislation. The Committee again outlined its disappointment over the further extension of the provisions under the coronavirus legislation. The Committee also expressed its view at that time that a baby loss certificate scheme should be included in the legislation, potentially through enabling powers in the Bill. The Committee agreed at its meeting of 2 October 2024 to recommend to the Assembly the extended use of the provisions of the Coronavirus Act 2020 until 24 March 2025 through SR 2024/172.

Minister Archibald told the Committee on 27 November 2024 that the inclusion of a baby loss certificate scheme meant that legislation would require more development, further delaying the process. The Committee welcomed the inclusion of the certificates nevertheless. At its meeting of 26 February 2025, the Committee considered a further extension, with the intent to extend the provisions until 24 September 2025. The Committee agreed with the intention of the proposal, and the motion for that to be approved by the Assembly will be moved in early May. The Department has expressed to the Committee the hope that the Bill will have completed its legislative process by 24 September 2025 so that no further extensions will be required. However, while that hope is laudable, the Committee must be given appropriate time and space to undertake appropriate scrutiny. The Committee will consider a Bill timetable at its meeting this week, should the Bill be referred, and, at that point, the Committee — the Committee alone — will decide the length of extension that it requires to properly deal with the Bill and report to the House. The Committee expresses its disappointment that the provisions of the Coronavirus Act are still in effect at this stage. The powers in those regulations were only meant to be used in a time of national crisis, and the continued use of those provisions is of great concern.

The Committee supports the principles of the Bill. The ability to register deaths and stillbirths without having to attend a registration office in person is to be welcomed, and the opportunity for bereaved parents to obtain a baby loss certificate is an important step. The Committee is disappointed at the length of time that it has taken to get to this stage, especially for legislation such as this, which has the support of all parties. If the Bill passes Second Stage today, the Committee will look forward to working with the Department to ensure robust scrutiny of the Bill. As I indicated previously, the Committee welcomes the Bill and is supportive of the process today, which should ultimately see the Bill referred to the Committee for Finance for its Committee Stage.

Speaking briefly as a DUP MLA, I welcome the legislation. Increasing efficiency of a process that is used at a time when compassion is required due to death and stillbirth is very welcome, but, as per my Committee comments, it is disappointing that the legislation, which is on a simple and efficient process note, was not sitting ready to go last February. The coronavirus regulations were to make things efficient in a time of national crisis. To have to extend — repeatedly — and live under coronavirus regulations now is not where we want to be. However, the delay has enabled me and my colleague Paul Frew to recognise the Bill as an opportunity for a legislative vehicle by which to progress baby loss certificates to bring us in line with Great Britain. Our action on this in Committee, for which we had full Committee support, has enabled the potential for baby loss certificates to be introduced in Northern Ireland in this mandate rather than having to wait for stand-alone legislation to be developed at a later date.

The DUP is a pro-life party. We recognise and value every life from the moment that it is formed in the womb. In Northern Ireland, we have no recognition of the lives of babies who, devastatingly, were lost before 24 weeks, except for those women's medical records and feelings in their hearts. We welcome the introduction of baby loss certificates for families across Northern Ireland. As the Minister mentioned, many people have been in touch and are looking forward to seeing this come forward. The tales that I have heard since the Bill was introduced at First Stage the other week, have been heartbreaking. People are looking forward to this. I urge the Minister to see the Bill progress at pace, with a meaningful consultation. It is important that we take account of the consultation and that we are able to deliver for people in Northern Ireland. The DUP supports the progression of the legislation.

Mr Durkan: On behalf of the SDLP, I support the Bill on an issue about which I am passionate, and on which I have been persistent. We thank the Minister for bringing forward the Bill. I also give recognition to the former Minister of Finance who laid much of the groundwork for it.

Reform of the processes through which we manage the issuing of death certificates is long overdue. It is an issue that was communicated to the Assembly by affected families a long time ago, and it is an issue in which there has been broad consensus across the Assembly. I believe that we will see that here again today. It is fair to say that there has been a hugely positive public response to the news that this important piece of work, which will mean so much to so many, will be legislated on. The mere recognition of the loss of the life that they never got to share will mean the world to the many grieving parents whom I have spoken to.

I will speak to the provisions in the Bill surrounding baby loss certificates, and then proceed to some of the issues relating to the improvement to death and stillbirth registration. Those of us who have had a child will know that, from the moment that you get the first positive test or see the first sonogram, your entire future changes. It is a frightening and exciting frenzy as parents immediately begin to start thinking about their baby, try to decide names and think about cribs, nappies and onesies. Will it be a boy? Will it be a girl? What will its first words be? What school might they attend? What great things might they accomplish? Will they have my eyes? Will they have my smile? Will they have my hair? [Laughter.]

It is an unusual kind of grief to have that future — that life that you could have had — taken from you, to mourn not just what you have lost but everything that you were meant to have and to know that the baby that you were so excited to hold in your arms will be out of your reach forever.

What makes it worse is that that is a pain that women and their partners must often face alone. We have no way of knowing how many pregnancies end in miscarriage each year, but the most common estimate that we hear and use is that as many as one in four pregnancies could end in a miscarriage. That means that it is a sorrow that a huge section of society has endured and does endure. However, if you were to ask people across our country, "Do you know a woman who has had a miscarriage?", a significant number of people will say, "No", and fewer still might be able to say that they know a man who has lost a baby in that way.

As a society, we do not encourage people to talk about it or share our guilt. How many of us were told to keep a pregnancy secret for the first trimester just in case something went wrong and that, in that case, it would be better if no one knew? I understand that instinct entirely, but I know that it means that women are made to feel as though it is something to keep secret and to be ashamed of. It is often not until years later that women and men feel comfortable sharing their experience, and others never share it at all.

At his trial, Oscar Wilde spoke of:

Baby loss is like the grief that dare not speak its name. The Bill will not solve that — no legislation can. However, it is our sincere hope that the Bill, by creating the option of a baby loss certificate, will allow those going through a miscarriage to have some way to mark their pain; to acknowledge the loss that they have suffered; and to maybe have some degree of closure and catharsis. It is also our hope that the creation of the baby loss certificate scheme will encourage more couples to share their experience of miscarriage. The mere existence of the scheme will allow us to gather more data on the scale of the problem. That, I hope, will help further to destigmatise baby loss; show those who are going through a miscarriage that they are not alone; encourage them to tell their loved ones what happened and get the emotional support that they need; and facilitate us, as a society, to have a wider conversation about baby loss and rethink our attitudes towards it.

While we wholeheartedly support the Bill and the intention behind it, one or two matters warrant further exploration at Consideration Stage. In particular, if we look at clause 11(3)(e), we see that it empowers the Department of Finance to set fees for baby loss certificates. I would be grateful if the Minister could set out his intentions on that more clearly. Does he intend that access to a baby loss certificate will be free, as is the case across the UK, or is it the Department's intention to issue a fee in order for someone to access the scheme? If it is the latter, that would be a mistake. I understand the financial pressure that the Executive and every Department are under, and I am confident that any Minister's sole intention in attaching a fee would be to cover the projected costs of running such a sensitive scheme. However, while I do not and never would doubt the Minister's good intentions, any step to charge a fee for issuing a baby loss certificate risks being perceived as callous and may even compound grief. Neither England nor Scotland has felt the need to request any fee to access the service, and, if they can deliver that in a financially sustainable way, I see no reason why we cannot.

In the Budget sustainability plan, we have recently seen that even the smallest charge can be tied into a Department's budget. We saw hospital car parking charges and charges for Ordnance Survey maps tied into Departments' financial plans. Having a fee for baby loss certificates creates the option, no matter how repugnant I and, I am sure, everyone here would find it, for baby loss certificate fees to be seen in the future as a source of revenue. Beginning the scheme with a fee will make it much more difficult to remove it later. Once the Department begins receiving that fee money, it will inevitably play a role in its internal budgeting processes. Making the scheme free from the beginning will prevent that.

I turn now to the remaining reforms, which are common sense. Despite our differences in and around the Chamber, I am sure that we have all had a bereavement in our family. We all know the pain and grief of losing someone and the way in which lives get turned upside down and families get thrown apart. One element that does not always get spoken about, however, is that it is also a hectic and busy time. From the moment that someone dies, at a time when people are emotionally distraught, they need to begin the process of registering the death, organising and planning a funeral, paying for it and notifying relevant Departments. Following their sad passing, people may have a week to clean out a loved one's home, after which they have to value the estate and enter into a legal process around a will. That is before they even begin to look after themselves and their family, review their own needs and see what bereavement support they and others might need to access. If the deceased had next of kin or dependants, they may need to decide what support they need or see what changes they need to make to their taxes and benefits. In extreme cases, they may need to review their own immigration status. It is an overwhelming labyrinth of forms and bureaucracy that can often feel callous, given everything else that the bereaved and their family are going through. While much of that work, painful as it may be, is needed, it is a simple point of compassion to ease the burden if and when we can.

The pandemic was a brutal test for Governments, businesses and families around the world. In the midst of the shutdowns, innovative solutions had to be found to manage almost every aspect of our lives from shopping to working to socialising with friends and family. I am sure that I am not alone in being relieved that those dark and challenging times are done. It would, however, be remiss of us not to learn from elements of those solutions and ask whether they improved matters, and the Bill is one such example. For example, steps that we took during the pandemic included allowing people to give details of a death or stillbirth over the phone or digitally rather than attend in person; providing the option to share the relevant documents technologically by allowing electronic signatures for death certificates; and enabling medical professionals to transfer death or stillbirth forms. All proved not only to be common sense but to make the entire process of the registration of deaths and stillbirths more expedient and a wee bit less distressing for the families involved.

I am pleased that the Bill removes the restrictions on the right of a lesbian couple to the same rights as a heterosexual couple when registering a birth, stillbirth or baby loss. The fact that there is no provision, as there is for heterosexual couples, for the same-sex partner of a pregnant woman to register the birth of a child is just absurd. It is a relic from a darker time when the Government felt it appropriate to value one form of love or relationship over another and consider only a rigid, exclusive definition of "family". Not to allow the same-sex partner of a new mother to register a birth is to deny them their status as a parent. To say that because there is perhaps no biological connection between the child and them is to say that the woman who will feed, clothe and sit and do homework with that child is not a mother and not an equal partner in raising that child. What is more sinister and, frankly, cruel is that a unmarried same-sex partner cannot register a stillbirth. Most of us can only imagine how painful and upsetting it must be for a woman to suffer a stillbirth. In that scenario, it is only natural and human that her partner may want to take as much burden off her shoulders as she can while she physically and emotionally recovers. We understand and accept that with heterosexual couples, married or not. To deny that to same-sex couples is senseless and heartless.

That is not, however, the only area of the registration process in which lesbian couples continue to face barriers and discrimination. On 17 September last year, my office reached out to the then Minister of Finance to raise an issue about the registration of same-sex couples who have had a child through IVF. Under the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008, if a same-sex couple conceive a child through IVF in Northern Ireland, both mothers are automatically registered as parents. If, however, the IVF treatment is administered abroad, which is common, as many fertility clinics often have an international sister clinic, both parents are unable to be registered on the birth certificate. Given that obvious gap in the legislation, I am interested to hear the Minister's opinion on whether he feels that that falls within the remit of the Bill. If so, does it not make sense to fix that anomaly now, rather than having to return to the matter in follow-up legislation? The SDLP is more than happy to work with the Minister on a friendly amendment to include that among the reforms set out in the Bill or even to support a departmental amendment.

We welcome the Second Stage of this important legislation and look forward to playing a constructive role as it passes through the Assembly.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: As Question Time begins at 2.00 pm, I propose, by leave of the Assembly, to suspend the sitting until 2.00 pm. The debate will continue after the question for urgent oral answer, when the next Member to speak will be Jemma Dolan.

Mr Givan (The Minister of Education): As Minister, I do not have the power to repeal article 4(1)(c). That would be a matter for the Assembly. I am considering whether to bring any such proposals to the Executive.

Mr McReynolds: Minister, I raised the issue with you on 30 April 2024. Why has nothing changed in almost a year?

Mr Givan: It is an issue on which differing views have been expressed, particularly by those in our schools who have to navigate what can be very difficult challenges. I moved to establish a working group and invited participants to be part of that so that we can look at what guidance can be provided. The outworkings of that will provide a better understanding on which to base a decision on whether to repeal the article.

Mr Speaker: Question 2 has been withdrawn.

Mr Givan: With your permission, Mr Speaker, I will group questions 3 and 8.

I condemn the disruption caused by the recent school closures due to security concerns, and I welcome the speedy response from the PSNI. Our young people and staff should be able to attend school without concerns about their safety or security.

The Department’s building handbook specifies the use of CCTV in schools with respect to building and site security and is for the protection of school premises and grounds against vandalism and theft. The handbook also provides for an intruder-detection system and external lighting for school security purposes. For new-build schools, consultation with the PSNI crime prevention design adviser and architectural liaison officer takes place on all aspects of site and building security from an early stage of development.

If schools have concerns about their existing security infrastructure, they should submit an unavoidable minor works application, supported by a PSNI report. Guidance on security and personal safety is available on the Department of Education’s website, and the Education Authority’s health, safety and emergency planning service is also available to provide schools with information and guidance. While that guidance was originally introduced in 1997, it remains relevant and largely current. However, I am happy to commit to a review of the guidance to ensure that it remains appropriate and up to date to mitigate the risks in today’s world.

Ms D Armstrong: I thank the Minister for his response. I welcome his condemnation of the security hoaxes and the steps that he is taking. I want to press the Minister on the issue of communication with parents and stakeholders in the event of any unfortunate security alerts in the future. What steps will he advise taking in such circumstances?

Mr Givan: I thank the Member for her interest in the issue and for the question in light of the security threats that came through by email. The advice was that they were hoaxes, and schools were able to reopen.

When it comes to communication, schools are well placed to advise parents of any circumstances that may require a response from parents, including if they need to collect their children. That is a plan that schools should have in place.

Ms Mulholland: Thank you, Minister. I apologise for missing the first part of your answer. Would your Department consider putting in place any capital funds, particularly for smaller rural schools? I should have declared an interest as a parent of children who were impacted on by the school closures. Two of my children go to a school that was closed in Ballycastle. Rural schools might not necessarily have large security infrastructure and have very open sites. Will there be a capital fund for those schools?

Mr Givan: Where there is a need for any capital, that can be brought forward by way of an unavoidable minor works application. An application for funding for security measures that may need to be provided in a particular school would be considered. If a school feels that it needs some security infrastructure, I encourage it to engage with the relevant managing authority and submit an application so that it can be considered.

Ms Bunting: I am grateful to the Minister for that information. He will be aware that there are a number of entrance points to schools, particularly secondary schools. In my constituency, there is at least one school that has several buildings. The Minister has indicated that funds may be available and that schools should apply. Will he indicate how schools can apply for that associated funding for security for their estate?

Mr Givan: It is by way of an unavoidable minor works application, and that will be considered through the normal processes. Each school differs in what would need to be developed and tailored to its unique circumstances. Schools are well placed to know what is necessary by way of any capital investment in security-related equipment. They should then engage through the Education Authority and put forward that application so that it can be assessed.

Ms Hunter: Minister, understandably, those calls and emails caused a lot of stress and concern for parents. Does your Department feel, at the moment, that all our schools in Northern Ireland are adequately prepared for emergency situations, events or threats, and will you revisit the current protocols around that matter?

Mr Givan: Where there is a security incident, there should be a security policy in place where schools have a strategy setting out how to deal with a wide range of issues. Those can range from security of cash, personal property and personal safety to incidents of violence. The school's response to any incident should be led by its safety strategy. While it is not realistic to plan for every possible situation, the safety strategy should set out the appropriate responses that can be implemented in an emergency.

Mr Givan: The integrated design team for the project to improve access to St Brigid's College was appointed on 2 April 2025.

Ms Ferguson: Thank you for the update, Minister. As you are aware, the demand on the physical resources in the school is extremely challenging. For instance, when visiting the school, you see the likes of the 50-year-old toilets with no ventilation and in really bad condition; likewise, the poor condition of the changing facilities and the area for disabled parking and taxis. Can you ensure that a comprehensive approach will be taken to St Brigid's College to improve accessibility for all students?

Mr Givan: The good news is that the IDT has been appointed. As the group with the relevant expertise, it will take forward the works needed at St Brigid's, so that allows things to commence. There was a business case for the specialist provision of classrooms and associated accommodation at St Brigid's. That business case was for a five-classroom specialist provision extension at a total cost of around £4·5 million. That was received in November 2024, but the level of cost means that it is currently with my Department's economists for review before submission to my director of finance for consideration. We therefore do not have a complete timeline for the works on that particular aspect that is needed in St Brigid's, but progress is being made, and I will continue to seek to make that progress.

Mrs Guy: How will the Minister ensure that any physical works required to allow a pupil to access a new placement at that school in September 2025 will be completed before the start of the new academic year?

Mr Givan: Obviously, there are teams involved in what would be necessary to take forward particular works in the school. That is actively monitored by the Department and the Education Authority. Where there are commitments for work schemes to be completed by September, there will be effective monitoring of that. If it is not going to happen, it should be flagged up to the school and the Department.

Mr Speaker: Patsy McGlone is not in his place. I call Declan McAleer.

Mr Givan: The Council for Catholic Maintained Schools (CCMS), as the planning and managing authority for Catholic maintained schools, has indicated that it will seek to increase the admissions and enrolment numbers at Dean Maguirc College via the development proposal (DP) process under article 14 of the Education and Libraries (Northern Ireland) Order 1986. As it is a statutory process, CCMS will work with the school in that regard.

The DP process can be separated into four main phases: first, identification of need in the area planning process; secondly, the pre-publication consultation; thirdly, publication of a DP; and, fourthly, the statutory objection period leading to a decision by the Minister. I should point out that the Department’s role in the DP process commences when a proposal is published.

On 16 January 2025, the Education Authority published its second operational plan for 2024-26. Dean Maguirc College features in 'Operational Plan 2' under a short-term work stream that says:

While that work is ongoing, the school remains able to apply for temporary variations to enable it to increase its intake when there is oversubscription in the area.

Mr McAleer: I thank the Minister for his response. I should declare an interest as a former pupil, former teacher and a parent of two children who are at the school. Does the Minister have any indicative timeline for when the DP will commence and, indeed, conclude? The school was built in 1966 and is in urgent need of capital investment.

Mr Givan: I know that the Member has pursued the issue very effectively and has raised it with me on a number of occasions and continues, rightly, to do so. On 9 May 2024, I met the Council for Catholic Maintained Schools along with other elected Members, departmental officials and representatives from Dean Maguirc College to discuss the admission and enrolment numbers at the school. The CCMS subsequently indicated that it would bring forward a DP to seek to increase the admission and enrolment numbers at the school through the DP process and that it would work with the school to bring it forward.

I mentioned 'Operational Plan 2' and its reference to Dean Maguirc College. It is not possible for me to put a specific time frame on bringing forward the DP. That is a statutory process, and a number of steps need to be carried out before it can be published. The initial steps in this case have to be carried out by CCMS and then by the Education Authority. At that stage, the Department's role in the DP process begins when a proposal is published. My Department is then engaged in that process.

Mr Givan: The Priorities for Youth policy review commenced in September 2023. My Department is taking a co-design approach to the review. The review includes children and young people, the Education Authority, which is the statutory provider of youth services, youth work practitioners, the voluntary and community sector and other Departments.

My officials are gathering, reviewing and assessing evidence from a broad range of sources, including a young person's reference group; a regional advisory group; a cross-departmental group; five thematic subgroups; the project board; the Education and Training Inspectorate (ETI); relevant research reports; and other policy areas in the Department. The review findings and evidence-based policy options will be brought to me for consideration during the summer of this year. Quarterly updates on the policy review are made available on the Department's website, and the next update is scheduled for April 2025.

Mr McGrath: I thank the Minister for his answer. Inherent in the previous 'Priorities for Youth' document was the protection and enhancement of the role of those in the voluntary sector as the leaders in the delivery of youth work in our communities. I am not sure that the Education Authority actually delivered on that policy element of the previous document. Will the Minister assure us that the voluntary sector, which is delivering and is the most flexible in our communities in its ability to meet the needs of local children, will still get that prevalence and be able to deliver quality youth work?

Mr Givan: The point that Mr McGrath makes is one that I have heard repeatedly from a number of the community groups that I engage with. It is also one that I can speak to from my constituency point of view, where I see how the voluntary and community sector do excellent work on youth services. That is why I am very keen to make sure that they are enabled to do their work and that, where they can do that work, there should not be the need for statutory provision because the voluntary and community sector can do it. There will always be a role for statutory provision — absolutely — but the review is working through all the various aspects that I just outlined. Once we get to that place where there is a policy, that will be subject to a public consultation process, which will give a further opportunity for community and voluntary groups to have an input into shaping the policy.

Mr Clarke: I heard from the Minister's response about a consultation process, but is there any indication about how long it will be before there is a launch date for the policy?

Mr Givan: I have questioned my officials on this because I would like to see things expedited, but a number of voluntary and community groups have indicated that they need to get this right and that they would rather go through the detailed work. That is why the time frame is slightly longer than I would like it to be. It is hoped that there will be a launch in early 2026. The proposals need to come to me in the summer. We then need to take decisions and put them out to public consultation, and time will be needed to work through that. The objective, however, is to move towards having a launch in early 2026. The sooner all the key stakeholders can move forward on the process, the better. I want to enable the outworkings of the policy, but I am dependent on all the organisations playing their part to aid me.

Mr Mathison: I will pick up on Colin McGrath's question and your response to it in a bit more detail, Minister. When it is finally published, will the Priorities for Youth policy set out clearly the Department's policy on whether the community and voluntary sector is to be the primary delivery mechanism for youth services in Northern Ireland?

Mr Givan: I cannot predetermine the outworkings of the process that are being engaged in. I want to enable an effective youth policy. I have my own view on that, but it has to be shaped by those who are actively engaged in that important work. I have a lot of sympathy with the direction of travel that the Member indicated, but the detailed work that is under way needs to be taken forward. That process will allow me to be engaged, and we will move into a consultation process. Members of the House, along with other organisations, will be able to help shape that.

Mr Givan: My Department is operating within an extremely constrained capital budget. Within those budgetary constraints, minor works are restricted to ministerial priority 1, which refers to those works that meet inescapable statutory requirements such as health and safety, fire protection, safeguarding and statutory obligations under the Disability Discrimination Act 1995. Schemes that meet those requirements are prioritised for delivery. Timescales for delivery will vary depending on issues such as their state of readiness, including whether there is a need for planning approval; the logistics of delivery, because, for example, some projects can only be delivered when pupils are not on site, limiting the window for delivery to holiday periods, which are typically the summer months; and the availability of funding — some small-scale projects can be mopped up at the end of the financial year, if funding is available. Unlike major works or school enhancement programme projects, minor works projects are initiated almost daily in order to address inescapable concerns. The minor works programme therefore needs to include a degree of flexibility so that it can respond to emerging priorities.

Mr Tennyson: Thank you, Minister, for that answer. Bridge Integrated Primary School, which is in my constituency, submitted an unavoidable minor works application in June 2023 and has been awaiting a feasibility report and business case since then. Do you accept that school leaders' confidence in the minor works system has been shattered? Will you commit to a review in order to restore their confidence?

Mr Givan: A lot of the questions on issues with confidence are being raised by Members who created a false narrative and inaccuracies. Where there is a lack of confidence in the process, therefore, that is an issue for the Members who created it. I am absolutely confident in the processes that have been followed, so the answer to the Member's question is no, I will not commit to a review. It is a matter for others to do that, if they feel the need to review their processes. The Education Committee can carry out a review of those aspects, but the Member has asked me to initiate a review based on a false premise, and I do not have the resources available to waste my time on that.

Mr Buckley: The Minister is absolutely right to highlight the fact that the biggest undermining of confidence comes from false information from democratically elected Members in the Chamber. Will the Minister confirm again that the works are being allocated to priority 1 cases and, perhaps, set out further context for why that is the case?

Mr Givan: I can confirm that it is around priority 1 cases. I outlined the reason for that, which is to meet inescapable statutory requirements such as health and safety, fire protection, safeguarding and statutory obligations under the Disability Discrimination Act. Projects are also progressing to provide the minimum accommodation required to implement approved development proposals. As Members will appreciate, the Department is operating within an extremely constrained capital budget. Decisions have necessarily been taken to direct available investment to keep schools open, keep pupils safe and provide education access for the most vulnerable.

I very much want to fund more than just the school that Mr Tennyson referred to. Many Members of the House bring me to their constituency to advocate on behalf of their schools. We can only spend what is available. That is dependent on the Budget allocation that my Department receives. Therefore, I encourage Members to advocate on behalf of the Department of Education and help us to put that funding into our school community rather than into a new canteen for prisoners in Magilligan. I would sooner have the funding spent in our schools. That is where the priority should be.

Mr Speaker: Question 10 has been withdrawn.

Mr Givan: In recent years, there has been an unprecedented increase in the number of children with special educational needs (SEN). Since 2019, the total number of children with statements has risen from 19,000 to 27,000 and there has been a 21% rise in the numbers of pupils attending a special school, with many schools operating at or beyond capacity.

As part of my statement to the Assembly on 30 April 2024 to announce the establishment of a SEN capital investment programme, I said that one of the four strands of the programme would focus on the development and delivery of school enhancement programme (SEP) projects at special schools. I set out that there are currently 10 SEP projects pending in special schools, and they will be prioritised and expedited for delivery. I can confirm that that does not mean that the mainstream SEP projects have been paused or placed on hold. However, at present, SEP projects at special schools have been prioritised, with resource directed to take forward those schemes. Regrettably, that has meant that the programme of mainstream projects has been prolonged. However, the EA is currently exploring options to increase its resource to take forward SEP programmes in mainstream controlled schools as soon as possible.

I can assure you that there has been no change to the policy regarding SEP. Funding continues to be available to progress SEP projects through the design stages to pre-tender. A decision to release projects to tender for a contractor will be taken on a case-by-case basis, dependent on budget availability at that time.

Mrs Dodds: I thank the Minister. It is good to hear that some of the SEP programmes in mainstream schools are still being progressed. However, progress is slow. I know that he will agree with me that many of those schools become very disheartened. They have extremely challenging accommodation needs. I am keen to for him to explore what additional resources the EA needs to progress cases. For example, Carrick Primary School in Lurgan has waited for almost 10 years for that business case. I am keen to know what more we can do to progress the issue.

Mr Givan: The Member has had me travel to Upper Bann on a number of occasions, where I have been able to see schools and SEP projects. I assure her that my Department and the Education Authority are actively working to consider how processes can be accelerated. I share the frustration that the Member has raised. I have also indicated to the EA that, where it requires additional capacity to help move these projects forward, I and my Department want to assist it. That work is under way. I want those projects to move forward. We need to get them to the point where they are sitting ready to go. Then, it is another battle to secure the funding. However, we first need those projects to be shovel-ready, then I can seek the finances. Currently, too many projects are not at that stage.

Mr Donnelly: How will the Minister ensure that the schools most in need of emergency works will be able to access them via minor works?

Mr Givan: I encourage the Member to view the significant number of applications that are considered and processed; there is a substantial volume. The Education Committee knows that, having looked into this particular issue. These are all priority 1 cases. That is indicative of the financial pressures that the school estate is under. Countless reports indicate that there needs to be much more investment in our school estate. That is what I want to see achieved. Decisions are delegated at appropriate levels in the Department and the Education Authority. The proper processes are followed to reach those decisions.

Mr Crawford: Minister, will you commit to publishing a quarterly update on SEP progress that includes which schools have been prioritised and why?

Mr Givan: It is a good point. I ask my officials to provide me with updates on the capital programme, and there is a strong argument that those could be published so that the process is transparent and people are kept informed. I am considering setting up a process to provide that information.

Mr Givan: Academic selection supports the principle of parental preference in education. It is a principle that underpins the legal foundations of the education system in Northern Ireland.

For each study that criticises academic selection, there is another that highlights the shortcomings of comprehensive education. In England, for example, the shift from selective grammar schools to comprehensive education did not improve social mobility as intended; rather, selection by ability has been replaced by selection by postcode. Work by the Centre for Economic Performance in the London School of Economics shows that poor access for economically disadvantaged groups to high-quality schools is among the reasons for low social mobility in England. The increase in house prices near high-quality schools means that, even though choice is available, poorer parents cannot make use of it because they cannot afford the inflated house prices in the catchment areas of those schools.

There is no societal, political or academic consensus on academic selection. Either we continue the same tired, old conversations, trying to socially engineer better education outcomes and setting school sectors against each other, or we focus on what the evidence tells us is important. An education system that promotes social mobility is most fundamentally one in which every child is able to attend a good school. That is why my new TransformED strategy sets out the most detailed and systematic programme of transformation in over a generation. It will make Northern Ireland a truly world-leading education system. It provides a pathway to educational excellence based on supporting effective teaching and a renewal of curriculum, assessment, qualifications and school improvement, all underpinned by a relentless focus on tackling educational disadvantage. Let us focus on building a truly high-quality school system in which all our children and young people can flourish.

Mr Durkan: We all desire the flourishing of our young people; however, you will not see many, if any, reports that say much that is good about putting children under such pressure at such a young age. Previous Ministers essentially privatised the process. Will the Minister acknowledge the role that private tuition now plays, to the extent that it has become a de facto part of it, putting so much pressure —

Mr Speaker: OK. Minister.

Mr Durkan: — on so many parents and children and creating an uneven playing field?

Mr Givan: The Member's points can be debated, and I have sympathy for some of them. The decision to abolish academic selection by the state led to the privatisation of the transfer process, so I find it ironic that some advocate greater state control. I have a lot of sympathy for that point. Some parents ask, "Why can these exams not be sat in the school environment? Why can it not be regulated by the state?". Those are points of conversation and debate. I suspect that we will not reach consensus, however, and, if I spend the next two years debating that issue, we will miss what is critical: ensuring that every child is able to access a good school. That is why I published my TransformED document, which is, at its core, about closing the attainment gap between those who come from a more socially deprived background and those who are better off, with parents who, as the Member rightly outlines, are able to engage private tuition to aid their child.

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

Mr Givan: It was announced on Friday 28 March that, following individual consultation with members, the Northern Ireland Teachers' Council (NITC) was not in a position to ratify an agreement on the management side's revised formal offer to resolve the teachers' pay dispute 2024-25. That second pay offer was rejected.

That is why I personally intervened, took control of the situation, met the trade unions and put forward a proposal that broke the deadlock. As a result of that action, our teachers are now getting the 5·5% increase, and they will get their backdated pay in May of this year. It is something that the teaching profession has very much welcomed. We continue to work on the issues that teachers have raised about workload.

Mr Speaker: We will now move on to topical questions.

Mr Givan: I agree entirely with the Member about the regrettable information that was put out in advance of what was meant to be sent later this week. The Education Authority looked into the matter and engaged with the company that was responsible, Version 1, and it has apologised. It was preparing to release the information this week, and it appears to be down to human error that the information was released in advance. That was wrong, and, as I said, Version 1 has apologised.

It created considerable distress, as there often is at this time of the year, but, if the information had not been released early, there would have been less disruption in preschool settings, because work was still being done to find resolutions. The Education Authority is working to make sure that a place is provided for every child in Northern Ireland.

Ms Hunter: I thank the Minister for his response. Given the Education Authority's recent policy change on the published admission number (PAN) and the impact of the standardisation programme, what action will the Department take to ensure transparency and fairness in preschool place allocations, particularly in rural areas such as my constituency?

Mr Givan: The Member rightly outlines how the Education Authority is responsible for allocating the PAN to providers. The allocation takes place annually and can change, and that can create instability in some of the settings. The Education Authority is, however, actively trying to manage the number of places in order to match them to the needs of our community, and it needs to make sure there is no oversupply. This year, the circumstances in which the information was communicated were not satisfactory. We are investigating in order to understand how that happened.

I accept what the Member has said, and that is why I have commissioned a review of the process used to allocate numbers to preschool and nursery providers. I have asked the EA to take forward work to look for a better way in which to operate the process, rather than Members and the Department having to deal with the issues that are brought to my attention every year.

Mr Givan: The motion on the Committee Stage extension, which will be debated later today in the House, would, if the Committee follows its inefficient approach, result in the legislation not taking effect until September 2027. It is therefore vital that Members support the amendment that has been tabled. The Committee and its Chair are absolutely wrong on the issue. Our first priority has to be hard-working families. The Committee needs to reorganise its workload, and its members need to do what they are elected to do as Members of the legislative Assembly. It needs to carry out its scrutiny work within a much more efficient time frame than it proposes and put the interests of hard-working families first. The Committee should not seek to deny the implementation of the DUP's manifesto pledge to deliver on that education issue. It should not play politics on the matter and should put hard-working families first.

Mr K Buchanan: I thank the Minister for his comprehensive response. What other options are open to the Committee for scrutinising the Bill?

Mr Givan: The Committee could work harder. The public expect this place to get on with its job. I note that, on 27 September 2024, when the consultation on the school uniform Bill went out, the Chairman of the Committee, Mr Mathison said:

I agree. It has gone on for too long, yet he wants to bring forward a proposal that would lead to legislation not taking effect for three years after he made that statement. The Alliance Party needs to sit back and ask itself why it is here. Is it here just to frustrate and delay the Assembly, or will it allow me, as a Minister, to get on with the job and deliver for hard-working families? I will support the amendment, and I trust that the Alliance Party will support it rather than frustrating the Assembly's work.

Mr Givan: I was delighted that we were able to reach an agreement on teachers' pay. It was a commitment that I wanted to deliver on. When I first came into post, a new recruit coming out of our teacher training college was paid £23,000 a year. Thanks to a DUP Education Minister, new recruits will now start on £31,650 a year. They will be paid £7,500 a year more than when I was not in this post. I am delighted that we have reached an agreement. I refer the Member to the trade unions' press releases, which I welcomed, in which they thanked me for my intervention as Education Minister. I encourage him to listen to the unions, which praised the work that I carried out.

Mr Tennyson: The Minister lives on another planet. He must not have been engaging directly with teachers and support staff recently: they are not happy with where the situation has landed. What steps will the Minister take to address the workload and caseload issues that teachers have raised?

Mr Givan: Maybe the Member is incapable of reading. He may want to go back to school so that he can read the agreement. The agreement includes 26 workload areas. That was the commitment that management side entered into with the teaching trade unions. We have not only delivered a 5·5% increase but committed to 26 areas around workload. We listened, rightly so, and I then intervened to say, "Let us set up a commission. We will appoint three members to it. It will carry out oversight, report to me and hold not just me and my Department but others to account, so that this is delivered on". As a DUP Education Minister, I have engaged, listened and delivered, and I will continue to do so.

Mr Givan: That is an important issue on which we continue to engage with the Education Authority. We believe that around 1,300 places are required to accommodate the need identified for September 2025. While the Education Authority has been working to increase the majority of the capacity across the school estate, an assumed pressure of around 400 places remains in advance of the new academic year.

Mr Clarke: That number is quite high. What steps are being taken to reduce it and allay the fears of a large number of parents?

Mr Givan: There is ongoing engagement on the issue and has been over the past week. This week, the most senior representatives of the Education Authority — the chief executive and directors — will actively meet schools in areas where need has been identified in order to provide assurances that the schools will be supported when they engage with the Education Authority to enhance the provision in their school. Some schools are concerned that they are not supported when they make provision available, so the EA is engaging in outreach work with schools. The SEN task force that was established last year will meet on 16 April. My most senior officials — the permanent secretary and deputy secretaries — will be part of that task force to make sure that, whatever support the Education Authority needs, my Department will be there, engaging with it. We need to ensure that every child who should have a place will have a place for the next academic year.

Mr Givan: Following the launch of the TransformED strategy, there have been important announcements about assessment and professional learning. Working with the Council for the Curriculum, Examinations and Assessment (CCEA), we have introduced a new system-level sample assessment in literacy and numeracy for pupils at the end of Key Stage 3. That mirrors arrangements in many high-performing jurisdictions. The new tests will involve a representative sample of around one third of schools. That will begin in March 2026 and will provide important data on how our system is performing in those areas. It is something that trade union representatives have welcomed, because the involvement of CCEA in the assessment will assist in reducing the workload of teachers.

I have also announced a new programme called "Making Best Practice, Common Practice", which aims to bridge the gap between academic research and classroom practice. TransformED contains a specific action to improve access for teachers to educational research. The Making Best Practice, Common Practice programme includes three key elements: funding for school and school clusters to support research-informed conferences; a monthly newsletter for teachers on the science of learning; and a quarterly Northern Ireland publication for teachers on wider education research.

Most critically, my officials are working on a detailed implementation plan to support delivery of the TransformED strategy over the next number of years. That will identify lead organisations and delivery mechanisms as well as funding requirements. Officials are engaging with key stakeholders to discuss the plan.

This week, I will issue a new TransformED magazine. That will keep school leaders and teachers updated each term on the programmes and reforms that are being taken forward as part of the TransformED strategy.

Mrs Dodds: Thank you, Minister. All of us in the House recognise that excellence in our schools and throughout the education system for all of our pupils is really important. What do you see as the long-term stages in the process?

Mr Givan: I concur with the Member. She is absolutely right about the importance of excellence.

The next stage of the TransformED will be a detailed implementation plan to support the delivery of the strategy over the next number of years. That will identify lead organisations and delivery mechanisms as well as funding requirements. Officials are engaging with key stakeholders to discuss the plan.

I am also delighted that the inaugural TransformED conference will be held on 8 May. That event will bring together school leaders and policymakers to provide them with an opportunity to engage directly with global education experts and learn more about the reform agenda. Speakers will include members of the international ministerial advisory group, such as Daisy Christodoulou and Tim Oates. Lucy Crehan will also present key outcomes from the strategic review of the Northern Ireland curriculum, offering a first look at potential changes that could redefine education in Northern Ireland.

The conference will be a huge event. We already have over 500 principals who will attend, and I expect that number to increase. We anticipate having 800 educationalists together on that date as we move forward our education system in Northern Ireland.

Mr Givan: The Chief Nursing Officer has been commissioning work for allied health professionals who operate in our special schools. That is an area on which I have engaged with the Health Minister, and I will continue to do so. We await a report on how that work is being taken forward, because I have heard concerns from principals about the need to have that support in our special schools.

Ms Bradshaw: Minister, given your support for the process, what support can you give to principals and the leadership in those schools while that work is being undertaken?

Mr Givan: Obviously, there is support for our special schools, but they are managing increasingly difficult medical complexities. The pupils who are coming forward, thankfully, live much longer than used to be the case as a result of advances in the medical world. However, that means that support is required in our special schools to enable the principals to, first and foremost, provide an education for those young people. That will be possible only where there is the appropriate medical support.

Some of the principals whom I have met are deeply concerned that they are reaching the point at which they will have to say to a child, "You're not able to come to the school, because your medical needs cannot be catered for". That is not a tenable position. We do not want that to be the case. That is why we need to secure the appropriate support. I am seeking to do that with the Minister of Health.

Mr O'Dowd (The Minister of Finance): With the creation of the centralised NICS HR function in 2017, the data controller for all Civil Service staff files moved to the Department of Finance. Given the security considerations for prison-grade staff, it was agreed that all live and legacy hard copies would remain in NI Prison Service headquarters.

Mr Beattie: The Minister will know that concerns have been raised with the Information Commissioner's Office about the break-in at Dundonald House by those who feel that personnel files kept there were not secure. Will the Minister outline the processes for accounting for all personnel files, be they of prison officers or anybody else from the Civil Service, particularly when in transit between your Department and the Department of Justice?

Mr O'Dowd: The Member is correct, and it is on the record: Dundonald House was accessed in recent times. However, the room containing Prison Service files was not accessed, and, even if it had been, there would have been no access to the storage facilities in which the files were held. I asked whether the room was entered and whether cabinets were opened, and the answer to both of those questions was no.

I understand that the files were transported securely, in agreement with the Prison Service, to a new location.

Mrs Dillon: Minister, given the recent break-ins at Dundonald House, will you assure us that all steps have been taken to secure it?

Mr O'Dowd: Since the break-in and further incidents of attempted unauthorised access, all locks on the entry and exit doors to Dundonald House have been changed, chains and padlocks have been put in place where access is believed to have been gained, access to the roof has been closed off and 24-hour on-site security has been put in place inside the building. The Department of Finance is also arranging for wire mesh to be installed internally to cover up the windows on the lower floors of the building to help to prevent further unauthorised entry, and it has closed the pedestrian access point adjacent to Dundonald House. The need for ongoing or further security measures at or around the building will be kept under review by my Department.

Mr O'Dowd: At the beginning of March, the Executive approved an increase in procurement control limits to reflect inflation over the past five years and to introduce greater flexibilities for public bodies. The new limits were effective immediately. The changes allow public bodies to target spending below £50,000, or £65,000 for utilities, to microbusinesses and the voluntary, community and social enterprise sector. For those contracts, public bodies can seek price checks or quotations by email. The simplification means that businesses will not be required to use the eTendersNI system, which can be seen as a barrier by those groups.

The flexibility will also ensure local accountability and allow spending decisions to be made locally. Many reports point to a risk-averse culture across the public sector. I encourage ministerial colleagues to ensure that their Departments maximise the flexibilities that the new limits create and ensure that that flexibility is replicated in their arm's-length bodies, such as schools. In addition to flexibility in procurement practices, my Department is in the process of raising the delegated limits at which Departments are required to seek approval from the Department of Finance's Supply division. Again, I encourage Ministers to review the practice in their Department to ensure that delegated limits for their arm's-length bodies are proportionate and focused on delivery.

Mr Kelly: Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire.

Will the Minister expand a little on how the new simplified procurement process helps local small businesses to access public-sector contracts?

Mr O'Dowd: I am committed to ensuring that our procurement practices are simplified and easily accessible for local businesses, particularly as 85% of businesses here have between one and nine employees, and 97% have fewer than 50 employees. The simplification of the procurement processes and practices for contracts that are below £50,000, or £65,000 for utilities, will mean that businesses will not be required to use formal tendering to provide quotations. That will make it easier for the public sector to do business and, more importantly, for businesses to bid, negotiate and work in partnership with the public sector.

Miss McAllister: Minister, during the past five years, the health trusts in Northern Ireland have spent close to £3 billion on care home contracts without going through procurement processes. What is your assessment of how that spending aligns with requirements and best practice, given that there are concerns about the lack of flexibility for those who are availing themselves of places in care homes?

Mr O'Dowd: That is a matter for the Department of Health, the Health Minister and, indeed, the Health Committee to assess and interrogate. It is important that public funds are used wisely and are accounted for. It is also important that we are getting maximum value for money and that small- and medium-sized enterprises are not ruled out of or have barriers placed in their way to accessing considerable amounts of public funding, which can make a huge difference to a small business and, therefore, to our local economy. On the detail of the Member's question, I encourage her to engage with the Department of Health.

Mr McGlone: Minister, what methods or mechanisms are available to the Department to ensure that not only proper procurement procedures but proper payment procedures are adhered to for arm's-length bodies?

Mr O'Dowd: Each procurement exercise will have its own contract. Departments should monitor those and satisfy themselves from the outset that the procurement process is being followed properly and that, as I said to the previous questioner, value for money is being achieved. The Department of Finance sets out policy on those matters. We can and will offer support to Departments when it is asked for, but we in the Department of Finance do not have an interventionist role on those matters. As I said, I am more than happy, where resources allow me, for my officials to support other Departments if and when questions arise, where queries arise on those matters or where they want advice on best practice.

Mr O'Dowd: I have had no specific engagement with the Minister for Infrastructure regarding a potential overspend by NI Water. My officials monitor each Department's spend against budget on an ongoing basis through the regular forecast out-turn processes. It is for each individual Minister to manage their budget, including that of any arm's-length body, in line with the allocation that was agreed by the Executive. I am aware of the Infrastructure Minister's statement regarding NI Water's budget position and her intention to appoint forensic accountants to investigate how NI Water has ended up in that position. That appears to be a very sensible measure, in my opinion. My officials will continue to engage with DFI officials on NI Water's position and its impact on the DFI budget, and they will remain in close contact as that investigation proceeds.

Mr Durkan: I thank the Minister for his answer. The Minister has given his view that that is a sensible way forward from the Infrastructure Minister, and I do not disagree, but is he aware of any other arm's-length bodies that have incurred similar overspends such that Departments have taken similar action in employing a forensic accountant to look at those? What can and should we be doing to improve the oversight and budgetary discipline of ALBs?

Mr O'Dowd: I will answer those in reverse order. There is a role for the Assembly in monitoring arm's-length bodies, and there is definitely a role for the Committees. It should not be the case that arm's-length bodies come into Committees and make statements and, if the statement suits the political agenda of members of the Committee, they nod in agreement and, if it does not, they shake their head in disagreement. Arm's-length bodies control and spend huge amounts of public funds. The work of Committees is very good and, I have to say, is not given enough credit. The Committees are a great way of holding those arm's-length bodies to account.

I am not aware of the use of forensic accountants by any other Department. It is a very innovative approach by the Infrastructure Minister, and, as I said, it is a reasonable measure. If other Departments feel that they should follow suit, I encourage them to do so.

Ms Ennis: The Minister indicated that he thinks that it is a sensible approach by the Infrastructure Minister, so can we take it that he agrees with the Infrastructure Minister's approach to the issue?

Mr O'Dowd: I do agree. As I said to Mr Durkan, arm's-length bodies are responsible for spending huge amounts of public funds. They also have a responsibility to live within budget, as do their chief executives or accounting officers. Their accounting officers have a responsibility to live within budget, so when an accounting officer steps forward and indicates or confirms that they cannot live within budget, the board of that arm's-length body should be very concerned in carrying out due diligence. Certainly, the Minister of the sponsoring Department should be very concerned in carrying out due diligence in that regard. In this case, the Minister has acted appropriately.

Mr O'Dowd: With your permission, Mr Speaker, I will answer questions 4, 5 and 9 together. I ask for an extra minute, if that is appropriate.

Mr Speaker: Absolutely.

Mr O'Dowd: I have made it clear to the Chief Secretary to the Treasury that we need investment in front-line services that support families, workers and communities. What we needed to see was funding for education, health and housing. It is disappointing that, instead of that, the Chancellor's spring statement provided the continuation of austerity, neglecting investment in public services and yielding benefit cuts that target some of those who need the most support.

On the impact on Executive finances, the spring statement provided the Executive with additional Barnett consequentials of £14 million in 2025-26. Of that, £12·5 million is for resource departmental expenditure limit (DEL) and £1·6 million is for capital DEL. Whilst welcome, those additional funds will not meet the many significant pressures on our budgets. Those Barnett consequentials are unhypothecated, which means that they are available to use in line with the Executive's priorities and needs. The Chancellor also announced the creation of a £3·25 billion transformation fund to support the reform of public services in England and Wales. The Barnett consequentials for allocations from that fund in 2025-26 will be notified in the Whitehall Main Estimates in June. Consequentials in further years are likely to be provided in the spending review in June.

Ms McLaughlin: Thank you for your answer. The Minister for Communities has said that he has not got enough money in his Department to mitigate the outlined cuts to the personal independence payment (PIP). Has the Minister for Communities met you to discuss the possibility of mitigations, including the provision of funding for the long-awaited anti-poverty strategy, which would help mitigate some of the far-reaching cuts?

Mr O'Dowd: I have not had a meeting with the Minister for Communities in relation to the current round of proposed cuts to welfare by Westminster. In fairness to the Communities Minister, he is awaiting further detail from Whitehall Departments on how exactly the cuts will be implemented, over what timescales they will be implemented and what impact they will have on annually managed expenditure (AME) etc.

The Member also asked about the anti-poverty strategy. There may have been correspondence between me and the Communities Minister, but I am not aware of any formal meeting during my time in post in that regard. The Executive have, rightly, invested a significant amount of money over a number of years in mitigating the worst excesses of Tory austerity. We are now dealing with Labour austerity. When you see the cuts and the scale of what is being proposed, it is very challenging to understand how we can continue to mitigate them in the time ahead.

Ms Dolan: I thank the Minister for his answers. When will phase 2 of the spending review be announced?

Mr O'Dowd: It is expected that phase 2 of the spending review will be announced in June. While it is a very welcome development, in the sense that it will enable me to deliver a three-year Budget to the Executive for resource and a four-year Budget for capital, we will be facing a significantly challenging three years as a result of the fiscal and economic policies that are being adopted by the current Administration at Westminster. However, it will allow Departments to plan ahead. Having that three-year window will be a game changer for the delivery of public services.

Mr Middleton: The Chancellor's spring statement outlined a significant increase in defence spending, with a strong emphasis on investment in areas such as AI and drone technology. Minister, given Northern Ireland's increasing and growing capabilities in those sectors, what steps are you and your Department taking to ensure that Northern Ireland businesses can effectively capitalise on increased defence expenditure?

Mr O'Dowd: I am firmly of the view that there are enough rockets, missiles, bombs and guns in the world — we do not need any more. We need more teachers, more nurses, more healthcare workers, more special needs assistants, more domiciliary care workers and more front-line staff in a range of areas. There are enough guns and bombs out there. You have only to look at your television to know that there are enough guns and bombs out there.

We need leadership on the world stage that will bring peace to the planet, in particular the poorer nations, because usually what happens is that rich nations make and sell the bombs and then drop them on poorer nations. Let us give everybody a chance and move on from the disastrous policy that is being processed and proceeded with at this time.

Mr O'Dowd: The digital inclusion team's Go ON NI programme provides free digital training sessions in libraries, community centres and hubs. Those digital skills sessions introduce digital technology to people who are not familiar with going online and support people who want to improve their online skills. In the last financial year, the programme helped nearly 3,576 people with digital training. In addition, the digital inclusion team works closely with Business in the Community (BITC) and, last month, hosted an online schools' event for Safer Internet Day, for which 3,758 pupils from 51 schools registered.

My Department is committed to maximising the number of citizens able to use online channels, including those to access public services and to access low-cost, convenient computing and digital skills training. Activity and initiatives are cross-departmental to ensure that we use technology to grow the economy, reform our public services and make life better for every citizen.

Mr Baker: Go raibh maith agat

, Minister, for your answer. You touched on the fact that the Department is working in partnership with other Departments. Is it working with more sectors to improve digital inclusion?

Mr O'Dowd: The digital inclusion unit has the aims of getting citizens online, promoting access to high-level digital skills and supporting the digital economy. It achieves that by coordinating activities and projects, creating partnerships, including with Ofcom and, as I said, libraries, and supporting communities, other Departments and the other devolved Administrations. The unit also works in partnership with the public, private and voluntary and community sectors to deliver joined-up working through the digital assets steering group.

Mr O'Dowd: With your permission, Mr Speaker, I will answer questions 7 and 12 together.

I am pleased that Professor Holtham is conducting an independent review of our level of need. That work is essential if we are to make the case to the British Government for a higher relative need factor to be included in our funding arrangements. Professor Holtham's review is ongoing, and I expect a report from him later this month in order to inform phase 2 of the spending review, which is due to conclude in June 2025.

Officials in my Department are providing technical and administrative support to Professor Holtham as he requires it. It is essential that the Executive are funded fairly and sustainably to enable us to deliver the public services that our people deserve. That is my focus and the purpose of the work.

Ms Flynn: Thanks very much. Will the Minister explain why the 124% needs-based factor should be amended?

Mr O'Dowd: It is the general view of Executive colleagues that, while it is welcome that we now receive funding at 124%, the level of need here is greater than that and that Professor Holtham's review is timely, given the spending review. It is clear that we have been underfunded for many years. I am old enough to remember that, when we used to call for more funding, we were accused of going to Downing Street with a begging bowl in our hand. It has been proven that we were, in fact, correct all along: we were underfunded.

If we are to drag our public services up to an appropriate level, we need the funding to do that. We need that funding to support those working in our public services who, despite all the pressures that are thrown at them daily, go above and beyond the call of duty to help our citizens.

Mr McMurray: Is a few months really sufficient time for a review that is so fundamental to our public finances?

Mr O'Dowd: Yes, it is. The time frame is set not by us but by the terms of the spending review. The work that has been carried out across various reports, including the work of the Fiscal Council, provides a good platform for Professor Holtham to work on. He will have access to all the data and will come to independent conclusions. The time frame is not ideal, but it is achievable.

Mr Gaston: I certainly welcome the appointment of Mr Holtham to identify the up-to-date level of need for Northern Ireland, given his work in the Assembly in the past. As part of Mr Holtham's review, will he take submissions from parties or, indeed, MLAs?

Mr O'Dowd: No. It will be largely a desk-top review of data and provisions. It will not be that type of review. The time frame would not allow for that. It will really be about accessing papers and data to bring forward the report.

Mr O'Dowd: Since the relaunch of the Back in Business scheme in May 2024, 36 businesses have benefited from the 50% rates discount, providing more than £93,000 in rate support. The Back in Business scheme aims to bring vibrancy, footfall and investment back to high streets while providing businesses with a boost at the start of their business journey, helping to support jobs and bringing long-term vacant units back into use. The scheme offers businesses a 50% rates discount for up to two years if they move into premises that were previously used for retail purposes and have been unoccupied for 12 months or more.

I am grateful to the Assembly for its continued support and for renewing the scheme last month. I urge anyone who plans to start a business or expand their existing business to consider setting up in an empty unit and availing themselves of the rate support on offer through the Back in Business scheme.

Mr McNulty: I thank the Minister for his answer. Has the Minister given any consideration to learning from the success of the Atlantic Link enterprise campus and having more enterprise zones in the North to tackle dereliction?

Mr O'Dowd: That sounds like a Department for the Economy programme, but I am more than happy to work with any Minister to see how we can support businesses, bring our high streets back and create innovative businesses and employment. I await the final draft of the cost of doing business report, which will be beneficial in the discussions.

Mr O'Dowd: There has been significant progress across the four city and growth deals, with many positive milestones achieved over the past year. The Belfast region city deal is in delivery phase, with legally binding contracts for funding, planning permission and construction commencing across many of the projects. Derry City and Strabane District Council city deal signed its deal in September 2024. The council is finalising the required deal documentation and working on legally binding contracts for the most advanced projects, which will allow funding to flow. The Causeway Coast and Glens growth deal and the Mid South West growth deal signed heads of agreement last year and are working on outline business cases to progress towards deal signing. The A4 Enniskillen bypass project, part of the Mid South West growth deal, is in delivery, as funding was made available for that project by the Executive in February 2024.

Miss Hargey: Thanks very much for your answer, Minister. What benefits will those city and growth deals deliver? Will they complement the Programme for Government and the Budget that you announced earlier today?

Mr O'Dowd: The £1·3 billion investment in the four city and growth deals will support significant shifts in many of our indicators, such as improving regional balance, creating employment opportunities and increasing productivity. Across the four deals, there are 50 projects at full business case stage. Each project will specify the benefits to be realised from it. Identified benefits will include job creation, where appropriate. One of the benefits of the city deals has been the collaboration that has taken place between the Assembly and the Executive and councils in delivering the projects. Having that local dimension at council level has been vital. The delivery of the projects will make real changes to people's daily lives, to the economy and to the well-being of citizens.

Mr O'Dowd: The General Register Office has data-sharing arrangements in place with several agencies that enable death registration data to be provided to it. Those data-sharing arrangements enable the transfer of information weekly or monthly and contain only the data items permitted by data-sharing legal powers and agreed with the organisation in the relevant data-sharing agreement. There are no arrangements in place to notify agencies and statutory bodies automatically when a death is registered. GRO officials are currently scoping out legislative pathways that will allow for increased data-sharing arrangements. However, it will take time to progress that work and put the necessary legislation in place.

Ms Bunting: I am grateful to the Minister for his answer. He has highlighted the fact that GRONI is working on the issue. He will be aware of the Tell Us Once campaign in Great Britain. It is being promoted by Marie Curie here. As chair of the all-party group (APG) on terminal illness, I am keen to see that bereaved people need to notify only one agency to ensure that they do not have to make repeated calls at a time of grief. The Minister is obviously taking it forward, but can he give us any indication of the time frame and the scoping needed for such legislation?

Mr O'Dowd: I cannot give the Member a time frame at this stage. The work is at an early stage. It is important, for the very reason that the Member gave when she spoke about Tell Us Once, to assist grieving families at that most awful of times immediately after a death. I will update the Member with more information, but I agree with the campaign's objectives.

Mr Speaker: I call Emma Sheerin.

Ms Sheerin: The Minister has just answered my question.

Mr Speaker: OK. We will move on.

Mr O'Dowd: The Member will be aware that the baby loss certificate scheme has been taken forward as quickly as possible to give bereaved families the opportunity to have formal recognition of their loss. I want all parents and families who have suffered the devastating loss of a baby to feel that their grief is recognised. The Deaths, Still-Births and Baby Loss Bill, which will provide a power to make regulations, is, as the Member is aware, being discussed at its Second Stage in the Assembly today.

Mr Gildernew: I thank the Minister. I am aware that he will be dealing with the issue in more detail later, but, for now, can he outline briefly what a baby loss certificate scheme might entail?

Mr O'Dowd: The baby loss certificate scheme is intended to recognise the grief and pain that many families feel in the event of the loss of a baby in the first 24 weeks of pregnancy. Although a certificate cannot undo that suffering, the scheme will recognise and validate their loss, which is often a very private matter, in the same way in which stillbirth certificates and death certificates do. The scheme will be entirely voluntary, with no legal requirement to record the loss. The resulting certificates will have no legal standing but provide a formal means of recognising the loss and its impact.

Mr O'Dowd: I have received today a copy of the report on the cost of doing business from the Ulster University Economic Policy Centre (UUEPC), which I will consider. The study was commissioned following concerns raised in the aftermath of the British Chancellor's autumn Budget. The research has looked at the impact of labour, energy, property, transport, materials and insurance costs on sectors and by business size, as well as the VAT differential for the hospitality sector on the island. The report provides me with a strong, independent evidence base on which to present a case to Treasury ahead of the June spending review. I will also share it with my ministerial colleagues, as the impacts will be felt by employers in the private and public sectors, including voluntary, community and healthcare providers.

Ms Ní Chuilín: I appreciate that the Minister is still looking at the report, but, at this stage, can he indicate what actions he may be minded to take after his consideration of the report?

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

Mr O'Dowd: As the Member said, I literally received the report in my inbox today. I will study it closely. Obviously, we want to carry out whatever measures we can to support businesses moving forward. We already provide considerable support for businesses through our various rate relief schemes. We talked earlier about the Back in Business scheme. We will see what additional support is achievable within the limited resources available to the Executive at this time.

Mr Speaker: That concludes questions for oral answer. We now move to topical questions.

Mr O'Dowd: The Budget sets out what will be financed in this financial year. As the Member will be aware, it is aligned with the Programme for Government. I look forward to being able to present the Executive with a three-year resource Budget and a four-year capital Budget in the autumn, which will further allow the Executive to fund the priorities through the Programme for Government. As I said earlier, I believe that the next three years will continue to be very challenging financially, but the fact that we can plan for three years is a game changer.

Mr McGrath: Minister, given that just about 5% of the overall Budget deals with the priorities in the Programme for Government, which do you believe is more lacking: the overall percentage of funding available for the priorities or the ambition of the Programme for Government?

Mr O'Dowd: I find that what is lacking is an alternative from the Opposition. You cannot simply stand up any more and criticise — well, you can criticise what the Executive are doing. You should challenge what the Executive are doing, and you should question what the Executive are doing, but, it is a year in, and it is time to see some paperwork from you. [Interruption.]

It is time to see some paperwork that sets out what you would do differently. [Interruption.]

The Programme for Government sets out a realistic programme of work for the Executive. The Budget that is set out matches that, and, as I said, we will be delivering a three-year resource Budget and a four-year capital Budget in the autumn.

Mr O'Dowd: This morning, I met Fleur Anderson, the Minister of State at the NIO, to discuss the next steps in relation to the interim public-sector transformation board. I hope to be able to go out to Executive colleagues in early summer to ask for further bids in relation to the remaining funds of around £102 million. In conjunction with that, the board and TEO are studying the digital maturity projects that have been submitted. I will appoint further members to the board and will confirm the terms of reference. The work of the board continues, and the further transformation project bids will be asked for by early summer.

Ms Ennis: Thank you, Minister. I appreciate that response. How much funding has been allocated for transformation projects in the 2025-26 Budget?

Mr O'Dowd: In this financial year, around £21 million has been allocated. As the Member will know, the transformation fund has been profiled over five years. We are engaging with the Treasury around how that profiling will work and how it will match the ambitions and strategies of the transformation board and the Executive. We are confident that we will be able to match those two up.

Mr O'Dowd: I did not hear the entire interview; I heard some of it. The Member will be aware that the Justice Minister has submitted a business case to my Department. For the record, that business case is not on my desk. It is being studied by departmental officials, as is the case for any business case that comes into the Department. At the appropriate time, it will be submitted to me. Once the business case has been appropriately analysed, I will engage with the Justice Minister on the way forward.

Mr Clarke: I hear what the Minister is saying about business cases. However, in the Programme for Government, all Executive Ministers commit to addressing the shortfall in police numbers. There was an original commitment of 7,500, but the target is now 7,000. Regardless of what the business case says, what support will he give to the strong case that has been made by the Chief Constable, which is supported by evidence from across the water?

Mr O'Dowd: As I said earlier during my statement on the Budget, I am not going to set my spending priorities based on the latest headline or the most dramatic headline. If I follow that course, tomorrow somebody will have an even more dramatic headline than the one today, so I cannot simply disregard a business case. The business case is there to protect public funds. If the business case stacks up, well and good: I will then take the next step, along with the Justice Minister, on how we identify the £200 million to direct towards policing over a five-year period. Currently, that £200 million does not exist — it simply does not exist — so we will have to look at the situation over the spending period of that business plan. The spending review gives us a great opportunity to plan the way forward.

Mr Speaker: Question 4 has been withdrawn.

Mr O'Dowd: I have not yet had the opportunity to have discussions with finance Ministers from the devolved institutions. I understand that the Economy Minister is taking forward discussions with the devolved institutions in relation to the impacts of tariffs.

Mr Harvey: I thank the Minister for his answer. Has any initial work been done to establish which sectors will be worst impacted on in this part of the UK specifically?

Mr O'Dowd: Again, the Economy Minister is leading on that. I will, of course, will work closely with her on any financial concerns or pressures that are placed on our businesses. I come back to this point: we are working in significantly constrained financial times. I cannot raise expectations beyond reality.

Mr O'Dowd: I attended last week's NSMC meeting on the Special EU Programmes Body (SEUPB) as the Minister of a sponsor Department. It was a very useful engagement with my Southern counterpart and with the SEUPB on the projects and work that it is doing, which are making real differences in communities and in people's lives, supporting businesses, community projects and education projects. It has been a very important piece of work.

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

Minister, will you provide an update on the PEACE PLUS programme, please?

Mr O'Dowd: Again, it is being rolled out. The SEUPB is managing the project. Bids are being processed and hopefully funding will be issued. The PEACE programme, from its inception, has made a huge difference across all sectors and has proven to be invaluable in creating positive change across our society.

Mr Speaker: Question 7 has been withdrawn.

Mr O'Dowd: As I announced this morning, we have ring-fenced a significant amount of the Department of Health's money to tackle waiting lists. We have added £50 million to tackle waiting lists to go with the £165 million of ring-fenced funding. We have increased skills spending by £7 million, bringing it up to £15 million. We have added £15 million for special educational needs. We have ring-fenced £5 million for the protection of Lough Neagh and directed significant amounts of money towards Invest NI, through the Department for the Economy, to support and create jobs.

Ms Dolan: The Minister mentioned the money for waiting lists. Will the Department of Health benefit any further from the Budget?

Mr O'Dowd: I do not think that we will see the significant Barnett consequentials that we witnessed last year, but I suspect that there will be a flow of Barnett consequentials from the spending review in June. It will be up to the Executive to decide where that funding goes. The Health Minister is bringing a plan to the Executive for the release of the additional £50 million. I look forward to seeing that. If the Health Minister indicates that he could spend more than that on Programme for Government priorities, that is a question that will have to be put to the Executive.

Mr O'Dowd: No. I have not received a copy yet.

Mr Tennyson: Given that the independent review of funding in Wales was conducted over 18 months by a number of individuals, is the Minister absolutely confident that the "desktop review", as he referred to it earlier, is sufficient?

Mr O'Dowd: Professor Holtham, as one of the people who was involved in the review of the Wales formula, is very familiar with the process. He has a lot of casework and documentation to build on and learn from, so I am confident that he will be able to carry out the task and provide us with the independent oversight that is required.

Mr Speaker: Mr Bradley is not in his place, so that concludes Question Time to the Minister of Finance. It is very commendable, Minister, that, unlike Mr Lyons, you got through all your questions on both fronts. We congratulate you on that. Mr Givan did not quite do that. He came close on the listed questions but not the topical questions. Ministers are coming into line very well in answering questions promptly, and it is better for the Assembly when that happens.

Mr McGlone: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. It is not a point of order, it is an apology for not being in my place to ask a question earlier. You surpassed yourself, Mr Speaker, by being even more efficient than usual. My apologies that I was not there on time.

Mr Speaker: Flattery will get you nowhere, Mr McGlone. It is not too often that you are caught out.

Mr Muir (The Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs): First, I offer my sympathy to all those who have been affected by the terrible fires over the past few days and pay tribute and express thanks to the Northern Ireland Fire and Rescue Service (NIFRS) for all the work that it is doing to keep people safe.

Tackling and preventing wildfires requires close working by the relevant agencies, as well as public awareness and vigilance. Two weeks ago, my Department issued a press release, in conjunction with the Northern Ireland Fire and Rescue Service and the police, highlighting the risk of wildfires over the coming months and providing advice on how to help to prevent them. Prior to the wildfires over the past weekend, my officials issued an updated natural hazards partnership amber wildfire warning to key stakeholders in order to enable increased vigilance over the weekend. However, some of the recent fires, which were started after dark and are very difficult to catch, are, unfortunately, still happening. The dry, warm and often breezy weather is leading to conditions for wildfires, and they are severe.

As part of my Department's preparation for the current wildfire season, it deployed specialist wildfire ATVs with the Northern Ireland Fire and Rescue Service. The vehicles are located across Northern Ireland in areas that the Northern Ireland Fire and Rescue Service deems to be at the greatest risk of wildfires. The Northern Ireland Environment Agency's (NIEA) wildfire officer was also in attendance over the weekend, and I want to thank him and so many other officials in my Department. He remains on call to assist the Northern Ireland Fire and Rescue Service should it be required. The Northern Ireland Environment Agency's specialist wildfire all-terrain vehicles also remain available for use by the emergency services, and all three of those were deployed by the Northern Ireland Fire and Rescue Service over the weekend at Rostrevor, and one was used at Ben Crom.

My Department continues to support wildfire prevention work, particularly the continued implementation of the eastern Mournes wildfire project and the management of strategic wildfire control points in conjunction with the Northern Ireland Fire and Rescue Service and the Mourne Heritage Trust. In essence, those points include a number that are mostly within the Mourne walls and at which vegetation is kept purposefully short to slow the rate of spread of wildfires in order to allow the Northern Ireland Fire and Rescue Service extra time to deploy appropriate personnel. Further work was planned to review and develop a wider wildfire plan for the Mournes, but unfortunately no applications were received for an associated tender that was issued in January. Officials are reviewing why no applications were received, with the intention of revising the tender and issuing a new tender for the work to commence as soon as possible. I have asked officials to expedite the strategic way forward for wildfires in Northern Ireland so that I can urgently bring it to the Executive.

Ms Forsythe: I thank the Minister for coming to the Chamber on this devastating issue, and I join him in expressing thanks to the Northern Ireland Fire and Rescue Service, our police, the Mourne Mountain Rescue Team, the Mourne Heritage Trust and others as they worked together. Over recent weeks, there have been a number of fires, and the escalation at the weekend to a major incident's being declared is incredibly concerning. My phone has not stopped from hearing about Hilltown on Saturday night, and I woke up to hear about Silent Valley and Ben Crom yesterday and heard about Slieve Donard last night. It has not stopped today, as Slieve Bearnagh and Doan are currently blazing. I welcome the progress on all the strategies, Minister, but I ask you to take urgent action, because our mountains are on fire. I will go home to that again this evening. The people who have been in touch with me today are extremely stressed. Do you support the calls for helicopter support and further support being given to the Northern Ireland Fire and Rescue Service to deal with the fire as it continues to blaze?

Mr Muir: Thank you, Diane. Yesterday and today, I spoke to the Health Minister, who has overall responsibility for the Fire and Rescue Service, and we will remain in close liaison. I will take the points that you raised to Mike, the Health Minister.

All of us in the Chamber and in society have a role to play in this matter. If we are aware of anyone or have any information whatsoever about the deliberate and malicious setting of the fires, we owe it to ourselves, to wider society and to the environment to report it to the police or, if we do not feel capable of doing that, to Crimestoppers. I know that that may be difficult, because we may be reporting a neighbour, but we need to bring the culprits to justice.

Ms Ennis: I appreciate the Minister's being here to respond on this important matter. Will the Minister review the DAERA regulations on the burn period, which allow burning in the countryside up to 14 April, given that we are in bird-nesting season, with many birds nesting in the Mournes, and that the existing regulations, procedures and safeguards are clearly ineffective?

Mr Muir: Thank you for that important question. It is important that I say that anyone who deliberately and maliciously lights fires in the countryside should be held to account. I am blind to the culprits, but I am also aware of the concerns about the burn period. Today, I urge everyone to refrain from using the last week of the period for prescribed burning in Northern Ireland. I know that there is a week left, but I ask people to draw it to a halt today because of the significant impact that these incidents are having on the Northern Ireland Fire and Rescue Service and its resources and on the risk to lives, livelihoods and our environment.

I hope to bring a strategic way forward on wildfires to the Executive very soon. In that, I will request that we consult on a different approach to burn periods in Northern Ireland. I am very conscious of the situation in the South, where it ends six weeks earlier than it does here. We need to consider that, and, alongside that, we need to look at better upland management for Northern Ireland. We have to change what we are doing here. I know that that will be difficult for people, but we cannot continue in the current way.

Mr McGrath: I echo the remarks that were made about the work of the Fire and Rescue Service over the weekend. It was absolutely pushed to its limits and did a sterling job to try to help our natural environment.

Four years ago, we had a serious issue, and one of the only things faster than the Fire and Rescue Service was the Sinn Féin Finance Minister and the Sinn Féin MP for the area calling for all sorts, from an innovation hub, to a fire management plan, a strategic wildfire group and a wildfire stakeholder forum. Does the Minister feel that he has enough money to deliver the interventions that are required so that this does not become an annual event for us?

Mr Muir: Finances are always a challenge for my Department. The Fiscal Council set that out with regard to the budgetary settlement for my Department.

I say one thing about this: we are facing a very serious situation. I worry that, if these fires do not stop, lives will be lost. There is a tendency in this place to divert to blame games and finger-pointing. That does not resolve any of this. I am working in my Department and with the Health Minister. There is a cross-departmental, statutory, joined-up approach to this. I praise the work undertaken by the Fire and Rescue Service, the police, the Northern Ireland Environment Agency, the Mourne Heritage Trust and so many people who come together in relation to this. To be honest, I dread to think what would be happening if that preparedness and prompt response had not been in place. I am now receiving reports of another fire having broken out in the Mournes. It is important that I say to everyone across Northern Ireland, "Knock it on the head. Stop these fires."

Mr McMurray: I associate myself with some of the comments already made, especially in paying tribute to and giving thanks for the Northern Ireland Fire and Rescue Service, all the associated agencies involved and individuals. I also echo what the Minister has said. I have worked in the Mournes and been there, and I know that it is just a matter of time before loss of life happens. Some 53 weeks ago, I was camping in the forest just across the road from where the Hilltown fire was. I dread to think what could have happened, given how these fires spread. They are not wildfires, they are fires.

Mr Speaker: Can we have a question?

Mr McMurray: Will the Minister come to South Down and meet residents to discuss the impact of these fires?

Mr Muir: Thank you, Andy, for your question. I will answer in two parts. Let us call this what it is: rural arson. If it does not stop, we will have homes burnt down, people killed and serious environmental consequences beyond those that we have seen in recent days and weeks. The situation that is unfolding is really concerning.

I am happy to meet residents. I plan to go to the area this evening. As a result of the evolving situation, I will not go anywhere near the wildfires, because it is important that I do not divert resources away from the Northern Ireland Fire and Rescue Service. Therefore, I will keep well away from the scene, and I encourage others to do likewise, because we need to let the Fire and Rescue Service get on with the job. I will meet residents much further away from the scene. It is important to give thanks to the Northern Ireland Fire and Rescue Service and let it get on with the job, which is extremely challenging.

Mr Buckley: We all, across the House, share the sense of concern about the fires in the Mournes. The Mournes is a place of natural beauty, which many constituents and, indeed, Members, enjoy on a regular basis. I commend the Minister on the cross-departmental aspect of his response. However, the Minister knows that adequate management of the countryside in relation to the Mournes is required, particularly from farmers. There are those who have lived in that environment for their entire lives who, whether though burning or management of the land, responsibly and successfully look after and manage it. I ask the Minister whether these fires are arson, as in careless behaviour from those who go to the Mournes, or is the Minister concerned about the farmers themselves? I am just fearful that sometimes the message can become mixed, affecting who will be blamed.

Mr Muir: I do not want to get involved in any particular blame game. The only way that we can go forward and know the exact cause of this is when we get people in front of a court. Regardless of who is responsible for this, if anyone knows any information, they should lift the phone and ring the police or Crimestoppers. For people's actions in the countryside, there is guidance as to what you should and should not do there. I will make it simple: do not light any fires. Stop them today.

Dr Aiken: Of course, my party associates itself with the good work of the Northern Ireland Fire and Rescue Service. What is the Minister doing to ensure that farmers who are affected by the fires are being supported, particularly as the situation seems to recur?

Mr Muir: We are doing all we can. [Inaudible.]

I hear Mr Buckley chuntering from a sedentary position. The situation in the countryside is really serious. The impact on Fire and Rescue Service personnel and resources is significant. I will be clear: the situation that is unfolding is really quite concerning. I say to people that it is important that we do all that we can to ensure that we do not have any more incidents in our countryside.

I am doing all that I can to support the people who are affected by this. We do a lot of engagement with non-governmental organisations, which we also fund. The Mourne Heritage Trust is an example of that, as we give it grant support. I will be meeting it this evening because it plays a critical role, and we will continue to support it. I thank everyone who is working on the issue.

Mr Speaker: Minister, your task is to answer questions, and my task is to step in when Members overstep the mark.

Mr Blair: I turn to the practicalities of tackling the fires in situ. The fires, which are often started by humans, whatever the means, destroy our natural environment. What difference has been made by the specialist equipment deployed by the Northern Ireland Environment Agency in tackling the fires?

Mr Muir: The Northern Ireland Environment Agency has specialist ATVs that have been upgraded with additional equipment, including a portable pump. Those vehicles are pre-positioned at the following locations, or rather, this is where they are meant to be, as they are probably out and about at present: Ballycastle, Coleraine and Omagh fire stations and Sprucefield police station. Their deployment has proved to be invaluable, especially to the Northern Ireland Fire and Rescue Service, and I thank the Northern Ireland Environment Agency for its planning and for the deployment of the vehicles.

Mr McNulty: In the past week, there have been fires other than those in the Mournes. In south Armagh, there were fires in Fathom and in Dromintee. About five years ago, there was a serious forest fire on Slieve Gullion. The Irish Air Corps was engaged to pick up water from Camlough lake and drop deluges on the fire, helping to quell the flames effectively. Has the Minister been in contact with the Irish Air Corps about the Mournes fire?

Mr Muir: I thank the Member. He rightly points out that the fires are not just in the Mournes. There have also been fires in Donegal, for example, and in Galloway in Scotland, so the issue goes beyond Northern Ireland. I will pick up the Member's point and raise it with the Health Minister. I am answering questions as Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs, but we need to work together, and I will speak to the Minister of Health because he has responsibility for the Fire and Rescue Service.

Miss McAllister: In my constituency, we sometimes have fires on the Cave Hill that cause damage to a much lesser extent; I cannot imagine the damage that is caused by the fires in the Mournes. When can an assessment of the environmental damage take place? Where the fires have gone out, has that already been done?

Mr Muir: We will do that in the fullness of time. In many cases, the fires are in designated sites. They are jewels in the crown of our nature and biodiversity, and they are being destroyed. That is the real worry for me: it is not just about the risk to lives and livelihoods and to farms and houses but about the implications for our environment. In due course, we will calculate the impact on our environment.

It does not need to be like this. We need to get control of it, and I am really worried by the weather forecast for the days ahead.

Mr Speaker: That concludes the question for urgent oral answer.

Mr Gaston: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. On 24 March, I reminded the House of your remarks on 18 February to the Member for North Belfast Mr Brett. You said, in reference to Freedom of Information requests:

I draw your attention to questions for written answer that were tabled in October of last year, which were about a private meeting between the Chair of the Executive Office Committee and the First Minister ahead of her giving evidence, that remain unanswered. I do so, because, on Friday past, the latest deadline imposed by the Information Commissioner on the Executive Office to furnish me with all the information that it holds about that meeting ran out. The Information Commissioner is pursuing the Executive Office for breaching the Freedom of Information Act 2000. What can you do, Mr Speaker, when the First Minister and deputy First Minister ignore their duties to the House under our rules, namely Standing Order 20, which requires Ministers to answer questions for priority written answer within two days, not six months?

Mr Speaker: I urge Ministers to respond within the appropriate timescales. Those are set out for Ministers, and, ultimately, there is zero excuse for not responding to questions within a reasonable time frame. It may be the case that, if you ask a question for priority written answer but do not get a response in three days, there is a reasonable excuse for that, but there is no reasonable excuse for taking months.

Information held by Ministers that could be made available to the public should be made available to the public. There should be no effort to withhold that information from the public. I am clear on that issue.

Mr Buckley: Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. It appears that the Justice Minister is also reluctant to answer serious questions of public concern about the Police Ombudsman and, indeed, wider policing matters. May I ask the Speaker to rule on that and to advise how Members of this democratically elected House can get answers to questions on issues that are rightly of huge concern to many of our constituents? We are getting no answers via the Chamber.

Mr Speaker: In my ruling last year, I set it out clearly that Ministers have a duty to comply with requests for information from the Assembly and that it is not in order for Ministers to respond to Assembly questions by telling a Member to approach an arm's-length body (ALB) directly. I recognise that there are different accountability measures and mechanisms for the PSNI and the Public Prosecution Service (PPS). Therefore, while I understand that the Minister may not be able to answer every question about the PSNI and PPS — I clarify that I said "every question" — if she holds the information, she should answer the question and not refer the Member to the PSNI and the PPS. There will be occasions when she does not hold the information, and we will make exceptions for that. However, she is accountable to the Assembly for all other ALBs and non-departmental public bodies (NDPBs), including the Northern Ireland Policing Board (NIPB) and the Office of the Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland.

The 'Management Statement/Financial Memorandum for the NIPB', states, under "Responsibilities and Accountability":

and, most importantly —

Another associated document is the management statement for the Office of the Police Ombudsman, which states:

including —

There is absolute clarity. Ministers, be it TEO Ministers or the Justice Minister, should be clear that they need to respond to the Chamber in a timely and respectful fashion and must not be discourteous to the House.

Mr Buckley: Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. Thank you for that detailed ruling. I take it from the response, which is clear, that there have been occasions when the Justice Minister has not furnished Members with details subsequent to questions asked in the Chamber. First, will the Speaker undertake to ensure that his correspondence is directed to the Justice Minister? Secondly, will the Speaker, please, give clarity on what action the Chair can take if the ruling is ignored in the future?

Mr Speaker: In all these things, we expect Ministers to be respectful of the rulings of the Speaker's Office, because the Speaker's Office is here to facilitate the Assembly, which is what puts Ministers in place in the first instance. I would anticipate from my experience that, when such an issue is raised, the Minister's private office will bring Hansard to the Minister and the Minister will have the opportunity to read what has been said. Where Standing Orders are not observed by Ministers, something more needs to be done. We will give them the opportunity to reflect on those issues at this point. However, if the issue continues to be raised — I am getting a little fed up with it being raised: not with the Members who are raising it but because they are having to raise it — we will have to see what further can be done.

Miss McAllister: Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker, I thank you for your response to the point of order from the DUP Member, but will you also direct the correspondence to all members of the Executive? In particular, I think of the Minister for Communities, who often responds to questions by directing Members to the Housing Executive. I also think of the Minister of Education, about whom the same can be said regarding the Education Authority.

I also highlight the fact that, in your well-prepared response to the Member, Mr Speaker, the information on the Policing Board that you relayed did not mention the PSNI's operational independence. The Policing Board is the authority that holds the police to account. Will you remind the DUP that three of its Members sit on the Policing Board? They should be well equipped to ask questions there and should get answers from the Chief Constable.

Mr Speaker: You are coming close to questioning the Speaker's ruling. Nonetheless, Mr Gaston had the courtesy to call with me in the first place to indicate that he would be raising a point of order, so I had that understanding. The door is open for Members to call into my office if they wish to raise a point of order. If they do so, they will get to ask a point of order on which staff have carried out some research.

I quoted the management practices that are expected. I will not stand for excuses from any Minister. The information that was quoted to you about what is expected of Ministers is clear. Mr Lyons was the first Minister who fell foul of a ruling on the matter, followed, I think, by Mr O'Dowd. I have not subsequently had complaints about them. If there are complaints about them, I will certainly deal with them in the same manner as I would for any other Minister. I have an expectation that Ministers will answer questions in the House, irrespective of which party they belong to, because the House has a duty to hold them to account and I have a duty to ensure that Members get answers to their questions, because, ultimately, they are accountable to the public.

We need to respect the fact that we hold public office. It does not matter whether you are a Back-Bench MLA, the First Minister or the deputy First Minister: you are still accountable to the Northern Ireland public.

We will now return to the debate that was taking place before Question Time.

Ms Dolan: I welcome the progress of the Bill, which will make permanent the temporary relaxations for registering a death or stillbirth that were introduced during the pandemic and will enable the creation of a baby loss certificate scheme.

The electronic transfer of documentation is something that many of us take for granted in the workplace and in our personal life. While the changes were initially necessitated by COVID-19, they are now considered to be a normal registration process and have been viewed as positive by stakeholders, the public and funeral directors. The development of a baby loss certificate scheme will give families the opportunity to get formal recognition of their heartbreaking loss and will send a clear message to parents who have lost a baby prior to 24 weeks that their love and grief are real and they are not alone. The introduction of baby loss certificates will be not merely a bureaucratic change but a compassionate acknowledgement of the profound loss experienced by parents.

Ensuring equality for registering births and stillbirths for same-sex couples is also an important aspect of the Bill and will ensure that they can register in the same manner as opposite-sex parents can. I support the Bill's progression.

Ms K Armstrong: I thank the Minister of Finance for moving the Second Stage of the Deaths, Still-Births and Baby Loss Bill. I certainly welcome the Bill. Its aim, as outlined in the explanatory and financial memorandum (EFM) is:

Importantly, the Bill provides a legislative basis for the introduction of a baby loss certificate scheme in Northern Ireland. The scheme aims to provide formal recognition for parents who have experienced the heartbreaking loss of a baby before 24 weeks of pregnancy.

I declare an interest, as I am one of the parents who has grieved such a loss — for me, it was of 13 children — through miscarriage. On behalf of all the many parents whom I have met over the years who have been through miscarriage, I appreciate the formal recognition that will be given to us through the provision of a baby loss certificate that our babies existed.

Currently, under existing legislation, the death of a baby is officially acknowledged only if it occurs after the twenty-fourth week of pregnancy. That leaves many parents without formal recognition of their loss. It compounds grief and the sense of isolation. Recognising that gap, the then Finance Minister, Dr Caoimhe Archibald, and the Health Minister, Mike Nesbitt, committed to working together to implement a baby loss certificate scheme; indeed, Minister Archibald stated at that time:

She further emphasised that her Department would introduce new legislation to enable the scheme in collaboration with the Department of Health. The Health Minister, Mike Nesbitt, echoed that sentiment and acknowledged the profound impact of pregnancy and baby loss on parents. He highlighted the vital role of bereavement midwives in supporting families through such tragedies and expressed his commitment to progressing the necessary work to establish the baby loss certificate scheme as soon as possible.

The importance of the scheme was further recognised by the Northern Ireland Assembly's Finance Committee, which called for baby loss certificates to be recognised in law. The Committee emphasised that such certificates are crucial for parents who lose a child in the early stages of pregnancy and provide the means to acknowledge and memorialise their loss. The Committee has expressed readiness to work with the relevant Departments to expedite that change, and I welcome Diane Forsythe MLA's comments earlier in the debate about the consultation period that will be brought forward by the Committee for Finance on the matter.

While the commitment across the House is clear, there remains a need for clarification of when the regulations for the issuance of baby loss certificates will be brought forward. Ministers have expressed their dedication to implementing the scheme promptly, but, as of now, a specific timeline has not been provided. It is imperative that the Departments concerned communicate a clear schedule to ensure that grieving parents can access that vital recognition without undue delay.

Mr Frew: I thank the Member for giving way. I also thank her for outlining her experiences in this regard and for her contributions to the House on topics such as this. She talks about a timeline for the introduction of baby loss certificates, and the Minister has stated, along with the Health Minister, that he hopes to have baby loss certificates enacted by the end of this year. Does the Member not think that that is really ambitious, given that we are only at the Bill's Second Stage and that the Bill only enables the Department to bring forward secondary legislation?

Ms K Armstrong: I thank the Member. I welcome the ambition, because having parents who experience stillbirths and those who have miscarriages on a separate path is difficult. The systems are already in place for people to get their certificate for death and for stillbirth. It may take a bit of time, but there are enough people out there who want this so badly that they will certainly work with the Department. I intend to work with the Department and with the Committee as they take that through.

The devil is in the detail on this one, because it is important that, like in England, baby loss certificates are not time-limited from when the loss occurred. I have had the — it is hard to describe it — opportunity, I suppose, to stand in St Anne's Cathedral and St Peter's Cathedral in Belfast surrounded by parents who come together annually to think about the children whom they have lost. I could stand in those churches with parents who are in their 80s, parents who are in their teens and parents who are devastated. They could be with their other children. For many of us, no matter how long ago it was, it is important that there is not a time limit put on that so that we can, at last, get a certificate that acknowledges that our children were here, even for a very short time, whether that is weeks or months.

Mr Durkan: I thank the Member for giving way. I agree entirely with her outlook on the timescale and the backdating, if you like, of the certificates. She referred to the fact that, in England, there is no limit. She will, I am sure, be aware that, at the outset, there was a limit. However, they soon saw the error of their ways, if you like. It is the same in Wales, where, I believe, they sought to remove that limit. Does she agree that it would be best not to put a limit in to begin with?

Ms K Armstrong: I absolutely do. It comes back to the tone that has been taken in the debate. I very much thank the Minister of Finance for how he spoke about the issue when he made his opening remarks and moved the Second Stage. It is a very sensitive and difficult subject for so many people. We need to get it right, but we need to have ambition to legislate as quickly as possible. Having no time limit will allow those who experienced their loss some time ago to have their children recognised in the same way as somebody who experienced their loss more recently, such as in the past year.

Other issues about the certificates include the wording used, and how they will be produced. I am very grateful that digital registration and the digital production of those certificates is possible. Some parents have difficulty with the language that is used about the loss of their child. Some do not want to hear the word "miscarriage" and would rather hear words such as "born asleep". Others want to talk about the day that their baby died. It is very difficult for parents who have been through baby loss earlier than 24 weeks of pregnancy. It would be really helpful if, as part of the consultation, we consider options for parents when it comes to how they wish that recognition to be voluntarily recorded on those certificates. Being as flexible as possible with those certificates will cater for people who have been suffering grief for many years, very few years, or even months. It will also cater for parents who have difficulty with the language to have the appropriate language on their certificate. What if, for instance, the certificates were to say, "Tick a box to say what gender your child was"? I do not know what gender my children were because they passed away so early in pregnancy. I received a positive pregnancy test, but I do not know whether they were girls or boys. I can dream about what their gender may have been, but it would have been very difficult to have to put down the gender of a child on a baby loss certificate.

There are sensitivities, but, across the House, we have the necessary ability and the kindness to deal with them. We are, after all, all citizens of Northern Ireland. We are all in the same place. Some of us may have experienced loss. Some may know somebody who has experienced loss. It is a terrible thing, but having a certificate in your hand that acknowledges that your wee one was here, for however long or short a time it was, will be so important. Unfortunately, I have been to my local council office to register a death. My goodness, that is not a nice experience to go through. I am therefore very grateful that parents, who are probably suffering quite a bit as they grieve for their miscarried child, may be able to do that online rather than have to present themselves in person. That is a much kinder way of doing that.

Before I conclude, I say this to the Committee, the Minister and the staff: you have my best wishes, but I ask you to look after yourselves when you go through the process. Having been a bereavement counsellor for the Miscarriage Association, I know that it is very personal, very emotional and quite a difficult subject to go through. If you hear heartbreaking evidence, I ask that you take care of yourselves, because it is difficult. You will hear from people whom you never knew went through that situation. They need their voices to be heard, and you will hear them, so, please, take care of yourselves.

The introduction of the baby loss certificate scheme represents a compassionate and necessary step towards acknowledging the profound grief that is experienced by parents who lose a baby before 24 weeks of pregnancy. It is a testament to our collective commitment to supporting bereaved families and ensuring that their loss is formally recognised. Let us continue to advocate for the swift implementation of the scheme, because it will provide so much solace and validation for those of us who have suffered a loss that we would not wish on anyone else.

Miss Hargey: I thank the Minister for bringing to the House the Second Stage of this important Bill, which will see the enabling of a baby loss scheme and the production of a certificate to recognise loss prior to 24 weeks. As has been said by other Members, this is an important issue. It is welcome that we are discussing it here today. It is extremely important to those families who have experienced loss. We have heard their stories, and we have heard their ask for their sense of loss to be recognised. This legislation is a commitment to provide just that: an official recognition of the loss that they have felt.

I welcome the Minister's commitment today to engage as part of this process with the families and with the organisations that have campaigned for this change and, indeed, to engage through the Finance Committee. As the Deputy Chair said, we will do a call for evidence. We will listen to all the issues, concerns and complexities and try to craft the proper type of legislation that really meets the needs.

I welcome the making of COVID provisions permanent. As Members know from the information available, we see over 17,000 deaths and 75 stillbirth deaths registered, on average, each year. This change in the legislation will allow for those important documents to be done electronically. Again, we heard today how important it is that, when someone is going through a bereavement, the last thing that they want to be doing is traipsing down to council offices or trying to go to the different practitioners to allow that death to be registered. If we can continue the seamless transition to those documents being done electronically, that is the right thing to do.

I welcome the Minister's move to see same-sex female couples achieving equality in this scheme and allowing joint registration to take place. That inequality is an important unintended consequence of previous legislation, and an inequality is being rectified through the Bill. Again, I welcome the Second Stage of the Bill, and I look forward to working with my colleagues on the Finance Committee to ensure that we can progress this as urgently as possible and that we look at it in depth to ensure that we get legislation that is fit for purpose.

Mr Frew: I support the passing of Second Stage of the Deaths, Still-Births and Baby Loss Bill. My colleague Diane Forsythe, who spoke on behalf of the Committee, outlined very succinctly and adequately the frustrations that have been felt by the Finance Committee in the time that it has taken for the Bill to come to this point. It has been quite an eye-opening journey. We asked whether we could do this through secondary legislation. We were told that we could not, then that we could and, finally, that we could not. We then went to primary legislation. At the tail end of last summer, in September, it was decided that the Department would move on the baby loss certificate. We are thankful for that, but, of course, that led to further delay. There was then a delay with the opportunity to close the loophole on the registering of births and stillbirth deaths for same-sex couples, and we also support that. It has been quite a journey from when the Bill was in its infancy to get to where we are now.

This started off as making a piece of law — the temporary measures in the Coronavirus Act on the registration of deaths and stillbirths — permanent. I would struggle to find another aspect of the Coronavirus Act that has made a positive contribution to life. This aspect is common sense. Had there not been a pandemic, the Department should have been striving to do this anyway, so it is right and proper that this is put on a permanent footing. It is right, when we think about it, that this be done through primary legislation, because it is right and proper that it sits in statute.

We welcome all seven pages of the Bill's text. As a Committee, we will take time — not too much time — to scrutinise the Bill. There are aspects, at this Second Stage, that I want to raise with the Minister. Clause 3(6)(a) of the Bill asks:

to be substituted. Should it not read:

That is what the 1976 Order states. Maybe I am reading the 1976 Order wrongly. Maybe the words:

have already been omitted, so, in the grand scheme of things, it will not necessarily change the effect of the clause. However, if we do not get the text right and do not substitute something that should be substituted, we may have to come back and look at it at a later stage. We want to avoid that, even at this early stage. That is something that I picked up when reading the 1976 Order. I could be wrong, but I ask the Department and the Minister to take that away and look at it in case there is something that needs to be added by amendment at this stage.

Clause 6(2)(a) of the Bill removes "12(4)" from the 2012 regulations, and I do not understand why. I know that, for form 1 and 1B:

I do not understand why that is being removed. When you read on through the clause, you see that the wording is in the Bill. Maybe that is me answering my own question, but I do not know why we have had to move regulation 12(4) from regulation 16 of the 2012 regulations. Those are some points that I picked up in the early scrutiny of the Bill.

That leads me to clause 8, which is headed:

The text of that clause is:

I do not know why we have that clause. I do not know why we are amending legislation by schedule and why it is not in the Bill per se. Maybe the Minister can answer that question, if not today, when we get to Committee Stage. It seems to me that we are able to amend the two pieces of legislation — the 1976 Order and the 2012 regulations — but, when it comes to same-sex couples, we have gone to a schedule. I do not understand why we have used that vehicle.

While I am on that point, I will talk to the schedule. I understand why we are bringing this in. I agree with it, and it is needed. However, it troubles me that, at this stage, we are substituting "father" in the 2012 regulations with "other parent". I can understand why it is written like that, but that leads me to ask whether we are creating a grievance for and an inequality to a biological father. I worry about that. Whilst it is right that the other parent — the female — gets the rights and the acknowledgement that she needs and deserves for being a parent, why are we substituting what could be a biological father? In trying to right a wrong, are we creating another wrong by leaving out the biological father who may well, and should, have rights in this regard, even with the registration of births, deaths and stillbirths? I ask the Minister to take that away. I have not solidified my thoughts on this — I have not got a good enough understanding of it yet — but I wish to pursue whether we are removing a wrong and righting it in one regard but creating another wrong by leaving out the biological father.

There may be different scenarios for which way a same-sex couple has a child. I just worry that, if we substitute the word "father" with "other parent", it will create an anomaly and a blind spot in equality and rights. I ask the Minister to consider that, maybe not today but certainly as we move on in this journey.

That leads me to the certificates of baby loss. I have no doubt that everything that I have talked about will be eclipsed by the fact that the Bill will enable the Department of Finance to make, by regulation, certificates of baby loss. That will be the substance of the material that the media use when describing the Bill. Of course, the electronic registration of deaths and stillbirths has been ongoing for a couple of years. It has now been normalised, and so it should be. The Bill is really an exercise in tidying up and making what is a temporary provision permanent in law. That part of the Bill, which is still important, will probably be missed by most of the media, who will centre on the emotive issue of baby loss certificates, and that is probably right, to be fair.

We will have to be mindful of how we proceed. We had wise counsel from the Member opposite when she said that we need to protect and look after ourselves in this regard, and I fully acknowledge that. My family has suffered too with regard to miscarriage, so I get that. When we first talked about the issue and when the Committee and the DUP first pushed for the certificates of baby loss, my understanding was that, in order to ensure that there was no delay to the Bill to do away with the coronavirus extensions, we could put in an enabling clause for the certificates of baby loss. Since that decision was made in September, it has struck me that the Department could have been consulting already. The Department could have commenced a consultation in September that would have been completed by now. The Minister talked about having the certificate in place by the end of this year, but I wonder how that is even a possibility, because it may take months yet for the Bill to pass its Final Stage, and it may then take months for the Department to consult, which it should have already done, and introduce the secondary legislation. With the issues around the Bill Office with regard to the Office of the Legislative Counsel (OLC) and the Departmental Solicitor's Office (DSO), I do not know how the Minister thinks that they can produce secondary legislation so fast after the Bill has been passed by the Assembly. Let us face it: the enabling clause will not come into force until the Bill has passed, so, if the Bill does not pass until autumn this year, how will the Finance Minister produce certificates this year? It is an impossibility. Whilst it is a good provision and whilst we thank the Department, the Minister and the officials who worked on the Bill for putting in the clause to enable certificates of baby loss to be provided, I must say that it is not ambitious enough and that more should be done in the Bill to bring in certificates for baby loss. That is something that my party will explore in the weeks ahead.

I reinforce Mark Durkan's comments about charging for the certificates. When you look at the GB website, you see that the second sentence reads:

For some, that makes a big difference. It is not only about the cost of the certificate; it is about the fact that we are charging a fee for a loss that, we recognise, a family has gone through. I really worry about that mention in the Bill of charging a fee for certificates. Also, it states who may apply for a certificate. Whilst people who lose a child before 24 weeks will have the chance to have a certificate to mark that loss, there absolutely should be means for retrospective application. There may well be a cost to that, and how do you ever measure that at this stage? I worry that a fee will be applied that forces everyone to pay for the acknowledgement of the loss that they have suffered. How will that look, particularly when GB does not charge? The Minister should keep that in mind as we go forward.

I look forward to scrutinising the Bill and working on it. As most Members know, I love legislation. I love getting into the nitty-gritty of it. I love scrutinising it, turning it upside down and inside out and finding whether there are any loopholes. If there is something that we can do better, we should use the Bill as a vehicle to do that good for our people.

I commend the Bill to the House. I thank the Minister for bringing it forward and the officials for working all these months on it. Again, I look forward to scrutinising it in Committee.

Mr Tennyson: The loss of a baby during pregnancy can be a deeply traumatic experience for parents, but it is too often met in our society with silence or treated as though it is taboo. Pregnancy loss affects approximately one in four pregnancies, yet, sadly, when that occurs prior to 24 weeks, support for and acknowledgement of that loss is, as Members have said, in some cases, non-existent. We have heard repeatedly from parents who experienced loss, from the health professionals and organisations that care for them and from campaigners that much more needs to be done. I pay tribute to and thank the women, parents and campaigners, including my colleague Kellie Armstrong, who, for years, have told their personal stories with enormous courage and selflessness in pursuit of change on this important subject. That is why I support the Deaths, Still-Births and Baby Loss Bill as an important step towards a more compassionate and progressive approach to baby loss in our society.

As others have said, the Bill will make permanent the temporary provisions introduced during the COVID-19 pandemic that allowed documentation relating to deaths and stillbirths to be transmitted electronically. Since the pandemic, that has become the norm, and it is important that we make that permanent in order to consolidate the modern and more efficient interaction with the registration service that people now enjoy at the happiest as well as the saddest points in their life.

From my perspective, the most important element of the Bill is the enabling power to create regulations for a baby loss certificate scheme and finally recognise losses before 24 weeks. Whilst every family will deal with its grief differently and some may not wish to access a baby loss certificate, it is important that that option is there to provide comfort and acknowledgement of a loss for those who wish to utilise it. The scheme will bring Northern Ireland into line with Scotland and England. As other Members have mentioned, it is important that we learn from the experiences of other jurisdictions in respect of the scope and cut-off point for any certification scheme, as the initial proposals in England felt arbitrary and were met with legitimate criticism from campaigners.

I somewhat share the disappointment that we are debating an enabling function rather than a fully fledged and consulted-on scheme in a Bill. I appreciate, however, the constraints that existed when the Minister and his predecessor took office and that there has been creativity in getting us to this point. I welcome the commitment to public consultation to ensure that families and those who have been affected by baby loss can input fully into the design of the scheme.

I welcome the ambitious time frame in wanting to have the scheme up and running by the end of the year. I would be grateful if the Minister, in his response, could detail exactly what we expect the timeline to be as we move from the Bill's Final Stage to getting the secondary legislation passed and the scheme operationalised.

In addition to the provisions in respect of deaths and stillbirths, the Bill proposes to update the Civil Registration Act 2011 and the Births and Deaths Registration Order 1976 to enable a second female parent to register a stillbirth without the mother being present and to ensure that same-sex female parents can register a birth or stillbirth in the same manner as opposite-sex parents can. That is a small but incredibly important step forward for equality, ensuring that everyone, no matter their background or identity, will be treated with fairness, dignity and respect as they navigate the registration process.

Like every other Member who has spoken, I welcome and support the Bill. I look forward to engaging with it further as it progresses through the remainder of its legislative hurdles in the Assembly.

Mr Gildernew: I thank the Minister for moving the Second Stage of this hugely important Bill. It deals with an issue that, I suspect, many of us have had personal experience of in our immediate or extended families. I acknowledge Kellie's personal testimony.

A chairde

, there is nothing more devastating for expectant parents or, indeed, for siblings and the wider family than the loss of a child. It is a time of profound sadness and grief. For many parents, nothing will ever fully compensate for the loss that they have suffered. The lack of any official recognition of their loss can compound parents' grief. Under our current law, parents who experience baby loss prior to 24 weeks have no recourse to seek official recognition of their child. The Bill will change that, so that parents can apply, if they so choose, to have their baby recognised in that official way.

A baby loss certificate gives parents a chance to experience validation and dignity and, perhaps most important, to remember their child. Baby loss certificates may also help parents to begin the healing process. The certificates have been available in England and Scotland for the past year. The response from parents has been overwhelmingly positive. Parents in those jurisdictions have expressed relief and gratitude at being offered a tangible acknowledgement of their loss.

I take the opportunity to raise again the related, ongoing issue of the complete lack of paediatric pathology services in the North. Grieving parents still have to make that terribly sad journey to England, if they wish to have a post-mortem completed for their deceased child. I appreciate that the Health Minister has confirmed that he is engaging with his counterpart Minister in the South to explore the potential to improve that situation via enhanced cooperation on an all-island basis. I wish him all the best in his endeavour to get a timely resolution to an unacceptable situation.

A chairde

, this is not a political issue; it is a human issue, a family issue and a matter of empathy and respect. Today, let us stand on the side of compassion, give grieving families the dignity that they deserve and affirm together that even the shortest lives leave lasting marks. Let us support the creation of the baby loss certificate not just as a document but as a symbol of love, remembrance and healing and as a tangible indication of how we in the Assembly can make a real difference in the difficult situations faced by the families we serve.

Mr Gaston: Like all other Members, I welcome the intention behind the Bill. The loss of a baby at any stage is a devastating blow to any family and something that the mother will feel particularly deeply, having carried the child. In many instances, the loss of the children is mourned privately. For those of us who have faith in Christ, we have the consolation expressed in 2 Samuel 12. On the loss of his infant son, David said "I shall go to him". Even then, however, the experience is a sad one, as David immediately followed that statement by saying:

It is therefore right that, for parents who wish to have them, we make provision for the issuing of certificates that recognise the loss of a baby. I commend those who have campaigned to get us to this point. However, I want to make some observations about the Bill and the language that it employs.

The title of the Bill is the Deaths, Still-Births and Baby Loss Bill. Throughout the Bill, the word "baby" is used. In the Bill, a baby is never referred to as anything else. For example, it is never referred to by the cold term "fetus", nor should it be. I put it to the House that the language used in the title of the Bill and its clauses is an acknowledgement of the personhood of the unborn children who tragically never get a chance to live outside the womb. It acknowledges their value. It acknowledges their potential to have brought love and joy into the world. It acknowledges their potential to have contributed to society and to have grown up to become a great leader, a great writer or a great scientist. It acknowledges that, although they may not have become any of those things, they would still have been loved as a daughter, a sister, a wife, a mother, a son, a brother or a father.

The fact that the Bill acknowledges all those things is right, just and good, but — here we come to the uncomfortable truth contained in the Bill — if all those things are true of the child who, sadly, is stillborn, they are equally true of the 8,093 babies who have been aborted since our abortion laws were changed.

Mrs Dillon: I thank the Member for taking an intervention. It is true to say that anybody will be able to access the new certificate, and I am sure that the Member will agree that it never should be the case that one mother's pain be pitted against another mother's pain in order to prove a point, so I ask him please not to do that.

Mr Gaston: I thank the Member for her intervention. I feel a moral duty to speak out for the life of the unborn. I am pro-life, and I will take the opportunity in my brief remarks to make some of those points.

I remind the House that the floodgates on that tidal wave of the slaughter of the innocent opened only because of the Northern Ireland (Executive Formation etc) Act 2022, which is the legislation that brought us devolution for two years.

Mr Frew: I thank the Member for giving way. He raises a valid point. Before the law was changed on abortion here, an abortion could be got if the mother's life was in danger. There will still be scenarios in which abortion has to be performed, so it is right and proper that those families will be able to avail themselves of a baby loss certificate in that situation.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Mr Gaston, before you continue, I will make it clear to you and to anyone else who is thinking of intervening, that this is not a debate on abortion, and it is not going to become one. It is a respectful debate. Members have provided some very poignant examples today. The rest of the debate will continue in the same vein and will not divert to another issue.

Mr Gaston: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I will continue with my remarks. Although I regret the fact that the Bill is not wider in its scope and will not even, I believe, provide scope for tabling amendments that would address the threat to unborn babies, I welcome the fact that it does address an important issue. Shame on those who brought us back to Stormont, however. The price certainly was not worth paying for the installation of the Executive Formation Act.

In closing, I welcome the fact that Members across the House today, by the very act of voting in favour of the legislation, will be accepting, whether they care to acknowledge it, the central tenet of the pro-life argument, which is that an unborn baby is just that: an unborn baby.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): I thank the Members who have spoken in the debate. I call the Minister of Finance to conclude and make a winding-up speech on the motion.

Mr O'Dowd (The Minister of Finance): Thank you, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle.

I thank Members for their contributions to the debate on the Bill. By and large, as the Deputy Speaker said, Members' contributions were very respectful and thoughtful. It is a very sensitive subject, and I have no doubt that it has an impact on many people in the Chamber and in the Building and on those who are looking in on us.

It is important that the Executive and Assembly are seen to act on the matter. The legislation is a small step forward in the recognition of those who have lost a baby at whatever stage that might have been. As was pointed out, it removes the requirement for the Coronavirus Act. Mr Frew said that we found a piece of the Coronavirus Act that he actually agreed with, which, in itself, is a major step forward. However, it is a sensible adaptation of legislation and a sensitive piece of legislation, which allows families to deal with those scenarios in those difficult moments.

I thank the Deputy Chairperson of the Committee, who outlined the work of the Committee and the discussions that it has had thus far. She also outlined the somewhat torturous journey that the legislation has taken. I do not think that anybody expected, when we set out on this journey, that there would be so many twists and turns, but we are on the right pathway now, and we can move forward with the legislation.

Mr Durkan's contribution set out the need for and sensitivities around the legislation. On the clause that refers to charging, it is not my intention to introduce a charge. I suspect that that is a regular instalment in such legislation, but, even if a future Minister was to plan to introduce a charge, it would have to be brought before the Assembly. Therefore, the Assembly would have the final say on those matters. It is only right that we follow the examples of other jurisdictions and do not introduce a charge.

On the matter of IVF and registration, the Member will be aware that, under Westminster legislation, parents who undertake fertility treatment have different registration rights depending on their marital status and where they receive treatment. Under the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008, married or civil partner couples may name two parents on the birth certificate, irrespective of where the treatment took place. However, where those couples are neither married nor in a civil partnership, a restriction based on where the treatment took place applies. Resolving that matter is likely to require engagement with the UK Government on the HFE Act. We intend to return to that matter once the Bill has been progressed. The Member may wish to bring forward an amendment. I do not know whether it would be within the scope of the Bill, but, again, I am happy to engage with the Member further on that, and my officials will do likewise.

As for other Members' contributions, all Members referred to the personal nature of the legislation. Kellie outlined her life experience and that of so many people. People refer to it, saying, "We go through this, sometimes in silence, others not knowing, and couples suffer on their own". If we can help to ease that pain in any way with the legislation, it is a good move forward for the Assembly.

A number of Members, including Mr Frew, questioned whether we would have time to bring the scheme forward within this year. We have to be ambitious about it, and the Health Minister is keen for us to work together on it. His officials are keen to work with my officials on how we move the scheme forward. I will do everything in my power to deliver the scheme this year. It will depend on how long it takes to get the legislation through the Assembly etc, but, if we can conduct that consultation in tandem, let us do that; let us move as quickly as we possibly can.

The use of language will form part of the consultation. How to use the language and the language that is used is an important point. A number of Members raised the issue of legacy. It should be retrospective. Again, that will form part of the consultation process, but it is important that it is retrospective. There may be some technicalities and legislation around that that we may need to be conscious of, but my hope is that we have a retrospective scheme.

Mr Frew referred to various clauses. The officials have taken note and will engage with you on that, so that you have the answers in your head ahead of the Committee Stage. There are other issues that need further explanation and discussion with you, but let us look at the issues and see whether the responses that you receive are satisfactory.

I welcome the tone of the debate. Every Member who spoke was supportive of the principles of the legislation, and I look forward to working with the Committee as the legislation progresses.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): That concludes the Second Stage of the Deaths, Still-Births and Baby Loss Bill. The Bill stands referred to the Committee for Finance.

Mr Nesbitt (The Minister of Health): 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 Nesbitt: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I am seeking the Assembly's approval for the making of the draft statutory instrument (SI), which will amend the Medicines for Human Use (Clinical Trials) Regulations 2004. The aim is to improve and strengthen the UK's clinical trials legislation, with the aim of helping to make the UK the best place to research and develop safe and innovative medicines following the UK's exit from the European Union. I am grateful to have been given the opportunity to debate the regulations today. They represent the most substantial reform of UK clinical trial regulations in over two decades.

Clinical trials are vital for developing safe, effective medicines, especially for those with limited treatment options, such as the estimated three million people who are living with cancer in the United Kingdom and the 17·5 million people who are managing long-term conditions. To support innovation, our clinical trial regulations need to be flexible and proportionate. This legislation will do just that by delivering streamlined and efficient regulations, removing barriers to innovation and creating a patient-focused research environment. The reforms will support the development of new, life-changing treatments for those in need and strengthen the UK's position as a global leader in clinical trials.

I now turn to why the change is necessary and, indeed, timely. The current legislation no longer aligns with the rapid advancements in medicine and technology. We have the opportunity to create a world-class regulatory environment for clinical trials and deliver a modernised framework that supports the safe development of innovative treatments. To that end, I will outline the key aspects of the reforms. The first is risk-proportionate regulation. Regulatory requirements will align with the risk level of a clinical trial. Low-risk trials will receive faster approval through automatic authorisation without compromising patient safety. The second is future-proofing. We have removed duplicative and granular legal requirements in favour of tailored guidance, ensuring flexibility for future innovations and moving beyond a one-size-fits-all approach. The third is international alignment. The UK will remain aligned to global standards, ensuring that trial data is recognised internationally and strengthening our position as a preferred site for multinational clinical trials. The fourth is the cementing of the UK as a destination for international trials. Streamlined processes will simplify applications and deliver globally competitive approval timelines. Finally, there will be increased transparency. We want to ensure that trusted information about clinical trials is publicly available. That will be for the benefit of all.

New legal requirements will be introduced to register a clinical trial and publish a summary of results, including an easy to read summary for participants.

Those changes will build public trust in research by improving access to information about ongoing research, thus enabling informed decisions to be made.

The reforms will also bring benefits to Health and Social Care (HSC) and the wider National Health Service. Evidence shows that hospitals that undertake research have better patient outcomes and improved staff retention. Improved efficiency in conducting clinical trials will enhance research efforts and foster innovation, prevention, diagnosis and treatment across various conditions. Those conducting clinical trials will also benefit from a streamlined and risk-proportionate regulatory framework, thus reducing delays and administrative burdens. The reforms will stimulate growth in the UK's life sciences sector and position the UK as a global hub for clinical trials.

I re-emphasise that participant safety remains paramount. While the legislation streamlines processes and removes some barriers to innovation, it prioritises robust oversight of clinical trials, ensuring that the safety of trial participants is never compromised.

I am pleased to confirm that the Health Committee initially considered the policy intent of the SI at its meeting of 13 February of this year and again on 6 March, when it confirmed that it was content with clarification given by officials that the distinction drawn in the amending SI between the EU Commission directive 2003/94 in respect of Great Britain and the EU Commission delegated regulation 2017/1569 in respect of Northern Ireland would have no differential impact on clinical trials here. The Health Committee subsequently indicated at its meeting on 6 March that it was content that the draft SI be laid with the Northern Ireland Assembly Business Office to allow for today's debate. It is with the Committee's support, therefore, that I bring the SI before the wider Assembly and its Members.

I commend the motion to the Assembly.

Mr McGuigan (The Chairperson of the Committee for Health): I welcome the opportunity to confirm the Health Committee's support for the motion. The Committee recognises, as the Minister has just said, that it is the most substantial reform of clinical trials regulation here in over two decades. The Minister outlined how clinical trials are crucial to the development of safe and effective medicines, especially for those with limited treatment options. High-quality clinical trials contribute to the creation of a modern health service designed to foster innovation and deliver world-class care. Organisations that carry out clinical trials produce better outcomes for patients.

Department of Health officials briefed the Committee on the draft SI on 13 February 2025, including on key changes that will streamline clinical trial approvals, enable innovation, enhance clinical trials' transparency, enable greater risk proportionality and promote involvement in clinical trials without compromising safety standards. The regulations introduce a more flexible and proportionate regulatory framework while promoting patient safety. For example, the notification scheme introduces risk-proportionate regulation whereby low-risk trials will receive faster approval through automatic authorisation but clinical trials of a product about which there is a significant safety concern will not be eligible for notification. The new approach will reduce the time that it takes to get lower-risk clinical trials up and running without undermining patient safety. A move away from a one-size-fits-all approach reflects modern, innovative clinical trial methods.

The aim of the new transparency requirements is to reinforce public trust in clinical research and enable the wider scientific community to build on previous findings. There will be some exceptions, such as delays to protect confidential information or waivers for national security.

Departmental officials briefed the Committee on the findings of the public consultation led by the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA), which was carried out from 17 January to 14 March 2022. The Committee welcomed the fact that there was strong support for the proposals. Members noted that ensuring patient safety was an overarching theme in the responses and that there was strong support for the legislation to embed public involvement. The Committee asked the Department to comment on the MHRA's decision that it will introduce detailed guidance to support the embedding of the patient voice in the design and conduct of trials, rather than legislating for that. The Committee was advised that clinical trials are extremely tightly regulated here through complex processes. Patients who participate in clinical trials are much more closely monitored than those who receive treatment outside the context of trials, and every potential adverse event that occurs is recorded and reported. Participation in a clinical trial is associated with considerable attention being paid to safety, and the rights and well-being of the participant remain central to the regulatory framework. The Committee was advised that the involvement of patients and the public is central to research strategy and the approach to delivery of clinical trials and that patients are heavily engaged in the process. The MHRA guidelines will detail what is already commonly followed.

At the briefing on 13 February 2025, the Committee asked for clarity on the distinction drawn in the statutory instrument between the EU Commission directive 2003/94 in respect of GB and Commission delegated regulation 2017/1569 in respect of the North. The Committee noted the response from the Department on 27 February 2025. MHRA confirmed the necessity to draft the references in the SI in a way that ensured that legal references for here were aligned with the EU as required. MHRA stated that no significant operational impact on clinical trials here was anticipated and that it would issue guidance before the new regulations come into force to ensure that those who are running trials understand slight differences, mainly regarding manufacturing practice, principles and how they should be managed.

On 6 March 2025, the Committee considered the draft SI and agreed that it was content with the policy intent. On 27 March 2025, the Committee recommended that the draft SI be approved by the Assembly.

The Committee looks forward to the benefits that this significant reform will bring to the clinical trial sector here and to the improvements for patients in accessing new, life-saving, life-changing treatments.

Mr Donnelly: I welcome the opportunity to speak on the motion. Like other members of the Health Committee, I was briefed previously on the matter.
The regulations form a critical part of a framework that governs how medicines are authorised, manufactured, distributed and made available to patients in Northern Ireland. While the regulations are technical in nature, their implications are far-reaching, affecting not just clinicians but manufacturers, patients, carers and everyone who relies on timely access to safe and effective treatment. As the Minister outlined, there are advantages to patients, the health service and wider society.

As a healthcare professional, I understand the essential role that clinical trials play not only in driving innovation but in giving real patients in our communities early access to potentially life-changing treatments. In recent years, the UK has seen a sharp decline in trial activity. Between 2017 and 2021, the number of industry-led clinical trials dropped by 41%. Over that same period, patient recruitment fell by 44%. Those are not abstract figures. They represent lost opportunities, patients who waited longer for new treatments, researchers who were bogged down in bureaucracy and a system that, frankly, needs to move faster to meet modern challenges.

This legislation aims to do just that. It introduces a more proportionate and streamlined process, particularly for low-risk trials, without compromising on what matters most: patient safety and ethical standards. To put it in context, the median time to start a clinical trial in the UK is 186 days. In Germany, it is 92 days, and in France, it is 141 days. We are simply not competitive, and, in a post-Brexit landscape where collaboration is crucial, we cannot afford to fall behind. The amendments will help us cut out unnecessary delays, support our researchers and accelerate innovation. I highlight the importance of maintaining open channels of cooperation between the MHRA, the Department of Health in Northern Ireland and our local health bodies.

In the post-Brexit context, Northern Ireland finds itself in a unique regulatory position due to the Windsor framework, with elements of EU medicines law continuing to apply here. While that dual alignment can present challenges, it can also offer opportunities, particularly in ensuring continued access to EU- and UK-authorised products. However, that will work only if we have clarity, consistency and a genuine commitment to ensure that Northern Ireland is not left behind in availability or innovation.

Northern Ireland has the talent and the infrastructure to lead in this space. Our life and health sciences sector contributes £1·9 billion to our local economy, with over 250 companies exporting to more than 145 countries. Queen's University, Ulster University and our health trusts have played key roles in international research, but, to grow that, we need a regulatory environment that enables ambition.

The changes will help to make Northern Ireland an attractive, reliable place to conduct world-class trials, with benefits not just for our economy but for patients across the region. Let us not forget that clinical trials are not about future treatments; they are part of our healthcare system today. Industry research contributes £7·4 billion to the UK economy and supports more than 65,000 jobs. Patients in trials often receive earlier access to new medicines, and trials can ease pressure on the health service by offering alternative pathways for care and treatment.

The amendment represents progress: a clear and necessary modernisation of how we regulate clinical trials that will make it faster and easier to run safe, effective and ethical studies. It puts transparency and public trust at the heart of clinical research, and it gives Northern Ireland the tools to be a leader in health sciences, discovery and patient care. I support the regulations, and I urge all Members to do the same.

Mr Gaston: I have great reservations about the regulations. I say that because, having read the summary of consultation responses, I believe that profoundly serious issues about the regulations have been raised.

Question 22 of the consultation asked:

There were 1,214 responses, of which 380 — 31·3% — agreed; 660, which equates to 54·4%, disagreed; and 173 had no opinion. The main concern of individuals and organisations was that the removal of the listings would reduce transparency and introduce a deviation from international standards.

Question 17 of the consultation asked:

While the majority of the 1,181 responses agreed, a significant minority of 379 or just over 32% did not. I noted that many raised concerns that, with flexible consent provisions, participants might be unaware of what is being investigated and of the available options. That runs contrary to some of the comments that Mr McGuigan made on behalf of the Health Committee.

There were many requests for clear guidance and definitions to ensure clarity about what would be required and the different consent options available. Some contended that the guidance should be developed with suitable patient and public involvement to provide flexibility while continuing to provide assurance on safety. Since COVID, many people have rightly started to question what they are told by the Health Department and by those throughout government. In Northern Ireland, we had an Executive led by a First Minister who operated under the mantra of "Do as I say, not as I do". We operated under a lockdown philosophy that has left a generation scarred by a mental health pandemic. Yes, medicines play a vital role in the health of our society, but government should never again step over the line and try to force a medicine on people through coercive tactics. I trust that we have learned many lessons from how we dealt with the COVID pandemic.

I would be obliged if the Minister could address in his summing-up the matters that I have raised on the consultation.

Mr Donnelly: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Is this deviating from the theme of the debate?

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): That will be given consideration, Mr Donnelly. While that is being considered, it was on the general theme — it was about the consultation — but Mr Gaston has been reminded, if not by you then, now, by me, that we will stick to the main theme of the proposal.

Mr Gaston: , Mr Deputy Speaker.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): You have finished, have you?

I call the Minister to conclude and make a winding-up speech on the motion.

Mr Nesbitt: Thank you very much, Mr Deputy Speaker.

I particularly thank the Chair and the Deputy Chair of the Health Committee for their remarks. The Deputy Chair was particularly clearly well across all the detail of the issues and the importance and benefits of clinical trials. I regret Mr Gaston's remarks, because they could be interpreted as trying to undermine confidence not just in the Northern Ireland Executive but in the Department of Health and in people's view of the health services that we provide for them.

If you are going to undermine confidence, you need to back that up with evidence and not just a survey result. The clinical trials that we are doing will provide solid scientific evidence. I firmly believe that the change will help modernise and strengthen the United Kingdom's position as a global leader in clinical research, that it will support the fostering of innovation and that the highest safety standards will be maintained.

I will stop short of suggesting that we missed a trick with clinical trials, but if you speak to experts, such as Professor Ian Bruce at Queen's University or my Chief Scientific Adviser, Professor Ian Young, they will make that point. There is a lot of potential here: it is good for patients and healthcare professionals — not least for workforce retention — and it is potentially also good for the budget, and that can all be achieved under the regulations while continuing to prioritise patient safety. Once again, I commend the regulations to the House.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Members can take their ease to allow for a change at the top Table before we move to the next item of business.

Mr Mathison (The Chairperson of the Committee for Education): I beg to move

Mr Speaker: The Business Committee has agreed that there should be no time limit on the debate. One amendment has been selected and is published on the Marshalled List.

Mr Mathison: In my capacity as the Chair of the Education Committee, I propose the Committee's motion to extend the Committee Stage of the School Uniforms (Guidelines and Allowances) Bill to 3 December 2025. I will outline how the Committee agreed on the motion and the extension date. Although, it is worth noting that we are in a slightly unusual context because parties have confirmed, via the media, that they will support the amendment rather than the agreed Committee motion. Speaking as Chair, I can frame my remarks only around what was discussed and agreed formally in our meetings. I cannot speak to the contributions of other parties subsequent to that, outside the Committee structures.

For the first part of the debate, I will limit my remarks to my role as Chair but I may conclude with some remarks as an Alliance MLA.

The Committee took primary legislation guidance on 8 January and, again, when the Bill was introduced in March. The Committee then took pre-legislative and introductory briefings from departmental officials, had procedural advice from the Committee and Bill Clerks and discussed the components and reasonable time frames for good Committee Stage scrutiny. The Committee agreed that the components are: a call for evidence not equivalent to the Department's consultation timeline but a first chance for the public to consider and reflect on the provisions in the draft law; oral evidence sessions on the substance of the Bill; Committee deliberation on the evidence received in those oral evidence sessions; further engagement with departmental officials to answer queries that may arise from evidence sessions and the Committee members' consideration of the Bill; development and consideration, in conjunction with the Bill Clerk if required, of potential Committee amendments; informal and formal clause-by-clause scrutiny and approval of the Bill; and consideration and approval of the final Committee report to the Assembly. The Committee agreed to take those steps, and all members agreed that they were the appropriate stages of a Committee's scrutiny when considering any Bill.

The timelines allocated a window of time that would not prejudge any of those stages or the outcomes. It is entirely usual for the Committee Stage to be extended and, in fact, highly unusual for the 30-day term set out in Standing Order 33(2) to be applied. Members will be aware that it is rarely, if ever, applied in practice. In their contributions, Committee members emphasised that we were not yet at the end of the mandate and that, therefore, there was time to fully consider stakeholders' views and ensure, on behalf of the Assembly, that the legislation being made would take account of all the factors in the round to enable good, effective law to be enacted without, we hoped, any unintended consequences.

Further to the Committee's deliberations on the matter and its agreement to the date of 3 December, factoring in all the timescales, the Minister wrote to the Committee to express his disappointment at the proposed timetable. He formally proposed, in writing to the Committee, a truncated Committee Stage ending on 30 May. It will be helpful for me to set out how the Committee responded to the Minister, so that Members understand how the Committee's discussions gave rise to, and were reflected in, the response, which clearly sets out what was agreed:

That was the Committee's agreed position at that time on the response to the Minister. It reflected our conversations around his request to close the Committee Stage on 30 May.

It is, of course, not for the Minister to determine the length of the Committee Stage of any Bill. The Committee reassured him in that correspondence that it will proceed with urgency but apply appropriate scrutiny and allow enough time to do so. Neither is it for the Committee to determine the next steps that the Minister may envisage, but he has been clear, including in his correspondence, that he hopes to have the law in effect to permit schools to reflect it in their prospectuses, which must be published in November. When that was being considered by the Committee, members expressed concern that, once the Bill was passed, the timescales in which to channel new guidance, through various layers of consultation and communication via parents and boards of governors, into prospectuses by November, for application next year, would be extremely pressured, and that did not even factor in engagement with suppliers and their supply chains, which need to be taken into account — unless, of course, the guidance is ready now and would remain, at that point, completely unchanged, but we should not assume that that will be the case.

That aside, the Committee was interested in the effectiveness and comprehensiveness of the provisions of the primary legislation. It was clear from our discussions that members were likely to have an appetite for amendments across several areas of the Bill, not least its central planks relating to uniform styles and a potential cap on costs, which, from the Bill as drafted, it seems that the Minister is not in a position to commence, if, indeed, we have any assurance that they will be commenced at all. Committee members were keen to receive more information from the Department on that point.

Completing the Committee Stage by 30 May would leave the Assembly just five weeks in which to pass the Bill through all its stages before summer recess, which was the Minister's request. That means five weeks in which to complete Consideration Stage, Further Consideration Stage and Final Stage. The Committee was clear that the scheduling of those stages would be a matter for the Minister and the Executive Committee, but it was highlighted that delivering the stages so close together could seriously constrain Members' ability to bring amendments and contemplate the Bill fully before Final Stage.

I am therefore content that, on balance, what I have set out reflects the Committee's deliberations and that, in full awareness of the Department's assurances about working to effect positive outcomes for pupils and parents in the context of a cost-of-living crisis, a Committee Stage extension to 3 December is reasonable and serious, representing the Committee's good faith and commitment to making good law for every constituent who will be affected by it. I caveat that with the clear information that was included in the Committee correspondence that the hope and intention was to complete the Committee Stage well in advance of 3 December.

I will turn to the amendment that my Committee colleagues Peter Martin and David Brooks tabled, which proposes that the Committee Stage end on 30 August. I do not have a Committee position to reflect other than that in the agreed motion. I therefore reiterate my comments about the rigour of a process that potentially does not duly allocate time to the work that is required. Other Committee members have today clarified their position through media channels, and they will have the opportunity to speak to that position during the debate. It is not for me, as Committee Chair, to do so.

On the scope and capacity for a Committee Stage to be delivered over the summer period, I draw Members' attention to the fact that, last Tuesday, we received notification from the Business Committee that the Assembly will be in recess from 4 July until 31 August 2025. I hope that the Members who tabled the amendment will clarify precisely how they foresee the situation playing out, because it will require the Committee either to complete its deliberations by 4 July or to sit through the summer recess. There is not, as was suggested in the Chamber earlier today, any unwillingness on the part of the Committee to engage in that kind of work. Rather, the concern is that it is unclear at this stage whether the necessary support from Assembly staff, via the Committee Clerk, her team and the Bill Office, and, indeed, departmental officials will be available over the summer recess in order to allow the process to be delivered effectively. We are aware that staff in the Building are often required to take their leave during recess periods because they are not permitted to take leave when the Assembly is sitting, so I am concerned that, if we were to attempt to run a Committee Stage over recess, we could be severely constrained by staffing resource and availability.

Either way, it is clear from the Committee's deliberations that the Members who tabled the amendment did not divide the Committee at any stage to propose their alternative date, so the Committee does not have a record of their intentions in that regard. Furthermore, they have not, as far as I am aware, engaged directly with Assembly staff to understand their capacity to support a Committee Stage over the summer. I trust that they will have clear proposals at our next Committee meeting for how that will be delivered. It is worth noting, as I have already, that there were two separate Committee meetings at which we discussed the motion and the proposed date. Those were two separate opportunities to divide the Committee that were not taken. Instead, we have before us the rather unorthodox approach of an amendment having been tabled. With all that having been said, I am content to have moved the motion that the Committee agreed previously.

I will now make some remarks in my capacity as an Alliance Party MLA and as one of our education spokespeople. First, I make it abundantly clear that Alliance fully supports legislation to address the cost of school uniforms. Had the Minister not introduced the Bill, I was already working on a private Member's Bill on the exact same issue, so I welcome the Bill's being introduced and welcome the fact that the Committee is getting the opportunity to look at it. I welcome the fact that, here in the Assembly, we will have the opportunity to do something about the costs involved, and I hope that, once we have it on the statute book, the law will tangibly and meaningfully address the challenges that parents face.

It is not enough just to legislate, however. The legislation must be effective, and Alliance is clear that it wants to see legislation in that space that meaningfully delivers on bringing down costs. It is therefore entirely appropriate that the Education Committee take the time that it needs to scrutinise the Bill, and that goes for any Committee that has legislation in front of it. The Minister's initial proposal that we should finish our Committee Stage by 30 May was his effectively saying that there should be no scrutiny of the Bill at all. Once our call for evidence had closed, we would not have been able to hear from stakeholders, and we certainly would not have had time to reflect on the evidence that they had brought to us. Members would have had no time to seek further engagement or clarification from the Department, and the need for clarification will undoubtedly arise. There would have been no time to discuss and agree amendments. To me, the Minister's position therefore seems predicated on the assumption that the Bill is the finished article and that it cannot be improved and should not be amended.

The amendment that is before us proposes a date of 30 August and leaves us, as I have already referenced, in an equally unclear position. Assembly staff — we have to deal with facts — are on leave over recess and, in many cases, are unable to take leave at any other time, and it will be the same for many of the Minister's officials. Are we potentially proposing an extension of a Committee Stage without any support staff to deliver it effectively? Is it a smokescreen so that it looks as though we are going to do the scrutiny work? From any Member who is proposing it, I would like to hear whether Assembly staff may be asked to cancel holidays in order to make that happen.

I am clear that I am ready to do the work over the summer if required, but that needs to be supported appropriately and effectively by the Assembly staff who are put in place to deliver that.

Mr Buckley: I thank the Member for giving way. Does he acknowledge that this is not the only Committee in which this happens? I refer to the Windsor Framework Democratic Scrutiny Committee. Legal and Committee staff supplement that Committee in periods of recess as and when required.

Mr Mathison: I thank the Member for his intervention. I am not an expert on the staffing structures around the Windsor framework Committee. My understanding is that those staff are engaged on a different set of terms and conditions, but I am happy to be corrected on that point.

I will move on. There are many questions about the Bill, even from an initial cursory reading of it, before we get into any of the detail. Surely the biggest question is about what the Minister intends to do in relation to a cap on costs. That proposal received wholehearted support across the board from the majority of parental respondents to the Department's consultation, but the Bill provides only for an enabling power. We have no idea whether the Minister will ever use that power or what a proposed cap would look like, were he to do so. We do not know what criteria the Minister or his departmental officials will apply to assess when it would be appropriate to use the enabling power. The provisions will receive no serious scrutiny, even though they are, undoubtedly, complex, and will, undoubtedly, raise a range of issues about the potential consequences of delivering a cap and what it should look like. There will also be questions about when and how it should be brought forward. The idea that the Education Committee will not interrogate the reasons for the absence of a cap from the Bill or look seriously at how it could operate is completely unacceptable, given the huge public support that was demonstrated in the Department's consultation.

There are many other issues that require attention. It is concerning that the Minister has put it forward as a simple Bill. It has been presented as something so straightforward that we might ask why the Committee would require the time. No legislation ever turns out to be so simple that we can just nod it through. The purpose of this place is to ask hard questions. Some questions about the Bill stand out. How will its effectiveness be measured and monitored? Will there be a way of assessing objectively whether costs have come down? Will the enforcement regime be robust and effective enough? What exactly will that enforcement regime look like? Are we clear about what will be in the new guidance? What will it look like when it lands on the desks of boards of governors who will then have to revise their policies? Are we to accept the departmental assurance that the Committee has had that all those things will be dealt with in the guidance and that we should not get too hung up on the detail of what that will look like?

Ultimately, we can deliver the legislation quickly by trusting the Minister that the Bill is the finished article and does not require amending, or we can do it right. We can ensure that the legislation, which will impact on parents' pockets for years to come, not just for the next academic year, is fit for purpose, effective and comprehensive. The timings around the publication of school prospectuses are not in our control. I want to be clear: as an individual Member, I give my assurance that I will do nothing to stand in the way of delivering the scrutiny work well ahead of 3 December to facilitate, I hope, getting this into those prospectuses in time. If we rush to get this done to a timeline that is being imposed by the Minister just to make sure that we do not miss the cut-off for one academic year, we would, ultimately, run the risk of delivering ineffective legislation. I do not believe that parents would forgive us; it would represent a real failure.

Mr Buckley: Again, I thank the Member for giving way. As someone who is not a member of the Committee, I really struggle to understand the suggested period for Committee scrutiny. Surely the legislation is not more significant than, for example, the Integrated Education Bill, which went through the House in the previous mandate, or the legislation going through Westminster on terminal illness, for which the Committee Stage took three months. Are we suggesting that this legislation requires more Committee scrutiny than those significant pieces of legislation?

Mr Mathison: It is not helpful to draw comparisons and say that one piece of legislation is simple and another is complex. I highlight the fact that this Bill's Committee Stage includes three recess periods, so comparisons of time are not necessarily accurate. If we do not sit over summer recess, the Committee Stage will be considerably shorter than what is being proposed.

Miss McAllister: Is the Member willing to take a point?

Mr Mathison: Yes, I will give way.

Miss McAllister: I ask this for clarification because I do not sit on the Education Committee and am a bit unsure about the particular process. Were assurances given that, if Committee members decided to sit over the summer recess and were able complete all of the necessary work and hear from all of the people and organisations involved, the law would be implemented by the next academic year? If the process ran until December, would the Bill's provisions have the same start date after receiving Royal Assent?

Mr Mathison: I thank the Member for her intervention. The Minister has suggested that, if the Committee could conclude the process by, he hoped, the end of June or, let us say, given the amendment that is before us, the end of August, the Bill would then move through all of its stages in the Assembly in a number of weeks. I think that four weeks was suggested to the Committee as the timescale that the Minister was hoping for, which would be a very rapid progression through this place. If that was done, the Minister is confident that, between October and the publication of their prospectuses in November, all the consultation that schools would be required to do with parents and young people and their engagement with suppliers on lead-in times would be delivered in time for November. I am sceptical about whether that is deliverable. Do we want schools to be revising policies on a matter as important as this on the basis of something that has been cobbled together and rushed and, at that stage, would not be law? It would still be waiting for Royal Assent. We have to be realistic about that.

I will not name and shame, but we all know the very worst offenders on the cost of school uniforms, the ones that genuinely price some parents out of even considering sending their children to them. I am not convinced that those schools will do the Minister a favour and redo guidance on the basis of something that does not yet have Royal Assent and is not on the statute book. We have to be realistic. We want the legislation to be effective, and, as the first step, there has to be a law to which schools are compelled to adhere. I am not sure, given the Minister's timescales, that that is what we would be dealing with.

I will speak more broadly now. The issue of school uniform costs has sat at the desks of successive Sinn Féin and DUP Education Ministers for years. It has sat with DUP Ministers since 2016, who watched costs spiral in that time. No action was taken. We were assured that the guidance was OK and appropriate and that, if schools just followed it, there would be no issue. No action was taken to address it. That is the context and the timeline, and I factor in the times that the Assembly was not sitting. There were comments made in the Chamber earlier to the effect of, "Maybe Members just need to work harder". What about the two years in which nobody sat in this place? Lectures about how hard Members need to work will, at the very least, raise an eyebrow among the public.

Mr Buckley: Will the Member give way?

Mr Mathison: I have given way a number of times.

Should we now rush through our scrutiny to meet a deadline for this academic year while failing to assure ourselves that the legislation will deliver? Parents will not thank us for acting quickly, if the law does not make a difference. I am committed to ensuring that the legislation is, first and foremost, robust and effective. I emphasise again — I want it on the record — that I sincerely hope that the Committee will deliver its scrutiny in advance of 3 December, and I will do all that I can to ensure that it does. However, no Member should apologise for building in time to ask hard questions of legislation, because the good scrutiny work that we do now will protect parents' pockets in the future.

The Minister has been clear that he wants to deliver the process quickly so that the new guidance can be in the prospectuses by November. We have already discussed that point regarding the amendment, so I will not labour it. We have to be realistic about whether that is deliverable. Will we rush through our Committee Stage with undue haste, fail to deliver the scrutiny and potentially still not have the changes reflected properly, appropriately and meaningfully in a way that makes a difference for parents in those prospectuses? We could end up doing neither, and, again, I am not sure that the public will thank us for that.

I encourage Members to consider supporting the motion and not to vote for a truncated Committee Stage, particularly as that truncated stage runs over a summer recess and it remains entirely unclear whether Committee members would have the Assembly staff support available to allow us to reliably deliver a Committee Stage. Regrettably, on the basis of what has gone out in the media today, I suggest that minds are already made up. Despite some members speaking in Committee in clear, unequivocal support for the motion, they will choose not to support it in the Chamber. However, those Committee members can articulate that for themselves.

Mr Brooks: Will the Member give way?

Mr Mathison: I will.

Mr Brooks: While the Member is on the subject, does he accept that, whilst we chose not to divide the Committee, we made our concerns known in Committee, on our part at least?

Mr Mathison: I thank the Member for his intervention. Both DUP Committee members expressed their concerns about the time, but they acknowledged the critical importance of good scrutiny and acknowledged that there was a balance to be struck. That is important to note.

Ultimately, this is about ensuring that parents are protected from rising uniform costs. All Members agree on that. I want to be very clear: I have welcomed the Minister's legislation. I am glad to see that we have a Minister who has finally brought something forward for the Assembly to look at, but parents want the law to be enacted as soon as possible. That is right and appropriate. I imagine, however, that they will also want that law to have been fully scrutinised to ensure that it achieves what it sets out to do: bring down the costs of uniforms. They will look back in years to come — we have to be honest about it — and they will not ask how quickly the Minister delivered the school uniforms Bill. That will not be the question that they will ask. They will ask whether he delivered something that was effective and made a difference where they felt it: in their pockets. I hope that Members will consider giving the Committee time to do that work properly, appropriately and in the best interests of the parents who need the legislation to be effective.

Mr Martin: I beg to move the following amendment:

Mr Speaker: There will be no time limit on any contributions to the debate. Please open the debate on the amendment.

Mr Martin: Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. I thank the Committee Chair for the considered comments that he made. I will address a couple of those before making other comments. The date that he mentioned was 30 August, and he referenced the date that the Minister had previously suggested. We see the amendment as a compromise that gives scope to allow for the scrutiny role, which, as he said — I agree with him — is so important. He mentioned dividing the Committee. I appreciate that some of his comments were probably not levelled at me and my colleague, as we raised concerns in Committee about the length of the proposed Committee Stage. We did not divide the Committee, but I will point out that I have divided the Committee on three occasions and lost three times. It was fairly clear to the Education Committee members who were there where everyone stood, and I hope that other Committee members will know where David and I stood on the 38-week extension.

The Committee Chair and I had a congenial debate on a BBC radio programme this morning. We mentioned scrutiny and the fact that we think that it is important, and I committed myself and my colleague, who is sitting behind me, to coming in during summer recess at some point and giving additional time to scrutinising the Bill, because there is no doubt — no one in the Chamber will argue otherwise — that scrutiny is crucial. We are committed to doing that; there is no doubt there. I appreciate that that could be problematic, but, if we could find full days — a couple of full days — it would probably be doable, and it would certainly be helpful in giving the Bill the due regard that it needs at Committee level. I will make other comments along the way.

We have heard repeatedly in the Chamber of the need to support hard-working families, and we have rightly heard many call for a reform of school uniform and sportswear costs.

We have heard the SDLP Opposition call for Ministers to bring forward more legislation. Before us this afternoon is a Bill, which was introduced by, as referenced, a DUP Education Minister, that meets all those criteria.

I do not plan to go into the same detail as the Committee Chair, because we are not here to debate the Bill. However, we are here to debate how long the Committee should take to do its work. If the motion that the Committee Chair proposed is agreed, it could see the Education Committee debate the Bill for a possible 38 weeks, and that will have clear consequences for the families that the legislation undoubtedly seeks to support.

As the Minister mentioned this afternoon in the Chamber, the Bill is a DUP manifesto commitment. We have been clear about that. We want to make sure that its benefits are realised for all people in Northern Ireland, regardless of creed, colour, faith or background. For the parents who are perhaps watching the debate this afternoon or those stakeholders who contributed to the Department's consultation last year, such as the Trussell Trust, Parentkind, Children in Northern Ireland (CiNI), the Children's Law Centre (CLC) and Carers NI — there were about 18, but I will pick those five — you heard that right: we are considering a Committee Stage of 38 weeks. I fully accept that, during the Committee's consideration, the Chair made it clear that 38 weeks was not the target date for completion and that we were not aiming towards that. However, if the Committee motion is agreed, the Committee can, if it so wishes, debate and consult on the Bill until 3 December.

Following the close of the Department's consultation last year —.

Mr Mathison: Will the Member give way?

Mr Martin: I will indeed.

Mr Mathison: Does the Member agree that, as he highlighted, I have been very clear that 3 December is not a target and that, when we were factoring in our considerations, the option of sitting over summer recess and, indeed, Easter recess was not set out? Does the Member agree that characterising the Committee Stage by its length in weeks is not entirely accurate in reflecting the Committee's deliberations on that?

Mr Martin: I thank the Committee Chair for his intervention. I can go only by the calendar weeks. I accept the point that he makes about Easter recess and summer recess, and I will address those comments a little bit later. I accept his point. The 38-week period is, however, the calendar period.

Following the close of the Department's consultation last year, the Minister managed to get the prospective legislation drafted by, I assume, the Office of the Legislative Counsel (OLC) and tabled in the Assembly within 20 weeks. I pay tribute to the Minister for the enthusiasm and vigour that he has brought to his role, not least in this area. I also note the excellent work that was carried out on the policy area by departmental officials Shirley Sweeney and Margaret Rose McNaughton.

The Department received 7,500 responses to its consultation. That is a staggering number for a government consultation. What really stuck out to me was the fact that 4,000 of those were received from children and young people in Northern Ireland. That illustrates the strength of feeling out there where the proverbial rubber hits the road. There were lots of views on some of the issues that the Committee Chair highlighted, such as the cost of uniforms, especially the cost of school sportswear, and the types of uniforms that we see in our schools. That further illustrates the need for this place to take the issue seriously and to prioritise the legislation.

I will pick up on one other theme that the Committee Chair mentioned. Our amendment does not seek to limit scrutiny of the Bill by any stretch of the imagination. We are instead saying that this piece of legislation needs to get Committee priority. We all work in Committees, and we all know how they function. We are not saying that we should not scrutinise or pay due attention or due regard to the issues that are obviously very important to people in Northern Ireland. Instead, we are saying that the legislation should be prioritised and, to a degree, carry that weight, especially over the next few months. There are families in Northern Ireland right now counting every penny, and the Bill should significantly reduce at least one cost that they have to face on a year-to-year basis. Just this morning, I think that it was Sam's jumper that I put in the dryer, and it shrank to a size that no man could fit into, so that might be one more burden to bear, as I tumble-dried something that should not have been tumble-dried.

We all accept that change is required in this area. I think that there is agreement in the Chamber that the Bill is non-contentious and that the benefits that it brings will be felt by all families, regardless of their religious background or political affiliation. It does not seek to advantage anyone. I find that exciting, and I hope that everyone agrees with that.

In the Second Stage debate, the Alliance Member for Lagan Valley, Mrs Guy, said:

I agree with her completely, about the issue itself and about the wider issue that equality is important. The last piece of legislation to come before the Committee for Education for scrutiny was the Integrated Education Bill, as my colleague behind me pointed out. That was brought as a private Member's Bill by a colleague of Mrs Guy's. On that occasion, the Education Committee took 18 weeks at Committee Stage. It should also be noticed that during that —

Ms K Armstrong: Will the Member give way?

Mr Martin: I will indeed.

Ms K Armstrong: I do not think that the Member is 100% right on that, because the Committee actually extended the period not to include the summer recess. It was actually 1,000 days for the Education Committee, and, believe me, I suffered every one of those days. The 18 weeks did not include the summer recess period.

Mr Martin: I thank the Member for her comments. I will not claim authority on that; she probably should have authority on that. I did go to the Bill process and looked up the dates, and I got out my calculator. I did notice, however, that summer recess was in that period. It ran over that, and therefore this Bill has similarities in that the Integrated Education Bill's Committee Stage — the 18 weeks that I am referring to — did run through the summer recess, but I am happy to be corrected on that. This Bill is a similar length to the one that I have just discussed. This Bill is probably less complex than the Integrated Education Bill — Members can disagree, but I suffered it as well — and is certainly less contentious.

Mr Mathison: I thank the Member for giving way. He has been very generous in taking interventions. Would he accept, however, that we are not in the same context as when the Integrated Education Bill came forward, when we were at the end of a mandate and time in this place was under huge pressure? I am sure that the Education Committee would have welcomed more time to scrutinise it, but, as was referenced by the Deputy Chair of the Committee in our discussions on this, we are not at the end of the mandate, so we should not feel the need to shorten our scrutiny stage.

Mr Martin: I always appreciate the comments of the Chair of the Education Committee. I cannot disagree with him. We are in a different place with regard to the mandate, and I think that there was a sense of urgency with the Integrated Education Bill. However, I again gently point out that we will receive no thanks if we do not manage to get this through. Many families are facing bills, and, for many of them, this is a large cost. I think that a Member opposite made the point in a recent debate — it was a good one — that in no way should the cost of school uniforms ever dictate which school a child ends up in. If a child wants to go to a certain school and has whatever he or she needs to get into that school, surely the last barrier that he or she should face is a large uniform bill that would somehow prohibit him or her from getting there.

I will get back to my speech. Getting the Bill through the Chamber and Committee in a timely manner would be a win-win situation. If others decide not to support our amendment, as has already been noted, it is up to them to explain that. We have had some chat about that, even in the Chamber this afternoon.

I am one of the parents who has kids at school and who wants to see the Bill progress. It is certainly my understanding — the Committee Chair mentioned it as well — that, if we can manage to get the Bill through Committee Stage by the end of August, which reflects our amendment and is a compromise between what the Minister initially suggested and what the Committee wants to see, there remains a chance — an open door — to complete the fourth and fifth stages during September 2025. It will be up to the Assembly to prioritise the scheduling of that, and that will be out of our hands, but it will at least give us that realistic opportunity to see some benefit for parents in 2026. Certainly, the feedback that I have received is that, if we leave the motion as it is, we will not see the benefits — parents will not see the benefits — until 2027.

Ms K Armstrong: Will the Member give way?

Mr Martin: I will give way.

Ms K Armstrong: I will just ask a question, because that has me confused. The Department, or the Education Authority, has actually already asked governors to submit their proposals for next year's choices. How will that actually come into effect in the timescale for the extension that you have calculated? I am on a board of governors. As governors, we will have to sit and go through all our criteria again and rewrite that. I am really not sure that the practicalities of it will work. I am asking that question simply as a school governor. I do not think that the timings would work like that, even if the legislation were to be passed in four weeks.

Mr Martin: I thank the Member for her question. I am not on a board of governors, but I think that I understand what she is saying. Certainly, if the Bill progresses in that time frame, as the Committee Chair mentioned, it might not get Royal Assent until after the things that the Member is talking about actually have to come into effect. However, if the Bill has been passed by the Assembly and is to become legislation, even if it has not got Royal Assent — we know that Bills that are passed by the Assembly always get Royal Assent — schools will know that that — I will not call it "policy intent" — legislative intent is coming into being. I accept that, as the Committee Chair said, some schools may just choose to ignore it, and maybe, at that point, they could do so, but, if there are any that do so, it will be a very small number. It would be silly of them to do that. I accept that, with those time frames, it will certainly be tight. There are few certainties in life. However, if Members support the amendment, I feel that the Bill has a good chance — or, at least, a chance — to be enacted in 2026. It would be marvellous for parents if we could get it passed.

Let me be crystal clear: scrutiny is crucial in the Chamber and in Committee. That is an integral part of what we do. Agreeing to my party's tabled amendment will still leave the Committee time to do its job. Yes, we may need to have additional Committee sessions. My party is certainly up for that work. The schedule might need to be changed. Yes, the Bill may need to receive full priority over the next number of months, and the forward work programme may need some rejigging, but we are up for the challenge. The DUP absolutely believes that getting the Bill across the line is pivotal to supporting hard-working families in Northern Ireland. I commend our amendment to the House.

Mr Baker: Families are under huge financial pressure, and we need to act swiftly to make school uniforms more affordable. That being said, scrutiny is essential. There are real issues with the Bill that need to be addressed. In order for it to make tangible changes for families, scrutiny is needed. There are key principles missing from the Bill, so lot of work needs to go into it, particularly around special educational needs and gender neutrality.

We need to make sure that we deliver what works and not just what looks good on paper, but let us be clear: we are determined to do that quickly and efficiently. If we have to come in and work with the Chair, we will do that. We have to work across the Chamber. The Minister, who is not here, needs to be positive as well. There is an onus on him and his officials, because the Bill is not the finished article — far from it. We are willing to work with everybody in the Chamber to make it happen as quickly as possible. Families need that support now and not in a year or two years' time, so it needs to be done quickly. We are up for that challenge, and I am willing to be here every single day to make sure that it happens.

Mr Crawford: The Bill has the potential to make a real and meaningful difference to the lives of children and young people and their families across Northern Ireland. It is designed to address a growing and deeply felt issue in our communities: the escalating cost of school uniforms. The Bill has one clear and simple objective: to make school uniforms more affordable. That should not be controversial or complicated, but it should be given the diligence that it deserves.

The cost of school uniforms has become a growing burden for families, particularly in the current economic climate. As Members, we have all heard from parents who are struggling to meet the rising costs of blazers, sports kits and branded uniforms that, often, are mandated with little regard for affordability. These are not luxuries or optional extras; they are basic, essential requirements for access to education. When a parent is forced to choose between buying a winter coat or a school jumper, that is a political failure. When families are turning to food banks so that they can cover the cost of uniforms, that is a societal failure. When the Chamber has the power to act but fails to do so, that is a legislative failure.

Members will be aware that this is not the first time that the House has failed. Let us be honest with ourselves and the public: as the Chair alluded to, over the past 10 years, the Assembly has spent more time collapsed than it has spent legislating. That is a damning indictment of political dysfunction, and it is our constituents — the very people whom we represent — who have paid the price. During the years of impasse, key legislation was stalled, opportunities were lost and vital decisions were left unmade. For too long, we have expected the public to carry on while we have stood still.

Now, with Stormont restored, the public rightly expect us to get on with the job at hand. I understand the importance of due process and the need to hear from stakeholders. Like the Chair and other Committee members, I commit to doing all that I can, even over the summer recess, and playing my part to ensure that that takes place. Let us work collectively, across party lines, to progress the Committee Stage of the Bill. Let us show that the Assembly can function as it should: not just as a debating Chamber but as a vehicle for real change.

Ms K Armstrong: I thank the Member for giving way. I stand not to argue with you but simply to ask a question. I sit on the Committee on Procedures, and we consider the Standing Orders of the House. As we know, Standing Order 33 is about Committee Stage. It is for a Committee or even a Minister to extend Committee Stage. Given the consternation that the issue has caused, should we not be looking at our Standing Orders and extending the time frame from 30 days? As other Members have said, no scrutiny happens in 30 days: it is too short a period. Is it therefore time for us to start to review our Standing Orders in order to make Committee Stage more reasonable for future Bills and for us as Members to scrutinise them, as the Member has talked about?

Mr Crawford: I thank the Member for her intervention. Yes, that is something that definitely needs to be looked at over time.

Every week that we delay is another week that a family goes without support, that another school term begins with financial strain and that another child feels different, singled out or excluded because they cannot afford the branded items that others take for granted. That is not what the Assembly or we as Members should stand for. We should stand for fairness, inclusion and practical solutions to everyday problems.

Mr Speaker: Before I call Michelle Guy, as the business in the Order Paper is not expected to be disposed of by 6.00 pm, in accordance with Standing Order 10(3), I will allow business to continue until 7.00 pm.

Mrs Guy: Following the Deputy Chair's unexpected U-turn on the motion, I will be making the winding-up speech on the Committee motion, which is to extend the Committee Stage until 3 December. I emphasise that this is a Committee motion, not an Alliance Party motion.

Mr Speaker: Order. Mrs Guy, are you making the winding-up speech on the motion?

Mrs Guy: Yes.

Mr Speaker: OK. I understood that Nick Mathison was to do that, so I will call you after Mr Brooks makes the winding-up speech on the amendment. I am sorry about that.

Mr Brooks: In making the winding-up speech on our amendment, I do not need to rehearse the arguments for the entire Bill. As has been said before, the Bill has been well discussed in this place, and, in fairness, all parties will acknowledge that their general aims and wishes are not that far removed from one another's.

There is not much new in what I can add to what my colleague Peter Martin said earlier and what others covered throughout the debate. As has been stated, our concern is that extending the Committee Stage until 3 December 2025 rather than until 30 August would mean that the main provisions in the Bill would not become operational until September 2027 rather than September 2026. Such a delay would be unnecessary and unacceptable, and we should do all the work that we can to implement the Bill as early as possible. If we were to have the luxury of additional time, the cost would be to have parents wait a further year for its implementation. Members will be well aware of the complexities around timelines for the Bill, which, if implemented fairly, means having regard not only to the school term and prospectuses but to lead-in and turnaround times for local retailers to ensure that they are not left holding stock that they may be unable to sell should local schools change their uniform policy as a result of the legislation.

With all of that having been rightly considered, my colleague and I tabled the amendment because we believe that we should be doing what we can to ensure that parents feel the benefits of the legislation as soon as possible. We have not heard any truly compelling reasons today for why the Bill could not make its way through each of its stages via a more ambitious timescale. Extending Committee Stage may well be right and necessary in certain circumstances, but I question whether it should be the business-as-usual approach for the legislative scrutiny process in this place. Again, I emphasise that more time for MLAs means a longer wait for hard-working families. Having given it due consideration, we felt that the balance struck was wrong and that an extension until 3 December was not something that we were prepared to go along with.

As my colleague said, the Department of Education has already undertaken significant consultation on the issue. The Committee must rightly exercise its primary function diligently and, of course, conduct appropriate engagement. There also needs to be an ambition to avoid undue delay, however. Although I have not been through this process before, my party colleague rightly pointed to much more complex and contentious legislation, such as the Integrated Education Act (Northern Ireland) 2022, which, he has just looked up and confirmed, took just 18 weeks —.

Mr Martin: I thank the Member for giving way. I congratulate the Member for Strangford for making me doubt myself about the length of the Integrated Education Bill's Committee Stage. However, I have it in front of me and can confirm that the Committee Stage for the Integrated Education Bill ran from 6 July 2021 to 24 November 2021. At that time, it made its Committee report. I can confirm that, similarly, it ran over the summer. Does the Chair — sorry, the Member — agree that there is some similarity between the two, with the exception that the amendment that we have suggested is actually for seven weeks longer than the scrutiny for the Integrated Education Bill?

Mr Brooks: I do, of course, agree, and I thank him for the promotion to Chair, but I will not be challenging my Committee colleague for that role.

The Committee has recently undertaken its RSE inquiry. Respecting the differing views across the House, it was, at best, a misstep of Committee priorities, given the scale of challenges across education. In that not-so-mini inquiry, we heard many voices, mostly relevant but, often, with large degrees of duplication of arguments. Do not get me wrong: it was right that we heard from a spectrum of voices, and the Chair was trying to meet that challenge in good faith. I recognise the work and the challenge that he faced. We all shared a view that, if we were doing that over again, we would not undertake it in exactly the same way that we did.

Mr Baker: Will the Member give way?

Mr Brooks: Yes.

Mr Baker: We did not have a Bill in front of us, but I am sure that all members of the Committee would agree that it was a very effective piece of work on RSE, particularly when you talk to our young people. If you have not watched the hit TV show 'Adolescence' yet, I suggest that you do, because there are key parts in there that we all need to be educated on, and we need to support our young people. I have to disagree with the Member's saying that it was not a good use of our time: it very much was. As a member of the Committee, I say that we work extremely hard, and I give credit to the Chair and the Clerk, who do great, tangible work.

Mr Brooks: I thank the Member for his intervention. I think that he would recognise that I did give credit to the Chair. We might not all agree on what we would change, but I think that most members would say that there were probably aspects of what we undertook that we would relook at if we were put in the same position.

Mr Speaker: I remind the Member that we are not talking about RSE today.

Mr Brooks: Yes. I will return to my comments on the amendment, Mr Speaker. I appreciate that.

The main point that I would draw from what I was talking about is that, with the considerable evidence gathering undertaken and the significant amount of Committee time given to it, I am not sure that many members ended up with a very different point of view or voting intention than the one that they had had at the start. Clearly, this is a slightly different proposition, and I acknowledge the Member's point about delivering scrutiny to a Bill, which is our primary role.

School uniforms are an issue on which there has been a greater degree of agreement — at least on the general direction — and I do not think that we require a similarly lengthy or quite so expansive process to allow those who have specific issues with our considerations of the Bill that they may wish to share with us to do that in a meaningful way. Most organisations — as is the case with our parties — will have considered it in the round already, will have already helped to inform the departmental consultation and will be able and prepared to share analysis with us. We need to ensure that the opportunity for points to be raised appropriately is there, but we also need to do it efficiently. If we are to get on with the business of delivering real change for families facing hardship and uncertainty in society, there must not be prevarication on our part in the Assembly.

It seems to me that some people, very clearly, as they have outlined today in the media, want to see a cap in a different form in the Bill. I may well be unduly sceptical, but I do not think that their or our ultimate view on it will change because of a longer Committee Stage. I say to them that we have been, in principle, supportive of a cap and the Minister has, in the Bill, as has been mentioned, given himself the ability to bring it forward in the future if it is deemed necessary and beneficial. Probably more to the point is the fact that where we have seen the outworking of such a policy elsewhere, successfully or otherwise, we know that, where the system has been tried, it has not been without complications.

Further work on the detail of how a cap might operate can be taken forward in parallel with, but without delaying, the implementation of the statutory guidelines and other aspects of the Bill.

The School Uniforms Bill will deliver. It will deliver the necessary powers to cap branded items and/or uniform costs, and it will deliver access to uniform grants for eligible pupils who attend independent schools. It will support parents and families in a range of ways. We want to see that happening sooner, not later. The Bill gives statutory effect to departmental guidance, placing a duty on relevant schools to adhere to that guidance, providing a power of direction in the event of non-compliance by schools and defining key terms, such as "specific styles" and "unfair costs aspects", to be addressed via school uniform policy. When taken together, all those measures will make a real impact for hard-pressed families. Let us realise that impact, and let us do so quickly. On that basis, I commend our amendment to the House.

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

Mrs Guy: Thank you, Mr Speaker: we will try this again. [Laughter.]

I support the Committee's motion for an extension of the Committee Stage to 3 December. I emphasise that it is a Committee motion, not an Alliance motion: it was agreed unanimously by the Committee. The Chair offered the Committee two opportunities to divide and no member took him up on that offer. Let me be clear that 3 December is a limit, not a target. We can extend the Committee Stage only once, so that is a hard limit. The Committee —.

Mr Brooks: Will the Member give way?

Mrs Guy: Yes, go for it.

Mr Brooks: That is slightly disingenuous. We did not divide the Committee, but the Member is well aware that, as the Chair confirmed, we made our objections clear. We did not divide the Committee largely because we did not feel that there was an appetite for that amongst Committee members.

Mrs Guy: Thank you for the intervention. It is reasonable for you to say that. You are correct that there did not seem to be an appetite for that, so today's outcome is peculiar to say the least. You were, however, consistent and raised objections. Others did not, but have since changed their mind for some reason. They can explain that.

Let me be clear that 3 December is a limit, not a target. We can extend this stage only once, so it is a hard limit. The Committee took advice and considered a timeline that included all the phases of a good Committee Stage, Assembly recesses and other relevant factors, many of which are outside of our control. The Committee Stage provides the first opportunity for stakeholders from across the public, private and voluntary sectors, not to mention parents and schoolchildren, to take the time and space to consider the Bill as introduced and bring their perspective to the Committee.

The Bill addresses matters that are significant and long-standing for parents and children across Northern Ireland. The Committee supports the general principles of the Bill and welcomed its introduction. We are committed, however, to the Bill being delivered right, rather than fast, and being given due consideration by the Assembly throughout the legislative process. The Committee Stage is the sole stage of the legislative process that is not in the hands of the Minister. As a Committee, we are obliged to ensure that we consider the Bill's provisions and their effects as fully as possible and set aside sufficient time to do so. My priority, and that of my colleague Mr Mathison, is to get this right for families. I am genuinely concerned that a condensed Committee Stage will result in our letting them down.

I will add a few words in my capacity as an Alliance MLA. The Alliance Party supports and has long campaigned for legislation to make school uniforms more affordable. It is essential that we get the legislation right so that we ensure that families feel the difference in their pockets. That is where my focus is; not on press releases or optics, but on delivering effective legislation for families. At the most fundamental level, I want assurances that, once the Bill's provisions come into force, parents will see prices becoming more affordable. That will be the very clear test of success or failure. It remains to be seen whether the Bill as it stands will have that effect. That is why proper Committee scrutiny of the Bill is essential, and that includes giving young people and families the time to give their views and be heard by the Committee. We need time to take evidence from stakeholders and to engage with departmental officials. We need time to consider the cost cap mechanism and which legal requirements will ensure that it is enforceable.

The Committee has been clear that the extension is not a target, but instead provides a window that will allow it time to carry out proper scrutiny. We will scrutinise the legislation in good faith, with every intention of expediting our work as quickly as possible. Nodding through a Bill, when genuine concerns have been raised about its effectiveness within the Committee and externally by stakeholders, would be poor governance.

Of course, I will not stand in the way of speeding up this process. I want it done as quickly as possible, but only as long as there are commitments that proper scrutiny can be ensured, and I have not been provided with that assurance. Maybe Sinn Féin and the DUP can give that assurance.

It is worth repeating that the DUP has held the Education portfolio for 10 years. The issue of unaffordable school uniforms is not a new one, yet it has not done anything about it over that time. In fact, the DUP, like Sinn Féin, was happy to collapse this place, meaning that legislation such as this could not progress. Therefore, we will continue to vote for good governance and making an impact for families.

Mr Givan (The Minister of Education): On a point of order, Mr Speaker. During the debate, the Chairman of the Committee indicated that it will be the responsibility of DUP members to outline at the Committee meeting how they will deliver on this. Mr Speaker, can you confirm that it is the responsibility of the Committee, particularly the Chairman of the Committee, to comply with the ruling of the Assembly, which has just passed the motion unanimously?

Ms Bradshaw: On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

Mr Speaker: I will take a further point of order.

Ms Bradshaw: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I was watching the debate in my office. Is it right and proper for the Minister to sit in the Chamber, not contribute to a debate related to his Department and then wait until the Chairperson of the Education Committee does not have a chance to respond to a point that he raises? That is very poor practice.

Mr Speaker: I am not here to judge whether something is poor practice or whether the Minister should have participated in the debate. It was a Committee debate, and Committee members spoke eloquently on the issue. The Member has heard me speak about the importance of scrutiny, and it is important that proper time be given for the scrutiny of legislation in Committee and in plenary sittings. I have seen of late that most Committees have taken the view that the minimum period in Standing Orders is insufficient to scrutinise a Bill. However, the appropriate length of a Committee's scrutiny period will vary according to the nature of the Bill in question. It is for each Committee to take a view on that, but it is ultimately for the House to decide.

One of the main purposes of the summer recess is to enable staff to take leave. As Members know, most of our staff supporting Assembly and Committee business cannot take leave when the Assembly is sitting. However, that does not mean that there are no staff here over the summer. I understand that, if a Committee indicates that there is a need over a recess period to meet in relation to a particular issue, every effort will be made to provide resources to facilitate that, even if it is not the Committee's full normal team. Members will know from the past that, whether for a recall of the Assembly or additional meetings of a Committee, the issue of staffing has never been a barrier to the progress of the Assembly. Therefore, there will be an expectation that what has passed in the Chamber today will be fulfilled.

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

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

Mr McGuigan (The Chairperson of the Committee for Health): I beg to move

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): The Business Committee has agreed to allow up to one hour and 30 minutes for the debate. The proposer of the motion will have 10 minutes to propose and 10 minutes to make a winding-up speech. All other Members who speak will have five minutes. Philip, please open the debate on the motion.

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

As outlined on the Department of Health's website, the core grant scheme is in place to support community and voluntary sector organisations and charities to cover their fixed costs, such as 25% of a permanent staff member's annual salary; training costs; rent; rates; electricity and gas; and equipment. Last July, the Minister announced that there would be a redesign to address unfairness in the scheme, which had funded the same organisations for over 20 years. The Minister outlined how the new scheme would be co-designed in partnership with the NI Council for Voluntary Action (NICVA) and that it would be relaunched in the autumn.

In February, the Minister announced that the total funding pot for 2025-26 was £1·8 million, making it the third year running in which the same amount had been available. That calls into question a redesign process that does not consider demand, need, increasing waiting lists or the desire for more services to be provided in the community. The Minister advised that 25 organisations had been successful in the process, despite a total of 259 bids for funding having been received.

When the funding announcement was made, Celine McStravick, the chief executive of NICVA, the organisation with which the Department co-designed the new process, said:

in the North.

Those comments outline the disconnect between the Department and the sector in the delivery of services in our communities. Across our constituencies, we see countless examples of charities, community groups and voluntary organisations stepping up to deliver essential services and offering care and support to the most vulnerable. Their work is not supplementary; it is indispensable. The contribution of the voluntary sector to health and social care cannot be overstated. Those organisations provide front-line services that go from elderly care and mental health support to disability assistance and palliative care. They bring expertise, flexibility and a deep understanding of local needs that often surpasses what statutory services alone can achieve. Furthermore, they foster a sense of belonging and community cohesion, ensuring that people do not feel abandoned or isolated.

The COVID-19 pandemic was a stark reminder of how vital those organisations are. When public services were stretched to their limits, it was community-led initiatives that filled the gaps, delivering food parcels, offering mental health support and ensuring that vulnerable individuals were not left behind.

The resilience and adaptability of those groups was extraordinary, yet they continue to operate under significant financial and resource constraints. Investment in the community and voluntary sector is not just a moral obligation; it is economically sound. Studies show that every pound invested in voluntary health and care services generates significant social and financial returns by reducing the pressures on hospitals, GP surgeries and emergency services. Prevention and early intervention — key pillars of community-based care — ultimately reduce the burden on our already overstretched NHS staff.

The organisations cannot continue their invaluable work without proper support. We must ensure that they have sustainable funding, clear policy frameworks and the recognition they deserve within a broader healthcare strategy. I urge the Assembly to champion policies that provide stable financial backing, encourage cross-sector collaboration and reduce the bureaucratic barriers that hinder the vital work of volunteers.

I note that, while the scheme does not directly fund service delivery, it provides the funding to put the structures in place that allow organisations and charities to bid for contracts and provide essential services to our communities. What additional services could be provided in our communities if there was additional core grant funding for those community and voluntary sector organisations and charities? It would be fair to say that, if the community and voluntary sector stopped providing health and social care services in our community, the health system would grind to a halt. I pay tribute to the many organisations and charities and the many thousands of workers and volunteers who make an active contribution to our health system and improve the health and social care outcomes for our communities. We thank you for your service and the care and support that you provide.

Today, the Minister will outline the significant financial pressures on the Department and the Executive, and there is no denying that we are in a difficult financial position. However, while the Minister may say that we cannot afford to invest in the community and voluntary sector, the reality is that we must invest in the sector. While the Department is making short-term decisions about funding the sector, it will result in long-term funding pressures further down the track. We will continue to see waiting lists grow; we will continue to see increased pressures on our GP services, emergency departments (EDs), hospital services and domiciliary care services.

The Minister has been clear with the Committee and in the media that he wants to see a shift left and to place services out of secondary care into our communities. We welcome that focus. However, the announcement of only £1·8 million for core grant funding in this financial year does not indicate a willingness to move services into the community. It indicates that the status quo will be maintained. From the applications to the fund, we can see that there is a significant demand for the funding. Some 259 applications were made, with bids totalling over £13 million. Again, what services could those organisations and charities have provided that would have relieved pressure on our creaking system?

The Committee's motion urges the Minister of Health:

An important first step would be to restore funding to the previous amount of £3·6 million. There should also be a review of the programme that would include meaningful co-design of a new multi-year scheme that would allow organisations and charities not only to exist but to grow, innovate and meet the needs of the people in our communities.

We must acknowledge that a thriving health and social care system is built not just on hospitals and clinics but on the dedication of volunteers and community groups. Their work strengthens our society, enriches lives and ensures that care reaches those who need it most. It is our duty to support them.

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

Mrs Dodds: I thank the Minister for coming to the House today for this important motion. I have no doubt, Minister, that, during our discourse, we will hear you talk about pressures on your budget. There may be an odd irony klaxon thrown in for good measure

, although I do not want to steal your thunder. However, budgets are about political choices and what a Department deems appropriate. The cross-party nature of the motion indicates that you are at odds with others in the House on this issue.

The core grant has been cut from £3·6 million to £1·8 million. That maintains the cut that was instigated for the past two years. It is a minuscule amount of money in a budget of £8·5 billion. Not to steal my colleague Peter Martin's thunder, he has calculated that that is 0·02% of the budget, but that cut will have real and serious consequences for the voluntary and community sector's ability to deliver to the most vulnerable across our community.

I will be clear: I am not querying the awards that have already been made. They are important, and I wish those organisations every success for the future. I have, however, met organisations that receive no funding at all, and they all talk about their ability to deliver core services. For example, Relate indicated to me that 40% of its referrals come from the statutory sector — GPs and others — yet its exclusion from the core grant scheme will have an impact on staff and the ability to deliver on those core services and the agenda of shifting left. It would be interesting to know, Minister, whether you have any data on that aspect of the issue: what will be the impact of defunding all those core services on that policy intent?

I understand that you fund the delivery of programmes through the voluntary and community sector. That is not what we are talking about. We are talking about organisations' need for staff to work through the administration of programmes. Simply allowing those organisations to go under or reduce services certainly will not help the Department to deliver for people.

I note, Minister, that, in a written response to my colleague Paul Frew, you indicated that you were committed to increasing the budget for the core grant scheme. I ask you, in your response, to expand on that. I recently got the equality impact assessment (EQIA). When we asked what equality impact assessment had been done, you indicated that you did not do one on the new scheme. However, the previous decision to cut funding was put through an equality impact assessment. Your letter stated that that recognised:

I would like to understand, as would the House, why there was no screening exercise on the new programme and the new design and on the decision to maintain a cut that is obviously so damaging.

I will say a few words about the way in which the Department considers the voluntary and community sector. In his report, Professor Bengoa said:

One of the more advanced descriptions of the voluntary sector's role is contained in our current mental health strategy. Action 17 is:

It is difficult, Minister, to see how those ambitions, which are publicly accepted and part of your Department's documents, will be fulfilled if this kind of funding is continued. We make substantial —

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

Mrs Dodds: I will.

We make substantial use of the voluntary and community sector. I ask you, Minister, to look at that relationship and perhaps at longer-term contracts and better arrangements.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Before I call Nuala McAllister, I apologise: we had some clock problems, as you may have noticed. Mrs Dodds, you might have got an extra minute out of that. We are being generous.

I call Nuala McAllister. Nuala, you have five minutes.

Miss McAllister: Thank you, Deputy Speaker.

I rise to support the Committee motion. At the start, I highlight, not just to the Health Minister but to the public and those who received the core grant this year, the fact that the motion is specifically not aimed at those who got the funding. It is important to highlight that, and I understand that my colleagues on the Health Committee have done the same.

We understand the difficult situation that the Health Minister and all our Executive colleagues are in with regard to funding in the upcoming year, but, as the Member who spoke before me stated, there are political choices on priorities that must be made. As the motion points out, only 25 of the 259 community and voluntary groups that applied for core grant funding were successful. As many of the organisations that reached out to us before we tabled the motion highlighted, the fact that the funding was reduced so drastically in 2023 could have resulted in only one thing: the service collapse that we see in the community and voluntary sector.

At the Health Committee, we hear time and again from the Health Minister and his officials about the commitment to "Shift left" to ensure that we fulfil our promises on prevention before we need to spend significant money further down the stream. However, in order to support that "Shift left" agenda, I ask the Minister to reflect on the role that the community and voluntary sector plays.

We will all have heard from constituents and organisations, both those in our constituencies and those related to our portfolios, that it affects not just organisations that are primarily healthcare providers but those that offer some services to do with health. Newington Day Centre, in my constituency of North Belfast, was one of the 259 applicants but, unfortunately, not one of the 25 that received the funding. Whilst all the services should be directly assisted with core grant funding, many of the organisations have, in the past, had to rejig their funding to make sure that they could make ends meet and are now having to do the same again. However, unfortunately, many of them will have to cease some of the operations that they run, and other organisations are worried about having to cease altogether. Newington Day Centre has highlighted to me the fact that it will potentially have to stop the provision of some of its services. That provision enables adults to avail themselves of respite day services. The reason why that is so important is that it is not just a health issue; it is a societal issue. Many people with complex needs, particularly adults and older people who rely on carers, often go without, particularly when it comes to being able to be fulfilled and enjoy aspects outside of their healthcare. Therefore, it is important to realise that this is not just a health issue. It is incumbent on all of us to ensure that each of those organisations can maximise the funding that it gets.

When I spoke to Newington Day Centre, I wanted to get an assessment not of what it offers but of what it saves the health service. Given the services that Newington Day Centre provides, if it were trust-run, it would cost the trust £144 per person, but, because the services are provided by a day centre that is not trust-run, £17 of funding per person is received from the trust. At some point, the people who will not be able to avail themselves of those services will have to avail themselves of trust-run services. Will we just not offer services to them at all? That is what it is coming to. We already see that in many other areas. When we removed funding for the Healthy Happy Minds pilot, that did not stop children needing counselling services; it just meant that they had to go to the statutory functions.

We all know that the first cull is of funding for non-statutory services. If we are truly to enable a shift-left agenda and put more into prevention, we need to put our money where our mouth is and prioritise what is needed in the Department of Health.

I look forward to hearing what the Minister will say. The carers' coalition has three asks, none of which is to remove the money from anyone who has received it. Rather, it has asked for an understanding to be provided of part of the scoring criteria, for a review to be undertaken of the funding scheme that will open again in the autumn and for a coordinated response from —

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

Miss McAllister: — the Executive.

As I said, this is not just an issue for the Department of Health. Where it falls within that Department's responsibility, however, it must be prioritised.

Mr Chambers: At the outset, I pay tribute to the breadth of organisations in the community and voluntary sector that are involved in the day-to-day delivery of impactive and invaluable support right across Northern Ireland. At a time when we are facing so many profound challenges, particularly in the health and social care field, one has to question whether debating such a factually flawed motion is the best use of the Assembly's time. There appears to be some misunderstanding of this year's core grant scheme. When we engage with local charities, many of which provide essential health and social care services, it is important that we as MLAs do not speak out of both sides of our mouth.

Despite severe pressures on health service finances, the Minister took the decision to invest circa £1·8 million in core grant scheme funds rather than to allow the funding to be withdrawn from the sector entirely, as officials were advising him to. Coming into office last May, the Minister could have taken that advice and allowed the scheme to draw to an end. Instead, in July 2024, he announced that the core grant scheme would be redesigned to address the previous scheme's huge unfairness. The new scheme was then designed in partnership with the community and voluntary sector, through a process that NICVA facilitated, and was relaunched in the autumn. That is why the reference to meaningful engagement in the motion is so misplaced.

Although we all would have liked to see the level of funding be greater than it was, we need to remember that the Minister was operating in a context of severe pressures across all parts of the health and social care system. Regrettably, Members cannot seem to see the contradiction in, on the one hand, cutting the Department of Health's opening allocation in cash terms and real terms and, on the other hand, demanding that the Minister invest even greater levels of funding.

Ms Hunter: I welcome the opportunity to speak to this important motion on behalf of the SDLP. It is an issue that has been discussed at length at the Health Committee. The number and scale of groups that have contacted us about their concerns, and the very real impact that such a loss of funding will have on their ability to operate, is truly shocking. Let us be under no illusions about the work that our great organisations in the community and voluntary sector do across our constituencies. They are doing the work that the statutory sector should be doing, plugging the gap that has been left by years of underinvestment and financial mismanagement in the Department of Health. The core grant scheme has funded those organisations for more than 20 years. Let me be clear: the community and voluntary sector is absolutely essential to the delivery of strong healthcare in our communities. All of us see that at first hand in our constituencies. Whether in the field of mental health support, suicide prevention, support for our carers or disability services, we see hard work every day from staff in the sector.

Undermining the core grant scheme puts in severe jeopardy the ability of those organisations to deliver positive outcomes. It leaves their talented and caring staff and boards questioning their organisation's future viability and their position in it. It is a very stark and sad reality that we are facing. Many Members have mentioned the names of some people who work in those organisations. There are too many to mention. The people who work in the community and voluntary sector are truly the backbone of our communities, and they have done that work for decades at a time with utmost dedication, care and professionalism.

On that note, I would really like to put on record my significant thanks to the Northlands centre in Derry for the incredible work that it does. It is the backbone of the north-west when it comes to providing support not only to people who are struggling with addiction of all kinds but to their families. Addiction really is a family disease. It impacts on your loved one, and it impacts on you as an extension of your loved one. The Northlands centre, for nearly 50 years now, has been helping people in my constituency as well as people from Foyle and from the wider west Tyrone area. It is absolutely devastating to read the 'Derry Now' article that states that Northlands will not be receiving core funding. The north-west is so filled with a sense of hopelessness and has a high level of deprivation, high levels of addiction and high rates of suicidality, and to hear that the funding has been pulled for the Northlands centre gives me more questions than answers. I wanted to put that on the record.

Where does that leave us? I think that NICVA summed up perfectly what now needs to take place: an immediate increase in core funding to at least match previous levels; a comprehensive review of the scheme's purpose and scope; the development of a new three-year funding programme that reflects the sector's essential role; clear criteria for grant allocation that recognises the organisational impact and sustainability in our communities; and long-term commitment to supporting voluntary sector infrastructure. It is great that we are having this conversation today. This task is not just for the Health Minister and at the Health Minister's feet. This is something for the whole Executive to really look at and address, because it requires a collective solution to what are ongoing problems in our communities.

Mr Robinson: As other Members have done, I express our disappointment that only 25 out of 259 community and voluntary sector organisations were successful in their application for the redesigned core grant scheme. Over 90% of applicants — organisations that provide wonderful support to some of the most vulnerable people in the Province — were left without key funding to cover the fixed costs that they need to continue their work. I stress that it is fixed costs that are impacted on here, but, when fixed costs are impacted on, organisations' viability is impacted on and then so too are the services that they provide. I must say, however, without breaking rank from my fellow Health Committee members, that we had this debate last year in the Chamber. Nothing changed other than a redesigned scheme. As defeatist as it may sound, we will probably have this debate next year too.

I think that Members can see how frustrated and fatigued I am, but just imagine how so many in the community and voluntary sector must feel when they are short of a contribution of £5,000 right up to £100,000. I doubt that tea and sympathy will cut it for the families, children, elderly people and those with mental health issues. Last year, we heard how the 50% cut to the core grant fund placed some of the organisations on the brink. It led to staff being laid off, and it forced them to change the way that they operate. Some of the groups back then said that the move was short-sighted, and they predicted that, if the scheme were to cease entirely, 62% of them would be at risk of collapse. This is a sector that, sometimes, is the first point of contact for individuals who may be reluctant to approach formal health services.

During the previous debate, I said that the health service cannot fill the void left by the loss of those organisations and that we are only setting ourselves up for even bigger problems. I stand by that. Individuals who use and are dependent on those services will end up in worse situations that could have been prevented with early support. How many times in the Chamber have we been told that prevention is better and more cost-effective than the cure? Surely, long-term thinking will say that it is cheaper to fund those services now than to deal with the long-term consequences. Some of those organisations say that it is penny wise and pound foolish. For every pound invested in those services, multiples are saved in future costs to the health service, to the economy and to society in general. With a Health budget of £8·4 billion, are we so far gone that we cannot fund organisations that, rather than being mere add-ons, are integral to alleviating the huge pressures on statutory services, are dealing with issues at their roots and, ultimately, are improving outcomes?

I agree that demand was always going to outstrip supply, and it is good to hear that the standard of applications was very high. That tells me that their needs are clearly proven. With a budget of only £1·8 million, however, there were always going to be many fallers in a high-stakes race. That is deeply regrettable. It is also regrettable that the one-year funding model does not provide security. The Committee looks forward to the day when a three-year funding model can be offered. It is positive that, following a recent inquiry, the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee is calling on the UK Government to provide three-year funding. We hope that that is a "game changer", as suggested earlier by the Finance Minister. The current level of core grant funding is nowhere near sufficient to sustain, let alone expand, the current community and voluntary services. We know that demand for that type of community-based support is increasing and that, without investment, fewer people will receive the support that they need. The impact of the funding shortfall is being felt across the region by patients, families and the highly pressurised health service.

I hope that the Minister of Health continues to engage with stakeholders in the sector and listen to their concerns. I have no doubt that he understands the challenges that they face, and I hope that they and the Executive work together to find a long-term, sustainable funding solution.

Mr Martin: I am not a member of the Health Committee, but I am passionate about some of the groups that have lost funding, and I am more than aware of the amazing work that they do. Recently, I, along with my colleague behind me, Diane Dodds, facilitated a meeting with a number of groups that have lost funding. At that meeting, they highlighted the tangible impact of that loss of funding. Let me be clear: I am not calling for the scheme to be run again, or for money to be taken off any successful groups. Rather, I want to highlight the work that the community and voluntary sector does in Northern Ireland to deliver first-class services and how it fills the gaps that, sometimes, public services do not reach.

Members have already highlighted a number of organisations. We all work with different organisations. Three or four weeks ago, I was standing here highlighting the amazing work of the Samaritans. Previous to this round of funding, they got a very modest grant of about £10,000, but even that was significant for them. Celine McStravick, the chief executive of NICVA, has been mentioned in the debate. She said that the cut in funding:

I do not underestimate the difficult job that the Minister has. There are a lot of demands on the Department of Health and its funding. I imagine that the Health Minister has already instructed his permanent secretary to look down the back of the Health sofa to see whether there is anything that he can get his hands on. Maybe he will tell us whether he has done that when he responds to the debate.

Members have highlighted the Minister's shift-left agenda, with which I completely agree. However, if we displace from the third sector some of the support and interventions that we are talking about, very often people end up in more acute settings. The more acute the setting, the more expensive the intervention. We know that funding for the sectoral bodies allows them to support thousands of people who receive their services. We also know that those organisations are operating in really difficult fiscal circumstances. Again, three-year Budgets in the Assembly, and therefore in Departments, would be incredibly helpful in offsetting that.

The Minister should work towards a level of sustainability in the voluntary and community sector to ensure that the people who work in it, delivering first-class interventions for some of Northern Ireland's most vulnerable citizens, feel completely supported.

My ask today is that the Minister at least consider a reversal and an uplift in funding to the original amount, which, I believe, was £3·6 million.

Ms Flynn: To be honest, most of the points have already been made by Members. I know that the Minister will not be surprised by what the Committee has expressed here today, because, at Committee level, we have raised our concerns and written to him. As Alan said, we have debated the same issues in previous debates. I know that the Minister and his colleague who sits on the Health Committee — he was uncomfortable with our tabling the motion — are as frustrated and disappointed as all the other Members. We know that the Minister is working with a really constrained budget, but the first point to take from today's debate is that NICVA and all the groups that took part in the redesign process to look at the model were really pleased with that and the intent behind it, which was to put an end to groups getting the same amount of funding as they had got for 20-plus years. Trying to take a positive out of a negative, I will say that some of the groups that had not formally engaged with the Department before were really pleased to be involved in that process, even though they lost out.

As we know, many groups lost out, and the issue of the criteria was raised. When I wrote to the Minister about that, his response was that the breakdown of all the criteria was on the website. That is fair enough; I accept that. However, it may be worthwhile doing a bit more co-production with the groups, regardless of whether they received any funding, to help them to understand the process, the marking and the criteria more fully so that it is crystal clear to them why they missed out. When all is said and done, it comes down to the pounds and the pennies. Having a three-year Health budget was mentioned a couple of times as a way of trying to deal with that. If the groups that missed out could get a sense of whether the Minister will be in a position to plan for a three-year budget, hopefully in the next financial year, that would give them a bit more hope that he may be able to slightly increase the money in the core grant scheme. It is just about giving them a sense of whether a three-year budget will make a difference to the core grant funding.

Diane, I think, mentioned one of the action points in the mental health strategy. I make this point as a West Belfast MLA. The Minister will know that one of the key objectives of Protect Life 2 was to ensure that the areas of greatest need — the most deprived areas with the highest numbers of suicides — have appropriate resources to deal with suicide prevention. Some suicide prevention groups missed out on the core funding. Some of the groups from West Belfast that I have spoken about applied and were not successful. That is why it is really important to unpick why some critical local groups missed out on the funding. If we can make that clear to people and local groups and make them feel involved and if a three-year budget becomes a reality, hopefully, we can keep them involved so that they can apply again, at which point they may be in a better position to secure some of that funding.

I hope that the Minister takes from today's debate the fact that the Health Committee supports him in his work, so that he can help people better. Hopefully, in his feedback, he will not say that we have been too negative and that we are trying to get at him; we are just trying to express the frustrations. We also want to find ways to support him and give those groups a bit of hope.

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

Mr Nesbitt (The Minister of Health): Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. From the get-go, let us consider the irony klaxon to have been sounded. It is exhausted.

As Mr Robinson pointed out, we were here relatively recently. The amended motion that was passed that day is interesting. It reads:

Mr Robinson said that nothing had changed. However, the name of the Minister has changed, because the call is no longer on the Minister of Finance: the call is on me. I suppose that is fair enough. My Department continues to support and rely heavily on the sector, as it has done for many years. What I found interesting was the fact that not one speaker in the debate made reference not to the core grant but to the commissioned contracts that are paid to the voluntary and community sector every year. I will certainly give way to any Member who knows what that figure was for the financial year 2024-25. Nobody?

Miss McAllister: If the Minister will take a point, I do not know the figure — I will say that — but I know that the community and voluntary sector provides not just services that are commissioned by the trusts but services that the trusts should operate but do not because they do not have the ability to do so. It is rather unfair to put that back on the community and voluntary sector, because, as well as running those contracts, those people are running an absolute plethora of services because our services on the statutory side are failing them.

Mr Nesbitt: I am not putting anything back on the voluntary and community sector. You are entirely disingenuous to say that. I simply asked members of the Committee whether they knew what we paid in commissioned services last year. The answer is £53 million. I want to be clear: the core grant is not the beginning and end of the financial transactions between the Department of Health and the voluntary and community sector.

The first time that I read today's motion, I was a bit taken aback, because it begins by expressing "disappointment" at the number of groups that were successful in their application. That reads to me that Members are expressing disappointment with the voluntary and community sector, which drew up the six criteria for the new scheme. The Department did not do that; the voluntary and community sector did.

When I took up the post in late May, the core grant came up in the first-day briefs in early June, and it was clear to me that it was moribund. It was also clear to me that the Department's advice was that I should let it die off because such were the financial pressures that I would have to consider endorsing catastrophic cuts in my health budget; for example, closing an intensive care unit bed in an acute hospital, which could have cost somebody their life. Like Robin Swann before me, I said that I would not sign off on catastrophic cuts. However, I was advised, "Let the core grant scheme go. There's no budget against it — nothing — so just let it go and concentrate on other things." I said, "I'm not prepared to do that. At a minimum, find me the £1·8 million that it had last year and the year before that." I was then shocked to be told that the scheme had been in place for 20 years and was therefore a closed shop to the organisations in receipt of the funds. Any charity that had been established in the 20 years since the core grant scheme began could not even apply for money. I said, "That's not good enough", and I contacted Celine McStravick and asked her if NICVA would facilitate the workshops that would lead to a redesign of the scheme. That is how we got to where we are today.

I take exception to some of the language that I have heard about the exclusion of groups, the defunding of groups and funding being pulled from groups. We had six new criteria drawn up by the voluntary and community sector. Some applicants were successful, and some were not. I was surprised that so few groups were successful. I was particularly surprised to hear that it was some of the smaller charities who said, "Do not exclude the bigger charities. If they are best placed to deliver services, let them apply". It has skewed the outcome, and I want to review it. Since the scheme was announced and completed, I have spoken to NICVA and the Coalition of Carers. We have decided that we will look again at the scheme for next year. In the meantime, everybody will get feedback on why they were unsuccessful and what they might have done to enhance their chances. However, if we are going to tweak the scheme — we may, at least, tweak it — they need to have that information as well about what more it means.

The motion goes on to urge the Minister of Health "to engage meaningfully with stakeholders". Does that imply that, previously, I have not engaged meaningfully? That is how I read it. In the context that self-praise is no recommendation, I have been engaging meaningfully with the community and voluntary sector for decades. One of the privileges of having a high profile because you are on TV a lot is that charities come to you and ask, "Will you help us?". I have helped many charities, big and small. I have been patron of Action Cancer for many years. I was also patron of a much smaller charity that I was very fond of called Shine A Light. I worked with Children with Cancer, organising trips and treats for the children. I have raised thousands of pounds personally for charities. I engaged meaningfully during my time on television and then as a victims' commissioner. It was voluntary and community sector groups that, on a daily basis, delivered positive differences to the thousands of victims and survivors of the conflict that we so euphemistically call "our Troubles". As a victims' commissioner, I developed a deep appreciation and admiration for the work of the community and voluntary sector. The motion calls for me to "engage meaningfully with stakeholders", when the first thing that I did when I was told about the core grant was meaningfully engage with NICVA to say, "We have got to make this scheme fit for purpose. It has been going for 20 years. We have got to open it up so that everybody can apply".

By the way, there is an idea that £1·8 million is not enough: the £1·8 million was announced before we reviewed the scheme, not at the end. I am puzzled that people are coming at the end of the scheme and saying that £1·8 million is not enough, because they could have gone to the first workshop about the redesign of the scheme and said, "I do not want to participate in this. We must shout louder that £1·8 million is not enough". I agree that it is not great; it really is not great. As Mrs Dodds said, it has real and serious consequences, but what in healthcare provision does not have real and serious consequences, up to and including life-threatening consequences?

I heard the Finance Minister say that this should be the last single-year Budget. I very much hope that that is the case. He says that it is a game changer. I believe that it is as well. It could be a game changer for the core grant if we were able to provide it on a guaranteed basis for, maybe, three years.

My final point is that the motion calls on me

Again, I will give way. How much? What is the quantum? Anybody? Can I remind you that section 29(1)(a)(ii) of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 gives you a statutory obligation to "advise and assist" me. Quantum, anybody?

Mr McGuigan: If the Minister had been listening to the debate, he would have heard me and others say that, in the first instance, the scheme should be doubled to what it was — £3·6 million — and then a review could determine what a suitable amount would be. In answer to his question, a number of Members said £3·6 million immediately.

Mr Nesbitt: With respect to the Chair, that does not answer the question. The motion:

I do not think that £3·6 million will cut it, and I do not think that the Member does either.

We should really be on the same page here. The voluntary and community sector is absolutely essential to healthcare delivery, but I do not think that the motion is appropriate. I do not think that it does justice to my views and my desire to help the voluntary and community sector.

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

Mr Donnelly: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. On behalf of the Committee, I thank all Members for their contributions and thank the Minister for his response to the debate. I look forward to engagement with the Minister and the Department on taking the issue forward and on how we might empower and support our community and voluntary sector, which undertakes an extremely important role in our health and social care system.

I thank all staff and volunteers in our community and voluntary sector who play a key role in supporting our communities and improving health and social care outcomes for those in our communities. You are an invaluable part of our health system, and, this afternoon, we recognise your contribution.

I will now comment on what some Members and the Minister said. The Chair of the Health Committee opened the debate, highlighting the expertise and specialist knowledge that those organisations bring to our communities and acknowledging the work that they did during the pandemic. He also pointed out that not funding those services will ultimately cost the Department more.

Diane Dodds pointed out that the funding is 0·02% of the Health budget, and she gave the example of Relate, which gets 40% of its referrals from statutory services, such as GPs. She also highlighted that community and voluntary sector service delivery is embedded in several key strategies, such as the mental health strategy.

My colleague Nuala McAllister pointed out that cuts to the core grant have led to service collapse and gave the example of a day respite service provider in her constituency that has been affected by the cut.

Alan Chambers called the motion "factually flawed" and pointed out that although the Minister was under financial pressure, he had continued to fund the scheme.

Cara Hunter pointed out that community and voluntary sector groups are plugging the gaps in services that are needed in healthcare delivery and highlighted that the instability of the cuts is having an impact on the sector. She gave the example of the work of Northlands in the north-west. It supports people with addiction but has lost its core grant funding.

Moving on to the Minister's contribution. He highlighted the difference between previous motions that were initially directed at the Finance Minister and pointed out that £53 million was commissioned from services from the community and voluntary sector in the previous financial year. He said that the previous scheme had been in place for 20 years, and he spoke about his positive engagement with the community and voluntary sector. The Minister also said that he will look again at the scheme for next year and recounted his meaningful engagement with the community and voluntary sector over many years. He is looking forward to multi-year budgets, which will be a game changer for the community and voluntary sector.

We know that our health and social care system is a very challenging place. We have the longest waiting lists in western Europe. Our primary care services are very stretched and in financial difficulty. We have massive gaps in our social care workforce, and we have over 250 organisations and charities that want to be funded and involved in the delivery of services across Northern Ireland. We must find a way to support those organisations and charities. As a Committee, we have seen at first hand, over the past year, the important roles and work of the sector. It is providing some of the really innovative approaches to services. It has also proven that it can deliver services to those who are particularly difficult to reach or who will not engage with the statutory sector. It is clear that if we want to see the shift left, to which the Minister referred, with services being delivered closer to the community, we need to have a framework in place that will allow services to be provided. Many of the services that we want to see moved into the community will be delivered by the community and voluntary sector. However, if we do not put the support frameworks in now, we may lose many of the organisations.

We need sustainable funding in the community and voluntary sector that will allow it to meet the needs of our communities and their support. That is why the Committee is calling for the Minister to urgently review the core grant scheme and consider how additional funding can be identified and rolled out to many of the 234 organisations and charities that were unsuccessful in the process. There is a need for meaningful engagement with the sector to consider how the fund can be taken forward in the coming years.

I thank the Members and the Minister for participating in this important debate to support the Committee motion.

I will also take the opportunity to speak in my capacity as an Alliance MLA spokesperson on health. I thank all Members who contributed to the discussion and to my fellow members on the Health Committee for their work on tabling the motion. The discussions today underscore a collective concern for the well-being of our constituents and the indispensable role played by the voluntary and community sector in safeguarding public health. However, concern must translate into decisive action. The reality that we face today is stark. The budget for the core grant scheme has been slashed from £3·6 million to just £1·8 million. That decision, made in the absence of a functioning Executive, has had devastating consequences for organisations that provide front-line support to some of the most vulnerable people in our society.

As mentioned by Diane Dodds, the Department of Health’s equality impact assessment recognised that the removal of the funding would impact on older people, children, people in the LGBT community, people with disabilities and carers. Further to that, among those with dependants, it will disproportionately affect women, who make up 82% of unpaid carers.

NICVA — the Northern Ireland Council for Voluntary Action — pointed out that less than 6% of applicants received funding this year, a figure that speaks volumes. Positive Life, an affected organisation and Northern Ireland’s only dedicated HIV charity, has said that the cost of treating one additional person with HIV here could fund its core cost for three years. That highlights the fact that there is a growing and dangerous misalignment between how much the Department relies on the sector and how little it invests in its ability to deliver. It also raises the question of whether there has been any real assessment of the cost of losing those services. Has any impact analysis been carried out to understand what happens to communities when those groups are forced to close their doors?

The Minister has said that there will be "winners and losers" in the process. I urge Members to pause and seriously reflect on who those so-called losers will be. When we talk about impact, we are not speaking in abstract terms; we are talking about the people of Northern Ireland — our constituents, friends, families and those who look to the Assembly and its Members to make the right decisions in their best interests. It is the people of Northern Ireland who, all too often, find themselves bearing the consequences of political indecision.

The uncertainty faced by the community and voluntary organisations as they await news of vital new funding every year mirrors a broader reality: the public, too, are left in a state of perpetual anticipation, wondering not whether but when the institutions of government will, once again, be brought to a halt. That persistent instability is more than a matter of inconvenience; it harms the delivery of public services, undermines public confidence, deepens inequality and places undue strain on those already most in need.

We must face an uncomfortable truth: short-term thinking, siloed funding and reactive policy are no longer fit for purpose. Health does not exist in isolation; it is shaped by housing, education, justice and community. If we want to build a health system that is truly preventative and person-centred, we need Departments working together, not in parallel but in partnership. Reform must mean more than new structures; it must mean smarter investment, clearer outcomes and real accountability for delivery. No one is pretending that reform is easy, but the alternative — continuing as we are — is simply not sustainable: not morally, not socially and not economically.

The motion is not just a critique of what has gone wrong; it is a call to fix it, to review the scheme urgently, to invest properly in the groups that hold our communities together and to commit to a political culture that does not leave people guessing whether help will come or whether government will show up. I urge my fellow Members to support the motion.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Thank you very much, Danny, and everybody who took part in the debate.