Official Report: Tuesday 13 May 2025

Mr Speaker: On Tuesday 29 April and Tuesday 6 May, Members raised points of order about the conduct of Jonathan Buckley. I will return to those matters today. First, on Tuesday 29 April, Mr Stewart Dickson asked me to review the disruption that Mr Buckley caused from a sedentary position during questions to the Minister of Justice. As I have previously made clear, including on that day, I like to see some life in the House. Passionate debate in the Chamber, particularly during Question Time, is healthy. I have indicated that I intend to return to issues about our standards of debate, particularly in the context of our scrutiny functions.

I am not a great believer in Members reading speeches without taking interventions and so on. That does not strike me as being much of a debate. I welcome the opportunity, however, to clarify that there is a difference between lively and passionate debate and disorderly behaviour. It is imperative that the individual who has the Floor be heard, but that does not mean that they have to be heard in total silence. That having been said, when someone is speaking, it is not acceptable to shout continually from a sedentary position to the extent that the Member or, indeed, the Minister who has the Floor is disrupted and cannot proceed with their contribution or cannot be heard. If Members were to make a habit of such behaviour, they might find that they will not be called from the Chair.

At Question Time that day, wider issues were raised about Standing Order 19 and whether it is appropriate to ask a Minister for their opinion. I do not think that Mr Buckley is the first Member to ask a Minister for their opinion. In fact, it happens regularly. It is often friendly fire, and, as such, Ministers are happy to give their opinion.

Therefore, although Ministers may complain when there is unfriendly fire, the remarks have to be taken in that context. That having been said, as Speaker, I am not really interested in Minister's opinions; I am interested in facts. Members should bear in mind that, when they ask a Minister questions, they are seeking to scrutinise that Minister in order to get the facts. The Minister's opinions do not really matter.

Further to that, a number of Ministers are also party leaders, and they are being asked questions as party leaders. I remind Members that their questions are to Ministers. A Minister's position as a party leader is a separate issue, and we would do well to avoid that confusion.

Last Tuesday, 6 May, Sinéad Ennis raised a point of order regarding Mr Buckley's contribution about Danny Baker during Members' statements. I have reviewed the Official Report and taken advice, and Ms Ennis was right in stating that Standing Order 24A(6) is clear that Members' statements:

That does not mean that Members' statements cannot be used, for example, to criticise ministerial inaction or, indeed, action. However, they should not be used to attack the character of another Member. Mr Buckley did that in his remarks about Mr Baker. I have said before that Members should deal with issues rather than the person.

Following Ms Ennis's point of order, I am taking a number of actions. First, Members will note that, at the beginning of Members' statements yesterday, Members were reminded of the restrictions that are set out in Standing Orders. That includes another requirement that Members have overlooked on a number of occasions, which is that they should address only one subject during a Member's statement. Secondly, to deal with issues on occasions beyond Members' statements, I am making a ruling based on expected levels of courtesy in other places. If a Member intends to make a contribution in the Chamber that raises issues about another Member, they should inform that Member in advance so that they have the opportunity to be present if they so wish.

Those are some points on behaviour for all Members to consider.

Mr Speaker: Matthew O'Toole has been given leave to make a statement on the impact of proposed UK immigration reforms on Northern Ireland, which fulfils the criteria set out in Standing Order 24. If other Members wish to be called, they should rise in their place. All Members who contribute will have up to three minutes to speak on the subject. No interventions or points of order will be taken during this period.

Mr O'Toole: Thank you very much, Mr Speaker, for accepting this Matter of the Day. I want to double-check that I have five minutes to make an opening statement. Is that correct?

Mr Speaker: Three minutes.

Mr O'Toole: Thank you.

Yesterday, the UK Government launched their White Paper on immigration reform. It marked a step change in their approach to immigration in a sharply rightward direction. Those who read the Prime Minister's remarks or, indeed, those of the Home Secretary will not find, as far as I can see, a single word of clear praise for immigration and the benefits that migration, new communities and entrants with skills, talent, energy and hope can bring to our society and societies everywhere. I acknowledge, because it is obvious, that no state can have a completely uncontrolled migration system. Of course, every state in the world applies rules on immigration, but it is clear that what happened yesterday is part of a trend in British politics that has been happening for more than a decade. It was a sharp shift rightward that many people in Northern Ireland do not want and from which our economy will suffer.

I will talk about some of the broader conclusions in a moment, but, more specifically, there will be real-world consequences from the kinds of policies on UK immigration that Keir Starmer's Government announced. Clamping down on care workers will impact on our health service and our care sector. Increasing salary thresholds will affect a wide range of sectors, which have already suffered from labour access issues in Northern Ireland. Those sectors range from parts of our fintech sector in Northern Ireland, which has occasionally had challenges in bringing in people post Brexit, to our fishing industry, which, as many people will know, has benefited not only from our local and, if you like, indigenous fishing communities but from skilled people who come from other parts of the world.

We also have a pre-existing, pernicious immigration control policy that will devastate the tourism economy in Northern Ireland and on the island of Ireland: the electronic travel authorisation (ETA). As people know, the overwhelming majority of visitors come into Northern Ireland across the border via Dublin Airport or, indeed, another port of entry in the Republic. They see travelling to this island, whatever about the politics and jurisdictional questions, as simply visiting Ireland. That is not a political statement; it is a statement of fact. We know that, for tour groups, the added bureaucracy and cost will create a challenge and make it harder to visit the amazing attractions that we have up here, be it the Giant's Causeway, Titanic Belfast, St Patrick's grave in Downpatrick or any of the other brilliant attractions. Those are all consequences of tightening immigration that our economy and people face.

Mr Speaker: The Member's time is up.

Mr O'Toole: Sorry, Mr Speaker —

Mr Speaker: The Member's time is up. You had three minutes, Member. You were reminded of that at the start.

Ms Ní Chuilín: I thank Matthew O'Toole for bringing the Matter of the Day to the Floor of the Assembly. I agree: the British Government's announcement in the White Paper that sets out their intentions for a new immigration system is really worrying. I want to be clear — we all need to be clear — that it needs to be human rights-based and comply with and adhere to international law. No state has an open immigration policy; rules and controls are set. The latest announcement is shocking and worrying. From what I heard yesterday, there needs to be a more compassionate approach.

Our health and social care system is, as we all know — we have debated it a lot of times in the Chamber and will continue to do so for the rest of the mandate — at a point of real concern. Therefore, the removal of doctors, nurses, health and social care workers and allied health professionals (AHPs) from our health and social care system through the suggested policy is really concerning. Our agriculture sector — this is the week of the Balmoral show — will be severely hit, as will our food-processing sector. As Matthew outlined, it will have an impact on tourism and greatly affect the number of people who come here to see the sights that we are all trying to promote.

We need to get as much advice as possible on the potential impacts. We all must use whatever influence we have, particularly those who sit on the green Benches, to stand against such a worrying and, in fact, right-wing approach to the immigration system. I am also concerned about the impact that it may have on people who are genuinely seeking asylum and refugee status. That was not laid out in the paper yesterday.

Again, I thank Matthew for bringing the matter to the Floor today. I look forward to seeing a bit more detail on what the White Paper will bring, but, from what I have heard thus far, it is really concerning.

Mr Buckley: Finally, the penny has dropped. The issue of uncontrolled and illegal immigration has been a priority for the people of Northern Ireland and those across the United Kingdom for years, but it fell on deaf ears in parties such as Alliance, Sinn Féin and the SDLP, and there was silence from the UK Government, whether Conservative or Labour. Their inaction has caused catastrophic damage to the social fabric of the communities that we represent. How much longer were we expected to stand by in silence? How much longer would our communities be ignored and their concerns dismissed? How much longer would our borders be treated as optional guidelines rather than sovereign lines?

Just yesterday, Keir Starmer said:

My goodness, what a hefty defeat in an election can bring forward: the Prime Minister is finally waking up and smelling the coffee. In many communities, it is already like that.

If you go to some of our working-class unionist or nationalist towns throughout Northern Ireland or, indeed, those that do not prescribe to being either, you will see communities that have been destroyed by the havoc of illegal immigration and quotas that have vastly outpaced the services that they represent.

I see the shaking of heads from Sinn Féin. Be under no illusion: you are completely out of step with many people in the nationalist community who face severe pressures in accessing public services. They cannot get access to their GPs or EDs. They are put to the back of the queue while interpreters come to our hospitals. That is a result of your reckless policies on border security. If we look at school places, we see that many of our constituents have been denied access to local schools. Why? It is because they have been put at the back of the queue. It is a grave issue that has to be addressed.

Yesterday, the National Audit Office reported that £400 million has been spent on housing illegal asylum seekers in Northern Ireland. That is four times the original indication, which is ridiculous, yet you are happy to splash out on those policies. You come to the House calling for more money for public services when you support policies that are bleeding public services dry. It is time that you woke up. I welcome the fact that the Prime Minister seems to be, essentially, accepting his party's failure in office and that of the Conservatives —

Mr Speaker: The Member's time is up.

Mr Buckley: — and we will hold them to account to ensure that they do just that.

Mr Dickson: I thank Matthew O'Toole for bringing this important issue to the House this morning. The previous Conservative Government's dire mismanagement has left our immigration system in tatters. Public trust has been entirely shattered, so it was right for the Government to take steps to fix our broken immigration system and ensure that it works for our country, but not through more of the same failed systems and policies of the Tory Government. We need a clear plan to make it easier to recruit workers to fill vacancies in the United Kingdom. They are the very people who Mr Buckley wants to keep out of the United Kingdom: hospital workers, doctors, nurses and care workers.

Since we left the European Union, immigration has become a serious problem for the United Kingdom. If Brexit had not happened, many of the issues would not be with us today. We need clear policies that set out how people will be welcomed to the United Kingdom. We also need to deal with the confusion in the public's mind between immigration and people who enter seeking asylum. Powell-like language is no badge of honour for a Prime Minister, and it is certainly no badge of honour for any Member of this House.

Mr Butler: I thank the Member for bringing the debate to the Chamber, even if it is brief. The proposed UK immigration reforms have sparked strong opinions already, but any honest discussion of them must begin by recognising the devolved nature of governance. While immigration policy is reserved to Westminster, its consequences are deeply felt in devolved regions such as Northern Ireland, where the unique social, economic and historical context demands a nuanced approach. Immigration, when controlled, well-managed and transparently reported, needs to be deeply rooted in humanity. It should not be feared, because it enriches our communities, fills critical workforce gaps and brings fresh perspectives.

If there has been any failure in immigration across these islands — I think that there has been — it has been the blanket ban on open and honest reporting and the fear that that void creates. Unfortunately, the debate is often hijacked by those who demand almost entirely open borders and those who would shut the door completely. Both extremes polarise rather than inform, leaving little room for pragmatic, humane policymaking. What is needed is a robust, workable framework that balances compassion with control, reflecting real-world needs and the values of the affected communities — the communities that we live in. Northern Ireland, given that it shares a border with the EU, deserves a particular voice in shaping how the reforms would affect movement, labour markets and, crucially, integration.

Transparent reporting and respectful dialogue must underpin future immigration policy.

It is possible to uphold fairness, security and opportunity for those who come here to seek a new life and for those who already call this place home. That balance should be our collective goal.

Mr McGrath: I thank my colleague for bringing the issue to the House. I want to bring a local dimension to the discussion. If there is one thing that a hardened ideology will not do, it is put food on the table for people. A number of businesses in my constituency are struggling under the old rules to get staff to fill the posts to do the work. I am thinking of the fishing industry and the fish processing industry in particular, which require people for only short, seasonal work, but cannot get recognition from the British Government in London of the fact that their work is seasonal. As a result, those businesses are going to struggle to survive.

What does that mean? If half a business is made up of local people and half is complemented by seasonal workers, what happens if it does not have the workers and cannot deliver the work? The business closes. If the business closes and a number of people in the constituency lose their job, I hope that they will be able to go to the elected representatives of theirs who wave flags and talk about their ideology and ask them, now that they have to draw down money from the welfare state in order to survive, how that helps.

We need a sensible approach to the matter. The sensible approach is never on the far left or the far right; it is always somewhere in between. What was announced yesterday was not good, because, as my colleague said, it was a lurch to the right. Therefore, I would like the issue to be brought more to the centre. Nobody wants to see the downsides to mass immigration if it is there, but we want to see jobs in our community being filled so that people can flourish and businesses can survive. As I said, I am thinking especially of the owners and managers in the fish processing industry in my constituency who are saying that they are being brought to their knees because of the immigration policy. It cannot be good if they are being brought to their knees. Yesterday's announcement will take us even further to the right, which will not help.

Mr Carroll: Keir Starmer's announcement yesterday was divisive and disgraceful. I suspect that Nigel Farage and Reform UK were delighted with and were rubbing their hands at the use of Enoch Powell-style language, sticking the boot into migrants or people who are seeking asylum. Most of us, and certainly those in my party, knew that Keir Starmer would not be strong in standing up for oppressed and marginalised people, but many of us did not think that he would be this bad this quickly.

One of the worst aspects of yesterday's statement is the fact that Starmer is doing it all to save his own political skin. Rattled by the far right Reform UK party, he is a cowardly weathervane, and his announcement is being used to boost his party. What it will do, however, is boost the far right, racist, anti-migrant sentiment across Britain and probably on this island. It comes at a time when, just last week, we heard the BMA say that its members are terrified of using public transport because of racist violence. People, especially those in this House, should remember that, given their language and what they say.

Racism does not just magically appear from the sky or come about organically. It comes from the top of society. Keir Starmer has, once again, made a British Government policy statement that is racist and kicks our migrant brothers and sisters. Shame on him for doing so. We hear a lot about legitimate concerns. There is a duty, especially on people in this House, to challenge lies about migration. Migrants or asylum seekers are not a drain on public services. A drain on public services are billionaires, tax evasion by the rich and economic policy that takes a hammer blow to services day in, day out and year in, year out.

Yesterday, Starmer used dehumanising language when he referred to migrants in disgraceful terms. I want to say quite clearly that migrants are welcome in this part of the world. They are welcome in my constituency and in every part of the North, despite the fear and propaganda that is spouted by some, including in this House and in the media. The vast majority of people on this island are welcoming. There is no such thing as an illegal asylum seeker. They do not exist. It is quite ironic that parties such as the DUP, Reform UK and others wholeheartedly back Britain's foreign policy, which creates refugees across the world. They are happy for Britain to spend billions on war and wreak havoc across the world, but they then lament and stick the boot into people for having the temerity to seek safety and sanctuary in this part of the world. The crisis in our health service was not caused by migrants or asylum seekers. It was caused by the economic policies of the British Government, and by the policies espoused by the DUP in particular.

Mr Gaston: The Bill that saw its Second Reading in the Commons yesterday was a welcome one; indeed, it has annoyed all the right people in this House this morning, namely Sinn Féin, the SDLP and their helpers in the Alliance Party, which shows me that it is a step in the right direction.

TUV wants to see boats crossing the channel stopped and immigration tightened up. TUV wants to see a Government that are serious about border security. However, I observe that this is only happening now because of the Mayday, Mayday alarm that was sent to the Labour Government at the local elections when Reform, which has a clear policy on immigration, swept the boards. The issue that concerns me is how this will apply to Northern Ireland. Our open border with the South and the Irish means that immigrants can be stopped at the border when travelling from the Irish Republic to Northern Ireland, but, for some reason, they are not being stopped when travelling from the South up here to Northern Ireland. That issue needs to be addressed urgently.

More alarming still is the possibility that the Bill could go the same way as the Rwanda Bill and be found by the courts to be incompatible with the protocol. If that happens — this is a stark warning — Northern Ireland will face the very real prospect of becoming a dumping ground for illegal immigrants, with no effective immigration law. I trust that the Labour Government will not inflict that on Northern Ireland and will take steps to ensure that that will not happen.

Mr McGuigan: The Department for Communities recently published the gambling prevalence survey for the North. The survey shows that 3% of our population are experiencing severe gambling-related harms, a further 10% are considered low- or moderate-risk gamblers, and approximately one in seven adults who participated in gambling here in the past 12 months said that they had, at least sometimes, bet more than they could afford to lose. About one in eight said that they needed to gamble larger amounts to get the same feeling of excitement, and just under one in 12 of those surveyed said that gambling had caused health problems, including stress and anxiety. Clearly, gambling can have a wider impact in money loss, and that can affect families and communities, with 10% of people reporting that their relationship with someone close, such as a spouse, partner, family member or friend, had broken down because of someone's gambling.

It is concerning that, despite the depressing figures that I have just quoted, the research also found that only 1% of people who gamble have sought help, support or information from a gambling support service or mental health services. That clearly shows that there is an unmet need for gambling treatment services here in the North. The Minister of Health must urgently move to commission treatment services for gambling addiction. Given existing pressures on addiction services, additional funding is required to provide those suffering from gambling-related harms with the support that they need and deserve. Therefore, the Minister for Communities needs to introduce a gambling industry levy on land-based operators here without delay.

It is also disappointing, though not surprising, to see that the North has a significantly higher rate of problem gambling than Britain. The British Government must do more to protect our population from gambling-related harm. The North does not receive any of the money raised from the statutory levy on online gambling operators introduced by the British Government on 6 April to fund research, prevention and treatment of gambling harms. That is despite the fact that online gambling operators here profit from gamblers in the North, and those same operators, licensed by Britain's Gambling Commission, are allowed to freely advertise here in the North where our population receives none of the regulatory protection afforded to those in Britain. Ministers need to step up their efforts to ensure that the North receives its fair share of the levy on online gambling companies.

The gambling prevalence survey also showed that two thirds of our people believe that there are too many gambling advertisements, and 71% supported a watershed for TV and radio gambling advertisements. The British Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport should urgently use her existing powers to introduce tighter restrictions on gambling advertising, including a watershed, to protect people here from gambling-related harms.

Mr Robinson: Yesterday, in the House, I referred to a 100-year anniversary, and I want to make a short reference to another: Limavady Hockey Club celebrates its 100th anniversary this year. Given the history of the House, it is always good to put on record sporting organisations across the Province that merit attention, especially on the way that they have existed alongside this seat of power.

I am no expert on hockey. The expertise in that sport seems to lie with the Education Minister and hockey coach, Paul Givan. However, it would be remiss of me, as someone born and bred in the Roe Valley, not to refer to that piece of Limavady sporting history, even as someone with limited knowledge of all things hockey. It is important that clubs with a century-long history tell their story, and what better way to be recorded for future generations than to be noted in this Chamber of government?

I also congratulate the club for having scored, in its centenary year, its 100th goal — a defining target that it hoped to meet during this milestone year. Indeed, it went on to break that 100-goal target. By all accounts, the 100-year anniversary gala dinner at the weekend was a huge success. It allowed members past and present to reflect on the rich history of the club.

Today also affords me the opportunity to congratulate someone who is described as the backbone of the club, Rhonda McClelland, who has served the local sporting organisation for 40 years of its 100-year existence. "Legend" is a word that can sometimes be thrown around cheaply, but ask anyone to describe someone who has given 40 years of their life to their local sports club, and "legend" most certainly fits the bill.

The centenary is a fantastic achievement for Limavady Hockey Club and the Limavady community. I commend the players, coaching staff and fans for their hard work and dedication, and here's hoping for another fabulous 100 years.

Miss McAllister: I rise today as the chair of the all-party group on stroke to highlight World Thrombectomy Day, which takes place tomorrow, Wednesday 14 May. For those who are unaware, thrombectomy is a mechanical procedure that, if carried out on eligible stroke survivors in a timely manner, saves brains by significantly reducing the chance of disability, such as paralysis, visual impairment and communication difficulties after stroke. It saves money, as each patient who receives a thrombectomy ultimately saves the health service an average of £47,000 over five years. It also changes lives, as a quarter of patients who receive a thrombectomy experience reduced disability, while a fifth achieve functional independence.

Thanks to the efforts of hard-working stroke teams, Northern Ireland has a relatively well-developed thrombectomy service compared with the rest of the UK. Despite that, only 6·4% of patients receive a thrombectomy, meaning that we fall short of ensuring that every eligible patient, which is thought to be at least 10% of stroke patients, can benefit from that life-changing treatment. The only way to ensure that every eligible stroke patient receives a thrombectomy is by providing a 24/7 service. In the stroke action plan published in June 2022 the Department of Health committed to delivering a 24/7 service for Northern Ireland by the end of 2024. However, it was not achieved. The delay is unacceptable and will lead to more serious disabilities and, in some cases, death.

Last year, it was estimated that approximately 100 people in Northern Ireland missed out on a thrombectomy. Some of their stories have been brilliantly captured by a local film-maker, Harry Bateman, in his documentary, 'Thrombectomy: Restoring Life'. I urge Members to take 20 minutes to watch it via the Stroke Association website. In the documentary, Harry outlines the journey that he and his family have been on since his dad suffered a stroke in 2019. I also thank the Stroke Association and the secretariat of the all-party group on stroke for their continued work to campaign and raise awareness of the significant impact that a 24/7 thrombectomy service could have for stroke patients.

Mr Butler: I want to mark the end of International Compost Awareness Week, which ran from 4 May to 10 May. It was a week dedicated entirely to compost, proving that even potato peelings, grass cuttings, banana skins and yesterday's leftovers can enjoy a bit of positive PR. Behind the humour, however, is a serious message, which is that composting is a powerful and natural way to fight climate change, improve soil health and boost biodiversity. Compost turns food and garden waste into a valuable resource, reducing landfill, cutting emissions and giving plants a nutrient-rich base. To celebrate the week, Northern Ireland's leading organics recycling company, Natural World Products, partnered with local councils to provide free, high-quality peat-free compost to households across the region. It was produced using the very food and garden waste that residents put in their brown bin and is a brilliant example of the circular economy in action. Full credit goes to Mrs Butler for making sure that I put that waste in the brown bin weekly. Councils in Antrim and Newtownabbey, Belfast, Ards and North Down, Lisburn and Castlereagh, Mid and East Antrim and Newry, Mourne and Down all took part, handing out compost to help residents grow a greener garden whilst supporting a greener planet.

The theme for this year's International Compost Awareness Week was "COMPOST ... Nature's Climate Champion", and that could not be more fitting. Composting helps store carbon, improves water retention and encourages stronger and more resilient plants. It is climate action with a trowel, is simple and effective and is something in which we all can get involved. International Compost Awareness Week is the world's largest education initiative focused on composting and brings together gardeners, farmers, councillors and communities in a shared effort to protect our planet. I commend Natural World Products and our local councils for helping residents get their hands dirty for a good cause, and I encourage everyone to keep composting, even after the spotlight moves on.

Mr McGrath: I will speak about the Downpatrick and County Down Railway, which is a fantastic local project in my constituency run by volunteers who have spent years restoring our railway heritage. They have built something really special. It is educational, is a tourist draw and brings real pride to our area. When the floods hit Downpatrick, however, the railway was the first place into which they came, and a lot of real and serious damage was done.

Unfortunately, the level of funding that was made available was nowhere near enough to help undo the damage that the floods caused. The volunteers had put years of work into restoring trains, carriages, tracks and buildings, and it took just a few days of heavy rain to undo that work. The level of funding provided to try to help the volunteers after the floods was not nearly enough for the size and the scale of their project. It was all the more galling for them when they found out that nearly half the money that had been set aside to try to assist businesses and groups was then sent back for Departments to use. That felt like the ultimate slap in the face, because it said to them, "A huge amount of damage was done. We have got some money, but you are not getting it". It is so sad that some mechanism was not made available for use by an organisation undertaking a community-based project that tries to tick so many of the boxes for government: bringing in tourists; trying to tackle social deprivation; and encouraging people to participate in their local community by volunteering to rejuvenate an area of the town that was previously run down and turning it into a cultural tourism destination. When it came to their need, the money was not there. Instead, the volunteers saw it go back to the centre and not be made available to them.

That made the volunteers very sad, and it also makes me very sad, because I want to see that part of Downpatrick be rejuvenated. I want to see more footfall in that part of the town, but the project has been set back by a number of years. There are other Department for Communities initiatives to try to lift Downpatrick, and I hope that we might be able to use them to try to lever in some support, especially to try to help those volunteers, who have put in numerous hours of their own time only to see everything literally swept away. I hope that we can continue to help them. Thank you to the volunteers for the work that they do. Hopefully, we can get some finance for them for the future.

Ms Finnegan: Ba mhaith liom an deis seo a ghlacadh le comhghairdeas a dhéanamh le Megan Walsh arb í an chéad bhean dóiteáin í i gCrois Mhic Lionnáin.

Megan is a young woman from my constituency of South Armagh who already motivates us daily through her work in the Crossmaglen Community Association and her efforts to try to build a better future for her local area through community development. Now, she is bravely following in her father's footsteps by becoming a firefighter, the first female in Crossmaglen to do so, taking her inspirational work and achievements to new heights.

Megan epitomises the strength, determination and leadership that women bring to our communities. She has broken new ground in overcoming barriers in pursuit of her goals. In doing so, she has become a powerful role model for others. What makes that achievement even more selfless is the risk and danger that it poses. I wish Megan a long, safe and fulfilling career. Guim gach rath ort, a Megan.

Between rising temperatures and arson, wildfires have been spreading rapidly across the North this past week, and we are being warned to brace ourselves for more. It is beyond shameful that some of those fires have been started deliberately: they are damaging the environment and putting lives at risk. That is having a serious impact on rural communities as people are having to evacuate their homes due to the danger. The emergency services, especially the Fire and Rescue Service, have to be commended for the work that they have put in, which has kept people safe and helped to minimise damage. I extend my sincere thanks to the firefighters and members of the emergency services who have been working tirelessly throughout this period to protect lives and property.

Such incidents will, unfortunately, continue, if not increase in number, with the impact of global warming as record-breaking temperatures continue. The dangerous impacts of extreme weather do not recognise borders, and the best way to deal with the climate crisis is on an all-island basis. Climate change merits an all-island strategy to meet the significant challenge that it poses and deal with the impact that it will have on this island.

Mr Speaker: Although they were all related, we possibly had three different issues there.

Mrs Erskine: My statement is on a related subject. I pay tribute to the scores of firefighters who tackled a blaze in the Clogher Valley last week. At one point, over 100 firefighters were tasked to the area. The Fire and Rescue Service indicated that the fires were started deliberately, and I wholeheartedly condemn those responsible for them. The devastation was massive and upsetting to witness. It was awful to see the loss of habitat and the potential danger to the area. The fire could be seen from where I live.

Over recent days, many have made mention of their shock and sadness at seeing such a huge fire. The western area group commander, Patsy Begley, told the media that, in his 26 years in the Fire and Rescue Service, he has never seen anything like it. Last week, as a result of the fire, there was a stench of smoke in the area, large clouds of smoke and ash on cars and in buildings. Last night, I witnessed the ash blowing about in my own home, which shows how dangerous such fires could be for people with respiratory illnesses and one thing and another.

I place on record my thanks to the crews who worked around the clock and those that came down to the Clogher Valley from elsewhere in Northern Ireland. I also thank the PSNI, which monitored road closures to ensure that emergency vehicles could get through. It is a testament to the community spirit in my area that Clogher Valley Free Presbyterian Church enabled the emergency services to set up their base in its facilities. I congratulate the church for giving its building freely and assisting the Fire and Rescue Service in any way that it could.

The fire is still being investigated, but it should be a wake-up call for everybody that lighting fires is no type of game. If you think that it is, you should face up to what has happened in my area and in other parts of Northern Ireland in recent weeks and months and to the cost of destroying wildlife. Human life and property could have been destroyed as a result of those mindless actions. There is to be good weather this week: we welcome that but it also brings danger.

I urge the public to be vigilant about wildfires and lighting fires. Do everything possible to ensure that no further destruction occurs. Be safe and act responsibly.

Mr McHugh: Déanaimid Seachtain Dhomhanda na Náisiún Aontaithe um Shábháilteacht ar Bhóithre a cheiliúradh an tseachtain seo. Tá gortuithe tráchta ar bhóithre ar cheann de na príomhchúiseanna báis agus míchumais ar fud an domhain: maraítear beagnach 1.2 milliún duine agus gortaítear 50 milliún duine gach bliain i dtaismí bóthair. Is iad is mó is cúis bháis do dhaoine óga idir cúig bliana agus 29 mbliana d'aois. Is coisí nó rothaí é duine as gach ceathrar a mharaítear ar fud an domhain. Is ar shábháilteacht coisithe agus rothaithe atáimid a dhíriú ár n-airde an tseachtain seo, agus is amhlaidh is cóir.

Idir 2012 agus 2022, gortóidh beagnach 3,000 rothaí ar ár mbóithre. Ainneoin ár ndíchill, agus ainneoin a raibh ann d’fheachtais, níor tháinig aon titim ar líon na ndaoine a gortaíodh. Anuraidh, sna Sé Chontae is Fiche, is coisithe, rothaithe agus úsáideoirí r-scútair 40% daoibh sin a maraíodh ar na bóithre.

Is eol dúinn uile na deacrachtaí bonneagair atá againn. Mar sin de, molaimid do dhaoine modh eile iompair a úsáid leis an bhrú tráchta a éascú agus le cuidiú leis an timpeallacht. Agraím daoine a bheith ar a n-airdeall agus iad ag taisteal ar ár mbóithre. Tá freagracht ar gach duine againn muid féin, agus an mhuintir atá thart orainn, a choinneáil slán. Ba chóir do gach aon duine atá ag taisteal ar ár mbóithre ceann cúrsa a bhaint amach.

Mr Brooks: There is an increasing plague on communities in east Belfast, as there is across the country, I am sure, and that is the illegal use of scrambler bikes. In recent weeks, I have met police officers who cover the east Belfast and Dundonald areas to discuss the subject. It was clear from our discussions that the police have dealt with issues in the same areas as have been reported to me: on the greenway, at Tullycarnet, on the Beersbridge Road and Albertbridge Road, in Orangefield Park, on the Newtownards Road and in Ballybeen. On roads and in parks, residents are tortured, and parents are afraid for their children. Only a couple of weeks ago, a police officer was hurt in the course of their duty while trying to prevent the misuse of a scrambler. I recall that, in 2016, a mother was killed in, I believe, Falls Park in west Belfast, yet it seems that the police are still trying to deal with the problem with their arms tied behind their backs by regulations on engagement.

The danger has increased because of the proliferation of quieter electric scramblers. There is also an awareness that scramblers are used not only in reckless, antisocial behaviour or by naive youngsters but in a more sinister role. It is suspected that the bikes are regularly used by those who seek to collect debts or intimidate and in the supply of drugs.

It is clear that our police require more tools and direction to tackle the issue. From talking to the police, I feel that an increase in drone teams would be useful and make it easier to track, follow and, hopefully, apprehend culprits after the fact. The police also felt that the mandatory registration of such vehicles would be a step in the right direction. We could also look at education and awareness campaigns similar to those traditionally undertaken on speeding and drink-driving.

Ultimately, we have a problem where culprits are almost arrogant in their understanding of the limitations of officers, who often cannot give chase. We have to tilt the balance to ensure that those flouting the law are afraid of the repercussions and are aware that being caught is a real prospect. We ask the Justice Minister to seriously look at how our police are resourced, enabled and empowered to resolve the issue for our communities.

Mr Blair: I rise as a representative of South Antrim to draw attention to the unsatisfactory state of rural public transport across the constituency. Across Northern Ireland, our rural communities remain severely underserved and neglected by transportation infrastructure. Residents in those areas face significant and, often, overwhelming difficulties in accessing essential services; stable employment opportunities; and social amenities and activities. That is primarily due to the unreliable, infrequent and, at times, entirely absent public transport provision that is available to them. It is disheartening to acknowledge that, despite the combined efforts of local representatives and community champions to advocate for improved services, the needs and voices of rural residents continue to go unheard.

The current transport situation not only continues systemic inequalities but creates a major obstacle to economic growth and social progress in those communities. For instance, in my constituency, the towns of Randalstown and Toome are situated along the primary route to Derry/Londonderry. Despite my Alliance colleagues and I attempting to negotiate and secure access to that bus route for either Belfast or Derry/Londonderry, we have encountered bureaucratic obstacles and disappointments. At the opposite end of my constituency, in Glenavy, my constituents regularly express frustrations about the inadequacy of the public transport services that should facilitate their children's commute to and from school. They face unnecessary detours and complications just to reach appropriate bus stops that should, ideally, be located within their neighbourhoods. Furthermore, I have heard from young people, especially students, about the difficulties that they encounter due to inadequate rural transport in my constituency. For example, those who lack access to a car struggle to obtain part-time jobs, which are essential to the local economy as well as to those young people's development. They also have difficulties in participating in university or college classes and social activities, which can negatively affect their mental and physical health.

Recognising the vital importance of accessible, efficient and reliable public transportation is crucial to enhancing the quality of life for all citizens, irrespective of their geographical location. Achieving that goal will require significant increases in public investment and enhancing connectivity between rural regions and urban centres, which are often viewed as hubs of opportunity. Members will be aware that, even within council areas, connectivity is a challenge. My Alliance colleagues and I will continue to advocate on the matter and address the ongoing shortcomings in our rural public transport system. We need an urgent review and action soon thereafter.

Mr Kingston: I pay tribute to Mr John Allen, who made a massive, lifelong contribution to Northern Ireland athletics. In particular, he was a central figure in the development and growth of the Belfast marathon, serving as a director since the marathon's inception in 1982 and, more recently, as chair of the board for six years, including this year. John's passing last week was particularly poignant, as it came the day after this year's Belfast marathon. With record numbers participating this year and, it seemed to me, record numbers of people supporting the runners along the route, John's devotion to the Belfast marathon has left a strong legacy for many years to come. Having run the marathon six times in recent years, I am among the thousands who are indebted to John and the rest of the marathon board for all their organisation of a great event and to all the volunteers who make it happen.

On a personal note, it was always a pleasure to interact with John Allen, including when he attended Belfast City Council committee meetings on behalf of the marathon. He supported an event that we helped to organise at Paisley Park in 2017, which commemorated the 50th anniversary of the first breaking of the four-minute mile in Northern Ireland at that venue in 1967.

John was a member of Willowfield Temperance Harriers from an early age. He competed at international level in cross-country and track events. He served as Northern Ireland team manager at a Commonwealth Games and was previously chair of Athletics NI. In newspaper comments last week, David Seaton, another legend of Northern Ireland athletics and former race director and chair of the Belfast marathon, said that John was able to follow coverage of this year's marathon at home last Sunday. David said:

A statement from the Belfast marathon committee included these words:

I finish by expressing my great appreciation of John's massive contribution to athletics and my deepest condolences to his family, close friends and colleagues.

Mr Speaker: I call Paula Bradshaw. Ms Bradshaw, you have two minutes.

Ms Bradshaw: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I refer to the report from the National Audit Office, which was published on 7 May and covered in the media here yesterday, regarding Home Office contracts for asylum seekers' accommodation. The headlines were about the costs of providing that accommodation and how they have risen to three times the initially projected figure across the UK and are higher still in Northern Ireland. However, the issue is about the UK trying to meet its international obligations to some of the most vulnerable people in the world by providing accommodation contracts on a for-profit basis. It is entirely entitled to do that, but, when it does, it must do so in a way that provides dignity to those who live in the accommodation and value for money for the taxpayer. The alarming truth is that the contracts do neither.

I represent South Belfast, where there is, obviously, a high concentration of contingency accommodation providers. I have spoken to many families who are living in squalid situations. Their food has poor nutrition. The children are restricted in how they can come and go. They cannot have friends over and have to turn the lights off by 9.00 pm etc. I want to highlight the fact that not only do those people have to live in a restrictive environment in that accommodation but they are vulnerable to criminal gangs and sexual exploitation because of the complexity of the trauma that they have experienced during their displacement and travel and the violence in their homeland.

We must do more in Northern Ireland. As the deputy First Minister indicated yesterday, while the UK Government and Mears locally are responsible for providing the accommodation, we have a responsibility to ensure that the people who seek asylum here are provided with the support services that they need.

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

Mr Gaston: On a point of order, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. Last Friday, the Committee on Standards and Privileges published its report on the complaint that was made against me. The Committee found that I had not breached any Assembly standards. All who value free speech and proper scrutiny in the House should welcome that finding. However, a serious concern remains.

As part of that investigation, a transcript of an interview with the Chair of the Committee for the Executive Office, Ms Bradshaw, was published. In it, she said:

The implication is clear: I have acted in a sectarian or prejudicial manner in the Assembly or on its Committees. I utterly reject that allegation.

I wrote to the Committee to request that that slur be rejected or that Ms Bradshaw provide evidence to back up her claim. Ms Bradshaw declined to do so. That failure is now recorded in the appendix to the Committee's report. Her unfounded accusation —

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Mr Gaston —.

Mr Gaston: — is on the public record —

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Mr Gaston —.

Mr Gaston: — published on the Assembly website and left uncorrected.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: It sounds as though you are making a statement. Can you get to your point of order, please? Thank you.

Mr Gaston: The public record now contains a serious slur on my character that was made without evidence and left to stand without withdrawal. What recourse is available to me through the Speaker's Office to have the record corrected? Are such remarks open to investigation by the Commissioner for Standards?

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: You have your remarks on the record. That is not a point of order — it is certainly not a point of order for me — but it will be passed on to the Speaker.

Without further ado, we will move on.

Sorry. I will ask the Assembly to take its ease. Give us two minutes to change the top Table.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: I call Colin McGrath to move the Consideration Stage of the Assembly Members (Remuneration Board) Bill on behalf of the Assembly Commission.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Members will have a copy of the Marshalled List of amendments detailing the order for consideration. The amendments have been grouped for debate in the provisional grouping of amendments selected list. There is a single group of amendments, and we will debate the amendments in turn. The debate will be on amendment Nos 1 to 14 and opposition to clauses 3, 5 and 10 stand part, which deal with the administration of the Remuneration Board. I know that this is a bit whatever, but I will go through it.

I also remind Members intending to speak that, during the debate on the single group of amendments, they should address all of the amendments on which they wish to comment. Once the debate on the group is completed, any further amendments in the group will be moved formally as we go through the Bill, and the Question on each will be put without further debate. The Questions on stand part will be taken at the appropriate points in the Bill. If all of that is clear, we shall proceed.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: We now come to the single group of amendments for debate. With amendment No 1, it will be convenient to debate amendment Nos 2 to 14 and opposition to clauses 3, 5 and 10 stand part. Within the group, amendment Nos 3 and 4 are mutually exclusive with amendment No 2, and amendment Nos 9, 10, 12 and 14 are consequential to amendment No 1.

Without further ado, I call the Chairperson of the Ad Hoc Committee on the Assembly Members (Remuneration Board) Bill, Phillip Brett, to move amendment No 1 and to address the other amendments in the group.

Mr Brett (The Chairperson of the Ad Hoc Committee on the Assembly Members (Remuneration Board) Bill): I beg to move amendment No 1:

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker, I thank you for your explanation of proceedings today. As a relatively new Member of the House, I am glad to have your expertise at the top Table to keep me right. As Chair of the Ad Hoc Committee, I take the opportunity to thank my fellow Committee members for their service to the Committee and, in particular, the support staff who serviced the Committee. I know that it is not usual practice to name officials, but this was the last serving of our Committee Clerk, Mr Jim McManus, in the House, and he has served the House diligently for many years, so I record my thanks to him. I also thank the 74 members of the public who took the opportunity to engage with the Committee.

As amendment Nos 9, 10, 12 and 14 are in my name but are consequential to amendment No 1, I will not speak directly to them, but they will be covered by my remarks on amendment No 1.

The Committee has tabled amendment No 1 in order to emphasise and, importantly, highlight the independent nature of the remuneration board. There are two legislatures on these islands where determinations on Members' salaries and pensions are made, correctly, by an independent body. They are the Independent Remuneration Board of the Welsh Senedd and the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority (IPSA) in Westminster. Notably, the names of both of those organisations contain the word "independent".

In its written evidence to the Committee, the Independent Remuneration Board of the Welsh Senedd highlighted that the name was deliberately chosen to emphasise that, in the exercise of its functions, the board is not subject to the direction or control of Members of the Welsh Parliament or, indeed, the Commission. That independence is valued by Members of the Senedd, as it clarifies that they are not responsible for or able to influence their salary.

During oral evidence, the chairperson of the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority informed the Committee that the authority's name was deliberately chosen to convey the message that its decisions are made independent of Parliament. The Committee, likewise, believes that it is important to emphasise the independent nature of the remuneration board and the fact that the board's determinations will not be influenced in any way by the Assembly, an Assembly Committee or the Northern Ireland Executive.

During oral evidence on 25 March, the Commission acknowledged the Committee's intention to table the amendment and stated:

with a particular focus:

The Commission agreed that:

that the board will make its own decisions and function independently of the Commission, the House and the Executive. The Commission was therefore content for the Committee to table the amendment to clause 1.

With regard to amendment No 2, the Committee agreed that it is important that, when making its determinations, the board should consider the current financial circumstances in Northern Ireland. However, the Committee was of the view that, as an independent body, it will ultimately be for the remuneration board to decide what criteria to apply and what comparisons to make. For that reason, the Committee agreed that, rather than seeking an amendment to clause 3, it would recommend that, when making determination on Members' salaries and pensions, the remuneration board must have regard to the wider financial circumstances of Northern Ireland, including earnings measured by the Northern Ireland Statistics and Research Agency's (NISRA) annual survey of hours and earnings. It will be for the independent remuneration board to decide the extent to which it wishes to accept the recommendations of the Committee.

I now turn to amendment Nos 6 and 7. The Commission informed the Committee that it will seek an amendment to clause 4 to ensure that:

and to:

The Committee therefore supports amendment Nos 6 and 7.

That concludes my remarks as chair of the Ad Hoc Committee

Mrs Mason: I speak in support of the amendments proposed by the Ad Hoc Committee. When people look at the Assembly, they expect to see fairness, transparency and a commitment to doing what is right. The Bill is an opportunity to prove that trust in public institutions still matters and that we, as MLAs, are prepared to ensure that there is independent oversight of our pay. The Bill does something fundamental: it removes the power to set salaries from MLAs and places it where it belongs — in the hands of an independent board. That is not just procedural but a correct move forward. Sinn Féin has been consistent in our belief that MLAs must not influence the level of salary that they receive. The public must have confidence that decisions are being made in the interests of good governance. The Bill is rooted in that principle.

Some of the amendments would threaten the independence of the remuneration board. The principle of the Bill should not be undermined. The public's understandable concern when politicians appear to decide their own pay is damaging. That is why independence is not just a desirable quality in the process but a requirement. The creation of a new independent remuneration board brings fairness and transparency to the process.

When salaries are decided by an external board with no political ties, we can focus on our job and serve people without being mired in debates about how much we are paid. The Bill gives us a chance to draw a clear line between personal interest and public responsibility. By placing decisions about MLA pay in independent hands, we set a standard that says, "This Assembly is ready to put fairness and integrity at its core". It is better for public confidence and for the Assembly.

Ms Bradshaw: I will make a few remarks, having sat on the Ad Hoc Committee, to respond to the amendments. I do not intend to repeat what I said at Second Stage about the general principles of the Bill.

Our Committee amendment for the inclusion of the word "Independent" is entirely sensible and provides clarity and confirmation of the separation of its purpose from the Assembly Commission and MLAs in setting pay.

Indeed, that is in line with what the Independent Remuneration Board of the Senedd in Wales and the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority in Westminster have done.

The Assembly Commission's amendment Nos 6 and 7, in providing for an order to tidy up the process for dealing with temporary appointments to the board, are fine.

I understand Mr Carroll's thinking behind amendment No 2. During our deliberations, I raised the issue of the remuneration board's having regard to the current financial circumstances in Northern Ireland, as I am conscious of the impact of the ongoing cost-of-living crisis on our constituents. That issue was discussed, and the Committee agreed that the best approach would be to include that suggestion for the remuneration board in the report, which is what has happened.

I will stay with Mr Carroll's amendments. I will not support amendment No 8. In the spirit of what I have just said, I wish that he had come before the Ad Hoc Committee to speak to his proposal for a new clause for trade —.

Mr Carroll: You did not invite me.

Ms Bradshaw: Pardon?

Mr Carroll: Will the Member give way?

Ms Bradshaw: OK. Go ahead.

Mr Carroll: Had you invited me, I would have come.

Ms Bradshaw: Had you made a substantive submission, that would have prompted —. [Inaudible.]

Ms Bradshaw: No, that is how it works, Gerry. You have been here long enough to know how such things work.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: All remarks are to be made through the Chair, please.

Ms Bradshaw: Apologies, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Good stuff. Thank you.

Ms Bradshaw: I was just clarifying that we would have invited Mr Carroll to come before the Committee and that I would have welcomed the opportunity to talk about trade union involvement through consultation and engagement with the board.

To have two trade union members on the board would be excessive, but we could have looked at including a recommendation that the remuneration board explicitly engage with and consult trade union representatives as part of its deliberations. As the Member knows, clause 6 includes a catch-all provision to consult:

and I strongly suspect that trade unions will be on its list of consultees.

Likewise, my opinion on Mr Gaston's new clause 7A, "Duty to consult", is that the remit of the aforementioned catch-all provision is sufficiently wide to allow the remuneration board to consult whomever, they feel, it is necessary to consult and, further, does not preclude them from consulting whomever they wish, should they deem it necessary to do so.

I will return to clause 3 and the provision for the remuneration board to "have regard to the salaries" of Members of other legislatures on these islands. It is worth bearing in mind that that is a sensible starting point for benchmarking. In our evidence, the Committee was advised that other legislatures' remuneration boards have regard to other institutions' salaries. That is standard practice, so we would not be an outlier in doing that. I would be interested to know what Mr Carroll and Mr Gaston would see as an alternative approach by which clarity and transparency could be provided on how the remuneration board members arrived at their final recommendation or recommendations on pay. I will put that another way: what other paid roles in the public sector, private sector or community and voluntary sector could it benchmark against, given the unique role that we play as legislators?

I was not going to speak to amendment No 4 — I was going to brush past it — but I ask Mr Gaston what his justification is for seeking to remove the reference to the Dáil and the Seanad. When I read the amendment, I thought, "Is that sectarian in nature?", and I would welcome his explanation when he gets —.

Mr Gaston: Will the Member give way?

Ms Bradshaw: When you get to your feet, I will give way.

Mr Gaston: Will the Member give way?

Ms Bradshaw: No, because you made an entirely inappropriate point of order earlier. You can address that.

Mr Gaston: Do not slur me.

Ms Bradshaw: I wondered —.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Order, Members. Come on.

Ms Bradshaw: I wondered whether he had tabled that amendment on a sectarian basis.

I will return to my point about benchmarking. There is a narrative that MLAs have fewer responsibilities than Members of other regional Assemblies across these islands. That is simply not the case, as is shown in research that the Assembly's Research and Information Service (RaISe) provided to the Ad Hoc Committee. Yes, there are variations in devolved responsibilities, but to imply that we have a lesser workload is false. We did not look at the responsibilities of the legislators elected to the regional Assemblies across these islands, as it was not our responsibility to do so. It will be up to the remuneration board to look at that issue in detail as part of its deliberations.

Mr Gaston's amendment Nos 5 and 13 are superfluous and have, I suspect, been proposed for no other reason than to make political points about the Windsor framework and our exit from the EU in order to direct them at the DUP and put it on the spot about whether it will support them.

I record my appreciation of the staff of the Ad Hoc Committee for their efficiency and effectiveness in supporting us with our Committee packs every week and organising the evidence sessions with the Assembly Commission and representatives of different legislative bodies and others.

It is worth repeating that at no time did the Committee discuss salary levels or other technical issues to dictate the deliberations of the remuneration board other than in making the suggestion that I referenced about having regard to local financial circumstances. Our focus was entirely on ensuring that the Bill provides the legislative framework to enable the Clerk of the Assembly to take forward the appointment of the board and provide support for its work.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: I just want to double-check: no one from the Ulster Unionist party is down to speak. [Inaudible.]

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: OK. It would have been handy to let us know, Robbie. [Inaudible.]

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: OK. Thank you.

Mr Butler: Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. My party's position has been clear throughout. We set it out firmly during the Second Stage debate, in which I spoke.

We will support the amendments tabled by the Chair of the Ad Hoc Committee: amendment Nos 1, 9, 10, 12 and 14. As has been outlined, while those amendments may appear straightforward, they serve to further strengthen the independent nature of the board. That has to form the absolute core of the Bill as it goes forward.

The Bill has, perhaps understandably, attracted some controversy, although, in truth, it should not have done so. There are those who seek to make it politically contentious, but it is crucial that the remuneration board is entirely independent. That is the intention of the Bill as introduced, and it is consistent with the principles laid out in the Assembly Members (Independent Financial Review and Standards) Act (Northern Ireland) 2011. Nonetheless, given the importance of reinforcing the point beyond doubt, we fully support the proposals to include the word "independent" in the board's title; in fact, that is important.

We will also support amendment Nos 6 and 7, which were tabled by the Assembly Commission. Amendment No 6 proposes to remove lines 39 to 41 and replace them with the following wording:

The amendment provides important clarity regarding temporary appointments. It confirms that such appointments are to be treated in all respects as if they were permanent appointments made under section 4(1) of the 2011 Act, thereby ensuring that the full range of disqualification and termination provisions set out in Part 1 of that Act will apply equally to temporary members of the board. That is a necessary and welcome safeguard to protect the integrity and consistency of the board's operations.

Amendment No 7 allows the Assembly Commission to make provision by order for the temporary appointment of members to the remuneration board. While we hope that such a power will seldom need to be used, it is a sensible and prudent measure that will ensure that the Commission can act swiftly and lawfully in the face of unforeseen circumstances. It adds an important degree of flexibility to the framework without undermining the board's independence.

Together, those amendments strengthen the Bill and provide useful clarity and contingency provisions, and we are content to support them.

I turn to amendment Nos 2 and 8 in the name of Mr Carroll. Amendment No 2 would place a statutory obligation on the board when exercising its functions under subsection (1)(a) to ensure that any increase in the salary payable to a Member does not exceed:

Whilst we understand the intention behind that amendment, particularly given the current economic climate, it undermines, in our view, one of the core purposes of the Bill, which is to safeguard the independent role of the remuneration board. One of the guiding principles behind the 2011 Act was to ensure that decisions on Members' pay were taken out of political hands and entrusted to an impartial body. Amendment No 2 would impose a rigid, externally determined cap on pay increases that would, effectively, limit the board's ability to exercise judgement on the basis of evidence and context.

That would reduce the board's role to little more than that of a formulaic calculator, a move that would cut across the very independence that the legislation seeks to achieve and enforce.

Benchmarking against other legislatures is a recognised and reasonable approach for any remuneration body to take. It enables informed, evidence-based decision-making and helps to ensure that pay reflects the responsibilities of the role whilst not deterring people from standing for election, and there are many reasons why people may be deterred from standing for election in this part of the world. That is entirely a matter for the board, which will crucially and independently determine the salary payable to Members of the Assembly. It may well be that, following careful analysis of all relevant information and evidence, the board concludes that such an approach is appropriate. However, I stress again that that decision rests solely with the independent board. In fact —

I think that I have lost my place.

Yes, I have indeed. I might be missing a page.

I will move on to amendment No 11, if that is OK. Amendment No 11 is unnecessary. The Bill's intention to reestablish an independent mechanism for setting Members' pay and pensions through the new remuneration board is clear. Once that board is in place, it will carry out that role without the need for further legislation. The Assembly Commission has made no indication of any intention to introduce Bills on that issue. Clause 6 already provides for a robust and transparent consultation process. It requires the board not only to publish a draft determination and consult the Assembly Commission and Members but to have a clear process in place. Adding more statutory obligations would serve only to complicate or duplicate what is already a strong independent framework.

We do not support amendment No 13. While I do not question the sincerity of the Member's concerns, his amendment fundamentally distorts the reality of the situation, perhaps conveniently so on the Member's part. The Bill provides a clear and workable commencement clause: it comes into effect the day after it receives Royal Assent. By contrast, amendment No 13 would delay key provisions until every element of EU law that is listed in the Windsor framework, which, I have to remind Members, is the child of Brexit, ceases to apply in Northern Ireland and full legislative competence is returned to the Assembly. That is not within the control of the Assembly, the Commission or any Member of this Parliament.

In practical terms, amendment No 13 would indefinitely block the core purpose of the Bill: the establishment of an independent remuneration board to carry out that important work. However, for the avoidance of doubt, the fact that we do not support it does not mean that we support the imposition of the Windsor framework. I have no doubt that the Member will attempt to claim otherwise, but he should not insult the intelligence of the electorate with his amendment. I strongly suspect that he will deliver it in that manner and context, as he has done with other proposals. Voting for amendment No 13, no matter how it is presented, will not change the Windsor framework. What it will do is further obstruct the passage of the Bill.

We will support all the amendments that were tabled by the Ad Hoc Committee and the Commission. We will reject the amendments that were tabled by Mr Carroll and Mr Gaston.

Mr Gaston: Since the Bill first came before the House and, indeed, before that, I have been clear on the matters on which it touches. Back in December, when I saw the briefing that was prepared to assist the Audit Committee in its scrutiny of the Assembly Commission's budget for 2025-26, I made clear my position on the reason for the Bill: a pay rise for MLAs. I will read out paragraph 28 to remind Members:

That was back in December, and it paved the way to where we are today. To whom was that helpful? Indeed, it was helpful to the MLAs who sit in the House. I have no issue with the semantics of the amendments tabled by the Assembly Commission. If the parties on the Commission want to call the board "independent", they have the numbers to vote that though. Go on ahead, because I have no plans to oppose amendment Nos 1, 9, 10, 12 and 14. If you sleep better at night because you have inserted the word "Independent", that is for you to clear with your conscience. However, I want to be on record as making it clear that there is nothing independent about the decision on whether MLAs should get a pay rise. Clause 3, which insists that MLA pay be benchmarked against pay from legislative bodies that is higher than that which is currently obtained by Members of the House, makes that clear. The dice has been loaded before it has even been rolled. The dice has been loaded in favour of MLAs receiving a pay rise, and it has been loaded by the same people who are so anxious to introduce the word "Independent" to clauses 1, 7, 8 and 11. Members, that fools no one; it does not fool the electorate.

I will now deal with my amendments to clause 3, which are on the Marshalled List. It would be one thing for MLAs to ask for additional pay if they were taking on additional responsibilities, but the reality is that Stormont has, by virtue of a vote by the majority of MLAs, decided that, in 300 areas of law, we should not be governed by the Assembly. They do not want to be governed either by the other place to which they should send elected representatives, namely Westminster. Instead, in 300 areas of law, the Assembly decided to be governed by Brussels. When asked the question, "Do you want to hand over control of something like 60% of the laws that govern your economy to a colonial power?", the answer from the Assembly was yes. To set that in context, it was not a resounding yes, but it was a yes nonetheless. Had the vote been treated like every other significant vote that has been held in the Chamber in the past 50 years, it would not have passed. The sacred Belfast Agreement states that nothing controversial or significant can be decided without the consent of both communities, yet, for that vote — arguably, the most significant vote in any Parliament or Assembly in Northern Ireland's history — that was dispensed with, was set aside and did not come into the equation. Today, in spite of surrendering 300 areas of law to our colonial masters in Brussels, which has not happened in any other legislature, some in the House want us to benchmark ourselves against those legislatures. Well, here we go. It makes no sense to pay people 19% more for doing less work. MLAs will still have a more limited legislative role than would otherwise be the case because of the wretched protocol. That is an argument for not increasing MLA pay at all. MLAs voted —

Mr McCrossan: Will the Member give way?

Mr Gaston: Yes. Go ahead.

Mr McCrossan: I thank the Member for giving way. In the interest of fact, it is important to point out that the House has more legislative authority than the Welsh Parliament does. I put that on the record, because you are missing the point to suit your own agenda.

It is also worth pointing out that, while Mr Gaston feels so strongly about this, his party leader accepted a pay increase in April. Guess what? I have struggled to find a single word of complaint from the TUV about that increase in salary to up to £93,904 per year. Amazing.

Mr Gaston: You miss the point that Mr Allister has taken up the role and is being paid to do the job that he is doing. My goodness, look at what we have here: in annex 2 of the protocol, there are 300 areas of law — laws that should be governed by either this House or Westminster — on which you have given away power.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Mr Gaston.

Mr Gaston: You do not care. You gave it away.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Order, Mr Gaston. I ask you to address the amendment. This is not a debate on the protocol. I will be listening very carefully to check whether you just throw in the word "amendment" and then talk about something else. I will just warn you of that in advance. Thank you. You can continue.

Mr Gaston: Thank you very much, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker, for reining me in and bringing me back to where we should be. However, I am talking about the amendment. My amendment touches on the protocol, so I believe that what I have said is in scope. If other Members try to take me away and distance the debate from the amendment, I hope that you will pay close attention to what they say. My amendment gives me the opportunity to open up a debate about the protocol and make it clear that, while Members want a pay rise, the Assembly decided to give away power on 300 areas of law. MLAs voted for that arrangement, knowing that it would result in their constituents being subject, in 300 areas, to laws that are made by a two-chamber legislature in which they are not represented. Those constituents are represented in neither the European Parliament, the lower chamber, nor the Council of Ministers, the upper chamber.

Not only does it make no sense to pay MLAs more for doing less but the House has chosen to act recklessly by voting in a way that agreed to laws being made for our constituents by a legislature that they knew would not represent our constituents.

They knew that, in that legislature to which they voted to submit their constituents, there would be legislators elected to represent the people of Estonia, Bulgaria, France and Spain — my goodness — but there would be no one to stand up for the development of legislation to represent the people of Northern Ireland. That was a decision taken by the Assembly, knowing where we are today. The House knew exactly what it was voting for. It had the opportunity to say no, but it knew better and instead voted yes. It is doubtful that any legislator anywhere in the world who is entrusted with the right to represent his or her constituents should ever have agreed to their disenfranchisement in that way. At a time when trust in politics is low, that is an appalling way for an elected politician to treat their constituents whilst planning for a pay rise in the background.

I will not detain the House by rehearsing the arguments in relation to amendment No 4, but linked to amendment Nos 3 and 4 and perhaps requiring a little more explanation is amendment No 13, which should be supported by any Member who opposes the protocol. I note Mr Butler's opposition to it, but I will set out my reasons why. In essence, that amendment would mean that any pay rise for MLAs is suspended until such times as the protocol has gone. Only when the House has seen the powers that have been surrendered to Brussels returned to Stormont and Westminster will Members see the provisions of the Bill come into operation. I say this to fellow unionist Members: this is your opportunity to put the pressure on the pro-protocol parties in the House, prove the TUV wrong and show that, when we claim that this place is a racket where people are just interested in their pay packet, we are mistaken.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Mr Gaston —.

Mr McCrossan: Will the Member give way?

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Sorry, I am going to raise a point of order here. I have given you a lot of latitude. I have also given you advance warning. I respectfully request that you now focus on the board's functions in relation to your amendment. This is not an opportunity for you to make an open-ended speech on the protocol.

Mr Gaston: I will bring my remarks on amendment No 4 to an end and continue with my previous remarks. Amendment No 13 would stop any pay rise for MLAs while the protocol remains, but do not stop there. Make it clear that, unless the amendment is built into the Bill, you will refuse to support it. That is my challenge to unionism in the House. Put some pressure on the nationalist and republican alliance, which ripped up the Belfast Agreement to impose the protocol on us.

Forgive me for dancing about somewhat. I will go back to the Marshalled List of amendments and amendment No 4. That amendment seeks to remove reference to the houses of Parliament in the Irish Republic from the bodies that the board must have regard to when considering MLA pay. To justify that, I refer Members to the opening text of the Bill and, in fact, of any Bill that is introduced to the House:

Northern Ireland is, as the Bill acknowledges, part of His Majesty's United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Why any unionist would seek to dilute that by introducing reference to a foreign Parliament is beyond me. If you want to benchmark pay against other parts of the UK, that is one thing, but to introduce a foreign Parliament where a Government hold office that make no secret of the fact that they want Northern Ireland to cease to exist is yet another unnecessary way of linking this part of the UK to the Republic. That is not sectarian, Ms Bradshaw. Once again, you have thrown out a number of slurs and produced no evidence to back them up.

I will go back to the amendment.

Mr McCrossan: I thank the Member for giving way. It is important to point out what is realistic in the comparisons that are made. We share this island with the Irish jurisdiction, and people consider this to be one island. You talked about the Good Friday Agreement, Mr Gaston, but you would do well to respect the wishes and views of people in this House when it comes to that, instead of being so dismissive.

I am not a fan of abstentionism, but there is a suggestion that could unite the House. If Mr Gaston feels so aggrieved by all the things that have gone on, we would be unanimous in supporting him as an abstentionist from this place.

Mr Gaston: That takes away your argument about Sinn Féin being abstentionists at Westminster. My goodness, I know that you would appreciate that. I know that Sinn Féin, the SDLP and their helpers in the Alliance Party would appreciate that this voice would not be heard, but I do not want to give them that pleasure. I will be here for as long as I am co-opted into this seat. I will seek —.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Order, Members. I remind you that this is a debate on the remuneration board. It is not a constitutional debate. It is good craic, I am sure, but can you get back to the subject?

Mr Gaston: That brings me back to my earlier point. I am trying to focus on the Bill, but other Members seem intent on pulling me in other directions. [Laughter.]

It is OK for SDLP Members to acknowledge the Belfast Agreement when it suits, but when it came to the protocol, they were happy, when it was stacked in their favour, to set it aside with no cross-community vote needed.

Moving on, I will leave it to the Member for West Belfast to develop the case for his amendment No 8, but he can be assured of my support. As the Marshalled List makes clear, I will oppose the question that clause 5 stand part of the Bill. I am doing so for no other obvious reason than that former Members of this place are likely to remain on very good terms with their colleagues. It is highly likely that they will stand and still be members of the parties that they once represented. Some may claim that that is what is happening at Westminster. Well, if we are going to bring the Westminster model here, why is the Bill not wide enough to permit the amendments that I tabled, which would have seen Westminster-style penalties for the abuse of the expenses system?

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Mr Gaston, we all have party support to help us to prepare for a debate, but I encourage you and your party support to get some training. You are challenging the Chair's ruling on the admissibility of amendments, and it is not the first time that you have done it. If you continue in that vein, I will ask you to take your seat. Thank you.

Mr Gaston: You will be pleased to hear that that brings my remarks on that issue to an end.

Mr Butler: Will the Member give way?

Mr Gaston: Yes.

Mr Butler: I thank the Principal Deputy Speaker for raising that issue. When I looked at some of the amendments that were permitted, I thought that the Speaker's Office had been incredibly generous. Is the Member able to point to any clauses in the Bill that would stop an independent body from considering anything that he has put forward? I know that there is a Member who wants to strip the absolute independence of the board away and has previously offered advice and direction to a panel. We have sought not to give any direction to the panel. Is there anything that the Member can state that would stop an independent panel from considering the things that he has suggested? Is he, or the Member for West Belfast, putting on the record that, in the event of any pay rise, they will not take anything beyond the CPI? [Interruption.]

As has been suggested today so far, I find calling into question why this is being brought forward and the morals of Members of the House quite repulsive.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Two things, Mr Butler. Your wee challenge to me has also been noted, albeit it was more subtle than Mr Gaston's. I am noting that. Interventions are meant to be brief, even in legislative debates. I am telling you. If your party wants to put other Members up, I will be grateful if you let us know, and then you can put them up, OK? We are all trying to get through this as best we can.

Mr Gaston, I invite you to bring your remarks to a conclusion, as you said that you would.

Mr Gaston: Thank you very much, Principal Deputy Speaker. I do not want to be distracted but, in that vein, I have been quite generous in letting people in. I sense that I am running close to the wire, and your patience seems to be getting tested with some of this, so I will finish my remarks by talking about amendment No 11.

The new clause that would be created by amendment No 11 places a duty on the Commission to consult on any Bill that makes provision for salaries, pensions and gratuities to MLAs or former MLAs. The amendment would place a duty on the Commission to consult MLAs, trustees of the pension scheme, the public and any other people whom the Commission considers appropriate. It places a duty on the Commission to publish a report on the outcome of that consideration and sets the period for consultation at 12 weeks.

There is a need to bring in this new clause. Yes, people might take it for granted and say, "Well, sure, that is what we do for all Bills in this House". Well, this has been the need. Yes, it should be standard practice. It was actually Mr Butler who raised this in his opening remarks. Look at this Bill and benchmark it against the 12 weeks, which is the norm. I raised this before. The consultation was open for 11 weeks, and two of them were over the Christmas holidays, so this Bill failed to meet the 12-week benchmark. That is why I felt the need. Yes, it should be something that is taken for granted and should be built into every Bill as common practice, but, unfortunately, with this Bill, the consultation that ran did not meet the threshold, hence the need to bring in this new clause to make it a statutory duty in future. In fact, the Bill Office, in discussions, was unaware of such clauses being built into other Bills, and that is why I have outlined that there is a simple reason for this amendment.

Consultation is such a natural part of the legislative process that such clauses are considered unnecessary, but when it came to the Bill before the House today, prior to First Reading, no one outside the parties on the Commission had had sight of it. That would not be the case with an Executive or private Member's Bill, so why should it be the case for a Bill on Assembly pay? That is such an underhand way of operating, and it did nothing for the credibility of this Assembly. It does nothing to build confidence between MLAs and their electorate. In fact, the electorate would argue that there is stronger public interest in consulting on Bills of this nature than others, and that is why I strongly believe that we need to build in the 12-week consultation and ensure that those outside the Commission are being consulted. It is not good enough that matters such as this are debated in the House by the Commission until it publishes a completed Bill only after it is moved at First Stage. My amendment opens the door to more transparency in the Assembly and more input from the House and the public. Anyone who opposes this amendment will have to tell the public why they believe that the public should have no say in the setting of MLA pay and allowances.

I want to close with a final observation. To my mind, the Bill and the amendments in the Marshalled List do not address an issue of concern for the public. In fact, when it came to the only chance for the public to have any say in the Bill during the Committee Stage, 69% of responses either disagreed or strongly disagreed that the board should have regard to the salaries paid to Members of other legislatures. Ask the public about the abuse of the expenses system in this place, and I have no doubt that you will find widespread support. When it comes to the matter that I raised, it is with deep regret, as I said, that the amendments tabled were not considered. That was a missed opportunity to restore confidence in this tainted system.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Mr Gaston, I remind you again that you were challenging the Speaker by talking about amendments that were not chosen, and that was the second time that you had done that. I am just putting that on the record. It was disrespectful.

Mr Carroll: The Ad Hoc Committee makes a recommendation that the board must have regard to the wider financial circumstances of the North. You would presume that those would be the same financial circumstances that mean that pensioners are sitting freezing in their homes during winter, the circumstances that led to 90,000 emergency food parcels being delivered to families last year — over twice as many as five years ago — or the fact that, in the news today, we see that the North's top 100 businesses made pre-tax profits of £2·5 billion.

The North's financial circumstances have served to line the pockets of a few extremely wealthy people and companies, but, for the vast majority of ordinary people, the financial circumstances here mean poverty and deprivation. A pay increase for MLAs that gives more weight to politicians' inflated salaries in other jurisdictions than to the everyday experiences of those whom we represent would be completely unfair, not to mention tone-deaf, hence my opposition to clause 3.

It is worth elaborating on a point that was kept quiet by defenders of the process. When the public were consulted, almost 70% of respondents to the call for evidence disagreed or strongly disagreed with the proposal for the board to have regard to salaries paid to politicians in other jurisdictions. Despite what the Member for South Belfast said about my not going before the Committee, the Committee ignored the view of the public, and that is contemptible, to be perfectly honest. Despite the strength of public opinion, the provision remains in the Bill. The voice of the public does not matter. Lip service has been paid once again. No matter how often and how loudly MLAs have protested in prior debates, the provision is paving the way for a completely unjustified pay increase, and I challenge people who say the contrary.

To repeat, band 3 health and social care (HSC) workers have a starting salary of just over £24,000 a year, while administrative officers (AOs) in the Civil Service start on £23,000 a year, if they can get through the interview process without the computer system crashing. That is not to mention the hundreds of thousands of retail and hospitality workers on zero-hours contracts and minimum wage being forced to work longer on Sundays. My amendment No 2 would also limit increases to the rate of CPI inflation, which acts as a restraint on the board in case there is a temptation or pressure applied to increase salaries by a disproportionate and unreasonable amount, not that an independent board would ever dream of doing that, of course. CPI inflation in the year up to March 2025 was 2·6%, which is a much more reasonable increase than a potential 38%, 28% or 18% hike, or whatever percentage hike may come down the track.

For the benefit of the Member for Lagan Valley, I will say that I take the average wage of people in my constituency, so, for the record, I do not get that money.

When giving evidence to the Ad Hoc Committee, the Assembly Commission said that it was reasonable to benchmark pay against comparable employment rather than against an unrelated field, but that fails to consider the role of an elected representative. We are here to represent our constituents, not, as some think, to be above them and earn far more than them. At the most basic level, we need to have some practical understanding of the everyday lives and struggles of the people whom we represent. A salary of £70,000 or more would make MLAs become out of touch and disconnected from reality, and some are already there.

Mr McCrossan: I thank the Member for giving way. Does that mean that his TDs in the South, just down the road from where I live, are out of touch, given the €115,000 that they accept?

Mr Carroll: The Member may not understand, but our party policy is to accept the average wage of workers. [Inaudible.]

Mr Carroll: Your party does not do that, so that is for you to explain.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Through the Chair, please.

Mr Carroll: Listen if you will and check the website, or do what you want.

I know that the Member is perhaps passionate about getting that pay increase, but it is worth pointing out how disgraceful it would be.

Mr McCrossan: You should, but you refuse it.

Mr Carroll: You will take it, and your party will take it, so perhaps you will be opposition for a time.

I will move on. Another argument in favour of massive pay hikes for MLAs, and perhaps the Member for Strabane will agree, is —.

Mr McCrossan: West Tyrone.

Mr Carroll: Apologies, West Tyrone. Another argument is that they will attract the right kind of people. The Member for Lagan Valley Mr Butler said that. The question, however, is this: what kind of people do the public want to be their representatives? Ordinary people and the people whom I talk to in the real world do not want bankers or big business CEOs as their representatives. Plenty of people from high-flying private-sector backgrounds have entered politics, only to tank the economy, such as Rishi Sunak and Liz Truss, to name but two in recent years. The UK Chancellor of the Exchequer, Rachel Reeves, used to work for the Bank of England and is now pushing hundreds of millions —.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Gerry, will you return to your amendment, please?

Mr Carroll: Yes, I will do.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Thank you.

Mr Carroll: The point that I am making is that being on a higher wage does not mean that an MP, an MLA or any other public representative has the skills and knowledge to make people's lives better. By my argument, and in most people's view, it means that they are less likely to understand the daily struggles of the people whom they represent. That is why it was easy for the Labour Party to cut the winter fuel payment.

On the removal of the power to determine the allowances, an independent board is, rightly, considered necessary for setting MLAs' salaries, and it is important that salaries are set fairly, objectively and with no interference from people who have a material interest in the outcome. This legislation deems it appropriate for salaries to be set by an independent board, yet MLAs will have responsibility for setting their own staffing and office cost expenditure via the Assembly Commission. There is no independence in that process whatsoever. It does not matter that the Assembly passed a resolution to confer those powers back to the Commission back in 2020; we have an opportunity now to correct that and admit that the determination of allowances needs objectivity and independence. Adequate provision for staff maternity allowance, disability access to offices and the lifting of restrictions on office signage are, obviously, positive things to be welcomed, but they were addressed in 2020.

It is also worth emphasising that the majority of people who responded to the Committee's call for evidence — 53% — disagreed that powers to determine allowances should be set by MLAs themselves rather than an independent board. Yet again, parties want to plough ahead and ignore the views of the people. When people are asked for their views, the Committee and the parties here do not want to take them on board.

In Wales and in Westminster, the same independent board sets pay and allowances for politicians. Why should it be any different in Stormont? In its evidence to the Ad Hoc Committee, the Commission stated that allowing the board to make determinations on MLAs' expenses would result in the board being bogged down with work, with considerable cost to the public purse. Pull the other one. Surely one of the main aims of the independent remuneration board is to achieve good value for public money, not a stitch-up. Given that Ministers have no problem jet-setting around the world to events and conferences with no tangible outcomes and staying in opulent five-star hotels, it is hard to believe that some Executive parties are genuinely concerned about cost to the public purse.

On the membership and independence of the remuneration board, 81% of people who responded to the call for evidence — another high number — agreed or strongly agreed that MLAs' salaries and pensions should be set by an independent board rather than the Assembly Commission. Despite that, the Bill makes provision for a former MLA to take a seat on the independent board. There is no independence there if a former MLA is sitting on it. Ask anybody outside this Building and they will say the same. Former MLAs on the remuneration board will have responsibility for setting the salaries of their party colleagues as well as their own pensions. Scratch my back and I will scratch yours.

People Before Profit supports the principle of a remuneration board that is truly independent. That is not what is being proposed with this Bill. As it stands, given that a former MLA can, and, if the amendments do not pass, likely will, be a member of the independent remuneration board, it is independent only in name. My amendment restores some independence and requires at least two thirds of the board to be made up of active trade union representatives. For all the positive talk about trade unions in this place, parties are seemingly going to vote against that amendment. How many times in this place have parties in the Executive restricted the pay of workers and trade unions, yet they do not want them to have any say over the pay or allowances of MLAs?

I am happy to support amendment No 11 in the name of the Member for North Antrim, who made some very important points about parties wanting to shut down public consultation on this process. I support the amendments in my name.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: I call Colin McGrath, who is speaking on behalf of the Assembly Commission.

Mr McGrath: Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. I welcome the opportunity to contribute to the debate on the amendments that have been tabled to the Assembly Members (Remuneration Board) Bill on behalf of the Assembly Commission. I express the thanks of the Assembly Commission to the Chairperson and all members who served on the Ad Hoc Committee that was appointed to scrutinise the Bill.

From the outset, we have recognised that this is not a piece of legislation that will win Members any popularity contests. However, the Committee Stage has been important in allowing new sets of eyes to scrutinise the Bill and examine it in detail. That process has also been helpful in dealing with some of the more misleading commentary on the Bill. The Assembly Commission appeared before the Committee twice and dealt with a number of additional points via correspondence. Therefore, it is appropriate that the Assembly Commission acknowledges the work that was undertaken by the members and staff of the Committee.

Before I proceed to deal with the amendments in detail, it is worth highlighting a theme that runs through them, and I will return repeatedly to it. The central purpose of the Bill is to ensure that arrangements are in place for the salaries and pensions of Members to be determined independently.

Mr Carroll: Will the Member give way?

Mr McGrath: So early on, but go on ahead.

Mr Carroll: Thank you. If former MLAs can sit on the board, how can the Member justify saying that such a board will be independent? If you stepped down as an MLA tomorrow, you could sit on it and set the pay of your colleagues. How is that independent?

Mr McGrath: It is independent because that person will not get any financial benefit from it. They are not setting their own wage, but they will bring a depth of understanding of the role. Some Members said that there should not be any understanding of the role in determining how the job is undertaken. If you have somebody there who has undertaken the work and understands, having done the job, what it is about, that allows for a certain breadth of experience to be brought. However, because that person will not benefit from the determinations that are made, of course the board is independent. That is logical.

Whilst there are varying options for provisions that could be included in the Bill, the Assembly Commission has been focused on protecting the independence of the remuneration board and avoiding provisions that would reduce its ability to make its own decisions. That principle underpins the position of the Assembly Commission on many of the amendments being debated today.

I want, first, to turn to amendment Nos 6 and 7, which the Assembly Commission itself tabled. Clause 4 inserts new section 6A into the Assembly Members (Independent Financial Review and Standards) Act (Northern Ireland) 2011 — the 2011 Act — which makes provisions for temporary appointments to the board. However, following the introduction of the Bill, it occurred to the Assembly Commission that there was a potential issue with the same disqualification and other such provisions as applied to permanent appointments not applying to temporary appointments. The Assembly Commission therefore tabled amendment Nos 6 and 7 to avoid that discrepancy occurring. Amendment No 6 amends clause 4 and substitutes new section 6A(9) with wording that provides:

including disqualification from the board,

of the 2011 Act. The amendment puts more detail in the Bill on temporary appointments and ensures that the full suite of disqualification and termination provisions in Part 1 of the 2011 Act also applies to temporary appointments.

Amendment No 7 to clause 4 adds new section 6A(10) to the 2011 Act. That allows the Assembly Commission to make provision for temporary appointments to the remuneration board by order. That is included as a precaution to enable the Assembly Commission to deal with unforeseen circumstances. The new section 6A(10) is included to make clear that the Assembly Commission's powers to make such orders cannot be used to modify the application of new section 4(4) of the 2011 Act, which states that only one former Member of the Assembly can be a member of the remuneration board at any one time.

The Assembly Commission engaged with the Ad Hoc Committee on those amendments. The Ad Hoc Committee sought clarification on which Committee would be asked to scrutinise any order brought forward by the Assembly Commission under this legislation in relation to temporary appointment. The Assembly Commission clarified that the Audit Committee would, it believed, be the appropriate Committee to scrutinise any such order, given its existing role in the Assembly Commission's budget. The Assembly Commission communicated that to the Audit Committee, and we are grateful that the Ad Hoc Committee indicated that it is content to support amendment Nos 6 and 7.

I turn now to amendment Nos 1, 9, 10, 12 and 14, tabled by the Chairperson of the Ad Hoc Committee. Those amendments insert the word "Independent" into the name of the remuneration board. The Ad Hoc Committee engaged with the Assembly Commission on its intention to introduce those amendments. Section 3 of the 2011 Act makes clear that the board would not be subject to the direction or control of the Assembly or the Assembly Commission. As I said, the Assembly Commission is focused on the detail of the Bill to ensure that the independence of the remuneration board is maintained and embodied in how it operates.

However, in its previous engagement, the Assembly Commission indicated to the Ad Hoc Committee that, if it was of the view that adding the word "Independent" to the remuneration board's title would be helpful to emphasise its independence, the Assembly Commission was prepared to accept that view. The Assembly Commission is therefore content to support amendment Nos 1, 9, 10, 12 and 14.

I now turn to amendment No 2, tabled by Mr Carroll, which seeks to amend clause 3. It has been the Assembly Commission's view that requiring the remuneration board to have regard to the salaries payable to Members of other legislatures is a reasonable benchmarking measure that any such body would expect to carry out when reviewing salary levels. It would help the remuneration board to achieve the objective set out in section 2(2) of the 2011 Act, namely to have:

It would not prevent the remuneration board from taking account of other factors as it sees fit.

Mr Carroll: I thank the Member for giving way again. What is the Member's assessment of the fact that, in the call for evidence, 69% of respondents disagreed or strongly disagreed that the board should have regard to the salaries paid by legislatures in other jurisdictions?

Mr McGrath: My assessment is that that figure is probably quite low. If you talk to people about MLAs' salaries, 100% of them would probably say that we are paid too much. That is, of course, their view, but it is not the reality that is set out in legislation. We have to find a board that can conduct itself independently to find a level that, it feels, is appropriate — it is not us; we are not going to decide what our salary level will be — and the Bill is about establishing that independent board.

The level of inflation at a given time will, undoubtedly, be a factor for the remuneration board to take into consideration. However, amendment No 2 would fundamentally restrict the board's independence and limit the scope of its decisions in a number of ways. If amendment No 2 were accepted and it were made a requirement for the remuneration board not to exceed the most recent rate of inflation, that would have the predominant weight in determining its decisions. However, once the remuneration board has concluded its initial review and taken a decision on a reasonable level of salary for a Member, the board will have the option to decide that an increase in line with inflation should follow in the years after. The key point is that, if the independence of the remuneration board is to be meaningful, the decisions are for it alone to take on the basis of all the factors that, it thinks, are relevant without its hands being tied.

Ultimately, if amendment No 2 were passed, the purpose of the Bill would be undermined, as there would be no need to establish and resource the remuneration board. An annual inflationary increase could be provided for without the structures to review and determine the appropriate levels for Members. It is interesting to note that, if we look back to 10 years ago, when there was last a rise in MLAs' wages, we see that the consumer price index is around 30%. That would have meant a £15,000 increase for MLAs in the past 10 years — that is what would happen if the amendment had been in place from that time. That is not a level that I would want to have accepted for the past period. Maybe that is what the proposer of the amendment was looking for. The Assembly Commission, therefore, opposes amendment No 2.

With your indulgence, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker, I will now address amendment Nos 3, 5 and 13 together. Those amendments all raise issues that relate to the Windsor framework and essentially connect to the political point that Mr Gaston has made at earlier stages of the Bill about the impact of the Windsor framework on the legislative responsibilities of the Assembly. It is Mr Gaston's prerogative to focus on those issues. The Assembly Commission has had no part in the creation, detail or future of the Windsor framework and will not take a position on such an issue, which is outside of its responsibilities. However, I return to the points that amendment Nos 3 and 5 would limit the discretion of the remuneration board and impact on its independence by making issues around the Windsor framework a predominant factor that influences and determines its decisions.

The law-making powers of each legislature in these islands vary. The Bill gives the remuneration board full discretion to take account of the legislative responsibilities of the Assembly and its Members in any benchmarking or other exercise that it undertakes. However, it is a disproportionate approach to tie the operation and decision-making of the remuneration board to an issue outside of its control, the control of the Assembly Commission and, indeed, the control of the Assembly. From a technical perspective, the Assembly Commission is also concerned that amendment Nos 3 and 5 could be considered legally deficient, as legislative competence attaches to the Assembly rather than to individual Members.

Like amendment Nos 3 and 5, amendment No 13 would tie the operation of the Bill to the Windsor framework. The Bill will come into effect on the day after the day that it receives Royal Assent. Amendment No 13 would predicate the commencement of key provisions of the Bill on matters related to the Windsor framework. It would postpone those provisions for at least four years until the next vote on the democratic consent process. It is unreasonable to tie the operation of the Bill to those issues, so the Assembly Commission opposes amendment Nos 3, 5 and 13.

Clause 3 inserts a new provision into section 2 of the 2011 Act and would impose a requirement on the remuneration board to have regard to the salaries payable to Members of other legislatures. As I have stated previously, the Assembly Commission believes that that is a reasonable measure to ensure that the remuneration board is informed by benchmarking against the salary levels awarded to legislators in other places and is one that it is likely to undertake, whether it is in the Bill or not.

Amendment No 4 would remove all reference to the Houses of the Oireachtas and, I assume, is politically motivated from Mr Gaston's perspective. Again, that is his right. However, when the Assembly Commission gave specific consideration to the bodies that are included in that clause, it was not motivated by party political considerations. The Assembly Commission included all the legislatures in these islands with which the Assembly most frequently engages. That would give the remuneration board a number of comparators of differing scale and legislative responsibilities. Removing the Houses of the Oireachtas would therefore limit the scope of the comparators that could be considered.

The amendment is also arguably legislatively ineffective, as it would not prevent the remuneration board expanding a benchmarking exercise that it wished to undertake or making its own decision to review the provision for Members of the Houses of the Oireachtas. Finally, from a political perspective, it could be argued that Mr Gaston's amendment is inconsistent with his previous positions. He has previously argued that clause 3 and the requirement to "have regard to" the salaries in other legislatures would inevitably lead to a significant pay rise for Members. However, in tabling amendment No 4, he now seems to seek only to remove specific institutions from that clause rather than to oppose the concept of benchmarking as a whole. Therefore, the Assembly Commission opposes amendment No 4.

Clause 5 amends paragraph 1 of schedule 1 to the 2011 Act to remove former membership of the Assembly as grounds for disqualification from membership of the remuneration board. The Assembly Commission considers that to be an important element of the Bill, as it allows the potential for the insight of a former Member's first-hand experience to add value to the remuneration board's work. However, the appointment of a former Member is optional: it is not required. A balance of perspectives is retained by allowing a potential maximum of only one former Member to serve on the remuneration board at any one time.

Mr Carroll's amendment No 8 is very different and takes a different approach to the appointment of trade union representatives on the remuneration board. Not only does it require that a trade union representative be appointed to the board but it requires that a majority of the members of the remuneration board be trade union representatives. The Bill does not prevent trade union representatives serving on the remuneration board. I am happy to make it clear that the Assembly Commission has no objection in principle to the possibility of trade union representatives serving on the remuneration board. However, they will be subject to the same independent process of appointment as others, which will see the best candidates from the open recruitment process being appointed on merit. Amendment No 8 would significantly restrict the potential membership of the remuneration board. The Assembly Commission has a concern that it would limit the pool of applicants who could apply.

Mr Carroll: Will the Member give way?

Mr McGrath: Of course.

Mr Carroll: The Member is being kind in giving way. He talks about limiting the pool. I remind him that there are over 250,000 trade unionists in the North, so that is a lot of people for the Committee and the panel to choose from.

Mr McGrath: Thank you, and there are also 1·6 million-odd who cannot apply for it, which seems a bit unfair as well. However, I do not mind giving way; it gives me a break from a long speech.

Amendment No 8 requires trade union representatives to be appointed as a majority of members on the board but is silent on the specific professional experience or skills that they should bring to the remuneration board.

Mr Butler: I thank the Member for giving way. I was hoping that Mr Carroll would bring that up in his speech. I was unsure as to the purpose of trade union representation. As a former trade union representative in the Northern Ireland Fire and Rescue Service, when I lobbied on pay issues, I was representing the members — the firefighters. That is my understanding of what trade union reps do. Perhaps the Member for West Belfast will clarify that through you and through the Chair: whom would the trade union representatives actually represent, when the Bill deals with remuneration for Members?

Mr McGrath: I thank the Member for his intervention. I think that the approach that is being taken by the Commission is the best one. It is open to everybody, trade union representatives and all; in fact, I hope that there will be trade union representatives on the board. I hope that they apply. They have unique skills that can contribute to this type of work. They understand the importance of a fair and decent wage for everybody. They have a lot of experience that they could bring to it. The issue is with their having the majority of seats on the board. If we have an open and transparent process, it is better that the board be populated with people of different backgrounds rather than just the one background, more or less. As I say, that approach could narrow the range of skills available to the board in performing its functions.

The 2011 Act disqualifies certain categories from applying to join the remuneration board to avoid conflicts of interest. That is very different from requiring the majority of the remuneration board to have one specific requirement that would prevent the majority of the population from applying. While appointments to the remuneration board are not ministerial appointments, there is also a risk that the amendment would be contrary to key elements of the requirement of the code of practice previously published by the Commissioner for Public Appointments, including on the grounds of equality, diversity, merit and proportionality. Neither the Assembly nor the Assembly Commission should want to encourage such an approach. The Assembly Commission therefore opposes amendment No 8.

Amendment No 11, tabled by Mr Gaston, deals with the issue of consultation. The Assembly Commission has previously clarified that it took account of a number of factors in its approach to the Bill, including the fact that the Assembly had approved a resolution in June 2020 that called for Members' salaries and pensions to be determined independently and that an earlier version of the Bill was subsequently introduced. I note that the Ad Hoc Committee invited responses to inform its scrutiny of the Bill. Amendment No 11 would place a requirement to consult on any future Bill.

There are, however, practical and legal issues with amendment No 11. First, the intention of the Bill is to set up the remuneration board and re-establish an independent mechanism to determine Members' salaries. The remuneration board will determine the level of salaries. Once its decisions are made, they will be implemented. There will therefore be no need for the Assembly Commission to introduce a further Bill on those issues, and it has no intention of doing so. Clause 6 requires the remuneration board to publish a draft determination outlining any decisions that it is considering making and allows it to consult on the draft with any other persons whom it considers appropriate. Therefore, there is already a provision that would permit public consultation on the issue of Members' salaries in the future, if the remuneration board considered it valuable.

The more significant issue is that there is a risk that amendment No 11 is likely to take the Bill outside the legislative competence of the Assembly. Part 2 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 states that the Assembly may make law in accordance with the relevant provisions of that Part. Part 2 is an excepted matter. The Assembly cannot pass Acts that deal with matters covered by Part 2 of the 1998 Act. Amendment No 11 is concerned with the way in which the Assembly makes laws. It introduces conditions for the introduction of legislation that are not set out in the Northern Ireland Act 1998. That deals with the subject matter of Part 2 of the Act, which sets out the only limitations on the plenary power of the Assembly to make laws. The amendment deals with an excepted matter and would potentially jeopardise the passage of the Bill into law.

Amendment No 11 also has the potential to undermine the exercise of the Assembly's statutory functions as set out in section 47 of the 1998 Act in relation to the remuneration of Members. That may also create a risk of the Bill's being referred to the UK Supreme Court. I also note that it is a constitutional principle that an Assembly cannot bind its successors, which would be the effect of amendment No 11. The Assembly Commission therefore opposes amendment No 11.

I appreciate that I have taken some time to go through the detail of the amendments.

In summary, the Assembly Commission commends its own amendment Nos 6 and 7 to the House and supports amendment Nos 1, 9, 10, 12 and 14 from the Ad Hoc Committee. The Assembly Commission also supports retaining clauses 3, 5 and 10 in the Bill. The Assembly Commission looks forward to considering the decisions that Members take today in advance of the Further Consideration Stage of the Bill occurring in due course.

I hope that it is noted, as I conclude, that I got through the entire speech without using "renumeration" and stuck to "remuneration", which I think was an achievement.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Much appreciated, Colin. Thank you. I call the Chairperson of the Ad Hoc Committee on the Assembly Members (Remuneration Board) Bill, Mr Phillip Brett, to make a winding-up speech.

Mr Brett: Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. I thank all Members who took part in what was a wide-ranging debate. We covered many issues in the Bill and indeed issues that are far outside the scope of the Bill. It was a useful discussion, and I thank those who contributed, including, first, my vice-chair, Ms Mason, who rightly highlighted the fact that the legislation will remove the power for MLAs to set their own salary. I do not think that any Member in the House wants MLAs to have a role in setting their own salary. It is absolutely correct that the Consideration Stage passes today.

I confirm that the remarks made by Ms Bradshaw were entirely correct: there was no request from the Member for West Belfast Mr Carroll to come along to give evidence to the Ad Hoc Committee.

Ms Bradshaw: Will the Member give way?

Mr Brett: I will happily give way.

Ms Bradshaw: I would also like to put on record that no request came from Mr Gaston either.

Mr Brett: There was no request from any Member of the House to come along to the Committee to give evidence. Members also had the opportunity to provide written evidence, had their diaries not permitted them to come in person. Again, that was not received.

Mr Carroll: I thank the Member for giving way. How does he respond to the fact that, in the call for evidence, 69% of respondents disagreed or strongly disagreed that the board should have regard to salaries paid to Members in other jurisdictions? If the Member was so keen to hear my views, and I thank him for that, I refer him to what I said in the Second Stage debate on the Bill.

Mr Brett: Mr Carroll, I shall come to your remarks later; probably the most substantial of my remarks will address some of the mistruths that you spoke earlier in the debate.

Mr Gaston: Will the Member give way?

Mr Brett: I will happily give way.

Mr Gaston: Just so that we are absolutely clear and, potentially, for the Member to correct the record: we did put in a written submission.

Mr Brett: Thank you, Timothy, for that. You did put in a written submission. The point that I made was in relation to Mr Carroll.

I welcome Mr Gaston's support for the amendments in my name on behalf of the Committee. They are supported by all Members of the House. When the Member for West Belfast spoke, he did not indicate, one way or the other, whether he supported the amendments in the name of the Ad Hoc Committee, but it is useful to put on the record that no Member outlined their opposition to the Committee's amendments, and that reflects the importance of those amendments.

I want to respond to some of the more political points that were made during the discussion. The Member for North Antrim Mr Gaston said that amendment No 13 in his name was a "challenge" from the TUV to other unionists. I do not need a challenge from any other unionist, either inside or outside the House. I am very clear in my unionism, very confident in my unionism. The people of North Belfast elected me and gave me a mandate to speak for them, and I will take no lectures nor any diatribes from any Member of the House who is trying to challenge the credentials of my unionism.

I turn now to the remarks by the "person before profit" Member for West Belfast, Mr Carroll. In the first of his remarks, he outlined that the Committee was trying to keep quiet the findings of its deliberations. I know that the Member may not do detail, but there is a 43-page report that the Committee produced. I would encourage the Member for West Belfast to read it. He then went on to articulate that he takes the average salary. He also implied that he does not draw down the full salary. Let us be very clear: Mr Carroll does draw down the entirety of his £52,500 salary. What he then does with that, whether he donates it to his political party or to any other of his Marxist causes, that is a matter for him. Let us be very clear, however: he does take the full salary offered by the Assembly.

The Member for West Belfast made disgraceful remarks about clause 5. He said that the clause was a case of "If you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours". It is important to put it on the record that the Member is factually incorrect. If a former Member becomes a member of the independent panel, any decisions made by the panel will not influence that individual's pension. Mr Carroll's attempt to mislead Members, and members of the public, needs to be called out. He went on to say that the public will give their verdict on the types of MLAs whom they want. The people of Northern Ireland gave their verdict in 2022 on whom they wanted to represent them. There are 26 or 27 Members on these Benches. There is one Member on his Bench. I think that the people of Northern Ireland gave their verdict very clearly.

Interestingly, the Member for West Belfast often speaks about ensuring equality and equal rights for everyone, yet amendment No 8, which stands in his name, seeks to disbar former Members of this place from even having the ability to apply to be a member of the board. The Member is therefore so committed to equality that he wants to put discrimination into law. It is very important to make clear that, should a former Member apply, there is no guarantee that they will be appointed to the board or any more right to be. Rather, they will have equality of opportunity. I often hear lectures from Mr Carroll on that issue. It seems, however, that, once again, the Member does not practise what he preaches.

This has been a useful discussion and debate. I welcome Members' support for the amendments tabled in my name on behalf of the Committee.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Members, we are going to proceed to a series of votes, but I propose that we do that after Question Time.

I have two points of clarification to make about the tone of the debate: Cathy Mason is "the", not your, Deputy Chairperson of the Committee, and Gerry Carroll is a member of People Before Profit, not "person before profit".

Mr Brett: Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: You are more than welcome, but knock it on the head.

The Business Committee has agreed to meet at 1.00 pm today. I propose therefore, by leave of the Assembly, to suspend the sitting until 2.00 pm.

Dr Archibald (The Minister for the Economy): In my previous role as Finance Minister, I commissioned the Ulster University Economic Policy Centre to examine the cost of doing business in the North. That research was published last week. It highlights the range of cost challenges that employers have faced in recent years, including those resulting from the COVID pandemic and the invasion of Ukraine. The challenges have been worsened by the British Government’s autumn statement, which increased employers' National Insurance contributions. The hospitality sector here, which is subject to a level of VAT that is higher than that in the South, has been particularly impacted on by the autumn statement. The research provides a firm evidence base that will be used to make the case to the Treasury to act. My colleague the Minister of Finance continues to urge the Chief Secretary to the Treasury to reduce the cost of doing business in the North. I will continue to support the Minister of Finance and advocate alongside him at every opportunity.

Mr Dunne: I thank the Minister for her answer. For months, the Minister and her colleague the Finance Minister have pointed to the need to have a research evidence base before addressing the concerns of businesses across our country. Now that the research is in place, what urgent actions will the Minister take to mitigate the dire consequences for local businesses? An example was highlighted at the Economy Committee last week by the Denroy Group, which had a bill of £800,000 for National Insurance and national living wage payments alone. That shows the scale of the challenge.

Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for his question and for highlighting that particular issue and the challenges facing businesses here. We all very much recognise those challenges. The Member will know — I have rehearsed this answer on a number of occasions — that the Executive do not have the financial capability to mitigate bad decisions that are taken at Westminster that have a direct detrimental impact on businesses and people here. Alongside our partner organisations, my Department provides a range of supports for businesses to help them become more competitive, through energy efficiency, innovation, skills and support for exploring new markets. All those things are important for improving competitiveness, but we will continue to make the case to the British Treasury to consider the decisions that it can make that directly impact on businesses here.

Miss Hargey: The research highlights the differential hospitality VAT rates in the North and South. Would you support a reduction in the North's VAT rate on hospitality?

Dr Archibald: Yes. You are quite right that that is highlighted. I am sure that that issue has been reflected to many of us by businesses in our constituencies, particularly those in border areas that are competing directly with businesses in the South.

The Minister of Finance has asked the Chief Secretary to the Treasury to consider what support or mitigations can be put in place for all impacted sectors, especially those here in the North, where, as the research shows, the impacts will be felt more significantly. The Minister also asked the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, given the disparity in VAT rates, North and South, to consider what steps the Westminster Government can take, or supports they can offer, using their powers over VAT, to help our hospitality businesses to operate on a level playing field with those in the South. I fully support the Minister of Finance in making that case and want to see a reduction in our VAT rate to support our hospitality sector so that it is able to compete in the all-island economy.

Mr Honeyford: Has the Minister had any discussions with the Minister for Infrastructure on planning reform? The planning system is holding our businesses back, adding to the cost of doing business here and preventing the future development of those businesses and investment in Northern Ireland.

Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for his question, which is about something that is reflected to many of us in our conversations with businesses. I met the Infrastructure Minister last week to discuss that issue in particular. She highlighted a range of initiatives that her Department is taking to improve and speed up the planning process. We all recognise that there are resource challenges — what we can do with the Budget that we have — but steps can be taken, and she clearly reflected her commitment to do that.

Mr McGrath: Minister, you commissioned the study on the cost of doing business, but it appears that all that you will do with it is simply send it to the British Government and that the Executive will not do anything. When will you do something to help businesses here, given that 96% of respondents to Retail NI's survey said that this Executive were doing nothing for them?

Dr Archibald: I have made my position clear on the issue. The Executive do not have the financial capability to mitigate the decisions taken at Westminster that have a direct, detrimental impact not just on businesses but on people here. As I said, we already provide a range of supports to businesses, and we are looking at how those can be utilised to support businesses to grow, thrive and create jobs, but there is no escaping the reality that decisions taken by the British Government have a detrimental impact here and that the Executive are not in a position to fully mitigate all those decisions. That is just the reality.

I will continue to work hard with and on behalf of businesses in my representations to the Treasury. I will also work in partnership and collaboration with businesses to design supports and interventions that are under our control in order to support them to create jobs and a strong and thriving economy.

Ms D Armstrong: Minister, as has been mentioned, the study outlines a number of key impacts and challenges facing hospitality, such as the increase in employers' National Insurance contributions. It also points out that abolishing zero-hours contracts as part of the 'good jobs' employment rights Bill may be detrimental. Does the study give you a reason to revisit the 'good jobs' Bill?

Dr Archibald: The research was conducted before the proposals for the 'good jobs' Bill were published. It is important to recognise that good jobs benefit everybody in our economy and that evidence clearly demonstrates that employers benefit from having a more productive and engaged workforce. There is a clear need to modernise our employment rights framework, and that is what we are doing. One reason for modernising is so that the good employers that we all know in our constituencies are not at a competitive disadvantage compared with those who do not treat their workers fairly.

On zero-hours contracts specifically, under the proposals that I have set out, we will ban exploitative zero-hours contracts so that, where a worker has regular hours on a regular basis, they will be entitled to a banded hours contract, but there will be exceptions for genuinely casual and seasonal work. Even in that instance, we are taking steps, for example, to ban the exclusivity clauses that can be in place here. We have tried to strike a balance between ensuring that workers' rights are protected and recognising the case that has been made to us that there are genuine circumstances in which such contracts can be useful to employers and workers.

Dr Archibald: On 30 July, the then Economy Minister announced that the Executive had reaffirmed their commitment to close the non-domestic RHI scheme. That was consistent with the aim in 'New Decade, New Approach' in 2020:

I am committed to a closure arrangement that will ensure fairness to people who entered and participated in the scheme in good faith and, at the same time, achieve fairness and value for money for the public purse. A business case for the closure of the scheme is with the Department of Finance. Subject to the approval of the Department of Finance, Treasury and the Executive, the Department intends to close the scheme through primary legislation, which will provide the powers for the Department to bring forward the closure regulations. Subordinate legislation — regulations — setting out the detail of the closure arrangements will then be subject to consultation. The Department continues to engage with key stakeholders on the design and details of the closure of the scheme, and a proposal will be brought to the Executive for agreement. A consultation will then be launched on the draft regulations that will give effect to the closure arrangements.

Mr Tennyson: I thank the Minister for that answer. Minister, will you give us a timeline for when we can expect to see that primary legislation? What assurances can you give that proposals for closure will command the confidence of the Assembly this time?

Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for his question. I cannot give a precise time frame for approval of the business case. My Department is working at pace with the Department of Finance on progressing that. I am sure that the Member will agree that it is important that that is done appropriately. With the support of the Executive, it is my intention to introduce legislation before summer recess.

Ms Finnegan: Minister, the New Decade, New Approach agreement committed to replacing the RHI scheme with a scheme that more effectively cuts emissions. Is that also being progressed?

Dr Archibald: Yes. With respect to renewable heat in the domestic sector, the Department consulted recently on future support of low-carbon technology in residential properties. That consultation closed on 10 January. The views that were provided will support the Department in the development of policy to inform options regarding the design of and rules and guidance on future support for low-carbon heat, which will include energy-efficient technologies, such as heat pumps. In the non-domestic sector, the Department's focus is on closing the non-domestic RHI scheme in advance of Ofgem's departure.

Dr Archibald: The North/South interconnector project is essential in order to deliver an affordable and renewable energy system across the island. It is estimated that the cost to local electricity consumers due to the absence of the interconnector is £19 million per year. The interconnector will enable an additional 900 MW of clean electricity into the North’s transmission system and reduce levels of "dispatch down".

Reliance on a single North/South interconnector means that the North’s power system has a single point of failure. A second interconnector will strengthen security of supply. I have been consistent in my position that the North/South interconnector should be undergrounded. In the North, on 14 September 2020, the then Infrastructure Minister granted planning permission for the interconnector. The Northern section is expected to be delivered by 2028. The completion date for the Southern section has been revised from 2028 to 2031. EirGrid, the system operator in the South, has advised that that is due to delays in processing land access and actual construction time. Last week, I met Minister O’Brien, the Minister for Environment, Climate and Energy in the South, to discuss the issue. During that meeting, I set out my party’s position that the interconnector should be undergrounded.

Mr Donnelly: I thank the Minister for that answer. What is the Minister's assessment of the delay to the interconnector, with reference to planning objections from the Republic of Ireland?

Dr Archibald: As I said in my initial answer, EirGrid has indicated that there are delays in processing land access and actual construction time. We have engaged with the Department in the South to understand what it is doing to try to reduce that extension, because there is a need to progress the North/South interconnector if we are to be able to meet our statutory obligations under the Climate Change Act 2022 and other targets. That Department has work to do to make that happen.

Ms Murphy: Minister, how does your Department ensure adequate North/South cooperation on energy matters?

Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for her question. As I mentioned, I met my counterpart, Minister O'Brien, last week. He took up his post in January. I will continue to engage with him on energy issues.

My officials engage regularly on issues of cooperation between our energy supplies. Senior officials meet quarterly through a joint steering group to discuss oversight of the single electricity market (SEM) and areas that impact our respective energy strategies and climate change targets. The joint steering group is attended by senior officials from my Department, the Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC), both regulators and representatives from the SEM committee.

Mr O'Toole: Minister, I am really confused. You have said on multiple occasions from that lectern that you think that the North/South interconnector needs to be undergrounded. I am on the Department's website, which makes it clear that the planning permission that your Department sought is for an overground North/South interconnector. Are you saying one thing while your Department is delivering another? I strongly support the North/South interconnector, but a colleague of yours in the South, Mr Darren O'Rourke TD, appears to object to it. How can you be taken seriously as an Economy Minister who will deliver critical infrastructure when you say one thing and do another and contradict yourself in the Chamber?

Dr Archibald: I do not agree with the Member about my comments, because I have been consistent on my party's position and the party has been consistent in its position that it would help secure community buy-in. Planning permission was granted by a previous Infrastructure Minister who was your party colleague. As Ministers, we are obliged to fulfil the commitments in respect of that planning consent.

Mr Bradley: Minister, are you confident that the necessary infrastructure will be in place to ensure delivery to the north-west and the north coast?

Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for his question. As I said, I have engaged with my counterpart in the South to understand what the issues are in the delay that they made indications about. As I mentioned in my opening answer, the Northern section will be completed by 2028. There is an issue in respect of the investment in the grid, which NIE is progressing. It was granted a record investment of £2·2 billion under RP7, and it will work alongside the Department to ensure the roll-out of that project.

Mr Speaker: Earlier today, I dealt with a point of order raised by the Justice Minister on Members asking a Minister's opinion. Members do not generally have to ask a Minister's opinion, as we have just found out, because the Minister has just given an opinion that is contrary to the facts. I said today that this is about getting facts, and the fact is that the North/South interconnector has planning approval to go overground and that the electricity bodies that propose to develop it plan to go overground, as does the Minister's Department. We did not need the Minister's opinion; we just needed facts.

Dr Archibald: My 'good jobs' employment rights Bill will deliver the biggest upgrade of our employment legislation since the Good Friday Agreement. It includes proposals to end exploitative zero-hours contracts; enhance protections for agency workers; end abuse of fire-and-rehire tactics; ensure that tips left to workers are passed on to them in full; modernise our trade union framework; make it easier to attain flexible working; and enhance rights to family-related leave, including the introduction of carer's leave, as well as neonatal leave and pay. I intend to deliver my proposals through primary and secondary legislation, statutory codes of practice and guidance.

The next step is for the Executive to agree the broad policy content of the Bill. Following Executive agreement, my Department will engage formally with the Office of the Legislative Counsel (OLC) to draft the Bill. I intend to seek final Executive approval of the draft Bill towards the end of this year, with the hope of introducing it in the Assembly by January 2026. As the detail is refined, my Department will continue to engage with key stakeholders to ensure that the legislation operates effectively for workers and businesses.

Ms Sheerin: Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire as a freagra.

Minister, will you outline the benefits of a social model underpinned by constructive relationships between employers and trade unions?

Dr Archibald: Effective social dialogue between Governments, employers and trade unions is essential for advancing social justice, fostering inclusive economic development, improving wages and working conditions and supporting sustainable enterprises. A cornerstone of good governance and social dialogue creates the conditions necessary to achieve decent work for all, while promoting social peace, stability and effective labour market governance. The tripartite model of social dialogue is promoted by the International Labour Organization and is widely adopted internationally.

Engaging in and embedding the tripartite model of social dialogue across our economy is a key principle of my 'good jobs' agenda. Meaningful discussion between my Department, employers and trade unions about the practical outworkings of the Bill is essential, if the planned changes are to have the desired positive effect. My officials have already reached out to key employer and trade union stakeholders following my announcement on 28 April, and I encourage them all to be as involved as possible in the next critical stage of the process.

Mr Brett: Your small and micro business impact test (SAMBIT) for theme c of your proposals was belatedly published on Good Friday, when other people's attention was on the Easter period. The document references millions of pounds of costs to business as a result of your proposals. Earlier, you said that you did not have the ability to mitigate the decision by the UK Government to implement additional costs to business, so please outline to the House today what financial measures you are putting in place to support business as a result of your legislation.

Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for his question. In recognition of the potential impact of the proposals, as he rightly pointed out, my Department carried out a series of impact assessments on the individual policies and the SAMBIT, which he mentioned. The assessments will continue to be reviewed as we develop our policies and legislation. As I have outlined on numerous occasions since we made the announcement about the proposals, it is my intention that we will phase the implementation of the proposals and work with businesses to support their implementation.

It is important to say that, while workers are generally entitled to the same framework of employment rights, regardless of employer size, there are some mitigations in respect of the proposals for smaller businesses in relation to what I have announced, for example, around the threshold for statutory trade union recognition. The reduction is from 21 employees to 10, which will exclude microbusinesses here. We will continue to work with businesses to support them in the implementation. Some of the feedback that we got during the consultation process related to ensuring that there is proper guidance and training in place to support businesses. We will work closely with the Labour Relations Agency to progress that as the Bill goes through the next stages of its process.

Mr McNulty: Given our tight financial situation and the fact that the British Government's Employment Rights Bill includes no proposals on paid carer's leave, how do you plan to ensure that funding is available to fulfil your promise to make paid carer's leave a reality?

Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for his question. We all recognise the importance of carers and the key role that they play in our society and in our economy. That is why we have stated that, in the first instance, we will introduce an unpaid entitlement of up to five days in a rolling 12-month period for those who have a caring responsibility for a relative or dependant. I have been clear that my desire is for that to be a paid entitlement, and my Department will take the legal powers to introduce a paid carer's leave entitlement. I have also been honest about the fact that we have challenging financial circumstances that everybody will be well rehearsed in, and it will be for the Executive to discuss whether that can be funded from our own resources. I understand that a review of carer's leave is being undertaken in England as well, so, if it is introduced at a future point by the British Government, we will be able to follow suit here immediately.

Dr Archibald: Further education is a critical part of our economic infrastructure, supporting people to achieve their potential and providing the skills needed for our businesses to grow. It is therefore important that further education lecturers are paid appropriately. The consolidated pay increases for lecturers were just 1% in both 2021-22 and 2022-23. When my predecessor came into post, he committed to work towards parity with teachers. On that basis, he facilitated an 11·2% pay agreement for further education lecturers in 2023-24.

I am also committed to working towards pay parity. I have therefore facilitated an offer of a 5·5% pay increase for further education lecturers for 2024-25, which aligns to the offer accepted by teachers. In addition, a 3% pay increase has been proposed for 2025-26, providing much-needed stability for lecturers and students alike.

The further education colleges, as employers, are also progressing a range of agreed work streams, including workload, in conjunction with trade unions in the 2025-26 academic year. As in all Departments, my budget is under severe pressure; however, by working collaboratively with colleges and trade unions, we have been able to facilitate that pay offer for further education lecturers.

Mr McGuigan: I thank the Minister for providing a useful update on lecturers' pay. Further to that, what is the position with regard to a pay offer for non-teaching staff in colleges?

Dr Archibald: Non-teaching staff have already been given a pay award for 2024-25 that was approved in December 2024. I am aware that the National Joint Council (NJC) has made a full and final pay offer for 2025-26 that, if agreed, will apply to non-teaching staff in our further education colleges.

Mr Speaker, it was remiss of me not to have said at the start of my answer that I wished to group questions 5 and 10.

Mr Speaker: No problem. I call Maurice Bradley.

Mr Bradley: Thank you, Mr Speaker. The Minister has answered my question, so well done. [Laughter.]

Ms McLaughlin: Minister, do you agree that the current pay offer, while matching the schoolteachers' percentage increase, does not advance pay parity? The unions therefore regard it as a standstill.

Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for her question. I understand that, alongside the pay offer that has been made, work is necessary to address parity issues that remain between teachers and further education lecturers. That is an essential condition of the pay offer that is currently available. I have made it clear that I want to see progress at pace on those issues. I remain fully supportive of equitable remuneration for further education lecturers.

Dr Archibald: My Department and Invest NI are committed to helping businesses harness artificial intelligence (AI) as a key enabler of economic development. Invest NI provides funding for AI-related research and development projects and essential skills development programmes to equip the workforce for AI adoption.

The Artificial Intelligence Collaboration Centre funded by DFE and Invest NI offers direct access to expertise and supports practical AI implementation and AI skills. Furthermore, city deal innovation centres under the Belfast region city deal and the Derry City and Strabane region city deal provide regional investment in innovation infrastructure. Those centres will foster AI applications in critical sectors such as ICT, advanced manufacturing and life sciences.

Further support mechanisms include initiatives such as the digital transformation flexible fund, which assists SMEs with the adoption costs of AI and other digital infrastructure; Digital Catapult NI, which connects firms with AI expertise and accelerates advanced technology uptake; and Go Succeed NI, which runs regular events to help businesses to navigate digital transformation, including AI adoption. Together, those measures provide businesses across the North with access to funding, skills, expert guidance and collaborative opportunities to successfully integrate and benefit from AI advancements, boosting productivity and global competitiveness.

Mrs Dodds: That is a significant list. What assessment has the Department made of the impact of AI on the workforce in Northern Ireland, since it is fundamentally changing the way in which we do business and the way we work?

Mr Speaker: Briefly, please, Minister.

Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for her question. The issue is raised at almost every meeting that I have with businesses. The overall impact of AI on the labour market will depend on a range of factors, including the speed of AI adoption, the extent of productivity benefits, whether businesses reduce headcount or redeploy their workforce, and by how much and how quickly AI increases demand for labour. As I said in my original answer, the Artificial Intelligence Collaboration Centre is supporting the Department and businesses to understand AI and providing practical support on its adoption.

Mr Speaker: We now move on to topical questions.

Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for her question. First, let me say that my perspective is that student fees would ideally be zero, but we have to work within the financial reality and under the system that we have, which is imposed on us by the British Government, and follow that Government's policy on fees. Years of austerity have had an impact on all our public services, including our universities, which are a key economic driver, so we need to ensure that fees are set at a level that is affordable for students and that maintains universities' financial viability. It is also important to look at the maintenance support that is in place for students. It has not been uplifted for many years. Unfortunately, as I outlined in previous answers, the Executive are in a position in which, for the past number of years, they have been mitigating the effects of decisions and bad policies from Westminster. It is the same when it comes to student fees.

Ms McLaughlin: Minister, with the greatest respect, that is neither a yes nor a no. As an all-island party, Sinn Féin's position on student fees should be consistent. In the South, your party wants to reduce and abolish tuition fees, yet, in the North, you are not ruling out raising them. That is totally inconsistent, and, for an all-island party, Sinn Féin is acting in a very partitionist manner. Are you really telling the House that Sinn Féin is happy with two different policy positions, North and South, on tuition fees —

Mr Speaker: Minister.

Ms McLaughlin: — and that the value of a student in the South is greater than that of one in the North?

Dr Archibald: The Member has articulated the challenge that we face with partition, which is damaging for everybody across this island. The reality is that I take the exact same position as my colleagues in the South, and I articulated at the beginning of my answer that, from my perspective, I would like to see no student fees. We are, however, in a reality in which we do not have the financial capability or the fiscal powers that the Government in the South have. We have costed proposals to reduce and remove student fees. As I said, in the North, we are in a position in which we have a system of fees imposed on us that the Tory Government put in place and that the Labour Government are maintaining. The Executive are trying to ensure that we have a viable economy and a skills pipeline, but, from my perspective, we need to see proper support for students.

Dr Archibald: Since I came into this post, I have not had any engagement with colleagues in Westminster on the Heathrow expansion. We previously engaged at a constituency level, however. If the Member wants to write to me about that specific issue, I will be happy to pick up on it.

Mr Robinson: I thank the Minister for her response. Has her Department done an assessment of the potential economic benefits or spin-off opportunities for Northern Ireland, particularly for the former Shackleton Barracks site in Ballykelly? She will recall that, back in 2019, there were plans for the site to be a logistics hub.

Dr Archibald: I am familiar with the proposals that were made at the time. The COVID pandemic then hit, however, and plans for many things changed.

I am happy to engage with the Member on that issue, and I will furnish him with information on it from the Department.

Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for that question. Ensuring that we have an inclusive workforce is a direct outworking of what we are trying to do with the 'good jobs' Bill. There are a number of proposals in it that support that ambition, including the right to flexible working and the right to disconnect for a greater work-life balance. A key objective is a more inclusive economy and workforce, and we are working on other aims and objectives in addition to the work that we are doing on the 'good jobs' Bill. For example, through our skills and training programmes, we are ensuring that there are opportunities for people to take up and are trying to reduce the barriers. We are also implementing a work stream with employers to remove some of the unnecessary barriers that people face in trying to take up a work opportunity.

Mr Butler: I thank the Minister for her detailed answer. The Minister will know the phrase, "Nothing about us without us". Will she detail what consultation there has been with the disabled community in getting the Bill to where it is now?

Dr Archibald: There has been significant engagement with a range of organisations, but I do not have the full list in front of me. However, I can certainly commit to ensuring that there will be consultation and engagement with disability organisations to ensure that those views are captured in what we are trying to progress.

Dr Archibald: Yes, I certainly do. There is a belief — one that, perhaps, was prevalent at one point in the Civil Service — that regional balance is not an achievable economic goal, and, therefore, public investment in places like Derry is not value for money and is politically motivated. That is not a view that I share, but it justified decades of underinvestment and discrimination. Public policy and investment can and do shape the geographical balance of economies.

My Department, as the Member will know, is forming local economic partnerships to address the economic barriers in council areas to help them realise the opportunities that exist. We have set Invest NI a target of making 65% of its investments outside of the greater Belfast area and are strengthening its local offices. Of course, we are also expanding the Magee campus to accommodate 10,000 students, and we are investing in the City of Derry Airport. To be clear, public investment in small regional airports is common across these islands and the world because Governments recognise that, although they are often not fully commercially viable, the broader economic benefits that they deliver merit support. As any credible economist will know, value for money is an assessment of all social and economic benefits, so promoting regional balance, including in Derry, remains a key, justified and realistic part of my economic agenda.

Ms Ferguson: I thank the Minister for highlighting the importance of promoting regional balance. The Minister referred to the expansion of the Magee campus, which is a key economic catalyst for the region. Will she explain the benefits of a partnership approach to that critical project?

Dr Archibald: As the Member will recognise, a project of the scale of the expansion of the Magee campus requires everybody to work together towards the same objective. That cannot be done if anyone is excluded. The task force includes people from the local business community, the community and voluntary sector, Invest NI, the council, the trade union movement, the Irish Government, my Department and the university. Everyone is committed to the project and is working collaboratively to deliver the places for 10,000 students as quickly as possible.

Dr Archibald: On the 'good jobs' Bill, we are undertaking specific engagement with organisations, business representatives, trade union representatives and third-sector representatives. Officials have begun that process and have been out engaging already. We will be keen to promote that as much as possible over the coming weeks and months. I have also set up an economic engagement forum, the purpose of which is to facilitate regular two-way engagement with representatives across a range of sectors, including the business community, the community and voluntary sector, social enterprises, education and trade unions, to ensure that we are working towards and making progress against the economic vision. It creates space for discussion on the opportunities and challenges that face our economy, and it enables me to share regular updates with Members.

Ms D Armstrong: Thank you, Minister, for your detailed response. How are the participants selected to take part in the forum?

Dr Archibald: The economic engagement forum comprises a cross-sectoral representation of organisations, as I outlined. The selection is done by me and the Department. The Member might also be referring to the Labour Relations Agency engagement forum. The membership of that is the responsibility of the Labour Relations Agency.

Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for his question. Farming and agri-food is a key sector for our economy, and agri-food and agri-tech are priority sectors for my Department. There is a sectoral action plan to support those sectors.

The issues that he mentioned are captured in the information that has been made available via the Finance Minister's report on the cost of doing business, and we will continue to make representations on that. I work closely with my colleague the Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs on the issues that are impacting on the farming community and, in particular, the agri-food sector.

Mr Irwin: I thank the Minister for her response. I am sure that the Minister will accept that the agri-food sector is the backbone of the Northern Ireland economy, yet farm families are staring down the barrel of a double hit of inheritance tax, which threatens our young people's succession, and an increase in National Insurance costs, which is choking already tight margins. Does the Minister agree that those policies represent a direct threat to long-term rural viability and overall economic resilience in Northern Ireland? Will she commit to pressurising Westminster on those issues?

Dr Archibald: I concur with the Member's assessment of those issues. In my previous role as Finance Minister, I made specific representations to Treasury on both issues. I am happy to throw my weight behind the efforts of the Executive and the Finance Minister specifically and to work alongside my colleagues in raising our voices on those issues.

Dr Archibald: The Mid South West growth deal, as the Member will be well aware, is a key driver of subregional economic growth for that region. It presents significant opportunities to scale investment in key areas in the region, which has particular strengths, including substantial investment in a whole programme of decarbonisation projects. That will see increased productivity and job creation for the region. I am committed to the acceleration of the growth deal, and my officials are working closely with partners in the Mid South West growth deal and are providing support to co-design and develop projects. The deal is targeting December 2026 for the deal's signing to unlock the funding, at which point the deal will move into delivery phase.

Ms Murphy: I thank the Minister for her detailed response, and I welcome the additional investment coming into the south-west. Minister, can you give us an update on the Desertcreat site?

Dr Archibald: My officials have been working closely with Mid Ulster District Council, Invest NI and the Policing Board on the sale of the Desertcreat site to the council, with a June 2025 target date. Successfully developing the Desertcreat site will be a significant opportunity for the region. Invest NI has therefore commenced work on the business case for investment of at least £36·7 million in the first phase of a green innovation park located on the site as part of the Mid South West growth deal. Desertcreat has the potential to stimulate long-term, regionally balanced economic growth and create high-value employment opportunities for the region. The project presents a real opportunity to support the transition to net zero while addressing the shortfall in industrial land in that area. My officials and Invest NI are closely supporting council leads in developing next steps as to what the park can offer and how it can be best connected to other such projects in the North.

Mr Speaker: That brings to a conclusion questions to the Minister for the Economy.

Mr Brett: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Just before the close of business before lunchtime, my terminology — my misuse of the party name People Before Profit when I called it "Person Before Profit" — was corrected by the Principal Deputy Speaker. Is it now the position of the Speaker that incorrect terminology will be called out and that Ministers and MLAs who refuse to use the term "Northern Ireland" will be called out from the Speaker's Chair?

Mr Speaker: The Member's point is on record. I encourage Members to use correct terminology in all circumstances.

Mr O'Toole: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. During Question Time just past, I engaged with the Minister to seek clarification on the North/South interconnector. The Department that granted planning permission is, of course, the Department for Infrastructure, but it is it clear that her Department supports and is a key delivery partner for the North/South interconnector, as per the planning that has been granted by the Department for Infrastructure. Are you or your office able to clarify whether it is in order for Ministers to effectively contradict a legal position of another Department?

Mr Speaker: I think that I made myself clear on that issue. A Minister may have an opinion, and, if they think that that opinion is important enough, it is up to them to change the position of the Department that they run. However, it is a Minister's task to come to the Floor of the Chamber to represent the Department's policies as they exist. That is why I indicated that we are here to hear facts, not opinions. If the Minister wishes to change the position that the Department for the Economy has on whether the interconnector is underground or overground, that is a matter for the Minister. However, Ministers should not come to the Chamber saying, "This is the Department's position; this is my position". That is not appropriate.

Members, take your ease until we make a change in the Chair.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: I will now put the Questions on the amendments.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: I note Gerry Carroll's opposition to the clause.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: The Question will be put in the positive as usual.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: The Members' opposition is noted.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: The Member's opposition to clause 10 is noted.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: That concludes the Consideration Stage of the Assembly Members (Remuneration Board) Bill. The Bill stands referred to the Speaker.

Members, please take your ease.

Ms Hunter: I beg to move

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

Ms Hunter: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I welcome that we are joined today by many young people, who are listening in to the important debate.

When you give your child a phone, you do not just give them access to the world; you give the world access to your child. It is no secret that I love my phone. In fact, I feel as though it is attached to me. It is like another limb. I enjoy the freedom that it gives me. It allows me to navigate roads, use social media, connect with my constituents and share details of my sheepdog, Clint, each and every day.

However, as I am sure that Members are well aware, smartphones, social media and the all-pervasive internet culture that now dominates our lives and our children's lives is not always light-hearted, liberating or even enjoyable. Whether it is from Instagram, Snapchat, YouTube or any one of the millions of online games that are ever available at the tap of a screen, our young people, like the rest of us, contend with the very real temptation of smartphones, tablets and social media as an omnipresent reality.

We used to live in one reality. We now live our lives both online and offline. Devices have been meticulously crafted so as to become extensions of our limbs. Companies that create social media content conduct research on how dopamine in the brain works to make our social media platforms as addictive as possible. Being without your phone and access to apps and the internet can trigger separation anxiety. Apps and algorithms are carefully designed to maximise user attention, and they demand that we use our phone for ever longer periods and return to it in repeated and predictable ways. New, intoxicating prospects are suggested through our phone. For example, X, formerly known as Twitter, utilises a pull-down method to refresh your page. That triggers the same dopamine feeling in the brain as when you play a slot machine in a casino.

Since Instagram came into existence, the number of teenage girls self-harming in the United States has increased dramatically and steadily year-on-year. Virtual communities of toxic trolls prompting vulnerable children into dangerous and damaging acts of self-mutilation have also been linked, sadly, to suicide here in the UK. Moreover, now more than ever, extreme, conspiratorial and misogynistic ideas linger in vast yet closed echo chambers from which there is limited chance of escape. Many of us only read about such online spaces, but many young people call them home: hidden forums, incel group chats and much, much more.

Some here may consider my words to be designed to create a sense of fear and panic, so I want to say that I am open to the many benefits that technology offers us. I am, however, also sober in my assessment of the risks, especially to our children and their education. If you talk to teachers, they will tell you about students who leave the classroom to check their phone, about students who are unable to concentrate because they were up all night falling into the TikTok wormhole and about parents who battle over dinner with children who are just overcome by the comfort of the screen on their phone. That is a daily reality for so many young people across the North and across the world. It is clear that unambiguous leadership is what is needed in order to address phone use in schools. We need to see strong leadership and decision-making from the Executive to remedy some of the ongoing challenges that our young people face.

On that note, I was listening recently to a Bear and Scully podcast. They noted that, in Northern Ireland, if people feel that they are addicted to their phone, there is nowhere for them to go to get guidance on how to get a digital detox, which would be healthy for us all. Some may find the concept of that rather funny, but it is a real problem. Countries across Europe, such as France, Spain and Luxembourg, and nations around the world are now beginning to act on that very real issue. The direction of action is clear. I know that teenagers will hate me for saying this, so I am really sorry, guys, but the 45-year-old version of you will thank me: smartphones need to be banned in our schools. Politically speaking, that is not very advantageous for us to say, but it really needs to happen, and today is a good day on which to start the conversation.

All the evidence shows that devices are hijacking our children's nervous systems and luring them into often uncontrollable patterns of misuse. They risk being bombarded with often hateful, divisive and even destructive content. Banning smartphones from school is not a complete remedy for all the problems that I have mentioned, but it is a much-needed, strong start. Children do want boundaries, and it has been psychologically proven that boundaries help our young people feel safe.

Mr O'Toole: I thank my colleague for giving way. She mentioned teenagers. Does she agree that it is not just teenagers? I have a seven-year-old, who is soon to turn eight. He has grown up seeing his parents inevitably looking at their phone, and occasionally he has a screen in front of him, so it has become part of his day-to-day reality. Those behaviours are embedded in him, and he is already asking about getting access to more and more things. The need to set boundaries early is the reason that the motion is so important.

Ms Hunter: I thank the Member for his intervention. When I was doing some research ahead of the debate, I found a statistic that a quarter of children aged five to seven have access to a smartphone, so I absolutely agree that we need to establish boundaries and put them in place early. As I said, banning smartphones from school will not answer all the concerns and queries that we have, but it is really important that we set boundaries. Today, the Minister has an opportunity to reflect on the hard decision to remove phones from the classroom. Our schools must be places of learning and places where children can connect. If we look at our neighbours around —.

Mr Baker: Will the Member give way?

Ms Hunter: Yes.

Mr Baker: Does the Member agree that smartphones and apps are useful tools for educators and pupils, and that the onus should be more on us, as parents, to educate ourselves, particularly around the new incel subculture and the language of 80:20, black pill and kidney beans? We need to learn all that. Responsibility for that should not always fall to schools.

Ms Hunter: I thank the Member for his intervention and wholeheartedly agree with him. Those things can coexist. Even we, as the Education Committee, can do more to involve parents in the conversation with our young people about the benefits and downsides of technology in education. I take the Member's point and agree with him.

We have seen such decisions being made across Europe in even greater numbers. Some countries have even established welfare commissions to investigate the impact of digital devices on the lives of young people. Denmark has passed a ban on smartphones because it does not feel that children under the age of 17 should be able to access them. If smartphones were banned in schools, our young people would still have access to them before and after school. It is important to state that they would only be withdrawn during school hours. The Danish commission found that 94% of young people create a social media account before they turn 13, noting that that increases their risk of exposure to inappropriate material; distracts from the essentials of childhood, such as physical activity and spending time with family and friends; and reduces interest in activities such as reading. We have already seen a sharp decline in the number of young people who read, so today is an opportunity to raise that among the negative impacts of phone addiction. The Danish commission recommended that no child under 13 should be given a smartphone, while Norway has imposed strict measures to ban children under the age of 15 from having social media accounts. It is really important that parents are part of that conversation.

Simply put, all the jurisdictions that have carefully investigated and considered the harms that are posed by those devices have acted to end the experiment through which we are living. They are halting the normalisation of our young people having powerful computers in their pockets and are closing the door through which children may have unfettered access to the world of pornography and violent and extreme content. They are ending the stress of having to maintain the sense of a perfect life that many young people feel. There is a lot of stress online. People compare their online personas to those of others. There is a lot of pressure and weight attached to looking at perfect online lives that have been created.

Anxiety and depression are on the rise among our young people. I have no doubt that the online world often contributes to that and to feelings of despair. The motion refers to the importance of counselling for our young people in the school space. It is really important to say that, especially as the Minister is here. After a series of savage cuts to programmes that are aimed at serving young people and their mental health in school, it is critical that that money finds its way back to such important services. My inbox is inundated with correspondence from school-age children and those who have recently left school, who repeatedly cite the challenges that they face with their mental health, the world online and cyberbullying. If we expect our young people to grow up to be resilient, strong and content, we must ensure that they have access to critical mental health services in their school settings.

Furthermore, the RSE curriculum will be pivotal in tackling online misogyny. I have mentioned 'Adolescence' in the House before. It is an important time in our history to reflect on the positives and the blessings of phone usage when it comes to education, but there are so many harms, and —

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): The Member's time is up.

Ms Hunter: — we must do everything that we can in the House to end them.

Mr Martin: I beg to move amendment No 1:

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

Mr Martin: Thank you very much, Mr Deputy Speaker. I thank the sponsors of the motion for tabling it. Our amendment tries to enhance the motion without significantly changing it. I pay tribute to the Member opposite for East Londonderry, who has raised this issue consistently at the Education Committee.

It is worth spending a little time highlighting some of the recent findings from Ofcom, which the proposer of the motion mentioned, to put the matter in the context that it deserves. Ofcom recently reported that children aged from five to seven are increasingly present online, with 30% in that age bracket using social media unsupervised and a growing number having personal profiles.

This generation is very different from the previous one. Years ago, as children, we played outside endlessly, and our parents may seldom have known where we were. Now, as parents, we can sometimes be overprotective of our children in the physical environment but seem unconcerned when they disappear to their bedroom with a smartphone. Suddenly, the world opens up: beheadings, extreme pornography and sexual exploitation are all part of the cocktail that they are suddenly exposed to. It appears that we are unaware of where in the shadows the new dangers lurk. In the course of the evidence taken by the Education Committee over the past year, one thing that I have learned is that children are exposed to those appalling things faster and earlier. That is why the motion is extremely useful and timely.

We agree with the SDLP that online safety must be in the curriculum, and I assure the party that it is. In preparation for the debate, I visited the Council for the Curriculum, Examinations and Assessment (CCEA) hub, which has a really good resources section. From feedback that I received from pupils, I know that teachers are dealing with these areas, and rightly so. There is also a recently updated and very detailed policy document called 'Safeguarding and Child Protection in Schools' on the Department's website, and I know that schools are using that.

It is worth noting that, this morning, my DUP colleague the Education Minister, who is sitting in front of me, announced ongoing funding for the Safer Schools NI app, which provides online safety advice to schools across Northern Ireland. I am sure that all Members will want to publicly acknowledge that. I am very proud that the Minister has led on the wider issue of smartphone use, and, in September 2024, despite enduring a little criticism from some in the Chamber, he issued a circular to boards of governors that read:

As Members are aware, there is already a pilot in place across nine schools to build an evidence and research base.

Mr Baker: Will the Member give way?

Mr Martin: I will indeed.

Mr Baker: Does the Member agree that, given the cost of a quarter of a million pounds for just 10 schools, it will cost multimillions of pounds for that scheme to be rolled out? Given the budgetary information that we got last week, which made us aware that savings of over £300 million will be needed next year, that seems unachievable.

Mr Martin: I thank the Member for the question. I think that it has been rolled out to nine schools. I may be wrong. My understanding — I have no doubt that the Minister will speak to this — is that it is a pilot project to build an evidence and research base in order to see what effect the —.

Mr Givan (The Minister of Education): Will the Member give way?

Mr Martin: I will give way to the Minister.

Mr Givan: I will wait to address the points, but I am quite happy to disabuse Mr Baker of his notion that, somehow, this is money not being well spent. We spend millions of pounds on mental health and well-being for our students. This is the single biggest cause of poor mental health and well-being, yet the Member is not in favour of spending £220,000 to try to help to address those issues. It is money well spent, and I very much commend it to the House. I welcome the fact that people are now getting on board with this approach, and I will say more about what is, I think, an excellent motion on the issue. People should not be penny wise and pound foolish, but that is exactly what Mr Baker's approach is.

Mr Martin: I will address some of what my colleague referenced in the next section of my speech.

I am particularly grateful to Smartphone Free Childhood for being a pioneer on the issue in Northern Ireland. Its research has been extremely useful to me. I publicly acknowledge Rosalind McClean and Dr Peter Cosgrove in particular. Some of the facts that my colleague referenced are startling. Members may not be aware of them. They include that 67% of 16- to 18-year-olds think that smartphones are harmful; 94% of parents think that smartphones are harmful; and 50% of teenagers say that they are addicted to social media. Research also shows that girls with no social media use have a 12% predilection for suffering from depression or low self-esteem, but that, with six hours of usage per day, that figure rises to 38%. That is a rise of 26%. Take a minute to consider those two figures and the impact that six hours of social media use has on our children. If we are serious about dealing with mental health, as my colleague just mentioned, that would be a good place to start. That is what he is trying to address in schools, and there is also a role for the Public Health Agency (PHA) and the Department of Health more widely. I concur that increasing provision of counselling services in schools would be welcome, and I know that there has been provision in post-primary schools for some time.

I turn to the end of our amendment. We agree with the SDLP, although our wording is slightly different, that a call for the Minister of Justice to properly fund the PSNI is important; I do not believe that this is an operational matter. That would allow for additional funding for the child sexual exploitation unit, which, day in and day out, deals with the matters that we are debating today. I recently met Detective Chief Superintendent Jordan Piper, who runs that unit. Her and her officers' dedication and commitment to protecting children from online abuse and prosecuting the offenders was clear to me, but it remains clear that our PSNI needs to be properly funded to provide additional officers. That is the basis of the latter part of our amendment.

I know that all Members want to see our children protected not just from dangerous individuals in the online world but from the mental health dangers that are so concurrent with extensive smartphone use. There is a clear role for schools and teachers, and we should welcome the fact that those dangers are being addressed in schools in Northern Ireland right now. We very much welcome the debate and the SDLP's tabling the motion, but I ask Members to support our amendment.

Miss Hargey: I beg to move amendment No 2:

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): The Assembly should note that the amendments are mutually exclusive, so, if amendment No 1 is made, the Question will not be put on amendment No 2.

You will have 10 minutes to propose amendment No 2 and five minutes to make a winding-up speech. All other Members who speak will have five minutes.

Miss Hargey: Thanks very much. I thank the Member who proposed the motion for raising this important issue.

There is no doubt that advances in technology can be a driver for positive change in many aspects of our lives, from health and education to communications, but we must be alert to the dangers and the intended and unintended consequences of its use. Advances in technology, particularly in AI, are moving at such a pace that our laws and policies are often playing catch-up. Cyberbullying, data privacy breaches, disinformation, inappropriate content and online predators are all risk factors for those who interact online, particularly our children and young people. Online safety should be a fundamental part of safeguarding and child protection, particularly in schools, so the Department of Education should support schools in developing appropriate policies and embed online safety across the curriculum and in teacher training. There should also be appropriate support through education for parents on navigating the use of smartphones by their children and on what is age appropriate etc. We know that many young people, particularly those of secondary-school age, use phones and technology as learning tools in their education journey. We need to strike the right balance between recognising that and addressing the obvious harms. That can be done by limiting screen time, monitoring application use and using parental controls and content filters.

Mr Martin: I thank the Member for giving way. Does she accept that, although schools have iPads and iPhones with a particular level of safeguards so that inappropriate images and so forth cannot be seen, individual pupils who bring their phones into school, albeit with the best intentions for their use, may not have those filters and could access distressing or hurtful images in school and that it is difficult for schools to police that boundary?

Miss Hargey: Yes, but that is why these issues need to be taken on in a holistic way. Sometimes, the boundaries between school and the wider community are crossed, and we therefore need to look at wider protections. That is what we are saying: it is an issue not just for educators but for parents and the wider community. Responsibility lies not just with educators and parents but with social media companies, as the platforms have a profound impact on the lives of our children and young people by shaping their perceptions, interactions and experiences. Work needs to be coordinated across Departments to tackle the impact of online harms. That includes the Department of Justice — that is noted in the motion and amendments — as well as the wider justice infrastructure, which includes the PSNI and the Safeguarding Board.

Online safety and protecting children and young people should be paramount, and resources should be prioritised to that area. I raised with the Department of Justice the need to ensure coordination on the issue and to have engagement with the British Government, as much of the legislation in that area is a reserved matter, as well as engagement with the Irish Government to look at island-wide impacts. The British Government enacted the Online Safety Act 2023, and it is essential that that legislation is consistently reviewed and updated to take account of the challenges of online technology and trends. The Act outlined a number of areas to work on, such as risk assessment; action to address risk; the protection of children; age verification; transparency; and user control.

Ofcom was given powers to enforce the Act, particularly when companies fail in their duties. Compliance and oversight need much greater attention, particularly when it comes to tech companies with information and activity that appear online and in situations where they fail to protect children. An industry levy on social media companies, similar to that which is being looked at for the gambling industry, needs careful consideration to see how those companies can support education about online harms. Those companies make huge profits, and they have not only a responsibility but a moral duty to act on that issue and to work with us as legislators and with wider society. They must not only comply with current legislation but invest in supports and embed training to prevent the harms occurring in the first place.

Ms Egan: We are debating an issue that, over the past decade, has had a growing relevance and importance in our schools and communities and for families and policymakers: how to keep young people safe online and protect them from harm in a digital world. Technology has given us so much — connection, community and knowledge — but it also presents us with distinct challenges that reflect and build on some of the most damaging ideologies and behaviours that exist in our societies. Unregulated, it can, unfortunately, be a vehicle for bullying and hurt.

A report from Ofcom suggested that, in 2023, 61% of children aged three to 17 in Northern Ireland had their own mobile phones, with 95% using video-sharing platforms and 80% using messaging sites or apps. Naturally, the average percentage of children and young people who are exposed to that massive online world will only grow with time. Digital platforms and websites are intertwined with our young people's lives to an extent that we have never seen before. We have a responsibility, as the motion suggests, to ensure that our young people are safe, accessing age-appropriate content and protected from bullying or harmful ideas that make them fundamentally question their worth at an age at which they are discovering who they are to begin with.

Integrating online safety into the curriculum, including additional training for teachers and recognition of its impact on the mental health of children and young people, is essential. As the motion and both amendments recognise, tackling online harms requires genuine cross-departmental working by the Departments of Education, Justice, Health and the Executive Office. I will go further and say that, due to the fact that telecommunications legislation is a reserved matter, collaboration across all levels of government is required, particularly engagement with colleagues at Westminster and the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology.

Mobile phones, tablets and laptops allow the harms that are out there to be at our children's fingertips, but that will not be fully ended by banning smartphones in schools. We need legislation and regulation that not only works but keeps up to date with the times. We need effective legislation and statutory guidance on advertising, harmful messaging and the role and responsibilities of influencers in the online space that ensure safety by protecting freedoms of speech. There need to be consequences for social media and online platforms that do not do their bit to protect their users, particularly their young users.

As an example, Amnesty International published the results of a poll earlier this year on how misogyny is shaping the online experience of young people in the UK. It exposed that 73% of Gen Z social media users have witnessed misogynistic content online, with half encountering it weekly. Less than half of those polled felt that social media was a safe space, and 65% said that tech leaders, particularly on the platforms TikTok and X, have an essential role to play in challenging the discourse.

My party will today support an approach that allows flexibility with an advancement of the ongoing work on limiting smartphone usage in schools, where realistic. We still need to explore how a ban would work practically and whether it would factor in exceptions for young people who rely on smartphones for reasons such as their health. Some children and young people monitor their diabetes on their smartphone in school. It is for those reasons that, at this stage, we support the Minister's working towards the development of appropriate whilst flexible policies on smartphones instead of implementing a full blanket ban.

Both the motion and the amendments call on the Minister of Justice to ensure that there is funding for the PSNI's child internet protection team. Whilst internal budget allocations and the administration of resources are ultimately a matter for the Chief Constable of the PSNI, Alliance recognises the importance of that work and is committed to assisting the PSNI in any way that it finds appropriate, including through supporting the Chief Constable's recovery business case for the policing workforce. It is imperative that all Departments work with the PSNI to ensure that the protection of children online is on the agenda, including using departmental touchpoints with the public to educate in conjunction with the police, raise awareness of how to talk to young people and recognise the signs of criminal exploitation and activity. It is imperative that we protect young people from the quickly developing dangers of the online world. We need to work together to do that.

Mr Butler: I thank the Member from East Londonderry for moving such a positive, proactive motion, even though I feel that it needs an amendment. I welcome the motion and the attention that it brings to a hugely important issue: tackling the impact of online harms on young people. However, it does not just affect young people; as we in the Chamber know, the Member for East Londonderry has been the victim of serious online harm, and our deputy First Minister yesterday outlined the threats that were made to her in a similar manner.

When we talk about the impact of online harms on young people, we always have to be cognisant of giving them their voice, which I will return to. There is no doubt that many children and teenagers today are exposed to harmful content, be it cyberbullying, exploitation or the amplification of social pressures. They have a digital life that many of us did not grow up with. It is completely different and alien to many of us, but we must act decisively and in a cross-departmental way to protect them, so we welcome a lot of the stuff that is captured in the motion and the amendments.

Whilst we support the intent behind the calls to limit smartphone use in schools, I offer a word of caution against a blanket ban, because digital connectedness is not inherently harmful. The way devices are used and how young people are supported in navigating the online world will make a difference. Many pupils use smartphones to stay connected with their family, to access school materials or, indeed, for safe travel. Such devices are a lifeline for some, particularly those with caring responsibilities or mental health issues and disabled students. Rather than introducing an outright ban, we must trust young people, empower them with the knowledge and provide them with the appropriate guard rails. That includes high-quality online safety education that is embedded across the curriculum, better support and resources for teachers and consistent, age-appropriate guidance for families. It means modernising relationships and sexuality education to address the root causes of online abuse, misogyny and exploitation.

I commend the Minister — this is giving with one hand and perhaps taking away with the other — for the additional support that he is bringing to the Safer Schools app. The good news is that we have something that our schools can access for free, and that is being supported by the Minister of Education. I will take away with the other hand, because I have a difference of opinion on the most predominant cause of poor mental health among our children. It is adverse childhood experiences (ACEs), poverty and exclusion and a multiplicity of those issues. What I agree with, however, is that uncontrolled access to phones without support and guidelines magnifies and exacerbates the issue.

Mr McCrossan: Will the Member give way?

Mr Butler: Absolutely, if you are quick.

Mr McCrossan: Will the Member agree that, whatever restrictions are put in place, they are extremely difficult to police? In fact, the PSNI struggles to keep up with our ever-changing digital world. How does the Member suggest that we protect our children, if he does not agree with an outright ban?

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

Mr Butler: It goes to the point of why we have a problem with mental health, and that is the exclusion of information and not recognising the world that we live in. We live in a digital world, and young people have a digital life now. We look at it through a different prism. We need to trust our young people and ensure that their voices are included in the discussion, but we have to give them the guard rails, and the guard rails are not there. That is the solution.

Importantly, young people must be part of the conversation. They are far more aware of the evolving, online landscapes than we give them credit for. Policy developed without their voices risks being out of touch or even counterproductive, so let us focus on co-design and guidance and not simply impose restrictions on them.

I strongly support the call for greater counselling provision in schools. I always have done, because online harms often manifest in anxiety, depression and low self-esteem. We must ensure that children have someone to talk to early on and in safe, trusted settings.

Finally, we echo the calls for resourcing the PSNI's child internet protection team. Those officers carry out critical work to protect young people from grooming, abuse and exploitation. Funding that work properly should be a core part of any plan to expand our police workforce.

In summary, we need to take a balanced, informed and child-centred approach, with the voice of young people listened to at every step of the way. Let us educate, support and empower rather than restrict and exclude. We must act — I see that — but, as a father of five children, I will say that things have developed very quickly. It is sad to see very young children stuck in front of not just phones but televisions, where they are being programmed, and iPads. The conversation needs to extend significantly to families.

Ms Ferguson: I thank the proposer of the motion, as it expresses serious concerns around some of the more negative impacts of social media for young people in particular and how best to protect and ensure children's safety, happiness and well-being online. As outlined by the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children (NSPCC), children today grow up in a modern and technologically advanced world, so it is all the more important to have regular, age-appropriate conversations.

A good few Members in the House will remember when the internet came into being in the mid-1990s and the challenges that we had to face. My children are in their late twenties, and they are helping me now with social media. I am the one who is passing over the controls when my grandchildren come to my house, so it is intergenerational. It is not about banning something; it is about how we all actively get involved and engaged in supporting child protection.

For children under 11 years old, we have Talk PANTS and Techosaurus to help, with additional guidance available for older children and teenagers. The Thinkuknow platform is provided by the Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre education team. It provides education, training, resources and information to professionals working with children, alongside young people, families and carers, with separate guidance developed for a range of age groups from age four up to age 18. Furthermore, we have the Safeguarding Board, which has online safety hubs that are accessible for under-13s, 13-to-18 year-olds and over-18s.

We welcome the call for strengthened cross-departmental working. I will go further and say that it is not just a whole-government approach that is needed but a societal effort to include whole-school approaches from teachers to staff, governors, parents and volunteers. Similarly, across our communities, workplaces, youth clubs, organisations, internet service providers and platforms, enhancing the safeguards and strengthening child protection efforts require increased knowledge and training on child protection. Good guidance and toolkits are available for parents and carers, but additional support should be sought where needed in relation to using device controls, checking content and age suitability.

We also have the Chief Medical Officer's commentary on screen time, which provides advice on the impacts of prolonged screen time on mental and physical health. Balancing the risks against the potential value of online learning that can be done on computers and smartphones is a 24/7 societal challenge. While we sympathise with the sentiments expressed in the debate, we think that making information and support available should be its practical outworking. We would benefit from strengthening relationships and sexuality education for children and young people, as they all should have the right to comprehensive, accurate and reliable information on their bodies, as well as information on how to foster safe and healthy relationships, how to make informed decisions and, importantly, how to stay as safe as is possible within their control from potential harms in person and online.

As a member of the Justice Committee, I welcome the ask of the Minister of Justice to ensure that funding adequately prioritises the issue, including funding for the PSNI's child internet protection team, which investigates serious and complex online abuse cases. Just last year, it was involved in 125 searches and made 52 arrests, so its work should not be underestimated. It is important that the Executive's online safety strategy be renewed and updated.

Ofcom's online safety policy director has also produced some important advice on helping tech firms better understand their duties under the Online Safety Act 2023 so that they can assess the risks of harm and take proportionate and necessary steps to manage and mitigate risk.

Online safety is a justice issue and a safety issue, and it has the potential to have a direct impact on the rights, safety and well-being of children and other individuals. We have a duty to support communities, parents and families in that regard.

Mrs Guy: I thank the signatories to the motion. The first iPhone was launched in 2007, while Facebook was founded in 2004 and TikTok in 2016. In less than 20 years, we are experiencing a new reality. Children's lives look completely different from what they were prior to that rapid change. New technologies and platforms are now so deeply embedded in our children's lives that it is hard to remember a time without them. That is evidenced by the fact that Ofcom has reported that 24% of five- to seven-year-olds now own a smartphone and that social media use among that age group continues to grow.

Now is the time to be honest. While we may not know the full extent of what that transformation could mean for our young people's mental health, education and quality of life, the evidence that we have about how the current versions of the technologies — specifically social media — are being used and designed requires us to act now. I am careful to say "current" versions, because there are good things that can come from those technologies, and those can be built on. Knowledge is gained, friendships are found and learning is supported.

A 2024 House of Commons Select Committee on Education report on the impacts of screen time noted:

and need to be significantly rebalanced for older children. Harms that I have been told about at recent meetings include evidence from an early years provider who spoke of children requiring physiotherapy because they had not developed basic physical movements owing to the number of hours spent on a device and from a post-primary school where staff had realised that, after mobile phones had been banned from their classrooms, none of the children could tell the time on a physical clock face. There are, however, more extreme harms, including exposure to violent content, pornography, grooming, sexual exploitation, online bullying and misinformation that impacts on children's development and more. The pace of change has come so quickly that it has caught us off guard as a society, so rebalancing things is required.

Change is easier said than done, given how embedded the technologies are in our lives and the wealth and power of the companies behind social media platforms and smartphones. One thing that we know for sure is that the companies at the forefront of the technologies do not exist to build community or the confidence of our young people. They exist not to improve people's well-being or to facilitate genuine conversations but to make profit. They do that by keeping people on phones and platforms for as long as possible so that data is used and advertising sold. It is a business model.

Mr McCrossan: I thank the Member for giving way. She makes a very important and valid point. Does she agree that there needs to be a greater duty on social media platforms to protect our children? There is a child protection issue here to which children are being exposed because of the failings of the social media companies. Surely our influence as an Assembly must be used to put pressure on the British Government to act now and ensure that swift penalties are in place when social media companies fail in that regard.

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

Mrs Guy: Thank you to the Member. I agree with what he said, and I will address that in my remarks. Absolutely, those companies have been allowed to expand at a rapid pace, and it has negatively affected our kids. The Governments definitely need to do more in that regard.

We should not be surprised that nearly 25% of children and young people use their smartphone in a way that is consistent with a behavioural addiction. We are content to support the motion and are content with the amendments in principle but reserve our concerns about the method adopted by the Minister's pilot, which feels like an excessive level of expenditure on a novel solution when other options can achieve the same results. However, the important message today is that we are together on the issue.

Although the key matters of social media regulation and online safety are reserved, the Executive need to outline the evidence-based actions that they believe are best for our children and young people. I know, for example, that the Justice Department has engaged with the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology and Ofcom on the implementation and regulation of the Online Safety Act 2023 to ensure that tech firms take more responsibility for managing their platform's content and protect children from illegal harm. We need to speak with one voice to the UK Government, who have so far been happy to water down legislation that could better protect our children and hold to account social media companies that are making billions.

What direct actions can we take? This goes much further than an Education or Justice approach, even though they are key partners. We have an online safety strategy, which is led by the Department of Health and is due to end this year. We need to be clear and honest about what that five-year strategy has achieved and what will happen next. At the most basic level, we need to discuss the issue more, because it is one of the most important issues that legislators face. These technologies, like others that are widespread, may be here to stay, but that does not mean that companies do not have responsibilities to our children and young people that, if broken, should result in heavy fines. Nor does it not mean that those technologies do not need to be heavily mandated and limited when they are being used by children and young people. Just because we are in our current position does not mean that harm to children is inevitable and something that we simply have to live with. This is something that we need to proactively work to end.

Mr Frew: I applaud the motion and the Member who moved it. I thank her and her party for that. I also thank my colleagues who tabled amendment No 1, which strengthens the motion on tackling the impact of online harms on young people.

I have listened intently to Members talk about the dangers of online harm and the online world, and we keep talking about the digital world. I grew up in a world in which I could climb trees, swim in rivers, ride bikes and do all sorts of things that would now be classed as very risky. A lot of parents have lost the art of measuring risk. I think that that is down to the experiences that we had growing up and how we have matured in this digital world. We have lost the ability to manage risk. It is not only the fact that we have lost the ability to manage risk; it is the fact that we now do not see the risk in the same way. We cannot measure something that we cannot see, and that is simply because of what children now do. I was encouraged to go out, ride my bike, meet friends, play in the sunshine and everything else. Most youngsters now tend to stay in their bedrooms, and parents will think that they are safe when they are anything but, because the world is now in front of their eyes.

I want to talk about one specific online harm: online gambling. According to the recently published gambling prevalence survey for Northern Ireland, 38% of young people aged 16 to 24 have gambled online. The figures also show that almost one quarter — 23% — of young people are experiencing some degree of gambling-related harm, with 5% falling into the problem gambling category. Smartphones mean that young people who, in years gone by, would have driven by a bookies now have a casino in their pocket 24 hours a day. Whilst we can applaud the technological advances of our age, there are two faces to that, and I can tell you that, when it shows its ugly face, it is an absolute monster. It is probably the biggest enemy in the parenting world.

Most young people are interested in sports, and, when they go on to the Sky Sports app, they are directed straight away to Sky Bet.

You cannot escape it. Even if a young person does not intentionally go on to a casino app or a bookie app on their phone, they will be bombarded by gambling advertisements. It is suffocating; it is immense. When young people, who are fanatical in nature, support their local team or their favourite football team and follow the team online, they will be bombarded by advert after advert after advert giving them ridiculous odds — massive odds — so that, if they win, they will get all this money. Then, however, there will be a particular scoreline that they must match, which is nigh-on possible.

These people are masters at manipulation not only in the gambling world but in the wider online scene, and we must protect our young people more. In that regard, because this is such a monster, I think that a ban in schools is the bare minimum that we should be looking at. In my politics, I am a libertarian, so I have to meet a high threshold to ban anything. However, I see the harm, so, in a legislature such as this, which passes legislation, the first thing that we should look to is harm. If a section of our population — our young people — is being harmed, we need to act. This is one occasion on which I support a ban in schools and the stricter regulation of online companies, including those in the gambling world.

Ms Mulholland: As a former youth worker, I witnessed young people's journey through the joy and the pressure that come with growing up, and, in the past decade, I saw significant change in how that pressure was increasingly being shaped by the online world. For many of our young people, being online is not part of life; it is life. That was made crystal clear in last year's 'Growing up Online' report, which was produced by Professor Noel Purdy and his colleagues at Stranmillis. As one young person quoted in the report put it:

That report, funded by the Safeguarding Board for Northern Ireland, found that most people use their phones to message friends, watch videos, listen to music, shop, learn and so much more. For some, particularly our LGBTQI+ youth or those facing exclusion from school, being online is a genuine source of support and community, so I am not here to demonise technology. As a youth worker and now as a legislator, I have seen how the online world can empower, inform and connect our young people in truly brilliant ways. I am acutely aware of the need for mobile phones for continuous glucose monitoring, and, as a rural MLA and someone who grew up with no neighbours within a half-mile radius, I know only too well the lifeline that a mobile phone can be for young people who miss the bus, need to arrange collection, or, indeed, in reducing the isolation that growing up in a rural setting can bring. However, as a former child protection trainer, I have also seen what happens when adults and those with nefarious motivations hijack that space. When companies design apps to be addictive, predators exploit vulnerability and online platforms enable bullying, abuse, coercion and misogyny, that is when the space turns from safe to unsafe, and that is when we have a duty to act.

Stepping in does not mean restrictions and outright banning straight away; it also means equipping our young people with the capacity to navigate that space safely and build their resilience. It is also about empowering parents to feel confident in those spaces so that they can guide their children. It is about ensuring that everyone in society knows that they have a part to play in safeguarding. It is also important to note that this is not just about young people being glued to screens; it is not just that. It is about the fact that one in five children had experienced something nasty or unpleasant online in the previous two months. That happens most commonly on social media apps. Among the14- to 18-year-old cohort, girls are significantly more likely than boys to be asked to send nude photos, to be sent inappropriate photos or to see content promoting self-harm, eating disorders, body dysmorphia or suicide. That is hard to take in, but it is happening day in, day out.

Parents want to help, but they, too, are struggling. Just 8% of those teens said that their parents are interested in their online activity. The parents in the focus groups described their guilt and fear and how they feel completely out of their depth. They are stuck between the pressure to let their children keep up with their peers and the fear of what they are being exposed to. For me, it is all about support for young people, for their parents and for school communities. We have to ensure that online safety is a core part of the curriculum and not an afterthought, because it works. Online safety needs to be meaningfully embedded in order for it to be most effective. It should not be just a PowerPoint once a year or a bit of a tick box. There must be a sustained, age-appropriate approach to teaching about grooming, consent, coercion, body image, misinformation, fact-checking, AI and healthy relationships.

Alongside that, we have to increase counselling provision in schools so that, when harm happens, support is not weeks or months away. We need to make sure that people know that they are not alone or helpless. That was really clear to me in my previous job. Young people need to know that they can speak to trusted adults, whether that is at their school, at youth provisions or, indeed, at home. They need to know that there is help available, particularly from platforms such as the Internet Watch Foundation, to remove inappropriate images. We have used the adage, "What happens online stays online", but that can give young people who are caught up in inappropriate image-sharing scandals a feeling of hopelessness. We have to reform RSE to include real conversations about online coercion and respect in a digital world. As someone who has spent years listening to and working with young people on the ground, I want to see those safety nets in place. I hope that all children can grow up safe online and offline.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): That completes the list of Members to speak. I call on the Minister of Education to respond to the debate. Minister, you have up to 15 minutes.

Mr Givan: Thank you, Deputy Speaker. I will start by thanking Cara Hunter for proposing the motion, not just because of its content and wording but because of the substantive evidence base that she articulated in her speech. Clearly, a lot of work went into that and she cares passionately about the matter. I commend her remarks to the House: I thought that they were excellent, and I concur with them. Thank you to Cara for proposing the motion and allowing us all to have an opportunity to speak on this important issue.

The continued development of technology and how we use the internet to access information and to connect to others could be described as a double-edged sword. That is true for all of us, but it is a particular challenge in education and for parents and carers at home, as we try to strike a balance in keeping our children and young people safe. As we work to progress educational excellence and harness how emergent technologies can support that, we cannot ignore the darker side that can touch the lives of children, young people and educational staff. Young people's access to the online world of chat rooms, social media, websites and other online platforms means that it is more difficult to be aware of the content that they are exposed to or to ensure that the relationships that they form are healthy and safe.

Through the Northern Ireland Executive's online safety strategy and accompanying action plan, the Executive collectively have a clear vision on the issue: all children and young people enjoy the educational, social and economic benefits of the online world and that they are empowered to do so safely, knowledgeably and without fear. The work underpinning the first three-year action plan recently concluded. My officials are working with their colleagues from across Departments to set out a new two-year action plan for work in this area.

The Growing Up Online survey, published by the Safeguarding Board for Northern Ireland in October 2023, highlighted five key areas that require focus. It said that children, young people and their families should work together to find a screen-time balance that works for them; the amount of time spent online will look different for everyone; parents need better support to understand their children's online lives; more needs to be done to protect girls in particular from online harm; children should be involved in creating resources about online safety; and social media companies need to work harder to protect children on their sites.

That highlights the fact that we need to work closely together to support our education staff, alongside parents and carers, by providing them with access to high-quality supporting resources to navigate the online world, given that children and young people are normally ahead of the game in the virtual space.

There is a key role, as Members have highlighted, for regulation in online safety. I am pleased to have received correspondence from Ofcom about its recently published protection of children codes and guidance, which underpin the Online Safety Act 2023 and its intention to secure a higher level of protection for children online. The measures outlined by Ofcom, once implemented across industry, will mean that children will not normally be able to encounter adult content websites. They should be protected from seeing and being recommended other content that is harmful to them. It will be made easier to complain about harmful content, and the user will have more autonomy over the chats and forums that they join. Those are vital safeguards across the online space, and my officials will continue to liaise with Ofcom and other key stakeholders as that work progresses.

It is not about only regulation; there perhaps needs to be an enhancement of the regulation. Members commented on the social media companies and the lack of responsibility in the field. This morning — I will come to this shortly — I was visiting the Ineqe Group, one of the companies that have brought forward the Safer Schools app. It highlighted the fact that, if we are really going to get change out of social media companies, we need to be able to target how they derive their income. A total of 98% of Facebook's income, for example, comes from advertising. We have to find a way to create a financial consequence for failure to protect those on social media platforms. The criminal deterrent is clearly not working, so we need to hit the social media providers in their pockets and not just expect them to do the right thing, because that has clearly not been the case. There is ongoing work that some are pushing for on the need for an accreditation system for websites, and, if they do not get that accreditation, the technology exists to inhibit their ability to generate income through advertising. There is a lot to be commended in that approach. It is being raised elsewhere, but it is an area that I would certainly support.

In addressing some of the nuances that are proposed in the amendments, let me stress that evidence about limiting the personal use of mobile phones throughout the school day confirms to me that I am doing what is best in the interests of children and young people in progressing the policy. Ms Hunter outlined what she means by banning smartphones. That is not a ban on people bringing a phone to school then using the phone after school; it is a ban on using the phone in school. That is the right thing to do, and I think that that is what Ms Hunter believes is the right thing to do.

I find it interesting that Mr Baker argued that we needed mobile phones to deliver lessons in school. At a time when our families are struggling with the cost of living, how much is a mobile phone? They cost hundreds and hundreds of pounds, and pressure is then put on families, who feel that they need the most modern technology in order to take out their mobile phone to deliver a lesson. We should not be delivering lessons on the basis of the ability of individuals to afford those mobile phone devices.

I will give way to Mr Baker.

Mr Baker: That is not what I said at all. You would agree with me that early intervention is key, but your budgets are tight and you were not able to extend counselling to primary schools. My point about mobile phone pouches and the £220,000 for just nine schools, when you have a capital shortfall of £83 million, was that it is not feasible for you to roll that measure out to every school. That is the point that I was making.

Mr Givan: That is not the point that I was addressing, and I want to come to that. Mr Baker made the point about using mobile phone technology for lessons to be delivered in class. That was the point that Mr Baker made and the one that I want to correct.

Mr Butler: Will the Minister give way?

Mr Givan: I will give way in due course.

Mr Baker raised a concern about my Education budget: he is right to be concerned. I hope that he will speak to his ministerial colleague who controls the Department of Finance to help to address that. My challenge this year is in our resource budget. Our capital budget is something that I want more of. The mobile phone pilot scheme for pouches has been funded through capital moneys, not resource, which is where the £300 million figure comes from.

Michelle Guy criticised me. I commend a lot of what she said, but she also criticised the pilot scheme. Does she criticise the over 50 schools that put their hands up to say, "We believe in this, and we want to be included", including some schools in Lagan Valley? Is the Alliance Party criticising Victoria College, which pioneered the pouches and went ahead with the pilot scheme because it believed that the evidence was right to do so? When Members want to score a point against me, I say that I have listened to schools and school leaders who have advocated for the scheme and want to be included. Look beyond the individual in office to see if it is something that the sector wants, rather than having a go because it is me. St Ronan's College in Lurgan, which is the biggest school in Northern Ireland, will be part of the pilot scheme and is enthusiastic about it. Members should ask themselves whether, if the school supports it, they are wrong in being critical of it.

Mr Mathison: Will the Member give way?

Mr Givan: I will make some more progress.

When taking forward these things, it is important to look at the evidence. Many countries are taking steps to stop phone use at school. It was for that reason that I developed the pilot scheme: it will allow us to test the phone-free day in school. In other jurisdictions where that has been brought in, while school pupils were initially sceptical and against the proposals, many now report that it has been the best thing for them and they feel more able to concentrate on their learning and socialisation during the school day. The findings from the pilot and the evidence from other jurisdictions will be useful in informing my future policy decisions.

Members should reflect on that. If they have better solutions that will effectively limit the use of mobile phones and are cost-free, I am all ears. However, the evidence has shown that we need to do more than just publish, as I have done, a circular to say that you are not to use mobile phones during the school day. School leaders say that they need more support to do that, hence the pilot scheme. I commend 'The Anxious Generation' by Professor Jonathan Haidt, which was handed to me by Rosalind, whom Mr Martin referenced. She is heavily involved in a smartphone-free school campaign, and those who read Professor Haidt's substantial book will come away convinced of the necessity to tackle the issue and the harm that the devices cause. We need to take action in our school settings, rather than having a ban on paper, which is not effective unless we help schools to implement it.

Readiness to learn is vital, and the emotional well-being of our children and young people is key. Both amendments highlight the requirement for investment to support pupil well-being, and that requires work across Executive Departments. I am pleased that the Minister of Health and I have continued to support initiatives delivered as part of the joint emotional health and well-being framework in schools for the 2025-26 academic year, in the face of challenging budgetary positions for both Departments. Around £10 million will be invested to support pupil well-being. Any additional funding will require the Executive to agree that it is a priority and provide the additional resources accordingly.

I said that I was delighted to visit the headquarters of the Safer Schools NI app at Ineqe in Belfast this morning, where I advised of my decision to support further investment in online safety through the continuation of the contract for the incoming academic year. Through the investment in the Safer Schools app, we now have coverage across 85% of our schools, delivering quality-assured safeguarding information, advice and guidance that can be tailored to suit the individual needs of the school community. That unique partnership enables us to respond to any emergent issue and to be confident in the guidance that we share with schools. It is important to build on the success of the app and work to ensure that all schools have coverage by June 2026.

The motion also calls on the Minister of Justice to ensure that funding for the PSNI's child protection team is adequately prioritised as part of any increase in police workforce planning. I know that the Minister for Justice, like me, will want to support the police in this.

Mr Butler: Will the Minister give way?

Mr Givan: Mr Butler and Mr Mathison are keen to come in, but I want to conclude in the next two minutes.

Recently, as Members know, I launched an ambitious programme of education reform that is outlined in the TransformED Northern Ireland strategy and delivery plan. My plans for curriculum reform and a Department-led vision for teacher training and professional learning will enable a refreshed approach to the preventative element of the curriculum and will help to develop an empowered educational workforce that is able to confidently deliver key messages and impart knowledge to our children and young people around keeping safe online and understanding healthy relationships.

It is important to stress however that, while schools have an important role to play, we must be careful not to suggest that they can be the sole agents of change. A whole-community approach to keeping children safe online must be accompanied by a broader, cross-departmental and wider societal approach, one that recognises the role that we all play as social guardians for our children and young people.

Again I draw Members' attention to the underpinning thread throughout the original motion and the amendments: it is one of doing all that we can across government to protect and keep our children and young people safe from the dangers of the online world while preparing them for a future in which the internet and emergent technologies will be fully intertwined. The protection of our children and young people, as they engage with the internet technology and extend their connections into the virtual world, is paramount. As Minister, I will continue to do all that I can to keep our children and young people safe and enable them to thrive emotionally, socially and academically.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): I call Danny Baker to make a winding-up speech on amendment No 2. You have up to five minutes.

Mr Baker: I thank the Member for proposing the motion. It is a timely and important topic.

Before I start, I will say that I was not getting into a back-and-forth argument; I was just making the point that smartphones can be used for good in education. We know that educators and pupils use them. That was the point that I was making. I also think that a pilot scheme on smart pouches for smartphones costs too much. It was scrutinised in Committee, where those concerns were raised. It could cost up to £5 million with a recurring additional cost. Mental health services are not available to primary schools, and that is why I made that comparison. It was a measured contribution that I made as a parent who has concerns about that.

I take the opportunity to use the motion to highlight the concerns that came to me as a parent only recently after watching the Netflix show, 'Adolescence', which shines a spotlight on the need to tackle gender-based violence. To call the show "impactful" is an understatement. It brings into focus some of the most pressing issues that we face in society today. It is essential viewing for parents and, where appropriate, older teenagers. As a parent, I thought I had a good handle on the world of social media and its dangers: in reality, I knew very little.

The show signs a spotlight on incel subculture, disinformation, loneliness, bullying, isolation, misogyny, femicide and the societal pressures faced by our youth. I had never heard terminology such as "80:20", "black pilling" or the kidney beans. The new incel subculture convinces straight men to blame women and society for their perceived failures. It thrives in a digital world, as men isolate themselves and fall into a movement that welcomes them with open arms and further infects them with its poisonous ideology. When left unchecked and unchallenged, it degenerates into women-hating, self-hating, further isolation and loneliness that, in turn, leads to potential violent tendencies that could lead and has led to violence against women and girls and femicide. It can fester in any household. How many of us really know what our children are looking at on their social media, what is on their Instagram feed or whom they are listening to on TikTok?

Young men need role models to guide and support them. If they do not get that at home, in school or in the community, they will seek it elsewhere. The digital world, with the likes of Andrew Tate and other harmful influencers, preys on those vulnerable individuals. In order to tackle the problem, we need to understand it.

Peer pressure and bullying follow our children from the classroom into their home and their bedroom. That is why I urge everyone to educate themselves to help inform and support our young people in what is an ever-changing world. Now is clearly a difficult time for young people to navigate an increasingly digital world. I am confident, however, that, armed with the right information and approach, we can all play our part in providing support and guidance so that our young people can challenge the dangers of misinformation online rather than be persuaded by it.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): I call David Brooks to make the winding-up speech on amendment No 1. The Member also has five minutes.

Mr Brooks: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. Although I am making the winding-up speech on my party's amendment, colleagues who have already spoken clearly articulated the rationale behind our amendment and detailed the main points of our party's position, with which I align myself.

I thank the Members who tabled the motion, particularly Cara, who proposed it. The truth is that areas of division on the issue are largely over the nuances rather than the general principles. We all want to see a world in which our children are better protected online and in which, at the same time as they benefit from the many positives that modern technology brings, they are protected from the great harms that are posed by sinister and malevolent actors online. We also need to ensure that the use of technology does not come at the expense of children's social skills or result in increased anxiety, poor mental health or an over-reliance on devices.

Children socialise, engage, learn and concentrate better when restrictions are placed on phone use. Frankly, we all do. We all have to check ourselves, but doing so is doubtlessly more difficult for those who are growing up in a world in which, as has been said, the screen and the internet are so dominant in all that they do. They know no different. Habits that are learned when they are young, whether good or bad, will no doubt persist.

The Minister's phone pouch pilot is a positive step and is recognised as such by many of the school leaders to whom I have spoken. The motion calls for a ban on smartphones. There is sympathy on these Benches for that intention. Indeed, it may well be the eventual destination. As Members opposite have said, we have heard that some schools get pupils to use their phone in a way that is deemed to be educational and that assists with lessons. There is some concern that that sends a mixed message. We should be clear that, even where there is occasional use in school or the ability for pupils to carry a phone in case of emergencies — a Member mentioned that a smartphone can be used for diabetes monitoring — that should not be an excuse for their having greater general access throughout the school day. Children should have time each day during which they are free from the distraction and temptation of their phone screen. In that context, our amendment strikes a good balance.

Mr Mathison: I thank the Member for giving way. I had hoped that the Minister would let me come in.

I want to be clear that we accept that access to mobile phones in the classroom and throughout the school day will not have a positive influence on pupils and that we need to find ways around that. While you are on the topic of the pilot and a mobile phone ban, however, do you accept that £250,000 is a substantial spend for nine schools and that, if it were to be rolled out more widely, the pilot would have a huge impact on the Department of Education budget? Yes, we are happy for pilot schemes to be explored, but can we concede that they should not detrimentally affect the future Education budget?

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

Mr Brooks: In the context of the Education budget or the Executive Budget, a £250,000 spend is a relatively small sum. As the Minister explained, the pilot is about building an evidential base and building understanding. I think that a Sinn Féin TD in the South referred to it as a drop in the ocean, so we have heard different views on it.

Mr Mathison: I appreciate the Member's giving way again. It is a £250,000 spend on nine schools. Should we roll out the pilot scheme across the entire school estate, it would become a very large spend very quickly.

Mr Brooks: Such is the nature of a pilot scheme. The phone pouch pilot is about building the evidential base and seeing where we go from there. The Minister has explained the logic behind it.

Colleagues have rightly noted that, if we are to make a difference, banning phones in schools cannot be a cure-all. Protecting our children extends beyond the classroom into the community. At home, children should have appropriate supervision, and parameters should be set for device use and online access.

We have also heard references made to RSE and how it relates to tackling online harms. I will not labour a point that has been repeated many times, other than to say that, although certain aspects of RSE can be more divisive in the House, the area of online harms, even during the Committee's mini-inquiry, was one on which all parties shared similar concerns, motivations and intentions. Again, I note that education and schools have an important role in that regard, but they are not solely responsible for the raising, forming and protection of our children. Other parts of society, most crucially, the family at home, must be at the core of that. Nevertheless, a curriculum that provides opportunities to develop a knowledge and understanding of e-safety and acceptable online behaviour, along with an ethos and school culture that fosters appropriate behaviours, attitudes and respect in schools, can play a key role.

The motion references the Department of Education and the Department of Justice, but Members will know — certainly, this has been reflected in discussions at the Education Committee and elsewhere — that the cross-departmental working of which it speaks must go further. For example, we know that the mental health supports that young people can require in the modern age — counselling and so on — require joint working with the Department of Health. Pupils need to know that, whether in general or in response to a specific issue that they have encountered, they will be supported appropriately. The Education Committee has worked collectively on that point, and I am sure that the Chair would not challenge me for speaking about it on his behalf. He would have referenced the need to operate appropriately the Children's Services Co-operation Act (Northern Ireland) 2015 in that area.

My party has long argued the need for greater resources for the PSNI and greater numbers of officers. Our amendment includes support for progressing the Chief Constable's recovery business case in that context, which would strengthen the motion.

I realise that my time is drawing to a close, so I commend our amendment to the House.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): I call Daniel McCrossan to conclude the debate and make a winding-up speech. You have up to 10 minutes.

Mr McCrossan: Thank you, Deputy Speaker. I thank my SDLP colleague and education spokesperson, Cara Hunter, for proposing this important motion. It is clear, from the contributions of Members from across the House, that there is serious concern about the online harm of young people and that we all share the view that it needs to be addressed as soon as possible. Indeed, it has been a problem for some time. It can no longer go unchecked or unregulated. It has had a profound impact on our children and young people in terms of their health, their well-being and their education in our schools.

This is not about rejecting technology. Members have been quite clear on the importance of the digital age that we are in and how we need to ensure that we keep up with ever-changing trends. However, it is about recognising that, when it comes to the most vulnerable members of our society — our children — we have a responsibility to act in their best interests, even when those actions are not easy or popular. This important discussion will not be popular amongst young people, but it is in their best interests that we are having it.

The evidence is overwhelming. As my colleague rightly pointed out, the rising tide of anxiety, depression, low self-esteem and, in some instances, disrupted sleep among young people is being fuelled, in large part, by excessive smartphone use and constant exposure to social media. They are not just statistics, but real lives, real children and real families, many of whom have contacted my office and the offices of many colleagues from across the House at one point or another about deteriorating mental health, the relentless pressure to conform online and the bullying that follows young people from the schoolyard into their homes and the impact that that has on their well-being. The classroom should be a place of safety and focus. It should be an environment where young minds are nurtured, concentration is possible and students can be present in the moment without being distracted by an endless stream of notifications, filtered messages or TikTok trends. Increasingly, however, our teachers are being asked to manage not just the education of our children but their digital behaviour, the social media disputes that end up in the classroom and online harassment, which is often a core complaint in a school. All of that is happening inside the school gates on a daily basis. It is important to recognise the harm that that has caused.

In recent weeks, Members have rightly spoken out about the online abuse that they have received. I condemn, totally, any threat of violence or any aggression towards any public representative or, indeed, anybody. Having been a public representative for 10 years, I, like many in the House, have suffered from quite a lot of online abuse, negativity and comments that affect me from time to time. We are resilient people who decided to enter politics and public life. It is not acceptable that we receive that abuse, but we do. We become quite resilient and thick-skinned, but children have not built up that resilience. In fact, they are entirely exposed, which leads to very serious issues with the mental health and well-being of our children and young people. Such a traumatic event can affect them for a very long time. A child who does not have the necessary support at home, let alone at school, could be impacted on for quite a number of years.

I am deeply troubled by how far this issue has gone. Teachers have told me that they feel powerless in the face of classroom disruption that is caused by phones. I have heard from parents whose children are afraid to go to school because of videos that were taken of them without their consent. Tragically, we have all seen the headlines right across the UK and Ireland about cases where cyberbullying and social media abuse have contributed to deeply tragic outcomes, including, in some instances, loss of life. This is not a theory; it is happening today.

Let me be clear: this is not about demonising our young people or questioning their judgement. They are growing up in a world that is vastly different from the one that many of us knew. They are digital natives, constantly connected and often under incredible social pressure. However, the fact that that is their normal does not mean that it is healthy. Constant connectivity is not freedom; it is a kind of captivity. I speak as someone who is much older than a person who attends school today. All of us have a habit of getting addicted to social media, online platforms and the constant stream of negative information that we receive every day. I removed myself from X recently because reading half of the stuff on it every day would nearly give you a complex. I have also removed my personal Facebook page. Those are things that I have done as an adult in public life to protect my mental health and well-being. I can only imagine the impact that that has on children and young people in today's society. It is vital that we give our children space in which to breathe, learn and grow without the constant gaze of the online world.

I recently attended a very helpful outdoor programme at Baronscourt Estate with a number of schools. Many schoolchildren right across Northern Ireland have never truly experienced the outdoors — they have not been in a forest, done orienteering or been near the water — and could not name wildlife or plants. Those are real, tangible experiences in life that many of us in the Chamber experienced when we were children because we did not rely on devices. We were put out on the street to play and enjoy life, childhood and freedom. Whether that involved jumping in puddles, running through fields or playing football, they were proper childhood experiences.

Ms Hunter: Will the Member give way?

Mr McCrossan: I will indeed.

Ms Hunter: Does the Member agree that so much of the debate today is about the importance of allowing our children to be children, the sanctity of childhood and having those experiences?

Mr McCrossan: Absolutely. That is a very important point. I have a number of nephews and nieces. Often, when I am at their house, even on a sunny day such as this, they are on devices, such as iPads, or are stuck in front of a TV instead of being outside playing with friends or each other or doing any form of outdoor activity. That is not healthy, and it damages their progression and well-being.

This is not about punishing children or removing their voice. It is about protecting their future. It is also about protecting our teachers. What we have now is a patchwork approach. I appreciate the comments from the Minister today about his making every effort to ensure that there is consistency across schools. According to feedback that my office has received, teachers have been left to interpret inconsistent policies and face the backlash from parents when they try to impose such boundaries. We cannot expect our educators to be social media moderators, privacy officers and cyberbullying experts all at once. We need to put safeguards in place. We need a uniform policy that is backed by legislation and supported by training and resources. We must ensure that any new guidance has buy-in from parents, pupils and teachers alike. That will not be easy. There will be resistance. Indeed, I am aware of resistance today. Some will argue that phones are essential for learning or safety. They were not when I was being educated, and that did not affect me. I was not unsafe while travelling to or from school or while in school. That is a myth that needs to be busted. You can appreciate the need for them in some instances in which a child is extremely vulnerable, but there is not a need for them in all instances.

Let me ask this: are we really saying that a child cannot be safe without having a smartphone in school? It is about busting that myth. Are we so beholden to these devices that we cannot imagine a structured, focused human environment without them?

Of course, used wisely, technology has a place in education: it can enhance learning. Smartphones are not neutral tools, however — they are not. They are designed to cause addiction, to distract and to harvest attention. We should not confuse educational technology with unregulated, uncontrolled smartphone access. We need to ask ourselves what kind of society we are building if we allow the mental health of an entire generation to deteriorate while we look the other way.

This is a defining moment for the Assembly. We could stand united on the issue, as legislators. As parents, teachers and citizens, we have to decide whether to continue to tolerate a situation that clearly is doing harm or to act, decisively, in the best interests of all our children. We must be bold. We must be honest: this is happening. Let us have the courage to put these boundaries in place by voting for the motion. I say clearly that the SDLP will support the DUP amendment, because this is the right direction of travel. This debate has been an example of how the House can pull together to protect and safeguard our children and young people. I hope that, beyond today, we see tangible action that puts those protections in place.

I commend the motion to the Assembly and urge all parties to seriously consider the proposal.

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

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Members should take their ease for a moment before we move to the next item of business.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): In conjunction with the Business Committee, the Speaker has given leave to Tom Buchanan to raise the matter of the impact of the A5 western transport corridor on local communities. I call Tom Buchanan: you have up to 15 minutes.

Mr T Buchanan: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I thank the Business Committee for allowing this important issue to be raised as the subject of the Adjournment debate this evening. Over the past number of years, the topic has been the subject of numerous debates in the House and a multitude of questions to the Ministers of the various Departments that are involved in the project.

At the outset, I will take a moment to remember all those who, unfortunately, lost their life on the A5 and to acknowledge the pain and suffering that their families continue to experience. The effect has been widespread and includes all who live along the route of the A5, the families that are involved and the wider rural community. Only someone who has stood in the shoes of a family that has lost a member can know the pain and suffering that they continue to experience.

At the same time, however, we cannot ignore the statistical fact that 95% of the fatalities were the result of human error. I acknowledge that, had the A5 been upgraded, some of those lives might have been saved. The A5 as we know it today is a dangerous road with slow-moving traffic, increasing traffic and a lot of side roads coming on to it. A dual carriageway is a different type of road, and I have no doubt that a number of those lives might have been saved had the road been upgraded.

Today I want to look at the other side of the coin, as it were, and to shine a light and focus on what I can only describe as a forgotten community with a voice that is not being listened to or taken at all seriously: the agricultural community of farm businesses that stand to lose large swathes of land to make way for the proposed A5 dual carriageway that cuts through the very centre and heart of my constituency of West Tyrone.

We have a community that is suffering from mental torture and anxiety. Families have been driven to the edge of despair, and, indeed, a life has been lost as a result of the uncertainty about what the future holds for them and their business following a huge loss of land. Many such farms are third- and fourth-generation farming businesses and are losing land that fathers, grandfathers and great-grandfathers laboured on and worked hard to build up in order to pass down through the generations. Those farm businesses now stand to be unprofitable, with many families being forced to abandon farming altogether. Generations of expertise in farming and food production are being lost, and a huge deficit in the rural economy is being created.

Can anyone in the House really comprehend what it means for a family that has worked and laboured hard to build its farm business up to then watch it slip down the plughole? None of us can really comprehend what that means. One of the major difficulties for those families is the uncertainty that they face in their lifelong business. There have been 15 years of uncertainty. I know that that is not the fault of the current Minister, previous Ministers or the House; another element has caused the 15 years of uncertainty. Six months have now passed, though, since that community's land was vested, and people still have no indication of how much they will receive for it or when that money will be forthcoming, yet they have been driven off their land. It has been fenced off, and they cannot include it in their single farm payment claim. Here we have a community that is under siege and under duress being placed in a position that some cannot and will not survive. Those families and people in that community need help and support from the House, but, folk, I do not think that that is forthcoming at present.

When Mr O'Dowd was Minister for Infrastructure, my colleague in front of me and I met him on a few occasions. One of the issues was payment for lands that were vested. Mr O'Dowd assured us that it was a matter for the Minister of Finance. He is now the Minister of Finance, and I wonder what progress he has made on getting that issue taken forward and resolved so that the farmers are paid for their land.

I should have said at the outset that I thank the Minister for being in her place in the Chamber. I ask her to confirm whether the appropriate finances are in place to cover the cost of the lands that were vested and whether she has had any indication of when those farmers are likely to receive the payment. How long do we expect that community to go without that financial support? Not only has the land that was vested not been paid for, but members of the farming community throughout West Tyrone have been dealt a double blow. They have lost thousands of pounds from their single farm payment, because that land cannot be included in their single farm payment application. The deafening silence from the Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs about what help he can offer speaks volumes about the care and compassion towards that community.

Another major concern for the farm businesses that might be able to weather the storm and survive is the rebuilding of their farm infrastructure. To date, we have seen little movement from the AERA Minister in relation to planning and his proposals, which would enable those businesses to secure planning for the redevelopment of their farm infrastructure as and when it is required. I have questioned the AERA Minister at Committee on this issue, but, as yet, I have seen no firm proposals for what he plans to do or how he intends to help and support those businesses to rebuild in the future.

Minister, when it comes to your Department, it is important that there be clear communication between your staff, the contractors that are on site and the farming community. While I appreciate that your Department may be endeavouring to keep those lines of communication open, there are still quite a lot of problems and difficulties with some of the contractors on site. My office deals with such issues regularly.

Of course, the elephant in the room in all of this is the ongoing court case. Should it go against the Department, what then for that community, members of which had large swathes of their prime farmland — I am going to say this — stolen from them? It has been taken from them, but it has not been paid for. Trees have been cut and hedgerows have been dug up. Contractors are on site, but the land has not been paid for. In one sense, the land does not really belong to the Government, because it still has not been paid for, and the farmers do not know what they are getting for it. Minister, the lack of clarity, the not knowing and the uncertainty in all those areas adds to the grief and anxiety of that rural community. It must be urgently addressed.

Three Departments are involved in the project: the Department of Finance, the Department of Agriculture, and the Minister's Department for Infrastructure. Those three Departments must work together rather than in silos where the buck can be passed from one to another. That is what happens when Departments do not work together. We come and ask one Department something, and it passes it to another, saying that it is another Department or somebody else's responsibility. I trust that the three Departments will work together in delivering the project.

I seek clarity from the Minister on whether any meetings between the three Departments and Ministers have taken place to seek to address the ongoing concerns of this rural farming community. Not only must the voices of the forgotten rural community be heard in the House, but its concerns must be addressed. It must receive whatever support and help it requires throughout the construction of the proposed new A5 road, should it proceed.

Minister, those are some of the issues of concern. I have no doubt that other Members will have similar or other issues to raise in their contributions. I seek an assurance from you today that the farming community, who are feeling practical and financial pain from the loss of their lifelong business, will be adequately supported by the House.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): All other Members will have five minutes to speak. Members should note that, if they take an intervention, there may not be enough time to allow an additional minute.

Miss Brogan: The A5 project is a vital piece of national infrastructure that will have significant investment, economic and, most important, safety benefits for communities in the north-west of Ireland. By significantly reducing the travel time to and from Dublin, Belfast and Derry, the A5 will open up the north-west for more investment, increased trade, faster commuting and more tourism; promote job creation and regional balance; and improve access to ports, airports and regional gateways. The A5 represents a £1·6 billion investment in a part of the country that has suffered from historical underinvestment and a lack of critical infrastructure. Most of all, the new A5 will save lives.

More than 50 people have lost their lives on the existing road in the last 20 years. It simply is not fit for purpose. I have stood alongside families who have lost loved ones along the A5. I have stood alongside the members of the A5 Enough is Enough group and have heard the heartbreaking stories of how the road has destroyed lives and devastated families. I take the opportunity to pay tribute to those families for the incredible dignity, strength and patience that they have displayed during this long process. It truly is a testament to their sense of community and humanity that, having endured the most tragic losses, they have dedicated themselves to ensuring that nobody else has to. Every day that the project is delayed is another day when lives are needlessly risked on that road.

As with any major infrastructure project, it is only right and proper that local people are consulted and their concerns listened to. The A5 was first announced almost 20 years ago, in 2007. In that time, every legitimate concern has been heard, and every effort has been made to address them. The western transport corridor is too important to the north-west, to the nation as a whole and to the grieving relatives of the dozens upon dozens of people who have tragically lost their lives to be delayed any longer. Is leor é sin.

Ms D Armstrong: I thank our West Tyrone colleague for tabling the matter for debate and the Minister for attending today. I hope that the Member does not mind my commenting on the matter, but, as we all know, the A5 western transport corridor stretches across many communities, including those in south Tyrone in my consistency. From the outset, I wish to note that the loss of all lives on our roads is tragic and that one life lost is one too many. Like others, I recognise the pain and the loss of the many relatives.

The A5 western transport corridor is by far the largest infrastructure project ever undertaken in Northern Ireland. Over the years, multiple Ministers for Infrastructure have claimed that their priority was to deliver the A5 in the hope that it would prevent further tragic road accidents, as too many lives had already been lost. Those are the certainties that we know of, yet, for the communities directly affected right now by the preparatory works for the A5, such as landowners and the local farming community, the only certainty is the fact that their land has been vested from them. They can see their new boundary fences and the lost land. They can see that their hedges have been removed and that their trees have been cut down. For some, they can see the entire removal of their farm business, yet they have seen no compensation. Can you just imagine the mental toll of that on farm families in the area?

The impact of the non-existent road is being felt right now. Some have lost or may lose everything. The reality is that you cannot farm or rebuild without land. The harsh reality is that you cannot build, even if you want to, because of the Agriculture Department's disastrous policies on ammonia emissions. Landowners deserve certainty and should not be treated like a by-product of the process. Their lands are not just properties; they are the lifeblood of the rural economy and the heritage of the community. Many lands have been passed down through generations of careful guardianship. Regardless of the outcome of the judicial review, acknowledgement must be given to those whose lands have been vested to make the process possible. It is crucial that we address concerns with empathy for those who have lost loved ones and balance that with the needs and concerns of our local farming community. Lessons should have been learnt from the A6 upgrade, but it is almost a certainty that mistakes will be made once again.

I support the Member for West Tyrone's Adjournment topic, which highlights the impact that the scheme is having on the farming community financially, emotionally and in the protection of their livelihood.

Mr McCrossan: I thank my West Tyrone constituency colleague Tom Buchanan for bringing the issue to the House. I also appreciate the Minister's attendance at the Adjournment debate.

The A5 transport corridor has been discussed, delayed, reviewed and re-reviewed for nearly two decades. It has been discussed for over 50 years, since we lost our rail links, which completely cut off all forms of transportation to the part of the island where I come from and live.

While I welcome today's focus on the local impact, we must be honest with ourselves and with the people whom we represent. The greatest impact of all has been the continued failure to build the road. The greatest cost has been the loss of human life. Nothing else trumps that: no field, no farm and no business. The priority must be that we protect human life. To put a figure on it, since April 2006, 57 people have lost their lives on the A5. That is 57 families whose lives have been shattered. Dozens of young lives have been cut short, and countless more people have been seriously injured. Behind each of the numbers is a human tragedy and a political system that has not yet delivered the most basic infrastructure that is needed to protect people going about their daily lives.

The project is not new. It was first announced in 2007, yet we stand here in 2025, and the road remains unbuilt, blocked by continuous legal challenges and delays. Those delays have not just cost human life but affected businesses, farmers and the community as a whole. The delays have cost all of us, but the greatest cost, which I emphasise again, is the loss of human life. The A5 is one of the most dangerous roads on these islands. It is narrow, outdated and unable to cope with modern traffic volumes, and that has cost lives, livelihoods and opportunities for us all.

I acknowledge that the A5's progression will have and has had a direct impact on the landowners who are affected. I have been on record for many years offering my support to them. The progression of the A5 has been blocked by a handful of individuals who have not clearly stated where their interests lie, and the truth is that all of us have paid a heavy price for that disruption and reckless action. It must be made clear that the delays to the scheme have not come about because of widespread opposition. They have not come from the wider farming community or from other people in our community; they have come from a small group of people. It is not acceptable that they have been allowed to use the system to delay progress on the road.

Enough really is enough. I have lost all patience with the delays. Anybody who visits the constituency where I come from, live and represent is deeply shocked at how cut off we are from the rest of the island. It is unacceptable. I say again that I have total sympathy for anyone who is affected, but I advise those who are impacted on or worried to visit the families of those who have lost loved ones on the road to see what real pain is and to understand what truly has been stolen — human life — as a result of delay after delay after delay.

The cost has not only been human life. The taxpayer has had to foot the bill for the scandalous delays. The cost has increased to £1·6 billion, which is twice what it was when the proposal was first put on the table.

Let us be clear: this is not a time to be weak but a time to see the road fully and absolutely delivered. It is a time to listen to the communities that are directly affected, particularly those who have lost loved ones: husbands, wives, sons, daughters, friends, grandparents and neighbours. All of them were going about their lives, travelling to work or to school. They were parents leaving their children to sports games of whatever variety.

The road does not discriminate, and it never has done: it takes life recklessly. Upgrades in other areas have resulted in a massive drop in the number of road deaths. The road is a deathtrap, and it will continue to be one unless we act now.

I am hopeful that the judgement, which I am looking forward to hearing, will be favourable. Make no mistake about it: our door is open to listen to those who have been affected by the A5's progression, but it is vital, in the interests of saving human life, that we do whatever it takes to ensure that the road upgrade is delivered.

Mr McAleer: I thank Tom Buchanan for securing this important Adjournment debate. As has been stated repeatedly this evening, the project was agreed in 2006, nearly 20 years ago. Sadly, since then, more than 50 lives have been lost on the road. I cannot imagine what it is like for someone to have a child, a relative or a friend killed on the road. I live in the area and have two teenage children who are out on the road, and my heart does be in my mouth. You dread getting that call late at night. I cannot imagine what it is like for families who are in that situation.

Too many lives have been lost. The road is not fit for purpose. Daniel hit on it: the road has something like 1,200 entrances and exits. I remember being at a public meeting at which it was said that every single one of those entrances and exits is an accident waiting to happen. That really dangerous interface between local traffic, with people going to the shops, taking their kids to school, going to Mass or travelling to a farm or whatever, and strategic traffic that is passing through is a recipe for disaster that has, unfortunately, resulted in a lot of deaths on that road.

Last September, I hosted guests from St Ciaran's College in the Building. Kamile, a former pupil of the college, and her friend Jamie had been killed on the road earlier in that year. It was the day of the school's retreat to Ballintoy, but the pupils decided to spend the day here in order to lobby the Infrastructure Minister about the road upgrade. Anyone who was here that day and saw those young people in the Great Hall holding crosses that bore the names of the people who have been killed on the road over the past 20 years knows that it was a very profound and sad sight. It was a wake-up call for anyone who might have been uncertain about whether the road upgrade was important.

It is also important that people who are affected by the upgrade have their voices heard. I and other Members attended a meeting in Omagh last October, at which we heard some very strong representations from people who are affected by the road upgrade. It is right that they should have their voices heard and, no doubt, the Minister will address that in her remarks. It is not just about DFI, however: I am Sinn Féin's agriculture spokesperson, and the AERA and Infrastructure Committees jointly hosted a session in the Senate Chamber to give a voice to people who have concerns. On the agriculture side of things, farmers have questions about the future of their entitlements, the impact of the ammonia action plan not being published and on their ability to replace buildings and herds that are being closed down by bovine TB. There is no doubt that those questions deserve to be answered, but the serial blocking of the A5 scheme through legal challenges needs to stop. Too many lives have been lost and too much is at stake.

Mrs Erskine: I declare an interest, as my husband's family are landowners along the A5. I thank my party colleague Tom Buchanan for securing this timely and important Adjournment debate. It is disappointing, though, that the A5 project has been beset by misinformation and misconceptions. There is loss on all sides of the argument, and that must be recognised by all. I sympathise with all those who have lost a loved one on the A5.

The devastation of a road death cannot be overstated. That impact stays with you for ever. Road safety is always paramount, and, no matter the road, we can never do enough to promote road safety.

Recently, the DUP agriculture spokesperson, Michelle McIlveen, and I met landowners, one of whom had lost a family member on the road. Whilst landowners whom I speak to recognise that the road project needs to happen, they ask only that there be fairness in the process. Unfortunately, that has not always been the case. The media and some organisations have created such a sense of annoyance and frustration that the legitimate concerns of landowners have not been heard in the wider debate. There has been some demonisation of that group of people, and I want to highlight some of the concerns that have been brought to my attention.

First, we know that work on the road has been progressing since the vesting orders in November. However, we still await the outcome of the legal judgement. One person asked how that is allowed to happen, given the already vast amount of land clearance and ecological damage. Should a situation arise in which the legal challenge is successful, the continuation of that work would, as that person succinctly described it, be akin to a farmer building an agricultural building without planning permission. Perhaps the Minister can mention that in her response, because it seems presumptuous to continue with works at this time. Indeed, there are high stakes involved in the Minister's allowing that work to continue, given the impact on the environment and the fact that we await the court judgement.

That brings me to my next point, which is about planning permission for replacement agricultural sheds and buildings. That is a major issue, given the concern in the farming community about the ammonia strategy and the planning constraints that that may create. It is sad that we do not have the Agriculture Minister in the Chamber to hear this. I have raised concerns that landowners have about planning, including whether there will be any special circumstances or expediency for such planning applications. Unfortunately, no answers have been forthcoming, so, Minister, can you clarify whether your Department is actively working with the Agriculture Minister and whether you will consider mitigations that can be put in place for such planning applications? That would be useful not only for this project but for any future road projects.

Another fundamental point is the pricing of land. We know that, right now, land prices are very high, but that does not seem to be reflected in what is being offered to farmers. The A4 dualling from Dungannon to Ballygawley was officially opened in December 2010. Compensation paid for agricultural land at that stage ranged from £11,000 to £28,000 per acre. Fast-forward to today, and, given inflation and everything else, I was flabbergasted to learn from one constituent that they were being offered just over £13,000 per acre. They are one of the largest landowners set to lose land, and they are on what is deemed very good ground. Whilst I recognise that the Minister may not be able to speak to that directly, there seems to be a slight unfairness, as I see it, in how values are being reached.

There are many points that I would like to touch on during the Adjournment debate, but, unfortunately, time has beaten me. There are points that have been adequately raised, such as the single farm payment and issues like that. However, today, we should have sympathy with those who are dealing with the situation before them. I am talking about the landowners who belong to our biggest industry: the agriculture industry. It is tough for that industry at the moment, so let us ensure that there is fairness in the system when it comes to infrastructure projects.

Mr Gildernew: Cuirim fáilte roimh an deis mo ghuth a chur leis an rún an-tábhachtach seo. I dtús báire, ba mhaith liom comhbhrón a dhéanamh leis na daoine ar maraíodh cairde gaoil dá gcuid ar bhóthar A5. Is tragóid uafásach é nuair a mharaítear duine ar bhóthar A5. Moladh bóthar A5 a uasghrádú den chéad uair tá beagnach fiche bliain ó shin. Ón uair sin i leith cailleadh seacht nduine is caoga ar an bhóthar chéanna.

A chairde,

it is no wonder that the A5 road has been described as "the most dangerous road in Ireland", because that is apt. Let me be absolutely clear: if the upgrade of the A5 does not go ahead, more lives will be lost. The Executive have committed to delivering this flagship project, and we must now see it delivered without further undue delay. I very much welcome the decision by the former Minister, John O'Dowd, to proceed with the project and the current Minister's ongoing attention to the important issue and her attendance today.

As my colleagues have pointed out, the upgrade of the A5 will create a key strategic transport route that will open up many opportunities for the entire north-west of Ireland. It will improve connectivity to the region; boost economic growth and business development in the area; and mean that local people have better access to opportunities in education, training and employment. It is unfortunate that legal challenges brought by a small minority have significantly delayed the project. I urge those objectors to cease their continuing legal challenges. I appreciate the frustrations of some of the people who will be directly impacted by the project. It is undeniable that there will be an impact on farmers and people who live along the route, and, in that sense, I thank Tom Buchanan for securing the debate. I urge the Minister and, indeed, all in government to do all that they can to mitigate the impact on those people. However, there must be no further delay in moving to the construction phase.

On the debate's framing of the impact, a chairde,

I would like to flag up something that is not often mentioned: the impact that the current situation has on the residents of Aughnacloy. The main road from Dublin to Derry and on to Donegal — one of the main roads in this country — runs right through the middle of Aughnacloy village. That means that children, old people or residents who are accessing the shop, the community centre, the pharmacy or the many other services on the main street in Aughnacloy — Moore Street — have to literally stand at the side of the road until such times as two vehicles, coming from either direction, stop to create a crossing. There is one crossing away up near the Monaghan Road, but it is too far away from those shops. Essentially, people rely on the goodwill of two drivers to coordinate and stop. The width of Aughnacloy's main street means that some of the drivers behind, who have not seen the pedestrian, do not realise what is happening and, in frustration, go to overtake or come up the inside to get past. I have raised it on numerous occasions that I am really afraid that we will see a child, an older person or someone else being badly hurt or killed in Aughnacloy village as a result of the strategic traffic that goes through the town.

At the top end of Moore Street — up near the chapel — residents have to either stop the traffic on the A5 road in order to reverse into their parking space or drive in when they get an opportunity and then reverse out when they leave their home. It is having a massive impact on the village. Furthermore, on the Monaghan Road, there are serious problems, as schoolchildren have to cross the main A5, where there is no crossing, to get to the football field or the homes there. Minister, I invite you to Aughnacloy to have a look at the real impact that the lack of a bypass as part of the A5 project is having there.

I sincerely thank the Enough is Enough campaign, which is spearheaded by the GAA, for its tireless and effective campaigning over the past number of years. I encourage everyone to work together to get the road built and save lives.

Mr McReynolds: I rise as an East Belfast MLA but also as someone with family from Strabane who use the A5 regularly, as an Infrastructure Committee member and as chair of the all-party group on road safety. I thank the Member for securing the Adjournment debate. I pay tribute, as Mr Gildernew has just done, to the grassroots efforts of all those in civic society who continue to loudly demand the progress that is needed to save lives along that stretch of road. In particular, I pay tribute to the Tyrone GAA Enough is Enough campaign, which is chaired by Niall McKenna and, in recent times, has, incredibly importantly, placed the stories of victims and their families at the centre of the discussion.

Since becoming an MLA in February 2022, I have focused my attention on the infrastructure portfolio through the Committee and on road safety as a member of the Northern Ireland Policing Board. The latter work is tragic and rightly emotive, and the former is expensive and fraught with delays. Since the upgrades were first proposed in 2007, sadly, little has changed, as we heard this evening, but the risks have increased, with larger vehicles and the volume of cars on our roads continuing to grow. When we had an Adjournment debate on the topic last year, my party colleague pointed out that 50 people at that point had, sadly, lost their lives: as of today, that figure has risen to 57. That means that 10% of road deaths occur at locations along the A5. Moreover — I am saying this as someone from Belfast — the west has endured chronic underfunding, having missed out on major infrastructure projects and improved rural connectivity. Upgrading the A5 will reduce road deaths and stimulate job creation and economic growth, and the impact of that will be felt along all the surrounding areas.

I appreciate, as we have heard from Mr Buchanan and Mrs Erskine, that there are concerns about and challenges with the project and that there will be an impact for those who live along it. However, by redoubling our efforts and having updates from the Minister, including this evening's, we can, hopefully, finally move the project along and add key improvements to the west, all while improving connectivity and saving lives in the future as we strive to ensure that communities from Derry to Strabane and from Omagh to Aughnacloy are never left behind again. I look forward to an update from the Minister this evening.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): I call the Minister for Infrastructure to respond. Minister, you have up to 10 minutes.

Ms Kimmins (The Minister for Infrastructure): I thank Tom Buchanan for bringing the Adjournment debate to the House, and I thank all Members for their contributions to what is a critical issue. As others have said, the A5 has been talked about for far too long. I say that because, as has been made clear in this and numerous other debates in the House, too many people have lost their life, too many families have been devastated and too many lives been forever changed by serious injury. That is why I once again reiterate in the strongest possible terms my commitment to the delivery of that long-awaited project.

We must see the A5 built, and I am committed to ensuring that that is done at the earliest possible stage. It will improve road safety and save lives. That is the scheme's primary objective, but it will also be transformative. The new dual carriageway will bring many other significant benefits to local communities and beyond. It will address the regional imbalance of road infrastructure investment, which is essential for fostering inclusivity, prosperity and sustainability. It will improve connectivity east-west and north-south. It will enhance accessibility by reducing journey times and improving access to key health, social, welfare and education facilities. That will be particularly beneficial for accident and emergency services, ensuring quicker response times and better outcomes for patients.

Economically, the scheme will stimulate business competitiveness and improve access to ports, airports and regional gateways. By decreasing transportation costs and improving access to areas of economic activity, the scheme will create business investment opportunities, job creation and new housing throughout the region. On sustainable transport, the scheme will improve road networks for public transport, increase journey time reliability and create active travel opportunities along the existing A5 and the wider network. It will improve accessibility and attract tourism to the area. Improved connectivity will promote job creation and an increase in economic activity in the area during construction. It will reduce the traffic that goes through the towns and villages along the existing A5.

The scheme makes a strong commitment to environmental conservation and the promotion of biodiversity. In the authorised section, approximately 72 hectares of woodland will be planted along with 30 hectares of smaller plants and scrub habitat. Additionally, 15% to 20% of the proposed road verge will be planted with high-biodiversity wildflower planting to attract bees and insects. That initiative will create a vibrant and diverse ecosystem, supporting pollinators and contributing to the overall health of the environment. In addition, there will be an overall improvement in the local air quality.

Of course, that is not to disregard the negative impacts of the project on the many affected landowners. I respect the views of Members and the contributions that they have made on that point this evening.

I fully understand the impact that losing land has on all landowners affected by vesting. I reassure every one that I am committed to ensuring that they are treated fairly, equally and with respect in mitigating that loss. I do not accept that that has not happened to date, because there has been significant engagement with officials. I think that there have been over 100 face-to-face meetings to date.

On scheme completion, no affected landowner should be any worse off than they were before construction commenced, with all impacts mitigated or compensated for. I encourage all landowners, through their agents, to engage with my officials and those of Land and Property Services (LPS) and initiate dialogue on determining and paying for the loss of land. My Department has the budget available to pay such claims — that was asked during the debate — but we cannot do that without meaningful engagement. To speak to some of the questions that were raised in relation to that, whilst I cannot speak to individual cases, I know that only a small number of claims have been made to date, so I encourage all those outstanding to get their claims in. The value of the land is through negotiation between LPS and agents. There is no set price per acre. That is set with regard to a number of factors, such as topography and the quality of the land. That will be part of those discussions, so that engagement is key in ensuring that landowners get the proper value for their land, because it is based on the current market value. A question was asked about what would happen to the land, should the legal challenge be successful. Ownership would revert to landowners, and the Department would then be liable for any reinstatement costs. Hopefully, that makes that clear.

The legal challenge from the Alternative A5 Alliance has generated many uncertainties for all affected landowners and wider stakeholders, and I share their frustration. As others said here, we have seen legal challenges that have delayed the project — 2007 was the date that has been quoted this evening. That gives a clear indication of how long the journey has been, and I hope that we can finally bring it to a positive conclusion. It has also introduced many logistical challenges for my Department and the construction planning process. It has cost the public purse huge amounts of money. Most important, as we have all said, it has added further delays to the full construction of the much-needed new road. I hope that we have a successful outcome from the most recent legal challenge and that we can get the construction under way so that we can provide a safer road that will be for the greater good of all road users and communities.

Deborah Erskine raised a point about preparatory works. The lands on which the preparatory works have commenced have been vested already by the Department, so we are able to go ahead. It is not construction, but we are able to clear the land and do those works.

Mr McCrossan: I thank the Minister for giving way and for providing clarification on a number of points raised by colleagues across the House. Can the Minister shed any light on when we can expect a judgement from the judicial review?

Ms Kimmins: That is in the hands of the court, as the Member will appreciate, but I hope that we will see that sooner rather than later. It is not something that I have the gift to share with Members this evening, but, given the proximity of the issue and how important it is to everyone concerned, I hope that we will see that sooner rather than later and that we can get under way. Any further delay could impact on costs, if we are moving to construction, and on the contractors who are ready to go on site.

Nicola Brogan and Declan McAleer made profound points about the impact, as did Daniel McCrossan. Most important, the picture that Declan portrayed is one that we all remember from the schoolkids who were here just last year. Sadly, some in the community have since lost their life. In my mind, that is the key thing for us all. This is about young people, their future and protecting lives. My colleague Colm Gildernew spoke of the impact on the area surrounding the A5, and I am happy to go to Aughnacloy to see that. That is an important aspect of the broader piece, and it reflects the size of the infrastructure project that we are talking about and how transformative it will be. I thank Tom Buchanan —

Mrs Erskine: Will the Member give way?

Ms Kimmins: Very quickly because I have little time left.

Mrs Erskine: I thank the Minister for giving way. I asked a clear question about planning and work with the Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs on the ammonia strategy, because the question on the lips of many landowners is how they will replace agricultural buildings. What is the Minister doing about planning?

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Time is very tight.

Ms Kimmins: Apologies. I meant to address that question in my remarks. I note that John O'Dowd had met the Agriculture Minister. I am happy to follow that up. I have not had any further updates, but I am happy to do that and see how we can work together. Again, it is about mitigation and ensuring that no one is worse off, and we can address all the issues that have been raised across the House this evening.

In closing, I thank Tom Buchanan for securing the Adjournment debate. It is important to have the discussion, and I hope that it has been an opportunity to make the facts clear and give assurances to the landowners who have outstanding concerns. I reiterate my commitment to the construction of the A5 dual carriageway. It is an Executive flagship project that had the full support of the Executive last October, when Minister O'Dowd made his decision to proceed with the stretch from just south of Strabane to Ballygawley. The project will bring significant road safety, economic, social, accessibility and sustainable transport benefits to the region. It is a vital investment in the future prosperity, health and well-being of the community and future generations. I thank Members for the opportunity to speak on the topic.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Minister, thank you for the response.