Official Report: Monday 30 June 2025

Mr Speaker: I inform Members that the Child Support Enforcement Bill received Royal Assent on 23 June. It will be known as the Child Support Enforcement Act (Northern Ireland) 2025, and it is chapter 3.

Mr Clarke: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Last week, during Tuesday's plenary sitting, we debated Finance motions on levies and fees. It was previously the convention that, if Members indicated, by continually saying, "No", that they wanted to divide the House, a Division would be called. It seems to happen more and more frequently that a motion is agreed by acclamation. You were not in the Chair on that occasion, Mr Speaker; it was the Principal Deputy Speaker. The same thing happens with Deputy Speakers: on occasion, the motions are agreed by voice. I ask you to refer to Standing Orders, which state that, where a Division is continually called for, a Division should be called, and Tellers should be provided. I ask you to review the matter in Hansard.

Mr Speaker: There is no issue. If Members continually call for a Division, we will facilitate that by dividing the House. I will say that Members need to ensure that they continually call. If they really want there to be a vote, they must make sure that that is absolutely evident. That will make it easier for any of the Speakers to make the decision.

Mr McGuigan: Provision of a good healthcare system is top of everyone's demands of politicians and Governments, but here, on this island, successive Irish and British Governments have not prioritised their public health services. They have failed to plan services according to need, to train and retain enough health and social care professionals or to modernise health and social care provision for the 21st century. The gap between public and private healthcare is growing in the South's two-tier health service. Despite the all-party commitment to Sláintecare, little progress has been made towards realising that vision. Waiting times have also grown unacceptably long here in the North, where the crisis is exacerbated by Westminster's financial control and the impact of partition on our ability to make decisions that maximise all-island potential.

The reality is that the population of the island of Ireland is growing. It is expected that the current population of just over seven million will reach eight million by 2050. Those are just some of the pressures that are facing the partitioned economy and healthcare systems. On an island this small, division makes no sense.

That is why, last week, Sinn Féin launched its discussion document, 'The Case for an Irish National Health and Care Service'. In our health and care discussion paper, we make a range of sensible proposals, including that the Shared Island unit develop detailed costings for integrating the healthcare systems, North and South, and that Ministers, North and South, should design, plan and integrate health on an all-island basis. We should establish a single, integrated hospital waiting-list system for the island of Ireland. Emergency services should be aligned in order to maximise recruitment, training and operational capacity, especially in the border region. We think that there is a need to establish a rural health commission in order to develop an all-island rural health strategy.

The reality is that, since the Good Friday Agreement was achieved, the health services, North and South, have been finding new ways to cooperate. However, while cross-border collaboration is fairly common, all-island planning and delivery of services is extremely rare. An all-island national health and care service will be to the advantage of all citizens on this island. In my opinion, the Executive and the Southern Government have a responsibility to examine those matters as a matter of priority.

Mr Frew: I do not need a court decision to know what a woman is and what is required to keep them safe. In many ways, to us, it is complete common sense. Unfortunately, however, women and girls in this country need that protection from the courts. The recent Supreme Court judgement was a common-sense ruling that reaffirmed the importance of sex-based protections. It was a victory for the rights of women and girls, providing clarity and reassurance, particularly around the provision of single-sex spaces. Therefore, it is deeply regrettable that the Equality Commission's response appears to cast doubt on the implementation of that landmark decision. Article 2 of the Windsor framework is about not diminishing rights, yet the Equality Commission does not seem able to set out in plain terms which right was in place and has now supposedly been lost. Rather than encouraging public authorities to honour the Supreme Court's decision in good faith, the Equality Commission is now, in effect, inviting public authorities, including Departments, to raise concerns with the current judgement. That is disgraceful. It risks becoming yet another excuse for obstruction and inaction from certain Departments that have so far failed to prioritise the clear need to uphold the rights and welfare of women and girls.

Those who are responsible for providing essential single-sex spaces and services should not be distracted or deterred by the Equality Commission's messaging. The Supreme Court ruling provides clear legal authority, and it is incumbent on public authorities to move decisively to implement its outcome, not to prevaricate. The Equality Commission is, for whatever reason, dodging that decision. The Supreme Court ruling states that, under the Equality Act 2010, sex is determined by biology. How can biology in Northern Ireland be different from that in GB? How can women and girls turn to the Equality Commission for help and support? How can the Equality Commission represent women and girls in discrimination cases? The Equality Commission's response puts it in a very bad space. It means that women and girls in Northern Ireland will not have the same protection as those in GB. That wrong needs to be righted as soon as possible.

Ms K Armstrong: Something fantastic happened on Saturday. I had the absolute pleasure of attending the first-ever Ards Rangers Inclusion football tournament at Londonderry Park in Newtownards. My thanks go to Claire Coney and Mark Smith, who made the arrangements for the tournament. The tournament was made up of young people, boys and girls, playing football, who had autism and different disabilities. You could see the smiles and the joy on all their faces. The final match in the older age group ended in penalties, which was incredible. Of course, Ards Rangers came out on top, fortunately. Thank you to all the teams that travelled, such as Glentoran Inclusion FC, Linfield, Monkstown, Larne, Dungoyne and many others that I am sure that I have left out.

It was a wonderful occasion that showed how taking a collegial approach to football can result in a tournament that makes such a difference to young people's lives. If they were to try to compete in any other league, they would be left out. The skills that I saw on Saturday, from the tiny players right up to the older gentlemen aged 16, were incredible. The young people are a credit to each of their clubs and to their families, who stood in their hundreds to watch on Saturday. As I said, it was a wonderful event. I thank them very much. Praise goes to Ards FC Inclusion for setting it up.

Mr Butler: I highlight yet another absurdity that has been born from Brexit and the Windsor framework, and it is the deeply flawed Northern Ireland plant health label scheme. Introduced by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) and nodded through by the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs, the scheme is actively dismantling the ability of rural businesses to trade freely in what, we are told, is still part of the United Kingdom. The rules surrounding the movement of used agricultural and forestry machinery from Great Britain to Northern Ireland are simply unworkable. They are anti-business and anti-farmer. There is no equivalent requirement for machinery moving in the other direction, so where is the logic and the fairness?

Last week, I watched Gareth Gault from Grassmen, a respected and informed voice in the agriculture sector, online. He outlined with clarity and a sense of frustration the real-world impact that the scheme is having. What he said reflects what I hear on the ground, because, on the same day, at 6.30 am, I took a call from a constituent, a second-generation machinery dealer and farmer, who was exhausted and desperate. He was begging for help. He is asking not for special treatment but to be able to trade in the way in which he has been able to for 50 years without being strangled by pointless bureaucracy.

The scheme is not about cleanliness or biosecurity. Our businesses have always complied. It is about political cowardice, cross-departmental failure and a complete disconnect from the real world. Northern Ireland's farming community is being choked by rules that no sane person would design and that, certainly, no Minister who had ever set foot in a yard or a field would defend. The people who put food on our tables are being treated as second-class citizens. It is time for DEFRA to reverse course, for DAERA to find its backbone and for this nonsense to end.

Ms Hunter: I speak today with a heavy heart, following the devastating murder of a woman in Donaghadee, Sarah Montgomery, who was just 27 years old and pregnant. It was an unspeakable act of violence that has robbed her children of their mother and shattered a family for ever. There is no grief more profound than that of children torn from the love, safety and care of their mother. Their lives have undoubtedly been changed for ever, and I offer my deepest condolences to the family at the centre of this horror. We must ensure that they are supported not just in the days ahead but on the long road that follows.

Let me be clear: what happened is not an isolated incident but part of a wider and worsening epidemic of violence against women and girls in Northern Ireland. We are failing women; we are failing children; and we are failing to meet the crisis with the significant urgency, coordination and political will that it so greatly requires. Too many women in our communities live in fear: in fear in their home, in fear on the streets and in fear in their relationships. That fear is not imagined but real and justified. Sadly, the statistics tell a grim truth and speak for themselves, but it must never be accepted as normal.

While I welcome the recent publication of the Executive's strategy to tackle and end violence against women and girls, I remain gravely concerned that, without the necessary funding, it will amount to little more than words on paper. Strategies do not save lives: action does, and investment does. As a north-west representative, I have a profound concern about the lack of investment there, particularly for groups such as Women's Aid, which does such fantastic work and yet is painfully underfunded. We know that that can cost lives. We must also confront the deeper systemic issues that enable such violence: misogyny, social inequality and the growing threat of online radicalisation, which warps attitudes and worsens harm towards women and girls. The Executive must work with the UK Government to tackle urgently the root causes of those issues and ensure that we secure the correct investment.

Sarah's life mattered. Her children's future matters. Unless we treat this epidemic with the seriousness that it demands, more women will die. They will be murdered, and, sadly, more children will grow up without their mothers. That is not a future that we can accept: not in this Assembly, not in this society and not in our name.

Mr McAleer: I was in the courtroom last Monday to hear the ruling on the A5 upgrade. The sense of disappointment was palpable. My first thoughts, and those of everyone else who was there, were with the families who have lost loved ones along that notorious road. Every single day that the upgrade to that road is delayed brings the risk of more accidents, carnage and death. I use the road every day, including this morning. I also have children who drive on that road every day, and my heart does be in my mouth: you are always waiting for that call and you are always frightened.

The A5 upgrade is crucial, not just for the West Tyrone constituency but for the wider north-west, to save lives, create jobs and reduce journey times. It is not only an important route because it connects the north-west of Ireland to Dublin; it is an important internal route in the North to get those of us from Omagh and Strabane, and all the communities in between, to Belfast and the east, which is very important. The setback is very disappointing, but, as she indicated here last week, the Minister is determined to see the road being developed. The judgement is 100 pages, and she will have to go through it with her officials and the legal teams to plot a way forward.

I have spoken to many people since last Monday, including yesterday, when I was down at Croke Park for the All-Ireland Senior Football Championship quarter-final. I spoke to probably hundreds of people yesterday, and it is a dominant topic of conversation among them. We are all asking, "What is the next step? How can we move forward?". One of the overriding themes among those who spoke to me was that it is important that we all work together. We need to get around the table and work together to get the project back on track and get the new A5 built, because our families, communities, businesses and the people of the north-west deserve no less.

Mr Dunne: The local community of Donaghadee has been left shocked and saddened at the death of Sarah Montgomery at the weekend. At only 27 years old, she was a pregnant mother of two young children, with her whole life ahead of her. Devastatingly, her life was cut short.

Sarah was the twenty-seventh adult woman to be killed in Northern Ireland since 2020. The majority of those women were killed in their own homes, which is truly shocking and devastating. A home should be a place of refuge and safety, but, sadly, that is not always the case. The fact that so many lives have been ended, totally devastated and shattered by the ongoing scourge of violence against women and girls in our society highlights the need for tougher sentencing.

I appeal to anyone with information to contact the PSNI immediately. Donaghadee is a very close-knit and caring community. I know that the community there is already rallying around the family of Sarah Montgomery and that that will continue into the future. There is a real sense of shock, sadness and alarm around the devastating events at the weekend. I assure Sarah's family and friends of our thoughts, prayers and condolences at this time of tragedy.

Ms Egan: I wish to pay my condolences to the family of 27-year-old Sarah Montgomery, who was found dead in her home in Donaghadee over the weekend. The police have launched a murder investigation. This is an absolutely tragic loss. My thoughts, first and foremost, are with Sarah's loved ones, her family and, of course, her two little children, who now have to grow up without their mummy. Sarah was also pregnant at the time that she was killed. Her death is a horrendous and tragic loss, and I know that the people of Donaghadee are shocked by it. Tributes that have been left outside her home describe Sarah as beautiful, kind and a wonderful mother.

I spoke to the police about the incident over the weekend. It is extremely important that they are given the time and space to investigate it fully. I urge anybody with information to come forward, contact the PSNI or reach out anonymously to Crimestoppers. Sarah was the twenty-seventh woman to have been killed in Northern Ireland since 2020. Our rates of violence against women and girls in Northern Ireland are shockingly high, and that is completely unacceptable. It needs to be a priority for our Executive and the whole House. We all have a role to play in preventing violence and abuse towards women in our society. I know that people in the local community are shocked by this incident, and we are all thinking of Sarah's loved ones at this time.

Mr Gildernew: The British Government's decision to cut billions of pounds' worth of support for people who are sick or disabled is grotesque and is a direct attack on the most vulnerable in our society. The Communities Committee here in the North and the relevant Committees in Wales and Scotland have written jointly to the British Government to highlight our shared concerns. The British Government must halt those callous plans. In recent days, it has been reported that the Labour Government have done a U-turn on those plans. That is absolutely untrue: all that they have done is extend the implementation period, creating new inequalities and bringing the same austerity measures into play that they had planned all along. That is an absolute disgrace, and no one, but no one, should fall for it. People from 18 to 22 years of age will still be removed arbitrarily from any support whatsoever based on their age. I call on people not to fall for any such deceit.

It is not lost on anyone that it is straight out of the Tory playbook. The Tories used that device, whereby although they appeared to row back on implementation, the measures still caught up with the people who needed the support. If money can be found for weapons of war and mass destruction, surely it can, and must, be found to help people into employment and to protect those who cannot work. Sinn Féin will continue to oppose the cuts and to call for proper investment in welfare support and public services.

Mr Buckley: Two and a half years ago, the then Prime Minister, Rishi Sunak, agreed the Windsor framework. He said that it would enable Northern Ireland to become:

It was sold as unlocking opportunities and being a necessity for business, yet the result has been quite the opposite: disruption, diversion, destruction and, indeed, deception.

The Federation of Small Businesses carried out a landmark survey on businesses' attitudes to the Windsor framework. It tells the House what many people who did not have the EU blinkers on said at the time. Some 58% of businesses that were surveyed stated that they were having moderate to significant challenges as a result of its implementation. Over a third have already ceased trade rather than deal with the new bureaucracy and associated compliance documents.

Significant disruption and diversion are happening day and daily. It is not an orange and green issue, but one that affects every consumer across Northern Ireland who sees their costs spiralling as their supply chains are shredded as a result of the bureaucracy that has been imposed upon this place by a foreign entity. Divergence is clear, yet the Government's desire to hide behind the blanket and pretend that it will go away only heightens the problems that are faced. It is time that the UK Government took the matter in hand. It is even accounted for in the very protocol to which they signed up. Where divergence is found, there are mechanisms in that agreement that can help to address that.

The added insult to injury was heightened in the past week with the introduction of foreign certificates to bring second-hand machinery, including tractors, from GB back into Northern Ireland. Gareth Gault of Grassmen, a long-time advocate for Northern Ireland farming and the rural way of life, has pointed out how ludicrous it was that the return of tractors from the Highland Show in Scotland, which he had brought to Scotland without any certificate, was blocked because of the bureaucratic nature of the provisions put in place by the EU. It defies all logic; there is no sense to it. I call on the UK Government to grow a backbone, deal with the issue and defend Northern Irish business interests.

Ms Ennis: Unfortunately, I rise to raise the ongoing issue of the foul stench that has engulfed Warrenpoint town for the past three years. Warrenpoint and the community that lives there face into their third summer living with the unbearable stench that is coming from the refuse-derived fuel (RDF) formed from household black bin waste that is being stored in tens of thousands of tons at Warrenpoint port in close proximity to people's homes.

We — the community and the businesses around Carlingford lough — rely on the summer season for our economic prosperity. Just this weekend, we started our series of summer festivals with the Wake the Giant Festival, and we will have the Ulster Fleadh and the Loughside Festival. The shadow and fear of the smell, which returned and engulfed the town all weekend, will permeate the summer and ruin the festival season for the town, tourists and businesses. That is a real fear for the community.

I have tried my best to resolve the issue. We have sat down with Re-Gen; the AERA Minister, who is responsible; the NIEA; and Warrenpoint port. All those agencies have abdicated their duty to stand up and protect the residents of Warrenpoint, who are forced to live with and endure a constant, sickening stench and odour that invades their lives and homes. It invades every aspect of their life. I call on the Environment Minister to, please, do something now. He has responsibility, so I ask him to work with the NIEA. We know that there have been breaches in the past, but there have been no repercussions for those breaches of the waste licence. I call on the Minister responsible to stand up for the community of Warrenpoint. The waste should never have been there in the first place, and it is long past the time that it should have been removed.

Mrs Erskine: Before I start, I declare an interest by saying that my husband's family are landowners along the route of the A5.

Today is one week since the A5 court ruling. That means that it has been one week with no plan on the way forward from the Infrastructure Minister and no public apology from Alliance, the SDLP and Sinn Féin on why they voted for net zero targets that sound a death knell for the projects that we all want. It is down to those parties to answer why they did not heed the warnings of the DUP in 2022 but called for stricter targets. It is also incumbent on the Infrastructure, AERA, Economy and Finance Ministers to come to the Chamber and outline how they plan to rectify the situation, given the cross-departmental ramifications of the judgement.

There is still major uncertainty. I ask the Infrastructure Department these questions: who is responsible for giving the go-ahead for works to continue at risk during the High Court challenge? How will land be reinstated? What will the Department pay to affected landowners? Given the safety concerns and the chilling words of the judge that more lives would be lost on the A5 in the intervening period, how will the Minister make sure that safety measures are in place to stop that? To date, there has been no plan.

There are also questions for the AERA Minister. My colleague, Community Minister Gordon Lyons, has written to Minister Muir, calling on him to deal with climate change legislation urgently. Minister Muir must act with urgency. He must also, with urgency, support landowners. Their land has been ripped up and, in some cases, will be unable to be farmed. To date, there has been silence from DAERA on that, despite the fact that that Department is referenced heavily in the judgement for not providing information. I ask the Finance Minister this: what funding will be available from the public purse for compensation and the reinstatement of land? Lastly, the Economy Minister must show why she co-signed the amendment in 2022 that brought forward the stricter net zero targets.

The A5 is a key economic driver for the west. Companies are already talking about their disappointment that a key route for freight is not seeing infrastructural improvement. There is also a massive human cost: the loss of jobs and the potential skill drain as a result of last Monday's decision. Many people were in touch with me at the weekend to say that they or their family members have lost jobs as a result of the decision.

The parties in the Chamber must face up to the realities of their decision-making. I call on Ministers to come to the Chamber and put forward their next steps, and I ask parties to reflect on the decisions that they took in the Chamber.

Dr Aiken: Last week at The Hague, NATO made a historic commitment to increase defence spending to 5%. It did so in recognition of the rapidly deteriorating international environment, with no let-up in Russia's ongoing hybrid war, with near-continuous missile, drone and bombing attacks on Ukraine, and its campaign of sabotage, cyberwarfare and misinformation aimed at the West. Luckily for us, the action by Israel and the USA during the Twelve Day War has emasculated the threat from Iran to a large degree, but we live in a dangerous and uncertain world.

Last week, our national security strategy was updated. It was led by John Bew, who has considerable knowledge of the state and non-state challenges that we face. He clearly stated that the threats, including those from Russia, mean that we now need national preparedness and that that need has never been greater. We are at our 1939 point. For our part of the United Kingdom, we will have an important part to play in aviation, space, cyber, shipbuilding and repair. We can expect several billions of new investment that will bring more jobs, rebuild industrial capacity and create new industries and opportunities. We will also have to contribute to improving food and energy security. The role of our people, as they serve in our armed forces and our reserves, will also need to be significantly enhanced.

The increased preparedness across almost 97% of Europe is to be welcomed. However, as was pointed out by Ms Kaja Kallas, the EU's vice-president for foreign affairs and security policy, the move towards collective security is in marked contrast to the approach of one country: Ireland. She clearly said that it had built up its prosperity while everybody else carried the defence burden. The facts speak for themselves: we are heading to 5% of GDP spend on defence by Europe while Ireland is at 0·23%. The wide-open and undefended borders to our west and south are rightly a concern not just for us but for the rest of the European Union. I cannot see how adherence to a triple-lock neutrality shows our neighbour as being a good European or even a good neighbour. Virtue signalling while others carry the burden wins no friends or influence.

Mr Speaker: Michelle McIlveen has sought leave to present a petition in accordance with Standing Order 22. The Member will have up to three minutes in which to speak.

Miss McIlveen: I present the petition as a DUP MLA for the rural constituency of Strangford. The 5,000-plus signatories from across Northern Ireland call on the Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs to immediately withdraw the current public consultation on the nutrients action programme (NAP) 2026-2029.

The measures currently proposed could devastate agriculture, reduce livestock numbers and undermine food security. We call on him to bring forward a policy based on genuine partnership, rather than punitive policies that risk the viability of our agriculture industry. Stricter phosphorus limits, mandatory low-emission slurry-spreading equipment (LESSE) and compulsory buffer zones are unworkable and unaffordable. They are proposals that are based on evidence that is scientifically flawed and will lead to a reduction in livestock numbers and a forced contraction of our agri-food sector. They will impact on food security and increase the cost of living, the consequences of which will be felt across sectors, communities and our economy.

This is not about rejecting environmental responsibility; it is about demanding a fair, workable and evidence-based approach.

Farmers are the custodians of our countryside. They care deeply about the land that they work and the watercourses that run through it. To target farmers is unjust. The current proposals are unbalanced and would be impractical and economically damaging. On 10 June 2025, the Assembly debated and passed a motion calling on Minister Muir to withdraw the current public consultation. He has chosen to ignore the Chamber and the rural community. Rather than listen, he has added insult to injury by launching a further consultation on his draft climate action plan, which will not only place a financial burden on the public purse and industry, but, like NAP, lead to a reduction in herd numbers and cripple agriculture in Northern Ireland. If we have learned anything from last week's debacle, apart from the fact that not all legislation is good legislation, it is that policymaking should not be rushed and must be based on robust scientific advice and be economically viable and environmentally credible.

Once again, I stand with our farmers — the keystone of our local economy — and the thousands of rural families who put food on our tables. Again, along with the 5,000-plus signatories, I call on the Minister to listen and act: to withdraw the consultation and find another way, one that is smarter, fairer and evidence-driven and that protects both our land and those who steward it.

Mr Speaker: Thank you. I will forward the petition to the Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs and send a copy to the Committee.

Mr Clarke: I beg to move

Mr Speaker: Before we proceed to the Question, I remind Members that the motion requires cross-community support.

Mr Speaker: I have received notice from the First Minister and the deputy First Minister that they wish to make a statement. Before I call the deputy First Minister, I remind Members to be concise in asking their questions.

Mrs Little-Pengelly (The deputy First Minister): The forty-third summit of the British-Irish Council (BIC) took place on 13 June 2025 and was hosted by the Northern Ireland Executive. The First Minister and I co-chaired the summit plenary meeting, and we were accompanied by Ministers Givan, O'Dowd and Nesbitt and junior Ministers Reilly and Cameron. The Ministers have agreed that I make the statement on their behalf.

The UK Government delegation was led by the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, the Rt Hon Pat McFadden MP; the Irish Government delegation by the Taoiseach, Micheál Martin TD; the Scottish Government delegation by the First Minister, the Rt Hon John Swinney MSP; and the Welsh Government delegation by the First Minister, the Rt Hon Eluned Morgan MS. The Government of Guernsey were represented by the Chief Minister, Deputy Lyndon Trott; the Government of Jersey by the Chief Minister, Deputy Lyndon Farnham; and the Isle of Man Government by the Chief Minister, Deputy Alfred Cannan MHK. A full list of the principal plenary attendees is attached to the statement, which has been provided to Members.

The theme of the summit was the role of AI in reform and transformation. The plenary meeting commenced with a discussion about the importance of digital transformation and the strategic deployment of AI technologies, which offer unprecedented opportunities to modernise government, enhance service delivery and improve operational efficiency to build more agile public services. The council discussed the approaches that member Administrations are taking to harness AI technologies for public-sector reform and transformation across these islands. We took time to share knowledge and best practice, while identifying common challenges and how to make the most of shared opportunities.

Administrations agreed on the need for a shared commitment to collaboration across these islands and stressed the significance of working closely with external partners, including academic institutions, SMEs and global investors. Such partnership working is key to fuelling innovation and growth and unlocking the opportunities that are offered by AI. The Executive Office's recently launched AI and digital office will boost and foster such partnerships and help us to consider how to integrate and promote public- and private-sector expertise so that we can realise the full potential of AI in transforming public services.

Time was taken at the plenary meeting to consider the challenges associated with AI and the need to shape a future in which it serves the public effectively and, importantly, ethically. The adoption of AI technologies will require there to be appropriate governance measures that provide assurances to citizens and stakeholders on data-sharing and security. It is vital that we upskill our people in order to maximise the opportunities that are provided and, importantly, to bring them with us on the AI journey. AI should empower rather than replace and enhance rather than diminish the capabilities of all those in the workplace. All Administrations agree that AI must be handled correctly if it is to make public service more responsive, productive and aligned to people's real needs.

Council members briefed colleagues on significant developments in their Administrations and reflected on a number of domestic and international topics of mutual interest. We took the opportunity to update attendees on the Executive's progress since the Council last met, which was in December of last year. We were pleased to advise members of our Programme for Government's being agreed, and we highlighted the biggest challenges that we face, including tackling hospital waiting times; childcare; affordable housing; growing the economy; and the transformation of public services. We expressed concern about the ongoing challenging fiscal situation, in spite of the spending review, and spoke of our ongoing commitment to seeking a fair and sustainable level of funding that reflects our relative need. In addition to that, we highlighted the impact that changes to welfare reform, inheritance tax and employers' National Insurance contributions have on our economy. We stated that we would continue to make our case to the UK Government for the reversal of decisions relating to those.

The Council discussed international topics of mutual interest and recognised the fact that coming together in the spirit of partnership and cooperation at occasions such as the BIC summit is all the more important in the context of global developments.

Finally, the Council noted that the next BIC summit will be hosted by the Welsh Government in late 2025.

Mr O'Toole: Deputy First Minister, I wish that I could ask you a detailed question about what happened at the British-Irish Council summit, but I am afraid that there was no detail in your statement. It was full of platitudes and waffle. Having looked at today's Order Paper, I ask this: is it the Executive Office's position that the East-West Council, a body that was not agreed to by all parties, let alone by the two Governments, and is not embodied in statute or underpinned by an international treaty, has some kind of spurious equality with the British-Irish Council and the North/South Ministerial Council, which are both products of the Good Friday Agreement and therefore enshrined in statute?

Mrs Little-Pengelly: The leader of the Opposition is embracing the last week of the Assembly term with his usual optimism and positivity. There was detail in the statement. There was a very extensive discussion about AI at the summit. There was clear consensus between all the Administrations that technological advances in AI are happening all around us and that AI, therefore, ought not to be ignored by Governments. It is important not only that we harness the potential of and opportunities presented by AI but that, as Governments, we are aware of the challenges associated with AI, particularly in relation to ethics and data. It was a really useful conversation. All the jurisdictions, nations and regions are having those conversations, and it makes a lot of sense for us to collaborate in this area, not only on the frameworks for an ethical approach but on how best to push forward with the use of AI technologies and the upskilling of people to make sure that we streamline and transform our public services.

On the East-West Council, we are very clear on the framework for that. It is our responsibility to update the House on significant engagements, meetings and developments. That is why we will update the House on that key meeting in due course.

Ms Bradshaw (The Chairperson of the Committee for The Executive Office): Thank you, deputy First Minister, for your statement. I want to pick up on the role of AI in reform and transformation. We have a pressing need for health transformation. What discussions took place on research and development in the field of diagnostics?

Mrs Little-Pengelly: I thank the Member for her question. We looked at that matter in the broader sense, but there were a number of specific examples, and a number of the First Ministers and other contributors took the opportunity to highlight some of the engagement that they have had with AI, including in health. There is no doubt that there is opportunity in diagnostics. With the advances that are happening not just month by month but almost week by week, it makes absolute sense that we embrace those changes but do so in a way that provides security for the people who are subject to it, making sure that systems are reliable and that the people operating them are sufficiently trained and know what they are doing in interfacing with AI. While it can be a useful tool, for example in diagnostics, we want the human element in order to make sure that it is operating as it should. I have no doubt that the Health Minister will come forward with more ideas on that, but there was consensus around embracing the opportunities, particularly in relation to the big challenges that we face in health, education and other public services.

Ms Ennis: At the BIC summit in Newcastle, County Down, there were bilateral meetings with the Taoiseach, the Tánaiste, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, the Scottish and Welsh Governments and the other Administrations. Will the deputy First Minister update us on the issues and topics that were covered in those bilaterals?

Mrs Little-Pengelly: I thank the Member for her question. I have no doubt that she is aware that we never miss an opportunity to raise a long list of issues. There is Executive consensus on many of those issues, such as the funding pressures that we are under. We took the opportunity to raise directly with the Rt Hon Pat McFadden, whose role it is to coordinate the devolved regions and nations, our concerns about, for example, National Insurance contributions, the Budget, the spending review and our need for capital investment to enable us to grow. We also raised concerns about the impact of some of the announcements in recent Budget statements and events, such as the increase in employers' contributions and the impact that that is having on our economy, as well as the removal of relief on agricultural inheritance. We raised a wide range of issues. That is the value of these summits: the opportunity to have those bilaterals and talk about the specific issues.

Discussions with the likes of Jersey, Guernsey and the Isle of Man were much more about collaboration on issues such as AI. For example, there were really good conversations about how the new digitisation programme in the health sector could, through shared learning, be rolled out to some of the smaller jurisdictions. There was really good engagement across the piece.

Mr Kingston: I thank the deputy First Minister for her statement. There are public concerns about the appropriate use of artificial intelligence. Can the deputy First Minister tell the House more about how AI is already being used in the Northern Ireland public sector?

Mrs Little-Pengelly: I thank the Member for his question. As I indicated, we discussed a number of examples of that in AERA and in the health and education sectors. There has also been an extensive roll-out of Microsoft Copilot on our computers. First of all, it is about reassurance. There is no doubt that AI can create efficiencies and increase productivity. That is not about threatening people's jobs; it is about making sure that people can be upskilled or redeployed into other areas of essential work in order to accelerate public-service transformation and the roll-out of better public services.

The Member is absolutely right about the ethical approach, however. There are risks with AI, and I put on the record that we recognise that. We often talk about harnessing the opportunities of AI, but we cannot talk about that without recognising the risks. For example, concerns have been raised about the use of data: people taking the intellectual property of others and using it in their programs. It is really important — this was discussed at length at the meeting — to set out ethical frameworks for government before we go too extensively down the road of using and deploying AI across our public services. We want to reassure people that our use of AI is ethical, that their data is secured and, indeed, that what we are using is consistent and reliable.

Dr Aiken: First, I declare an interest as the vice chair of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association working group on AI in democracy. The Welsh Government are taking the lead on utilising AI, which includes looking at Microsoft Copilot and its enhanced security issues. I ask that the Chief Scientific and Technology Adviser, Helen McCarthy, given her studies on using technology, particularly AI, to improve democracy, take the lead cross-regionally. I also ask that she look at the real challenges that the digital Irish Sea border will present for data sharing.

Mrs Little-Pengelly: I thank the Member for his question. He will know from his work that the issue extends much further than the British Isles. Every jurisdiction is looking at AI's potential. When it comes to how to use that potential, the Welsh Government's First Minister outlined some of the opportunities that are associated with Copilot and how those can be used. We absolutely want to collaborate. The Chief Scientific and Technology Adviser leads our task and finish group. Just a couple of weeks ago, we launched an office of AI and digital, but its work will be informed by Professor Helen's work through the task and finish group. I take the opportunity to pay tribute to the many experts in the field, many of whom are from the private sector, who are giving of their time freely to contribute to that work, which, we understand, will be extensive. It will form the basis of our strategy and the initial work of our office of AI and digital. It will also identify the opportunities and challenges that we need to overcome by rolling out real action.

Mr Delargy: I thank the deputy First Minister for her statement. Will she outline the BIC's specific work streams and how they enhance the delivery of the Executive's agreed priorities?

Mrs Little-Pengelly: I thank the Member for his question. He will be aware that there are a number of specified areas, but there is also the opportunity for flexibility. Particularly in the bilateral sessions and discussions, we find that the work goes wider than the formal themes. AI is a really good example of that. According to the specific list, we look at creative industries issues as they relate to health; education; early years; energy; indigenous, minority and lesser-used languages; drugs and alcohol; planning and places; social inclusion; transport; and housing. That is an extensive list of specific areas, but, as has been indicated in the many statements that we have made to the House, the work goes beyond that list. How AI opportunities can contribute to transformation is a good example of where we can learn about things above and beyond the specific list through collaborative working and building relationships.

Ms Forsythe: I congratulate the Executive on hosting a successful British-Irish Council summit in Newcastle, which showcased the best of Northern Ireland in the heart of South Down, where the Mountains of Mourne sweep down to the sea. Choosing AI as the focus was a prudent move, given how embedded it is in our everyday lives. From speaking with other jurisdictions, deputy First Minister, how well placed do you think that Northern Ireland is to be a leader in AI?

Mrs Little-Pengelly: I thank the Member for her question. It was an absolutely wonderful setting for the BIC summit. On the Thursday evening, we were hosting the pre-summit dinner, and it was very cloudy outside. The Mountains of Mourne sweeping down to the sea could not be seen at all. Fortunately, the clouds cleared, and the feedback was really positive. I thank the hotel and its staff for what was an excellent conference and summit. It was really professionally run, and we have written to the hotel to convey our thanks. It was held in a fantastic location, and many people commented on the beauty of the Mourne region. We encouraged them to come back and spend their well-earned money on tourism in the Mourne area and more widely across Northern Ireland. The summit was important, and it was good that we had the opportunity to hold it. We host the summit only every four years, so it is really important that we pick the right location in order to showcase the best of here.

There is no doubt that Northern Ireland is well placed to be a leader in AI and in technological advances. From speaking to her, I know that our Chief Scientific and Technology Adviser firmly believes that we are really well placed to lead on that work. It was really interesting, however, to hear from the other jurisdictions, because it is clear that they are all really focusing on AI. They are all looking at their AI strategies, but, from our engagement with Professor Helen, we know that she is clear that we are well placed to become a world leader, provided that we do the work that we need to do now and get that started sooner rather than later.

Mr Honeyford: You talked about tourism there. It is remarkable that Newcastle is not referred to in the statement, given that the meeting was held in Newcastle and key events will be held here. We were recently told that the Wild Atlantic Way and Ireland's Ancient East marketing brands are not being extended North. Did any discussions take place on the development of a joint tourism initiative? If not, are any such discussions scheduled to take place?

Mrs Little-Pengelly: I thank the Member for his question. He will be aware that the Shared Island Fund finances some of the shared tourism projects. We have that shared tourism offering and there is a body that provides marketing and support. I am really proud of our Mourne region and our Causeway coast. Those are strong brands in their own right. There has been a huge amount of investment, not just through the councils but Northern Ireland-wide, in promoting those brands, and it is important that they be protected. The Member will be surprised to hear how well known they are, and I welcome the fact that, in just a short number of weeks, we will have the Open coming to our wonderful Causeway Coast and Glens area. If the sun shines, which it hopefully will, that will be a real showcase for Northern Ireland, but even if it does not, it will still show the remarkable and beautiful landscape that we have and and are very proud of. Golf is a really good way to showcase that landscape, not just in the north coast but in the Mourne region, through the fantastic golf courses there.

Ms Sheerin: The deputy First Minister outlined that the focus was on AI. Will she outline the proposed benefits and outcomes for the public sector from using AI?

Mrs Little-Pengelly: There are undoubted benefits. I mentioned how Microsoft Copilot can simply summarise a document. Of course, that needs to be cross-checked. Over the past couple of weeks, most of us have had work experience pupils with us. When I talk to young people about my time studying at Queen's University for my law degree, I tell them that, to get a case, you went to the library, found the relevant volume of the 'All England Law Reports' and found it on page 187 or whatever it was. That is completely foreign to the new generation: they simply put it into the computer, and, bing, it is there. That is moving on even faster because of the ability to take complex documents and judgements and get AI to summarise them and put together, for example, briefings, press releases and press lines. We do not use that extensively in government: if we did, we would have to do so within an ethical framework. There is no doubt that there are opportunities with that.

There is a lot of discussion about the quality that comes out of AI. It is really important that, if we are using AI in the public sector, we are using reliable forms of it and not just open forms of it that, as we know, are not quite where they need to be. I have no doubt that we will get there within a very short period.

Mr Gildernew: I thank the deputy First Minister for the statement on this important area. You set out the opportunities that will come with AI. You also touched on the risks and challenges, but will you set out in more detail how they might be managed?

Mrs Little-Pengelly: Undoubtedly, there are risks and challenges. If you are using any kind of technological or digital application, you will want to make sure that people's data is kept secure, that that data is used ethically and properly and that the application is reliable and does not allow bias, prejudice or flaws to get into it that can skew the outcome. We are aware of a number of challenges, and we are also very aware that a lot of the technologies are at a very early stage and that their applications have not been sufficiently tested. We need to take care with that. The starting block for that is to set out an ethical framework to which all Departments, public bodies and the public sector should work. We should be able to collaborate on that, not just across the UK but across these isles. There is an opportunity for the British-Irish Council to accelerate that work in every jurisdiction by looking at a common ethical framework for it. Then, a Department or public body will measure any application that they are looking at against the key principles and ethics of that framework before they move forward with it.

Mr Speaker: That concludes questions to the deputy First Minister. Members, please take your ease before we move to the next item of business.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): The Speaker has received notice from the First Minister and deputy First Minister that they wish to make a statement. Before I call the First Minister, I remind Members that they must be concise in asking their questions. This is not an opportunity for debate, and long introductions will not be allowed.

Mrs O'Neill (The First Minister): Go raibh maith agat, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle.

In compliance with the Northern Ireland Act 1998, I wish to make the following statement on the twenty-ninth plenary meeting of the North/South Ministerial Council (NSMC), which was held in the joint secretariat offices in Armagh on 20 June 2025. The deputy First Minister and I agreed that I would provide the report.

The deputy First Minister and I led the Executive delegation, and the Taoiseach, Micheál Martin TD, led the Irish Government delegation. The deputy First Minister and I chaired the meeting. This was the first meeting of the NSMC in plenary format since the new Government of Ireland took office and since the publication of Programmes for Government in both jurisdictions. The meeting provided an opportunity for Ministers to discuss a range of issues of mutual interest and concern.

The first item on the agenda related to business and trade matters, and the NSMC had an exchange of views on the business and trade implications of recent developments in the international sphere. The Council noted the respective strategies in each jurisdiction on business and trade-related areas such as industrial policy, competitiveness and AI. The Council agreed that, in what is an increasingly complex and unpredictable international trading environment, it is important that the two Administrations remain engaged with each other at political and official level on business and trade matters. The NSMC agreed that, where appropriate, the NSMC sector should continue to consider how agreed collaborative approaches can contribute to the promotion of economic growth.

The NSMC received an update report from the joint secretaries and noted that, since the last plenary meeting in September 2024, Ministers had met in 10 sectors and that meetings in the remaining sectors would take place by the end of July. The Council reported that it had considered a number of corporate governance matters in each of the North/South implementation bodies, including business plans, budgets and annual reports and accounts. It was noted that board members, including chairpersons and vice chairpersons, were appointed to a number of the bodies and that the NSMC approved the reappointment of the CEOs of InterTradeIreland and Waterways Ireland.

The NSMC noted that engagement on a wide range of policy areas continues across all NSMC work sectors and that Ministers had discussed climate change and loss of biodiversity at the relevant sectoral meetings.

The Council considered infrastructural investment cooperation, and Ministers welcomed the decision by the Executive to proceed with the A5 western transport corridor project and to await the outcome of the legal proceedings. Obviously, things have moved on in that area since the meeting, with the legal outworking last week. The Council noted that Waterways Ireland continues to progress phase 3 of the Ulster canal restoration project. Ministers also noted the ongoing work to progress the all-island strategic rail review's recommendations and the increase in passenger numbers through the hourly service on the Belfast to Dublin corridor. Ministers noted the progress that has been made on the Narrow Water bridge project and welcomed the Government of Ireland's Programme for Government commitment to engage with all relevant stakeholders to establish air connectivity between Dublin Airport and City of Derry Airport. The NSMC noted the work being done on cross-border greenways, including the opening of the Carlingford lough greenway later in the year and the review of further potential greenway opportunities.

Ministers noted the progress that has been made on the Ulster University Magee expansion project. The Council also noted the progress that has been made on the delivery of collaborative research and innovation programmes.

Ministers welcomed the implementation of the PEACE PLUS programme and the discussions with relevant stakeholders on the potential for a successor to the current PEACE PLUS programme.

The next item on the agenda related to mother-and-baby institutions, Magdalene laundries and workhouses. The Council welcomed the ongoing North/South engagement on the potential reciprocal arrangements to disregard redress payments for means-tested benefits for mother-and-baby institution payment schemes and noted upcoming engagements between officials on the forthcoming truth recovery redress scheme. The NSMC also noted ongoing North/South cooperation in sharing knowledge and identifying lessons learned from the redress scheme. The Council noted that Executive Office officials attended an engagement event on the development of the National Centre for Research and Remembrance in Dublin. Ministers noted the ongoing engagement between the Public Record Office and the National Archives on records and that comparable legislation for the preservation of private records related to institutions is now in place in both jurisdictions.

The Council went on to consider ending violence against women and girls (EVAWG) and tackling gender-based violence. Ministers recognised the unacceptably high levels of gender-based violence and violence against women and girls that are prevalent across both jurisdictions and noted that addressing the issue will require a whole-of-society approach. The NSMC agreed that officials should continue to explore opportunities for joint working in that area, recognising the common challenges faced.

The meeting closed with Ministers agreeing a future schedule for NSMC meetings across the various sectors and agreeing that the next NSMC plenary meeting will take place in Dublin in the autumn of this year. That concludes the statement.

Mr O'Toole: First Minister, on the A5, you stated that "things have moved on" since the meeting. Given that the judge said that lives would be lost as a result of the judgement last week, I am afraid that that is one hell of a euphemism, but it is the only thing that you have said so far about that judgement and the delay in delivering the A5. Given that the project appears to have been jeopardised because of extreme incompetence at a Department led by your Ministers and given that you took personal responsibility and credit for it when planning approval was granted in October, do you take personal responsibility at all for the judgement last week? What specific actions are you taking to move the project forward and to ensure that the A5 is delivered? Please be specific, First Minister.

Mrs O'Neill: First, we were all very disappointed with the outworking of the judge's ruling last week. The A5 project was and remains an Executive flagship project. It must be delivered. It must be delivered because of the strategic route's significance and for the economy, job creation and access to services. It must be delivered, because it is a safety issue. It has to be about saving lives. I am absolutely committed, and I stand over our commitment to ensuring that the A5 is built. That is what the public want to hear. They want to know how we will address the issues that the judge set out in his ruling, a detailed ruling at that.

There is no doubt that it is a setback. We need to turn all our attention now to making sure that the road is delivered. That is what we discussed at the Executive this morning, and it is what I will continue to discuss with the Infrastructure Minister. All options are on the table. This is an urgent and necessary issue. The A5 road project will be delivered.

Ms Bradshaw (The Chairperson of the Committee for The Executive Office): Thank you, First Minister, for your statement. I am sure that you will join me in expressing sadness at the tragic murder of Sarah Montgomery at the weekend. Your statement touched on ending violence against women and girls. You talked about exploring opportunities: given the unacceptably high rates of murder of our women and attacks on our women and girls, will you please give some specifics on what those opportunities will look like?

Mrs O'Neill: I concur with you, as, I am sure, does everybody in the House, and convey our sympathy and thoughts to the family of Sarah Montgomery — another young mother whose life has been taken. It is such a tragedy. It really underlines for us all, once again, that we have a huge problem in our society with violence against women and girls.

It was important that we added the issue to the agenda of the North/South Ministerial Council, because the challenges that we face are felt across the whole island and, indeed, these islands. One of the tangible actions in that area of work is that our officials have now taken the lead in forming a five-jurisdiction working group that is looking at how we all come at ending violence against women and girls. That will very much help us to pick up things that work well in other jurisdictions and apply that learning here. We have our own strategy, because we recognise the significant problem that we have.

We had a really good, engaged discussion across the NSMC about the common challenges and potential areas for exploration. We tasked officials at North/South Ministerial Council level to come back to us with recommendations on potential areas that we can explore together. I look forward to the item remaining on the agenda, because the reality is that, unfortunately, it is a huge societal problem that we all share, and we must apply all our efforts to ending what is a scourge and an epidemic in our society.

Mr McAleer: I was pleased to note that the A5 was included on the agenda of the NSMC's most recent meeting. I know that you, First Minister, share the disappointment of the overwhelming majority of the community that the project has been paused as a result of last week's court judgement. Does the First Minister agree that it is vital that we redouble our efforts and work in partnership with the Irish Government, the councils and stakeholders, such as the A5 Enough is Enough campaign, to get the A5 built?

Mrs O'Neill: I absolutely concur with the Member: the A5 must be built. The project is long overdue, and we must fulfil our commitment. With every ounce of my being, I will put all attention and effort into ensuring that the A5 is built. There is no doubt that last week's court ruling is a huge setback for the project. However, I say to the Member that we are actively working our way through the detail and that there is urgency to that work.

Let me be clear as First Minister, a Tyrone woman, a mummy and someone who knows closely and acutely how dangerous that road is: we will do everything to ensure that the project is delivered. We all know too many families who have lost a loved one on that dangerous stretch of road. They want to hear from us today that we will fix the problem and deliver the road. We will take on the points that have been set out in the ruling. All options are on the table and are being actively explored as next steps. The commitment to the A5 project stands: the road must be delivered.

Mr Brett: First Minister, your statement outlines that there were discussions on a wide range of issues of mutual interest and concern. One of the biggest issues of concern for the people of Northern Ireland is the approach by the Irish Government to the issue of legacy, and I think of the families of the Omagh bombing in particular. First Minister, what action did you take at the meeting to call out the hypocritical approach of the Irish Government and to call for them to hold a public inquiry into their role, which led to the murder of innocent people?

Mrs O'Neill: A number of bilateral meetings took place, and the deputy First Minister and I had a chance to discuss the issue of legacy more generally with the Irish Government. It is important that we all turn our attention to dealing with the legacy of the past and that every one of us uses our best efforts to ensure that we bring forward mechanisms that are human rights-compliant. Everybody has a part to play in that. I want to unburden today's generation of the legacy of the past. Let us find ways to do that politically. I recommend that approach to the Irish Government, the British Government and everybody else who wants to get us to a point where we have a way to deal with the past that commands maximum support from victims and survivors.

Ms Ní Chuilín: I thank the First Minister for her statement. I join Paula Bradshaw and many others in extending sympathy to the family of Sarah Montgomery. The events at the weekend were tragic. The First Minister mentioned that the NSMC is one forum that will discuss ending violence against women and girls: will she confirm that that forum is of strategic importance? Will she ensure that, in all fora in which they meet, the ending of violence against women and girls is discussed and that actions arise from that?

Mrs O'Neill: I concur with the Member on the death of Sarah Montgomery at the weekend. It was such a tragedy. A young mummy has been taken from her children. It is heartbreaking and unimaginable. I cannot imagine what that family is going through.

For our part, we must recognise that we have a societal problem to deal with. We have our strategy for ending violence against women and girls, and we must continue to review it to make sure that it is fit for purpose and that we do everything that we can. This is not unique to us; it is a societal problem across the board. As the statement sets out, we have tasked officials to come back to us with practical ways in which we can continue to collaborate across the area. We have to tackle the scourge of violence against women and girls. I want us to do everything that we can. That approach was very much embraced at the meeting, and people felt that it was an area where we absolutely should cooperate. We can do good things when we learn from and lean into one another.

Mrs Erskine: Does the First Minister accept that climate change legislation and targets will have an impact on all Departments here, particularly on infrastructure and capital projects? The A5 and the all-island strategic rail review were mentioned. We cannot build at net zero; that is pretty much impossible. How does the First Minister intend to rectify that tangibly?

Mrs O'Neill: The Executive discussed the matter this morning. The outworking of the judge's ruling is an issue, but let us not throw the baby out with the bathwater. Let us work our way through practical solutions that allow us to deliver on major capital projects such as the A5 whilst protecting our planet for future generations. We can do both, but we will have to navigate legally around what that looks like for us as an Executive. Like many others, I am concerned about what the ruling means for how we proceed with major capital projects in future, but we can navigate our way through it successfully. We can protect our environment and deliver on big capital projects that, we know, need to be delivered.

Mr Honeyford: Given the growth in all-island trade that is helping our economy to grow while the rest of the UK flatlines, scaling business support would really benefit our business sector and help to deliver good jobs and increase productivity. Was the offer of further Irish Government investment in North/South bodies such as InterTradeIreland discussed? If so, will you give us an update?

Mrs O'Neill: Unfortunately, as the Member knows, there is an issue with the additional funding that the Irish Government wish to put on the table. The problem lies in this jurisdiction, because Executive partners, particularly the DUP, do not want to see that additional funding coming in. That is a case of cutting your nose off to spite your face. It is additional funding to those bodies that could help trade, tourism and a range of areas. I continue to travel in hope and urge there to be a sense of pragmatism about additional funding for our bodies. We should take it.

Mr Baker: I thank the Minister for her statement. Was Casement Park discussed? What is next for Casement Park?

Mrs O'Neill: Thanks for that question. Casement Park was raised at the meeting and subsequently at the press conference. We have momentum behind the project, insofar as we have the British Government's announcement of their commitment of £50 million towards the project. I believe in investing in sport. I believe in the investment in Casement Park, because of what it will mean for west Belfast and, nationally, for the GAA. Importantly, we must all come at it with a can-do attitude. Let us invest in sport across the board. Let us do that, because sport makes a meaningful and positive difference to people's lives. Now that we have the quantum on the table from the British Government, all attention has to be turned to charting a way forward. I will continue to work with the Minister responsible and all Ministers around the Executive table to ensure that the Casement Park project is delivered and finally brought over the line after many years of delay.

Mr Kingston: The First Minister's statement touched on a discussion about mother-and-baby institutions, Magdalene laundries and workhouses and stated that redress payments should not affect benefit entitlements. Was there any discussion about ensuring that, whilst compensation is paid out from the public purse in the first place, the institutions responsible for running the places where harm resulted must make a contribution? Some of them operated on both sides of the border. Was that raised at the meeting? Is there ongoing determination to ensure that they make the contribution that they are obliged to make?

Mrs O'Neill: I concur with the Member: the institutions need to pay. That is important, and the Committee for the Executive Office is looking at it as part of the passage of our legislation. We took the opportunity at our meeting to raise the issue with the Taoiseach in the context of learning, because the Irish Government went through the process and took a certain approach. It is important that we engage with them on how they conducted themselves and how successful or not that was. By all accounts, it was not as successful as, you would think, it would be when it is legislated for.

We are also aware of report of the independent negotiator, Sheila Nunan, for the Irish Government. She stated that they were disappointed in what they had been able to achieve and that only a few institutions had provided contributions to the redress scheme. That, in itself, is something that we have to learn from. We will have to take that on board, if we feel that a legislative approach to the issue is required. That is a part of the journey through the legislative process that we will definitely come back to.

Ms Finnegan: I thank the First Minister for her statement. She will, no doubt, agree that the Peace programme has been central to supporting peace and building cohesion in many communities throughout the island. Can she provide an update on whether a successor programme was discussed at the plenary meeting?

Mrs O'Neill: Thank you for that question. Yes, we discussed that matter, because, as the Member will know, the Peace programme has had such a significant impact across all of our communities. We have only to look around us to see the value in some of the projects that have been delivered. The current programme is well under way, with 88% of the programme having already been committed. That is a huge investment of approximately £815 million over 102 projects.

We raised the issue of a successor programme, and it was reported to us that, when the Taoiseach and the British Prime Minister had a conversation about that matter, they agreed in principle to a successor programme, That, in itself, is a step forward. Our next steps will involve the continuing engagement of Department of Finance officials with the NIO and the Irish Government on the specifics of what a potential new programme would look like. Suffice to say that, for me, the signs are positive for the achievement of a successor programme.

Mr Dickson: Thank you, First Minister. I welcome the reference in the NSMC statement to the mother-and-baby homes and, in particular, to the ongoing cooperation and the lessons that have been learned from the Irish redress model. Is she able to tell us specifically what operational policy insights, particularly around delays and uptake of posthumous claims, have influenced the current drafting of and implementation plans for the Northern Ireland scheme, which she has announced in the legislation?

Mrs O'Neill: Thank you for that. I will have to write to you with any detailed considerations. In arriving at the juncture where we have presented the legislation for scrutiny and analysis, we took into account all of the issues, and there is no doubt that it is challenging. People have different opinions about the date for posthumous claims, for example, which I absolutely understand. I encourage the Member, as part of the Executive Office Committee's scrutiny, to work through that. I have no doubt that the Committee will make recommendations that we will have to consider in due course. I am glad that the Bill has been introduced and that we are, at least, at the discussion phase, where we can shape the final legislation.

Mr McNulty: I thank the First Minister for her statement. I am bit confused by the statement. Sinn Féin has announced all-Ireland health proposals, which is a concept that I firmly support, but there seems to have been no mention of that at the North/South Ministerial Council meeting. Is that a further demonstration of Sinn Féin's "all show and no go" strategy?

Mrs O'Neill: I will help you out with your confusion, perhaps. The Health Minister was unable to be at the NSMC meeting, but we discussed areas of cooperation around muscular dystrophy as part of the consideration of rare diseases. There are real advantages to working across the island to support people who have rare diseases, particularly when it comes to access to drugs. The Health Minister's counterpart raised that at the meeting, and I spoke to the Health Minister this morning about that, because we should pick up this area and run with it together. Let us support people with potentially very rare diseases in cases where we do not have the expertise in one or other of the jurisdictions, so that we can make a difference to people's lives. I assure the Member that health is always on the agenda. We have good areas of cooperation in health, and I would like us to continue to build on that.

Mr McGuigan: As the First Minister will know, the Assembly recently democratically expressed its will that votes in elections for the president of Ireland should be extended to all Irish citizens on the island of Ireland. Further to that, does she agree that the extension of presidential voting rights to Irish citizens in the North should be a priority for the Dublin Government?

Mrs O'Neill: I absolutely concur with the Member. That is my personal view, obviously, and not the view of the Office. I welcome the fact that the Assembly voted in favour of presidential voting rights. It is long past time to correct that democratic deficit and long past time for presidential voting rights to be expanded to Irish citizens here. The reality is that, as an Irish citizen in the North, you can stand in the election, you can become the Uachtarán na hÉireann

, but you cannot vote in that election. That is so out of date and needs to be rectified. It is an anomaly that needs to be immediately fixed. I continue to commend that approach. I also should acknowledge that they had this debate in the Dáil last week, and, again, there was unanimous support. Now it is time to turn that into action, to legislate for it and make it happen and to give Irish citizens in the North the chance to vote for our Uachtarán

.

Mrs Dillon: I add my condolences to the family, wider family and friends of Sarah Montgomery. A theme that was dealt with in the conversations in the NSMC was women and babies and girls. Women and girls and their children continue today to suffer at the hands of men — often, the very men whom they should be able to trust.

Minister, with regard to your conversations with the Irish Government about the mother-and-baby institutions, Magdalene laundries and workhouses, given that there was a clear all-island dimension to those practices, will you outline what cooperation is happening or will happen between the Executive and the Dublin Government in moving forward and ensuring that it never happens again and that we take the same approach in ensuring that violence against women and girls is ended?

Mrs O'Neill: Yes, I concur with the Member's commentary around the theme. The common theme is women: women who have been failed, women shamefully treated by the state across this island, women and girls, babies robbed from their mothers. When you think about the shameful past of this island towards women, we have to do everything that we can to provide whatever support we can. We are doing that, obviously, with the legislation. You refer to male violence against women: that is something that I am so passionate about. We need to do everything that we can to address the societal problems that we have and the issue of misogyny. I am pleased to see a lot of the work that we are doing in supporting local groups providing work in the communities around our strategy, and I want to see more of that continue.

The Member raised the issue of mother-and-baby institutions. That was an area that we discussed, and we want to learn from what has worked and what has not worked, because the Irish Government have been ahead of us in introducing legislation. There are lessons to be learnt about the contributions from the institutions. They legislated, but they still have not got a better outcome. We need to consider all of those things. There is a raft of areas and dimensions that need to be explored together more carefully, and that is why we have tasked officials to do so.

Mr McCrossan: First Minister, Monday's judgement on the A5 was deeply disappointing and frustrating for so many, especially the families who have lost loved ones. You keep saying that you will do everything, but your Ministers clearly did not do enough. The judge was critical of the Department and the Ministers for failing to do basic work and consultation, Planning Appeals Commission (PAC) warnings were ignored, and, as a result, Justice McAlinden said that more lives would be lost on the A5. First Minister, do you have faith in the ability of your Sinn Féin ministerial team to deliver the A5, and do you really believe, after the judgement, that Minister O'Dowd's position is tenable as an Executive Minister, given that he failed to do his job?

Mrs O'Neill: The reality is that we are actually in an Executive that can do something about it. The reality is that we are absolutely committed to delivering the A5. The reality is that Liz Kimmins, as the Infrastructure Minister, is doing absolutely everything that she can to work through the legalities of the outworking of the legal judgement last week.

Of course, we are all disappointed. We are absolutely disappointed and rightly so. Everybody I have spoken to feels that. What the wider public want to hear is that we will do everything that we can to ensure that the project gets delivered as a matter of urgency. It has been going on for far too long. The court ruling last week is a setback, but we are working our way through it as we speak. We are seeking all the legal advice that is required, and all options are on the table, but I want the public to understand and hear clearly that the project is something that we are absolutely committed to ensuring is delivered.

Mr Gaston: I will also ask about the discussion of mother-and-baby institutions, Magdalene laundries and workhouses. One of the major problems with previous legislation was the failure to build in a statutory requirement for institutions to contribute to the redress scheme. Why was that obvious shortcoming not addressed in the legislation brought before the House last week, or have we still not learnt the lesson of the need to build in a statutory requirement for upfront payments from institutions?

Mrs O'Neill: I spoke about that earlier in response to a question from another Member. It is not always the case that, just by legislating, the picture will be improved. Sheila Nunan produced an independent report for the Irish Government, and they were disappointed that very few institutions paid, even though they had legislated for that. I do not have a closed mind to doing that: if it would deliver what we need it to deliver, we have to explore it. Experience from elsewhere, however, tells us that that is not the answer to this question: how do we ensure that the institutions pay up and pay their share? We will, however, explore the issue further as the legislation passes through the House.

Mr Durkan: The First Minister says that the public want to hear that the Executive are doing and will do all that they can to ensure the delivery of the A5: with all due respect, the public have been hearing that for 20 years. Is the latest setback, resulting from the latest judgement, yet more evidence of the Executive's lack of capacity to deliver major capital projects? Will the First Minister update us on the Executive Office's consideration of and deliberations on the creation of an infrastructure commission to deliver major capital projects?

Mrs O'Neill: I have covered the question of the A5. I have said it before and will say it again for the Member that, with every ounce of my being, I want to see the A5 project delivered. We will do everything that we can to ensure that that is the case. We are urgently working our way through the judgement. All options are on the table for what the next step looks like. It needs to be something that stops the legal challenge and gets the project on the ground. Working with the Minister for Infrastructure and other Ministers, I will do everything that I can.

In a separate but related point, the implications for major capital projects is something that the entire Executive have to turn their mind to. We have to deliver on our climate obligations and provide a safe future for future generations, but we also have to undertake major capital projects, so I want us to work our way through the judgment. We touched on the matter at our Executive meeting this morning, and we will continue to work our way through what it means legally.

Mr McGrath: First Minister, given the debacle with the A5, a project that your team is in charge of, and given that your colleague the Infrastructure Minister has said little other than that the judgement is being considered, was it wise to begin the process of handing back the vested land? There are legal opportunities to stop that process, but, because it has now begun, we will have to go through the whole process again of getting that land back. It is an absolute mess of a project that you and your team have been left to look after.

Mrs O'Neill: I assure you that Sinn Féin has advanced the A5 project at every turn, particularly in the Department for Infrastructure. I can also assure you of this: sound bites will not build the A5. [Interruption.]

Sound bites will not build the A5. A Minister who is absolutely committed to the project and to getting it over the line will build the A5. I am absolutely committed to ensuring that that is the case.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Thank you very much indeed, First Minister. That concludes questions on the statement.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): I have received notice from the First Minister and the deputy First Minister that they wish to make a statement. Deputy First Minister, over to you.

Mrs Little-Pengelly (The deputy First Minister): Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. The First Minister and I attended the second meeting of the East-West Council, which took place in Belfast on 12 June. The meeting was co-chaired by the Rt Hon Pat McFadden MP, Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and Minister for Intergovernmental Relations, and the Rt Hon Hilary Benn MP, the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. Fleur Anderson MP, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, was also present.

The Council formally agreed its terms of reference, including its purpose, objectives and missions. The Council's stated purpose is to strengthen cooperation between Northern Ireland and other parts of the UK by advising on shared challenges and opportunities that have an east-west dimension. Its objectives will be to provide regular and sustained engagement between the UK Government and representatives from Northern Ireland across a wide range of economic and social activity; take forward the Council's agreed missions; raise the profile of the opportunities offered by Northern Ireland by supporting connectivity and connections; drive UK-wide engagement on the development and sharing of existing clusters of excellence; and ensure that the profile of Northern Ireland is appropriately considered in business and government decision-making. The Council's missions are set out in the 'Safeguarding the Union' paper: economic inactivity; east-west investment and trade flows; improving international investment in Northern Ireland; bolstering east-west institutional connectivity and promoting professional and high-skill pathways; and identifying opportunities for deepening connections between Northern Ireland and the rest of the UK.

Noting the positive context of the UK Government's commitment to reset relationships with the devolved Governments, we welcomed the opportunities that the Council will provide for Northern Ireland interests to engage formally and directly with their counterparts in GB to share knowledge and to build and, indeed, rebuild relationships following a volatile period. The Council received a briefing from members of Intertrade UK on its draft programme of work and priority projects for the first 12 to 18 months of activity. Those will be taken forward under three key themes: promoting trade in goods and services across the UK and overcoming identified barriers; trade opportunities; and infrastructure and connectivity.

We welcomed the important role that Intertrade UK could play by researching and building an evidence base on barriers to trade and inefficient processes and promoting better information for businesses in GB on how the trading arrangements with NI actually work, as reluctance to supply to Northern Ireland can often arise simply from a lack of understanding. We also emphasised the need for Northern Ireland considerations to be embedded formally and as early as possible in the development of trade policy and that we should be active participants in UK trade missions and promotional activities.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State advised the Council of the launch of the Connect Fund, which is a £1 million fund administered by the Northern Ireland Office and will provide grants to community organisations here for activities that will strengthen east-west connections through the development of civic relationships, support for cultural and sporting links and the enabling of dialogue on areas of mutual interest with their counterparts in other UK jurisdictions. We welcomed the establishment of the fund and urged for it to be operated in a way that is complementary to the support provided to the voluntary and community sector. We acknowledged the potential benefits that can arise even from small amounts of financial support, as the voluntary and community sector here has much expertise to share. We hope that the fund will enable organisations to make valuable and long-lasting contacts with others across the UK on issues of mutual interest and concern.

That concludes the statement.

Mr O'Toole: I am profoundly concerned that we have had the statement today, not because I do not want the best possible east-west links between the UK Government and the Executive — I do — but because the East-West Council has been presented as having spurious equivalence with the North/South Ministerial Council (NSMC) and the British-Irish Council (BIC), which are enshrined in the Good Friday Agreement and therefore international law. Given that the statement mentioned that the Council's missions are set out in the 'Safeguarding the Union' paper — a unilateral paper that was produced by the Tory Government after clandestine consultation with the DUP — is that paper now Executive policy? Did your colleague the First Minister and her party agree to the terms of reference as per the 'Safeguarding the Union' paper?

Mrs Little-Pengelly: I thank the Member for his question. He will be aware that 'Safeguarding the Union' is a White Paper that was produced by the UK Government. That followed a series of negotiations and set out the framework for restoration of this place. The commitments made in that paper are critical to the continued stability of this place. Of course, the UK Government should step up.

At the heart of that, of course, is a commitment by the UK Government, supported by the shadow Labour Government of the time, to ensure unfettered trade across and within the United Kingdom. That is not happening. That promise was made not just to the political parties in Northern Ireland but to the people of Northern Ireland. The UK Government must step up and remove any existing barriers to internal trade across the United Kingdom.

Ms Bradshaw (The Chairperson of the Committee for The Executive Office): Thank you, deputy First Minister, for your statement. There is an element missing from the statement: an update on the international relations strategy from the Executive Office. Will you please provide us with that update?

Mrs Little-Pengelly: I thank the Member for her question. She will be aware that this is a body that looks exclusively at the internal relationships of the UK. There was a gap, in my view, in what arose from the various negotiations. We had the British-Irish Council, which deals with all the jurisdictions, including the Republic of Ireland, and we had the North/South Ministerial Council, which deals with Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland, but we did not have a body that looked at Northern Ireland's particular place within the United Kingdom. Over the course of the Brexit negotiations and discussions, we, sadly, saw how carelessly Northern Ireland's place within the internal market of the UK was treated by the then UK Government. We had a determination that that should not happen again, hence this formal structure to raise, in a formal way, issues pertaining to Northern Ireland within the UK context.

The Member is correct that there is an element of the terms of reference, particularly with the work of Intertrade UK, that involves attracting foreign direct investment to Northern Ireland. While our international relationships are not devolved per se, we have a role in the international space. Some of that is about attracting international investment — foreign direct investment — and part of that is around the soft diplomacy piece and reaching out through our bureaux, making sure that there is awareness of Northern Ireland, be that through sport, golf or our businesses, and taking part in those trade missions. That is a critical element of the draft international relations strategy that is under development in the Department. We are hopeful of having sight of a final strategy very shortly and aim to have it agreed, presented and published early in the autumn.

Ms Forsythe: I thank the deputy First Minister for her statement. It is good to hear what was covered at the East-West Council. What other areas could that body focus on going forward?

Mrs Little-Pengelly: I thank the Member for her question. There is a huge amount of possibility here. Hopefully, we will be able to see some of that through the Connect Fund, as it rolls out. Very often, many of the challenges that we face here are common across the rest of the UK, be that around trying to increase productivity, attract foreign direct investment or the challenges of tackling educational underachievement. We know that, for example, we have an exceptional third sector in Northern Ireland. We want that sector to be given opportunities to connect with other community and third-sector organisations across the rest of the UK to share that learning.

Over the past number of weeks, it has been hugely disappointing to see disorder and racism on the streets of Northern Ireland. That is not unique to Northern Ireland, sadly; it has happened elsewhere, including across communities in the UK. That is another example of where, through coordination, be that from the various police forces, civic organisations, youth intervention or education, there could be really good opportunities to find solutions by working together in a collaborative way to benefit ourselves, but there could also be opportunities for our organisations to benefit others, be they in Scotland, Wales, the north of England, London or wherever they may be.

Ms Bunting: I draw the deputy First Minister's attention to paragraph 6 of her statement relating to Intertrade UK. Obviously, the protocol and its bureaucracy are a considerable impediment to internal trade. Was the protocol's impact raised? What was the outcome? Do the Government accept and understand the problems that the Northern Ireland protocol is causing?

Mrs Little-Pengelly: I thank the Member for her important question. There are two elements to that. First, all the companies that withdraw from our market do so because they do not understand the current trading relationships or believe them to be more complex than they are. Intertrade UK will have an important role in trying to bust some of those myths to encourage that trade to continue. That is what is best for our businesses, and that is what is best for our consumers. There is also an opportunity for Intertrade UK to promote our excellent goods to the rest of the UK, particularly in the agri-food sector and other sectors.

We are also seeing another real problem. I am sure that, like myself, the Member is continually contacted by companies about the unnecessary bureaucracy that people are facing with the internal market of the UK. The internal market of the UK is important to Northern Ireland — not just to our businesses but to our consumers when it comes to consumer choice. Over the past week, we have seen even more bureaucracy come in. We have heard already today about agricultural machinery coming back from the Royal Highland Show and being stopped because of tightened requirements, and we have seen tweets from the head of Marks and Spencer in which he has talked about 300 to 400 additional lines having to go through the red lane and about the additional bureaucracy, which, in his view, is entirely unnecessary. I agree with him. I have said this before, and I will say it again very clearly: the UK Government promised in what they set out on the Windsor framework in 'Safeguarding the Union' that there would be unfettered internal UK trade. They are not delivering on that. In fact, there is even more paperwork and bureaucracy, regardless of the recently announced UK-EU agreement. The paperwork and bureaucracy are not acceptable, proportionate or necessary, and they need to be removed. The UK Government need to step up and deliver on the promise of unfettered internal UK trade that they made to the people of Northern Ireland.

Ms K Armstrong: Thank you very much, deputy First Minister. I really welcome your earlier comment about high-skilled pathways, but I will take you to the paragraphs about the Connect Fund. The £1 million is very welcome — we will always welcome any money that comes to Northern Ireland — but how long that is for and who sets the criteria for it is very unclear. As we know, when the Northern Ireland Office or Westminster set criteria, such as those for the UK Shared Prosperity Fund, they are not necessarily aligned with Northern Ireland's priorities. You talked about recent difficulties across Northern Ireland because of riots, so there is an opportunity for the Connect Fund to be used to establish best practice for race relations in communities. Can you give us any further details on the Connect Fund?

Mrs Little-Pengelly: I thank the Member for her question. The fund was announced by the NIO on the Thursday of the East-West Council meeting. It is live at the moment, so the details are online. You can go through the application process online. At this stage, it appears to have been developed with maximum flexibility. It could be for individuals who, for example, want to attend conferences on the mainland. Alternatively, it could be for people to come from GB to NI. It could also be for community organisations or civic organisations to reach out and join up or to perhaps do some study visits or similar engagement. Great benefit could come from academic and other link-ups in sharing knowledge, experience and expertise.

We have a lot to give. A lot of our programmes would work really well in the other areas of deprivation and challenge that we see right across not just England but Scotland and Wales. There is no doubt that we could also learn from some of the innovative work that is happening there. It is always important in all these things that there be a challenge function and that new ideas and fresh thinking come in. There is a really good opportunity for some new thinking and for new people and groups to work collaboratively with ours to try to really tackle the issues. There is no doubt that we really need to do that. It has to be about action and intervention, not just the right words and warm words in the right place. That fund could, undoubtedly, support that important work.

Mr Brett: I particularly welcome the agreement of the terms of reference and the establishment of Intertrade UK. Last week, the Northern Ireland Federation of Small Businesses published a report that showed that only 14% of firms in Northern Ireland believe that they are benefiting from dual market access. Does the deputy First Minister agree that that once again busts the myths that are being pushed by the rigorous implementers of the protocol?

Mrs Little-Pengelly: I thank the Member for his important question. As he will be aware, there is a range of different views across our office. Personally speaking, I absolutely agree with him. I raised, as did he and many others, concerns about the so-called best of both worlds. It felt much more like the worst of both worlds, and I think that that, unfortunately, has played out for businesses in that they have faced absolutely disproportionate and unnecessary checks, bureaucracy and barriers to internal trade. The reason why the European Union so stoically and passionately defends its internal single market is because it is precious. The UK ought to have done the same with its internal market and should not have so carelessly tossed it away in the negotiations.

The UK Government promised to restore the integrity of the UK internal market. That has not yet happened. They need to take that opportunity. As the UK develops alignment or arrangements with the European Union, such as what is proposed in the sanitary and phytosanitary (SPS) deal, that will remove some of the so-called uniqueness from the arguments about having the best of both worlds with dual market access.

We have seen no significant benefit from it thus far. Companies are interested in it, but there has not been a benefit thus far. Nevertheless, the UK Government must step up and remove the internal barriers to internal UK trade.

Mr Kingston: I welcome the first meeting of the East-West Council to have taken place in Northern Ireland and the launch of the Connect Fund, which the deputy First Minister has explained.

One of the Council's objectives is:

Northern Ireland has clusters of absolute excellence, and our creative industries is very much one of those. Recently, the deputy First Minister and the First Minister joined me and others at the launch of Studio Ulster, which is the most advanced virtual production facility in the world. Can our creative industries, which are recognised as one of our centres of excellence, be developed further by sharing within the United Kingdom?

Mrs Little-Pengelly: I thank the Member for his question. Last week, we saw the launch of the UK's industrial strategy, which highlighted key priority areas across the UK. Those areas align very closely with NI's industrial strategic approach. The Member is right: the creative industries are a big area, as are advanced engineering and manufacturing and digital technology, and we are a global leader in cybersecurity. We want to build on those things, and, at the heart of that, we believe that they are the growth industries of the future. Therefore, it is about investing in those industries, which may be our small to medium-sized businesses, attracting foreign direct investment in those areas and, importantly, investing in young people to make sure that they have the skills.

At the British-Irish Council meeting, we talked about the need to invest in AI and digital technology skills at the earliest opportunity in primary schools. We are forward-looking to the time when, hopefully, we get significant growth through our driving that economic strategy, but, importantly, we must have the right people with the right skills to take up those opportunities. No matter what industries or strategies we have, Northern Ireland's biggest strength is its people, their skills and what they can contribute, and that is very much at the heart of everything that we do.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Stewart Dickson.

Mr Dickson: No.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Sorry about that, Minister. Harry Harvey.

Mr Harvey: Will the deputy First Minister inform the House of how the work of the East-West Council differs from the British-Irish Council or the North/South Ministerial Council? How can other parts of the UK get more involved?

Mrs Little-Pengelly: The East-West Council can carry out really important work. The reality is that, when we look at all the North/South work over the years, we see that there has been good collaboration between academic institutions and civic and business organisations, and that work continues. Anybody involved in that would say that it has been beneficial to both jurisdictions. However, we do not have the same connectivity with businesses and civic and academic society in Scotland, Wales, the north of England or Manchester. We know that those places have many challenges and opportunities that are similar to those that we face here. The Connect Fund is a good start, and it is important for the body, but I want to see the Council truly build on that and become a "Cooperation UK", so that we can reach out to and know people from across all parts of the UK to have political, civic, academic, educational and community engagement. Those collaborations and synergies will bring benefits for all the jurisdictions in the UK.

Mr Gaston: It remains the case that Intertrade UK has no independent offices; no budget; no staff, apart from those seconded from the NIO; and no website that people can be directed to. Does the deputy First Minister agree that the current footing for Intertrade UK is a poor parallel to the bloated body that is InterTradeIreland? Deputy First Minister, what are you doing to address that disparity?

Mrs Little-Pengelly: I thank the Member for his question. I will speak personally on that. Intertrade UK exists; it has been created. The fact that that gap was identified and that there was a genuine push to address it is important. We now have not only the East-West Council but the Council of the Nations and Regions, which is an important forum that engages with not just the heads of devolved Governments but local and regional mayors. Many of the areas represented are significant — bigger than Northern Ireland — and we can have a lot of good engagement there.

Intertrade UK is important. Northern Ireland, as 3% of the UK, has huge potential to sell into the rest of the UK. Having 3% of the UK population, Northern Ireland relies on the rest of the UK for its consumer market. It goes both ways: there are opportunities, but, undoubtedly, there are challenges that need to be removed. As I said, I am deeply disappointed that the UK Government are not stepping up to fulfil the promise that they made to me, to us and to the people of Northern Ireland to protect the internal UK market. Protecting the integrity of its internal market is basic and core for any country. The UK Government have an opportunity to do that, and they should do that. The measures that are in place at the moment are unnecessary, disproportionate, bureaucratic, damaging to business and bad for consumers. We ask that the UK Government deliver on what they promised: unfettered internal UK trade.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Thank you very much indeed, deputy First Minister. That concludes questions on the statement. The next item in the Order Paper is Question Time. I therefore propose, by leave of the Assembly, to suspend the sitting until 2.00 pm.

Mr Speaker: Questions 4 and 5 have been withdrawn.

Mr Muir (The Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs): My officials have presented a proposed forward work plan for new areas of policy development work in my Department’s sustainable agriculture programme (SAP) to the agricultural policy stakeholder group to seek its views on prioritisation. The work plan includes support for the sheep sector. It is my intention that sheep-focused co-design will commence towards the end of this year, once the policy development work on the farm sustainability payment and farm sustainability standards is complete and legislation is in place.

Miss McIlveen: I thank the Minister for his response. Three thousand acres of land were vested by DFI for the A5. Many of the people affected by that are sheep farmers. What support does the Minister intend to give those who have been caught up in that debacle? In particular, will there be any amendments to the payment scheme this year? Will the Minister now confront the reality that Northern Ireland's climate change targets, cheered through by many who are now wringing their hands, are proving to be unworkable and unaffordable?

Mr Muir: I met the Infrastructure Minister last week, I have written to her, and there will be further engagement at official and ministerial level between our Departments on the land that was vested as a result of the potential construction of the A5. Responsibilities lie with DFI and, when it comes to requests relating to farm payments, with me; we will continue to engage on that.

I am conscious that climate change is a real issue for Northern Ireland. It is the biggest threat to farming in Northern Ireland. I am happy to discuss the issues, but we have to be clear that, back in 2022, the Assembly passed legislation — it was agreed unanimously at Final Stage —and we have legal duties to implement that.

Mr Donnelly: I ask the Minister for an update on the rationale behind not previously including sheep support in the sustainable agriculture programme.

Mr Muir: The future agricultural policy decisions that were announced by my predecessor in March 2022 did not include proposals for sheep support but indicated that work would be undertaken to explore options for support that would improve the overall performance and resilience of the sheep sector. On 29 January 2025, I announced the timeline for the roll-out of the sustainable agriculture programme over the next two years. One item in the programme that we want to explore is sheep support. As I outlined in response to the Member who tabled the question, we want to deliver the farm sustainability payment. Once that is in place, resources will be released to co-design future work on sheep support.

Mr Speaker: Dr Aiken is not in his place.

Mr Muir: My Department has been engaging and continues to engage with the other Departments that have responsibility for minimising pollutant emissions to air in order to agree the actions that each Department can include in the draft clean air strategy. Good progress has been made on the development of that strategy. I have met my officials to set out my policy direction, and there is ongoing liaison between my Department and the Department for the Economy, the Department for Infrastructure, the Department of Health and the Department for Communities. A draft of the clean air strategy was recently shared with those Departments, and my officials are reviewing the feedback on that and revising the draft to reflect their views. I anticipate the launch of a public consultation on the draft strategy later this year. I am committed to publishing a robust strategy that will deliver real benefits to human health and the environment across Northern Ireland.

Ms Flynn: Minister, recent media reports have revealed the presence of asbestos at a bonfire site in Meridi Street in Belfast. What engagement have you had with the NI Environment Agency (NIEA) on the removal of that asbestos? Do you agree that no bonfire should take place where asbestos is present at or in close proximity to the site?

Mr Muir: The management of annual bonfires is recognised as being a challenging and complex issue that requires a range of agreed multi-agency preventative and, where appropriate, enforcement activity. The deposit and burning of controlled waste at a bonfire site has the potential to be a breach of the law. In line with DAERA enforcement policy, the NIEA assesses each incident on its merits before deciding on the most appropriate action. It is the legal responsibility of the landowner to secure their land to prevent illegal depositing of waste. Where sufficient evidence is available, NIEA may conduct criminal investigations in pursuit of offenders who are responsible for the depositing of illegal waste at bonfire sites. NIEA does not routinely release detailed information about any potential or ongoing investigations of such matters, but I can confirm that an active investigation is ongoing in relation to that issue.

Mrs Erskine: The Department for Infrastructure is part of the clean air strategy, as I am sure that the Minister will agree. However, the AERA Minister cares so much about climate change emissions and targets that his Department did not have input into the A5 project. That project, therefore, is effectively stopped at the moment. Does the Minister accept that the climate change targets are causing real problems for Infrastructure? Will he commit to taking on board what the Communities Minister asked him to do by urgently looking at the climate change legislation?

Mr Muir: Climate change is a real issue. It affects Northern Ireland and the rest of the world as well. It is having a real impact now. The Assembly cared about that, because it unanimously endorsed the legislation at its Final Reading in 2022. It is a legislative obligation that was set out by the Assembly. I understand the concerns around it that have been expressed to me about the need to take action to address climate change. Those legal obligations are set out in law. If we take a step back and try to understand why we are in this situation, we see that, after the legislation was passed in March 2022, the Member's party walked out of this place. It downed tools, and these institutions did not sit for two years. [Interruption.]

It is true. Your party walked out and did not allow us to progress the climate change legislation. Had we been able to do that, the carbon budgets would have been set a long time ago, a climate action plan would have been consulted upon and be in place, and a Climate Commissioner and just transition commission would also be in place. We are working collectively on that. We have obligations to the people of Northern Ireland to take action on climate change. I am engaging with my ministerial colleague the Infrastructure Minister about the specific ruling on the A5. It is important that we take heed of it. It is 100 pages, and there is a lot of detail that we need to consider.

Mr Blair: If I may, I will take us back to the original question on air quality. Will the Minister outline how climate action can also improve air quality?

Mr Muir: Air pollution and climate change share some similar sources of pollutants, specifically in relation to the combustion of fossil fuels, which leads to the emission of carbon dioxide and many air pollutants that adversely impact on human health. Climate action commitments for Northern Ireland, such as replacing fossil fuel-derived electricity with decarbonised electricity, can lead to reductions in emissions of harmful pollutants. That is good for human health. Another example of the interventions that we can make is investment in active travel, which can encourage a shift away from the use of cars to walking, cycling and using public transport. That will provide both decarbonisation and improvements in air quality, as well as health benefits that extend beyond improving air quality.

Mr McGrath: While we await broader progress on the clean air strategy, the people of Warrenpoint are dealing with the very immediate, ongoing issue of nauseating odours. They have been doing so regularly, but the odours have been especially bad over the past seven days. Those people deserve to breathe clean air too. Following the raising of all those concerns by the community and me over the past year, what specific actions is the Minister's Department taking to put a stop to those smells, which have been horrendous over the past seven days?

Mr Muir: I thank the Member for his question. Just before coming into the Chamber for Question Time, I was updated on that situation. Over the weekend, the Northern Ireland Environment Agency's waste management licensing team received a significant number of communications — approximately 25 — regarding odours from the harbour. The odours are referred to as being principally from creosote and Jeyes Fluid, and they come from Warrenpoint harbour. It has happened at the same time as the Wake the Giant Festival. The Northern Ireland Environment Agency has received some reports that suggest that a significant number of telegraph poles were unloaded at the harbour, and they are being stored on the quayside that is closest to the town. I have that report, and I will speak to the chief executive of the Northern Ireland Environment Agency this afternoon about it. I get the concern around the issue. People should not have to endure that.

Mr Butler: The Minister will agree that the burning of fossil fuels is a massive contributor to the pollution of our air. Will the Minister update us on anaerobic digestion and its benefits when it comes to promoting a clean air strategy? Will he outline what the hold-ups are in interdepartmental working?

Mr Muir: Anaerobic digestion has a lot of benefits for Northern Ireland. Sustainable utilisation of livestock slurry, which is part of a small business research initiative (SBRI), is now in phase 2. I want to see that scaled up. We work in conjunction with the Department for the Economy on that, and wider collaboration is taking place. Further collaboration needs to take place, and that relates to the nutrients action programme and how we provide people with the tools to take action. I am keen to do that. I need to get an update from officials to see where that liaison is and what the Department for the Economy is up to, but I understand the importance of anaerobic digestion.

Mr Muir: I have written to Minister Daniel Zeichner in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) to emphasise the need for Northern Ireland to secure an equitable share of the fund and to seek an assurance that my officials will be fully and meaningfully involved in its design, delivery and promotion.

Mrs Mason: I thank the Minister for his answer. Minister, you are well aware of the specific needs of fisheries in Ardglass, Kilkeel and Portavogie. What funding do you hope to see? What initiatives would you like to implement to support those fisheries, and when do you expect to see such initiatives in place? You know that local fishermen are on their knees and are crying out for help.

Mr Muir: As I said, I have already raised the issue of the fund with the relevant Minister. I will continue to argue for Northern Ireland to get its fair share of that funding. I have concerns, because there is no more detail about the fund, but I will continue to argue for funding, because harbours in Northern Ireland, particularly Kilkeel, Ardglass and Portavogie, need that support. The Government have announced the fund but have not given us the detail of it. I continue to raise the matter. It is important that we support our local fishery communities.

Ms Forsythe: When the announcement was made just over a month ago on access to water for the next 12 years, the fishing industry was devastated. Then, hand in hand, the fund was announced. It is a huge number — £360 million — for the fund, but it feels very like something that has been put out there to pacify the industry. Will the funding ever materialise? If it is to be over 12 years, that is £30 million a year across the whole of the UK. Minister, have you any idea of how much will come to Northern Ireland and when? The fishing industry really is on its knees.

Mr Muir: I understand the Member's concerns, and it is important that that funding come to Northern Ireland and not on the basis of a Barnett calculation. The share needs to be much bigger than that. I will write again to the Minister to say that Members have raised the issue with me today in the Chamber. It is important that we get that funding on the ground. If it comes as a Barnett consequential, there is a concern that it will not go directly to fishery communities. We need to make sure that it goes directly to them.

Mr McMurray: What work is the Minister doing to support the local fishing industry?

Mr Muir: We have already discussed the fishing and coastal growth fund. I am fighting to get a fair share of that for Northern Ireland. I am also reviewing the potential for a bilateral agreement with the Irish Government for access to their 6- to 12-mile zone rather than have that engagement take place through DEFRA. Officials also recently met Isle of Man fisheries officials on a range of issues, and I await a briefing on the outcome of that meeting. I am also awaiting a submission from officials that it is due soon on the marine environment and fisheries fund, including on how we can support recruitment initiatives and the marketing of fisheries produce. A meeting has also been held between my officials and the Northern Ireland Fishery Harbour Authority (NIFHA) to discuss how we can take forward the harbour development programme while reflecting the needs of today and our budgetary challenges. We will also continue to engage with the UK Government on their migration policies and the severe detrimental impact that those have on the fishery industry in Northern Ireland.

I am doing all that I can to support fisheries in Northern Ireland. It is an important issue that is raised often with me, and I am seeking to make progress in a number of areas.

Mr Muir: I welcome the timely publication of the 'Independent Review of Environmental Governance in Northern Ireland - Interim Report'. It marks a significant step in the overall review process, with the independent panel now moving towards its final report. The need to strengthen environmental governance has never been more pressing, particularly in the context of the significant environmental challenges that we face, not least those experienced at Lough Neagh. Many others share my desire to see meaningful change and to support those tasked with protecting our environment. There has been positive engagement with the process to date, and there is clearly significant interest in seeing progress. That is why I chose to publish the interim report.

The panel's final report is expected this summer, and I will then carefully consider its recommendations and include what can be taken forward in the short, medium and long term as part of a proposal to Executive colleagues in the autumn. We all must play our part in protecting our precious environment, and I will play my part in seeing the ways in which we can strengthen environmental governance in Northern Ireland.

Ms K Armstrong: Thank you very much, Minister. You mentioned environmental governance: will you outline what the next steps might be to strengthen environmental governance following the publication this summer of the panel's final report?

Mr Muir: Thank you, Kellie. In the interim report, the panel identified two areas that, it feels, require further work. One is fleshing out the proposal for a new non-departmental public body. In essence, that would be the independent environmental protection agency. The other is reflecting the shared responsibilities for improving environmental governance in Northern Ireland. Once I get the final report, I will consider it and bring a proposal to the Executive.

We have talked an awful lot about an independent environmental protection agency. The independent panel has done really good work on fleshing out what exactly that needs to be. The panel will finalise that, and, hopefully, Executive colleagues will be able to agree a way forward.

Ms Ennis: Minister, surely the people of Warrenpoint deserve good environmental governance when it comes to the ongoing decision by your Department and the NIEA to allow Re-Gen to store tens of thousands of tons of putrid black-bin waste in close proximity to people's homes. Minister, the smell returned with ferocity over the weekend. The situation is intolerable, and no community should have to endure it. That is a failure that has been going on for three years. What will it take for you or the NIEA to finally do something about it?

Mr Muir: I am very conscious of people's concerns on that, and many are rightly at the end of their tether. I will speak to officials this afternoon, including the chief executive of the Environment Agency. Whatever we do has to be within our legal vires, but I am conscious of the concerns and will follow the matter up today.

Mr Muir: Mr Speaker, I intended, with your permission, to group questions 2 and 8, but the Member was not here to ask question 2.

I met the former Minister for the Economy, Minister Murphy, in June of last year. I met him again in January of this year, and I met the current Minister for the Economy, Minister Archibald, in March, when the climate action plans and opportunities for green growth were discussed. I can confirm that the policies and proposals in the draft climate action plan are sufficient for meeting the emissions reductions required by Northern Ireland's first carbon budget. The projected emissions are expected to meet the first carbon budget by achieving a 33·1% average annual reduction from the 1990 baseline, compared with Northern Ireland's legislated carbon budget of a 33% average annual reduction.

Mrs Guy: Minister, what are the reasons for the delay in delivering the requirements of the Climate Change Act (Northern Ireland) 2022?

Mr Muir: We sit here in June 2025. The Climate Change Act was passed in March 2022. Shortly after that, the institutions did not sit for two years. Those were two years in which the opportunity to implement the legislation was missed as a result of the collapse of the institutions by the DUP. When I brought to the Executive proposals to set the carbon budget and consult on the climate action plan, there was yet more delay. Climate action requires a whole-of-government commitment to decarbonisation. If the institutions had not been collapsed and everyone had put their shoulders to the wheel, we would have had the carbon budget set years ago; the climate action plan would not just have been not just consulted on but agreed and delivered; a Climate Commissioner would have been in place; and a just transition commission would have been up and running.

We cannot change the past, but we can change the future. Together, we must grasp the opportunities of decarbonisation. As Minister, I am determined to drive green growth. A draft green growth strategy was compiled by my predecessor, and I am determined to get it agreed. I sent it to the Executive in December of last year, and I will continue to look for its approval because there are opportunities from decarbonisation in Northern Ireland, primarily in reducing people's energy bills and giving them more security on these issues. Northern Ireland cannot afford to be a laggard on these issues.

Mr Frew: The Minister has raised many times in the Chamber today the issue of climate change targets and his legal obligations under them. Will he urge his party and the Assembly to row back on unachievable climate change targets that are highly damaging to the people of Northern Ireland, as seen in the A5 project?

Mr Muir: The targets set out in the climate change legislation were agreed unanimously as part of the overall package of legislation at the Bill's Final Stage. Northern Ireland is not an outlier in its decarbonisation goals. A high percentage of countries are aiming for decarbonisation. It is false and wrong to make out that taking climate action is impossible: it is already happening. Businesses are doing it. The success of the UK economy has been down to growth alongside a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions. That is something that we are determined to do. I am focused on delivery, not on turning my back on climate action in Northern Ireland.

Mr McCrossan: Minister, at any time, did you meet the former Minister for Infrastructure, John O'Dowd, prior to his approval of the A5 in October 2024 to discuss how the A5 project might meet its Climate Change Act obligations? If so, when did you meet?

Mr Muir: First, when it comes to the A5, I want to say one thing: my thoughts are with the families and friends who have been bereaved as a result of accidents on that road. I have met a number of them, and they had heartbreaking stories.

The delivery of the A5 is an Executive commitment. I back it, not just as an MLA but as the Minister responsible for rural affairs, and I am determined to have regional balance. It is important that I say that. The delivery of major infrastructure projects and climate legislation are not incompatible, but a whole-of-Executive approach to decarbonisation is needed. Everyone needs to play their part.

I engaged with the former Infrastructure Minister on the project, but it was an Executive decision. I do not want to give you exact dates until I have checked those with my diary secretary. I will write back to you on that. There was engagement, and there is engagement now, because there is a cross-Executive commitment to deliver this.

It is important that we work through the findings of the judge's judgement from last week. It is 100 pages long. From some people's commentary, it is clear that they have not read it. At the very end, it states:

— climate action plan —

Not taking action is not the solution; taking action is. We could have had a climate action plan in place a long time ago, but we do not have one, because one party decided that it did not want to go to work.

Mr Gaston: Minister, the agricultural targets contained in the draft climate action plan will destroy our agri-industry, with its reduction targets for livestock of 22% in dairy cattle, 17% in beef cattle and 18% in sheep, pigs and poultry. Minister, what steps are you taking to protect the industry that you are meant to champion and to protect food security, or are you happy to stick the boot into the industry, along with the other mad environmentalists?

Mr Muir: The climate action plan is out for consultation. If people want to read it, it is on the DAERA website. It is very clear that the climate action plan for 2023-27 is not about herd reduction. It is about productivity, and the plan sets that out.

The actions that I am taking are that I have managed to secure funding of over £12 million for a just transition fund for agriculture. It is very clear that we need to support our farmers on the road ahead, and I am determined to do that, not just in word but in deed, through that financial support. Climate change is the biggest risk to farming in Northern Ireland, and I am determined to support agriculture and farming on the road ahead, because we owe it to them to do that.

The climate action plan is out for consultation. It is a good news story about what we can do collectively to achieve a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions and benefit from decarbonisation. I am very proud of so many farmers across Northern Ireland whom I have met and who do good work in that regard. They are shining lights and exemplars of delivery on the ground. It is important that I put that on the record.

Mr Muir: Mr Speaker, with your permission, I will group questions 9 and 14 together. I will provide you first with an assessment of the current ecological status of Lough Neagh and then an update on the progress made on the Lough Neagh report and action plan.

The 2024 water quality classification for rivers, lakes and marine waterbodies that was published by my Department in February 2025 showed that, in 2024, water quality in Lough Neagh was assessed as being of poor ecological status. It is clear that the Lough Neagh ecosystem has changed due to a range of pressures and threats, including a warming climate, eutrophication and invasive species. NIEA is developing a Lough Neagh conservation management plan to establish the necessary conservation measures to help the lough ecosystem achieve a new equilibrium and improved conservation status for its habitats and species.

With respect to the Lough Neagh report and action plan that were agreed by the Executive in July last year, of the 37 actions contained in the plan, I am pleased to report that 14 have been delivered and 22 are progressing. I am committed to driving forward the implementation of the remaining actions.

Mr Kearney: Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire as ucht an fhreagra chuimsithigh sin.

Minister, you will be aware that a moratorium has been placed on eel fishing in Lough Neagh since the second week of May. That is causing huge financial hardship, particularly to those in our commercial fishing sector. Indeed, Minister, you met a number of those fishermen with me in the past. In light of those circumstances, what will you do to support the livelihoods of those who are enduring such hardship as a direct result of the moratorium on fishing in the lough in the midst of this ever-deepening crisis?

Mr Muir: The Lough Neagh Fishermen's Co-operative's suspension of eel fishing remains in place until the week commencing 14 July, as the Member is aware. The society will provide test fish to the Agri-Food and Biosciences Institute (AFBI) and the Food Standards Agency (FSA) in the coming weeks. Scale fishing continues in the lough, and DAERA continues to monitor the situation.

I remain committed to providing whatever support is practical and affordable to eel fisheries, including support through existing grant schemes and any potential new grant schemes. Any case for direct financial support for the shortened fishing season will need to be robustly supported with scientific and financial evidence for the scheme and the impact of the scale of losses that are endured.

I met the cooperative on a number of occasions, and it is looking to pull together the information that will help me to provide the support that we are going to have to provide to fishermen in the lough. Let me say that the story of eel fishing in Lough Neagh that has been emerging in the past number of weeks breaks my heart. If there ever were an example of a link between cause and effect, this is it. I am trying my best to turn the situation in Lough Neagh around. All that I ask from Members is a bit of flexibility and that they work with me on the matter. If we do not work together, those situations will get worse.

Mr Honeyford: Will the Minister give an update on actions to strengthen the regulation and enforcement on sewage pollution?

Mr Muir: As Minister, I am doing all that I can on that. I have been clear and have put on the record that the statement of regulatory principles and intent (SORPI) is not fit for purpose. A consultation is under way on that between DFI and NI Water that closes at the beginning of next month. I will then take recommendations to the Executive on how we can strengthen regulation and enforcement on sewage pollution in Northern Ireland. It is not acceptable that NI Water gets a separate regulatory regime to everyone else, and it is about time that we called time on that.

Mr O'Toole: Minister, there is a little bit of diplomacy in your answers. Is it not somewhat ironic that a Sinn Féin Member asks about the Lough Neagh action plan when their party voted against one of the critical parts of the plan? Further to that, it appears that the two big parties in the Executive are going to block progress on the nutrients action plan and that there is no plan to fund Northern Ireland Water. Will you confirm whether all Executive commitments on Lough Neagh will lie in utter ruins if those two things cannot be progressed?

Mr Muir: I have outlined what I intend to do on sewage pollution to strengthen the regulation and enforcement. I will bring that to the Executive and look for support for it, because I believe in fairness, and, if people believe that it is wrong that there is a separate regime for sewage pollution, they need to back my plans in order to bring an end to the statement of regulatory principles and intent, which is the bye ball that NI Water gets.

I was deeply disappointed at the stance that some parties took in the recent debate on the nutrients action programme. However, I owe it to the people of Northern Ireland not to play politics with that but to try to find a way forward on the nutrients action programme. That is why I have clearly set out a pathway for it. When the consultation closes in the next few weeks, the Department will set up a time-bound stakeholder task and finish group, with an external facilitator and representatives from farming, agri-food, environmental groups and the Department. Working collaboratively and taking into account the consultation responses, plus any other potential solutions, the group will be asked to propose measures and actions that are evidence-based and workable at farm level with realistic time frames while allowing us to meet our legislative requirements. Following the work of that group, in the spirit of openness and transparency, I also intend to undertake a further eight-week public consultation on those updated proposals and then bring final recommendations to the Executive.

This is a genuine effort on my part to try to find a way forward on the nutrients action programme. I have listened to concerns, but I am also conscious of the fact that we have a crisis in Lough Neagh. I really hope that people get on board with the process that I have set out so that we can turn the tide on water quality in Lough Neagh. If we cannot do that, the Programme for Government that we published is not worth the paper that it is written on.

Mr Muir: The number of businesses that applied for the young farmers' payment from 2023 to 2025 is as follows: in 2023, 181 young farmers' applications were received, with 145 being accepted; in 2024, 195 applications were received, and 164 were accepted; and, in 2025, 358 applications were received, and the number accepted is not yet known.

Mr Bradley: I thank the Minister for not only answering the question but answering my supplementary question at the same time. [Laughter.]

Mr Speaker: That will do us, then. Thank you, Minister. We will move on to topical questions.

Mr Muir: Thank you very much, Patsy. The A5 is a key concern for everyone in Northern Ireland. I am taking time to carefully consider the judgement that was handed down, and I encourage others to do likewise. As part of my considerations, I am engaging with Minister Kimmins, and our officials are engaging across both Departments. The judge stated that the Climate Change Act (Northern Ireland) 2022 does not prevent major infrastructure projects from being undertaken but that they must fit alongside existing plans and strategies as part of a pathway to meeting carbon budgets and targets. It therefore remains important that we work together to deliver our statutory responsibilities as set out in the Climate Change Act, which was passed by the Assembly in March 2022.

Since coming into office, I have met each Minister who carries responsibility as the sectoral lead — the Minister for Infrastructure, the Minister for Communities and the Minister for the Economy — and I have also met the Finance Minister. At no point during those meetings, despite our recognising that it is not without its challenges, was there any lack of support for working together on our responsibilities as set out in the Act. As the judge noted, the challenge now is for all Ministers and their officials to "redouble their efforts" and to finalise the climate action plan that is already "long overdue". That is where the focus needs to be in the time ahead.

Mr McGlone: Thank you very much for that, Minister. Will you provide us with details of the number of occasions on which DFI officials sought advice on the A5 project and of the obligations that the Department had under that advice? Will you also provide that information with regard to other major projects, whether of DFI or others, where your Department, as the host Department, was asked for advice on the obligations to be met by respective Departments on those projects?

Mr Muir: Thank you, Patsy. I will check with officials and write to you, because I do not have the dates in front of me. There was engagement, however. Primarily, the Department for Infrastructure is the lead on the A5 project. It is important that we consider the judgement as a whole. There are 100 pages of it. I have read all the detail and have highlighted all the relevant aspects of it. It is important that the Department for Infrastructure goes through it and carefully considers the way forward after that significant judgement.

A lot of misleading and untruthful information has been given about climate change legislation with regard to the A5. Climate inaction and climate denial have contributed to the issue. Senior members of the DUP are in denial about climate change in Northern Ireland. That does not help us as we try to drive along a road towards decarbonisation. We need to take action on it. We should not have lost two years in moving forward. We also need to work together to drive down greenhouse gas emissions in Northern Ireland, and the A5 can play a part in that.

Mr Muir: Thank you very much. The peatland strategy went to the Executive some weeks ago. It will have massive benefits for Northern Ireland, particularly in relation to carbon capture, the restoration of protected areas and the prevention of fires in our countryside. That is why I want to get agreement on it. Good work has been done on peatland restoration, but we need to do more. The strategy sets that out.

Mr Donnelly: I thank the Minister for his answer. We all know that there were horrendous issues with fires across Northern Ireland in the spring. What role can peatland restoration play in enhancing resilience to fires in our countryside?

Mr Muir: There are many examples of good work being done on that. We want to redouble our efforts as part of the peatland strategy, so that we can rewet peatlands. That will also address a lot of the issues that have been outlined on fires in our countryside. A lot of environmental and non-governmental organisations are playing a good role in that area, and the strategy seeks to work in partnership with them to meet the targets that the environmental improvement plan sets out.

Mr Muir: I am very conscious of the concerns around bluetongue, particularly the decision that movement restrictions will no longer apply in England, which will take effect from 1 July. That has caused me concern. My Department recently published a framework for our response to bluetongue. We are engaging with stakeholders on whether we make a vaccine available as a preventative measure. It is important that we take action. The biggest role that we can play is in raising awareness, because early reporting will help us to tackle it in Northern Ireland.

Miss Hargey: Thank you for that, Minister. Will you confirm that you are actively considering a vaccine in the event of an outbreak? How will you communicate that to farmers to ensure that they get support as early as possible?

Mr Muir: Yes, I am actively considering that. There was a meeting with stakeholders on Friday, and I have asked officials for an urgent update on the outcome of that meeting. I will take a decision in the very near future.

Mr Muir: The Department engages primarily on how we support forest parks through providing advice or financial support. Forest parks play a vital role in Northern Ireland. They are important for recreation but also for the environment. I am keen to support that. If the Member wishes me to visit a particular park, I am happy to do so.

Ms Flynn: Thanks very much, Minister. You walked yourself into my supplementary. [Laughter.]

I would be delighted if you could join me to visit Colin Glen Forest Park in west Belfast and see how we can help it to extend its opening hours. It is restricted to opening between 9.00 am and 5.00 pm due to various issues, including antisocial behaviour. I want to see how we can open access to the park to the wider west Belfast community. I extend a warm invite, if you would like to take me up on it.

Mr Muir: I can already hear my diary secretary asking, "When?, but I am happy to accept.

Mr Muir: The consultation has received nearly 200 responses. I get farmers' concerns about the nutrients action programme consultation. The proposals are complex, and the documentation goes to over 1,000 pages. I am listening to those concerns. That is why, as I have outlined today, once the consultation closes in the next few weeks, we will set up a stakeholder group. It will have an independent external facilitator who will go through the responses and anything else that comes back.

Let us be clear that nothing is off the table. If anyone else has any proposals, I am happy for those to be considered by the group. I will ask the group to come back to me with proposals that are workable at farm level and have realistic time frames alongside our legislative obligations. We will then go forward to a further consultation, which will include an economic assessment of the impact of the proposed measures.

That is a genuine effort to find a way forward. I owe it to everyone in Northern Ireland, particularly the farming community, to shape a way forward that gives people confidence in the nutrients action programme. I understand the concerns that have been expressed. I am a genuine kind of person: I have been listening, and I am trying to find a way forward. A lot of discussions have taken place, and, as I have said previously, I will wish to be able to provide financial capital support. The key determinant of that will be the budget that is allocated to my Department. If the Finance Minister and I can work together, we will hopefully be able to provide support — for example, for low-emission slurry spreading equipment (LESSE) equipment — and help farmers on the road ahead.

It is an important issue, and I will say in conclusion that what we have consulted on will not be the final package. I can say that with confidence because it is a consultation. I have been listening to people's concerns. I am very keen to ensure that we have something that is workable at farm level but has realistic time frames and meets our legal obligations.

Mrs Mason: I appreciate the Minister's response. Minister, given the feedback, have you considered the impact of the current NAP proposals on hill and sheep farmers, particularly those in the Mournes and Slieve Croob in my constituency, alongside the withdrawal of the areas of natural constraint (ANC) payments?

Mr Muir: I have considered that. I have seen the feedback on the draft proposals in the current consultation for 100% LESSE by 2030. I hear those concerns. I want to engage and find a way forward. I am open-minded, because it is a consultation. I have set out a genuine path ahead, and I just hope that people can come with me on it. I have a genuine desire to find a resolution, because we owe it to farming to provide a sustainable way forward so that agriculture can have a successful future, but we must improve water quality in Northern Ireland. I was so disappointed and despondent at the vote a few weeks ago by all parties in the Assembly other than the SDLP, Alliance and Gerry Carroll on the issue, but I hope that we can put that in the past and find a way forward. I do not want stand-offs and stalemates on it: I want progress.

Mr Muir: The Northern Ireland Environment Agency confirmed the presence of blue-green algae at Hillsborough Lake on 17 June, highlighting yet again that it is not just a challenge in Lough Neagh. It is no surprise, unfortunately, that the algae have reappeared in waterways this year, given the weather conditions, and I expect it to continue to reappear. My Department's protocol, which is in place to respond, is the inter-agency blue-green algae monitoring protocol. It was developed and used operationally for the 2024 bathing season and provided a sound framework for responding to the issues. On DAERA's website, you can see where locations have been reported, and I encourage the public to report any suspected blooms through the Bloomin Algae app or the email address, which is available on our website, with a photograph of the blooms.

Government in Northern Ireland has to be more than photographs; it has to be about decisions. That is why I am keen to find a way forward to improve water quality in Northern Ireland, and I urge people to work with us on that.

Mrs Guy: I thank the Minister for his answer. Will he provide an update on actions to address poor water quality across Northern Ireland?

Mr Muir: The Lough Neagh report and action plan sets out a range of actions that we plan to take or have already taken. That applies not just to Lough Neagh but to other waterbodies. The river basin management plan has also been agreed and sets out further actions. Fundamentally, it comes down to simple but difficult decisions, which is that we need to reduce the amount of sewage pollution going into our rivers, lakes and loughs. We also need to have better ways of managing slurry, manure and synthetic fertilisers in Northern Ireland. We also need to have better management of septic tanks. I believe that we can do it. It is difficult, but we can do it and find a way forward to improve water quality in Northern Ireland.

Mr Muir: I met the Infrastructure Minister last Tuesday. I also wrote to her at the end of last week about the issue. The issue was also raised in the Chamber with regard to farmers who have been affected as a result of the vesting of land. My officials will continue to work with the Department for Infrastructure, and I will continue to work with the Infrastructure Minister in response to the judgement.

Ultimately, the measure of success of the Executive has to be how we work together on the issues and challenges that face us. I am determined to do that not just with the Infrastructure Minister but with the Economy Minister, the Communities Minister and the full Executive. We have to work together to work through the issues. It is clear that we can do so, if there is a collective will to address the issues arising from the judgement.

Mr Boylan: I thank the Minister for his answer and welcome his reassurance. Will the Minister admit that it is vital that we move forward with the project to ensure that more lives are not lost on the A5 road?

Mr Muir: I agree. The judgement sets it out that section 52 does not prevent a major infrastructure project that is a source of significant greenhouse gas emissions from being devised, promoted, constructed and put into operation by DFI or any other Northern Ireland Department with responsibility for such activities. However, it clearly rules out the construction or operation of such a major project in the absence of robust planning, synchronisation and coordination between all Northern Ireland Departments to ensure that the project fits into plans, strategies and policies that set out a realistic and achievable pathway to achieving net zero by 2050. The challenge for us is to achieve that, and I am determined to work with Executive Ministers to deliver that. I am committed to the A5 project. It is an Executive flagship project, but we have to do it in a legally robust manner.

Mr Muir: The killing of birds of prey, whether deliberately or through the improper use of pesticides or other poisons, is deplorable. It is a crime, and it diminishes our biodiversity. I met the Northern Ireland Raptor Study Group, the RSPB and Ulster Wildlife last week to discuss the issue. I recognise the need to address the persecution of birds of prey in Northern Ireland and am determined to take more action to help stamp out that repugnant activity.

My Department is exploring ways to strengthen enforcement and sanctions for the current plant protection product legislation relating to the storage and use of unauthorised plant protection products. A new working group will also be established to pull together relevant stakeholders and fully consider a potential road map and requirements for any new secondary legislation to prohibit the possession of dangerous pesticides in Northern Ireland in the next Assembly mandate.

Mr Speaker: Thank you, Minister. You managed 19 supplementary questions. That puts you in equal second place currently.

Mr Lyons (The Minister for Communities): The fuel poverty strategy consultation closed on 6 March. Analysis of the responses to the consultation has been completed, and a summary will be published later this summer. Informed by the consultation, my fuel poverty strategy team is continuing to discuss and agree various aspects of the final strategy with other officials, both in my Department and across government. I plan to bring the final strategy to the Executive for agreement by the end of the year.

Mr McGuigan: Further to that, Minister, what effect, if any, will the reinstatement of the winter fuel payment have on the fuel poverty strategy?

Mr Lyons: Of course, it will have an impact. That is something that I have said from the start: the plan would always be flexible to take into consideration the fact that they are not issues that we deal with by ourselves and that we need to work with the UK Government and, of course, other stakeholders.

Mr Brett: Minister, fuel poverty is a scourge on our society. In my constituency of North Belfast, one of the best ways to tackle it was through the affordable warmth scheme. I understand that the Minister made a bid to the Department of Finance in the June monitoring round to ensure that we could continue to roll out the scheme. Given the importance of that, did the Minister of Finance meet your bid?

Mr Lyons: No, that bid was not met. That is disappointing, because these are actions that we can take that will make a difference and will make sure that we make a change in people's lives. I hope that, if Members are concerned about the issue, they will lobby the Finance Minister and others to ensure that we have that funding in place and make a difference for the people whom we represent.

Ms K Armstrong: Minister, with 280,000 households in Northern Ireland facing fuel poverty, one solution is to make use of surplus renewable electricity, particularly from wind. Will the Minister update and expand the energy support schemes to include an option to install technological solutions that harness surplus renewable energy in a way that directly assists the households most in need, such as the EnergyCloud system introduced in Omagh by the Housing Executive?

Mr Lyons: The Member will be aware that the energy strategy and how we take that forward is a matter for the Minister for the Economy, but I am, of course, happy to work with her to make sure that we can deal with the issue, because it is right that we look at the options that are available to us. She is shaking her head, but it is a responsibility of the Minister for the Economy; that is a fact. However, I am willing to work with other Executive Ministers to make sure that we can deliver the fuel poverty strategy, which will, of course, be a cross-departmental strategy.

Mr Durkan: Minister, have you been or will you be making the argument in the Executive that any Barnett consequential arising from the UK Government's £13·2 billion warm homes plan to tackle fuel poverty should be ring-fenced to tackle fuel poverty here, where it is worse?

Mr Lyons: I will absolutely make that case. I met the UK Government Minister on this just a couple of weeks ago. As the Member outlined, significant funding is being made available on a UK-wide basis. I certainly will make the case for that money to be ring-fenced so that we can have the full benefit of it in Northern Ireland for the purpose for which it was intended.

Mr Lyons: Through its community involvement and cohesion strategy, the Northern Ireland Housing Executive creates opportunities to enter dialogue, build capacity and confidence and empower communities to get the best outcomes for their neighbourhoods and to contribute to greater community cohesion. The Housing Executive's good relations officers collaborate with local community and voluntary organisations to foster a community-led approach to promoting positive race relations within and between diverse ethnic groups and the wider community.

Mr Frew: I thank the Minister for his answer. I direct him to his Department's Building Successful Communities programme, which had six pilot areas, including one in the Doury Road area of my North Antrim constituency. The programme was able to bring together people from the Protestant, Catholic and Travelling communities. It was a major success in Doury Road and, indeed, in Ballymena. Will the Minister consider another pilot scheme of that ilk to assist and support communities that, like Ballymena, have many concerns.

Mr Lyons: First, I thank the Member for the work that he has been doing in his local area. He has been on the ground talking and, importantly, listening to concerns rather than just lecturing people. We need to see more of that approach. He is right: we had the Building Successful Communities programme in place from 2012 to 2017. We will be getting a report on it shortly that will outline its benefits, lessons learned and recommendations. I will look at the report, and I then hope to be in a position to move forward with its recommendations. That will require support from other Ministers, however.

Mr O'Toole: Earlier today, I received an email from a constituent whom I will not name. He said that, on Friday evening, a group of people knocked on his front door to enquire as to whether he would support an upcoming protest about housing for local people in the area. He said politely that he would not. His wife had immigrated to here, and he said that he felt uncomfortable about the tone used by the people at his door and about some of the protests. Will you, as Minister for housing, take the opportunity to distance yourself from the scenes that we have seen, even when they have not been violent, and from the protests outside people's homes calling for local homes for local people? The situation is deeply troubling. Are you troubled by it, Minister? What are you doing about it?

Mr Lyons: We do not want to see any sort of intimidation whatsoever. I want to make sure that we have the number of homes that we need in Northern Ireland. I also want to make sure that we listen to concerns. We do not want to go to either extreme. We do not want to pretend that there is no issue with housing, but nor do we want to pretend that there is no issue with some of the practices that Mears has employed either. There are concerns about the provision and affordability of housing. By the way, I hear that from Members right across the Chamber. We should not ignore that. We must, however, stand against any sort of intimidation whatsoever. I am happy to provide that clarification to the Member.

Mr Gaston: I understand that a previous law change has allowed landlords to split houses into three, which, in turn, in Ballymena, has allowed a number of HMOs to fall by the wayside, because they no longer fall into the category of a HMO. Minister, what steps will you take to tighten the law and to ensure that councils are responsible for the HMOs in their area?

Mr Lyons: The Member is right to highlight the fact that HMOs are primarily the responsibility of local councils. If, however, he has any specific examples that he would like me to look at, I am happy to do so.

Mr Lyons: I plan to award a financial transactions capital (FTC) loan to Maple and May to support the delivery of the first 300 homes. That will be in addition to the funding that is available to support the provision of other intermediate and social housing in line with the housing supply strategy. Discussions are progressing well, and I am moving towards agreeing the terms of the loan. That includes finalising the value, the private finance contribution and the delivery locations for the new homes. I will ensure that Members are kept updated as those matters are finalised.

Mr Kingston: I thank the Minister for that update. Indeed, we received a briefing on the intermediate rent scheme at the Committee recently. In areas of higher rents, it particularly benefits lower-income households that do not have points for social housing. Can the Minister advise the House of when we can expect those homes to be built?

Mr Lyons: Funding will be released in early 2026. We expect construction to take around 12 months, which means that, by the end of the mandate, we will have begun work on the first 300 homes. Intermediate rent is an innovative product. Such a scheme has not been done before. We have brought it to this point, and we will deliver on it.

Mr Gildernew: Given that it is a new and innovative product, how will the Department ensure that the homes that are built will match need and be built where they are most needed?

Mr Lyons: That will be done through a fair and transparent process. We want to see the homes built right across Northern Ireland in locations where high rental prices and high demand exist. Once the detail on delivery locations and the final funding package has been confirmed, I will update the Member on the details.

Mrs Guy: Minister, will you clarify whether you believe that being drawn out of a hat is an appropriate method of allocating future intermediate rent properties?

Mr Lyons: I do not think that I have ever said that we are going to draw anything out of a hat. As I have said, it will be done on the basis of a fair and transparent application process.

Mr Carroll: We have seen the cost of housing on the north coast reaching astronomical levels due to the Open, with the cost of a week's stay in the thousands. That is driving people out of homes and making housing unaffordable. Does the Minister agree that that is further evidence of the need for rent controls and rent reductions?

Mr Lyons: No, I do not. First, we should not use that specific example to drive policy for all of Northern Ireland. Secondly, according to our evidence, rent controls would make the situation worse as they would lead to more landlords and properties leaving the market and rents being pushed up for everybody else. Unfortunately, the Member is wrong on that issue, but at least he is consistent, because he is consistently wrong.

Mr Lyons: A number of approaches were considered in developing the strategy. However, the three-pillar approach adopted by the Executive has been informed by evidence and will allow for a holistic approach that focuses most effectively on the root causes of poverty and its impacts. It will allow interventions to have an impact across all age groups and provide deliverable and sustainable interventions that will make a meaningful difference to people's lives.

Mr Kelly: Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire as ucht a fhreagra.

The Minister will know that the lifestyle framework is intended to provide coherent life stage-specific support from early age to old age, but, as he will also know, stakeholders argue that the draft strategy has diluted its ambition. Will the Minister outline whether the draft strategy includes robust measurable commitments for each life stage? Does it maintain genuine co-design input?

Mr Lyons: Yes, this has been a genuine co-design process and, as a result, many of the actions that the co-design group was calling for are in the strategy. Yes, we will have measurable actions and measurable targets. That will be part of the action plan.

Mrs Erskine: I thank the Minister for the work that he is doing on the anti-poverty strategy. He was the Minister who brought forward a strategy for consultation — I did not see too many others doing so. Has any impact assessment been carried out on Labour's changes, as proposed in the Green Paper, and how they may impact on poverty?

Mr Lyons: We had completed the impact assessment on the Government's proposals, but they have now been changed. I have met Minister Timms three times in the past week. It is important that we work together on the issues. I am concerned at media reports across the UK that the changes will still result in hundreds of thousands of people being driven into poverty. I will continue to engage, but that highlights the fact that controlling poverty is not just for the Northern Ireland Executive; it will take collaboration from other stakeholders to make sure that we can tackle the issue meaningfully.

Miss McAllister: I want to go back to the issue of the lifecycle approach to the strategy. Will the Minister elaborate on the evidence that he used in deciding to adopt the three-pillar approach? Were the models in other jurisdictions, such as Scotland and the Republic of Ireland, looked at?

Mr Lyons: Yes, there is an extensive evidence base. That changed as we moved through the process, as it was acknowledged that a lifecycle approach would have required the development of separate actions to lift children out of poverty. It is widely acknowledged that it is impossible to lift children out of poverty without lifting families out of poverty, so that is what we are focused on doing. That is what the evidence suggested, and I am more than happy to point the Member in the direction of the significant evidence base that we have used for our decisions.

Mr McCrossan: A quarter of all children — about 109,000 — live in relative poverty in the North. The Children's Commissioner, Chris Quinn, and Barnardo's think that the strategy should be rewritten so that it genuinely reflects the needs of children in low-income families. Minister, how many children are you aiming to bring out of poverty in the next three years through your strategy?

Mr Lyons: The strategy is trying to do exactly that by minimising the risk of people falling into poverty, helping people deal with the impacts of poverty and, importantly, assisting people out of poverty. That is not something that we can do by ourselves. It will also take the work of the Northern Ireland Executive — not just the Department for Communities — the UK Government and other stakeholders. There is a consultation process ongoing. If the Member has concrete actions or costed plans that he wants to submit, I look forward to reading his consultation response.

Mr Lyons: There are no plans for the further development of Narrow Water castle at this time.

Mr McMurray: Minister, given the castle's location and potential, particularly once the Narrow Water bridge project is finished, will you consider working with Executive colleagues and the Shared Island unit to look at the development of the site?

Mr Lyons: I am always happy to look at options that are available to us so that we can improve the site. However, the Member will be aware of the significant pressure that the historic environment division (HED) is under. I have significantly increased the budget for capital projects this year, but there are a lot of works in line. Of course, I am more than happy to discuss the matter further with the Member.

Ms Forsythe: Does the Minister agree that it is important to ensure that any work at Narrow Water castle is sensitive to the memory of the 18 British soldiers who were brutally killed there by the IRA in an ambush on 27 August 1979, which was one of the IRA's deadliest murderous attacks?

Mr Lyons: The Member is absolutely right: we should be sensitive to that. Unfortunately, there are far too many people who are insensitive to what took place there and will not even allow a simple memorial to stand there. I assure her that we will do everything that we can to make sure that any development in that area is sensitive to the memory of those who were murdered at that location.

Mr Lyons: With your permission, Mr Speaker, I will answer questions 7 and 11 together.

Given the pressure on resources across Departments, I decided to move forward with the development of the social inclusion strategies on a phased basis. An announcement on the timetable for the way forward on the gender equality and sexual orientation strategies will follow shortly.

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

Minister, I am sure that you are familiar with the principle of "Nothing about us without us". In light of that, will you explain why you are proceeding with the sexual orientation strategy without meeting the co-design groups?

Mr Lyons: Those strategies are not progressing at this time because we are looking at the way forward. We are dealing with the anti-poverty strategy at the minute, and I will bring the disability strategy to the Executive very shortly. I can then decide the best way forward. That will require an additional staffing commitment, so that all needs to be taken into consideration.

Ms Finnegan: Minister, the North previously had a gender equality strategy, which ended in 2016. Will you outline how the upcoming strategy will differ from it or how it intends to build on the work of the previous strategy?

Mr Lyons: There is no strategy currently in place, as I said in response to the previous question. We will decide on the way forward in the coming weeks.

Mr Brooks: The Minister will have, like me, welcomed the clarity from the Supreme Court around the definition of a woman being based on biological sex. Will he confirm that any strategy that he brings forward will respect that ruling?

Mr Lyons: It is always important that Ministers adhere to the law. On that basis, any strategy that comes forward from my Department to the Executive will, of course, ensure that that ruling is respected.

Mr Lyons: A total of 187 of our most important monuments are protected as historical monuments in state care and are managed and conserved by the HED in my Department. They are protected through regular inspections, conservation maintenance and repairs, which are carried out by our in-house conservation works team or through capital investment works. I have provided additional resources this year to increase the staffing levels of the conservation team that maintains those monuments from 16 staff to 40.

Mr Beattie: I thank the Minister for his answer. I am genuinely concerned about our historical heritage. In my constituency, the Waringstown grange and rath and the Ballintaggart court tomb, which was nearly 2,000 years old, were both ripped up. Of course, I have raised in the House many times the issue of Knock Iveagh, where a wind turbine sits on top of a 2,000-year-old burial ground. When is the HED going to use its statutory powers of enforcement to get that wind turbine off that historical site?

Mr Lyons: We have discussed that issue previously, and my understanding is that the enforcement is primarily for the council to take forward. I understand that there is a lot of background to the issue, and I am more than happy to discuss it with him further. Unfortunately, we are bound by the law as it stands, and we have to respect the role of the council.

Mr Harvey: Minister, how much finance is invested into that area via HED?

Mr Lyons: I recognise the difficulties that exist for the HED in what we are trying to preserve at so many sites right across Northern Ireland, so I have increased the opening revenue budget for HED to £12·8 million, which is an increase of £2·6 million from last year. As custodians of the sites, we have a duty to make sure that they are properly funded. Once we lose them, we cannot get them back, and that is why I have taken action to protect them.

Mr Mathison: Kircubbin harbour is an example of a non-dwelling that is falling apart. Despite the HED contacting the owner, it appears that no action has been taken. At what stage of dilapidation will the HED step in and take legal action to protect that historic landmark?

Mr Lyons: I am more than happy to look into that. I do not have any detail with me, but it is important that we ensure that those who are responsible take action. I am happy to chase that up for the Member and to come back to him directly.

Mr Lyons: The employment support scheme supports people with disabilities in work. The scheme closed to new entrants in 2006. My Department launched a 12-week public consultation on an option to cease funding the scheme. That closed on 17 February. Officials are considering responses to the consultation, but no decision has been made on the future of the scheme.

Mr Sheehan: Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire as ucht a fhreagra.

A few weeks ago, when the Minister announced his budget allocation for 2025-26, he promised to bring forward the most extensive employment programme of recent times. Will the Minister give some details of the programme or say when we are likely to see a timetable for its publication?

Mr Lyons: I look forward to doing that. It will be very soon, because it is important that we help people get back into work. That is one of the ways that we can take proper action to tackle poverty. I look forward to announcing that programme soon.

Mr Lyons: Responses to the impact of second home or holiday home ownership in other UK jurisdictions have involved providing additional powers to local councils to allow them to amend the taxation rates that are applied to them. The consideration of similar powers here would be a matter for DOF to take forward, but I recognise that the matter causes concern in some specific areas because of the potential impact on housing affordability. A range of possible actions can be taken forward, and I am carrying out research on second home ownership in order to help improve our understanding of the issues.

Ms Hunter: Minister, thank you for your answer. It has been a number of months now since I secured an Adjournment debate on the issue, and many feel as though there has been little change. Is your Department dealing with the issue with a profound sense of urgency? Can you detail any conversations that you have had with my constituents who are struggling to find adequate housing?

Mr Lyons: I recognise how difficult it is, and I have brought forward a housing supply strategy because that is at the heart of all this, although I recognise that there are particular issues in her area. I assure her that housing officials have met DFE and DFI colleagues to scope research into the specific issue of short-term holiday lets and the potential impacts on the planning system. I will do all that I can to move the issue forward to make sure that we get to a sensible place.

Mr Robinson: Will the Minister outline the scope that local councils have to deal with short-term holiday lets?

Mr Lyons: Councils have ability in that area. For example, Belfast City Council has planning policy on short-term holiday lets, so it is in the gift of other councils to follow suit and do likewise. It is a local issue, and that is why we have local government, and we should respect the role that local councils and councillors have to play in the matter. However, we stand ready to assist in any way that we can.

Mr Lyons: I am happy to announce that Bangor Marine has begun today to establish the Marine Gardens works compound, with site cabins and facilities for the construction workers who are starting to come on-site. As of today, some additional enabling works have commenced, and hoardings have been erected as part of phase 1 of the public realm scheme, which is expected to commence over the summer. Bangor Marine will issue a more detailed timeline for its proposals in the coming weeks. The Marine Gardens's car park will remain open during the busy holiday period.

Mr Martin: I thank the Minister for his answer and his continued commitment to the project. Minister, over the next six months, say, till the end of this year, what tangible developments might we see in the Marine Gardens project?

Mr Lyons: The Member has been a strong supporter of the development for many years. I am pleased that we will see work begin on the site today, and I can inform the Member that he will see that work ramp up over the next six months, especially heading into later in the year, when we will see the work continue to make a difference, as phase 1 begins to be developed.

Mr Speaker: Dr Aiken.

Dr Aiken: Oh. Question 13. [Laughter.]

Mr Lyons: I again condemn the recent violence and the harm that it has inflicted on communities that have been affected by the actions of a disruptive minority. I confirm that neither my Department nor Sport NI has been contacted directly by sports clubs or organisations that have been impacted on by the recent violence. As a result, I am not aware of any specific support needs.

Dr Aiken: Thank you very much indeed. Aside from my shock at being asked to ask question 13, I should have made a declaration of interest as having a close relationship with Larne Swimming Club.

Minister, although they have now been reopened, some swimming clubs, particularly Larne, have lost considerable revenue due to the violence. Is there any indication of whether Sport NI could give some assistance to members of staff in the clubs in particular, many of whom are on low-level contracts?

Mr Lyons: First, I put on record my thanks to those involved in Larne Swimming Club. As the Member is aware, they have been in contact with me directly, and we have been united in our view on the wrongs that took place over that time. We condemned the violence together. I am pleased to have been working closely with them and look forward to seeing them on-site again soon.

As I said, I have not received any specific proposals, but, if certain help is needed, I will be happy to look into that. There may be some additional routes that the club could go down to seek compensation for some of the criminal damage. I am happy to work with the Member to assist with that.

Mr Speaker: We will move to topical questions.

Mr Lyons: I already have.

Mr McCrossan: Thank you, Minister. You will appreciate that this is a serious issue for everybody concerned. Barnardo's and other stakeholders criticised you and your Department today for your failure to do what you committed to doing in the strategy. Fifty organisations have written to Ministers calling for the strategy to be withdrawn. The First Minister has said that the strategy should probably go further. What specific changes or proposals did she or her party colleagues make during those Executive discussions?

Mr Lyons: I will not go into exactly who said what, because Executive conversations are confidential. There was, however, the level of consensus required to go out to public consultation. All Ministers had the opportunity to submit their ideas for things that, they believe, could be delivered within their Departments. They could have commented on anything else. They could have asked for the inclusion of anything else. I believe that I answered all the questions that were put to me on that: it is now up to others to explain their position, having given consent for the strategy to go to publication.

Mr Lyons: I have not received a request to meet it. I am concerned about some of the things that I have heard, and it is right that the investigation take place. Regarding my involvement in that process, I am open to hearing what evidence it would like from the Department, but I will wait for it to ask for any evidence that may be forthcoming from me or from the Department.

Ms Murphy: I thank the Minister for his answer. Minister, the ombudsman outlined a number of serious concerns. Were you aware of the seriousness of the issues that led to the ombudsman stepping in?

Mr Lyons: I have been aware of many of the problems in the Housing Executive in its not being able to do some of the things that it would like to do. That is as a result of a lack of funding. That is why I have been working so hard to make sure that we see a change through the revitalisation of the Housing Executive so that we can borrow against our assets and put in place many of the improvements that are needed. I have not yet had full sight of all the issues or complaints, but I certainly will not be found wanting when it comes to that.

Mr Lyons: Yes. I have met the Secretary of State on that matter, and we have had conversations about it. I have made it clear that the funding of sport, especially when direct funding is being given to one sport within a broader package of measures, should be done fairly and equitably and that there should be no special treatment for anyone.

Mr Donnelly: Thanks to the Minister for that. What action is he taking to deliver the investment necessary to meet the needs and realise the potential of all regional and subregional sports stadia in Northern Ireland?

Mr Lyons: The Member will be aware that it is for the GAA to identify its strategic need in relation to the Casement Park project. I have asked for that to be looked at again in the light of rising costs and the financial situation that we find ourselves in. After years of delay — delay for no apparent reason other than political purposes, by the way — I have ensured that what was the subregional stadia programme and is now the Northern Ireland Football Fund has moved forward, and I look forward to making an announcement on that in the coming weeks.

Mr Lyons: The Member makes the case for me. He rightly says that I am the Minister responsible for the development of the Irish language strategy: it is therefore a cross-cutting issue. Even Sinn Féin is now making the point for me that the issue is cross-cutting. It is important that, if something is significant, controversial or cross-cutting, it goes before the Executive. I thank the Member for making the case for me today.

Mr Delargy: Minister, it is disappointing that nothing has been delivered on the strategy, despite the co-design group's having concluded its work months ago. Do you not think that it would be better for you in your ministerial role to focus on developing and implementing an Irish language strategy rather than involving yourself in cases that oppose Irish language implementation?

Mr Lyons: I would rather not involve myself in such cases, but there is a reason why I have to do so. The Minister for Infrastructure has taken it upon herself to go against the law; that is the strong advice that I have received. Nobody is above the law — not the Infrastructure Minister, not Sinn Féin. If something is significant, cross-cutting or controversial, it must come to the Executive. That was not done. I gave the Minister time and allowed her the opportunity to rectify the situation without going through the courts, but, unfortunately, that is where we have ended up.

The cross-departmental working group on the Irish language strategy has been set up because I want to make sure that we can preserve and promote language, but that cannot be at a cost that is detrimental to the public purse and to other things that we want to do, so we have put the group together to make sure that any actions are affordable.

Mr Lyons: I have certainly seen the benefit that funding from National Lottery projects can have not just in my constituency but across Northern Ireland. The Member will not be surprised to hear that I have concerns about how prevalent gambling is, but, if we receive proceeds from the National Lottery that can be used for good causes, I am certainly happy to make sure that they can be used in a way that lines up with our objectives.

Mr Bradley: What steps is the Minister's Department taking to ensure that National Lottery funding continues to reach the communities across Northern Ireland that are most in need, and how does he intend to maximise its potential in supporting social, cultural and economic regeneration?

Mr Lyons: That is why it is so important that we ensure that the funding is aligned with our objectives. Sport NI in particular does a good job in taking a joined-up, coordinated approach to making sure that the funding that is available helps with the things that we are trying to achieve.

Mr Lyons: That is not particularly new news. I was at the launch, but, ultimately, it is up to the IFA and other partners to ensure that the funding is available for that. There are lots of things that we might like to do, but we need to make sure that the funding is in place. I am certainly happy to work with interested parties on that. Of course, a contribution can come from the Department through the Northern Ireland Football Fund.

Mr Honeyford: The UK Government recently announced that they will invest £900 million into major events and grassroots facilities. In a previous answer, the Minister talked about political delay, but £500 million of that was delivered for the Euro 2028 games, which we will now miss out on, and there was £400 million for grassroots sports. Will the Minister outline what steps he is taking to ensure that grassroots sports across here are fully funded by and can benefit from that fund?

Mr Lyons: I have met my sporting ministerial counterparts from the rest of the UK. I will continue to do that, and I will certainly be an advocate of Northern Ireland sport getting its fair share.

Mr Lyons: I have started to take legal advice on the court ruling and its implications, but I am deeply concerned about what it might mean for Northern Ireland and, in particular, housebuilding. We are in this position as a result of the mess in 2022, when rival Bills were introduced in the Assembly. Some parties, including Sinn Féin, the SDLP and Alliance, were tripping over themselves to out-green the Green Party, and they have left us in that mess. We have to deal with the reality of the situation that we find ourselves in, the targets that are there and the legislative requirements on us. The ruling could have an impact not just on major infrastructure projects but on anything that we seek to build. If something is seen as not lining up with our plans and with the legislation, we could be in difficulty.

Mr Clarke: I thank the Minister for his answer. Given what he said about how his Executive colleagues pontificated about that at a different time and had competing Bills, what confidence does he have that, when the issue goes back to the Executive, they will find a solution so that he can deliver the housing that everyone in the Chamber has called on him to deliver?

Mr Lyons: Mr McCrossan has called for an emergency fix to deal with the A5 issue: that will not be enough. That is why I wrote to the Agriculture Minister, Andrew Muir, and asked him to introduce legislation to amend the Climate Change Act (Northern Ireland) 2022 so that we can put in place policies that take account of the difficult situation in which we have now been placed. I have been warning about that for some time. It was inevitable that this would happen. It should not come as a surprise to anybody, and we need to rectify the situation.

It takes political bravery to say, "We got it wrong. We rushed it and let ourselves get into a difficult position at the end of the mandate". We have done it many times in this place before. We have made a mistake, but the important thing is that we recognise that it was a mistake and put in place solid action. There is a lot of talk about the need to talk and listen to experts: we ignored the experts and the Climate Change Committee in 2022, because we were driven by ideology and political considerations instead of what was best for the people of Northern Ireland. That has come back to bite us.

Mr Lyons: As far as I am aware, not recently.

Miss Dolan: Minister, in light of the recent racist violence in Ballymena and the resultant damage to Larne Leisure Centre, will you outline what direct engagement you have had with Mid and East Antrim Borough Council about repairs to that facility and with the Housing Executive about support for those who were displaced?

Mr Lyons: I have engaged with the Northern Ireland Housing Executive. I have not engaged directly as Minister with Mid and East Antrim Borough Council about those issues.

Mr Lyons: I do not have the information about how it is funded. Perhaps the Member could contact Orangefest to see how the money will be used.

Mr Boylan: I appreciate the answer, Minister. Following on from that, will you give us an outline of how any of that spend will be measured?

Mr Lyons: Obviously, there is review of all spend in the Department to ensure that it matches up with what we are trying to do. I know from having met the organisers at the launch last week that they want to make this more accessible and bring more people in. They should be congratulated and supported for that, and I hope that many people across Northern Ireland and, indeed, those outside Northern Ireland will see the rich musical, cultural and historical traditions that we have to offer.

Mr Speaker: That concludes questions to the Minister for Communities. We finished ahead of time, and 28 supplementary questions were answered. There was potential for more, but we finished that ahead of time too. Mr O'Dowd is listening intently.

Mr Speaker: I have received notice from the Minister of Finance that he wishes to make a statement.

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

Thank you for the opportunity to update the Assembly on the 2024-25 provisional out-turn and the 2025-26 June monitoring exercise.

Before turning to the current year, I want to update the Assembly on the 2024-25 provisional out-turn and the resulting carry-forward under the Budget exchange scheme. As I outlined to Members on 16 June, subject to final out-turn, the Treasury has confirmed that the Executive have fulfilled the requirement to deliver a balanced Budget in 2024-25 and therefore will not be required to repay the £559 million of debt from the 2024 restoration package. While it should never have been viewed as a debt, that is still a positive outcome.

The tables accompanying the statement set out the provisional out-turn position for each Department. In resource departmental expenditure limit (DEL), Departments reported an underspend of £23·2 million. Adjusting for higher regional rates income, lower reinvestment and reform initiative (RRI) interest costs than forecast and earmarked funding that will be returned to the Treasury, the overall resource DEL underspend was £26·6 million. Of that, £11 million will be used to offset pressures in capital DEL and £15·6 million will be carried forward to the 2025-26 budgetary period.

On conventional capital DEL, the Department's net underspend position is £8·5 million. That includes an underspend of £15·6 million for the A5. As that will be offset by an equivalent reduction in the funding drawn down from the Irish Government, it has no impact on the block position. Adjusting for that and for earmarked funding that must be returned to the Treasury and including a central pressure of £3·5 million resulting from a late adjustment to the Barnett consequentials provided at Westminster Supplementary Estimates results in an overall capital DEL pressure of £11 million. As I have already stated, in line with Treasury rules, that will be offset by the easements in resource DEL, which will ensure that the overall block remains balanced and no funding is lost to the Executive.

On financial transactions capital (FTC), the total underspend is £52·5 million. The Budget exchange scheme allows only £1·3 million of FTC to be carried forward. However, my Department secured agreement with the Treasury that any FTC underspends can be used to offset the required repayments. Therefore, the remaining underspend of £51·2 million is not lost but rather reduces future liabilities. Ring-fenced resource DEL may be used for non-cash depreciation and impairment costs but cannot be used to fund other services. Due to Budget exchange limits, only £6·5 million can be carried forward to 2025-26. However, it should be noted that, of the total underspend of £314·4 million, some £266 million relates to student loan impairments and is mainly a result of the funding model used by the Treasury rather than any underspend by the Department.

I now turn to June monitoring. I will first address some prior commitments made by the Executive in agreeing Budget 2025-26. Members will recall that Budget 2025-26 set aside £50 million for actions relating to an early learning childcare strategy, as well as committing to providing a further £5 million from available funding in-year. As the Executive have now agreed proposals brought forward by the Education Minister to utilise that funding, the full £55 million is being transferred to the Department of Education in this monitoring round.

We are already seeing the impact of that funding, as it is enabling of the extension of the childcare subsidy scheme to school-age children from September 2025. It will also enable the stabilisation and expansion of early learning and childcare programmes and provide a further 2,000 children with 22 and a half hours of preschool education a week. That shows the Executive's commitment to supporting hard-working families.

The Executive also agreed, as part of the Budget for 2025-26, how funding from the Chancellor's spring statement and the Westminster Main Estimates of £158·5 million in resource DEL and £2·4 million in capital DEL will be allocated. That funding was not provided until the Westminster Main Estimates were announced, so it could not be formally allocated in the Budget and was therefore presented as indicative allocations. The Executive also agreed in the Budget an indicative allocation of £1·1 million for FTC funding. Those 2025-26 Budget indicative allocations will be formally allocated to Departments in the June monitoring round. They can be viewed at table 5 of the statement.

I will now turn to funding that is available for allocation. Following the Westminster Main Estimates and phase 2 of the spending review, and after adjusting for reclassifications and the indicative allocations that were agreed as part of the Budget, £78·5 million in resource DEL, £40·1 million in capital DEL and £176·4 million in ring-fenced resource DEL are available for allocation in this monitoring round. Before considering departmental bids, the Executive agreed some central allocations. As well as the £5 million in resource DEL for childcare that I referred to earlier, £0·3 million of match funding will be allocated to the Executive Office for the cross-border PEACE PLUS programme. The Executive have also agreed resource DEL to capital DEL switches totalling £0·3 million for the Department of Education for its early learning and childcare strategy and to the Food Standards Agency (FSA) for a nutrition R&D project.

Having taken account of those issues, the Executive had £73·2 million in resource DEL, £40·1 million in capital DEL and £176·4 million in ring-fenced resource DEL available for allocation. It will come as no surprise to Members to learn that the level of bids that Departments submitted exceeded the funding available some 12 times over for resource funding and some eight times over for capital funding. The Executive therefore had to make difficult decisions in order to ensure that the most urgent and high-priority needs were met within the constrained funding envelope available. Full details of the bids received, and the allocations made, are set out in the tables that accompany the statement.

I will highlight the key resource DEL allocations. The Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs will receive £3·2 million for its bovine TB programme delivery. The programme is essential to the operation of the cattle industry. The Department for Communities will receive £0·6 million for its legislative requirement under the derating grant provided to councils. The Department for the Economy will receive £7 million to meet an inescapable pressure as a result of the shortfall in the higher education teaching grant, as well as a further £2·8 million for energy.

In addition to the £55 million for its early learning and childcare strategy that I referred to earlier, the Department of Education will receive £12·3 million for special educational needs and £8·1 million for a range of pressures that the Education Authority faces in delivering its statutory duties. The Department of Health will receive £25 million to address a range of pressures. The Department for Infrastructure will receive £1·8 million towards the increase in the road drainage charge that it has a statutory obligation to pay, £1·3 million towards pressures facing the Driver and Vehicle Agency (DVA) and a general allocation of £3 million to help it meet a range of other pressures, including those in Translink and NI Water.

The Department of Justice will receive £5 million to cover unforeseen costs to the PSNI from dealing with the recent public disorder. In addition, I propose that the Department of Justice be given first call on up to £7 million of funding in future monitoring rounds this year towards PSNI workforce recovery costs, thus recognising the importance of investing in our police workforce. I look forward to working with the Minister of Justice and the rest of the Executive to progress the delivery of the PSNI workforce recovery plan as part of the multi-year Budget process.

The Executive Office will receive £2·2 million towards ending violence against women and girls. That money will deliver further funding to women's advocacy groups and build capacity in the community and voluntary sector. Moreover, £1 million is being provided for the central good relations fund.

I turn now to capital DEL. The Executive have agreed allocations of just over £40 million. Those include the following: £11·3 million to the Department of Education for a range of capital works; £1 million to the Department of Finance for the office estate and fit-out costs for buildings that are managed on behalf of other Civil Service Departments; and £11·3 million to the Department for Infrastructure for pressures relating to water. DFI will also receive £3·4 million for the A1 junctions phase 2 road scheme and £1 million for local transport safety measures that are aimed at raising road standards and enhancing safety for road users.

The Department for Communities will receive £9 million for new-build social housing to help meet the demand for homes. I am conscious of the pressure on the new-build social housing programme. I look forward to working with the Communities Minister, in conjunction with the Executive, on the new-build targets, as set out and agreed in the Programme for Government and the housing supply strategy. In addition, I am proposing that DFC be given first call of up to £2 million on funding in future monitoring rounds this year for new-build social housing.

The Department for the Economy will receive £2·5 million for higher education quality-related research grants, which provide strategic institutional funding to our higher education institutions in support of research activities.

Finally, the Executive Office will receive £0·7 million for the ending violence against women and girls strategy, to develop the use of technological innovation in order to improve understanding and prevention of violence against women and girls.

On ring-fenced DEL, the Executive have allocated the full amount of funding available, details of which are set out in the tables that accompany the statement. To increase transparency, the statement is also accompanied by tables that outline the details of changes to departmental budgets. Included under technical adjustments are various Treasury-earmarked funding streams and Budget cover transfers from Whitehall Departments. Those reflect areas such as the Windsor framework; the immigration health surcharge; the Homes for Ukraine scheme; and the City of Derry Airport. In total, those amount to £148·4 million resource DEL and £13·2 million capital DEL.

In conclusion, as an Executive, we have worked together to collectively agree allocations that will make a positive difference to citizens across society. Much-needed funding is being provided for childcare; special educational needs; ending violence against women and girls; policing; our higher education sector; and social housing. The allocations announced as part of June monitoring, including the indicative allocations that the Executive agreed as part of the Budget, total over £237 million resource DEL and £42 million capital DEL and will help to alleviate some of the many pressures facing Departments.

My Department’s focus will now turn to the multi-year Budget process. With public expenditure likely to be constrained for some time, transformation must be an essential part of the Budget if the Executive are to deliver their ambitions within the funding available. My Department is engaging with Departments on their five-year financial sustainability plans following formal guidance that issued in April. The production of those plans provides Departments with an opportunity to identify the actions that they intend to take to transform the delivery of public services so that the future cost of service delivery aligns with the expected budgets.

The challenge that we collectively face is clear. We have a growing disconnect between the cost of delivering services and the resources that are available. The need for the transformation of services is well established. New ways of delivering services will be required, and each of us as Ministers must look in our Departments to find the transformational change that is needed for us to make good on the ambitions of the Programme for Government.

This will be the Executive's first multi-year Budget in over 10 years. It will provide an important opportunity to put our finances on a more sustainable footing and, along with the Programme for Government, will set the Executive’s long-term strategic direction. I will work with my Executive colleagues to develop a Budget that supports families, workers and communities. I commend the June monitoring outcome to the Assembly.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Go raibh maith agat, Minister.

Mr O'Toole: Minister, on conventional capital DEL, you mention that there is:

In truth, the underspend on the A5 this year will surely be much greater than that. The 2025-26 Budget, which was published just a few weeks ago, allocates £181 million to the A5. It looks as though none of that will be spent this year. Will you, as Finance Minister, be handing back nearly £200 million from the unbuilt A5, which could cost lives, because of a failed planning process that you, as Infrastructure Minister, oversaw?

Mr O'Dowd: I thank the Member for his question. I deeply regret the outcome of the court judgement last Monday. I was hopeful, going into that court, that I and the advisers and civil servants from the Department had presented a case that would overcome the judicial review. That was not the case. However, that is not the same as me neglecting or failing in my role as Minister, as I have heard some suggest inside and outside the Chamber. The judgement needs to be studied, and the Department for Infrastructure and its Minister will decide on the next steps to be taken. However, it is too early to say whether the totality of the A5 budget will or will not be spent, or whether some or all of it will have to be returned. It will not be lost to the Executive to spend. All ring-fenced funding — the A5 funding is ring-fenced — will have to be returned to the Executive for allocation to other Departments, if we reach that stage. A number of hurdles have to be navigated before we even reach that stage. Most Members in the Chamber are united in backing the building of the A5, but some should be cautious about taking political opportunity or party political point-scoring when it comes to the objective. If we all share the same objective of getting the A5 built, let us work together to do that.

Ms Forsythe: I thank the Minister for his statement. It is good to see the 2024-25 out-turn meet the target of breaking even, as set out in the Executive restoration package. In fact, it resulted in some underspends. I have concerns over the reporting of estimates and the culture of over-projections. Last week, the Infrastructure Minister outlined that a forensic accountant had detailed tens of millions of pounds of over-projections in NI Water alone. Overestimations lead to poor management of the real financial needs. Minister, in your statement, you detailed that some of the underspends could be carried forward under Budget exchange limits, but you also said:

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Do you have a question?

Ms Forsythe: Yes. Can the Minister confirm how much funding has been lost to the Northern Ireland block grant due to its not being spent?

Mr O'Dowd: I thank the Member for her question. There are two different treatments of resource DEL. The resource DEL referred to in the statement relates to cash that may only be used for non-cash depreciation and impairment costs. It cannot be used to fund other services. That is in that category. When it comes to the overall Budget, no money has been lost to the Executive to spend.

However, if I picked the Member up properly, I share her concern about the overestimation of budgets and requirements, particularly in our arm's-length bodies. It must be remembered that, in many Departments, arm's-length bodies spend the vast amount of money given to that Department. It is only right and proper that there is full accountability and transparency regarding spend by arm's-length bodies and that we ensure that they are working to a plan that is in line with the Executive's Budget and the commitments that we, as Ministers, have around our budgets as well.

Everybody would like more cash: that is clear. Nobody needs to say that any more. We all know that we would like more cash. However, the reality is that the 2025-26 Budget has been allocated, and it is now the responsibility of Departments and arm's-length bodies to live within their budgets and make the necessary decisions to do so.

Miss Hargey: Thank you, Minister. I welcome the money that has been secured for Casement Park, which is an Executive signature project. Will the Minister outline what, from his perspective, he sees as the next steps?

Mr O'Dowd: I welcome the allocation of £50 million by the British Government to the Casement Park project. It is a very welcome and substantial commitment, and the Executive and all the partners in the project need to grasp that and move forward. I have asked for a meeting with the Communities Minister to discuss how we will move that project forward; how we will ensure that the funding is available — it may be required to be made available — and will be secured in the time ahead; and how we will deliver the project for west Belfast, greater Belfast and the entire island.

I am acutely aware, and am on record as saying, that there are other sporting organisations that also require support.

I support all sport. Sport is a good thing. It benefits our society and our communities immeasurably. I am more than up for the discussion about how we support other sporting organisations, but we have to get Casement Park moving.

Miss McAllister: I thank the Minister for his statement. I will turn to the allocation to the Department of Justice. I declare an interest in that I am a member of the Policing Board, and I welcome the work that the Minister of Justice has done with the board and the PSNI on the business case for the recovery of the PSNI's workforce over the next five years.

We have a future £7 million in this year's allocations. Will that be additional funding to the Department of Justice for the next four years to ensure workforce recovery with more police officers and, in particular, more neighbourhood policing teams so that our community can feel safer and we can be protected in our communities by front-line policing?

Mr O'Dowd: I thank the Member for her question. I had a very useful meeting and conversation with the Justice Minister last week about that. This is about new money going to the Department of Justice that is ring-fenced for the recovery of policing numbers. The challenge remains on the table for the Justice Minister. Every Department, arm's-length body and agency, whichever category the police fall into, have responsibilities here too in order to ensure that there is effective and efficient delivery of public services, there is transformation and we are looking at new ways of delivering services. The business case for policing stacked up, and that is why I agreed that we could bring forward resource, as part of the three-year Budget process, to fund the business case for policing and the recovery of officer numbers. Ultimately, it will be a decision for the Executive, but the indications from Executive colleagues thus far are that they are agreeable to funding policing to the level that it requires.

Dr Aiken: Thank you very much indeed, Minister, for your statement. It is interesting that you referred to the £52·5 million of FTC, which comes back as £51·2 million after being reclassified, that you will use as an offset. Under the Treasury's green book rules, an FTC offset can be used only as a loan, equity, derivative or debt security. It looks as though you have managed things in such a way that means that the Treasury is willing to use FTC to offset debt over a particular period. This is quite a technical question, so I do not expect an answer now, but will your Department write to the Finance Committee to explain that? It is a fundamentally different way of looking at and managing FTC.

Mr O'Dowd: In fairness to my predecessor and my officials during my tenure in this office, we have spent a considerable amount of time working with the Treasury. It understands our position, and we understand its position. We have managed to reach a number of quite good agreements with the Treasury that are beneficial to the Executive and public services here. The FTC agreement is one of them. I am more than happy to write to you to set out the technical matters, but it is a good agreement. It has come about as a result of a lot of work behind the scenes between my Department and the Treasury.

Miss Dolan: I thank the Minister for his statement. Minister, you referred to transformation as being "essential" if the Executive want to deliver on their ambitions. Will you outline your thinking on that?

Mr O'Dowd: Yes. Since the establishment of the public-sector transformation board, significant progress has been made. In March this year, I announced in the Assembly the first tranche of successful projects, allocating over £129 million in funding across projects in healthcare, special educational needs, justice and infrastructure. Last week, I announced the appointment of two new members, Gareth Hetherington and Professor Helen McCarthy, to the public-sector transformation board. Their skills and expertise complement the existing board and will enable us to continue to deliver positive transformation in the way that we deliver our public services and change people's lives for the better. The board's expansion comes about after the confirmation of its terms of reference. Last week, a second call was made to Departments for projects to utilise the £102 million of funding that is there for transformation.

I also want to see the three-year Budget as a transformation Budget. As I said earlier, it is over a decade since the Executive had access to a three-year Budget. We have an opportunity now to plan ahead, with limited resources — I accept that — and to do things differently in the time ahead. It can be a game changer, but it will be so only if we take the opportunity. I am going to work with my Executive colleagues and my officials will work with their counterparts in other Departments to use the Budget for transformation.

Mrs Erskine: I thank the Finance Minister for his statement. Work has proceeded on the A5 route, and, in places, land is unrecognisable. Jobs have been lost, as have contracts that were in place with businesses. There will be financial impacts as a result of last week's High Court decision. I noted the Minister's response to Mr O'Toole. What does all that mean for the ring-fenced A5 budget and, in particular, the £15·6 million underspend for 2024-25? Where is that allocation going? Will it go towards redress?

Mr O'Dowd: As I understand it, the Minister for Infrastructure will be writing to the landowners who are affected by the quashing of the orders. I will also say this, however: a judicial statement and decision is a very important moment, but that also deserves consideration. I do not think that it will be the end of this journey. Let us see what decisions the DFI Minister has yet to take and what she brings forward to the House and to other places on what, she believes, is the best way forward. If we come to the position where redress or compensation are required, that is a conversation that the Executive will have to have, moving forward.

Where funds will be or have been surrendered as a result of the delay in delivering the A5, all those moneys, apart from the Irish Government's moneys, have to come back to the Executive for further allocation according to whatever decisions the Executive take. As I said, however, we are not at that point yet. A lot of consideration is yet to be taken on the next steps on this journey.

Mr Dickson: I thank the Finance Minister for his statement. Minister, I welcome your additional support for the PSNI. However, I want to place on record my regret that £5 million, which you have had to allocate to the PSNI, had to be spent in relation to the recent riots that took place and on support from Police Scotland.

Minister, you ring-fenced £7 million for the Department of Justice for future monitoring rounds. What assurances can you give the House that the Department will be required to demonstrate efficiency in the use of that funding?

Mr O'Dowd: I share the Member's frustration about the use of the £5 million. It is right and proper to give it to the PSNI and to support it in that regard. However, that money was literally wasted. That £5 million could have been used to start the recruitment of extra PSNI officers. It could have been used to recruit nurses, teachers or classroom assistants — you name it, and that money could have been used for that. It is very frustrating that a minority of thugs have cost this society £5 million, at least, because there will be extra Justice consequences, as well as compensation costs and the cost of lost opportunities, as a result of their thuggery. They have cost this society a lot in reputational and financial terms.

I have always said in the Chamber that one of the first questions that I ask a Minister when they meet me is this: "What are you doing to help yourself?". That is about having efficient and effective management of budgets, at ministerial and departmental level. I have also said that the Committees play an important role. Committees scrutinise Departments, and the scrutiny of departmental budgets is probably one of the most important tasks that a Committee can take on. I encourage the Committees to continue their good work in that regard.

Mr Boylan: Cuirim fáilte roimh ráiteas an Aire.

In your statement, Minister, you indicate that there is an additional £11 million for NIW. That is welcome, but how much has been invested in NIW in this financial year?

Mr O'Dowd: The DFI Minister will finalise her budget allocations. In previous years, however, that Department has allocated around half a billion pounds to NI Water, which is a significant investment. I heard the clamour last week for the privatisation of NI Water, the introduction of domestic water charges and the placing of further financial burdens on working families through the back door. For those who have not heard it yet or do not understand it yet: we are not introducing domestic water charges; we are not privatising NI Water. Hear what we are saying and move on from that agenda, because it is not going to deliver what you want it to deliver.

Mr McReynolds: Minister, can you elaborate on the work being carried out to address PSNI workforce shortages and budgetary pressures due to ill-health absence and overtime?

Mr O'Dowd: There are many reasons why you want to have a properly resourced police service. One of the areas that has suffered as a result of the understaffing of the police is neighbourhood policing. From the experience in my area, I know that neighbourhood policing can change entirely a relationship between a community and policing that, in the past, was far from good. A shortage of policing damages the way that the police can operate on the ground. As you pointed out, it also means more overtime, which means more stress for the officers who are doing it. It can lead to higher sickness levels among police and to an inefficient policing service. It was only right and proper that, after analysis of the business case that was forwarded, it was signed off. The Justice Minister and I have had good discussions, and I am committed, as stated in this paper, to supporting the police in this financial year. I am committed to bringing forward proposals to the Executive, as part of the three-year budgetary period, to fulfil the business case and recruit to policing to the required level.

Mr Durkan: Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire as ráiteas.

I welcome the allocation of £9 million for social housing new builds, but, by my rough calculation, that will still leave us £80 million short of meeting the Executive's targets, as set out in the Programme for Government and the social housing supply strategy. From the Minister's answer on the A5, I take it that he accepts that the later that reallocation of capital occurs, the more difficult it will be to take decisions and facilitate its spend in the most effective way.

Mr O'Dowd: The Member is correct. The later that you allocate capital, the more difficult it is to spend. The investment in housing is an important investment, and we have committed to a further £2 million at least in future monitoring rounds. As I have said to others about the A5, there is a process to go through. We have had an important judgement — a disappointing judgement, it has to be said — but that judgement has to be analysed. The Infrastructure Minister will advise on the way forward. If there is to be a slippage in that funding, it will be surrendered to the Executive, and the Executive will decide on the way forward. We commit to doing that, and I am sure that social housing will be high on the list of priorities.

I noted that, last week, an article on a Construction Information Services (CIS) report on construction in the North, which was not given the prominence that it perhaps should have been, said:

I saw another report in a similar vein. Quite rightly, in the Chamber, we challenge each other and go back and forth about what is not going right, but, if the analysis of that report is correct, we are on the brink of a significant uplift in the construction industry, not only in housing but in public investment in major projects. From reading that report, it seems to me that it is not all doom and gloom in the construction sector and that there are some good news stories. I am broadening the answer, just as Members sometimes broaden their questions. There are perhaps brighter times ahead for the construction sector than some would have us believe.

Ms K Armstrong: Thank you, Minister, for your statement. As Mr Durkan has already dealt with the £9 million for Communities, I will move on to the discussion in your paper about next year.

Minister, you talk about transformational delivery. Will there be any consideration of synchronising programmes across government to make the most effective use of government moneys? For instance, at this stage, we do not see joined-up budgets to deliver programmes that can be delivered across two or more Departments. Have you any plans to update that process so that we can have better use of public moneys?

Mr O'Dowd: I am not aware of any legislative barrier or procedural barrier or protocol that prevents any Minister from sitting down with another Minister and asking, "What can we do together?". It is there. They can do it. In some instances, that engagement may not necessarily be at ministerial level. It could be at agency or arm's-length body level. As I said in response to a question earlier, arm's-length bodies spend considerable public funds, so there is definitely a possibility there for coordination across arm's-length bodies in the delivery of projects and funding. However, as we move forward through the budgetary process, I will urge Ministers to look at all opportunities to use the limited resources that we have more effectively and efficiently. That includes more working together, whether at macro level or micro level. If there is a way to do things differently, let us do them differently.

Mr McHugh: Minister, the recent court judgement on the A5 is disappointing. I noted your responses to two other questions in regard to the implications of it. What will happen next financially?

Mr O'Dowd: Other parts of the equation have to be answered first before we know what will happen financially. The Infrastructure Minister has to analyse all options on the way forward to deliver that project, and she is already on the public record about that. If there are delays, any funds that will not be spent will have to be surrendered to the Executive, and the Executive will make a decision on the way forward.

It is a hugely disappointing decision. It is a complex issue and area. I am the Minister who was responsible for making the decision that was overturned by the judge, and I accept my responsibility in that. However, I approached the matter with the utmost seriousness. I acted, at all times, in relation to the advice that I received, including the advice of a senior barrister who is now a High Court judge. I do not know what the advice would have been after a contest in court — there is always different analysis of this — none of those decisions were made in isolation from the most senior advice that I could receive at the time, and I am satisfied that I acted responsibly in delivering that decision.

None of that matters to the families who have lost loved ones on the A5. I have no doubt that the judgement has retraumatised them and has been a major blow to the people who use that road and the communities that have suffered as a result of that road. However, I assure you that the determination is there to deliver the A5, and, when we set aside all the petty politics, the understandable frustration and the understandable anger, we will map a way forward to build the A5.

Mr Honeyford: I welcome the Minister's comments on Casement Park and sport in general and the announcement that he will push ahead on the A1, which is great news for my constituency of Lagan Valley. However, the disappointing decision last week on the A5 is not the first to have happened to DFI, and we need to learn, moving forward. A recent Public Accounts Committee report highlighted a lack of formal strategy for procurement for major capital projects because we are not able to reach across all Departments —

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Is there a question?

Mr Honeyford: Can the Minister give us an update on any review of procurement for capital projects and say whether he is looking at restructuring his centres of procurement to make sure that we do not end up with another A5?

Mr O'Dowd: The challenge for anybody making a decision on a major construction project is this: there are multiple ways to challenge it legally. I could fill the centre of that floor with the paperwork and documentation that had to be read, agreed, scrutinised, challenged and legally proofed before I could sign off on a project such as the A5. We have that amount of documentation, procedure and policy, and it is not all procurement; it is legislation that we have to go through. It is primary legislation and secondary legislation. There has been much discussion around the Climate Change Act 2022, but there are other environmental and human rights implications etc. You try to get all of those in the place where you need them with your best intentions in mind and the best advice that is available to you — and it was the best advice. I am talking about a barrister who was at the top of his game and is now a High Court judge who was advising me every step of the way. You can still go into court and another person can take a different view of all the advice that you have been given, and you are back to square one.

We have to dust ourselves down. We have to look at the broader issue of infrastructure and our construction projects and how susceptible they are to judicial review. In relation to the A5, the Infrastructure Minister will come forward with the next steps.

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

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Minister. The Business Committee has agreed that there should be no time limit on the debate.

Mr Muir: I am pleased that the Bill, which will provide for changes to two legacy EU support schemes, namely the fruit and vegetables aid scheme (FVAS) and the agri-food information and promotions scheme, has reached its Final Stage. Before I speak to the Bill, I thank the Chairperson and members of the Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs Committee for their detailed scrutiny of the Bill. I also thank the Office of the Legislative Counsel (OLC), legal advisers and Assembly staff, as well as officials in my Department, for their work in getting this small but technical Bill to this stage. Finally, my thanks go to the stakeholders who invested time to respond to the consultation, provide evidence to the Committee and, more generally, feed into the Department's review of the fruit and veg aid scheme. I am grateful to the Committee for testing the Bill so rigorously, as is its duty. I welcome the Committee's support for the Bill, but I am aware that some issues were raised during its scrutiny. I will come to those in a moment; it is important that I do so. However, if I may, I will begin with a little context and say a few brief words about why the Agriculture Bill was brought to the Assembly.

The fruit and veg aid scheme is a legacy of EU membership. It stems from EU law that applied to all member states, including the UK, when aid was provided to EU beneficiaries to meet EU policies and priorities. That legislation was converted into UK law and amended to operate in the UK context as assimilated law. Farmers and growers can come together to form a producer organisation (PO) to strengthen their position in a supply chain and increase their competitiveness. While POs may form in a range of sectors and gain the advantages from doing so, the horticulture sector can also avail itself of funding support thanks to the fruit and veg aid scheme.

Importantly, prior to Brexit, the EU funded all claims that met the legislative requirements. Given that agricultural support is devolved, each part of the UK is responsible for funding in its own jurisdiction. That obligation has, since Brexit, fallen on DAERA for POs with a head office here. That is a legacy of EU membership. Furthermore, while some changes were made to the legislation that governs the scheme when it was transferred into UK law, they simply made the legislation operable outside the EU. A lack of power to amend the scheme to align with Northern Ireland's specific policy priorities is a further legacy issue. The Bill therefore seeks to deal with those legacies by making fruit and veg aid funding discretionary and providing the scope to amend the law governing that scheme as well as governing agri-food promotions. That will allow changes to align to policy development now that the UK is no longer a member of the European Union.

With respect to the first matter — discretion — DAERA grant funding is normally provided in accordance with the Department's strategic priorities, subject to suitable legal authority and appropriate business case. However, in the case of fruit and veg aid, that cannot be the case, given that the current obligation is to fund all eligible claims from producer organisations with a head office here. As I said, that is a legacy of the legislation that stemmed from the EU when the EU provided the funding. The Bill therefore removes the requirement for all eligible claims to be funded so that my Department to continue to support the horticulture sector on a discretionary, case-by-case basis.

The AERA Committee heard from the mushroom industry that it was concerned that making aid discretionary was a signal that the scheme would be closed here. The mushroom industry highlighted the importance of the scheme to it and, importantly, called for it to continue after the end of the current operational programming period. I acknowledge those concerns, which some Members raised during the Bill's passage. Since the Bill's introduction, however, I have been clear that I have no plans to close the scheme, and nothing in the Bill signalled that that was the case. That is different from the situation in England, where legislation has been in place for some time to stop English POs submitting further operational programmes for approval after 2025, or, indeed, in Wales, where the Welsh Government are consulting on a plan to close the scheme there. I confirmed in March that the fruit and veg aid scheme was to continue here after the end of the current year, just as stakeholders had asked for in the consultation on the Bill. That will mean DAERA supporting POs with a head office in Northern Ireland as they undertake a new three-year operational programme, which is to commence in January 2026. I am pleased to confirm that officials are working with stakeholders to facilitate that programme within the timeline set out in existing legislation.

I welcome the acknowledgement of Members and, in recent correspondence, representatives of the mushroom industry of the potential budgetary implications of leaving things as they are under the legacy legislation. Simply put, as it stands, there is no effective cap on the funding that my Department can be asked for to support the scheme. I have no control over the level of funding that POs may look for in the future, as it relates to their business plans, and I have no control over the number of POs that may set up an office in Northern Ireland.

Without the Bill, there is a risk that my Department will be liable to provide funding that will benefit non-Northern Ireland-based growers. That could happen if they are members of a PO with a head office here or if, at a later stage, they join a PO that is based here. I cannot stop that happening without the powers in the Bill. Joining a PO here could be attractive to the UK horticulture sector, given the closure of the scheme elsewhere. I am therefore grateful to Members for their support of clause 1 at Consideration Stage, and I am confident that Members will wish to support me in making sure that Northern Ireland funding is used for the benefit of local growers by supporting the Bill today. To do otherwise would mean that any extra money required would come from the budget earmarked for agriculture, agrienvironment, fisheries and rural development. That would inevitably impact on other sectors, and there would be no scope for me to make policy choices or to bring any forth for Members' consideration. It is a legacy of EU membership, but it is not sustainable in a domestic context.

As I said, the Bill does not close the scheme, nor is it a policy signal that the scheme is to end. To close the scheme fully would require using the powers in the Bill, with the adequate safeguard that that would require the Assembly's approval. That is likely to be acceptable to the Assembly only when an appropriate successor scheme has been designed. I am pleased that the AERA Committee and the mushroom industry have been reassured enough to support the Bill thus far.

I turn briefly to recommendations in the Committee report, as this is the first chance that I have had to acknowledge them. The first recommendation relates to the nature of the Bill. It is not unusual for an enabling Bill to contain limited policy detail, as such Bills provide scope for future decisions arising from policy development to be reflected in subordinate legislation, often made over many years. For example, DAERA is relying on powers in the Agriculture Act (Northern Ireland) 1949 for its current sustainable agriculture programme schemes, the details of which could not have been foreseen in 1949. That said, we are not starting with a blank page with the Bill. The powers are to amend existing legislation, as set out in the evidence, and changes to the existing rules could include simplification or alignment with rules elsewhere to help ensure a level playing field for our growers and their competitors. Those are issues, however, that can be developed, consulted on and brought forward for the Assembly's consideration only once the powers are in place, which is a point that I made at Consideration Stage. There will then be scope to use the powers to make further changes over time in line with developing policy. Nevertheless, I will take cognisance of the recommendation in bringing forward future proposals for primary legislation.

I am content to accept the general principle behind the Committee recommendations on supporting innovation and new technology and helping local growers remain competitive. DAERA proposes a suite of innovation schemes, including the pilot innovation driver and support scheme, which is to be targeted specifically at the horticulture sector. That scheme should be open from spring 2026. Furthermore, the food and veg aid scheme itself provides support for new technologies, and the Bill's powers could provide for more favourable funding levels.

That is one of the key reasons for seeking the powers. Of course, making any changes relies on having not only the powers to do so, which the Bill provides, but the budget available to fund them.

With respect to horticulture policy and support more widely, the report makes recommendations linked to matters that are being considered as part of the review of fruit and veg aid, including how the legacy scheme fits with DAERA's strategic priorities and support for the sector. The review has also examined why the PO model has mainly been of interest to only one subsector here. The key reason is the reluctance of some to collaborate, which has been recognised and addressed by other policy measures, including the horticulture pilot schemes and the forthcoming supply chain measures. However, the making of any changes to the PO model is a reserved matter for Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) Ministers. The Committee heard from the mushroom industry that supporting smaller producers is a strength of the fruit and veg aid scheme. That is a key driver in the development of the pilot horticulture proposals. I therefore support those recommendations.

Of course, the enabling powers in the Bill are essential to ensure that the scheme rules reflect developing policy and respond to issues raised about the scheme during the current review. I envisage incremental changes being made in parallel with the development of future support and ongoing policy development.

Finally, the Committee recommends that a balance be sought between a range of beneficiaries in developing future agri-food promotion schemes. I am content that that matter will be considered as part of wider policy developments under the food strategy framework. The Bill's powers, of course, provide scope to amend legacy legislation, which would otherwise not be possible.

I again thank the Chairperson and members of the Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs Committee and others for their input on the matter and to the debate today. As I said, I understand the motivation behind the concerns raised during the Bill's passage, and I am pleased to be able to provide Members with the necessary reassurance.

Mr Butler (The Chairperson of the Committee for Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs): I thank the Minister for his kind words about the Chair and members of the AERA Committee. I welcome the opportunity to speak on behalf of the AERA Committee at the Final Stage of the Agriculture Bill, which is the first Bill to come before the Committee in this mandate.

The purpose of the Bill, which contains six substantive clauses, is to provide for the modification of assimilated direct legislation in relation to aid in the fruit and vegetable sectors. That pertains to information and promotion schemes for agriculture products and for connected purposes. Although it is entitled the "Agriculture Bill", the specific remit of the Bill and the lack of responses from the wider horticulture sector, such as soft fruit growers, led to our considerations being about the mushroom industry, which was extremely concerned about the impact on the sector.

The Bill is a short one, consisting of six clauses. However, the level of scrutiny that the Committee afforded to it at 13 meetings shows that members were aware of its significance to the mushroom sector and its potential significance to the wider horticulture sector. The Committee felt that it had been placed in a difficult position because the Bill is enabling legislation with wide powers, as the Minister outlined, albeit with a narrow remit. Members had no sight of any details of a replacement support scheme for the horticulture sector, as the review of the current scheme has not yet been completed by DAERA. The Committee hopes that any future enabling Bill will be brought forward only when there is a well-developed draft policy scheme, so that members can properly assess its impact.

Some members felt that the Bill was premature, while others accepted that the Minister required discretion over his budget and noted the risks associated with the closure of the English scheme while a mandatory funding scheme remained open in Northern Ireland. The Committee recognised that, without the Bill, DAERA could make no changes or improvements to the current schemes, as were requested by the mushroom sector.

The Committee was also concerned that the PO model, although successful for the mushroom sector, was not being used by other types of growers. DAERA acknowledged that there was work to be done in that regard. The Committee has held an evidence session on the Department's horticulture pilot scheme, and members hope that that will eventually lead to better collaboration and the development of other growers. The Committee looks forward to being notified on the progress and outworking of that scheme and others in due course.

The Committee put much focus on its deliberations on clause 1 and the fact that it makes payment of the current FVAS discretionary. At Committee Stage, we wrote to the Minister to ask whether he would consider an amendment to clause 1 to ring-fence funding and set an agreed baseline above which the Minister could then exercise discretionary powers. The Committee also asked whether the Minister would be minded to consider an amendment to the short title to better reflect the specific remit of the Bill regarding aid to the fruit and vegetable sector, information provision and promotion measures. Although the Minister was not minded to consider those amendments, the Committee was pleased that its evidence and discussion with officials encouraged the Minister to think again and agree not to close the scheme at the end of 2025. We are all grateful for that, Minister. That also allows for applications to the new three-year programme, which starts in September 2025, and an opportunity to co-design the new scheme with the horticulture sector. That was a major success for the Committee.

In the end, the Committee agreed not to request any amendments to the Bill, but that did not mean all members were in support of all the clauses, as most Committee members did not agree to clause 1 as drafted.

In conclusion, I welcome the Final Stage of the Bill. I again thank Assembly and departmental officials for all their help throughout the Committee Stage and highlight the good working relationships that have been established.

I will now make some brief comments on behalf of the Ulster Unionist Party. First, if you do not mind, I will speak as Robbie Butler, because this is the first time that I have chaired a Committee. You can do the scores on the doors at the end of the first session, guys, but it has been a real privilege to chair a very informed and passionate Committee. The members are passionate about their remit, and that was evident in the deliberations on the Bill. I leaned heavily — I do not mind saying so — on the people who have been around the sector for much longer than me, and that was a great help. I pay tribute to the Committee Clerk and her team, who were of great help, the research team and, indeed, the Bill Office team. We wrestled with the Bill Office team a number of times about the amendment and the Bill's short title, which might have seemed like small beer to some people. The Committee and I did not come at that issue from a legalistic or legislative angle but from the angle of the man or woman on the street. If they are searching for legislation that pertains to what they are doing, it is nearly better if it says on the front of the tin what it is that you will be looking for. In the wider context, we need to have a discussion about the short titles of all Bills. The Bill is called the "Agriculture Bill", and that probably sent a signal that perhaps it might morph into something a bit bigger than just POs.

I thank the stakeholder groups that engaged throughout the process. At a late stage, when they saw that everyone had exhausted every avenue to improve clause 1, we all realised where we were with the Bill. I also thank the Minister and his team, because they demonstrated that they were listening by extending the scheme and keeping it open. That relates primarily to clause 1 and the discretionary payment, but we should have been exercised about the fact that, for all the good that it does, we were incredibly frustrated that other growers had not seen the value of the scheme. That probably indicates that the scheme is fit to be revised. Despite the best endeavours of just about everyone, an amendment was not possible.

I have already spoken about the bee in my bonnet: the short title of the Bill. I will go back to that issue, because it is great not to come from an academic or university background in regard to why we have legalese. That is not why we create laws. We create laws to run our society and our communities, and our legislation should be much more readable, understandable and accessible. Legislation needs to be more easily reached or researched, because it can sometimes be hard to blinking find things, if you do not know the right questions to ask.

I am not speaking for the Committee, but I enjoyed scrutinising the Bill. It was worthwhile, and it sets us up for a good session as we go into the last year and a half with the Minister and his Department and any other ideas that might come forward. The Committee wants to keep a good relationship with the Minister to ensure that any legislation that is brought forward is not only fit for purpose but fit for the future.

Mr McAleer: As this is the Final Stage of the Agriculture Bill, I welcome the opportunity to reflect on its purpose and implications and the issues raised during its passage.

The Bill is an outcome of Brexit. I remind Members that the majority of people here did not vote for Brexit. With the move away from the common agricultural policy (CAP), there is a need to replace legacy EU schemes with new, locally administered arrangements. The Bill makes provision for changes to the fruit and vegetable aid scheme and the agri-food information and promotion schemes, including the introduction of discretionary funding. While that reflects a shift in how support is managed, it highlights the growing difference between the North and the South. Farmers in the South continue to benefit from the EU's reformed common agricultural policy, which provides stable funding, environmental support and longer-term planning. The industry is concerned about how producers here will remain competitive in that context.

While the intention to modernise and localise agricultural support is clear, concerns remain. Stakeholders across the sector have voiced reservations about the shift from mandatory to discretionary funding for horticulture, particularly given the divergence from the South, where EU support continues to be more robust. They are also concerned about how that disparity could impact on competitiveness and long-term sustainability for producers here. The rural impact assessment is another point that has been up for debate, with calls for a more comprehensive analysis of how the reforms will affect rural communities, which make up over a third of our population.

It is vital that the Bill delivers real benefits and lays a solid foundation for fair, flexible and future-facing agriculture policy.

Mr Blair: Madam Principal Deputy Speaker, if I may beg your indulgence, I would like to make a few comments following the recent passing of my father. First, I thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker, as well as the Speaker and Deputy Speaker Aiken, for being in touch so quickly to offer sincere sympathy and support. The same goes for every business area of the Assembly and for Members across the House from every party, who very sincerely offered their thoughts and prayers. There have been similar levels of support from many sectors, individuals and groups in Northern Ireland and from my South Antrim constituency. I record my sincere thanks and those of my family, and I assure everyone involved that their support brought great comfort and is still doing so.

As a member of the AERA Committee, I express my support and that of the Alliance Party for the Final Stage of the Agriculture Bill. The legislation represents a step forward in aiding the fruit and vegetable sector, supporting our rural communities and ensuring a sustainable future for food production in Northern Ireland.

Members will be aware that the challenges facing the agriculture sector have recently garnered significant discussion inside and outside the Chamber, emphasising the urgent need for the legislation to progress smoothly. It is clear that the AERA Minister remains committed to tackling the challenges facing our agriculture sector and that he is actively working towards a more sustainable future in which agricultural and environmental sustainability are more evenly balanced.

I cannot speak on those matters without thanking the Assembly and the Committee officials for their work with the Committee in considering the Bill, as well as the departmental officials — they are here today — who provided numerous presentations and updates to the Committee to keep us informed throughout the scrutiny process.

As we move forward with the debate on the Bill, I urge all Members to keep in mind the wider implications of our decisions today, although it appears that there is cross-party support. For example, without clause 1, the Department would remain under a legal obligation to fund eligible claims under the FVAS scheme, which would restrict the Minister's ability to prioritise support in a manner that maximises value for money and effectively meets specific local needs. Therefore, the legislation provides much-needed clarity and stability for future horticulture support, which many who work in the sector have welcomed.

Clauses 2 to 4, along with clause 1, will promote sustainable growth in our horticulture sector. Those clauses introduce vital reforms that are aimed at supporting our farmers and producers as we adjust to the post-Brexit environment, allowing them to succeed in a competitive global market. Alongside that, the clauses will enable farmers to embrace new technologies and methods that will enhance their livelihoods while benefiting our environment.

That will strengthen the security and resilience of our grid systems, offering producers the stability that is required for consistent operations in an ever-changing and challenging climate.

Clauses 5 and 6 are mainly technical and can be supported on that basis.

The legislation signifies a substantial step towards a more sustainable future for our horticulture sector. By fostering and nurturing local food production, advocating sustainable farming practices and ensuring fair access to markets for Northern Irish farmers, the legislation will directly contribute to reducing the carbon footprint of our food system while invigorating our local economy by creating jobs and driving growth. On behalf of the Alliance Party, I therefore express our support for the Bill, and we urge others to join us in that support.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Thank you, John. Cúpla focal uaimse. Comhbhrón, a Sheáin. Ní maith linn do bhris.

Miss McIlveen: Like you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker, I extend my condolences to John on the passing of his father; it is the first time that I have seen him since then.

The DUP stands four-square behind the principle that, after decades in the EU, locally accountable Ministers should be able to bring forward proposals to support our agri-food sector; however, that has to go hand in hand with financial certainty and security for growers who are supported under the existing FVAS.

As we articulated throughout Committee Stage, we were concerned about the Minister's intention to move to a discretionary model, which is framed in clause 1, without providing concrete proposals on what would come next. Those concerns were also articulated by the mushroom sector. Those acting on its behalf felt that the withdrawal of the 4·1% match funding for producer organisations and the lack of support for the three proposed horticultural pilot schemes in particular disadvantaged them. It was unfortunate that the emphasis on that left the broader principle of the Bill behind.

As we know, the role of the mushroom sector is significant in horticulture in Northern Ireland. It produces 40% of our output and over 10% of UK mushrooms, including 50% of organic mushrooms; that is not insignificant. However, the sector, understandably, feels under pressure not only because of the support issue but — we have raised this on numerous occasions — from labour challenges.

I remain concerned by the suggestion from mushroom growers during Committee Stage that the Department's engagement with them on the drafting of the Bill left much to be desired. Sadly, that is a theme that we see more and more often with policies, strategies and legislation. I ask the Minister — I plead with him, because we have seen that pattern of behaviour — not to let that happen again.

It should not have taken the Committee's expression of concern to prompt the Minister to begin preparatory work on the co-design of a replacement scheme or, indeed, to provide assurances that POs in Northern Ireland will be able to submit a new operational programme for approval under the current scheme beyond the end of the calendar year. However, we welcome the certainty that has been provided.

It is of little assurance to mushroom growers or those of us on these Benches that the design and detail of future schemes will be left to secondary legislation, with the limited opportunity that we will have to scrutinise that. I have stood on my soapbox in the House and in the Committee on our role: should we really give the Department and the Minister a blank cheque in that respect? I am not sure that I want to do that, but, sadly, it comes down to trust.

The FVAS has played a crucial role in reducing barriers to entry to markets for farmers and producers. It enables them to meet standards in order to trade and to avail themselves of support for environmentally sound cultivation practices and production techniques. That is the only funding stream for mushroom producers, however. What we have before us gives us no indication of future support. Those qualms will not have been eased by the Minister's decision to reject the proposal from producers that he baseline support at 4·1% of value of marketed production sales.

I welcome the U-turn by the Minister during Committee Stage to allow time for his officials to work with the sector. There is no shame in that at all, and I encourage him to reflect on the merits of that approach in respect of other policy areas. I encourage the Department to work at pace with the mushroom sector to develop an action plan and provide support that will allow growers to access new technologies in order to increase their productivity and plan for a sustainable future.

I place on record the fact that it is only because of the later representations that were made by those acting on behalf of the industry that I now support the legislation. To be fair to the sector, I want the Minister to move at pace, reaffirm his commitment to a process that is based on co-design principles and confirm a timeline for the introduction of secondary legislation before the end of the mandate. I thank the officials who came to Committee nearly weekly — it was a painstaking process for them, I am sure — and the Committee staff.

Mr McGlone: I thank the Minister for progressing the legislation. I also thank the officials for working through what seemed on occasions to be interminable question-and-answer sessions at Committee. We made some headway, but I remarked on one key factor very early on: the situation faced by the horticulture sector and the mushroom sector, which I will come on to in a moment or two. Many of those mushroom growers are in County Armagh, and there is a marked difference between the level of support that they get here and the level of support that other mushroom growers get just a few miles down the road in the Republic — in the EU. That difference is, of course, a result of Brexit. We pulled out, and it became apparent very early on that the support and market access that is available to growers south of the border — in the EU — is markedly better.

We had numerous debates around discretionary support and what that means. While I am aware of the implications and meaning of discretionary support in the context of what the Minister has to do within his remit, some growers drew our attention to the fact that anything that gave the impression that the support involved a level of short-termism could not be presented to funders or others as a meaningful long-term investment, and that that meant that their businesses could be seen as having uncertainty around them. I am sure that the Minister will take the opportunity to give the assurance that that is not the legislation's intention.

On the whole issue of mushroom growers and investment in their businesses, I remember that, on the final occasion, the Minister gave us assurances that he would engage with the sector with a view to trying to resolve issues and help things as we move along. I support the legislation at this stage. I ask the Minister for additional clarification and assurance on those two issues: discretion and engagement with the mushroom sector about their industry and the future of their businesses. I thank the Minister.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Our next contributor will be the Minister for Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs. Minister, I ask you to conclude and wind up the debate on the Final Stage of the Agriculture Bill.

Mr Muir: Thank you, Principal Deputy Speaker. I thank the Committee Chair and members for their contributions in the debate. I want to say to John that he has been in our thoughts and prayers, following the passing of his dad. John, you spoke very courageously at the funeral, and I am so proud of you. We are thinking of you and your family, especially your mum and sister.

Before I close the debate, I will respond to a few of the issues that were raised by Members. It is important and only right and proper that I do so. The first is about future support for the mushroom industry. Much of what was said today was about concerns about making support discretionary and about long-term support for the mushroom industry. I, again, acknowledge the concerns raised around that, because the mushroom industry is an important part of our agri-food sector in Northern Ireland. The AERA Committee heard how the mushroom industry, a key beneficiary of the FVAS over many years, is at a disadvantage because the rules have not stood still elsewhere. The Bill is essential to ensure that there is scope to make changes to and improve the scheme. Similarly, the Bill will give powers to amend legacy EU rules on agri-food promotions, should it be necessary to use them.

Mr Blair: I thank the Minister for giving way. At this stage in his response, can he give us his thoughts on the mention that has been made of migrant workers on two fronts? First, the impact on the availability of migrant workers due to Brexit, which the people of Northern Ireland did not want to start with. Secondly, the very direct impact on the availability of migrant workers and on the attractiveness of Northern Ireland to migrant workers of the recent direct threats and violence against them.

Mr Muir: Thank you, John. While we are talking about the mushroom industry, one of the issues that has been raised regularly is that of the UK Government's migration policies and the impact that they are having on agri-food businesses in Northern Ireland. We know that that impact is most acute for the mushroom sector. I visited one of the main businesses in the sector with the Northern Ireland Office Minister and made representations to her. I asked, if the UK Government were not going to change migration policy, what support they would give us to develop automation, which is quite expensive. Unfortunately, a reply on that was not forthcoming, and I will continue to engage with the UK Government on their migration policy. That is an outworking of Brexit, and, if we are talking about U-turns, I would wholeheartedly welcome one on the policies of the UK Government because they have damaged the UK economy significantly and have damaged agri-food businesses.

It is also important to put on record that I am extremely grateful for the work that people in the agri-food sector do. Essentially, they help us to put food on people's tables and help with food security, not just in Northern Ireland but more broadly across the UK and elsewhere. A number of them are foreign nationals, and the recent attacks on them are despicable. I stand four-square in support of foreign nationals in Northern Ireland, and those attacks are an attack on us as a community. It is important that we give our support to them and that we give the attacks outright condemnation without any ifs, buts, maybes or conditionality at all. The mushroom sector is reliant on people who come to work every day and work really hard, supporting that industry, and the Bill will allow us to continue to support them and to look at further ways in which we can do that.

I have instructed officials to begin preparatory work on a replacement scheme to be developed in co-design with the horticulture sector, informed by the ongoing FVAS review. I note calls for that work to be taken forward at pace, but it is at a very early stage and will get fully under way once the pilot horticulture schemes have been rolled out. My officials' immediate focus is, rightly, on ensuring that preparations are in place to ensure smooth transition to DAERA delivery of the FVAS from the end of this year. However, I see the current scheme running alongside policy development until there is a suitable replacement.

That has been broadly welcomed by stakeholders. I recognise the request from a number of people that support should remain at the current level. That will be the case under existing rules and will, no doubt, be factored into discussions with the wider horticulture sector as part of the co-design process for a replacement scheme. It has always been the case that DAERA's support will continue to be available for Northern Ireland growers who previously availed themselves of fruit and veg aid under the legacy scheme. It is important that I reiterate that today.

Reference has been made to the review of the fruit and veg aid scheme. The review is assessing the existing scheme, which was inherited from the EU; how it operated; what it achieved; lessons learned; and how it fits with Northern Ireland policy priorities. It is also considering why only one subsector has, until recently at least, availed itself of the scheme here — a matter that was discussed during Committee Stage.

With regard to the latter, I understand that there has been tentative interest from other sub-sectors in recent weeks. Time will tell where those discussions might lead.

Importantly, the review will not, nor did it set out to, provide a detailed outline of a replacement scheme. The policy development work remains to be done in consultation with the horticulture sector, informed by the review findings. Without the Bill's powers, however, there would be limited scope to change existing rules that applied under EU law at exit. The powers would allow for improvements to the scheme, including to align it with support elsewhere, and may provide scope for simplification of the EU base rules. The modification possible using those powers could, as I said, include incremental improvements while the co-design of any future scheme is progressed. Importantly, the Bill provides scope to respond to the issues raised during the review and to make changes as required.

With regard to discretion, in the end, as reflected in Members' comments today and throughout the Bill's passage, the key concern has been the removal of a mandatory requirement for the Department to support all eligible fruit and veg aid scheme claims. As I said, making support discretionary does not close the scheme. It gives me scope to consider future funding on a case-by-case basis, and I would require a very robust reason for me to do that. I see two scenarios where that might happen: when support would have a major negative impact on budget or if there was a risk that Executive earmarked funding could be used for the benefit of non-Northern Ireland growers. I am glad that Members have seen the need to mitigate such risks. I welcome the support for that and for the recognition that my confirmation that the fruit and veg aid scheme will continue after this year has provided the clarity and security for which stakeholders called. Should the Bill be enacted, I look forward to the opportunity to consider what improvements could be made using the new powers in the Act. I look forward to working with stakeholders and the Assembly to make such changes, including looking at what can be done to improve environmental and economic outcomes. I also look forward to seeing progress on a successor scheme and the opportunity that that will present.

I again thank Members for their contributions and for their support for the Bill. In particular, I thank the Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs Committee for its scrutiny of the Bill and for working cooperatively with me and my officials. There is lots more legislation coming down the road, and if we can work together, we can deliver for the citizens of Northern Ireland. I think that I have made a robust case for the Bill, and, at the same time, confirmed my commitment to the mushroom industry and the wider horticulture sector. Therefore, I commend the Bill to the House.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Members, take your ease, please.

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

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): In accordance with convention, the Business Committee has not allocated a time limit to the debate.

Mr Nesbitt: I am delighted to open this first debate on the Adult Protection Bill. It has been a long time coming. In fact, it was January 2020 — five and a half years ago — when the Commissioner for Older People for Northern Ireland published his report, 'Home Truths', on his investigation into Dunmurry Manor care home. Furthermore, in August 2020, an independent review of the leadership and governance at Muckamore Abbey Hospital was published. Subsequent to those reports and the shocking safeguarding failings at Muckamore and Dunmurry Manor, it was recognised that there was a need to review and improve the Department's adult safeguarding policy.

In September 2020, my predecessor, Robin Swann, announced his intention to legislate. A public consultation on the legislative options ran between December 2020 and April 2021. During that period, the Department held 19 engagement sessions, and 89 consultation responses were received. It was clear from the responses that legislative change was necessary and that more needed to be done to protect the most vulnerable people in our care.

The objective of the Adult Protection Bill is to improve and strengthen the adult protection process across Northern Ireland. The Bill introduces additional powers and responsibilities to support our health and social care system to protect adults who are at risk of harm. Placing adult protection on a statutory footing will also help bring us into line with neighbouring jurisdictions. Such legislation already exists in England, Scotland and Wales, and similar work is currently being undertaken in the Republic.

I now come to the Bill. The entirety of Part 1 is written in the context of seven principles that the Bill sets out: prevention; autonomy; empowerment; dignity; proportionality; partnership; and accountability. Part 1 introduces a duty on a health and social care trust to make enquiries in cases in which someone who is suspected of being an "adult at risk", as defined by the Bill, is brought to its attention.

Following on from that duty, the Bill introduces new powers for the trusts that will assist them in their investigations. Powers include a power of entry that will enable suitably trained and qualified adult protection social workers to enter a residence for the purpose of determining whether intervention is required in order to protect an adult at risk of harm. Trusts will also be able to apply to a Magistrates' Court for the granting of a range of protective measures. An assessment order will allow the person to be interviewed in an alternative location. A removal order will allow the person to be removed to another location for up to seven days if there are concerns that the person may be at immediate risk of harm. A banning order will ban a person from being in a specified location for up to six months if an adult is being, or is likely to be, seriously harmed by that person. Each of those orders is subject to a number of conditions. Under normal circumstances, they may be used only where the adult at risk has consented to their use.

In addition to the protection orders, Part 1 includes a power for an adult protection social worker to examine records, including financial records, in circumstances in which there is suspected financial abuse. There are also requirements about the provision of independent advocates to support adults at risk. Additionally, there is a requirement for a trust to establish and have regard to the views of relatives, carers and other interested persons, as well as to keep them informed of the trust's actions with the adult at risk. That aspect was of particular concern to those families whose loved ones suffered abuse at Muckamore and at Dunmurry Manor. My officials engaged with those families throughout the drafting of the Bill, and I hope that the inclusion of that duty will provide them with some assurance that their views have been fully considered.

Part 2 provides for the establishment of an Adult Protection Board for Northern Ireland and places a duty on the Department to establish such a board. The board will operate on a basis similar to that on which the children's Safeguarding Board for Northern Ireland (SBNI) operates and will have responsibility for coordinating and ensuring the effectiveness of adult protection regionally. It will also undertake serious case reviews, which are something new in Northern Ireland.

Part 3 introduces offences that relate to ill treatment and wilful neglect. The offences apply to care workers and care providers.

Finally, Part 4 confers on the Department the power to make regulations on the installation and use of CCTV systems on the premises of the listed establishments for the purpose of safeguarding resident adults at risk. To be clear, that does not mean mandatory installation of CCTV. I fully recognise the impact that CCTV records had on highlighting the truly reprehensible abuse that took place in Muckamore Abbey Hospital. Indeed, without that evidence, we may not have uncovered the abuse. However, making CCTV mandatory in care settings would mean that that could apply in an individual's own home if they were being cared for in that environment. That could affect one of my loved ones or one of yours. Such infringement on anyone's individual human rights is not within the gift of the House, nor would I consider it to be a step that we should take if doing so was within the Assembly's legislative competence.

The regulations will place structure around organisations to decide whether CCTV should be installed and direct how it should be managed, monitored and maintained. The content of the CCTV regulations shall be subject to full public consultation down the line. However, where CCTV is installed it will be for the Regulation and Quality Improvement Authority (RQIA) to monitor and enforce its compliance with the CCTV regulations.

The Adult Protection Bill is intended to strengthen and underpin the adult protection processes here. There are additional duties and powers for those who are entrusted with safeguarding adults at risk; offences that aim to close gaps in the current provision; regulatory-making power to govern the use of CCTV; and provision for establishing a body to coordinate adult protection and investigate failings at a regional level.

I hope that we can all agree on the importance of protecting those at risk in our society. The failings that we have seen at places like Muckamore Abbey Hospital and Dunmurry Manor care home should never have happened in the first place and they must never happen again.

The Bill is an important step in transforming our social care system. I look forward to hearing what Members have to say about it.

Mr McGuigan (The Chairperson of the Committee for Health): I welcome the opportunity to make some remarks on behalf of the Health Committee. I will outline the Committee's consideration of the Bill before speaking as my party's health spokesperson.

The Committee welcomes that the Minister has introduced the Bill. As he pointed out, it has been a long time in the making. In September 2020, the previous Minister of Health announced his intention to consult on legislative options to inform an adult protection Bill. That followed the significant adult safeguarding failures in Dunmurry Manor care home and Muckamore Abbey Hospital and two resultant reports: the Commissioner for Older People's 'Home Truths' report and the report of a further independent review to examine the health and social care system's response to care failings. The Bill has, therefore, been more than five years in the making, and the Committee will seek to ensure that it puts the protections and safeguards in place that will prevent scandals such as that at Muckamore from happening to vulnerable adults again.

As the Minister outlined, the legislation is a significant Bill that is based on seven principles that should be adhered to by everyone involved in adult protection. Those principles are: prevention, ensuring that those in care are as safe as possible; autonomy, presuming that adults have the capacity to make their own decisions; empowerment, supporting people to make informed choices; dignity, paying attention to people's human rights; proportionality, taking interventions in a person's best interests; partnership, recognising the importance of an adult's family, friends and carers; and accountability, which is about transparency for decisions that are made and roles and responsibilities. We can all welcome those principles, and it is good to see them at the forefront of the Bill in clause 1.

The Bill also introduces a number of new duties and powers that seek to strengthen the protection of vulnerable adults. Those include the duty to make follow-up enquiries in all cases where someone is suspected of being an adult who is at risk. It also includes new powers for health trusts, which will facilitate their duty to investigate, including the power of entry and three protection orders — the assessment order, the removal order and the banning order. The Bill will see the introduction of two new offences: ill treatment and wilful neglect. It will establish the independent Adult Protection Board and its functions, duties and responsibilities.

Clauses 43 to 47 provide the Department with the ability to bring forward regulations on the use of CCTV in a daycare setting, nursing home, residential care home and mental health unit. As the Minister said, that is not mandatory.

The Committee was briefed twice by officials on the Bill: once in May 2024 on the progress of the then draft Bill, and more recently on 19 June 2025, after it had been introduced.

I thank officials for their engagement with Committee members and staff on the Bill over the past weeks, and I look forward to seeing more of them in the coming months as the Committee scrutinises the Bill.

At our meeting on 19 June, members discussed a number of issues with officials, including, at clause 4, the inclusion of the Prison Service in the duty to report and cooperate in inquiries; the need to ensure that there is no duplication in the system; and the need for clarity in relation to investigations. We also discussed time frames for the duty to report and the duty to investigate. We also talked about the definition of "harm" and the ability to deal with emerging harm types and about the regulations on the use of CCTV and how they will be brought forward by the Department and considered by the Committee and the Assembly.

A significant area of discussion in Committee was on resourcing and implementing the Bill. The Department indicated that it will cost approximately £120·8 million over 10 years, with £12 million being the cost in the first year. Officials indicated that no budget is currently identified for the Bill and that resource will need to be found from within existing budget lines. That causes some concern for members, because, at the end of the process, we could have a Bill that will sit on a shelf for a number of years until the funding is found. The Committee needs to see a clear implementation plan for the Bill that will show what actions can be taken with full funding and what actions can be taken forward if less resource is available. Members want to realise the benefits of the Bill for vulnerable adults as soon as possible, as we do not want another scandal. I therefore encourage the Minister to ensure that there is a detailed implementation plan for the Bill that can be shared with the Committee and Members as soon as possible.

The Bill is lengthy and covers a detailed and sensitive area. As a Committee, we look forward to scrutinising it to ensure that vulnerable adults are provided with the highest level of protection and support to live their lives.

I will comment briefly in my role as Sinn Féin health spokesperson. Again, I welcome the opportunity to record my party's support for the creation of the Adult Protection Bill, which will provide a single piece of legislation to cover safeguarding, legal protections and the relevant processes for adults and older people who, unfortunately, have experienced abuse. We also support the Bill's broad principles, which I have just outlined, and welcome the fact that the principles of the review conducted in response to the care failings at Dunmurry Manor care home are clearly embedded. As the Bill continues to progress, there will be time to debate the individual clauses, many of which we also welcome. We particularly welcome the establishment of an independent adult protection board and improved cooperation processes between organisations and families on protection cases. We will seek further clarity on other clauses during Committee Stage. One of the criticisms of the current safeguarding process has been the considerable energy and focus on safeguarding activity with little or no evidence of how it contributed to or improved outcomes for those using the services as well as for staff, care providers, health authorities or the regulator.

Today, however, I take the opportunity to recognise the invaluable role provided by independent advocates in supporting the rights and interests of all those who use our Health and Social Care (HSC) services, and I thank them for their contribution to improving standards and the culture of care to date. I also acknowledge all those who have been affected by safeguarding failures. They will understand better than most the importance of the legislation and the need to get it right. Key to getting it right is meaningful partnership, working with individuals, families and all the relevant stakeholders. Engagement during the scrutiny of the clauses, including the proposed duties and powers, and following the Bill's implementation will be vital. I look forward to meeting as many people as possible as part of the process.

Mr McGrath: At the heart of the Bill lies this simple question: how do we protect the dignity and rights of those who are least able to protect themselves? The Adult Protection Bill comes to us as a response to the deeply disturbing failures that we saw at Dunmurry Manor and Muckamore Abbey Hospital. Those failures were not just operational or bureaucratic but moral. They were obscene. They reflected a system that was neither equipped nor empowered to protect those who were in need. The Bill rightly seeks to change that and to put adult protection on a clear statutory footing and bring Northern Ireland into line with the rest of these islands. As the Opposition, the SDLP welcomes the principles of the Bill. It offers us a chance to ensure that there is accountability and structure but, above all, that there is a rights-based approach to protecting those who are in need and at risk. It cannot undo the harm that has already been done, but it can and must ensure that what happened does not happen again.

The Bill defines those whom it seeks to protect: adults at risk. While that definition is clear, there is one significant exclusion: individuals who self-harm. They are a vulnerable group and are often isolated and in need of support and protection. I ask the Minister to clarify in his winding-up speech whether that exclusion is intentional, whether there is scope to review or expand the definition or whether there is a sense that the matter is covered elsewhere.

More broadly, that prompts a fundamental question about the definition of adulthood. Legally, we consider someone to be an adult at 18, yet we must be aware that, for individuals with a learning disability, questions of capacity, autonomy and consent are far more nuanced. That is not a theoretical issue, because the Bill will affect such individuals directly. Across children's services, there is always unease at how they transition into adult services, and a cliff-edge approach is unhelpful and, at times, damaging to the individual. I wonder whether the Minister would consider strengthening the Bill to permit the transition of services as opposed to having that cliff edge. There are inconsistencies that might be reflected there. I think of the conversations that we have had, particularly in the all-party group on youth participation, on the concern that suddenly, one day, you move from being a young person to being an adult. It means that children who may be at risk will suddenly be exposed to a range of different services than they were the day before simply because of the fact that they turned 18. I ask that some thought be given to that now, because we may find that it is a problem down the line.

I also want to address the status of the Mental Capacity Act 2016, as it has a direct correlation with the Bill in individuals' finances, daily living, care and protections. As I understand it, that Act has not been fully implemented, so it would be good to find out how any deficiencies in it could have an impact on the success of the Adult Protection Bill. Will the Department work to align both in practice and in law? Related to that, it is absolutely vital that, as the Bill progresses, the learning disability service model also progresses. The Muckamore Abbey Hospital story illustrated more profoundly and tragically that people with a learning disability are often those who are most at risk. We must not pass a law on adult protection in isolation; rather, it must work in tandem with real reform in how we deliver learning disability services.

That brings me to the workforce. The social work profession is absolutely critical to the delivery of the Bill. While it is welcome that 340 undergraduates will commence their studies in September, with a further 15 at Ulster University (UU), there is still a backlog that needs to be addressed. The most recent data that the Committee received showed that 255 social work vacancies exist and that 240 students will graduate this September. It is often really important to make it clear that not everyone who graduates as a social worker will automatically commence employment with the health trusts. In fact, the latest data from the Social Care Council shows that just 71% of social workers across the HSC trust network end up working there, so addressing that backlog is absolutely crucial. We know that the Department does not envisage newly qualified staff immediately assuming the new responsibilities outlined in the Bill, so that raises these questions: who will deliver the service, and how will the Department and the trusts organise that workforce sustainably? I make those points not to try to find inconsistencies in the Bill; it is to say that we are now looking to the future, when the Bill will make its way through and be passed, which is what we want to see, and we want to make sure that, when it passes, we are not left with a workforce that struggles to deliver that or that we fill all the posts here but create vacancies in other parts of the service, which can cause problems.

With new powers must come new protections not just for service users but for staff. Social work is a highly pressurised profession, and I am keen to hear assurances from the Minister that social workers will be supported, resourced and protected as they take on the new, additional duties under the legislation.

We then have the issue of accountability, which is obviously central, and we know that from the independent review of Muckamore Abbey. That review recommended standing down the Adult Safeguarding Partnership and replacing it with an independent adult protection board — the key word is "independent". The Bill outlines the creation of a board, but it omits that crucial detail. If we are serious about rebuilding public trust, why are we not establishing a truly independent body? We absolutely must learn from the past, and that means creating structures that are not beholden to the systems that have previously failed.

There are other elements in the Bill that I welcome, such as the creation of the new offences, the statutory basis for advocacy and the ability to develop the protection plans. However, I encourage the Minister to consider including a provision for independent whistle-blowing. Front-line staff must be able to raise concerns safely and confidentially. That is a crucial part of any safeguarding culture. That point could not be more relevant than it is at this exact time. That is a point on which I will not start to deviate, but it is sufficient to say that a Bill that seeks to protect adults at risk must also embed protections for those who expose the harm or the neglect that could take place.

Mrs Dillon: I thank the Member for giving way, and I thank the Minister for the Bill's Second Stage today. Does the Member agree that what is not included in the Bill but would strengthen it is the duty of candour? That would allow for many of the issues that the Member outlined to do with whistle-blowing to be dealt with. If we could have such honesty and candour, it would enable people to say when things are not right; when things are wrong and need to be fixed.

Mr McGrath: I thank the Member for her intervention. I think that there is cross-party agreement about the introduction of a duty of candour. I know that there are difficulties with some of the specific details, but, certainly, it is a conversation that could well take place alongside a Bill such as this.

Mr Frew: I thank the Member for giving way. Does the Member agree that a statutory duty of candour should be an individual duty of candour and not an organisational one?

Mr McGrath: I am not going to reply to that, because this is not the place. We are talking about adult protection and adult safety for those at risk. A dual conversation needs to be had, and that is the forum in which to discuss the differences in the nuances of that. I do not want to take the Speaker's job here, but we should stick to the matter at hand.

We should have some sort of safety built in to the Bill so that people who see neglect are able to raise that confidentially. Why? It is important because the individual — the service user — needs that protection.

We have said that there will be detailed scrutiny on the use of CCTV, and I welcome the fact that the Minister has said that. I am sure that we will explore that, because there are some concerns. We need to get that right, and the Committee Stage will allow us to do that. On the principle of that part of the Bill, I say that any such power must be exercised with caution, respecting the rights of residents and the importance of transparency in care environments.

I will address the cost of the Bill's implementation: £12 million a year for 10 years is a really serious commitment. However, if we are to do it right and it is a necessary commitment, financing the Bill will not be an insurmountable challenge. I would welcome from the Minister a breakdown of how that figure was calculated and confirmation of whether the Department envisages an incremental roll-out or a full implementation from the start.

The SDLP supports the principles of the Bill. However, support must come with scrutiny, and that is our duty to the people whom we represent. We must get this right, not just for the sake of having passed legislation but for the sake of those whose lives may one day depend on it. I hope and trust that, throughout the process, our focus and guide will be the needs of the most vulnerable in our society and, of course, our essential healthcare staff who work with them.

Mrs Dodds: I, like others in the House, welcome the Second Stage of the Bill. Minister, in your concluding remarks, you said that we should never hesitate to protect the most vulnerable. We all agree with your sentiment. However, it is a pity that it has been such a long time coming; that the Bill is only now starting to address the gaps between here and the rest of the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland; and that it has taken the harrowing circumstances of Muckamore and Dunmurry Manor to bring the issue into the public domain. Many people, particularly the families, await the outcome of the public inquiry with trepidation.

As others have said, the Bill has come about through the independent report and other reports on the deficits in Northern Ireland legislation. In essence, it will bring us into line with the rest of the United Kingdom. The seven key principles, which others have outlined, all seem sensible and important. Importantly, the Bill places a duty on organisations to report, make enquiries and cooperate. Given the issues at Muckamore, there will be a duty on HSC trusts to follow up in all cases where it is brought to their attention that someone is suspected of being an adult at risk. We, as a Health Committee, met families who are going through the serious adverse incident (SAI) process. The way that that process is drawn out by health trust officials is, at times, scandalous. The search for information is very stressful for families who have been so deeply affected. All those things are important and will be welcome. I hope that we can work with the Bill, and with the Minister and the Department, to strengthen those important areas.

The duty to report and cooperate would place a duty on several bodies and establishments to report to the relevant HSC trusts in cases where, they believe, there is reasonable cause to suspect that an adult meets the criteria of an adult at risk. Again, that is very important. I will back up Colin McGrath's comment: if there is a duty to report, there must be protection for those who are doing the reporting and whistle-blowing. There have been significant conversations in the media recently about whistle-blowers and the impact on them personally and on their career prospects. We need to know that the duty to report comes with safeguards for those who are doing the reporting out of goodwill and concern for the people who are at risk. I will be interested in seeing how those elements of the Bill will intersect with any duty of candour. It is really important that we have synergy in that regard.

The adult protection board will have the power to conduct serious case reviews. I believe firmly that accountability and independence will be key to that board. I hope that we will see that safeguarded and strengthened in the legislation.

The Bill creates offences around ill treatment and wilful neglect, and, of course, we will all scrutinise the use of CCTV.

That is all welcome, Minister. We look forward to looking at the Bill clause by clause and helping the Department to get the balance right for the future. Like others in the House, however, I am concerned that the business case has been approved by the Department of Finance only on the basis that the legislation will not be enacted until such times as funds become available. In essence, that means that implementation could be delayed. That would be very disappointing for the families whose loved ones have suffered the horrors of Muckamore and Dunmurry Manor.

We will want to look further at the costs of the Bill. The Health Committee received a paper estimating those costs to be £12 million a year over the next decade. Without extra funding, it may be the case that the Act would simply sit unimplemented. It would be like the Mental Capacity Act (Northern Ireland) 2016, much of which still has not been implemented. The feeling of the House is that it is too important not to be implemented. We would like your assurance, Minister, that you will seek extra funding for that implementation. We will give you our support for that. That is hugely important.

I just want to check that the costs of the Bill are accurate, because, in autumn 2021, I was led to believe that the Bill's estimated start-up costs were over £800,000, with £821,000 annually for implementation. That is a significant divergence from the costs in your current estimates. Can you shed any light on how those costs have risen so dramatically to £12 million a year and how we can scrutinise that part of the Bill?

Minister, in the DUP's 2022 Assembly manifesto, my party promised to support new adult safeguarding legislation. We will stand over that promise. As I have said, I have concerns about the overall funding for the legislation. I hope that it can be brought through the House in a timely manner and that you and your officials will listen and respond to the concerns — not just the concerns but the praise, I have to say — that have been levelled at the Bill in the debate.

One of the reasons why we need the Bill is the fact that is difficult for families to get information about their loved ones, if they are concerned about how those loved ones are being dealt with by health and social care trusts. A number of us will have received an email from a family who were deeply involved in the Muckamore Abbey Hospital scandal and have been trying, over a period of probably two years, to get information from the Belfast Trust on adverse incidents that relate to their son. I would like you to give us some assurance — I will forward the correspondence to you — that the matter will be dealt with, not post the legislation but now. It is an extremely stressful situation. Some of the emails that the family sent were not acknowledged, and others have been kind of thrown into the long grass, for want of a better phrase. I would like you to place in the Assembly Library information on the arrangements that are made for releasing information on adverse incidents and, indeed, serious adverse incidents and on the circumstances in which that information is released, because to keep families in continuous suspense and having to fight continually on that issue is just wrong. I know that the Minister will give that matter his attention, because it is deeply disturbing.

I thank the Minister for the introduction of the Bill's Second Stage. This is a good step forward, and I look forward to the scrutiny of the Bill.

Miss McAllister: I thank the Minister for moving the Second Stage. The Bill has been a long time coming, but it is important that it is here. I will be political for a second but not to the Minister. Eddie Lynch concluded his report, 'Home Truths', back in January 2020. Even in 2018, he foresaw that there would be a delay, but I do not imagine that he thought the delay would be this long. In 2020, he said:

The collapse of the Assembly has meant that it has taken seven years. That is another example of delay due to the collapse of the Assembly. I hope that we do not reach that point again, because it affects real lives. This is about protecting vulnerable people.

I welcome the Bill. I particularly want to say a few words about the context and why we are here. Reading 'Home Truths' again, a number of months ago when the Adult Protection Bill was being discussed at the Committee, reminded you of the gravity of the situation. There was neglect; there were instances of sexual assault on female residents; there were residents leaving the home unnoticed; and there were inhumane and degrading treatments. Those words were used during the investigation. We thought that that would be the worst of it, but, in 2017, other issues arose.

I will take a few minutes to speak about one of our former Alliance Party councillors, Mervyn Jones. He was an Alliance Party councillor for decades. Mervyn had a young son, Timmy, who lived in Muckamore. Some evenings, Mervyn would arrive late to council meetings. Mervyn passed away, unfortunately, in 2017, but I remember him speaking about dropping Timmy off and picking him up and about the fact that it was said that it was better if Timmy was left outside rather than brought in for the settling process. I always think about Timmy when I think and speak about Muckamore, because I know how much Mervyn and Dawn loved their son. Dawn still does. Mervyn did not live to know what had happened in Muckamore. I wonder whether that was better in some ways, given how much he was connected to and adored his son and how he placed his trust in the staff at Muckamore hospital. The Bill is as much for people like Mervyn and Dawn and people like Glynn, who campaign every day for their children, as it is for the vulnerable adults who are affected. We are talking about very vulnerable adults: in their parents' eyes, they are still children whom they care about and have put into the care of the state. That is why we are here today, and I look forward to scrutinising the Bill in more depth as we move along to the Committee Stage.

The key principles are prevention, autonomy, empowerment, dignity, proportionality, partnership and accountability, and I will speak abut two: dignity and accountability. In his opening remarks on the Bill, the Minister spoke about families and the importance of keeping families involved in any safeguarding process and any orders that the Bill may use and about ensuring that due regard is given to the views of families. I look forward to examining that a bit further, because one of the aspects that we often come up against is where families come into the picture and where their thoughts and views about their loved ones can come in. Mrs Dodds mentioned the sharing of information: that is important. Some trusts have made way to go to court to ensure that information can be shared. The sharing of information and keeping families included is an issue that the Department needs to look at in its totality.

The next issue that I will speak about is accountability. Minister, you said that, in Part 1 of the Bill, there is a statutory duty on health trusts to do follow-up inquiries. The PSNI is included in the list of organisations that are required to participate in inquiries. I join Paul Frew in saying that there should be a statutory individual duty of candour. There is a statutory duty to participate in inquiries or investigations, but what is the deterrent to not doing so? What if someone does not make a full, wholesome and transparent summary to an inquiry? I am not sure whether the Minister can say today what the deterrent will be if someone does not participate. Perhaps we can look at that at Committee Stage, because it is a very important issue.

I will also talk about the independent advocate and about social workers' powers of investigation. An element of the Ray Jones review was to provide independent advocates for children, particularly in court proceedings. That responsibility is placed on individual social workers. Colin talked about capacity in social work teams. It is very important that we do not place that responsibility on the shoulders of social workers who have been qualified for only a couple of years. It is really important that we implement the workforce plan, because it is not just about vacancies but about where the gaps are.

I will talk a little bit about the proposed Adult Protection Board. I agree with Members who said that the board's independence is crucial. Serious case reviews are very important. They have just been implemented in the Department of Justice. Hopefully, those will have maximum impact on learning. I therefore look forward to seeing how serious case reviews are implemented when the Bill becomes law. Independence is important, however, because, as we saw from the hyponatraemia inquiry, and as we see from some of the issues that have been coming out of the Muckamore inquiry, the implementation of some of the recommendations have been overseen by the very people who were involved in those scandals at a management level. Independence is therefore important so that we can learn lessons and implement change. I look forward to delving into that issue more at Committee Stage.

I welcome the introduction of offences. Hopefully, they will act as a deterrent to care workers and care providers.

Before I finish, I will speak about CCTV. I am also a member of the Policing Board. Minister, I think that you and I were on the same Policing Board committees for some time. The issue of CCTV at Muckamore came up at the performance committee a number of times. The PSNI specifically called for mandatory CCTV then. It was able to gather together CCTV footage of 1,500 incidents over a few months. There were times when staff did not even know that the CCTV was turned on. Sometimes, it was turned off and then turned back on. I still do not understand why that happened, but if we had not had that footage, would we know about the scale of abuse at Muckamore Abbey? I understand the article 8 implications of ensuring that people have a right to a private life. I understand that the issue is complex, but I still do not understand how having mandatory CCTV in communal areas is outside the scope of the Bill and the powers of the Assembly. I am happy to hear more about that, and I am sure that I will at Committee.

I very much welcome the fact that CCTV use has made it into the Bill at this stage. I supported the PSNI in its campaign in that regard at the Policing Board and in Committee, but I want to know more about when the consultation will take place on the regulations and what they will contain. This is the first Bill that I will scrutinise as a member of a Committee since my being elected. Will regulations be made a timely manner, or will they be made some point in the future? That could be something that the Committee looks at. The Minister, or any other Member who has scrutinised legislation before, will hopefully provide clarity on that issue. We could get a balance if we heard from stakeholders and experts on the issue. However, when I ask stakeholders, whether they are from the Commissioner for Older People's office, the RQIA or anywhere else, if they would put their loved one into a care home that did not have CCTV, their answer is no. We all know why. It is not that you believe that there will always be wrongdoing, but when you hear of scandals, such as those at Dunmurry Manor and Muckamore, you want that protection. You want to make sure that if you, as the best person to look after your loved one, cannot be there, everything is done to protect them. That is something that the Committee could explore further.

It is great to see the Bill being brought to the Chamber. I look forward to participating at the Committee Stage to strengthen the Bill where we think that it should be strengthened and working with the Department to get it passed. The policy areas that can be implemented without having to find funding for them should be, but that is something into which we need to delve a bit deeper. I thank the Minister for introducing the Bill.

Mr Chambers: I welcome the Bill's Second Stage. Adult protection encompasses a number of key concepts, which have, rightly, been reflected in the Bill across a number of principles, such as autonomy, dignity, accountability and, crucially, prevention. Whilst we understand how and why the Government should have a very strong interest in protecting members of the public from harm, especially those who are at risk due to their age or any other vulnerability, tragically, we are all well aware of the various instances in which that protection has been found wanting.

The Bill has its genesis in a number of such shortcomings. The abuse and sheer breadth and scale of the safeguarding failings that occurred in Dunmurry Manor and Muckamore shocked us all, and they very powerfully shone a light on our legislative shortcomings. The Bill is a large and far-reaching piece of legislation. It introduces a number of new powers, places greater responsibility on us all to better support adults who may be vulnerable for whatever reason and brings Northern Ireland up to speed with neighbouring jurisdictions.

If the Bill is passed, I hope that there will be no more blind eyes or missed opportunities. There will be a formal legal duty to carry out sufficient inquiries. I appreciate that that may present some further responsibilities for our trusts, but I am sure we all believe that that extra workload is justified. The Bill also offers critical enhanced protections and orders, such as powers of entry, as referenced earlier by the Minister. However, I appreciate that some may be disappointed, including myself, that the Bill has not been able to go further on CCTV. As we all know, CCTV was a critical in exposing the scale of the abuse at Muckamore, and, no doubt, that is an area that we will explore further during the Committee Stage. I appreciate that the legal options to make CCTV mandatory did not exist, and, as such, I welcome the provision to make further regulations in that area.

Overall, the Bill is important, and it has long since been proven that it is needed. I and my party fully support it. Hopefully, it will prevent disgraceful episodes such as the one at Muckamore and ensure that no other families have to deal with the abuse of a loved one.

In conclusion, I have to agree with my colleague Miss McAllister, who referenced the fact that the House was down for a long time and that, when we talk about delays to legislation, we have to reflect on the impact that that has had on legislation passing through the House.

Mr Donnelly: I welcome the opportunity to speak at the Second Stage of the Adult Protection Bill. I support the principle behind the legislation: a stronger statutory framework to safeguard adults who are at risk of harm and abuse. That vulnerable adults deserve consistent and effective protection from neglect, exploitation and mistreatment is not in question. The Bill is long overdue, and, in that respect, its introduction is a positive and necessary step forward following the horrendous scandals at Dunmurry Manor care home and Muckamore Abbey Hospital. The Bill offers the potential to bring clarity to front-line professionals and consistency to health trusts on how to respond to risk and, crucially, to better protect vulnerable adults who are in need. It also seeks to rebuild trust among families, which has been damaged over recent years when their loved ones have been placed in such institutions.

Support for that principle must come with scrutiny of its practical delivery. The Bill is substantial. It consists of 51 clauses, which cover legal powers for social workers, the creation of new criminal offences, regulation of CCTV in care settings and the establishment of a new adult protection board. We must ask, therefore, whether the legislation is realistic, enforceable and resourced.

First, on funding, the Department's estimate is that the Bill's provisions will cost approximately £12 million per year, which is more than £120 million over a decade, yet, as others have highlighted, the Department has acknowledged that no funding has been secured for the Bill's implementation. That is a serious concern that risks turning this into a paper exercise, with legislation on the books that cannot meaningfully be delivered in practice. That is not fair on the professionals whom we expect to uphold it or the adults whom we claim it will protect. If the Bill is to have a real-world impact, funding must follow.

Secondly, on workforce, the Bill assigns significant new responsibilities to social workers, including the responsibility to apply for court orders, to make protection assessments and to coordinate responses. We know, however, that social work teams across the system and across Northern Ireland are under immense pressure already. There are real and growing problems with recruitment, retention and burnout. Has the Department assessed whether the current workforce has the capacity to absorb the new statutory duties? The Health Committee has heard so many times about the pressures resulting from social work vacancy numbers, so will there be additional recruitment, training and support? We cannot simply legislate for new duties without resourcing the people who are tasked with carrying them out.

Thirdly, on accountability and oversight, the Bill creates new criminal offences of ill treatment and neglect by carers and proposes to regulate CCTV use in settings where adults may be at risk. I appreciate that the Minister has highlighted the fact that there will be a full public consultation on the CCTV regulations. That should happen as soon as possible. Those are sensitive and important areas, and they require careful thought. We have heard multiple times today about how important the CCTV evidence was in exposing the abuse at Muckamore. Who will monitor compliance? What mechanisms will exist to challenge inappropriate use? How will the provisions interact with existing human rights and safeguarding duties? Those are the kinds of issues that the Committee will need to probe in depth.

That brings me to the scrutiny process. Given the scope and significance of the Bill, the Committee has proposed to extend the reporting deadline to March 2026. I support that extension. We cannot afford to rush the process, and we must also appreciate that other legislation will come from the Department before the end of this shortened mandate.

The legislation has the potential to make a real difference. It can provide protection where there are currently gaps. It can give professionals the tools that they need, and it can provide legal clarity and accountability. However, it will succeed only if it is properly funded, grounded in operational reality and developed in partnership with the people whom it affects the most. That is what we must now focus on. I look forward to working with colleagues to scrutinise the Bill in detail to ensure that it is as strong as it possibly can be and to ensure that we can protect this vulnerable group from harm and abuse.

Mr Frew: As all my colleagues have, I support the Bill. We have been waiting a long time for it. Mahatma Gandhi said:

Eddie Lynch used that quote in his report on his investigation into Dunmurry Manor care home.

I am interested, simply because I have represented constituents who lived in Muckamore Abbey. I have also represented constituents who worked in Muckamore Abbey and were bullied into keeping quiet. There are major issues with how our organisations are set up that we really need to get to grips with. Does the Bill do that? Who knows? I suspect that it will take the test of scrutiny to see whether it takes a positive step forward in that, but we need something. We need to put in place something to restore the trust that our people — family members, patients, the vulnerable and society itself — have lost. That loss of trust is not just in the health and social care trusts and home-care providers — nursing homes or old people's homes, as we called them back in the day — but it impacts on the Department of Health. The Department of Health has also lost the public's trust. The Department must do something to restore people's confidence.

That brings me to one of my points. One of the main definitions in the Bill is of an "adult at risk". "A" is an adult at risk if:

What about an organisation? If you remove the words "another person" from that, where is the organisation? Where is an organisation's responsibility to ensure that it does not cause harm to A, who is the adult at risk? Given that the Bill specifies:

it is actually built in. It is about the conditions under which the person has to live. There are massive issues with adults at risk and the fine definitions of who the Bill does and does not cover.

For me, it is about trust in the Department of Health. As Nuala McAllister and another colleague said, in some cases, the same people who were in post when the scandals happened ended up influencing, investigating or even being in a position of responsibility in the trust or the Department of Health when those scandals were being investigated. It has been remarked to me that, in the Department of Health and the trusts, people sometimes fail upwards. We need to take cognisance of that when we look at the words in the Bill.

Part 2, which is on the establishment of a board, alarms me:

Appointed by whom? The Department. The board must include:

The bodies are referred to in subsection (3). They are:

There is no mention whatsoever of the Public Services Ombudsman, 50% of whose workload is dealing with health-related complaints. I wonder whether the Minister would clarify that.

Subject to the approval of the Department:

Maybe that encapsulates the concern that I have about other bodies. You can see an organisational pyramid in which staff and employees bounce from one trust, council or board to another, from the Department to the trusts or from the trusts to the Department. You must then ask yourself, "Is it truly independent?".

Clause 33 is titled, "Directions to the Board", and it really alarms me. What is independence? I will read from the Bill:

What was subsection 1? It states:

Surely that flies in the face of independence. I will read clause 33(5):

Where is the independence of the board? Not only does the Department appoint the board's chair and members, but it can:

That alarms me. I ask the Minister to address those concerns, if not today then certainly during Committee Stage.

There are massive issues with the Bill. We know that it is late, and some Members have said that there are reasons for that. I will not get into that political argument. They have every right to make those comments. The Bill was meant to come before we had lockdown philosophy. I ask the Minister to look at the Bill under the guise of seeing what it would mean for people whom I deem to be adults at risk, were we to incur another lockdown in Northern Ireland. To me, an adult at risk is someone who is not only vulnerable but isolated. We could argue that every person who lived in a care home or a hospital during the implementation of lockdown philosophy was isolated. No family members were able to visit them. They met through a pane of glass.

The Minister will know of Martina Ferguson from the organisation that fights for better rights for bereaved families over COVID. Martina Ferguson and others like her need to have input into the Bill about what it would mean for them, were the legislation to be implemented in the heat of another lockdown. What would the clauses become? How could a social worker enter premises, if we were in a lockdown situation? I know that you can enter premises to administer care and medical attention, but if a social worker goes in to investigate something or assess and interview the adult at risk, is that delivering care and medical attention? We have to get clarification about what the Bill means. Every clause needs to be run through the sieve of lockdown philosophy to see how it would stand up in that scenario. I hope that we never have a scenario in which we are locked down again, but you can understand the concerns that families have about the situation in which the Bill's provisions were in place and some clauses were neutered or put aside because of a lockdown philosophy.

Furthermore, does the Bill include do not resuscitate orders or the use of some medicines in end-of-life care? Does it include the situation where a person administers to adults at risk medicine that could do harm? Does it include when a person puts down a do not resuscitate order without family engagement or knowledge, as sometimes happens? Some families have come in and seen, at the top of the bed, a sign saying, "Do Not Resuscitate", without their having been consulted; they should have been consulted, but they were not. Can that be investigated? All those things have to have an impact.

Clause 6, which deals with interviews, states:

What about a close family member of that adult at risk? What about the father? What about the mother? What about the carer? What about the sister? What about the brother? Are they going to be consulted? Can they be consulted? Can they be interviewed by the social worker? Social workers are having to do all the heavy lifting in the Bill. With social workers having such a pressurised work environment, I worry about how they will ever have the capacity and support to deliver the functions of the Bill appropriately. The Bill has to include some sort of support mechanism, even an education facility, to ensure that social workers know their roles, their rights and their powers, especially when there are organisations, such as care homes or trusts, that would obstruct them. That is very important.

Minister, those are just some of the things that I have come across in reading the Bill — at very short notice, I must say. I welcome the fact that we have the Bill before us, and I wish the Committee all the very best in its deliberations on and scrutiny of it. I think that it was Alan Chambers who said that no more blind eyes should be turned in our healthcare settings. I agree 100% with him on that. It remains to be seen whether the Bill will actually change the culture in our health settings. A tariff will be placed on healthcare employees who obstruct an investigation. The Bill states:

The Bill defines obstruction:

It goes on to say:

That is a tariff. The Bill gives us glimpses of an individual duty of candour, without actually naming it. This is the opportunity for you, Minister, to come forward with legislation that provides for that duty of candour. An organisational duty of candour just will not cut it; there should be an individual duty of candour. The Bill states:

Minister, if the guilt is on the person in the case of obstruction or prevention, you need to look very seriously at having a statutory individual duty of candour.

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

Mr Nesbitt: Deputy Speaker, thank you very much. What an informative debate . I very much look forward to the next stage, assuming that this stage is approved by Members. I thank the Chair of the Committee, the Deputy Chair of the Committee, Committee members and Mr Frew for their comments. It is clear that this issue is of first-order importance to the House, and I am glad that there is a clear appetite to progress the legislation. I thank the Health Committee for its engagement to date, and I wish it well with the Committee Stage.

I understand from the Deputy Chair that the Committee will wish to extend the Committee Stage to March 2026. I would be relaxed about that, but I would be hopeful that we could get this over the line in the 2026 calendar year. I also thank officials, some of whom are in the Officials' Box today, for the consistent work that they have applied to a challenging area of healthcare delivery.

I will touch on some of the comments that were made. Mr McGuigan talked about the implementation plan and, under the current regime, the lack of evidence of outcomes. That is exactly where my mind is, Mr McGuigan. As I said when I first stood in this position just over a year ago, I want to be judged and will judge myself by whether I am deliver better outcomes: better outcomes for patients, for service users and for the 70,000-odd people who deliver healthcare in Northern Ireland.

I do not think that there is any intention for a phased implementation plan at this moment, but I would be more than happy for the Committee to engage with the Department and officials on the best way to move forward on that. As a matter of principle, our strategies are fine, but give me a costed implementation plan over a strategy any day of the week.

Mr McGrath asked about the adult protection board, and Mr Frew talked on that as well. Mr Frew listed some of the statutory representatives who will be part of that. The chair will be independent, but that takes us to a philosophical question, does it not? What does "independence" represent? Nuala McAllister mentioned it, Paul Frew mentioned it, so I answer a question with a question: how independent was I when Mr Frew's former party leader, Dr Ian Richard Kyle Paisley, appointed me as a commissioner for victims and survivors in the Commission for Victims and Survivors? How independent was I at that point? It is a philosophical question and the right question to ask; I have no doubt about that. How independent is the Commissioner for Older People?

Mr Frew: I thank the Minister for giving way. We have seen examples in the past of people who were appointed to be an independent to hold Departments to account, but, because of that budgetary line, did not feel so much that they could complain or argue against the Department that funded them.

What about clause 33(1)? It states:

I understand that someone in some Department has to appoint the chair — it may as well be the Department of Health, albeit there is the question around independence — but how can the Department then give directions of a general or specific nature to the board? Does that not eradicate the independence?

Mr Nesbitt: I do not think that it does, because the board has to operate within terms of reference and within the law, and the Bill will, hopefully, become the law. I understand that you are uneasy about that — we would all be right to question, observe and monitor how that is operated — but I see no other practical way of doing business.

I will pick up on one thing. If I understood Mr Frew correctly, when he listed all the organisations that would be represented on the board, he then asked, "What about the Northern Ireland Public Services Ombudsman (NIPSO)?". If he is suggesting that the NIPSO should have a seat at that table, he is entirely wrong. What if you then got a complaint about what that board did? You would want to go through a complaints process that took you eventually to NIPSO, but, if NIPSO had been sitting at the table making the decision, you would get nowhere. I just gently point that out.

Mr McGrath, in referencing the seven principles, went first of all for dignity. I am really pleased that he did. If you look at those seven principles, it is hard to deliver the others if you do not put dignity at the heart of what you do. How can you promote autonomy for a vulnerable person if you do not respect their dignity? How do you empower them if you do not respect their dignity? How do you work in partnership if you do not respect their dignity?

Mr McGrath also mentioned the cliff edge of transition. That happens across healthcare delivery far too often. Transition becomes an event; it has to be a process. We have to work to make such processes stretch out over time, rather than being an event that is so often a cliff edge. When the Member talked about potential "deficiencies" in the Mental Capacity Act, did he really mean, "Are there parts of that that need to be enacted or to gel with what we are proposing in the Adult Protection Bill?"? If that is the case, yes, we have to look at them. I am not sure that I would have used the word "deficiencies", but I take the point.

I very much welcome Diane Dodds' saying that the Committee will look to strengthen what is in the Bill at Second Stage. It is entirely the role of the Committee to assist and advise the Minister and officials in how we go forward. Whistle-blowing is an issue that the Member is fixed on. I agree: when I look at what has arisen out of the publicity surrounding the cardiac surgery unit in the Belfast Trust, I sense that there is a major issue with whistle-blowing, and that is specific to staff confidence in engaging with the process and a fear that prevents them engaging with the process. Peter McBride has great knowledge of that. He has already started work and will make recommendations to me on that front.

Mrs Dodds: Thank you for giving way, Minister. I appreciate that, because, in the context of the Belfast Trust, the whistle-blowing manager, as I understand it, is responsible to HR. I would really like to see a separation of roles so that whistle-blowers are completely protected. Those are things that we should look at. Thank you for acknowledging the issue.

Mr Nesbitt: With respect, I will not react by giving an opinion on that, because I do not want to second-guess or direct Peter McBride, but the point is certainly on the record.

On costs, Diane Dodds made the point that we have to find the money to do this. I do not disagree with her, but there are so many things that we need to find the money for in healthcare delivery. We need £200 million to maintain pay parity for Agenda for Change staff, doctors and dentists. The Member asked about additional costs and how costs have risen. I am not aware of the original cost to which you refer, so I cannot make a definitive comment on that. In the initial phase, it will cost money to establish the adult protection board. There will be money for training. There may be money for recruitment. There may be money for court cases involving the new offences that we are introducing. Respectfully, the Committee will, I am sure, look at that issue in much more detail.

Nuala McAllister asked whether the regulations would be timely. They have to be timely, otherwise what is the point of this? Again, that is something for the Committee Stage. The Member made the point that the Bill has been a long time coming. One of the reasons for that has been a couple of collapses over the last number of years. It is my impression that, if there is one more collapse of the institutions, they are gone for good.

Mr Donnelly mentioned extending the Committee Stage, and Mr Frew referred to independence and NIPSO.

That takes me to the conclusion of the remarks that I wanted to refer to specifically. I conclude by wishing the Committee well as it begins its crucial scrutiny of the Bill.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): That concludes the Second Stage of the Adult Protection Bill. The Bill stands referred to the Committee for Health.

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

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

Mr Nesbitt: Thank you very much, Mr Deputy Speaker. I very much welcome the opportunity to debate the motion. It seeks Assembly endorsement in principle to the extension to Northern Ireland of clause 1 of the Rare Cancers Bill. The Bill was introduced in the House of Commons on 16 October last by Dr Scott Arthur of the Labour Party. It is a private Member's Bill, the aim of which is to:

If passed, the Bill will introduce three measures, all of which are intended to encourage more research. They are, first, the placing of a duty on the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care in England to promote and facilitate research into rare cancers. That will include the appointment of a national specialty lead for rare cancers in the National Institute of Health and Care Research (NIHR). The second measure is to improve patient recruitment into clinical trials for rare cancers through greater data sharing. The third measure is to place a requirement on the Government to review UK-wide law on marketing authorisations or product licences for:

Rare cancers themselves are types of cancer that affect relatively small numbers. The definition of a rare cancer can vary. The Rare Cancers Bill, however, defines a rare cancer as a type of cancer:

In addition, there are also many different types of rare cancers. They include blood cancers, cancers affecting the female reproductive organs or the digestive system, head and neck cancers, and cancers that affect soft tissues, which are known as sarcomas. Orphan drugs are medications that are used to treat rare conditions. They are known as "orphan" because pharmaceutical companies may be unwilling to invest in research and development into new treatments for diseases that affect only a very small number of people. With smaller patient populations, there is an increased logistical challenge in bringing patients together to undertake clinical trials, which are necessary in order to bring a product to market. Even if companies succeed in running a clinical trial, and a drug proves to be an effective treatment, manufacturers then face the challenge of selling a drug developed at great expense to such a small market. Ultimately, those companies exist to return a profit for their shareholders, and, given a choice between investment and potential treatment for a rare cancer or a more common one, too often it is rare cancer patients who lose out.

To help encourage more research and development, Governments around the world offer incentives for the development of orphan medicines, such as the provision of a period of market exclusivity, during which a competitor's medicines of a similar nature cannot enter the market. In the UK, the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) can grant a period of up to 10 years' market exclusivity where the criteria for orphan designation has been met.

Clause 1 of the Rare Cancers Bill, as introduced, places a duty on the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care in England to carry out a review of the UK law related to marketing authorisations for:

as set out in the Human Medicines Regulations 2012. The review will aim to examine how the current law can be reformed to better incentivise pharmaceutical companies to invest in clinical trials for rare cancers. Such a review will also need to compare regulatory approaches in other countries with the UK's approach, which will be done by assessing international regulatory approaches to orphan medicinal products, with a view to assessing whether the regulations in the UK are considered effective at encouraging research and development into treatments for rare cancers. The clause also requires that the conclusions of such a review must then be prepared and published in a report and that the report has to be:

should the Bill become law.

In addition, it is important to emphasise at this point that any proposed amendments to the Human Medicines Regulations 2012 as a consequence of any review that may be conducted by the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care would remain, as provided for under the Medicines and Medical Devices Act 2021, subject to joint consultation and progression on a joint UK-wide basis, with any amending legislation being subject to the draft affirmative procedure in both Houses of Parliament and in the Northern Ireland Assembly.

With regard to stakeholder views, I understand that cancer charities that focus on rare cancers have expressed their full support for the Bill and have encouraged people to write to their MPs to ask that they support it in Parliament. Those charities include Brain Tumour Research and Pancreatic Cancer UK.

Although I seek legislative consent only for clause 1, which deals with the review and report on orphan medicines, I assure Members that I am committed to working with counterparts across the rest of the United Kingdom to support and encourage research into rare cancers and that my Department, along with the Public Health Agency, has the necessary infrastructure in place to ensure that there will continue to be equitable access to research relating to rare cancer trials for patients living in Northern Ireland. That is achieved through the identification of studies through Northern Ireland Cancer Trials Network's participation in UK and all-island research networks, with relevant details being provided to relevant clinicians in Northern Ireland cancer centres. The Northern Ireland Cancer Trials Network provides support to any clinician wishing to open a trial site in Northern Ireland. Patients are also advised of the opportunity to sign up to be part of research, which allows them to search for and be notified about relevant trials for their condition.

The Rare Cancers Bill passed its Second Reading in the House of Commons on 14 March, with early July provisionally earmarked for Committee Stage consideration of the Bill in the Commons. At their meeting on 29 May 2025, the Executive agreed to progress the legislative consent procedure in the Northern Ireland Assembly for clause 1 of the Rare Cancers Bill in respect of:

A legislative consent memorandum was subsequently laid with the Business Office on 3 June. I am pleased to inform Members that the Health Committee also considered the Rare Cancers Bill at its meeting on 12 June. At that meeting, the Committee confirmed its support for the legislative consent memorandum that had been laid in the Business Office with the intention of progressing with the motion in the Assembly today. Indeed, the Health Committee has reported its support for the motion in its written report. It is, therefore, with the Health Committee's support that I have brought the motion before the Assembly. I ask Members to support the motion.

Mr McGuigan (The Chairperson of the Committee for Health): I welcome the opportunity to confirm, as the Minister said, the Health Committee's support for the motion.

The Rare Cancers Bill will introduce measures intended to encourage more research into rare cancers. Obviously, that is to be welcomed. Rare cancers, as has been pointed out, are defined as cancers that affect fewer than one in 2,000 people, and they account for around 20% of cancer diagnoses. However, research funding, clinical trials and treatment development are disproportionately low for such cancers. Patients can therefore face delayed diagnosis, limited treatment options and poor survival rates compared with those for people with more common cancers. Anything that can be done to increase research and clinical trials in that area and improve patient outcomes is therefore very welcome.

The Committee was briefed by officials on the LCM on 12 June and discussed the use of secondary data and the Bill's cost implications. At that meeting, the Committee agreed to support the Minister's motion.

I will now speak as a Sinn Féin MLA. At the Committee, we talked about the use of secondary data. I raised the matter, because it had been raised with me previously with respect to the wider issue of cancer research here. At the Committee, it was stated that an amending Bill on that issue was anticipated in September. It would be helpful if the Minister could clarify in his closing remarks whether that is the case and how he will ensure that there is equitable access to research on rare cancer trials, given the population size in the North. We support the LCM.

Mr Robinson: I support the LCM on the extension to Northern Ireland of clause 1 of the Rare Cancers Bill, which proposes a mandated review by the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care of how the current framework of marketing authorisations and regulatory incentives either helps or hinders the development of drugs for rare cancers.

The lives affected by rare cancers are just as valuable and are just as deserving of and entitled to support as any other, even though those cancers affect smaller numbers of people. Whilst those numbers may be smaller, they amount to almost one quarter of cancers in the Province, including blood cancers and head and neck cancers.

The Bill will place a legal duty on the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care to conduct a thorough review of UK law governing the marketing authorisations for orphan drug products used in the diagnosis, prevention or treatment of cancer and to compare the UK's framework with regulatory systems in other countries, assessing whether the current rules encourage research into and investment in such cancers. Some companies are reluctant to invest in such research because of the limited numbers of people affected. The fact that potentially life-saving treatments do not receive the same level of research and investment means that there are fewer treatment options for those with rare cancers.

Orphan drugs are used to treat not only rare cancers but other rare diseases. The Health Committee understands that some existing non-cancer drugs may be effective for rare cancers, but there is no clear pathway or funding structure to support their investigation and approval. There is a public need to fill that research gap.

As was said previously, clause 1 of the Rare Cancers Bill will place a duty on the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care to:

Clause 1(2) provides that the review must consider regulatory approaches in other countries compared with the UK's approach and encourages that the review must assess international regulatory approaches for orphan drug products, with a view to assessing whether the regulations in the UK are considered effective at encouraging research and development for treatments of rare cancers.

Patients in Northern Ireland deserve the same access to progress in medical science as those in the rest of the UK because, as we all know, cancer does not recognise borders and nor should the research and innovation that combat it. Any reform as a result of the review of such drugs should be extended to Northern Ireland in the context of the Windsor framework and should build on the existing agreement reached with the EU, ensuring that patients in Northern Ireland see benefit. I support the motion.

Miss McAllister: I am happy to share my party's support for the LCM. For those who are unaware of the backstory, Dr Scott Arthur MP, the Member who has sponsored the Rare Cancers Bill, did so in response to the tragic death of his father-in-law Ivor in May 2018. He died only six months after being diagnosed with a rare brain cancer known as a glioblastoma. Dr Arthur said:

The term "rare cancers" may lead to a belief that not many people will be impacted. However, statistics from Cancer52, which is a coalition of over 100 charities, show that the reality is that 47% of cancers diagnosed in the UK are rare and less common cancers and that 55% of deaths from cancer are from rare and less common cancers. It makes sense that, for the majority of families who have been impacted and of individuals who have lost their life, it is because of rare cancers.

It is important that we pass the LCM so that Northern Ireland can benefit from any review of orphan medicines. It is particularly distasteful when pharmaceutical companies do not invest in those drugs because they may not bring profits. I understand that they are businesses and must keep themselves afloat, but there is no doubt that there are different ways in which they can operate and still ensure that they can produce medicines and provide them through the NHS.

I understand that countries and jurisdictions across the world offer incentives from government to those companies to participate in research and clinical trials and get the orphan drugs off the table. Just because a cancer is rare does not mean that its effects are rare. As I have said, 55% is an overwhelming number. I am unaware of and could not find stats on the figures for Northern Ireland, but, from seeing the media and the news, I am aware of the fact that not only do rare cancers cause 55% of cancer deaths across the UK but a lot of brain cancers are quite rare, particularly in children. That is one of the incidences and illnesses for which even more limited research and trials of products are taking place, so it is important that the motion is passed today. Hopefully, in the next few years, we will see what that review will look like and, hopefully, Northern Ireland can benefit from that as well.

One thing that we should keep an eye on is the fact that, when new medicines are approved and come on board to be used in the NHS, they are not always available for people in Northern Ireland, who are not able to avail themselves of those drugs in the same way as people in England and Wales. It is really important that, if the LCM passes and a review is undertaken, our citizens will also be able to avail themselves of those drugs in the end. We are happy to support the LCM today.

Mr Chambers: I will be very brief, Mr Deputy Speaker. I just want to place on record the fact that my party supports the legislative consent motion. Without research into rare cancers, no mitigating measures will be discovered. Who knows? The scientist working on that research might stumble upon interventions that could be helpful for more common cancers. Cancer cures will not fall into our lap; they will be found by scientific research, and we all have a duty to support and encourage that research. We must never lose sight of the fact that research offers hope to sufferers.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): I call the Minister of Health to conclude and wind up on the debate.

Mr Nesbitt: Mr Deputy Speaker, thank you very much. Once again, I thank everybody who participated in this short but important debate.

The Chair of the Health Committee raised one point that I need to come back to. Some time ago, I was made aware that there was an issue with the secondary use of data. It is a fact that there is a flaw in the current legislation. Options to fix that were put to me. I said that the cleanest thing to do is to put our hands up and say that we got it wrong — the drafting was wrong — and basically bring forward a single-clause Bill to correct it. I am a little frustrated that that has not happened this side of summer recess, but I am assured that it is ready to go, and I hope that it will be introduced very early in the autumn when we get back to work.

This is a very important thing. We talk about rare cancers, and, by definition, that means that each such cancer is infrequent in its occurrence, but there are so many rare cancers that they are, overall, very common. They are anything but rare, and I think that that was a point that Alan Robinson and Nuala McAllister made. The fact that, statistically, they have a very high fatality rate was also pointed out. This is really important stuff, and I thank Members and commend the motion to the House.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Members, please take your ease while we make changes at the top Table before the next item of business.

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

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: The Business Committee has agreed that there will be no time limit on the debate. Without further ado, will you please open the debate on the motion, Minister?

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

I welcome the opportunity to introduce the motion.

At the outset, I must address the procedural context of our current situation. As you are aware, the Sewel convention stipulates that the Westminster Parliament should not legislate in devolved areas without the consent of the devolved legislatures. Unfortunately, the legislative consent memorandum process was not completed on schedule. The delay was primarily caused by the British Government's reluctance to share the complete article 2(1) Windsor framework assessment on the Bill. The Data (Use and Access) Bill was a complex matter and required the need to seek clarity on the Bill's implications for the post-Brexit Windsor framework and to assess the views offered on the proposed legislation by the Human Rights Commission. I regret that the matter was not brought to the Committee for Finance and to the House sooner. The delay in laying the legislative consent motion (LCM) is not a situation that we should have found ourselves in. My officials are committed to ensuring that it does not happen again.

That said, the Act was passed at Westminster, receiving Royal Assent on 19 June. The provisions affecting devolved matters are now law. Our task is to ensure that their implementation is done in a way that respects our devolved competencies and serves the best interests of our people. The British Government's aim with the Act is to improve how data is accessed, shared and used here and across England, Scotland and Wales. The Act contains three provisions that intersect with devolved competencies. I will outline those devolved areas and explain their implications.

The first devolved area that is impacted on by the Act is the introduction of the smart data schemes. The schemes are designed to give consumers greater control over their personal data by enabling them to authorise trusted third parties to access and use that data on their behalf. It is a consumer empowerment initiative that aims to allow individuals to seamlessly switch service providers, compare offers and access tailored services in sectors such as banking, energy and telecommunications. The goal is to foster competition, drive innovation and improve outcomes for consumers.

Under the Act, the Secretary of State or the Treasury is empowered to establish the schemes through regulations. However, the implementation of smart data schemes touches on consumer protection, economic regulation and digital services: areas that fall within the competence of the Assembly. Therefore, the application of the Act must reflect our local regulations. Any smart data scheme introduced here must align with our consumer priorities, economic strategy and digital inclusion goals. That presents an opportunity for us to be at the forefront in the ethical and effective use of consumer data. However, it also necessitates careful oversight to ensure that devolved powers are maintained and that citizens' rights are safeguarded. The Minister for the Economy holds responsibility for smart data schemes. DFE has consulted throughout the drafting of the Bill, and its views have been considered. It has not raised any concerns about the relevant devolved provisions.

The second devolved area affected by the Act is the establishment of the National Underground Asset Register (NUAR). The initiative seeks to create a comprehensive digital map of underground infrastructure: pipes, cables, ducts and other buried assets. The aim is to reduce accidental damage caused during street works, improve safety and streamline planning and maintenance. Street works and the regulation of underground apparatus are devolved matters. Currently, Executive Ministers have regulation powers in that area. The Act will make those powers concurrently exercisable by the Secretary of State, enabling the British Government to implement NUAR across all regions, including here. While the goal of NUAR is to reduce disruption, lower costs and enhance public safety, it presents constitutional and practical considerations due to the concurrent exercise of powers.

The Act acknowledges the unique infrastructure and governance needs of the devolved regions by mandating formal consultation with devolved Administrations before any substantial changes to NUAR protocols. However, we must ensure that its implementation is conducted in collaboration with the Executive. Our local authorities, utilities and infrastructure providers must be fully engaged. The data must be accurate, secure and accessible. The governance of the register must reflect our devolved responsibilities. Responsibility for NUAR lies with the Minister for Infrastructure. DFI has engaged throughout the drafting of the Bill and its views have been considered. It has not raised any concerns about the relevant devolved provisions.

The third devolved area that is impacted on by the Act is the amendment to section 35 of the Digital Economy Act 2017, which governs data sharing between public bodies for the benefit of individuals and households. The amendment expands the scope of the data sharing gateway, allowing Ministers to make regulations that enable the disclosure of information between specified bodies for a broader range of objectives, including improving the delivery of public services, targeting support to vulnerable groups and enhancing administrative efficiency. That is particularly relevant to devolved areas, such as healthcare, education, housing and social services, all of which rely on timely and accurate data to function effectively. The expanded data sharing provisions have the potential to ensure the coordination and delivery of public services. By enabling relevant agencies to access and share appropriate information, the system can reduce duplication, enhance service efficiency and support more timely and informed decision-making across sectors such as health, education and social care. Those powers must be accompanied by appropriate safeguards. Data sharing must comply with legal and ethical standards as well as data protection regulations. We must play a central role in regulating those powers.

I draw your attention to the important legislative requirements that accompany the section 35 amendment to the Data (Use and Access) Act. To fully enact those changes, it will be necessary to update the Digital Economy Act 2017. During the passage of the Act through Westminster, it was intended that a legislative consent motion would be sought from the Assembly for provisions that touched on devolved matters, particularly those in part 5 of the Act, which deal with data sharing for public service delivery, research and statistics. The absence of a functioning devolved Government at the time of the Act's passage prevented the necessary legislative consent, delaying full implementation of the Act's provisions here. As a result, the British Government chose to defer commencement of certain provisions, hoping that a restored Executive would later provide consent. In some cases, such as research and statistical provisions, the British Government eventually proceeded with limited implementation to avoid undermining the consistency of data across the regions. To fully use the data sharing powers in section 35 of the Digital Economy Act 2017, we must pass local regulations to activate the section, define which public bodies can share data and adopt the UK's data sharing code of practice. Departmental officials are working to implement the necessary steps to enable those regulations to be laid before the Assembly.

I ask the Assembly to note the passage of the Data (Use and Access) Act and to recognise the opportunities and responsibilities that it presents. I also ask the Assembly to note the relevant provisions of the Act dealing with smart data, the National Underground Asset Register and the amendment of section 35 of the Digital Economy Act 2017, as those matters fall within the legislative competence of the Assembly.

Mr O'Toole (The Chairperson of the Committee for Finance): It is an untimed debate, so I will speak both as leader of the Opposition and as Chair of the Finance Committee. There are important things to say in both capacities.

I will speak first as Chair of the Finance Committee. I want to highlight at the outset that, due to the mismanagement of the process by the Department, the Committee has had to reserve its opinion on the issue. It was not given the appropriate or prescribed — that is prescribed, with an "e" — time to consider the elements of the data Bill, which seek to legislate within the devolved remit. Of course, it is worth saying that the data Bill will very shortly be an Act. That is part of the context that brings us here, today.

I will explain, from the Committee's perspective, what has occurred to make the motion necessary and outline the failure of the legislative consent process on this occasion. On 23 October 2024, the Data (Use and Access) Bill was introduced in the UK Parliament. Standing Orders state that the Assembly must be informed of the Bill's introduction within 10 working days of that date through a legislative consent memorandum, as per Standing Order 42A. That is specifically in the context of when the Sewel convention, as mentioned by the Minister, is engaged because the UK Government are seeking to legislate in a devolved area. On 13 November 2024, following prompting from the Committee's team, the Department advised the Committee:

It is important to point out that it was the Committee Clerks who got in touch with the Department to ask that question. That is how we got that information.

There was no further communication from the Department regarding the Bill until it laid a legislative consent memorandum and draft motion on 28 May 2025 — just over a month ago. On 20 November 2024, the Speaker wrote to the First Minister and deputy First Minister, with all other Ministers copied in, noting that six Bills, including this Bill, had been introduced at Westminster, which, the Government had accepted, engaged the legislative consent process in Northern Ireland.

The Scottish Government laid their legislative consent memorandum for the Data (Use and Access) Bill on 22 November 2024. Two of their Committees laid reports on the LCM, and consent was given by the Scottish Parliament on 1 April 2025. The Welsh Government laid their memorandum on 2 January 2025 and, subsequently, laid supplementary memoranda, with four of their Committees laying various reports on the Bill, and Senedd Cymru giving consent on 6 May 2025. I note those details to demonstrate how important and detailed the scrutiny was in other devolved jurisdictions and what has been lost to the Assembly by the complete lack of scrutiny that has been afforded here.

On 7 May 2025, the UK Minister for Data Protection and Telecoms said, at the Bill's Third Reading:

I repeat that, at that stage, the Committee had received no further correspondence from the Department regarding the data Bill. This, by the way, is after the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Senedd had given their consent, via votes in their full Chambers. At that point, we had not received the memorandum or correspondence from the Department.

The Executive then gave their approval for an LCM to be laid before the Assembly through the urgent decision mechanism on 16 May, with the memorandum and draft motion being laid 12 days later, on 28 May. The Committee was notified on that date and held its first briefing on the subject on the same day. While officials were apologetic, members were given no clear understanding as to why the delay had happened. As there is no time for any meaningful scrutiny, the Committee has agreed to reserve its position on the Bill. However, on 10 June, members sought a further briefing from the permanent secretary and deputy secretary with responsibility for the area.

Further to that, during the Bill's Third Reading in Parliament, after an intervention from Robin Swann MP, the Minister of State for Data Protection and Telecoms, Sir Chris Bryant, said:

Well, they had not.

During the briefing on 28 May, departmental officials repeatedly referred to Royal Assent as the deadline for the Assembly to give consent. Minister Bryant also made the same point. However, the Business Office and the relevant colleagues at Westminster have confirmed that the effective deadline for Committee and Assembly — well, ultimately, Assembly agreement for the LCM is prior to amending stages at Westminster. Additionally, the Minister included a draft motion in his memorandum on 28 May. No motion was laid, and therefore it could not be debated again, which, as I said, contradicts what Chris Bryant said. As that was an incorrect assertion, the Committee agreed to write to the UK Minister to advise him that no LCM had been laid.

At the Committee's additional meeting regarding the issue on 10 June, the permanent secretary and the relevant deputy secretary brought further detail to the Committee's attention. I should acknowledge that the permanent secretary was forthright in that briefing. He apologised immediately, and that apology was accepted by the Committee. The permanent secretary outlined that the significant procedural delay related to the engagement of article 2(1) of the Windsor framework, which commits the UK Government to ensuring:

and underpinned by EU law, prior to the UK's exit from the EU. It appears that the UK Government did not give a full assessment of those issues because, as the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology (DSIT) officials indicated, there was ongoing action in the courts regarding the outworkings of article 2 that precluded the production of a full analysis at that time. As a result, the assessment was delayed until February 2025. However, that information was not conveyed to the Committee. That was a pattern, I am afraid, throughout the entire process.

Further delay was caused by concerns about the Bill that were raised by the NI Human Rights Commission. Those primarily focused on potential article 2 impacts of divergence between the UK and the EU with regard to data protection standards. Further issues were raised by the Human Rights Commission that do not impact on aspects of the Bill where the LCM process is engaged. That is an important point to note. It would be helpful to understand whether a delay occurred in relation to parts of the Bill that have no thing to do with the LCM, if you see what I mean. The LCM is on specific devolved aspects of the Bill, rather than the principles of the Bill, albeit that people will have views on its principles.

The Minister eventually advised the Committee that the aspects of the Bill that engage the devolved remit would proceed and become law in due course; indeed, effectively, they have now become law. They are about to become law, because Royal Assent will be granted at some point very soon. He indicated that the main implication of the Assembly's not giving its consent was for the UK Government's relationship with the Assembly and Executive through legislating without their consent. The Department stated that it was taking lessons learned from the situation and that officials were working on an LCM tracker to ensure that the issues were not repeated. The Minister agreed to bring this motion to the House so that it could be debated.

The Bill received Royal Assent on 19 June. I just said that it had not received Royal Assent: it has received Royal Assent, so it is now an Act. The Committee reiterates its disappointment about being unable to fulfill its scrutiny role. As I stated previously, it agreed not to take a position on the LCM. I have therefore given the chronology of the Committee's encounter with the LCM, rather than a Committee view.

I will now make a few remarks as leader of the Opposition. It is a fairly preposterous situation that we find ourselves in today. I think that I am right in saying that, when we came back after 2020, we debated some legislative consent motions where we gave consent to Bills that were already on the statute book. I think I am right in saying that I thought it was absurd at that point. This is equally if not more absurd because the Executive were here last autumn, when the Bill was introduced at Westminster. Officials were fully aware the whole way through not just of the purpose of the Bill but of the bits that engaged devolved competence. It was known from the beginning that a legislative consent motion would be required; in fact, a process was happening in parallel in Scotland and Wales. I am sure that substantive issues were debated, but it is a relatively routine process.

We were told that the legislative consent process was delayed because the UK Government did not give sufficient information on article 2 of the protocol or Windsor framework to the Department. I am afraid that that is not a sufficient plea in mitigation, because the Department could have told the Committee the position. Secondly, it is not entirely clear whether all the specific concerns that the Department had about article 2 were engaged in the LCM process.

The entire fiasco has underlined something striking, which is the abysmal understanding of the legislative consent process not only in the official machine but, I say bluntly, in the Executive and in parts of the Assembly. The legislative consent process is a process by which we give consent. An LCM is not binding on the UK Government, who can do what they like. One of the reasons that I am not a big fan of our current constitutional dispensation is that it means that the UK Parliament, via the Crown prerogative, which some of us do not like, can do what it likes. Effectively, it can legislate on anything that it wants at any time. The UK Government have created the Sewel convention, which states that the UK Parliament will not normally legislate on devolved matters without at least asking for the permission of the devolved legislatures.

You would think that, if the UK Government were to ask for consent for something to be legislated on, we would hear about it early on from a Department led by a Sinn Féin Minister and that there would be an opportunity for debate. It is therefore pretty ridiculous that we have been placed in a situation in which the UK Parliament is effectively legislating in a devolved area. Even if there is merit in what it is doing and potential consumer benefits and data use benefits down the line, it is preposterous that we have been placed in the position of debating an utterly meaningless motion.

It could be argued that legislative consent motions are relatively toothless, because they do not stop the UK Government doing anything; indeed, legislative consent has been withheld from the UK Government, and they have ploughed on regardless. That has been the position on many occasions, particularly during the Brexit process, but it is at least a process in which we can give our views. This is not a legislative consent motion but a motion about a legislative consent process that did not happen. Bluntly, it makes a mockery of this legislature when we do Mickey Mouse, toytown stuff and cannot get even the basics right.

It is not simply about a technical abstraction. Notwithstanding the article 2 issues, there are real questions and concerns. I will raise something that I would like to have had the opportunity to unpack and understand. Although there are only two or three bits of the Bill that engage legislative competence, data use is a big deal for us in the post-Brexit context, because one of the areas of controversy and challenge has been data adequacy between the UK and the EU. A lot of UK-EU cross-border activity, which means North/South activity on this island, relies on the fact that the EU has given adequacy to the UK Government. If, at any point, the EU decides that it is not comfortable with the UK's data protection regime and withdraws, suspends or reviews the data adequacy agreement, that would have big consequences for a lot of businesses and civic society organisations on the island, because they rely on the ability to move data. We do not often talk about this, but, as soon as that regime goes wrong, I promise the House that businesses that operate on a cross-border basis will have a problem. Every organisation that moves sensitive data across the border, be it InterTradeIreland, tourism businesses, the GAA, the Church of Ireland or the Irish Congress of Trade Unions (ICTU) will have a problem. It is not Mickey Mouse stuff.

As Chair of the Finance Committee, I would like to have understood the Bill in its totality and then to have been able to drill down into the specific bits that involved devolved competence. We were not able to do that, because we were not told about it. Last autumn, our Committee Clerk had to chase the Department to confirm that there would be an LCM process. That was the only way to find out. Then, we had six or seven months of radio silence before a legislative consent memorandum landed with the Committee, far too late, as per convention, for the Committee to do any scrutiny or for the Assembly to give meaningful legislative consent. That is a preposterous situation that, frankly, reinforces some of what we keep finding out about this institution: the Executive and this legislature are too often not up to their work and do not take it seriously enough. We have seen the consequences of that over the past week. The most important road safety project on the island in most of our lifetimes is being held up because of bureaucratic incompetence, it would appear. Now, we have this: more bureaucratic incompetence, although, thankfully, it will have, I hope, a much less significant set of negative consequences.

As we break up for the summer, today and tomorrow's Order Papers are full of Second Readings and Final Stages of legislation that we are being asked to rush through, having had plenary session after plenary session at which we debated everything from nappies to God knows what in meaningless, empty motions. We are rushing legislation through in two days — legislation that, in some cases, is a year or 18 months late — and debating a legislative consent motion that is not a legislative consent motion but a motion about a legislative consent motion that did not happen. That is preposterous. We should do our jobs properly and take seriously the mandates that we have been given. The Executive and their Ministers should return after the summer to do their jobs properly. We will not support the motion.

Miss Hargey: I thank the Minister for coming to the Chamber this evening. The motion is important. I share the disappointment that the legislation did not come to the House sooner in the form of a legislative consent motion, but it is important that, where possible, the Assembly exercises its full legislative capabilities. I welcome the aim of the legislation, which is to improve data-sharing and accessibility through the introduction of smart data schemes, the establishment of the Underground Asset Register and changes to the Digital Economy Act 2017.

The Minister has pointed out the reasons why the legislation did not come sooner. The British Government were reluctant to share their advice and assessment of the legislation's impacts on article 2 of the Windsor framework. That is concerning, and it is something that they need to rectify sooner rather than later.

The smart data scheme has the potential to enable consumers to access services that are better for their specific needs by authorising third parties to use their data. It is important, however, that we always ensure that that is done in a way that protects people and their rights. While the creation of the digital underground map can improve planning and maintenance for parts of our infrastructure, I note the powers of the British Secretary of State in a particular area and highlight the fact that our Executive have an important role through regulation-making powers. That role needs to be respected in a devolved area. That includes full consultation and engagement with our local utility companies, infrastructure providers and, importantly, local authorities. The expansion of data-sharing between public bodies that is envisaged as a result of the amendments to the Digital Economy Act 2017 could improve efficiency and delivery of public services. Again, that needs to be done in a way that safeguards our citizens.

Despite the issues with the LCM, the Assembly and its Ministers have an important role to play in shaping the way in which the legislation is implemented here through regulations and ensuring that those regulations are human-rights compliant and respect the devolved institutions and the governance process.

Ms Forsythe: It is with disappointment that I rise to speak to a take-note motion instead of having the opportunity to scrutinise, debate or vote on whether the Assembly gives its consent to a legislative consent motion. That situation is due to the Finance Minister and his Department failing to follow the process in place. We regret that article 2 of the Windsor framework and, specifically, concerns raised by the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission have been allowed to hijack arrangements for the Assembly to give its consent to the devolved provisions of this legislation, which means that Parliament is legislating without consent.

That once more demonstrates both the negative impact that the imposition of those arrangements is having on the internal affairs of the United Kingdom and the appetite of some parties for placing in jeopardy the prudent progression of legislation that will benefit communities in Northern Ireland in order to assuage the concerns of another jurisdiction.

The Bill aims to enhance the framework in which data can be shared to improve public service delivery. Advancing work on a National Underground Asset Register will help to make planned works better informed and more efficient and will prevent unnecessary disturbance of underground apparatus with all the additional cost and delay that that brings. To our mind, those are worthwhile aims that Northern Ireland should be party to.

Data in the current age brings a lot of questions, and we should have been afforded the opportunity to scrutinise and debate the provisions here. I emphasise the dates. The Bill was introduced in the UK Parliament on 23 October 2024. The Scottish Government laid their LCM on 22 November 2024, and the Scottish Parliament gave its consent on 1 April 2025. The Welsh Government laid their LCM on 2 January 2025, and the Senedd gave consent on 6 May 2025. However, in Northern Ireland, we saw the LCM and draft motion on 28 May 2025, in somewhat chaotic conditions and by urgent procedures and beyond the time frames for affording the Committee its place. Therefore, consent was not given.

I note that, when officials came to the Finance Committee to explain what had happened, they said that they had been engaging with the Human Rights Commission and UK Government officials for some three months, but never in that time did they consider laying the information before the Assembly or communicating any of it to the Finance Committee. That is poor. The Finance Minister and his Department need to reflect on and explain why they prioritised communications with the commission rather than with the Assembly and its Committees.

There ultimately needs to be a review of how Departments process requests for legislative consent in order to avoid a repeat of the failure to table a motion in a timely fashion on this occasion. Moreover, the Minister should provide explicit assurances that the flaws in the process will not prevent Northern Ireland from benefiting from the provisions in the Bill.

Finally, it is also notable that there was debate in Westminster about whether more than two genders should be permitted when someone creates digital accounts or a digital identity. Obviously, we believe that that should be based on biological sex, but we ask the Minister to clarify his and his party's position on that.

Today's take-note motion is regrettable, and lessons must be learned.

Mr Honeyford: On behalf of the Alliance Party, I acknowledge the passage of the legislation, which marks a significant shift in how personal, business and public-sector data is accessed, shared and governed across the UK. It is disappointing that it has come to us as a take-note motion and has not been given adequate time to come through the Finance Committee.

The legislation introduces a modernised approach to data regulation, and its intention is to empower individuals, stimulate innovation and improve the efficiency of public services by enabling better data sharing. Although it is UK-wide legislation, it contains important provisions that fall squarely in the legislative competence of the Assembly. I will quickly look at a few of those provisions: smart data, the National Underground Asset Register and the amendment to section 35 of the Digital Economy Act 2017.

The legislation provides for the creation of a regulated smart data scheme that enables individuals and businesses to securely share their data with authorised third parties. That is potentially transformational. Smart data, whether it is used by an energy company or in a banking product, can unlock competition and improve customer choice. It also makes markets work better for people, but it is crucial that we ensure that our citizens are not just protected but empowered by the legislation. Putting our constituents at the forefront of any change that comes through is key. That means maintaining strong safeguards around consent, identification, verification and redress mechanisms while creating conditions for responsible innovation in our local economy. As we in the Assembly consider our role in supporting and potentially developing complementary legislation, we must focus on inclusion and local benefit, especially for not only our constituents, as I said, but for small businesses and rural communities.

If we look at the National Underground Asset Register, we see that it aims to provide an accurate and accessible map of underground infrastructure, be it water pipes, gas pipes, Northern Ireland Electricity (NIE) cables or whatever. The benefits of that include the acceleration of construction and the enhancement of public safety. I know that the construction industry would love to have something along the lines of that register, because, without one, they spend so much time trying to find underground assets. In principle, the register is transformational. It is particularly relevant given the legacy of our fragmented utility records and the increased pace of infrastructure renewal that is needed in Northern Ireland, particularly for waste water, housing and broadband.

The Act amends section 35 of the Digital Economy Act 2017, which governs public authority data sharing for public service delivery. That change aims to simplify and expand the use of data-sharing powers across public bodies, which will enable better coordination, more proactive services and, ultimately, better outcomes for the public. If that is done well, it could support a more joined-up government, reduce duplication and improve the speed and accuracy of services. However, trust is paramount for that. Data sharing must always be proportionate, transparent and accountable, with safeguards in place to prevent misuse.

There are a number of concerns about the Act. We are disappointed to see that the Government chose to remove a Lords amendment that would have required companies to declare which copyrighted works were used to train AI models. Representatives from the creative industries, including the Musicians' Union, have argued that the removal of that amendment weakened copyright protections and opened the door for the uncompensated use of artists' work by AI developers.

Concerns have also been raised about the sections of the Act that allow for the expansion of data-sharing arrangements through secondary legislation with minimal parliamentary scrutiny. The Assembly needs to be vigilant about that and ensure that any expansion of data sharing is matched by robust oversight and transparency and by public trust. I urge the Executive and relevant Committees to engage constructively with the UK Departments and regulators to ensure that we are not left behind but lead the way in delivering data-driven services that are fair, efficient and accountable.

Dr Aiken: Members might think that the Data (Use and Access) Act 2025 LCM is in some way a minor piece of legislation that is going through. They might consider it to be like most LCMs that we look at in that it will have no real impact or import on us. Anybody who looks quite closely at the Data (Use and Access) Act 2025 will realise otherwise, however. The Act talks about smart data, digital identity products and research provisions. It also talks about "legitimate interests", which is about defining how GDPR will work against potential schemes in the EU and the rest of world. The Act talks about the introduction of "automated decision-making" systems that are attached to AI; international transfers of data; the continuation of data; and the ability to use encrypted and unencrypted data that might pass back and forth across digital boundaries. It further talks about health and social care information, the importance of its encryption, its movement and spread and how it is utilised. It also talks about privacy and electronic communications regulations (PECR) changes. Some people might not understand those, but, basically, those changes bring such fines up to the levels of those that are issued for potential GDPR breaches. That means that companies or people who fall foul of those rules and regulations could find themselves being fined up to half the value of their company or even more. The Act also talks about AI and copyright. Thank you very much indeed, David, for bringing that up, because AI and copyright is a significant issue. Indeed, the House of Lords was very concerned about that, and it still is.

Together, all those issues should have shown that there should have been suitable scrutiny in the Northern Ireland Assembly. When did our officials first know about the legislative consent memorandum, and when did it arrive in our system to be looked at? It arrived in October last year. Those of us who are members of the Finance Committee can be quite rightly concerned about the fact that we were not informed of the process all the way through until May this year. However, if you look at correspondence between the Department and the Executive and other correspondence and communication that was going back and forth across the Irish Sea — obviously using unencrypted data at some speed to be able to do that — you will see that lots of questions were being asked. Lots of questions were being asked about article 2(1) of the Windsor framework and the adequacy of that, and that went back and forth. All of that was going on for three and a half to four months. At what stage were we as a Committee informed of that? We were not, but it was open knowledge in the Department in dealing with the Executive and in Departments in London. We had not been informed about it.

Minister, one of the things that I want you to address is that, at some stage, there must have been a checklist of LCMs that your Department was dealing with. We were quite pleased that Neil Gibson came before the Committee. Of all the senior civil servants whom I have ever encountered at Committee, Neil is probably the most honest and open one, and he took full responsibility and accountability for what went wrong. However, the reality is that he should not have been the one doing that, because the situation should never have happened. Minister, we need to work out why, in the LCM process, you were not informed; or, if you were informed, at what stage did somebody say, "This process isn't working"? You have already heard what the Speaker has said and has told Ministers, the Executive and the rest. The amount of information that is supposed to be coming before us is not adequate, and the way that the House is kept informed is not adequate.

There are other issues with this that, I think, are quite disquieting. There are supposed to be various checks, balances and controls in a devolved Assembly. We have seen three of them fail with remarkable rapidity here. The first one concerns applicability motions. An applicability motion was brought about when the Windsor framework came before the House. We voted against it, and that was promptly ignored by the Secretary of State. The Stormont brake is another mechanism that was supposedly designed to act as some form of democratic accountability and scrutiny. Again, the Secretary of State swiftly ignored that. The LCM process is supposed to be part of the devolution process, and we have seen the Senedd and the Scottish Parliament deal with those issues in ample time. However, we have not, because we had not been informed. It is very easy to blame perfidious Albion — most times we do — but the fact that it has been sitting in our in tray since October makes it a bit difficult for us to start to complain about everybody else because we are not able to do this.

I cannot see how, in good conscience, in any way, our party will be able to support the motion tonight. There is absolutely no way. When people talk about this being a disastrous failure of the process, what is the point of having democratic accountability, scrutiny or anything if we do not even get the basics right in the first place? I could go on, but it has been quite a long day and rather tedious. That will not change what I have to say. This has been an absolute disaster, and somebody, somehow, needs to grasp it and make sure that it does not happen again.

Mr Frew: I note all the concerns that have been shared here tonight about this process and the Act. However, all of that does not amount to a hill of beans, because we have already missed the bus on this. In one fell swoop, we have been transformed back into the zombie Assembly zone, and nothing that anyone here, including the Minister, says will make one pin of difference. It is an absolute farce that we are left in the position where we are having a take-note debate on a piece of legislation. How low can this place fall? It is an absolute shambles and disgrace that we as legislators — every Member here today — are left in this position. We are having a take-note debate on a piece of legislation that will affect all our people. I do not care if this is the best piece of legislation that was ever created in Westminster. It is not, but let us say that it was. The fact that we, as legislators in Northern Ireland, were not able to give our consent through an LCM, which is an instrument of Parliament, demonstrates just how big a shambles it was.

Whilst listening to the debate, we have heard concerns from Matthew O'Toole, SDLP; David Honeyford, Alliance; and Steve Aiken, UUP, on aspects of and controversies surrounding the Bill. However, none of us — not one of those Members — can effect change or influence the decision-making process on that legislation now.

My colleague Diane covered some of the positive aspects of the Bill, but we have been told by the Department that the hold-up — the confusion, if you like — was around article 2 of the Windsor framework and, specifically, concerns raised by the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission about data protection standards, concerns that have been echoed by most of the parties in the Chamber. An organisation's concerns about a Bill led to the Assembly not being able to debate that Bill's provisions and give it our consent or otherwise. That is how serious it is. We, as an Assembly and an Executive, are left red-faced, having a take-note debate on legislation. It is farcical.

The departmental officials fronted up straight away and apologised. The permanent secretary came before the Committee and apologised. We are a scrutiny Committee, and our job is to scrutinise. Every MLA in the Chamber should be scrutinising Bills, but a scrutiny Committee was not afforded the chance or the right to scrutinise legislation that will affect us all. It will affect not only us all, as citizens, but the devolved aspects of the Assembly and Executive. It is shambolic. Yet the Minister comes here to have this take-note debate as if everything is going swimmingly, with a motion stating:

What is successful about it? Is it successful because it passed all the legislative stages in Westminster, a place that Sinn Féin does not even sit in? Is that what he is talking about as success? Not one MLA was able to scrutinise the Bill and give their thoughts on it or their consent to it. Sinn Féin: Ourselves Alone? More like "Ourselves Asleep". Not only is Sinn Féin responsible for the mistake —

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Paul, will you address your comments to the Bill, please? If not, I will ask you to take your seat, and we will move on.

Mr Frew: Thank you very much, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker.

Not only is this matter of the utmost importance to the principles of democracy, transparency, accountability and scrutiny, but it tarnishes the good reputation of the Assembly and Executive. That is how important it is. An LCM is critical: it is a function of Parliament. We, as MLAs, political parties and scrutiny Committees, have not been afforded the right to scrutinise the Bill.

The Minister talked about some of the responsibilities falling to the Department for the Economy. As far as I know, the Economy Committee had no sight of the information and saw no detail on the Bill. Therefore, it affects not only the Finance Committee but the Economy Committee, as well as the Department for the Economy, the Department of Finance and the rest of the Executive.

It has been a mockery. It is a farce. I hope that the Assembly never again goes through a process whereby we have a take-note debate on legislation. Disgraceful.

Mr Carroll: There is no doubt that the process for the LCM was a shambles from beginning to end. I do not often agree with my Committee colleagues, but they are absolutely correct on that point.

Dr Aiken: You do, Gerry.

Mr Carroll: Sometimes; sometimes not.

The British Government do not give a damn about people here generally, and, given their handling of the legislation, they do not care about their data and how it is used and protected. My concerns run further than process and procedure, and I hope that I can get some answers to my points from the Minister.

In many ways, I agree with Mr Frew that it is a bit of a pointless debate, but we are all here. The legislative process has been and gone, but there are massive questions about what extra powers the companies that hold data have and what companies that employ people and have huge control over people's lives will be able to do now that the legislation has been passed at Westminster.

In the right hands, AI could bring benefits to the vast majority of people. Unfortunately, AI and much of the technology surrounding it is in the wrong hands. It is in the hands of people who not only do not give a damn about democracy and suck up to the likes of Trump and his autocratic regime but are willing to suck up resource and energy usage for the expansion of AI, no matter the financial, environmental or human cost, some of whom are willing to fight trade wars and actual wars with China over resource and access to markets.

In its original form, the Data (Use and Access) Bill referred to:

I am deeply concerned about whether the Act does that at all, and it is not just me. The Ada Lovelace Institution, the App Drivers and Couriers Union (ADCU) and others have raised concerns that the impact of the changes have not been fully considered in light of the last few months, and I will raise their concerns throughout my contribution. If the public were focusing on this botched process — I do not blame them for not focusing on it — I would hazard a guess that they would be asking far more questions about what has happened and what is now acceptable and in law.

The so-called democratisation of AI tools has resulted in automated decision-making being deployed on a much greater scale across the economy than ever before and in many more high-risk and complicated contexts with no proper regulation. The Couriers Union has discussed people being dismissed from their job by an algorithm — by a ping on their app. Deliveroo's use of the Frank platform to manage more than 8,000 gig-worker riders through the automated decision-making process was found to be unlawful by the Italian Data Protection Authority, which stated that it produced:

A Dutch court made a similar decision on Uber and Ola's practices around automated decision-making.

Given the shambolic process with the LCM, I have no idea whether that process has been extended here. I suspect that it has. I wonder whether the Finance Minister or the Economy Minister has inquired about the impact of the Act on couriers or delivery workers here. I doubt that they have, but I am happy to be corrected.

AI companies are motivated by hoovering up as much data as possible and maximising profit. It is critical that the provisions leave no scope for abuse. I remain unconvinced of that. The Data (Use and Access) Act contains measures that would lower safeguards for personal data, which should concern everybody here, especially those who talk about freedom of speech.

The Ada Lovelace Institute identified three aspects of the Act that require particular scrutiny. The Act removes the general prohibition on automated decision-making. That means that people no longer get to choose whether to be subject to automated decision-making. It places the responsibility on them to enforce their rights, rather than on companies to demonstrate why automation is permissible. It is a very risky process to put the onus on the individual rather than on resource-rich organisations that have a material interest in quick, automated decision-making to boost profit and maximise access to and use of data. There are safeguards mentioned in the Act, but my concern is that they will not be enough.

Part of the drive and rationale for the Act is to stimulate innovation through broadening the definitions of scientific research for which data can be shared and reused. There is a concern that:

and be classed as scientific research. I have no idea what safeguards are in place to protect people from that. I am happy to give way to the Minister or anyone else on that point.

Worryingly, the Bill gives regulation-making powers to the British Secretary of State that would:

In other words, there will be a free-for-all for big corporations, and no protections were mentioned by the Minister in the process at all. The Secretary of State was also given new regulation powers, as referred to by the Minister, to effectively allow the wide use of automated decision-making to take place in regard to new universal technologies. Already-limited protections will be disregarded and, moreover, large tech companies could abuse the provisions to legitimise mass data scraping. Personal data scraped from the internet or collected via "legitimate interest" by a social media platform about its users could potentially be legally reused for training AI systems for the new provisions, and developers can claim that it constitutes scientific research.

It sounds technical and is, but the devil is in the detail. A lot of clarity is needed, and the Minister has failed to provide that clarity today. His Department has failed to provide it throughout the whole process, so I will join others and vote against this shambolic process again.

Mr O'Dowd: I have noted the many issues raised by Members, and I will endeavour to respond to as many as possible in my closing comments on the debate.

I absolutely accept that not laying a legislative consent motion for the Data (Use and Access) Bill is not a situation in which we should have found ourselves. The Bill was a complex matter and created a need to seek clarity on the Bill's implications for the post-Brexit Windsor framework and assess the views offered on the proposed legislation by the Human Rights Commission. The British Government's reluctance to share their complete article 2(1) Windsor framework assessment of the Bill in a timely manner was a significant contributing factor to the delays in progressing an LCM. I have written to the Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology to highlight the fact that it is a fundamental obligation of the Government to ensure that there is early and proper engagement, in particular around devolution analysis and any relevant article 2(1) Windsor framework assessments, to ensure that the experience of Data (Use and Access) Bill is not repeated.

Dr Aiken: I thank the Minister for giving way. One of the issues that we have identified is a problem with some of the LCMs and the information that is coming through. A risk register system is supposed to be set up with the Executive that the Windsor Framework Committee is supposed to look at for specific pieces of legislation that are likely to be risky. Was this LCM on the risk register?

Mr O'Dowd: I cannot answer that question at the moment, but I will certainly supply you with that information.

It is clear that officials should have engaged with the Committee for Finance sooner on the matter, and the House should have been afforded the opportunity to fully consider the devolved provisions of the Bill. My permanent secretary has taken steps to ensure that such circumstances are not repeated, and, as has been noted, the permanent secretary and the deputy permanent secretary responsible for the matter appeared before the Committee and hopefully reassured it, as best they could, that lessons had been learnt from this.

If I were sitting on the Benches where Members are sitting, I would also be less than amused that we are in the situation that we are. I fully accept that, and lessons have to be learned from this. I have had engagement with my permanent secretary about it to ensure that we do not end up in this position again. The Chair of the Committee referred to radio silence from the Department to the Committee. There should never be radio silence from the Department to the Committee, but it is a two-way radio. The Committee, through the diligence of the Clerk, it has to be said, made the Committee aware of the legislation coming through, and there was some engagement initially. Then there was radio silence. However, let us make sure that the radio is working both ways and that there is communication flowing both ways: from the Department to the Committee and from the Committee to the Department. Primary responsibility rests with the Department — I fully accept that — but let us all learn lessons from the process.

As to some of the commentary around the Act itself, I have outlined the three areas where devolved matters are covered: smart data, the National Underground Assets Register and a requirement for updating the Digital Economy Act 2017. The Act covers a lot more, but it is not the responsibility of the Assembly. We would not have been asked in the LCM for our views on those broader matters. They are outside the remit of the Assembly. Members may have varying views on pieces of the legislation such as Mr Carroll referred to.

Mr Carroll: Will the Minister give way?

Mr O'Dowd: Just one second. Members may have views on parts of the legislation other than the provisions on smart data, the Digital Economy Act and the National Underground Asset Register, but those are the Assembly's three areas of competence. Go ahead.

Mr Carroll: I appreciate your giving way, Minister, and I also appreciate that smart data is a pretty broad area. Can you clarify for me and others whether the workers' rights concerns that I raised today and in Committee, specifically the App Drivers and Couriers Union's concern about the right not to be fired algorithmically — is that the word that I am trying to say? — have been addressed in the Act?

Mr O'Dowd: Again, tracts of the Act fall outside the Executive's remit. Under the Act, the Secretary of State or the Treasury is empowered to establish smart data schemes through regulations. The implementation of smart data schemes, however, touches on consumer protection, economic regulation and digital services, which are areas that fall within the Assembly's competence. The Act's application must therefore reflect our local regulations. Any smart data scheme that is introduced here must align with our consumer priorities, economic strategies and digital inclusions. I ask the Member to put his questions on the broader issue of workers' rights to the Minister for the Economy.

Dr Aiken: I appreciate the Minister's giving way again. Minister, something new is coming into the system, which is known as the Union Customs Code. It is a substantial change that will come about through the Windsor framework. The Union Customs Code will make specific reference to smart data and how it is used. Minister, I encourage your officials to familiarise themselves with that code. I appreciate what you have said to us, but the issue is much broader. There are areas that we need to be aware of.

Mr O'Dowd: I will conclude my comments. As I said, the Act covers a wide range of issues. Three areas fall under devolved competence and are therefore our responsibility, and we would have been asked for legislative consent to introduce them. The broader issues are outside my control and the Executive's control, but I reassure the Assembly and the Committee for Finance that lessons have been learnt. This situation should never have arisen in the first place, and the permanent secretary and I have put in place measures to ensure that it does not happen in the future.

Mr O'Toole: On a point of order, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. I am sure that this was not the Minister's intent, but any of the clerking team who were listening may have thought that the Minister was somehow impugning their communication with the Department. I wonder whether it is in order for me to make clear, on behalf of the Finance Committee, that our Clerk works hard to communicate with the Department. It is important for me as Chair to put that on the record.

Mr O'Dowd: Further to that point of order, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker, the Member is speaking in a personal capacity. He knows fine well that I was in no way impugning the reputation of his Clerk or members of the Committee. I was pointing out an obvious fact, which is that radios work in both directions.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: I remind you that neither was a point of order, but you have put them on the record.

I ask Members to take their ease.

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

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

Mr Mathison (The Chairperson of the Committee for Education): In the first instance, I will speak to the motion in my capacity as Chair of the Education Committee, but I will then make some remarks as the Alliance education spokesperson.

The issue of restrictive practice has been a focus for the Education Committee going back to the previous mandate. We are all aware of the powerful campaign that was led by Deirdre Shakespeare, which, following the distressing experiences of her son Harry, highlighted the urgent need to bring forward statutory guidance on restrictive practices in schools.

I should be clear about what we are referring to when we use the phrase "restrictive practice". It is a fairly neutral phrase, but it refers to any scenario in which a child or young person is physically restrained or potentially secluded from their peers in a school environment. There may be times when it is necessary to keep a child, other children or staff members safe in order to prevent harm or injury. Sadly, however, in the previous mandate and in this mandate, the Committee has heard of instances in which restrictive practices were used inappropriately in order to manage behaviour that was perceived as being problematic. There is unanimous agreement from all parties on the Committee that appropriate statutory guidance is essential to ensure that inappropriate practice is eliminated and that teachers and support staff in our schools are properly protected and supported when a restrictive practice is required in order to ensure that pupils and staff are protected from serious harm.

Tracking back to the previous mandate, when the issue first gained attention, there were calls from parent campaigners, the Children's Commissioner, the Children's Law Centre and other stakeholders that led ultimately to a departmental report in March 2022, which made a range of recommendations on the use of restrictive practices in educational settings. Those included the repeal of article 4(1)(c) of the Education (Northern Ireland) Order 1998, which permits the use of force in educational settings in order to prevent behaviour that is prejudicial to good order and discipline, and the delivery of statutory guidance on restrictive practices in schools, which, among other things, would require the reporting and recording of all instances of restrictive practice. Those recommendations get to the crux of the issues that are core to the motion. There were a range of other recommendations, but I do not have time to go into them in detail.

It is important to note that the aforementioned recommendations, and all the others in the 2022 report, were accepted in their entirety by the then Education Minister, Michelle McIlveen. The stage was very much set for the report's recommendations to be delivered. Over the past year, however, the Committee has heard evidence from parental campaigners, including Deirdre Shakespeare, the Children's Commissioner, the Children's Law Centre and special school principals, that an impasse seems to have emerged between the Department and stakeholders in the process of co-designing the guidance and bringing it forward.

The Committee heard from the Royal College of Nursing, which highlighted particular issues that led to its withdrawal from the stakeholder engagement group process altogether. It highlighted concerns that Education and Health guidance was at risk of diverging significantly and that the proposed Education guidance, without the repeal of article 4(1)(c) of the 1998 order — I remind Members that that is about the use of force in educational settings in order to prevent behaviour that is prejudicial to good order and discipline — may not be human-rights compliant.

The Committee has, therefore, tabled the motion, having reflected on the distressing reports of instances in which restrictive practices have been applied inappropriately and where children have been restrained, like Harry Shakespeare was, when there appears to have been no good reason for doing so. The Committee has also tabled the motion after reflecting on the evidence of special school leaders, who have stated to us that they need the statutory guidance in order to support the work that they do every day with children who have complex needs.

I want to be very clear that the motion is about protecting not only children but staff and teachers in our schools. I was conscious that, when it was read out, it was a very long motion, and that is possibly what you get when you agree a Committee motion. I will summarise the key asks of the motion, as it is important to be clear about what the Committee was concerned with.

First, the Minister should commit to delivering guidance and training for schools on restrictive practice that is non-discriminatory and child-rights compliant. The second ask is the repeal of article 4(1)(c), which can, as the motion states, go hand in hand with other necessary legislative changes, if required, to protect teachers operating in roles where, undoubtedly, many complex scenarios emerge. The third ask is to address the issues with the special school estate, where accommodation, often not fit for purpose, can exacerbate behaviours of concern among young people with complex needs. We have heard repeatedly from our special school leaders and staff that the environments in which they operate often drive some of the challenges that they face. The final ask is to commission an updated response to the ETI report of 2013 — over a decade ago — on challenging behaviours in special schools, which is clearly long overdue.

The Committee heard many reports of school staff being injured while working in our schools, as young people with complex needs, who have become highly dysregulated, display behaviours that, in some cases, cannot be managed safely. That is a profound failure of our education system to meet the needs of the young people in question and to provide safe working environments for our education staff. The fact that, over a decade since that report was published, no substantive action has been taken forward is deeply disappointing to the Committee.

It should be noted, in the interests of balance, that members of the Committee agreed on largely all the asks in the motion that I have highlighted, with the exception of the repeal of article 4(1)(c). Therefore, in the Committee's deliberations on bringing the motion forward, DUP representatives on the Committee brought an alternative proposal for wording that did not include that call. I am sure that those Members will speak to that directly in their remarks. However, I want to be very clear that, from the Committee's perspective, there is no desire to detract from the fact that all members are agreed on the urgent need to break the impasse on the delivery of robust and effective statutory guidance on restrictive practice in schools, which will ultimately protect children, young people and staff alike.

I will now make some closing remarks as an Alliance Party MLA and education spokesperson. I would like to add my personal tribute to Deirdre Shakespeare and all the other parental campaigners who have worked so hard to put this issue on the agenda. I also put on record my thanks to the staff who work in our mainstream and special schools, in particular, and who manage the complex behaviours of children and young people, often in environments that are not fit for purpose. Regrettably, we have heard how many of those parents and their children have been failed by our system, yet they are using their voices to ensure that other families do not have to suffer the same experiences. Hopefully, the motion today is an opportunity for the Assembly to put on record that we stand with them and that we stand in support of our special school staff, teachers and school leaders.

In 2023, the Department of Education launched a consultation on draft statutory guidance on the use of restraint and seclusion in educational settings. Since then, as has been mentioned, a number of key stakeholders have raised concerns about the process that then ensued to create the guidance. As the motion states, we urgently need statutory guidance, and training that would flow from that, that is non-discriminatory and in the best interests of the child. It would protect pupils, teachers and others working in education settings, who are very clear that they are asking for robust guidance for clarity on what course of action is to be appropriately followed in what are often incredibly challenging situations.

As highlighted, there was one aspect of the motion on which there was not unanimous agreement. I want to be clear that Alliance is entirely supportive of the removal of article 4(1)(c) of the 1998 order. In my view, it does not serve our pupils or our school staff to maintain that on the statute book. The previous DUP Education Minister committed to the removal of that article, but the current Education Minister has not demonstrated his intent in that regard. We hope to hear from him today to bring some clarity on that.

Before I finish, I want to highlight some evidence that, I think, the Autism Reviewer provided to all Members on the motion. It provides some helpful reflections on the issue. I will quote directly from that evidence:

For me, that sums up the context that we are in.

I note that the teaching unions have raised concerns that repealing 4(1)(c) could leave them unable to deal with situations that emerge and leave them exposed. However, if article 4(1)(c) were repealed, teachers would still be left with protection in scenarios where an offence needs to be prevented, where there is a risk of personal injury or damage to property and in any scenario where there is clear risk to life and limb. I will also add that I had clarity from the Minister just this week saying that, in our youth settings, there is no such provision around use of reasonable force and that those settings are able to provide effective provisions for our young people.

In closing, there cannot be any delay in taking forward the calls in the motion. The report and its recommendations in 2022 were clear and should be enacted. Everyone in our education system deserves better, and I hope that the motion will attract support across the House and create the reset that is needed to deliver on the departmental recommendations that were made back in 2022 and that had full ministerial support at that time.

Mr Baker: It is important to recognise the courageous and sustained efforts of those families that are coming into the public domain to highlight serious concerns about the use of restrictive practices in schools and other education settings. Through the efforts of parents and carers, the issue has been the subject of significant public debate and scrutiny.

Parents and carers have often been left in the dark about what has happened to their children. It is therefore extremely disappointing to find that legislative reform and statutory guidance are not yet in place to adequately safeguard children and young people and to support the education and health staff who support them. Schools and other educational settings are operating in a vacuum and have often found themselves alone in implementing restrictive practices without strict legal safeguards. In June 2023, in its concluding observations to the UK, the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC) recommended prohibiting the use of restraint and seclusion in education settings and said that there should be a child-rights based approach to addressing violence and other disturbances in schools.

Children's rights advocates continue to highlight the fact that the inappropriate use of restraint and seclusion practices in our school and other education settings is not infrequent. There are many cases in which children and young people with special educational needs and disabilities, some of whom cannot speak up for themselves, have been physically held down, isolated in locked rooms or removed from classrooms altogether. Children with special needs and disabilities can face behavioural challenges. However, those behaviours often arise from unmet needs, sensory overload, communication barriers, anxiety, difficulty processing emotions or being in the wrong education setting. A wide range of evidence demonstrates that children and young people who are subjected to restrictive practices often suffer from physical injuries and emotional trauma. The long-term consequences of those can include a profound mistrust of authority figures, a sense of powerlessness and an exacerbation of mental health challenges. Furthermore, many children and young people who are subjected to restrictive practices never have an opportunity to learn alternative, healthier ways of coping with overwhelming emotions or situations.

It is vital that schools and other education settings are supported to implement positive therapeutic interventions. Education and health staff who work with children should have access to appropriate training and guidance. It is vital that proper monitoring of the use of restrictive practices is in place to ensure accountability and transparency. We cannot afford to keep turning a blind eye to those practices. We cannot accept a system that puts children and young people in harm's way. We have a system that is in crisis, children without places and children being placed in the wrong settings. We need leadership. Let us work together to ensure that every child, regardless of their additional needs or disability, is treated with dignity and respect. All children deserve equality.

Mr Martin: First, I acknowledge the sensitivity of the subject. I am aware that a number of parents and children have had very harrowing experiences of either restraint or seclusion in Northern Ireland. Therefore, it is not my intention to be critical of anyone else's view on the issue this evening. Also, given the nature of the area, whilst we do not support the immediate repeal of article 4(1)(c), it is not our intention to divide the House on the matter this evening.

As the Chair mentioned, members of the Education Committee heard significant evidence on the subject, and, in the Committee, I have described some of the real-world examples as "horrendous". However, what is also clear is that those incidents are in no way the norm and are exceptional. As the Chair mentioned, my party tabled an amendment to the motion at Committee. It is worth reading out because it covered the necessary elements that some stakeholders want to see without the repeal of article 4(1)(c). It stated the following:

as the Member opposite mentioned —

We felt that our amendment covered the necessary areas without repealing article 4(1)(c). Clearly, as has been mentioned, the other parties had a different view.

A range of stakeholders also has concern about the impact that the removal of article 4(1)(c) could have on teaching staff. For example, the Northern Ireland Teachers' Council (NITC) wrote to the Education Committee stating that removal of that article would create a climate of fear around restraint where teachers would be hesitant to intervene even when it was essential. Recently, NASUWT gave evidence and said:

I agree with both those bodies.

It may be interesting to note that the Department for Education in England recently consulted on the use of reasonable force, which is the equivalent of our article 4(1)(c), and the Equality and Human Rights Commission, in responding to the consultation, did not highlight a need for the repeal of the existing legislation in England.

Teaching is a challenging and rewarding profession. My party will continue to support —.

Mr Mathison: I thank the Member for giving way. I appreciate that we had discussions in Committee on article 4(1)(c) and views diverged. Will the Member accept that, as I outlined in my speech, we have youth settings that have no such provisions around reasonable force but are able to provide excellent provision for young people and that, perhaps, there are lessons that we could learn there that could be transferred to the education system?

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

Mr Martin: I thank the Chair of the Education Committee for that intervention. I take his point. I fully accept that lessons could be learned from the youth settings. I have no issues with that whatsoever.

I pay tribute to our teachers for the amazing job that they do to educate our children in Northern Ireland. They should never fear having to intervene in a classroom situation because, in doing so, they might face legal or criminal action. One simple example of that would be where a teacher blocks a pupil's path if they are trying to leave the school premises without permission and where safeguarding protocols would apply.

What we need is guidance on the use of restraint and seclusion that is rights-based, safeguards children and teachers and is workable in a school environment. I certainly hope that the Minister, in his speech, will reflect where we are with the accompanying guidance, which the Chair of the Education Committee referenced. I do not believe that immediate repeal is the path that we should pursue at this time for the reasons that I have highlighted. Instead, we should work to improve training, support and, particularly, guidance in that area.

Mr Butler: It is four years and two months since I spoke in a debate on this issue. At that stage, the Department undertook to issue interim guidance. It is regrettable that we have not fixed the problem, but I am not going to point the finger at anyone — neither the Minister nor the Department. When I looked at the motion, I thought that it is helpful, because its language is not inflammatory in any way, and its tone captures the essence of the difficulties that are faced by parents and some educators in some schools. We should work towards removing article 4(1)(c), but, unlike what has been pitched here so far, it is not about removing it in the absence of something better; it is about developing something better with the ambition to remove it, because what is there is evidently not fit for purpose. I agree with the Chair of the Committee that, if it is not in place for youth settings, why would we deem it appropriate for younger children?

The Ulster Unionist Party supports the motion, because it goes to the heart of what it means to deliver an education system that upholds the rights and dignity of every child, particularly those with the most complex needs. We must be honest about what has brought us here. For too long, parents have been raising the issue of the use of restraint and seclusion in our schools. Those are not abstract concerns; they are their children, and, often, those children are frightened and misunderstood, and, in some cases, they have been harmed. As mentioned, Deirdre Shakespeare's testimony about her son, Harry, who was restrained in ways that she was not even told about, has been a rallying cry for change. As she said, no parent should ever have to learn what has happened to their child many, many weeks and months after the fact. Her campaign for Harry's law, to make the reporting of such incidents mandatory, is based on one simple idea: that sunlight is the best disinfectant.

The Children's Commissioner has described the use of seclusion as draconian; the ombudsman has highlighted that, since 2017, at least 20 cases have involved children being placed in isolation without their parents' knowledge; and the Royal College of Nursing felt compelled to walk away from the Department's working group on restrictive practices due to the lack of clear safeguards and ambition to truly eliminate harm. However, I have to be clear: this must not be about blaming teachers or classroom staff; far from it. Those professionals are being asked to respond to increasingly complex needs — sometimes without the training, resources or space to do so safely or ethically. We must listen to special school leaders who say, "We need clear guidance, yes, but we also need more staff, more space and more time". The National Association of Head Teachers (NAHT), which represents school leaders here, has said plainly that, without statutory guidance and training, schools are left to navigate a legal and ethical minefield on their own. That is not safe for staff or pupils. As the Member for — where are you from, Peter? East Belfast? No, you are from North Down.

Mr Martin: Yes, North Down.

Mr Butler: It is pretty close. We have to be clear that no teacher wants to be in a situation in which restraint feels like the only option. He painted that picture really well. Our teachers are working in increasingly complex situations, but, right now, too many are working in those spaces because the alternatives are unavailable or underdeveloped. That is a failure of system design, not of individual intent.

We need compassionate reform. That means repealing article 4(1)(c) of the Education Order 1998, which allows for reasonable force in a way that is too vague and too open to misuse. It means commissioning an update to the 2013 ETI report to reflect today's realities in special schools. It also means investing in the environmental and relational factors that reduce stress before it escalates. What we have today is based on what we knew at the time. In 1998, we were not talking about adverse childhood experiences (ACEs), and we did not understand that behaviour is also a form of communication, particularly for non-verbal children. The Department has developed good policies through its nurture-based, emotionally supportive and trauma-informed practice. Those of themselves kick against article 4(1)(c).

This is not a call for perfection to be achieved overnight; it is a call for progress that is rooted in the rights of the child, supported by the professionalism of our staff and shaped by the lived experiences of families who have waited for far too long to be heard. The use of restrictive practices must be an absolute last resort, not a fallback borne of insufficient alternatives. We cannot patch this up anymore with policy promises or sticking plasters; it is time for structural, statutory and child-centred change.

Ms Hunter: Children strapped to chairs. Children secluded from their peers, in closed rooms. Children left alone in windowless so-called darkrooms. Children held, face to the ground, by multiple adults. Children injured, distressed, voiceless. Children traumatised.

As one parent remarked to me, article 4(1)(c) is just corporal punishment by the back door. The accounts of restraint and seclusion are shocking. The impact is devastating, and its perpetuation intolerable. That form of 21st-century corporal punishment disproportionately affects children with special educational needs (SEN) — our most vulnerable children. In some cases, restraint and seclusion is exercised on children who are non-verbal with no ability to report what is happening to them.

The motion recognises that it is parents who brought these issues to the attention of the Assembly and the public. It applauds them, as I do. However, those parents, including Deirdre Shakespeare and Shauna, with whom I spoke this week, are not interested in empty gestures; they want to see action, so that no child ever has to suffer like that again. Regrettably, despite the issue's having been flagged up nearly a decade ago and despite the Department's recognising the seriousness of the problem, little comprehensive action has been taken to prevent it happening again.

The failure to compel schools to report the incidents is alarming. Schools are permitted to continue operating in the dark, free to deprive children of their liberty without their parents ever even being informed. Too often, those measures are performed on children who lack the ability to advocate for themselves, leaving parents to interpret their traumatised behaviours in pursuit of truth as they follow the breadcrumb trail to understand the reality of school abuse.

While the huge lack of data and reporting on these issues means that we do not fully comprehend the extent of the problem, the parents and carers' voices on restrictive practices 2019 report, which assessed restrictive practices on SEN children across the UK, including Northern Ireland, detailed that 88% of parents reported that their child had been restrained in school, with 35% stating that that happened regularly and that 71% of families reported that their child had been secluded in school, with 21% saying that that was happening daily. While the most recent departmental circular from May 2021 on restraint and seclusion states that it is always advisable that parents are informed, there is no statutory obligation on schools to record incidents of restraint or seclusion. Furthermore, while it states:

and to:

and should:

we have a limited ability to ascertain whether those procedures are implemented in a way that meets those expectations. Indeed, if one of the members of staff had not shared with Deirdre Shakespeare photographs of what her son, Harry, endured and was being subjected to, there is every chance that we would not be having this debate today.

It does not take a medical professional to understand that strapping a child to a chair; deliberately weighing children down with heavy bags; belting children tightly to mechanical devices; locking children in small rooms with no stimulus and, in some instances, without even a window; or multiple adults forcefully holding children's limbs down, telling them that they cannot move and that, if they do, they will be held down for longer, is unethical and would be traumatic for any child. However, as of today, we have limited guidance and oversight to ensure that that never happens again.

The parents whose children experienced those practices talk movingly about the lasting impact that restraint and seclusion has had on them as a family, not only on their child. Children who once managed with complex needs regressed from happy, functioning young learners to distressed, fearful and traumatised children who were afraid of school and the dark and afraid that adults entrusted with their care may not be trustworthy.

I ask you, Minister, to listen to the debate, understand the lived experience of those children, listen to parents and their concerns, repeal article 4(1)(c) of the Education (Northern Ireland) Order 1998 and commit to introducing non-discriminatory guidance and training. We further call on you to implement the gathering and monitoring of evidence required to ensure that that dark chapter in our education system can finally be closed.

Mrs Mason: Time and again the Committee has heard harrowing accounts about how some restriction and seclusion practices in our schools cause deep and lasting trauma for children and young people and unimaginable distress for their families. Let us call this what it is: harmful. Being strapped down, locked out and isolated are not therapeutic interventions. They are acts that strip away a child's dignity, safety and humanity. For a second, imagine a child's fear when they are already overwhelmed and struggling to be understood. Instead of care, they are met with control. Instead of comfort, confinement. What message are we sending to our most vulnerable children? Those practices are deeply damaging. They feel like punishment and abandonment, and, for many children, they leave invisible scars that last a lifetime. Like others, I pay tribute to the courageous parents and families who have refused to stay silent. They have shared their pain and continue to shine a light on what happens behind closed doors. Without their strength and relentless campaigning, the issue would remain hidden in the shadows.

I also extend my support to the parents of children with special educational needs who are still waiting for a school placement for their child. Families have been left in limbo, with the child's future hanging in the balance. Even when a place is secured, the question remains about whether it will be the right place and meet their needs. Let me tell you what is happening on the ground. One school in South Down is fighting tooth and nail with the Education Authority (EA) for a basic disability ramp. A special school is pleading for empty early years places to be filled — places that are specifically designed for children with complex medical and learning needs who cannot access mainstream or specialist provision. What is the school met with? Silence, delays and frustration. What message does that send to other schools that may be considering a specialist provision?

All children deserve to thrive. All children deserve play, freedom of movement and emotional safety. Those things are essential to a child's development. Restrictive practices deny them that. Locking doors, blocking access to outdoor space and isolating children as a way to control behaviour are not solutions; they escalate distress and break trust. We need real training, real investment, real compassion and real therapeutic interventions. Staff who are at the coalface, dealing with difficult situations, deserve adequate guidance and the tools to respond with care, and any incident that involves restrictive practices must be recorded. The parents must be informed. Anything less than that is a failure of duty.

Sinn Féin is committed to a child-centred, trauma-informed approach that protects the dignity of every young person, supports the staff and holds the system accountable. Schools should be places of safety, support and trust — never, ever fear. We must never accept less.

Mr Brooks: I thank all the Members who have made contributions to the debate so far. While my party has taken a slightly more nuanced position on the issue, there is much that has been said across the Chamber that many of us share. The passions are clear, and I hope that we all recognise that we ultimately share the same goal: to strike a balance that protects children as a priority.

None of us can have failed to be moved by what we heard from the Shakespeare family and others — some of them mentioned by Ms Hunter — who have experienced undeniably horrendous and utterly unacceptable treatment in the system. However, I believe that we also share a desire to ensure that, in striking that balance, we do not place education professionals, particularly those working in the most challenging environments in the Northern Ireland education system, at undue risk or even with the perception of increased legal jeopardy. All of us know that our special schools already face significant recruitment struggles. Even when staff are secured, schools regularly contend with illness and injury sustained by staff in the line of work. It is a sensitive and exceptionally complex issue.

The pain that families have shared is real. They are motivated by the, no doubt, unimaginable trauma of seeing a vulnerable loved one being detained inappropriately and by the years thereafter spent struggling to make their voices heard. Their continued campaigning for Harry's law is strong and admirable. I say clearly that the campaign is courageous and deserves to be heard. I am utterly convinced that what happened to Harry in particular was wrong. The actions taken against him were unacceptable, particularly considering their sustained nature, and should absolutely be subject to sanction and correction. That said, my position and that of my party, which my colleague outlined, on the motion is one not of opposition but of caution. I hold sufficient concern about the unintended consequences that may flow from repealing article 4(1)(c) to believe that more thorough investigation and wider engagement is required than we have seen to date. Similar legislation exists in England and Wales, yet, as my colleague said, there has not been the same appetite or urgency there for repeal, even after consultations. That contrasting position leads me to pause and reflect. As I said, I am not opposed in principle, but I am hesitant to view increased legal jeopardy as the appropriate or optimal disincentive for such inappropriate actions, especially given that, in the context of a special school, such actions may have been undertaken without malice or intent, although that is not always the case, and I understand that.

It may be that we ultimately land on repeal, and I remain open to it. Today, however, I am not convinced that it is the only approach that is available or the optimal approach. I wish to look beyond the ambition — a noble one — to bolster children's rights and consider the broader implications. I wish to see updated guidance first. I look forward to hearing from the Minister about the steps that he intends to take. It is not an easy stance to adopt, but I believe that we would be doing a disservice to our responsibilities if we were to remain silent on valid concerns about even the most sensitive of issues. I still have unallayed fears that repeal could unintentionally disincentivise the professionals on whom we rely the most: our special education teachers and support staff. We have heard those concerns echoed by teaching unions. Guidance must come first. Once it is in place, we can make a more informed judgement about the future of article 4(1)(c). I know that the Minister is actively engaging on the issue, and I look forward to hearing his plans.

Let us be absolutely clear that article 4(1)(c) does not make it lawful to use physical force as a form of corporal punishment. That is already outlawed. No one in our education settings is permitted to use physical contact to cause pain, injury or humiliation. Abuse of that kind is rightly prohibited. When it occurs, appropriate consequences must be faced. That having been said, we also have to engage on how repealing article 4(1)(c) would be perceived by those who are looking to enter our education system. We would risk deterring new entrants who might otherwise consider such a career.

I commend all those who campaign on the issue, particularly those who speak from their lived experience of harm. If, at the end of the process, we proceed to repeal, it must be done sensitively and with safeguards in place. Otherwise, we will simply replace one risk — the use of force — with others that are just as harmful: staff leaving the profession, confusion in practice and educators feeling maligned or ignored. We must build a legal framework to boost trust not confusion.

Mrs Guy: Restrictive practices in education settings is an issue that, all of us on the Education Committee agree, needs to be resolved. Our motion acknowledges the campaigning of parents and the efforts of officials from the Department of Education and the Department of Health to deliver. We are concerned, however, that progress and momentum — progress and momentum driven by the campaign for Harry's law, which my party and I endorse — from the previous mandate have stalled in this mandate.

I have spoken to Deirdre Shakespeare about the suffering of her son Harry, which resulted from deeply damaging restrictive practices. Harry's case and the experiences of other children like him must be at the front of our minds during the debate. Our responsibility as a Committee is to be their voice. A key reason for tabling the motion was to hear directly from the Minister of Education. We urgently need clarity from him on whether he will, at the earliest opportunity, repeal article 4(1)(c), which, to use the words of the independent autism reviewer, is not only overdue but essential.

We need assurance that the new education framework will be compatible with the 'Three Steps to Positive Practice' framework document that has been adopted by health professionals, who frequently work in our schools and deal with the same children. The Minister needs to restore confidence in the process, given that one key stakeholder, the RCN, opted to leave the task and finish group rather than be associated with the emerging guidance. The RCN painted a picture, corroborated by others, of tension between Health and Education officials, with the attitude among Education officials of not wanting to be told what to do by Health officials actively impeding progress.

We have a comprehensive and persuasive body of evidence from trusted sources, including the Northern Ireland Commissioner for Children and Young People, the Northern Ireland Public Services Ombudsman, the Children's Law Centre and special school leaders as well as powerful testimony from parents, which all points in the same direction. Minister, why are you not decisive on the issue? Since the restoration of the Executive after two years in which there was no devolved government, you appear to have been disregarding the clear direction of travel that was set by the previous DUP Education Minister, Michelle McIlveen, who wrote to schools, committing to the repeal of article 4(1)(c) and the delivery of statutory guidance on restrictive practices. I hope that we get clarity on the direction of travel of your Department.

Making children and young people the focus of the debate does not mean that we seek to diminish the necessity of protecting our teachers and support staff. Let me be clear: no one is advocating an approach that would put teachers at risk; quite the opposite. It is about giving them clarity, through statutory guidance, and appropriate training. From speaking to special school leaders, I know that they want that clarity. A letter submitted to the Committee by the special schools' strategic leadership group expressly welcomes the repeal of article 4(1)(c) and looks forward to the publication of new guidance. It goes on to commit to collaborate with the Department and others to provide a safe school environment in which the human rights of everyone in the school community are respected and avoidable harm liability is not a concern.

There is no suggestion that a teacher cannot use appropriate restrictive practices when a child or staff member is at risk. Rachel Hogan from the Children's Law Centre, a trained barrister and expert in the area, could not have been clearer in her evidence to the Education Committee, saying:

As I wrap up, I want to bring this back to Harry and his mum, Deirdre, who has provided me with closing remarks:

Mr Carroll: I declare an interest in that I have three siblings who work in education, including in the SEN sector. I support the motion, which has been well laid out by the Chair and Committee members, and I thank them for tabling it.

The root causes of challenging behaviour in the education setting are obvious, or they should be: children being packed into overcrowded classrooms; being placed in schools that cannot meet their needs; and being stuck on lengthy waiting lists for diagnosis and treatment. In that context, challenging behaviour will only get worse and more difficult to manage. I worry that, with the Minister's recent announcement, that difficult situation will become more prevalent and arise more regularly.

Families deal with the devastating fallout of the SEN crisis at home. We hear about that, and I commend the people who have been referred to in the debate and those who have spoken out. At school, it is the education workers who bear the brunt of challenging behaviour, especially classroom assistants, who, despite the Minister's announcement last year, are still underpaid and, I think, very much undervalued. When education workers are trying to support a pupil in crisis, they need clarity on what they can do to bring the situation under control. Instead, ambiguous legislation fails to give workers the support and clarity that they need. That obviously needs to change.

Article 4 of the 1998 order, as has been referred to, permits the use of restrictive practices against pupils who engage in behaviour that is prejudicial to "good order and discipline". It is not about preventing harm or further violence in a situation but about "good order and discipline". The fact that it still exists, is allowed and is on the statute books is shameful. Using restrictive practices to stop a pupil from harming themselves or others is very different from using restraint to keep something in "good order". The language is very Victorian and offensive. I support the motion's call for article 4(1)(c) of the Education Order to be repealed. As was mentioned, the independent Autism Reviewer described that as a legal and moral imperative. The use of seclusion in education settings should be banned outright.

It is also worth saying that article 4 also allows for some form of restraint in certain circumstances, such as to prevent personal injury or damage or property. The idea that, without article 4(1)(c), it would be a Wild West and there would be no intervention at all by staff is simply not true. Both measures have been recommended by countless families, education workers, unions and experts in children's rights. The RCN, as we heard, called for a change in the law.

It is also worth saying that the EA is cutting Team Teach training for school staff, using the justification that it is not reducing the number of violent incidents in our schools. I ask the Minister to outline what actions the Department and the EA are taking to prevent harm. I suggest that the answer is not many. The Department must immediately invest in mandatory training for all education workers on the safe and appropriate use of restrictive practices to protect not only children and young people but workers in education settings. Training on restrictive practices should be developed by education workers, including people with the practical day-to-day experience, rather than those who are disconnected from or have never been on the shop floor. That training should be given to teachers, classroom assistants and non-teaching staff. It should also be offered to permanent and temporary workers.

The use of restrictive practices in schools is a symptom of a much larger crisis in special educational needs. The under-resourcing of SEN has led to the desperate annual scramble for SEN places, and we are into that cycle again. There are endless waits for statements, and there is a shortage of therapeutic services, as others touched on. That is a nightmare scenario for families and schools, as they are forced to fight so hard for adequate resourcing and access. Reimagining an inclusive, progressive and rights-based education system is often — daily and annually — put on the back-burner.

The solution to the crisis is not to force schools to accept SEN pupils when they do not have the resources or facilities. The solution is not for the Education Minister or the CEO of the Education Authority to, disgracefully, try to shift the blame for the crisis on to underfunded and overstretched schools. The solutions are serious investment in early intervention and prevention as well as in child and adolescent mental health services. The solution lies in recognising the work, dedication and value of all education workers and in paying them what they are worth. The wealth and resources exist in society to do all that. The Executive refuse to invest —

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Time is up, Gerry.

Mr Carroll: — in the future of the education system. I support the motion.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Our next contributor is the Minister of Education, who will respond to the debate. Minister, you have 15 minutes.

Mr Givan (The Minister of Education): Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. I welcome the opportunity to respond to the motion, which, rightly, brings the issue of the use of restrictive practices in educational settings into sharp focus.

The motion asks us to address a deeply sensitive but complex matter, which touches on the rights, dignity and welfare of our children and young people while acknowledging the challenging environments in which our dedicated educators operate. They often go above and beyond in the face of those challenges in order to support our children and young people to thrive, learn and succeed. At the heart of our education system is the fundamental aim of enabling every child and young person to realise their full potential, develop knowledge and prepare for life beyond the classroom. Ensuring that our schools are safe, nurturing spaces is essential to achieving that goal.

I acknowledge the efforts of parents who shared their lived experiences of children and families being negatively affected by the misuse of restrictive practices. I also acknowledge the ongoing efforts of the educationalists who have generously shared their time and expertise with my officials to inform the development of the guidance and the efforts of the Department of Health and our wider stakeholders, who contribute positively and constructively to the process of establishing meaningful and consistent guidance in that area.

To that end, I confirm that it remains my intention to publish statutory guidance on the use of restraint and seclusion in education settings. I have asked my officials to work closely with a broad range of stakeholders to ensure that that guidance is clear, robust, rights-based, fit for purpose and deliverable in our schools. The principle of acting in the best interests of the child has underpinned the work to develop that guidance. The guidance will support staff in keeping children safe while enabling them to access the curriculum and benefit fully from their educational experience. It is intended that it will outline when restrictive practices may and may not be used, what must be reported and what should be reported to parents and carers. Above all, the guidance will be grounded in the principles of safety, dignity and respect for the rights of all those who are in our education settings. I recognise the long-standing calls for clear, consistent guidance in this area. The guidance that we are developing is intended to address the current gap and to provide clarity and assurance to all who are involved.

I also recognise the emotional and psychological impact that restrictive practices can have on the child and the staff who are involved. They are not neutral interventions; they can leave lasting trauma and must never be used thoughtlessly or carelessly or as routine behaviour management. Instead, our approach must be trauma-informed, person-centred and rooted in compassion and understanding. Physical interventions should be the least restrictive intervention necessary. Staff must be empowered to use their professional skills and expertise to recognise distress and de-escalate situations before they reach the point where physical intervention becomes necessary.

I am acutely aware of the calls to repeal article 4(1)(c) of the Education (Northern Ireland) Order 1998, which provides that a member of staff:

to maintain "good order and discipline". I want to be clear, however, that that provision does not permit corporal punishment. Corporal punishment is illegal. It was abolished in 1987, and that was fully extended to all schools in 2003. That will not change. Ms Hunter referred to that provision as:

Wrong.

Ms Hunter: Will the Minister give way?

Mr Givan: Absolutely wrong. I am happy to give way.

Ms Hunter: Thank you very much, Minister. To be clear, those words are directly from the parent of a child who has endured trauma in those settings, and that parent feels that restraint and seclusion were used unfairly towards their child. In the discussion that we are having, is it not fair to echo the words of those parents?

Mr Givan: The Member articulated parents' views, and everybody gave those views. However, I think that the Member was the only one who did not mention teachers and classroom assistants. This is, as I said, a hugely difficult situation to deal with. Does the Member really suggest, given that I have listened to principals talk to me about teaching staff who have broken arms because they had to deal with very difficult situations, that there should not be provision to have a physical intervention that would prevent further harm being caused to the child involved, other children and teaching staff? It cannot be presented solely in the way in which the Member presented it without making reference to the wider issues. The Member did not make reference to the wider complexities of the issue.

Article 4(1)(c) allows for the use of reasonable force to maintain discipline and good order in schools, which I referenced. I felt that Mr Carroll represented it in the wrong way. An intervention has to be relevant to the particular context. It must be the exception. It must be the least restrictive means of intervention at the appropriate time to protect people from and prevent harm. The way that some have presented it almost suggests that it is a regular occurrence. It is not a regular occurrence. Those are exceptions. It is not the norm.

Our schools are safe schools. I accept, though, that there are issues and that there have been misuses of the provision. However, the provision in article 4(1)(c) aligns with the legal position in England and Wales, where schools operate under section 93 of the Education and Inspections Act 2006, which provides staff with similar powers to use reasonable force for:

Mr Carroll: I appreciate the Minister's giving way. Minister, I am not on the Education Committee, but you said that the practice under article 4(1)(c) was not regularly used: I hope that that is the case. Does the Minister have a breakdown of the figures for how often it was used over the past number of years?

Mr Givan: I do not have them here, but I know that it is the exception. It is not the norm.

Mr Sheehan: Will the Minister give way?

Mr Givan: I will give way. I want to make progress, because I agreed to provide information on the SEN placement issues as well.

Mr Sheehan: Just a quick question: how do you know that it is not the norm? In many instances, parents find out only by accident that their child was the subject of a restrictive practice, such as being tethered to a fence.

Mr Givan: I agree with the Member about the recording and reporting of those issues. That is why we need to address the gaps that exist. I am trying to articulate the issue of having to have some form of intervention that may be necessary. I do not think that anybody here has articulated the view that, if a child or young person is engaging in physical harm to themselves or to others or to a staff member, we should stand back and allow that to happen. I do not think that anybody has articulated that. Therefore, there needs to be provision so that there is clear guidance and legislative protection in place for the teaching staff.

It cannot be presented solely through one perspective when I, as Minister, hear from teaching unions and other representative people whom I have met when I have been in schools and they articulate to me a real concern about these issues. Let me be clear: any education staff who are raising concerns or urging caution about the repeal of article 4(1)(c) are not doing so because they want to retain the ability to use reasonable force against children and young people in order to cause them hurt and distress; rather, their concerns stem from the fact that repealing the provision in isolation could unintentionally remove the legal foundation on which school staff operate when dealing with situations where, according to their professional judgement, they feel that there is a necessity to use reasonable force.

I do not have the power to repeal article 4(1)(c). That will be a matter for the Assembly. In considering whether to bring any such proposals to the Executive, I will have to balance the calls for repeal with the fact that repealing the provision could create a reluctance among our dedicated education workforce to intervene physically when necessary. That would not serve our children, our staff or the wider school community. My focus now is on ensuring that my Department provides operational guidance to schools that any physical intervention is the least restrictive necessary in the circumstances and that physical interventions are recorded and reported where it is appropriate and proportionate. That is why statutory guidance that we are developing will define how and when reasonable force can be used, emphasising de-escalation, trauma-informed practice and human rights protections. It will place the child's best interests at its core.

It is my firm view that guidance must come first and be developed in consultation with those who will implement it and underpinned by the best interests of children and young people. Once that has been agreed, I can make an informed judgement about the future of article 4(1)(c), ensuring that any changes to legislation are responsible, legally sound and rooted in the realities of school life and ensure that our practitioners feel empowered and trusted to carry out their important work. We owe it to our educators to provide legal clarity and to our children to uphold their dignity, rights and safety. Those aims are not in conflict; they are mutually reinforcing. My Department is working to deliver guidance that reflects both.

I am committed to having an education system that protects, values and supports every child; one in which no child is made to feel unsafe or is hurt by the misuse of restrictive practices and in which staff have their professional judgement respected and reinforced by appropriate and practical guidance from my Department that empowers them to act with confidence and compassion in the best interests of all those in their care. I look forward to continued engagement with all stakeholders as we continue to create an education system in which every child is safe, respected and given the opportunity to flourish.

By your leave, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker, I will take the opportunity to address the issue of school placements for children with a statement of —

Mr Baker: Will the Minister give way?

Mr Givan: I have three minutes to give an update on the issue, and I am not going to give way.

Mr Baker: That is my point: three minutes of your time to talk about children who do not have a place.

Mr Givan: I am not going to give way.

Mr Baker: It is a disgrace, Minister.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Danny.

Mr Baker: Three minutes.

Mr Givan: Mr Baker, if you could contain yourself so that I can give you the update —

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Excuse me, Minister: take your seat.

Danny, the Minister has already said that he is not giving way. Minister, go ahead.

Mr Givan: Thank you. I will give the update. Ensuring that all children with a statement of special educational needs have a school placement that is appropriate to meet their needs is and will continue to be a primary focus for my Department and the EA.

Since 2021, 595 specialist provision classes in 229 schools have been established, but the system has still struggled to keep pace with the rising demand. In recent years the EA has created over 5,000 additional places, including 1,450 additional places for September 2024. In preparation for this September, the EA has already created more than 150 additional classes for approximately 1,350 pupils across 123 schools. However, that is not enough to meet the pressures that we face, and the growing demand and complexity of need means that there remains a critical shortage of specialist provision places for September 2025.

Earlier this month, I took the unprecedented step of personally writing to 58 schools in high-pressure areas, asking for their help to secure the right support in the right place for children with statements of SEN who still do not have a place for September 2025. Last week, the EA further wrote to 34 of those schools, again requesting that they consider offering specialist provision. I know the challenges, but I personally ask each of those schools to engage with the EA to look at the practicality of supporting our children who need a placement for September. I can tell the House that the latest information that I have is that there is now a pressure of 103 places for September, which is down from 164 just a week ago. I thank the EA and the school principals who have stepped forward and established specialist provision in their schools.

The Education Authority continues to engage with schools and to fully and systematically explore all viable options for providing placements. My Department will continue to work closely with the EA and provide support in managing the situation. I have asked to be kept updated, and I will continue to update the House. I appeal to Members to help me to encourage schools. Some schools are not even returning a call. It is not necessarily a case of reluctant principals not wanting to take a child because there is lack of support; some do not even respond. In your constituencies and on your boards of governors, encourage schools to engage so that we can give them the support that they need. There has to be a system-wide approach. We need our schools, the Education Authority, the Department and political representatives —

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Your time is up, Minister.

Mr Givan: — from across the Chamber to play a part in helping to address the issues.

Mr Brooks: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I ask you to clarify that the allocation of time in the House to deal with any issue is a matter for the Business Committee and, in some cases, is at the discretion of the Speaker. Therefore, it is with good grace that the Minister has come today to give us an update not only on the matter in front of us but on other matters of some urgency. The time is not allocated by the Minister and is not of his choosing; it is allocated by the Business Committee or the Speaker.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: First, David, it is a Committee motion. The Committee could have asked for longer. I do not know whether it did: we will check that out. One hour and 30 minutes was allocated by the Business Committee. Members usually need to stay within the scope of the motion. The Minister indicated that he was going outside the scope of the motion to address a point that had been raised. I am not sure what your issue is. You may have felt that more time was needed. However, I will take your remarks back and —

Mr Brooks: May I clarify?

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Yes.

Mr Brooks: I just wanted to make it clear. The Member for West Belfast made the accusation that the Minister had not given appropriate time to the issue that he was about to cover. I said that the Minister, with good grace, had agreed to give an update, on top of the issue that he is here to deal with, on issues relating to placements at special schools. The Member for West Belfast levelled an unfair accusation at him, and that should be put on the record.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: You have put it on the record, David. Danny asked for an intervention, and the Minister did not give it to him. Danny spoke from a sedentary position, and I chastised him — not "chastised": I pointed out that he is not allowed to do that. I asked the Minister to take his seat. We can check that in Hansard.

Everybody has made their point. That was not a point of order, but you have placed it on the record.

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

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: I hope that it is a point of order, Pat. [Laughter.]

Mr Sheehan: I ask you to clarify that it would have been in the Minister's gift to come to the Chamber and make a statement about the issue of placement of children with SEN. However, he decided just to tag three minutes on to the end of his contribution to the debate. That is the point that is being made. It was an afterthought about our children who cannot get school places to get the education to which they are entitled.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Pat, that is not a point of order, but you have got your point on the record. There is still a day left of the session, if anybody, including the Minister, wants to table any matters on special educational needs.

I call the Deputy Chair of the Education Committee, Mr Pat Sheehan, to conclude and wind up the debate. Pat, you have 10 minutes.

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

Ba mhaith liom labhairt inniu go láidir ar son an rúin, nó tá an-imní orm faoi chearta, sábháilteacht, agus dínit na bpáistí inár gcóras oideachais.

Bhí an dearcadh ag ár bpáirtí riamh gur gá caitheamh go cúramach, daonnach le páistí agus, thar aon rud eile, meas a bheith againn ar na cearta atá acu. Dá bhrí sin, chuir ar cuala muid sa Choiste Oideachais le linn ár bhfiosrúcháin faoi pháistí á srianadh agus á gcur ar leithlis, chuir sin ár sáith imní orainn.

Ná bíodh aon amhras ann: nuair a chluinimid fianaise gur ceanglaíodh páiste de chathaoir lena mhála scoile féin nó gur ceanglaíodh páiste eile de sconsa, caithfimid ceist a chur orainn féin: cén cineál córais a ligeann dá leithéid tarlú? Cén teachtaireacht atá á tabhairt againn do na daoine is leochailí faoinár gcúram?

Many Members have talked tonight about restrictive practices, but not many, apart from Cara, went into the detail of what we are talking about. People listening in may not be acutely aware of what sometimes happens in our schools. One example is of a young autistic boy who was stimming in class. Stimming is what autistic children do sometimes, when they feel anxious or under stress. They make rapid movements of their hands or rock in their chair, stuff like that. That child had his hands tied to a chair with the straps of his school bag, on the basis that it was for the good order and discipline of the rest of the class.

The Education Committee learned of another case, that of a young boy who was tethered to a fence. That boy's parents knew nothing about it — nothing at all — until the school sent the yearbook home. Lo and behold, there was a photo in the yearbook of the young child tethered to a fence. We know the story of Harry Shakespeare and how he was strapped into a chair, because we have heard his mother tell it many times. His parents were not aware of that at the start. That is why I asked the Minister how he knows that that is not the norm. In most cases, the parents do not know about it.

I was heavily involved after the scandal at Muckamore, where restrictive practices — I am not talking about the physical abuse — such as seclusion were used on a regular basis, even though they were supposed to be used only as a last resort. On some occasions — we are talking about some of the most vulnerable people in society, with some of the most severe learning disabilities — people were placed in seclusion 70, 80 or 90 times a month. That was not done in secret. The Regulation and Quality Improvement Authority was carrying out inspections and was able to see the records and did not raise a red flag. Here is the learning from that: behaviour like that becomes normalised. That is why someone thought that it was OK to tie a child's hands to a chair with the straps of his school bag. When Cara Hunter says that that is corporal punishment by other means, she is absolutely right. That is what happens: normalised behaviour. A child tethered to a fence — a child tied to a fence.

Mr Butler: I thank the Member for giving way. I hope to ask the Minister about the corporal punishment piece. I do not wish to re-engage the discussion between the two Members. The Minister mentioned that corporal punishment was abolished in 1987. I agree with the Member up to that point: I was one of those boys who had the hand caned off him. People, probably including politicians at the time, would have defended the use of the cane in an all-boys school such as the one that I was in. However, we have learned since then. We have learned an awful lot about autism and other neurodivergent conditions. We now have the evidence to suggest that it is time to repeal article 4(1)(c), as we did with corporal punishment.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Robbie, interventions are meant to be brief. It is not an opportunity for another speech. Go ahead, Pat.

Mr Sheehan: I thank the Member for that intervention.

Ní teagmhais aon uaire iad na teagmhais sin. Léiríonn siad go bhfuil ag sárú go leitheadach ar an chóras cosanta agus maoirseachta páistí agus nach bhfuil cosaintí láidre do pháistí á gcur i bhfeidhm mar is ceart, go háirithe dóibh sin a bhfuil riachtanais bhreise orthu.

Tharraing an Coláiste Ríoga Altranais, ar foras gairmiúil gradamach é atá ag obair ar an líne thosaigh, tharraing sin siar ó thascfhórsa na Roinne Oideachais ar shrianadh agus leithlis. Ní gan machnamh domhain a dhéanamh i dtús báire a glacadh an cinneadh sin. Tharraing an coláiste siar cionn is nach dtiocfadh leis seasamh leis an dréacht-treoir, nó, dar leis nach raibh gealltanais shoiléire ann go bhfuil an treoir ag cloí le cearta an duine agus leis an fhreagracht.

Nuair a deir na daoine sin atá freagrach as sláinte agus folláine a chosaint nach féidir leo tacú a thuilleadh leis an phróiseas, ba chóir dó sin a sháith imní a chur ar gach duine sa tSeomra. Chan ag cur locht ar an fhoireann atáimid; a mhalairt atá amlaidh. Caithfimid a chinntiú go bhfaigheann siad oiliúint agus tacaíocht le go dtig leo meas a bheith acu ar chearta na bpáistí. Níl an íde mhídhaonna inleithscéil a choíche, is cuma cé chomh dúshlánach atá na dálaí.

Creideann Sinn Féin i gcur chuige oideachais atá bunaithe ar chearta, cur chuige cuimsitheach, atá feasach ar thráma agus atá ag cloí go hiomlán lenár ndualgais ar chearta an duine. Tacaímid leis an rún mar go n-éilíonn sé trédhearcacht, freagracht agus athchóiriú práinneach. Níor chóir dochar a dhéanamh do pháiste ar bith san áit ar chóir dó bheith sábháilte nuair nach bhfuil sé sa bhaile; níor chóir do aon tuismitheoir a bheith buartha faoi cad é atá ag tarlú taobh thiar de dhoirse na scoile.

Tugaimis tús áite do pháistí, ach déanaimis beart de réir ár mbriathra. Tugaimis cluas le héisteacht dóibh sin a lig linn an imní a bhí orthu agus a d’inis dúinn a dtaithí saoil. Tá an t-am ag an Roinn beart a dhéanamh; tá an t-am ag an Aire beart a dhéanamh.

I want to comment on the issue that the Minister raised at the end of his contribution. There has been a lot of toing and froing about who is responsible for children with special needs not getting a placement. The answer is quite clear: the responsibility lies with the Department of Education and the Education Authority. They are responsible for strategic planning and for ensuring that there are enough special schools here. Apparently, we need up to 11 special schools in order to meet the need.

We also need places in mainstream schools for children with special educational needs. The responsibility rests solely, and the buck stops, with the Minister.

That having been said, it is also clear that children with special educational needs are being discriminated against in the sector. It took me five times of asking the director of children's services in the EA at the Committee last week before I could get an answer to this question: when did the conversation begin with grammar schools about establishing specialist provision in them? The answer was this: this year. I do not know when this year. It could have been last week, but the fact is that not one grammar school in the North has specialist provision. There are 125 primary schools in which less than 10% of children receive free school meals. How many of those schools have specialist provision? The answer is two. Half of primary schools with over 60% of children receiving free school meals have specialist provision. We are in a crisis with SEN placements again. Crisis and SEN: it is the same every year. What is the Minister doing to end the chaos that happens every single year? Why not put our children with SEN first?

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