Official Report: Monday 29 September 2025

Mr Speaker: Paula Bradshaw has been given leave to make a statement on a digital ID scheme, which fulfils the criteria set out in Standing Order 24. If other Members wish to be called, they should rise in their place and continue to do so. All Members will have up to three minutes to speak. I remind Members that there will be no interventions.

Ms Bradshaw: Thank you, Mr Speaker, for accepting this Matter of the Day.

On Friday, the Prime Minister announced plans for a UK-wide digital ID card scheme — a so-called BritCard — that people would need in order to prove their right to work. My honest interpretation is that the scheme is trying to fix a problem that does not really exist. There is no wave of people slipping through the net that justifies such a heavy-handed approach. To me, it looks less like a practical solution and more like a political gesture that plays into an ever-growing and dangerous anti-immigrant agenda, rather than dealing with the real issues that people face here and across the UK. We do not need a digital ID card to tell us who can work and who cannot; that system already exists. Right-to-work checks, visa controls and employer liability rules address the majority of that perceived problem. Furthermore, making it a mandatory requirement will not automatically prevent fraud: it will just promote a dangerous narrative and shift the blame. I think that most people here can see straight through that, and that it will just not work for Northern Ireland. In fact, in the past few days, I have been struck by how many people in the Chamber and beyond, in political parties, have commented on the issue. It is infrequent that we see so many politicians here singing from the same hymn sheet. I look forward to hearing other people's contributions.

We have a particular settlement here in Northern Ireland. People are entitled to be British, Irish or both. It is an individual's prerogative. That sits at the heart of the Good Friday Agreement. Forcing everyone into a single UK identity card system risks completely cutting across that right, reopening questions and tensions that should be left protected and untouched. Furthermore, there is the blatant issue of practicality in day-to-day living here in Northern Ireland. Thousands of people live in the South and work in the North, and vice versa. As we often see with UK legislation that is applied to Northern Ireland, none of that appears to have been thought through with regard to the realities of our existence here.

Finally, there is the question of trust. If all the data is put in one place, it will be a huge target. People are right to ask who will hold the information, how secure it will be and what it will be used for, but perhaps those questions are for another day. The proposal may be worth pursuing by others across the UK, but it is an issue of identity and everyday life here.

At the weekend, we saw what people in Northern Ireland think of the proposal. While social media posts and press statements are important and influential in a way, it is important that we address the issue in the Chamber so that we, as elected representatives to the Assembly, can put our opinions on the record. I thank everyone in advance for their contributions.

Ms Ennis: The British Government are never not at it, and they are at it with this ludicrous and ill-thought-out scheme to introduce a so-called BritCard. The proposal demonstrates to people in the North that the British Government either do not understand the protections and rights enshrined in the Good Friday Agreement, of which they are a co-guarantor, or simply do not care about them. No British Government have the right to impose identity on Irish citizens. The right to:

is a foundation of the Good Friday Agreement.

The proposal is a clear attempt by the British Prime Minister to deflect from his political failings in Britain. The proposal for the mandatory BritCard is an attack on Irish citizens in the North. We in Sinn Féin will make it our business to stand up for and continue to defend the rights of Irish citizens in the North. The scheme is a non-starter, and Keir Starmer and his British Government should immediately pause it and reconsider.

Mr Frew: I have no doubt that, if the scheme is wrong for Northern Ireland, it is wrong for the rest of the United Kingdom. Everyone who speaks on the subject should say so and defend the United Kingdom from this potential tragedy.

The scheme is a so-called solution that is trying to find a problem, and the Government just happen to have selected the number-one issue that has been vexing so many British minds of late. Do not be fooled: illegal immigration and illegal working are totally unacceptable, and the issues need to be resolved immediately. They need to be resolved across the UK, including Northern Ireland, but the scheme will not do that. It is not even designed to do so. This is state overreach, and, as is always the case, it is about making people millionaires. Over 70 million people do not need to be given a digital ID to stop 0·05% of that number arriving illegally. We already have a visa system through which people's right to work is displayed, but it is not enforced. If employers do not check visas, why would they check a digital ID card?

A digital form of ID is not a harmless card in your hip pocket that can be shown to a person in authority. The British people have balked at such a proposition even in the worst of times. Such measures can and have been used, even in recent history, to coerce people into a position that they did not wish to be in. They enable the Government to widen the scope to cover all other matters and to control what people can and cannot do. That is what vaccine certification did during the pandemic. The Government could easily change the scope of and conditions in every sphere of life, and we would have no say in it and no choice but to comply.

Members may say, "It couldn't happen like that in a civilised country", to which I reply, "Look at Canada". There, the protesting truckers and everyone who supported or funded them had their bank accounts blocked, because Trudeau did not like their opinions. The first question in the debate should be this: why is the state making it mandatory? The state should not force people to do anything that could put them and their private information in jeopardy. I hear Members say, "But I have a digital wallet for all sorts of services on my phone. I hand over personal information all the time, and it makes my life so handy". Yes, we give data to private organisations, but they cannot compel us to do so. We have a choice. Only the Government of the day can pass laws to control people's lives and use the digital ID —

Mr Speaker: The Member's time is up.

Mr Frew: — to make us comply.

Dr Aiken: The Ulster Unionist Party, not surprisingly, vehemently opposes any attempt to introduce digital ID. Far from being the "bedrock of the modern state", as Labour's new enforcer in the Cabinet Office, Darren Jones, called it, it is designed to act as a control mechanism, and it is fundamentally un-British. However, knowing how our Government manage to do contracts and things with IT — I am glad to see that Mr Carroll is here — they will probably give the contract to Fujitsu, so it will cost billions and not work.

As to employers and employment, it will not stop employers on the grey and black employment trail. They will still employ workers without looking at the right digitisation or documentation. We know that; they do it now. That will not change, so it is a red herring.

The scheme will also — if it comes into force, which I do not think it will — create a digital passport border in the Irish Sea. That will add to the internal trade border that was created in the Irish Sea by the Windsor framework. That is completely unacceptable. It is unacceptable to me as a unionist; it should be unacceptable to anybody who believes in the United Kingdom; and it should be unacceptable to anybody who believes in the Belfast/Good Friday Agreement.

Finally, let us be honest: this is blatant political posturing by the Prime Minister. He did not even give the message to his own Ministers. Anybody who listened to the Minister on the 'Today' programme will have heard her say, "No, this will not be a mandatory issue". About 20 minutes after she came off the air, the Cabinet Office and the Prime Minister's Office came out and said, "It will be mandatory". Go and talk to Labour MPs: none of them was told. This is just a blatant attempt by Keir Starmer to grab headlines. Like most of the things that our Prime Minister has done recently, it is badly and poorly thought-out. I think I speak for every Member of the Assembly when I say this is not a good idea. It should be buried as quickly as possible.

Ms McLaughlin: It will be no surprise to hear that the SDLP, too, thinks that the scheme is not a good idea. We reject — [Interruption.]

Sorry? Who is shouting?

Mr Speaker: Please continue.

Ms McLaughlin: OK.

We reject the Government's proposal for the so-called BritCard. I am an SDLP MLA for Foyle, and our constituency lives and breathes cross-border cooperation every day. I find it really hard to see how such a scheme could work within the common travel area. In Derry, our lives are shaped by the open border with Donegal. Families, workers, students, patients and shoppers move freely back and forth, often several times a day. A one-size-fits-all digital ID imposed from Westminster ignores that simple reality. It is a risk to the flow of daily life and the economic and social ties that we depend on.

The proposal also cuts across the hard-won rights enshrined in the Good Friday Agreement, including the right of people here to identify as British, Irish or both and to have those identities respected. Imposing a BritCard undermines that delicate balance and the progress that we have made over the past 27 years. Let us be clear: the scheme does nothing to address the real challenges that people face, whether that is access to public services, the cost-of-living crisis or the need for genuine immigration reform that respects human rights and dignity.

The SDLP will continue to argue for solutions that are practical, rights-based and reflective of Northern Ireland's unique circumstances. We will also table urgent Assembly questions to establish what engagement, if any, the Executive had with the UK Government before the announcement. People here deserve transparency and a say in policies that affect their daily lives. We need to see a collective response from the Executive on digital ID cards. The Executive must articulate Northern Ireland's position: that is what it means to be leaders. The absence of a co-ordinated, unified response from the Executive is a failure and lets down people in all of our communities.

I join my colleague, SDLP leader, Claire Hanna, in calling for Northern Ireland to be exempt from this unworkable scheme. Our community cannot be treated as an afterthought or perhaps not be thought of at all in decisions that threaten the very fabric of cross-border life.

Mr Gaston: Keir Starmer has shown that he is a Prime Minister on his way out, after once again showing us all that he is out of touch with our cherished British values. He has ensured that many of his MPs will rightly receive their P45s at the next election through his foolish attempts to introduce mandatory digital IDs. It shows a Prime Minister who is out of touch with public opinion and a Prime Minister with no answers on how to stop the boats. If the Government are truly committed to stopping illegal crossings, direct measures are required to stop the boats in the Channel before people reach the UK shores. Quitting the European Convention on Human Rights would be the first logical step; freezing non-essential immigration would be the second; and immediately deporting those who arrive here illegally, rather than accommodating them in hotels, would be the third.

I share people's genuine concerns about the proposed centralisation of personal data. Collecting and storing all citizens' personal information in one digital system carries clear risks — risks of misuse by the Government and data breaches by hackers. Most important, the introduction of digital IDs will have ramifications for the civil liberties that we all enjoy, and they must be resisted. The TUV is clear: this is a cynical ploy to fool voters that something is being done about illegal immigration when the reality is that there are genuine fears that it will impinge further on the freedoms of UK citizens.

The digital ID debate raises another equally serious question regarding the constitutional integrity of the United Kingdom. Digital ID is a national matter. There can be no Irish Sea ID border. I am glad that my party leader will oppose the scheme's introduction at Westminster, but there must be no question of yielding to Sinn Féin's anti-British agenda by exempting Northern Ireland from a UK-wide system. Doing so would create a dangerous two-tier approach to citizenship: one for Great Britain and another for Northern Ireland. I caution unionist colleagues in the House. Our legitimate concerns over ID cards must not be exploited to drive yet another wedge between Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom. We must not allow constitutional integrity to be undermined for political convenience.

Mr Carroll: It is worth emphasising that this terrible idea has its origins in the days of Tony Blair and his Government, who began a serious crackdown on civil liberties 20 or so years ago. Keir Starmer — a willing follower and student of Blairism and Tony Blair — has taken his warped ideas of restricting people's rights to another level and different terrain. It should be opposed outright. If the Government in Britain want to plough ahead with it, I strongly encourage people here and in Britain to oppose it and not to take part in the proposed scheme.

Some of this is about Labour trying to show that it is tough on migration and asylum seekers. It shows how little a clue Keir Starmer or even Morgan McSweeney have about immigration. The latter is being accused of not declaring £700,000 of public money that was gained by his Labour Together group, which, allegedly, came up with this bonkers policy.

The proposal is not fully about immigration; it is about a huge expansion of the digital infrastructure for a surveillance state, for which a huge corporate organisation is likely to be paid. This is a state that already clamps down, spies on and arrests campaigners and activists. The scheme will create even more barriers to public life for racialised minorities and those who are already digitally excluded. During a cost-of-living crisis, ongoing genocide in Gaza, climate breakdown and rampant homelessness, this is the last thing that the Government should plough ahead with. Members have said that the scheme is very un-British. There is a rich history in Britain of challenging monarchy and aristocracy, with the Chartist movement fighting for votes for working-class people. However, the scheme is very "British Government", who, in the past, have always talked about decency and democracy but have clamped down on activism and campaigning left, right and centre.

There are huge questions about who will administer the scheme. Will it be, as has been suggested, Fujitsu, a company that has gained hundreds of millions of pounds in public money despite being mired in scandal? Will it be Palantir, with which the British Government already have a cosy relationship and which has been accused of all sorts of horrible things? The scheme should be opposed and challenged. If the Government try to plough ahead with it, I encourage people to resist taking part.

Mr Speaker: I call Claire Sugden.

Ms Sugden: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I hope that you are feeling better.

The announcement by the Labour Government of a UK-wide digital ID raises immediate and obvious concerns. A centralised system of that kind concentrates personal data in a way that inevitably increases the risk of government overreach and surveillance. It creates a single target for hackers and comes with enormous cost at a time when our public services are already stretched.

I share the criticisms that others have expressed. From listening to everyone's contribution, it is clear that there is unanimous opposition to the proposal in Northern Ireland, which in itself is significant. What concerns me further is that the proposal fails to take into account the Northern Ireland context that is not only about the constitutional question and people's identity but about the practical realities of living in a part of the United Kingdom that shares a land border with Ireland. The movement of people and services across the border is a daily fact of life, yet the policy reads as though it was designed for England, without thought for how it will work in Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland.

Beyond that, there are issues that must be recognised. A digital-only identification system risks excluding significant parts of our population. It presumes universal access to smartphones, reliable broadband and digital confidence. Those are not realities in Northern Ireland. Many older people do not use digital devices, and many rural areas do not have adequate connectivity. The consequence is that those who are most in need of public services will be the very people who are least able to access them.

The justification by the Prime Minister does not stand up to scrutiny. He said that the digital ID will help address undocumented migration, but undocumented migrants, by definition, remain outside official systems. They will not register for digital ID; instead, the burden will fall to ordinary citizens who already comply with the law. If someone intends to avoid the system, they will. The policy fails its own test.

People want effective border management, fairness and public services that work. They do not want another layer of bureaucracy. I am left wondering what the justification for the ID is, because on no level does it seem like a popular or sensible policy choice.

It is not a new idea. Labour pushed ID cards nearly two decades ago and failed, because they were expensive, intrusive and ineffective. Repackaging them in a digital form does not solve those problems; it amplifies them. The question, therefore, is not whether the scheme is workable but why Labour is pursuing it at all. Why prioritise an old, failed policy when health, education and basic public services are in urgent need of investment? There is no clear rationale, no convincing evidence and no public demand.

Mr Buckley: I am not too old to remember a time in the House when Alliance, Sinn Féin and the SDLP were drooling at the prospect of a Labour Government. How has that worked out for them? Farming has been destroyed; businesses have been taxed to death; pensioners' pockets have been targeted; the economy is on its knees; illegal immigration is soaring; and now digital ID. Who could not have seen that one coming from the sister party of the SDLP, which called for nurses to be sacked during the COVID pandemic?

Who do you think you are kidding, Mr Starmer? We see through every element of the flawed policy. I have a passport, a driving licence and a National Insurance card. I have the basic apparatus that allows me to be a citizen in this United Kingdom. To introduce such a policy is evidence, if it were ever needed, that the PM is everything that George Orwell predicted: a pound-shop Tony Blair.

My reasons are clear: the DUP opposes digital ID cards because we do not want to be part of big-government, invasive, snooping technology that has the potential to be abused. Alliance, the SDLP and Sinn Féin oppose the cards because of four letters: Brit. That is not lost on us.

The DUP will oppose the policy because it is not in the national interest: the interest of the people of the entirety of the United Kingdom. To say that it would reduce illegal immigration is utter gaslighting. If the PM were serious about addressing illegal immigration, he would deploy strong border enforcement; he would stop boats; and he would stop the abuse by the legal profession in making a mockery of UK law by interpreting policy and legislation on asylum seekers in such a way as to enable them to come by the boatload.

I notice that there has been nothing about immigration from Sinn Féin, the SDLP or Alliance. That does not bother them. They want to cover it all in the word "Brit". Be under no illusion: we will oppose that system. There should be no carve-out for Northern Ireland under a policy that should not exist in the entirety of the United Kingdom. However, what would Sinn Féin say if the Republic of Ireland were to make such a statement?

Mr Speaker: The Member's time is up.

Mr Brett: They say that a week is a long time in politics. Mr Starmer's most recent announcement has sent political opponents of the DUP into a tailspin. Last week, when changing her latest deadline for a united Ireland and a border poll, Mary Lou McDonald said that decisions made at Westminster did not impact on the people of Northern Ireland, yet she flew off to the mainland United Kingdom to set out her opposition to the policy. The irony of that will not be lost on the people of Northern Ireland.

Last week, in a radio debate with me, the leader of the TUV made it clear that he wants the Assembly collapsed and powers handed over to Keir Starmer. Now, Mr Gaston has articulated his opposition to Mr Starmer's remarks. [Interruption.]

Again, the TUV is in a tailspin on that issue. [Interruption.]

I am absolutely delighted that the DUP has been consistent and robust in its opposition to the policy. [Interruption.]

Since 2006, the party has been on the record, with our speeches and votes in Parliament making it clear that we will never support mandatory ID for the people of any part of the United Kingdom.

In North Belfast, which my colleague Mr Kingston and I are honoured to represent, over 3,000 members of the public have signed a parliamentary petition opposing the introduction of the scheme. It is a matter of deep regret for me and for those whom I represent that their voices will not be heard in a vote on the issue. Our Member of Parliament is more interested in pursuing his legal career than representing the people of North Belfast.

Let me be clear, however: Mr Kingston and I, and the Democratic Unionist Party, will be a voice for people of all traditions and none in North Belfast in making it clear that we oppose the scheme. The DUP will oppose it and ensure that it is voted down in Parliament.

Mr O'Toole: I will be very brief. I will make two quick points. First, the ID card policy is completely misguided. As others have said, it is not necessary, because in-work checks already exist. It is completely misguided because of the conditions on this island, with the cross-border life that people already lead and the all-island economy that we hope to build. It is wrong-headed, it is impractical, and it is completely misguided. Claire Hanna and Colum Eastwood will take their seats, and they will argue against it. They will oppose it in general, and, if it is to be applied in Britain, they will call for Northern Ireland to be exempted. Let us be absolutely clear about that.

I asked to speak because we have in the Assembly today something that we do not have very often: complete unanimity. Not just the four Executive parties and the Opposition but the TUV and People Before Profit all agree it is a bad idea. [Interruption.]

Mr Frew: I am glad that you have come onside.

Mr O'Toole: There is heckling from the DUP. [Interruption.]

We all agree that it is a bad idea. All the Executive parties agree that it is a bad idea. [Interruption.]

The public of Northern Ireland — [Interruption.]

Mr Frew: Vaccines certificates —

Mr O'Toole: Stop chuntering. You have had your say.

The public of Northern Ireland watching this might wonder, "We have a devolved government here. What is their position?" It has consistently been the case that, when Northern Ireland's interests are at stake, even if for different reasons — we know that our party disagrees with this for a different reason than the DUP — we oppose it. The Executive parties all oppose it. So do not come into the Chamber and stand up and say, for different reasons and facing different directions, that we all oppose it. Do your jobs. [Interruption.]

Lead. I went on the Executive Office website this morning, and there is nothing on there other than waffle and photo opportunities. The Executive parties, rather than coming in here and picking fights with one another, should do their jobs. They take their salaries and they take their ministerial cars. Do your jobs, work together for the people of Northern Ireland and do not just come in here and throw around bickering waffle.

Mr Kelly: Let me begin by stating that I am a member of the Policing Board, but I do not speak for it today. The McCullough review report sets out a stark assessment of the PSNI's practices around the surveillance of journalists, lawyers and others. Sinn Féin welcomes the depth of his work in uncovering the scale of activity and also recognises the limitations of what he could access. It is now clear that some elements of the PSNI's defensive operations include:

Those were unnecessary, disproportionate and, therefore, unlawful. The report identified 24 applications that appear to have been made with the purpose of identifying journalists' sources. The applications relate to nine investigations that involve 1,014 telephone numbers. The deliberate use of covert intelligence to identify journalistic sources, and surveillance activity in and around court buildings, are particularly egregious. Policing can never be above the law. Recognising the gravity of what has been revealed, the Policing Board, on a cross-community basis, has treated this as a section 59 report from the Chief Constable, which is unprecedented and underlines the seriousness of the failings identified.

There is much more to consider in the 200-page report, including lack of disclosure and candour. Public trust, especially among those targeted, has been badly damaged. That trust will only be rebuilt by firm, transparent and time-bound accountability.

The Chief Constable has stated that there are no criminal and no misconduct issues. However, given the gravity of these issues, it is my view that the Policing Board should follow through with a section 60 inquiry under the Police (NI) Act 2000 to fully examine the issues that have arisen in the section 59 report that we have received. I believe that we need the whole truth to restore public confidence in policing. Sinn Féin also believes that implementing Patten's recommendation number 40 on enhanced oversight — that there should be a commissioner for covert law enforcement in the North — would add a layer of scrutiny and could be a practical safeguard against further unlawful practices.

Ms Brownlee: This past weekend, we celebrated Ulster Day, commemorating 28 September 1912, when almost half a million men and women took an oath opposing an all-Ireland Parliament by signing the Ulster covenant. Ulster Day is a foundational event in the history of Northern Ireland's unionism, symbolising the collective will of so many people to remain part of our United Kingdom. It was fantastic to see so many community events and parades right across Northern Ireland this weekend to commemorate the milestone event in our history.

My constituency of East Antrim put on a wonderful show. In Carrickfergus, I give a special mention to Carrickfergus Historical Re-enactment Group and the Ulster Grenadiers Flute Band, whose efforts ensured a packed day of family fun and historical, educational activities, including a live re-enactment of the signing and a 1912 tea party and parade through the town on Saturday evening. Despite the horrific weather, the crowds were out in numbers to enjoy the events, and it was great to have our party's deputy leader, Michelle McIlveen, and East Belfast MLA David Brooks in Carrickfergus for the occasion.

While we commemorate the events of over a century ago, the underlying principle remains the same, and the unionist community of Northern Ireland remains as loyal to the Union and as firmly opposed to Dublin rule as we were in 1912.

The Ulster covenant remains a symbol of loyalty, resistance and unity. It is a reminder of the sacrifices that were made to preserve our place in the United Kingdom. Even in today's political climate, it serves as a historical anchor that reminds us of the enduring values of democracy, sovereignty and constitutional integrity that we in this party will continue to uphold.

Mr Blair: As Members may already be aware, today marks the beginning of Northern Ireland Environment Week, which is a crucial week of concentrated effort in our environment sector. I was glad to attend Northern Ireland Environment Link's launch event this morning alongside some of my Alliance Party colleagues.

The theme for this year's Environment Week is peatlands, a subject that is of vital significance in Northern Ireland. Our peatlands are immensely valuable for biodiversity, carbon storage, water quality and flood protection, yet those unique habitats have been under immense strain for years owing to factors such as overgrazing, drainage and burning. That is why I was glad to hear that the Alliance Party Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs has successfully published the long-awaited peatland strategy. That long-overdue document sets out five strategic objectives and 26 ambitious actions to restore damaged peatlands and secure a future for those vital ecosystems. It is crucial that we move swiftly from strategy to action, harnessing partnership and collective expertise to ensure delivery on the objectives. Protecting and restoring our peatlands is essential if we are serious about achieving our climate targets and safeguarding our environment for future generations.

I encourage all Members and the public to participate in Environment Week. A variety of public events will take place throughout the week to raise awareness and to promote conservation efforts. They include training sessions, talks, guided walks and volunteering opportunities that focus on specific sites, species and local landscapes.

Before I finish, I sincerely thank everyone involved in the environment sector: our remarkable NGOs, hard-working volunteers and dedicated organisers. Their efforts are greatly appreciated and do not go unnoticed. We should all feel inspired by their commitment and consider how we can contribute more to safeguarding our natural landscape in Northern Ireland. Hopefully, we can match that real and sincere sectoral effort and the public interest in protecting our natural environment with the political will that will be required in the future to produce the much-needed outcomes.

Mr Burrows: I will address the findings of the McCullough review. I am afraid to say that the commentary in the media, by political parties and, indeed, by some firms of solicitors — I will not mention any of them — has been misleading and distorted. Let me be clear: the Ulster Unionist Party believes that a free press is a cornerstone of our democracy and that police surveillance powers should be used with great care, in accordance with the law, should be proportionate and should be used only when necessary. There are some lessons to be learned from the McCullough review, but I very much doubt that all those who have spoken so excessively about its findings have read the report. The McCullough review report clearly states that there was no evidence whatsoever of systemic surveillance of journalists by the PSNI.

Mr Kelly said that there were issues with the Police Service's candour. Mr McCullough, an eminent KC, said that he had unfettered access and that everything that he had asked for was given to him. Some things that have been said are simply misleading. There are lessons to be learned from what are called the "defensive operations" used by the police. There is, however, a suggestion that the police were running taps on hundreds of journalists' phones and interrogating them. Perhaps it should not have done this, but the police had numbers that journalists had given to them, which were put in a spreadsheet and checked against officers' call records to see whether they had rung those numbers. The PSNI did not access the journalists' numbers. There is a minor issue about whether the journalists gave the PSNI their numbers for that purpose, but there was no unlawful surveillance of the journalists' phones.

The Alliance Party has called for a public inquiry. In advance of the McCullough review's findings, the Justice Minister said that it would be "premature" to call for a public inquiry, and that we should wait and see what McCullough reported. McCullough reported that there was no systemic surveillance of journalists, but the Alliance Party still calls for a review. It is interesting that two Policing Board members call for a review. My understanding is that the Justice Minister has the power to instigate a public inquiry under the Inquiries Act, so we will see whether she lives up to that power. I will ask her a question later today in that regard.

We have heard from Mr Kelly about freedom of the press. He is from the party that leads on slap actions, the party that tried to take — Mr Kelly himself brought the case — the house from Malachi O'Doherty for publishing an article, and the party that has an army of trolls on social media, which creates a chill effect for everybody. We do not need lessons from Mr Kelly on freedom of the press.

Mr O'Toole: Before I get into the meat of my remarks, I reflect on the sad passing of a young man named Oisín Johnston, who was just 18 years of age. He died very suddenly in heartbreaking circumstances. He was the son of Denise Johnston, a councillor of ours in Mid Ulster District Council. The funeral was yesterday. It was extraordinarily sad. It was attended by people from across that community. I know that the family is very appreciative of the words of consolation and condolence that it has received from across politics and society. It reminds us all of the preciousness of life and the very serious issues around young people, their mental health and minding them. It is an extremely sad time for that family.

I will come on to talk about sport, but some of what Mr Burrows said about the McCullough findings was quite remarkable. Trivialising and minimising what was done to the free press is not the way forward in debating these things.

What I want to talk about this afternoon is a terrific weekend for Irish sport. People will have seen what happened at Bethpage State Park Golf Course in New York, where once again, an Irishman — this time Shane Lowry, following in the footsteps of Darren Clarke, Philip Walton and Eamonn Darcy — closed out and secured victory for Europe. I am sure that even the Members from the DUP and TUV were pleased to see Europe win that match.

We also saw, for the very first time, an NFL game happen in "Croker" — Croke Park — in which the Pittsburgh Steelers were victorious. The Steelers owners have their roots in Newry, County Down.

However, the really big sporting event that happened on this island at the weekend was, of course, the Down Ladies' Senior Championship final at Páirc Esler in Newry. It was contested between two terrific teams from my constituency: Bredagh and Carryduff. Those two teams are a remarkable reflection of the growth of Gaelic games and the huge growth of women's Gaelic games, particularly in the county of Down. Many of the people on both panels were on the Down ladies' panel that won the All-Ireland just a couple of years ago.

We had a terrific weekend of sport on the island of Ireland, with Shane Lowry and Rory McIlroy bringing home the Ryder Cup for Europe; the Pittsburgh Steelers and the Minnesota Vikings showing us their wares in Croke Park; and, most importantly, two teams from my constituency — Bredagh and Carryduff — producing a terrific display while competing for the Down Ladies' Senior Championship. The latter is huge testimony to the growth of Gaelic games in the constituency and Belfast generally. We are very proud of them. The winners on this occasion were Bredagh, but it is very clear that we have great and growing teams from across the constituency. I am delighted to see it.

Mr Speaker: Before I call Jemma Dolan, I remind Members that Members' statements are for an issue, not a series of issues.

Miss Dolan: I speak today about the future of emergency general surgery at the South West Acute Hospital (SWAH) in Enniskillen and the paused consultation on the permanent removal of the service. SWAH is a lifeline for people in Fermanagh and west Tyrone. Its location was chosen to ensure that rural communities in the west could access high-quality healthcare without having to travel unreasonable distances. The removal of emergency general surgery has created real fear and uncertainty. People are, rightly, concerned about patient safety, travel times and whether our hospital is being slowly stripped back.

The current consultation cannot be seen as the end of the story. We need the Western Health and Social Care Trust to publish a clear, ambitious and deliverable vision plan for SWAH, a plan that reassures staff, patients and the wider community that the hospital has a sustainable future at the heart of our health service.

That vision must set out how the SWAH can be developed to meet the needs of our population in the years ahead, including investing in cross-border services.

The people of the west deserve the same commitment and investment as any other part of the North. Our health system must not leave rural communities behind. The Western Trust has a duty to listen to local people's voices and show leadership by producing a plan that gives confidence in the long-term future of the SWAH.

Mr Bradley: I rise to congratulate Coleraine's first professional Irish boxing champion, Matty "Bam Bam" Boreland. Matty's remarkable victory at Windsor Park is a source of great pride for the entire Coleraine community. In a fierce and closely contested bout, the reigning champion, Rudy Farrell, was unable to continue into the seventh round. In the sixth round, Matty began landing powerful combinations that ultimately turned the tide. His precision and power earned him a crucial knockdown and a dominant finish, thereby sealing his place in Coleraine's sporting history to earn the first Irish superbantamweight title to be brought back to the town.

Matty is a down-to-earth young man whose dedication, discipline and passion for his sport began at the Golden Gloves club in the town under coach Michael Fleming. Matty has become a role model for the aspiring athletes in our area, showing what can be achieved through hard work and dedication. The title was also a first for former world champion and coach Ryan Burnett, as Matty became the first boxer whom he has coached to a title. Theirs is an amazing combination, and long may it continue.

As Matty paraded his newly won belt in front of the Coleraine faithful at the game against Glentoran, it was a joy to watch the supporters show their appreciation for their new champion. We look forward to celebrating many more of Matty's successes in future and, who knows, maybe a celebration or two for Coleraine Football Club as well. On behalf of the people of Coleraine, I extend congratulations to Matty on his outstanding achievement.

Mr Sheehan: Tarraingíodh siar na himeachtaí dlí in aghaidh Liam Óig Uí Annaidh, feibh is cóir. Bhí Liam Óg Ó hAnnaidh os comhair na cúirte in Westminster arís an tseachtain seo caite, ar chúiseamh a cuireadh go héagórach ina choinne. Arís eile, sheas Feisirí de chuid Shinn Féin i gcuideachta na gcéadta eile taobh amuigh den chúirt le tacaíocht a thabhairt do Liam Óg. Theip ar ionsaí polaitiúil na Breataine ar Kneecap mar ghuth i gcoinne an chinedhíothaithe.

Tugadh triúr ball den ghluaiseacht Baghcat, Dífheistiú agus Smachtbhannaí (BDS) os comhair na cúirte an tseachtain seo caite i mBéal Feirste as damáiste coiriúil ó tharla iad a bheith ag agóid i gcoinne earraí Iosraelacha agus na siopaí a dhíolann iad. Sin ceartas na Breataine agaibh, coir a dhéanamh den agóid i gcoinne cinedhíothú.

Rinneadh ionsaí arís ar Global Sumud Flotilla an tseachtain seo caite, agus tuairiscíodh gur buamáladh 11 cheann de na longa a bhí ag iompar cabhrach, cabhair a bhfuil géarghá léi in Gaza. Ba é freagra na Breataine ná "aitheantas" a tabhairt do stát na Palaistíne ar mhaithe le:

Tá cinedhíothú ar obair le dhá bhliain anuas. Tá i bhfad níos mó ná aitheantas stáit de dhíth. Ba chóir don Bhreatain tacú le feachtas BDS ar a laghad, in áit coir a dhéanamh de. Ba chóir don Bhreatain a bheith diongbháilte i dtaca le lucht déanta an chinedhíothaithe a thabhairt chun cuntais, gan bheith comhpháirteach ann. Mar a dúirt Liam Óg agus é ag labhairt leis na meáin agus lena lucht tacaíochta i ndiaidh an cháis:

Cé go bhfuil teip ar Rialtas na Breataine maidir lena ndualgas morálta cur i gcoinne an éagóra uafásaí seo, is féidir linn ról a imirt. Ba mhaith liom aird a tharraingt ar an fheachtas Troscadh ar son na Córa agus an iarracht is déanaí acu Troid i gcoinne Mhaoinitheoirí an Chinedhíothaithe, troscadh 24 uair an chloig a bheidh ann go náisiúnta an 10 Deireadh Fómhair, ag comóradh dhá bhliain ó na hionsaithe is déanaí, agus a mbeidh agóidí lena linn ag oifigí na ndaoine a éascaíonn an cinedhíothú seo. Go dtí seo, tá breis is €200 míle bailithe ag Troscadh ar son na Córa do UNRWA.

Mr Buckley: I begin by placing on record my deepest sympathy to the family of Ian Milne, who passed away suddenly just yesterday. Ian was a big character who often went above and beyond. He was known across the Chamber, and he will certainly be missed. Our thoughts and prayers are with his sons Andrew and Stuart.

Last week, the House stooped to a new low. The Alliance Party helped and voted to remove the word "innocent" from a DUP motion rejecting amnesty for terrorists. We all know that Sinn Féin and Alliance are like Siamese twins when it comes to voting in this Building. However, to side with convicted bomber Kelly's definition of a victim really is a new low, and for Naomi Long, the Justice Minister, to have doubled down on that definition on the radio really does beggar belief.

Does the Alliance Party really believe that a paramilitary bomber, regardless of their creed, is in some way to be equated with an innocent victim of terrorism across Northern Ireland? If we follow its logic to its natural conclusion, we find that it really is a sad indictment of how far that party has travelled. No longer is it the party of the middle road but a party that is prepared to put the victim maker on an equal footing with the innocent victim.

Banbridge is a major town in my constituency. In 1982, the Provisional IRA detonated a no-warning car bomb there. It killed 11-year-old Alan McCrum. Are we in some way to believe that the man or woman who planted the bomb is equal to young Alan McCrum? Are the 10 victims of Kingsmills, Protestant men who were lined up on a road in south Armagh and killed because of their religion, in some way to be equated with the very men who shot them? What about 22-year-old Mary Travers, who was murdered by the Provisional IRA as she left Mass with her family? Are we in some way to believe that the Alliance Party, in supporting Gerry Kelly's amendment —

Mr Speaker: The Member's time is up.

Mr Buckley: — believes that that is in some way on an equal footing?

Mr Speaker: The Member's time is up.

Mr Buckley: Shame.

Dr Aiken: Last week, Denmark had to consider declaring a state of emergency as drones closed airspace and airports across the country, causing millions of kroner worth of disruption. In Sweden, drones flew over the Karlskrona naval base. In Norway, drones interrupted flights at Bardufoss and Oslo. Cyberattacks have been occurring across the continent, with Jaguar Land Rover having to receive a £1·5 billion loan to stop vital supply chain suppliers going bust. Many other companies have been targeted and quietly decided to pay a ransom in Bitcoin to cyberterrorists, many of whom are based in St Petersburg, rather than admit that they have lost control of their systems.

Factories in several places across Europe, including in our nation, have been subject to arson attacks. Airport check-ins, including in Dublin, Berlin and Heathrow, have been cyberattacked with malware. Our media point to the suspicious activity of the Russian research ship Yantar, which has been visiting nodes of key cables off our coasts as well as the coasts of Ireland and Norway over the past few months. The recent elections in Moldova have been plagued by interference, with fake news and false flag, social media and tear-gas attacks at polling stations and outright attempts to ballot-rig being played out. Nightly, hundreds of drone and air attacks are made against Ukraine. Those attacks are not against military targets but are designed to undermine the civilian population and terrorise.

The common denominator is Russia, which is playing its hybrid warfare card, trying to impose its will on Europe and to push Putin's desire of nationalistic totalitarianism everywhere. Europe's leaders, or nearly all its leaders, are standing firm against that onslaught. However, there are a few exceptions: Viktor Orbán for one; the AfD in Germany; Slovakia; and, believe it or not, Sinn Féin's candidate for the forthcoming Irish presidency, Catherine Connolly.

She recently remarked:

towards Russia. She also compared Germany's move to increase its defence spending as something akin to the 1930s and the rise of Hitler. That is from somebody who visited President Assad's Syria in 2018 at the height of his murderous campaign. In light of what is happening across Europe, Lenin's phrases of "useful idiot" and "fellow traveller" very clearly come to mind. While it is up to the Irish people to decide their next president, Ireland and Europe deserve better than that apologist for totalitarianism.

Mr Dunne: I rise to address a concerning issue that has, understandably, provoked anger and frustration in the local community and was, rightly, highlighted at the weekend by former football manager David Jeffrey MBE in the 'Belfast Telegraph': the message that UEFA, the governing body of European football, sent out by not punishing sectarian abuse at a recent UEFA Conference League fixture in Dublin between Shelbourne and Linfield Football Club.

During that game at Tolka Park, Linfield's Matthew Fitzpatrick, who is a former Gaelic footballer at inter-county level for Antrim, was subjected to chants branding him an "Orange b—". That vile, offensive abuse was broadcast across the world. The Linfield manager, David Healy, was subject to similar abuse. The situation was so serious that the BBC commentators felt compelled to issue on-air apologies to viewers, yet UEFA has chosen to do nothing — nothing to sanction Shelbourne Football Club and nothing to send a message that such behaviour is unacceptable and wrong. By contrast, earlier this summer, Linfield found themselves sanctioned by UEFA after some of their fans engaged in sectarian chanting. The club acted swiftly to condemn those responsible and, understandably, faced the consequences. The question that we must ask today is this: why is it one rule for one club and another rule for Shelbourne? Why is it that, when players and supporters from one background, or perceived background, are targeted with hateful sectarian abuse, UEFA seems to turn a blind eye?

It also raises very important questions about the monitoring of such matches. Let us be clear: sectarian abuse is sectarian abuse, and it is wrong, whether it is directed at Catholics, Protestants or any other group or race. There can be no hierarchy of hatred and no acceptable targets. The principle of equality rightly demands that all abuse be treated with the same seriousness, no matter what direction it comes from. UEFA has sent out a very dangerous and shameful message that Protestants, or those perceived to be Protestant, are somehow fair game. That cannot be tolerated. It is unacceptable, undermines confidence in football governance and deepens divisions across our communities.

UEFA, rightly and understandably, talks about the Respect campaign, but, unfortunately, this incident reminds us of the need to do much better. There must be respect for all cultures and backgrounds. I call on UEFA to urgently review the matter, hold Shelbourne to the same standards as any other football club across the world and send out a clear and unambiguous message that sectarian abuse, in all its forms, is wrong and will be punished.

Mr Speaker: You have a couple of minutes, Mr Carroll.

Mr Carroll: Bhí mé féin, agus mo chlann, ar an mhórshiúl sin Cearta an tseachtain seo caite. Bhí muid ann leis na mílte eile ar na sráideanna agus muid "dearg le fearg".

Fair play do na daoine sin a chuir an léirsiú ar cois. Tháinig pobal na Gaeilge le chéile ó gach aon chearn den tír. Bhí daoine feargach. Is é rud atá siad feargach. Tá siad feargach faoin easpa maoinithe don teanga. Tá Gaeilgeoirí ó Thuaidh go fóill ag fanacht le stráitéis. Tá siad feargach faoin ghéarchéim sa Ghaeltacht agus an ghéarchéim thithíochta go háirithe. Tá siad feargach faoin easpa measa ar an Ghaeloideachas. Tá an Roinn Oideachais ó Thuaidh ag caitheamh go maslach leis an Ghaeloideachas. Agus tá siad feargach faoi easpa Cearta teanga.

Caithfidh pobal na Gaeilge ó Thuaidh a bheith buartha faoin DUP go fóill. Tá muid sa bhliain 2025 agus tá crosadh go fóill ag an DUP: maidir leis an Choimisinéir, maidir leis an méid atá san Acht, tá crosadh ag an DUP go fóill. Ba mhaith leis an DUP crosadh a chur ar chomharthaí dátheangacha in Grand Central Station fosta.

Tá pobal na Gaeilge tinn tuirseach de Rialtas ó Dheas nach gcaitheann pingin rua leis an Ghaeilge. Agus tá siad tinn tuirseach den DUP ag déanamh ionsaí ar an teanga. Ná géilligí don DUP.

Ach ní leis an DUP amháin a bhaineann. Tá ceisteanna le freagairt ag Airí de chuid Shinn Féin. Tá fadhbanna le heaspa spásanna agus easpa maoinithe i nGaelscoileanna iarthar Bhéal Feirste. Sin ceist mhór ar an Aire Airgeadais agus ar an Chéad-Aire: cad é atá sibh a dhéanamh faoi sin?

Tá súil agam go n-éistfidh Stormont leis na mílte a bhí ar na sráideanna i mBaile Átha Cliath ar an mhórshiúl sin Cearta.

Mr Speaker: I call the Minister of Education to move the Further Consideration Stage of the School Uniforms (Guidelines and Allowances) Bill.

Mr Speaker: Members will have a copy of the Marshalled List of Amendments detailing the order for consideration. The amendments have been grouped for debate in the provisional grouping of amendments selected list. There are two groups of amendments, and we will debate the amendments in each group in turn. The first debate will be on amendment Nos 1, 5 and 7 to 12, which deal with the monitoring and enforcement of guidelines. The second debate will be on amendment Nos 2, 3, 4 and 6, which deal with the content of the guidelines. I remind Members who intend to speak during the debates on the two groups of amendments that they should address all the amendments in each group on which they wish to comment. Once the debate on each group is completed, any further amendments in the group will be formally moved as we go through the Bill, and the Question on each will be put without further debate.

Members should note that a number of the Minister's amendments remove amendments made at Consideration Stage and offer alternatives at different places in the Bill. Specifically, amendment Nos 1 and 11, amendment Nos 3 and 4 and amendment Nos 5 and 12 are linked. If that is clear, we shall proceed.

Mr Speaker: We now come to the first group of amendments for debate. With amendment No 1, it will be convenient to debate amendment No 5 and amendment Nos 7 to 12. I call the Minister of Education to move amendment No 1 and to address the other amendments in the group.

Mr Givan: I beg to move amendment No 1:

We begin Further Consideration Stage of the School Uniforms (Guidelines and Allowances) Bill with the amendments voted through at Consideration Stage now forming part of the Bill. I thank Members for their engagement with the legislation throughout the process so far and record my thanks to the Office of Legislative Counsel for the pace and professionalism with which its staff have again worked to enable amendments to be tabled for Further Consideration Stage.

I will speak to the amendments in this group, but let me briefly preface that with the context of why I have tabled the 11 technical amendments that we debate today. I have been clear about two points throughout the process. The first is that the reason for introducing this legislation is to address the affordability of school uniforms for parents and families who, I know, struggle with the cost of living. The Bill contains many more powers than those recognised by the media coverage reflecting some Members' comments following Consideration Stage. Let me be clear that the Bill has the power to make a difference.

The second point that I have consistently made is that the legislation that we make in the House needs to be excellent in how it is worded and structured to deliver the various intentions towards an overall resulting effect. As a Minister, I take seriously my duty to ensure that we make sound, accessible and workable legislation in all respects. Therefore, while I might have done things differently, I fully respect the decisions of the House in voting through 12 amendments at Consideration Stage. However, I considered it my duty to look at the provisions in the Bill as amended and have therefore taken a fresh look at how those amended provisions will be capable of being read and applied in practice. To make a difference for parents, the guidelines that will stem from the Bill must be workable for our schools, so, today, I propose a number of technical amendments that ensure that the legislation is left in the best shape that it can be. As well as the technicalities of my amendments, they are designed to ensure that positive differences can be made for families. I am sure that Members will agree that sound and workable legislation is vital to supporting families, and I trust that Members will support the technical amendments that I have brought to the House at Further Consideration Stage on the advice of my officials, including those with expertise in legislative drafting.

How the Bill flows is important, as are the words that it uses to achieve the policy intention that Members voted through. I reassure Members that the changes that will be made by the amendments that I have tabled, whether to language, style or structure, are designed to make the best legislation that the Assembly can produce. In all of this, I do not seek at all to undermine the intentions behind the relevant amendments that were made at Consideration Stage. Rather, I seek to make them effective.

Amendment No 1 is necessary in order to allow amendment No 11 to move the requirement to lay guidelines before the Assembly to a new chapter dedicated to laying and reporting. Amendment No 1 lays the necessary groundwork for removing the requirement to lay the guidelines from where it currently sits in the Bill. To be absolutely clear, the requirement to lay the guidelines in the Assembly remains. My amendments give it greater prominence in a new chapter and by way of an independent clause. I trust that there is nothing in that to which Members will object.

Amendment No 11 makes minor adjustments to the language used in order to provide legal clarity, by, for example, referring to the chapter rather than to the section, given the moving of the provision under amendment No 1, but the new clause still requires the Department of Education to lay the school uniform guidelines before the Assembly. The amendment also extends the reference to when guidelines are issued in order to recognise the subtle distinction between when they are issued and when they are reissued. Again, in order to have clear legislation, I trust that there is nothing in there to which Members will object.

Amendment No 5 serves a similar purpose to amendment No 1 for the reporting clause that was voted in at Consideration Stage. It needs to be moved from its current location in clause 5 in order to allow amendment No 12 to place it in the proposed new chapter on laying and reporting. It will thus be a separate clause in that new chapter. The House will note in amendment No 12 some changes in language, which are to provide legal clarity while giving effect to the policy intent set out at Consideration Stage. To be clear, there is no attempt in amendment No 12 to dilute the impact of decisions that were taken at Consideration Stage. Under the amendment, the Department of Education must still publish a report:

and the clock will begin once the Bill obtains Royal Assent. The requirement to set out the Department's plans to review and revise guidelines is still explicit. The requirement to report on a cap or to provide the reasons why if no cap is in place is still explicit. Albeit in a different place, the requirement for the report to set out plans to include provision or an explanation of why no provision or an altered provision for a cap remains. That was previously covered in clause 5(1)(c)(ii) after Consideration Stage.

I understand that some Members have concerns about what the Department's report will cover, given any changes in language that are made. I assure the House that any difference in terminology is to provide legal clarity and not to reduce reporting requirements. The departmental report has to focus on the Bill's provisions and impact, which means the impact that it is having on the cost of school uniforms. The term "best estimates" needs to be read against the remainder of that new subsection, as "best estimates" simply means departmental officials utilising the information available on school uniform costs and the typical or average cost of uniforms either in total or for individual items. That is explicit in the wording of the amendment. In real-world terms, using the Department's "best estimates" instead of its "assessment" makes no difference other than to be more consistent with wording used in legal drafting.

My officials will collect and analyse school-level data in order to provide a report every three years. The terms "mean costs" and "median costs" now read as "typical or average costs", with greater clarity being provided that the report can differentiate between the cost of a uniform for different types of schools or year groups. That will allow for a more meaningful report. As I said at Consideration Stage, we know that costs at post-primary level are normally higher than at primary level. Being clear in the Bill that the Department's report can look at the average cost of a primary-school uniform or uniform items, and separately at the average cost of a post-primary-school uniform or uniform items, provides for much more meaningful information for everyone but especially for parents. The requirement for the Department to report on the various factors contributing to such costs remains but with greater detail, in that the amendment states that the factors can relate to increased costs, static costs or decreased costs, insofar as the contributory factors are known to the Department. The slightly different wording replaces the wording stating that it is the Department's "assessment" of the contributory factors that will be included in the report. Nothing will be lost by making amendment No 12. Rather, the amendment simply uses language that is consistent with that already used in the Bill and provides greater legal clarity.

Amendment No 7 is a minor correction that moves the words "as follows" to the same place in the sentence as in clause 8(1) and 8(2). It is a very straightforward matter that, again, I trust no one will find difficulty with.

The House will recognise amendment No 8. It is the amendment that I tabled at Consideration Stage but that was mutually exclusive with a Committee amendment that was agreed to and, therefore, could not be called. I will reiterate my reasons for tabling this relatively minor amendment. Simply put, it provides consistency with the materiality consideration in clause 8(1). It also seeks to ensure balance for pupils and schools. I assure Members that the amendment is not there to seek to avoid giving a direction; it is only to enable schools to operate their day-to-day running and discipline policies effectively.

Members, I am sure, will all have heard of instances where schools are trying to manage pupil behaviour that may manifest in rebellion against school rules, including uniform policies. It is important that we take every step to allow schools to manage such situations appropriately. However, it is equally important that behaviours, such as a school not allowing a pupil to participate in PE or games because they do not have the right black leggings, for example, are not permitted to go unchecked. I understand that some Members have questioned the need for this amendment, given that clause 8(2) remains a "may" provision rather than a "must". However, to be clear, where direction is needed, it will be given regardless of whether the provision is "must" or "may".

Amendment No 8 seeks only to ensure that cases raised to be considered for direction relate to actual issues with affording or tolerating — with regard to comfort, practicality and sensory issues, for example — the uniform that is required. It seeks to protect pupils and schools in allowing genuine matters of running the school to be addressed by that school in the context of uniform, whilst ensuring that pupils are not prevented from taking part in any aspect of school life due to expensive or rigidly applied uniform requirements that do not take account of the practical realities for a pupil or their family. Including the parameter of the word "undue" with regard to pupil discipline or participatory disadvantage is a small but important change, and I hope that the House will support it in the interest of balance.

Amendment No 9, which has been tabled by Nick Mathison, seeks to make explicit reference to the Northern Ireland Public Services Ombudsman (NIPSO) as a source of evidence for the Department in assessing whether a direction is needed, and does not cause me particular concern. I do not think that it is needed; however, I do not intend to oppose it. The Education Committee wrote to me asking me to outline how the Bill works with the role of NIPSO on complaints, and how I envisage the complaints procedure in clause 8 working.

Whilst I do not intend to digress beyond the focus of Further Consideration Stage, in considering amendment No 9, I trust that any concerns about the visibility of NIPSO as a complaints handler are now addressed. To be clear, there is nothing in the Bill, either as introduced or as amended at Consideration Stage, that I consider creates a tension with the role of NIPSO. That role is enshrined in other existing legislation and does not benefit from being repeated in this Bill. Amendment No 9 does not do that; rather, it highlights that a NIPSO report can also be a source of information when the Department is making an assessment about whether to give a direction. My assessment is that that was always going to be the case, which is why I stated that I do not think the amendment is necessary. However, I have also stated that I do not intend to oppose its inclusion.

Amendment No 10 simply tidies language relating to the requirement that the Department must publish directions within three months of giving them. The wording in this amendment —

— relates to the full text of the direction, as it was made explicit at Consideration Stage that that is the will of the House. The fact that I do not support the naming and shaming of schools in that way is not relevant to the wording of amendment No 10, and I trust that the House will support the tidying up of the language that it delivers.

I have spoken to amendment Nos 11 and 12 in relation to amendment Nos 1 and 5, which I remind Members leave provisions relating to the laying and reporting out of their current place in the Bill, and thus allow for amendment Nos 11 and 12 to be placed in a new chapter, with new clauses, for clarity and flow.

Each amendment that I have tabled has been tabled in good faith to ensure that the language and structure, on the location of provisions and the overall style of the Bill, support us in making good legislation. I trust that Members will enter the debate in the same spirit of working towards that common goal — a common goal that will ultimately benefit parents who are struggling with the cost of school uniforms.

Mr Mathison (The Chairperson of the Committee for Education): I will speak first in my capacity as Chair of the Education Committee on the group 1 amendments for Further Consideration Stage of the School Uniforms (Guidelines and Allowances) Bill. As the Minister set out, group 1 addresses the monitoring and enforcement of guidelines and includes the introduction of some new clauses.

The Committee received notice of the Department's amendments just before its meeting on Wednesday. It did not take a briefing on them, given the demands of previously scheduled business. However, my understanding is that officials have assisted individual members in the meantime, and I thank officials for engaging, often at short notice, with me and my party colleagues on queries about the amendments tabled by the Minister and the Department. There is, therefore, no agreed Committee position on the amendments, but I can comment on some of them to the extent that they relate to the Committee's processes up to this point and are intended, as the Minister set out, to tidy up and implement the amendments made at Consideration Stage. I will speak to them briefly unless there is any need for more detailed comment.

Amendment No 1, along with amendment No 11, deletes and replaces the Committee-led requirement for guidelines to be laid in the Assembly at a more appropriate location in the Bill. As the Minister set out, it seems to me that it makes no material change to the effect of the original amendment. I can see no reason that any Committee member would feel the need to object to it.

Amendment No 5 proposes to delete clause 5 as amended. The content of that is now imported via amendment No 12 through a new clause. That requires some discussion from the Committee's perspective. The Minister set out the detail of why he has chosen to table the amendment regarding the new clause and the new location. I was going to refer to some correspondence that the Minister had sent the Committee on that point, but, at this stage, that is probably overkill. Committee members will, I think, recognise the key elements of their amendment, which was made at Consideration Stage, but it will be for individual Members to decide whether they are content with the newly worded clause. I might speak to some of those issues as an Alliance Member later.

Amendment No 7 is a minor textual amendment so that the language at clause 8(1) and (2) scans similarly. Again, I see no issues arising from a Committee perspective.

Amendment No 8 reruns a ministerial amendment that was not put to a vote at Consideration Stage, because it was deemed to be mutually exclusive to the amendment that was passed. It inserts the word "undue" on the grounds of giving legal balance to the expectations around the policing of school uniform policies. I quote directly from the Minister's correspondence to the Committee on that:

Those were the Minister's comments in his letter to the Committee.

In many of our meetings at Committee Stage, the Committee was very clear that it did not want to see the disproportionate disciplining of pupils on the basis of factors that are beyond their control, particularly for reasons related to the affordability of uniforms. The Committee was similarly concerned about exclusion, attendance at school and participatory disadvantage being linked to any breach of school uniform policy, particularly if it were on the grounds of affordability. I will speak further to that amendment in my capacity as an Alliance Member in due course, but, at this stage, I ask on the Committee's behalf whether the Minister — he referenced this, but I ask for a little more specifically — can assure me that his planned guidelines will clearly and unequivocally inhibit schools from imposing participatory disadvantage in relation to uniform policy, as I think that that will impact on whether Members are content with the insertion of "undue". I will reserve my remarks on that to my contribution as a private Member later, when I will cover my views on that.

Amendment No 9 has been tabled in my name. It would delineate and give legal clarity to the respective complaints jurisdictions of the Department and the Northern Ireland Public Services Ombudsman (NIPSO). The Committee had some back and forth on that with NIPSO, but we were unable to reach any clear resolution on a suitable amendment by the time that we reached Consideration Stage.

The Minister mentioned that the Committee wrote to him directly seeking a range of assurances on NIPSO's role. I note that the Minister has made it clear that he sees no conflict with the Bill and the arrangements already set out in legislation. However, with regard to amendment No 9, which I will speak to in a personal capacity a little later, there was a possible oversight in NIPSO's not being included as a source of evidence that the Department could use when making a decision on issuing a direction. I will speak to that later.

Amendment No 10 deletes and inserts text about the publication of directions. The Minister proposes that it make no substantive change to the intention of the Committee's amendment. Again, I will quote from the Minister's letter to the Committee:

I will speak to that briefly from the Committee's perspective, because it was clear at Committee Stage and at Consideration Stage — not unanimously but as the ultimate will of the Assembly — that it was considered appropriate that schools be named when there has been a material breach and that that should be published. The Minister referenced that, but I will say this just so that Committee members can have clarity: amendment No 10 will still require a school to be named. It will not just be the text of a direction that is published in some sort of vacuum but the individual school will be named. Members have been clear at Committee that, when there has been a material breach of the guidelines that the Department has published, naming really should be at the end of a process of trying to resolve that but, if a school remains wedded to the notion that it wants to breach those guidelines, naming is appropriate. Again, it was agreed by and large, with the exception of DUP members on the Committee, that that was the direction of travel. Other Members can speak to that.

The final amendment in the group, amendment No 12, deals in one place with the reporting on guidelines and costs. I am aware that it is convention for the Department to tidy up amendments at Further Consideration Stage and that that should be done without malice to the intention of any amendments made at Consideration Stage. The Minister set out that that has been his approach. I am open to the arguments of any of my colleagues on the amendment. However, as I set out when referring to amendment No 5, it appears to me that the expectation has been met on this occasion. The Minister has addressed specifically the use of the phrase "best estimates" in the new clause, but he can perhaps provide further clarity on it. I would like to be clear that we will not be in the space of looking at guesswork or anecdotal evidence. He has referenced utilising school-level data, so I want to have it clearly on the record that that is what we will deal with in the report. While best estimates of the costs of school uniforms may produce a general picture, it would be helpful if could have assurances that the report that is set out in the duties in amendment No 12 will capture whether there are consistent outliers and schools that consistently arrive at higher-costing uniforms in comparison with other schools that are able to deliver them for a much cheaper cost. I just want to make sure that, if there are outliers, that is captured in the report. Perhaps the Minister can speak to that and provide clarity on those Committee concerns about the need for accountability.

I will now speak to the group 1 amendments in my capacity as an individual Member and as an Alliance education spokesperson. I will pick up on the issues with amendment Nos 5 and 12, which have been highlighted. As I mentioned, they are the final outworkings of the Committee amendment that was concerned exclusively with accountability. There has been scepticism — there is no point trying to gloss over that — about what the Bill's ultimate impact will be. Given those concerns, Committee members and I, as the individual member who brought the original amendment forward, were clear that accountability needed to be in the Bill. I have sought assurances in my capacity as Chair on best estimates and the kind of data that would be used. I hope that we can get that information. However, I want to be clear that, given that there is uncertainty about what will be in the guidelines — I will not rehearse those arguments today — we need a mechanism that delivers clear accountability. The Bill has to deliver on costs for parents, so amendment No 12 is critical. I hope that the assurances from the Minister will go far enough. I have no desire to vote down amendments that have been drafted to tidy up wording or relocate an amendment. However, the key is that it delivers genuine accountability. I hope that, in his winding-up speech, the Minister can speak to that again.

I am content that I covered most of the other amendments in the group in the remarks that I made as Chair of the Committee, but I will revisit amendment No 8, which will potentially insert the word "undue" into clause 8(2), relating to "disciplinary measures or participatory disadvantages". I disagree with the Minister's remarks on that point. I understand the thinking behind it, which is to avoid the Department getting embroiled in the minutiae of the day-to-day running of schools — nobody wants departmental officials to be caught up in that — but I emphasise the importance of its being a "may" power and the Minister's assurances that, if directions are needed, they will be given. If that is the case, the use of the word "undue" just adds another layer and, potentially, another barrier to directions being issued. The Department can consider internally whether the participatory disadvantage is "undue", and I am reluctant to see another hurdle to be got over before the Department may intervene on participatory disadvantage or disciplinary measures. I am not, therefore, minded to support the amendment, but I will listen carefully to the Minister's winding-up speech to hear whether he says any more to allay those concerns.

I tabled amendment No 9 as a private Member. It reflects concerns brought to the Committee by NIPSO that clause 8 is not clear enough on NIPSO's role and could cause confusion for parents. I do not pretend that the amendment addresses all NIPSO's concerns. NIPSO has engaged with the Department through correspondence, and there appears to be a difference of opinion on the extent to which the Bill interacts with NIPSO's powers. The amendment at least clarifies that evidence provided by NIPSO to the Department in a report is one of the types of evidence that the Department is permitted to consider when deciding whether to issue a direction. My concern is that the Bill as drafted and as amended at Consideration Stage could be interpreted as not permitting the Department to use a report from NIPSO to reach a decision on direction, and that seemed to be a significant oversight. I hope that Members can support amendment No 9 on that basis.

Mr McGrath: I have been called to speak a lot earlier than I had expected, so I will gather myself.

We welcome the Bill's progress. We all understand the absolute need for it in our community and for our constituents. They face crippling school uniform costs, and we need to do all that we can to address that issue and make life easier for people. We are a little concerned, however, that the Bill that we are considering today, compared with the Bill as it was at the start of its journey, is weaker and a little hollowed out. A stronger, more modern framework could have been put in place.

The first group of amendments relates to oversight and transparency. Those are not just woolly words; they are essential if the Bill is to make the difference in the real world that we want to see. Too often, parents are left in the dark, not knowing how uniform costs in their schools are made up or how they compare with those of other schools. They do not know whether the Department has even looked at affordability in any serious way. When schools set out policies that burden families, there is little confidence that the Department will intervene. As we have rehearsed in previous debates, that lack of oversight leads to blazers costing over £100, jumpers costing £40 and PE kits running to over £70. Those are the prices per child. For families with a number of children at school, the costs are massive. That is why the reporting duties, with independent oversight and published directions, really matter. They shine a light on practices that would otherwise remain hidden. They put pressure on schools and the Department to act fairly and give parents confidence that their concerns are not just filed away in a drawer.

Amendment No 1 would remove subsection (6) of clause 1, which requires the Department to consider the affordability of uniform and PE clothing when drafting guidelines. We feel that taking that subsection out would narrow the Bill from the start. In its place, the Minister has proposed amendment No 11, which alters the way in which the Department's report would be laid before the Assembly. While that change seems small, it softens, in effect, the accountability mechanisms in the Bill, so we have difficulty with it. Affordability, transparency and accountability are not optional extras.

Amendment No 8 is a helpful amendment, providing a degree of flexibility where it is needed. It will ensure that the Department's enforcement powers applied only where pupils are subjected to undue disciplinary disadvantage. Again, we are concerned that that narrows the scope. It protects pupils from unfair or disproportionate sanctions because of uniform costs, while recognising that schools must retain the right to enforce reasonable uniform rules. We would like to see that balance.

Amendment No 9 adds an additional trigger for departmental intervention, allowing the Department to act if the ombudsman reports on a school policy under section 43 of the Public Services Ombudsman Act 2016. That is a valuable safeguard, ensuring that independent scrutiny feeds directly into uniform policy enforcement. While some may think that it is not much use, it is there; it is another avenue; and it provides an additional opportunity. Therefore, we welcome it.

Amendment No 10 strengthens transparency. If the Department issues directions to a school, it must publish the text of those directions within three months. That is a clear, unambiguous obligation, and we will therefore support it.

The real concern in the group is what will be removed. Amendment No 5 from the Minister deletes clause 5 entirely. Clause 5 was on the hard reporting duty that required the Department to publish detailed information on uniform costs every three years and to explain whether expense caps were being used and why or why not. That was one of the strongest accountability tools inserted in the Bill. We feel that, by removing clause 5, the Minister is, again, hollowing out that duty. In its place, we are offered amendment No 12, which creates new clause 14B. That amendment weakens the obligation. Yes, it stills require a report every three years, but it waters down the detail. The mandatory detailed reporting in clause 5 is gone. Families deserve transparency that they can rely on, not vague summaries that depend on ministerial discretion.

While we support amendment Nos 7, 8, 9 and 10, we have concerns with amendment Nos 1, 5, 11 and 12. Parents need genuine transparency, not the watered-down version that is being offered.

We must remember the purpose of the Bill. It is supposed to make school uniforms more affordable, to bring transparency into school policies and to ensure that no child's education is compromised because their family cannot meet unfair costs. Every amendment should be judged against that purpose. The amendments that we support move us closer to the goal, and the ones that we have difficulty with move us away from it. Families across the North expect the Assembly to ease the burden, not to entrench it. That must remain our guiding principle with this and other legislation that we bring to the Floor of the House. As we step back, we feel that that is a problem with the Bill as a whole. The safeguards are not strong enough, and too much has been left to ministerial discretion. Whilst this Minister may be forthright and offer his views on it, that is not to say that, in the future, with different Ministers, the priorities might not change, and that might mean that that discretion will change. We feel that the principle is right but the product is weak. It is disappointing that much that could have been put in place to strengthen the Bill never even made it to the Floor of the Assembly. The SDLP will do what it can to strengthen the Bill, but parents and pupils deserved a stronger, bolder piece of legislation than the one that is progressing today.

Mr Sheehan: I take the opportunity to speak in opposition to amendment Nos 5 and 8 and in support of amendment Nos 1, 7, 9, 10 and 11.

Two weeks ago, at Consideration Stage, the Assembly supported measures that gave the Bill some teeth. Throughout our scrutiny of the Bill in Committee and as we engaged with the public, families were clear: they wanted fairness. They will not get fairness if there is no scrutiny, no reporting and no enforcement.

We are content to support the relocation of the scrutiny duty as proposed in amendment Nos 1 and 11.

Amendment No 5 and its relationship with amendment No 12 is concerning. The Minister seems to be trying to dilute his own Bill, attempting to strip out the strong reporting duty agreed at Consideration Stage and replace it with a weaker version under amendment No 12. That is not good enough.

Mr Givan: Will the Member give way?

Mr Sheehan: I will give way.

Mr Givan: I would be interested in hearing the Member give detail on how amendment No 12 is in any way weaker than what was passed at Consideration Stage. I have outlined the purpose of amendment No 5 and of replacing clause 5 through amendment No 12. Doing so gives greater clarity and strengthens the provision, as opposed to what the Member has just articulated. I would be interested to hear him pinpoint the evidence for what he has said.

Mr Sheehan: Very well. The Minister has a view on how the provision is being strengthened. In our view, however, the amendment does not strengthen it; it dilutes it. Members just have to read the amendment. It is crystal clear to us that it does not, in any way, strengthen the Bill. As far as we are concerned, amendment No 12 is a weaker version of what was agreed at Consideration Stage, and that is not good enough.

Parents who are struggling to pay for a blazer or a PE kit deserve clear evidence that costs are being driven down. We do not see how that will happen. We have still not seen the guidelines, of course. Clause 5 as ordered to stand part at Consideration Stage will give parents factual information on costs. Amendment No 12 enters the realms of aspiration and warm words rather than action. Does the Minister not agree? Families need real evidence that costs are coming down, not just the Department's best guess.

Amendment No 8 is another attempt by the Minister to weaken his own Bill by slipping in the word "undue". That would create a loophole that could be easily exploited. The Bill is meant to be about fairness and should therefore be about protecting young people and their families. The current wording does that. It makes clear that no child should be disadvantaged because of uniform rules. We will not support any weakening of those limited protections.

We have no issue with supporting the technical tidying-up in amendment No 7, and we welcome amendment No 9, which will insert a Public Services Ombudsman report as a trigger for departmental action. That gives parents another credible route for redress.

If the Bill is to have any degree of success in cutting costs for families, we need to see real accountability and transparency. Scrutiny, reporting and enforcement are key areas of the Bill, and they should be enhanced, not undermined.

Mr Burrows: The Ulster Unionist Party and I will not play politics with something as important as education. We restate our commitment to the need to support children and young people, our commitment that they will have affordable school uniforms and our commitment that the overriding purpose of the Bill — I asked the Minister on a previous occasion to state this clearly so that it was captured for Hansard and, if need be, for a court — is to make sure that no child is excluded or disciplined because their parents cannot afford an item of uniform. That is its fundamental purpose. It is useful to restate that, and I will explain that as I go on.

I am satisfied with amendment Nos 1, 5, 7 and 12. They are tidying-up exercises. I do not share the concerns that I have heard.

Mrs Dillon: I thank the Member for taking an intervention. Does he agree that, as well as not being disciplined or excluded, no child should be humiliated? If there is concern about a child's uniform, it is easy for a teacher to have a simple conversation with that child before or after class and not to humiliate them in front of their classmates.

Mr Burrows: I know a lot of teachers: I do not know many who are in the business of deliberate humiliation. We need, however, to give teachers the discretion to have on-the-spot conversations without being worried about some onerous legislation coming down on them. We need to trust our teachers, albeit the Bill provides strong guidance. If teachers engage in humiliation, that should be dealt with through disciplinary measures. It is not something that I recognise in the hard-working teachers across Northern Ireland.

Amendment Nos 1, 5, 7 and 12 are tidying-up exercises. I do not see any malice in what the Minister has done or any dilution of the effect of the legislation.

On amendment No 8, I agree with the insertion of the word "undue". It gets the balance right and affords common sense and flexibility in order to allow minor issues to be dealt with quickly by a school. That is why I said that it was important at the outset to say what the fundamental purpose of the Bill is. If schools started to try to expand the word "undue" in order to frustrate the purpose of the Bill, that clearly would not be permissible. That is why it is so important that we have stated so many times that the purpose of the Bill is to make sure that nobody is excluded or disciplined because their parents cannot afford something. We need to make that clear.

Amendment No 9 is useful. It just clarifies that NIPSO can be a source of evidence in determining whether to make a direction. There is nothing controversial in that.

On amendment No 10, whilst I still have some uncertainty about naming schools, that was the clear wish of the Chamber at Consideration Stage. It is important that we have clarity that the Department can name a school but it should be done as a last resort. Again, we do not want to be involved in humiliation, and that works both ways. It is about education and prevention.

I am happy to support the amendments.

Mr Givan: I will get straight into addressing some of the questions that Members raised.

Mr Mathison asked whether, under amendment No 10, it will still be a requirement to name a school: I can confirm that, yes, it will be a requirement. I indicated that, whilst I do not agree with that, I respect the will of the House. That amendment will require that to occur.

I do not know whether there is some confusion about amendment No 5. Mr McGrath spoke to it, as did Mr Sheehan. If Members have a copy of the Bill as amended at Consideration Stage, they might want to turn to page 3, where they will see clause 5 and the heading:

That is what I seek to omit from the Bill by way of the amendment that I have tabled. I seek to replace it, through the amendment that I have tabled, with a new clause titled, "Reporting on guidelines and costs". The new clause is more expansive and goes into greater detail.

I outlined in my contribution that the Bill as amended at Consideration Stage does not, for example, make the distinction between a primary school and a post-primary school. It does not allow for that differential so that we can look at the increased cost at post-primary schools. That is where we have branded PE kits, multiple PE kits, blazers, which are a much greater expense, and distinctive blazers that are based on whether you are in an honours choir, your academic success or the sport that you play. I know of no primary school that engages in that kind of activity. Without that change, the Bill will not go into that level of detail. Rather than, as Mr Sheehan said, weakening the Bill, I have enhanced and strengthened it. However, if I cannot convince Members of that and if they do not want to have a stronger Bill in that area, they will vote against it. The intent behind the new clause is to make that much clearer and give more detail.

Mr Mathison: I thank the Minister for giving way. My sense from the debate is that the concern lies with the use of the phrase "best estimates". Members may feel on the basis of the everyday usage of that term that the Department will be guessing or relying on something more anecdotal. I said that I was largely content with what the Minister had laid out in his opening comments. Some assurances on the use of "best estimates" and what information the Department is likely to rely on in producing a report would be welcome.

Mr Givan: I thank Mr Mathison for that point. On "best estimates" and the information that we will gather, he asked whether we would capture outliers and whether we would be able to identify schools whose uniform costs were excessive and beyond the norm or the medium range: the answer is, "Yes, we will be able to do that". There is a subsequent question around whether that will be published and whether we will be able to identify schools in the way that we have talked about the direction naming. Will we be able, through "best estimates", to gather that information and data? Yes, we will. Will that allow us to have those outliers? Yes, it will. That is the intent behind "best estimates".

Sinn Féin and the SDLP might want to reflect on what I have said. The amendment is longer than what is currently in the Bill. It is more detailed, and it will allow us to be more effective in determining the issue between primary settings and post-primary settings, which the Bill, if it goes through unamended, will not allow us to do.

I give way to Mr Sheehan.

Mr Sheehan: You mentioned in your response to Nick that this is about identifying outliers, but the Bill should not be about identifying outliers. The outliers, of course, should be tackled to make sure that they make their uniforms affordable, but quite a few more schools than just the outliers need to be brought to a position where school uniforms become affordable.

Our difficulty is that we do not believe that you are intent on tackling the main offenders. There are some outliers whose uniform costs are really prohibitive — we are talking between £600 and £800 for a school uniform — but there are others at a level just below that that also need to be tackled for their uniform policies. There is no indication in what the Minister is doing with the Bill that he is intent on doing that.

I ask him to look at schools, such as Craigavon Integrated College, which is able to provide a uniform for £2 less than the uniform grant. If you are really serious about driving down uniform costs, that is what you need to do. There is no indication here that "best estimates" and so on will make any real, concrete difference to the cost of uniforms.

Mr Givan: I do not think that the Member has any genuine interest in trying not to understand it, whether that is deliberate or not, but the Bill, as currently proposed, talks about the Department's "assessment": I seek to change the wording around "assessment" to "best estimates". I think the point that he is making is that what I am doing will not address the wider issue, but neither will the Bill as drafted, which he supported.

We have taken advice on the terminology around "assessment". We believe that that wording should be replaced with "best estimates". I have outlined the purpose of what we are going to do. He misses the point that I have raised, which is that that section of the Bill, which, as currently drafted, is around 13 lines in length — not that we should use quantity to judge quality — and we are replacing it with a longer, more detailed clause that allows the assessment or, with the change of terminology, the "best estimates" to include a differential approach for primary and post-primary. The Bill currently does not do that. I have enhanced the provision to make it stronger, and I trust that the majority of Members will understand the purpose of what I am trying to do in respect of that.

Those were the key issues that were raised. Members commented on the word "undue". I have given the reasons why I think that that is appropriate. Mr Burrows gave a good explanation of why he supports that. The argument will remain around the necessity for the word "undue". That is the position that I take in respect of it.

To summarise, I have tabled 11 amendments, which we have debated. They are technical amendments. They improve the language, style and structure of the School Uniforms Bill following Consideration Stage. They are technical amendments that deliver the intention that was stated by Members at Consideration Stage when we debated them and what the impact of those amendments would be.

Within the group, amendment Nos 1 and 5 leave out a subsection and a clause in order for the subsequent amendments, which are Nos 11 and 12, to place them elsewhere in the Bill in their own clauses and in a new chapter. Language has been updated throughout the Bill by my amendments, which provide greater legal clarity and greater consistency in the existing clauses in the Bill and other existing legislation. Nothing has been taken away from the intentions that were voted through in the amendments at Consideration Stage; in fact, in places, I have expanded references to them so that they are included and more effective.

Amendment No 7 moves the words "as follows" for absolute consistency.

Amendment No 8 re-tables that minor amendment from Consideration Stage on the word "undue" as the parameter when directions are being considered. That has been done to be consistent with the materiality parameter at clause 8(1), which is to help protect pupils and schools.

I indicated that, while I do not think that amendment No 9 is necessary, I will not oppose that amendment from Mr Mathison.

Amendment No 10 simply tidies language and relates to the requirements that the Department "must publish" directions:

It is incumbent on every Member to pay heed to the need to make good, workable legislation. I have taken that responsibility seriously and have tabled the necessary amendments. They are technical amendments that do not interfere with the impact of decisions that were taken at Consideration Stage. It is parents who are placing their trust in us as legislators to make legislation that will work. Supporting my amendments today is an opportunity to do just that. It is an opportunity that, I trust and hope, Members will take, and I commend all the group 1 amendments to the House.

Mr Speaker: Members, as we will not have time to vote on the amendments between now and Question Time and given that the next item of business in the Order Paper is Question Time, I propose, by leave of the Assembly, to suspend the sitting until 2.00 pm.

Mr Muir (The Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs): I fully acknowledge the importance of sustaining community buildings. On 24 September, the Department for Communities launched the pilot Northern Ireland community infrastructure fund, which includes provision for the refurbishment and improvement of community buildings in rural and urban areas across Northern Ireland. It would therefore not be justifiable at present to develop another, similar scheme specifically for rural areas that would target the same outcomes as the DFC pilot. However, my officials are closely engaging with the DFC team, and I have indicated that I would welcome the potential for future collaboration in this area.

I have also recently launched the rural micro capital grants scheme to provide small but important capital grants to the voluntary and community sector to address locally identified poverty or social isolation issues. The scheme closes for applications on 20 October 2025, with more information available on the DAERA website.

Mr K Buchanan: Thank you, Minister, for your answer. You rightly referenced the scheme that Minister Lyons launched last week. Your predecessor launched a rural community halls scheme, which supported 113 halls. Do you envisage giving financial support to Minister Lyons to do more with his scheme, bearing in mind that it takes in rural communities, which are within your remit?

Mr Muir: Thank you for your question. I am going to be open about this. We were looking at doing a rural halls scheme, but we found out that the Department for Communities was looking at developing a scheme for rural and urban areas, so I am happy to support Minister Lyons in the work that he is doing in relation to that. We will develop a new rural policy in the time ahead, which will be about ensuring that all Departments play their role in relation to rural communities. It is important that we consult on that, which will happen early in the new year, to get people's views so that we can shape policy. I will continue to work with the Department for Communities on this issue and many others.

Mr McMurray: Minister, will you provide an update on any actions that you are taking following the closure of the rural development programme?

Mr Muir: The rural development programme was a popular support arrangement that was funded through the European Union. Unfortunately, it was one of the many casualties of Brexit, but I have taken action in response. I established a new rural policy unit on 1 April 2024 and tasked it with developing future rural policy for Northern Ireland. I recognise that all Departments are responsible for exercising their functions in urban and rural areas and for developing their rural policy. My Department is engaging with other Departments to explore future opportunities for supporting rural communities and to help identify how DAERA can work more effectively with them in the future to deliver better outcomes for rural dwellers. I have also engaged closely with rural stakeholders, providing an opportunity for them to inform future rural policy through a co-design process. That includes input from local government, academics and section 75 groups. It is my intention that a draft rural policy for Northern Ireland will be consulted on early next year.

Mr Butler: The Minister's answer was very honest. He will be aware that a number of conversations are happening at the moment about the lack of cross-departmental cooperation. This is an example of where perhaps that could have been better, given the rural aspect of the question from the DUP Member.

Rural halls very often lack capacity. Will the Minister engage with the Minister for Communities in that regard specifically around rural halls, even though it is a project that is being led by a different Minister?

Mr Muir: I am very conscious that, in my role as Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs, I have lead responsibility for rural affairs, but each Department has responsibility around this, including duties in legislation. If we all work together, we are going to achieve a better outcome for rural communities. I am happy to talk with you afterwards about what your specific ask is. I can then meet Gordon and discuss that with him. Collectively, we can all do a lot more for rural communities. I am glad to see that the Department for Communities is taking forward its scheme, and I am happy to work with any Minister who is going to help to deliver for rural communities.

Mr Muir: Mr Deputy Speaker, with your permission, I will group questions 2 and 15 together for answer. Of the 37 actions in the plan, 14 have been delivered, 22 are actively progressing, and one is pending because it is contingent on another action's being taken forward first. I remain committed to driving forward the delivery of the remaining actions at pace. Progress to date reflects coordinated efforts across key themes, including scientific research and innovation, enhanced monitoring and enforcement, education and stakeholder engagement, regulatory reform, and strategic communications. Although important strides have been made, it is essential to recognise that the lough's recovery requires sustained, long-term action. Given the depth and complexity of the problem, substantial recovery will take many years, if not decades.

Mr Honeyford: What further support does the Minister need from his Executive colleagues over the next year as he addresses the crisis in water quality across Northern Ireland?

Mr Muir: Thank you for your question, David. I was glad to get Executive support in July 2024 for the Lough Neagh report and action plan, and I have focused on delivery of that plan. Many actions have been achieved, while others are progressing, but I will need support from my Executive colleagues on some key interventions, one of which relates to waste water infrastructure in particular. I will be looking at strengthening regulation and enforcement for sewage pollution, and I will need support for that. I have been very clear in putting on the record that we will need to be brave in stepping forward to look at the investment that is required in our waste water infrastructure. I am happy to support any proposals that the Minister for Infrastructure brings forward.

Another element is climate change. We have had the warmest summer on record, which is not unrelated to the scenes that we have witnessed in Lough Neagh. We are out to consult on the climate action plan, and, once we conclude the consultation, I will finalise the action plan and bring it to the Executive for agreement. Hopefully, people can support me. There are opportunities to take climate action, but there are also moral and legal imperatives to do so.

A further element relates to environmental governance. We are the only part of the UK and Ireland that does not have an independent environmental protection agency. I commissioned an independent panel to look at the issue, and it came back to me with an interim report in June that recommended the establishment of an independent environmental protection agency. I met the panel last week, and its final report is coming in the next number of weeks. The report will need support so that we can strengthen environmental governance in Northern Ireland.

The final element concerns agriculture. Everyone has to play their part in improving water quality in Northern Ireland. I put on record my thanks for the good work that farmers did in previous decades. They are fantastic custodians of the countryside, and we need to help them on the road ahead. I have therefore been working with the Minister of Finance, because I will need support for a just transition fund for agriculture. We also need to get around the Executive table to finalise an agreed scheme of measures for the nutrients action programme, consult further and get agreement to move forward with it. I believe that we can. If there is a will, there is a way.

Mr Clarke: I agree with the Minister, as do we all, that there is no doubt that there is an issue with Lough Neagh. It is interesting, however, that, in his answers, he talks about all the assessments that have been carried out. That suggests to me that he is not clear as to what the real issue is in Lough Neagh. What is his or his Department's assessment of the effect that his direct attack on farmers and their families is having on their livelihoods and lives?

Mr Muir: We all know what the problem is in Lough Neagh. Anyone who does not has probably been living under a rock. There is an issue with pollution of the lough, and we need to address that. We have climate change, so the water has therefore got warmer. Invasive species have made the water clearer. We therefore have a situation in which we have had blue-green algae over three successive summers. There has now been advice issued against bathing on the north coast, while the brown eel fishing season has been halted. We have real problems, but I am focused on turning them around.

The years ahead will provide a three-year resource budget and a four-year capital budget. I need that funding for a just transition fund for agriculture so that we can assist farmers on the journey that lies ahead. I am determined to do that, and the type of funding that we are going to need will be put towards low-emission slurry-spreading equipment and many other technologies that are available. If people want to support me and the farming community in Northern Ireland, let us see the budget.

Mr Gaston: It has been widely reported, Minister, that 200,000 tons of raw sewage are being pumped into Lough Neagh every year by Northern Ireland Water. Are you able to share the commitments that you have received from the Minister for Infrastructure to reduce that amount significantly, and by when? When can we see the figure of 200,000 tons of raw sewage being halved or eradicated? It is all very well and good your going after farmers and putting targets on them, but when will targets be put on Northern Ireland Water?

Mr Muir: I have been crystal clear about the sewage pollution situation. Let me set it out yet again. The situation whereby we are pumping raw sewage into Lough Neagh, Belfast lough and other waterways is not acceptable and needs to be dealt with. My role covers regulation and enforcement. It is not acceptable that there is a separate arrangement in place for NI Water that gives it a bye ball if it can outline how an incident is as a result of historical underinvestment. I have written to NI Water and to the Infrastructure Minister to seek their views on that. I will be bringing proposals to the Executive so that we can strengthen the regulation and enforcement of sewage pollution. What is happening is not acceptable, and it needs to change.

I have been clear about the need to invest in waste water infrastructure. I do not have responsibility for NI Water. The Minister for Infrastructure does, and I am waiting for those proposals, which are a long time coming.

Mr McCrossan: Minister, is the discharge of liquid digestate from anaerobic digestion plants contributing to the eutrophication of Lough Neagh? If so, what action is being taken to address that problem?

Mr Muir: Thank you, Daniel. Anaerobic digesters and how we manage their growth is a big challenge. We need to make sure that anaerobic digesters are not adding to the problem but alleviating it. I am not going to give you statistics off the hoof in the Chamber, but it is a key challenge. There was a conference last week. There is an opportunity for anaerobic digestion, but that should not be to the detriment of the environment.

Mr Muir: To support the development of the revised nutrients action programme, I have established a stakeholder task-and-finish group of organisations that represent a range of interests across farming, agri-food and the environment as well as DAERA officials. The group will consider the key findings from the recent NAP consultation, including alternative solutions and evidence submitted through the consultation, and propose evidence-based measures that are workable at farm level, provided that they meet legal obligations to improve water quality and have workable time frames.

In addition, I have asked my Chief Scientific Adviser's office to establish a science subgroup, which will assist the work of the task-and-finish group in ensuring that the final NAP proposals are scientifically robust and evidence-based. The subgroup will have representation from the Agri-food and Biosciences Institute, AgriSearch and other relevant organisations. The aim is to strike the right balance between meeting our legal obligations, which we must do, and improving water quality, whilst supporting the long-term sustainability of Northern Ireland's farming sector. That is key. I believe that, by working collaboratively and constructively, we can achieve those outcomes.

Mrs Dillon: I thank the Minister for his answer. I agree that working collaboratively and constructively is exactly the way to go. Having spoken to some farmers, I think that they feel that they are now being listened to, so I appreciate that. Will you confirm whether there has been a formal meeting of the nutrients action programme stakeholder group? Given that DAERA's 2019 review showed that nitrate loss was less of an issue in the North due to our soil profile, and that phosphorus run-off is a primary threat to water quality, will you commit to a more flexible approach to the 80%-grassland rule for derogated farms in the upcoming nutrients action programme, allowing farmers to grow crops such as clover or protein mixes to help to reduce phosphorus loss, improve water quality and cut reliance on imported feed?

Mr Muir: There was an informal meeting of the group a few weeks ago. We are seeking to schedule a formal meeting. Hopefully, we will be able to make announcements, ideally this week, on the appointment of an external facilitator, get that meeting scheduled and start the work. I can feed back the issue that you outlined to the external facilitator. Through that group, there is an opportunity to chart a way forward. From the informal meeting of the group, I know that there is a will to find a way forward and solutions that are workable at farm level, with realistic time frames that meet our legal obligations. We will need funding in order to have a just transition, but I am confident that, if the politics are taken out of it, we can find a way forward.

Miss McIlveen: Will the Minister finally admit that he got it wrong when he prematurely launched the NAP consultation without prior engagement with industry? Will he apologise for the annoyance that he and his Department caused as a consequence of those actions?

Mr Muir: We went out to consult on proposals for the nutrients action programme. If we now cannot even consult and discuss the issue, that is quite serious with regard to our democracy and how we deal with the seriousness of Lough Neagh. I am glad that the consultation is completed. I thank the thousands of people who responded to it. We are considering the responses. The group will consider those responses alongside any other suggestions that are made during the process. Hopefully, we can get to a place where we ensure that we support farmers on the road ahead. However, we must also recognise that the nutrients action programme does not sit in isolation from issues such as sewage pollution.

I have been very clear, and will be clear again today, about the need to act on that and also to take climate action. These issues are all interlinked, and we have to take those actions together, because we cannot have the same scenes playing out every summer in Lough Neagh.

Mr O'Toole: Minister, I admire your optimism when it comes to taking politics out of this. We are politicians. The public elect us to take decisions and hold one another to account. Given that both Sinn Féin and the DUP have, at different times, effectively opposed the core plank of the Lough Neagh improvement and, therefore, opposed improving our water in general, have you had any specific indication from either the Finance Minister or the Infrastructure Minister that they have any plan to coherently increase investment in NI Water over the next number of years? I have not heard anything. In fact, when it comes to the now Finance Minister, who was previously Infrastructure Minister, I heard opposition when he was asked whether he would increase investment —

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Question, Mr O'Toole.

Mr O'Toole: — in water. Have you had any indication —

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Mr O'Toole.

Mr O'Toole: — that he will actually increase investment?

Mr Muir: Thank you, Matthew. The proposal to consult on the nutrients action programme was contained in the Lough Neagh report and action plan, so it is no surprise that we consulted on that, and it is also a legal obligation. I have reached out to all political parties asking them to engage with me on these key issues and to give me the support that I will need in the time ahead. I thank you for meeting us recently to discuss that, and I look forward to meeting all the other parties. I also met Mike Nesbitt, the leader of the Ulster Unionist Party, and Robbie Butler last week. I need to meet the DUP and Sinn Féin, and it is important that I do that.

The Budget for Northern Ireland is critical. It is a four-year capital budget and a three-year resource budget. We can shape a Budget that will transform the lives of people in Northern Ireland, but that means facing up to difficult issues. We have to ensure that we are spending our money wisely and using it to transform public services and improve the environment. Time will tell whether we are prepared to do that.

Mr Muir: My officials and I have taken cognisance of that report and other relevant research in that area. The report recognises that better animal health and welfare have positive impacts on sustainability, the environment, climate change and productivity. A range of DAERA policies align with the recommendations in the report on improving animal welfare, health and efficiency. In the sustainable agriculture programme, those include the bovine genetics project; the beef sustainability package, which comprises the beef carbon reduction scheme, the suckler cow scheme and knowledge programmes targeted at reducing the slaughter age of beef cattle and calving intervals of suckler cows; as well as exploring options around feed and slurry additives. My Department, alongside key stakeholders, is committed to advancing the 'Bovine Tuberculosis in Northern Ireland: Blueprint for Eradication', which was published last year.

Ms Finnegan: I thank the Minister for his answer. Minister, given the report's finding that animal health diseases such as bovine TB and sheep scab not only harm productivity but drive up greenhouse gas emissions, and given that climate change and the environment are your top two priorities, how can your Department justify the ongoing delays in tackling bovine TB?

Mr Muir: Thank you. In my original answer, I said that the blueprint was published last year: it was published in April 2025. It was the Chief Veterinary Officer's report that was published last year, and we then worked with stakeholders to agree a blueprint.

The Member will be aware that the issue of TB predates my time as Minister. I inherited an absolute mess in that regard. A successful judicial review had been taken against the Department, and I had to shape a way forward. This is not unique to Northern Ireland. It is a challenge in the South and across the water. We are focusing on implementing the blueprint, which is based on three pillars: people, cattle and wildlife. I have talked a bit about that in the Chamber in recent weeks and have outlined my belief that there needs to be a wildlife intervention. We will consult on that in the time ahead. We also need to support farmers in building the confidence to deal with this issue and to change the fatalism that sometimes exists, because this issue is having a real effect on farmers' mental health, and we need to be able to support them in the measures that can take place. We also need to continue to support 100% compensation, and I have been doing that in conjunction with the Finance Minister.

Believe me, I understand the importance of the issue and the impact that it is having on farmers in Northern Ireland and on my Department's budget. We will focus on delivery over the time ahead, but we need to get people to support the measures and the interventions required.

Mr Dickson: Minister, all of this feeds into the importance of climate action. Will you tell us what is happening and give us an update on your first climate action plan?

Mr Muir: The climate action plan is out for consultation, and part of that is on agriculture. However, agriculture is only one sector; many other sectors have a role to play in the climate action plan, such as transport, energy, housing and many others. Although climate change sits in and is a lead responsibility of my Department, I cannot be left to do all the heavy lifting on it. Other people have a responsibility to take actions forward. Through the sustainable agriculture programme, we support farmers on what lies ahead, and it is really important that we do, because, by taking action on animal health and welfare, we can ensure better outcomes for our environment and climate and deliver a decarbonised future.

Ms Brownlee: Will the Minister provide a timescale for the establishment of a dedicated co-design group to develop support measures for the sheep sector? Does he have adequate resources in his Department to progress that work?

Mr Muir: I have been very clear that sheep support is a priority for me and my Department. Once we get the farm sustainability payment and farm sustainability standards in place — hopefully, we can get that done this year, because people have been trading entitlements on the basis that that new payment arrangement will come into place from 1 January — we will be able to move resources towards the sheep support scheme and the roll-out of Farming with Nature. We do not have infinite resources, but I am very clear that it is a priority for us to establish that support. Once we get the farm sustainability payment and farm sustainability standards in place, resources can move to it.

Mr Muir: As a statutory consultee in the planning system, DAERA's performance is measured against a duty to respond to a statutory consultation within 21 calendar days or an otherwise agreed timescale. I am aware of the frustrations that are caused by the time that it takes my Department to respond as a statutory consultee to some planning consultations. Ongoing measures that are already being prioritised include a review and update of internal processes and procedures; a review of the standing advice and guidance that are available on the DAERA website, with the aim of improving the quality of applications that are submitted and encouraging councils to consult us less frequently; analysis of consultations that are being receipted to inform targeted measures to reduce the level of re-consultation and improve the quality of information that is submitted with a consultation; engagement with other jurisdictions; exploring prioritisations for exceptional cases with planning authorities; and staff resourcing in my Department, which includes seeking to recruit additional staff for that work area.

My officials are working to deliver a planning improvement plan during 2025-26. That plan will include a range of measures to improve planning performance and service and will cover the following five strands: technical advice and guidance; caseload management; monitoring and reporting on performance; process and IT systems; and communication and stakeholder engagement. In addition, my Department is working in collaboration with the Department for Infrastructure's cross-governmental planning statutory consultee forum and has contributed to a number of exercises that are aimed at driving forward continuous improvements in the planning system.

Mr Irwin: I thank the Minister for his response. Does he accept that, despite his past promises, the NIEA is still not meeting its consultation response time frames?

Mr Muir: It is a fact that we do not meet those targets, and one of the key issues in that is resources and recruiting people into the role. We are continuing to focus on that. I understand the concerns about the matter, and we continue to work at it.

Mr Blair: Further to the Minister's replies, have efforts been made to recruit more NIEA staff in order to improve response times to planning applications?

Mr Muir: The Department is actively seeking to recruit nine new staff members to support the planning function in the natural environment division of NIEA. It is hoped that, once in post, those new staff will add resilience to the DAERA planning function in order to support a reduction in response time frames.

Mr McGlone: Minister, may I add to that? I am glad to see that there is a programme of action for rectifying some of the deficiencies. When will the programme that you just outlined be fulfilled? Will part of that include at least responses to elected representatives that give some clarity on where in the process an application is? What part of the process that you outlined will include improvements in communication and training for councils? I accept that, in many cases, councils refer stuff to NIEA that they should not.

Mr Muir: The time frame for delivery relies largely on resources. Every time that I receive correspondence from Members, MPs or councillors asking for an update, it breaks my heart to have to reply, "That was the last time that we received something. We cannot give you any further update". We need to do better in that regard. We need to turn responses around. That is why we are focused on developing a programme to improve response times. There is an issue with how we engage with councils, and that is a key measure to take forward. As I said, however, the key point is that we need resource.

Mr Muir: Responsibility for assessing and managing the risks from illegally imported meat rests with the UK Government through the border target operating model (BTOM). I continue to engage with UK Government counterparts and have emphasised the importance of implementing the BTOM at the earliest opportunity to strengthen biosecurity and safeguard public and animal health.

Mr Butler: I thank the Minister for his answer. It did not have a lot of detail. When it comes to smuggling illegal meat or smuggling anything, smugglers will look for the easiest route. What do we do here to protect ourselves from illegal meat-smuggling through the Republic of Ireland into Northern Ireland?

Mr Muir: I have engaged significantly with the UK Government on the issue on the back of recent reports, including the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (EFRA) Committee report that came out on 8 September. Movements of meat products between GB and NI largely sit with the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, but I have made my case on the issue. I have also had conversations with my counterpart in the South about the importance of the issue, and he has reassured me about the interventions that his Government are making. My ultimate message to people is about the importance of vigilance and ensuring that meat is not illegally imported into Northern Ireland.

Mr Buckley: Has the Minister any statistics on the quantity of illegal meat entering Northern Ireland and on the route by which it comes? Is it by sea, by air or principally by land through the Republic of Ireland? Is he aware of any attempts to bring in live animals by smuggling?

Mr Muir: That is slightly complicated because of the Secretary of State's direction and control powers and the differential that sits in my Department. As Minister, I am aware of concerns that have been raised about movements of products from outside the European Union into the European Union and then across from Calais to Dover. They should not have come through Dover. Products have come through GB and have been stopped at the border control point at, for example, Belfast or Larne. We have had a situation in which illegal meat imports were stopped. It is good that they did not get in. We have also had a report, of which you are probably aware, of sheep being brought through illegally. I commend the Ulster Farmers' Union's leadership in joining us on the message about the importance of that not happening and the importance of biosecurity. I have focused very much, as many other people have, on reducing the friction between GB and NI. One of the issues arising from that is with border security at Dover. It is therefore important that I engage with the UK Government in advance of those checks being removed or reduced, so that the BTOM is in place and we do not have those movements from Calais to Dover.

Mr Donnelly: I ask the Minister for an update on the sanitary and phytosanitary (SPS) veterinary agreement between the UK and the EU.

Mr Muir: The agreement was reached in May of this year. The UK Government are working through the negotiation of the legal text. We understand that implementation will take place in 2027. It will have real benefits for us when it comes to the movement of agri-food products between GB and NI. I have made it clear to the UK Government that the agreement should extend beyond that and that they should have an ambition for a customs agreement between the UK and the EU. They have said that that is not on the agenda and is a red line, but I am clear on the substantial benefits that it would have for Northern Ireland and the UK economy, and I continue to make that case.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Carál, if you can get your question in in 30 seconds, go for it.

Mr Muir: My Department continues to finalise the actions in the draft clean air strategy. The strategy's focus will be on improving air quality across Northern Ireland, including Belfast, with a focus on human health. Whilst my Department will lead on the work, there is an important role for other Departments to play to ensure that, together, we bring about the change that is needed to improve air quality. By working together, we can deliver a strategy that will further address air pollution emissions and hotspots to ensure that there are measurable improvements, to the benefit of public health.

I am conscious that air quality often affects those who are least well off in Northern Ireland. That is why it is important that we get out and consult on the issue. It is also important that other Departments, and the Department for the Economy and the Department for Communities in particular, play their role.

We have a role to play. Let us get this agreed, get it out to consult and deal with the air quality issues that are affecting far too many people in Northern Ireland, particularly people in the Member's constituency.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Thank you, Minister. That concludes the period for listed questions. We now move on to 15 minutes of topical questions.

Mr Muir: The request for freedom of information was processed and responded to in line with the relevant legislation. The relevant exemptions were applied in respect of withheld or redacted information, and that was fully outlined in the response. As Minister, I do not get involved in deciding what is released and what is not released with regard to freedom of information, and that is the right approach.

Mr McCrossan: Minister, that does not really answer the question. I understand that private information that could identify individuals must be redacted, but almost all of the document was redacted, including conversations or approaches to dealing with the A5, if there were any such discussions. Will the Minister confirm to the House that he will revisit it in the interest of transparency, and can he give an assessment of why it went so badly wrong in court?

Mr Muir: Mr McCrossan, I do not get involved in freedom of information requests to the Department. If I, as the Minister, were doing that, you would be the first to say that it was totally inappropriate. You have the right to appeal the decision. I am not going to say to officials, "Release this and do not release that"; that is not the way to run a Department.

One of the issues about the A5 is the appeal that is under way. I have been clear that I have intervened with regard to that. It is important that I do that, because I believe in taking action on climate change. It is important that we implement the legislation as it was intended, and I have intervened in relation to the appeal in furtherance of that.

Mr Muir: Yes, I engaged with the Justice Minister on the importance of Rural Crime Week, and we profiled that because, collectively, working across government and with the Police Service of Northern Ireland, it is important that we raise awareness of those issues and encourage people to come forward and report them. The Member knows that there are many issues in rural communities. Naomi and I gave a focus during the launch to the issue of domestic violence. It is an issue that has touched far too many homes in Northern Ireland and has a particularly acute impact on rural communities, where the feeling of isolation can be acute and the importance of support services is absolutely key. I will continue to work with my partners, particularly the Justice Minister, in that regard.

Mr McAleer: I thank the Minister for his response; indeed, I share his view that crime in rural areas is compounded by the sense of isolation. In his engagement with the Rural Crime Partnership, would it be possible or desirable to target resources into areas where there is a particular identified need and high risk?

Mr Muir: That is something for which, thankfully, we have arrangements in place. We have the policing and community safety partnerships (PCSPs) in Northern Ireland that can shape local responses. I am happy to discuss with the Member any particular concerns that he has and relay those to my partners in the justice system.

Mr Muir: I am the Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs, and I have been clear that water pollution needs to be dealt with. I will again say today, in case people were not listening, that sewage pollution of our waterways is not acceptable. I want to strengthen regulation and enforcement on that, because the situation in Lough Neagh and other places, such as Lough Erne and Belfast lough, is not acceptable.

Belfast lough is fast becoming another Lough Neagh. Soon, it will be nothing short of an open-air sewer. I am very clear that, with regard to NI Water, we need to strengthen regulation and enforcement. I will continue to do that, and I look forward to having the Executive's support on that.

Mr K Buchanan: Minister, we have heard the magic numbers of 62/24/12 from agriculture, sewage and septic tanks respectively. Can you provide evidence for those numbers, or were they part of a desktop exercise to point the finger at the industries involved?

Mr Muir: There have been two reports. The Agri-Food and Biosciences Institute's (AFBI) 'RePhoKUs' study came out in 2020. That peer-reviewed science has been published. More recently, New Harmonica research has pointed towards the sources of pollution. Such research allows us to target our action.

I will say two things. We can go through the statistics and talk numbers and all the rest of it. Belfast lough is in a dire state. Lough Erne is in a desperate state. Lough Neagh has been green for the past three summers. There is a ban on bathing on the north coast. There is only so far that people can go in debasing science and evidence before it catches up with them. It is clear that we have a problem. It would be great if we could accept the problem and work together to address it. I am working really hard to address the issue and am trying to work with people to do so. If people do not want to support me in that, that is fine, but they need to take ownership of the consequences of their actions.

Mr Muir: Unlike my predecessor, that is a priority for me. When the measures under the sustainable agriculture programme were announced in March 2022, that matter did not feature. I have been clear that, once we get the farm sustainability payment and farm sustainability standards in place, we will move resources to support the roll-out of a sheep support scheme and to support Farming with Nature. I cannot be any clearer.

Ms Finnegan: Minister, do you acknowledge the real risk that the sheep sector, which already faces challenges, could be further disadvantaged and left vulnerable by competing departmental priorities and a policy process that appears to be increasingly disconnected from the realities on the ground?

Mr Muir: Once I have the resources, I will put them towards the development of the scheme. When I read the 'Irish Farmers Journal' every Wednesday evening, the North/South differential is not lost on me. Part of that is a result of leaving the EU. I am left with the consequences of that and have to develop new farm support policies for Northern Ireland. Leaving the EU has been a monumental disaster for Northern Ireland and the rest of the UK. We are grateful for the benefits that we have through the Windsor framework, which allows us to trade with the rest of the UK and the EU. Without the Windsor framework, the dairy industry would be destroyed. I am very focused on delivering support for the sheep sector, but we have to focus on delivery on the ground and on having the resources to do that.

Mr Muir: I must have been the subject of this morning's DUP team meeting on its strategy for questions.

The answer to your allegation is a complete no. As Minister, I have been out and about, and your representations of me and the Alliance Party could not be further from the truth. As Minister, I am focused on delivery on the ground. The DUP offers negativity, wedge issues and culture wars: negative, negative, negative.

Some Members: Hear, hear.

Ms Brownlee: I really do not think that the farmers will find Members' laughter to be a very good response to the topic.

Over the weekend, the Ulster Farmers' Union (UFU) expressed its frustration about misinformation on how the NAP group has been working with no chairman or terms of reference. Will the Minister be clear about the status of the group and apologise to the stakeholders involved?

Mr Muir: I made it clear that we hope to make an announcement about an external facilitator this week. Hopefully, we will be able to have a meeting of the group in the time ahead. I am grateful for the role that everyone has played. It has been challenging — that is people's job — but it has been constructive, and we will work to deliver on it. The negativity from the DUP comes daily in this place, but the positivity comes from these Benches.

Mr Muir: Recently, I was delighted to launch the peatland strategy to 2040. It is Northern Ireland's first peatland strategy. It offers five strategic objectives and 26 actions that will allow us to move forward with the benefits of peatland restoration. The benefits are clear in carbon storage, nature restoration and improved water quality. I am very grateful for all the stakeholder engagement in the process to date and to the stakeholders who came along to the launch. It offers us many benefits, including, in particular, the opportunity to create good green jobs in Northern Ireland.

Mr Donnelly: Will the Minister develop further how peatlands can help to tackle the climate and biodiversity crisis?

Mr Muir: The overwhelming majority of our peatlands in Northern Ireland are in a degraded state. Many of them are emitting carbon rather than capturing it. By restoring our peatlands, we can turn that situation round and offer benefits to local communities. It is a win-win. I am grateful for the support that we have got through the Shared Island Fund and PEACE PLUS. I will continue to engage with the Finance Minister on additional support for that.

Mr Muir: My Department is doing that through the roll-out of the sustainable agriculture programme. We want to build resilience in farming and a successful future for it while ensuring that we meet our environmental goals. The idea that environmental protection and farming do not go hand in hand is untrue. We see it happening daily on farms in Northern Ireland. I am grateful for the great work that is being done. I want to be able to support farmers on the road ahead. A lot of myths are being perpetuated about farming in Northern Ireland, including in the Chamber today. It is a success story. Good work is being done. We want to support farmers on the road ahead.

Mr Bradley: Minister, how will you ensure that farm families are supported with grants and advice to meet climate targets, rather than being penalised? How will you prevent blanket measures that could drive smaller farms out of business?

Mr Muir: A key, fundamental issue is that, when we were in the EU, we had ring-fenced funding support for agriculture, agrienvironment, fisheries and rural development but that ended at the end of March 2025. I was the only Minister in the UK to secure ring-fencing of that funding in this and future years. It is absolutely critical that we have that funding support in place. We have been rolling it out through the farm sustainability transition payment. We will continue to do that in the years ahead. We need to support farmers to build resilience and have a successful and sustainable future. We are doing just that.

Mr Muir: It will have a very positive impact not just in North Antrim but in North Down, South Belfast and West Tyrone. That is what this place should be known for: delivery. The Dilapidation Bill will say to people who own the buildings, "Either you fix it, or the council will fix it and send you the bill". It will be an example of good legislation being passed in this place. It will turn the situation around and bring back vibrancy in neighbourhoods, villages, towns and city centres and will help to support councils and build their rates base.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): I call Mr Frew for a quick supplementary question.

Mr Frew: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I really appreciate that.

Can the Minister explain how the Bill will affect domestic property, privately owned property and commercial and business property?

Mr Muir: The Bill is wide-ranging with regard to the properties in question. There are already powers in place, but the legislation is outdated. The Bill will give much more flexibility with regard to potential fixed penalty notices. All MLAs in the Chamber will know of buildings that cause real dilapidation in neighbourhoods, affecting neighbours and all the rest of it. The Bill will allow councils to move in to address that. Hopefully, that will turn the situation around quickly from the beginning. It will be important legislation. It has been a long time coming. I am grateful to the Committee, ably chaired by Robbie, for its scrutiny of the Bill.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): I call Tom Buchanan. You have about 30 seconds.

Mr Muir: I inherited unparalleled challenges. We commissioned the Chief Veterinary Officer to tackle TB. On his first day in work, I said, "Congratulations," and gave him the task of reviewing the issue and finding a way forward. He did that, managing to get agreement from all the stakeholders around the table on a blueprint for the way forward. We are focused on delivering that. One of the fundamentals —

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Thank you, Minister. Time is up. That concludes questions to the Minister of Agriculture.

Mr Givan (The Minister of Education): My Department’s consultation on the future of the Council for the Curriculum, Examinations and Assessment's (CCEA) GCSEs, AS levels and A levels is an opportunity for students, parents, educators, employers and other stakeholders to contribute by sharing their views on how to improve the structure, content and assessment of those qualifications. The consultation includes a proposal to remove AS levels in order to reduce pressure on students and teachers and to free up time for teaching and deeper learning. My proposals reflect a clear ambition to ensure that CCEA's GCSEs, AS levels and A levels remain relevant, nationally and internationally relevant.

On the concerns about applying for higher education in the Republic of Ireland, I can confirm that, if the decision is made to remove the CCEA AS levels, stand-alone AS levels from other awarding organisations will still be available for the very small number of students who require them.

Consideration will be given to any concerns that are raised through the consultation process.

Mr Durkan: I am glad to have received some clarification from the Minister. Obviously, the consultation is ongoing, but will he elaborate on which AS levels would still be available and acceptable to the CAO?

Mr Givan: If they wish, schools would be able to bring in other awarding bodies and qualifications.

It is a consultation exercise. I have listened to principals, some of whom are very passionate about removing AS levels because of the increased time that is spent preparing for tests and the pressure that that puts on teachers and pupils. I have also heard from principals who are strong advocates for the retention of AS levels. I have gone out to consultation to get the views of the sector.

Where there would be implications for entry into courses in the Republic of Ireland, that would need to be taken into account before any decision were taken on the matter. I have an open mind on this, but I see the merit in the proposals in that they would reduce the number of times that our young people are tested and increase the amount of time that they get to learn and be taught in the classroom.

Mr Bradley: Will the Minister tell us the timeline for the decision on AS levels?

Mr Givan: I intend to confirm my policy framework intentions in early 2026. Following that, CCEA Regulation would be required to prepare a regulatory framework from which CCEA, being the awarding organisation, would undertake a full revision of its qualifications. Prior to the roll-out of new specifications, that process took a minimum of two years. Once we get the consultation responses, we will assess them and determine the way forward. I intend to do that in early 2026.

Mr Carroll: Minister, you alluded to the concern about how the removal of AS levels might impact on the health and well-being of young people. Have you or your Department engaged with the Children's Commissioner, the Secondary Students' Union or the mental health champion on the proposals?

Mr Givan: There is an opportunity for everybody to participate in the consultation. The process that was followed before we went out to consultation included engagement with a range of stakeholders, including pupils — their voices were heard on the matter — and teachers.

I recognise that there is increased anxiety in relation to the issue, given the amount of testing of our young people that takes place, particularly in years 11, 12, 13 and 14. They are on a constant conveyor belt of examinations. They are prepped for those examinations and are often taught to the test. We need to recalibrate that so that they have the opportunity to engage in a rich curriculum and gain a detailed understanding of the subject matter. Assessment will, of course, always be a part of our qualifications system.

Take AS levels as an example. Preparations for those examinations happen within months of starting lower sixth. Schools will then often have the young people off to prepare for their mocks. That could be for two or three weeks. The AS levels are then completed in May. Some schools do not bring the children back for the entire month of June. It can be up to seven weeks in the life of those young people that they are not in the classroom and are not being taught because they are subject to an examination process. I see the merits in the arguments of those who say that we should remove those exams, but I am also alert to some of the arguments that are made to me about why there is an opportunity for their retention. That is because it can be a wake-up call for some young people if their results do not go as they intended, so that can help to motivate them.

It is also concerning to me that we have a very small number of schools that withdraw the opportunity for those young people to complete their A levels, in that they allow them to do only one year of study and then abandon them. That is not appropriate either, so there is a mixed environment on which to take a view. I genuinely hope that we will get a range of views and that we can then proceed on what we have determined as the best way forward.

Mr Givan: The major capital project for Dean Maguirc College was announced in 2022. It remains on hold. As I previously said, I will continue to keep all projects that were announced under the major capital works programme in March 2022 and that are currently on hold under review. However, the delivery of all announced projects will very much be dependent on securing additional and significant sustained capital funding.

Mr McAleer: I thank the Minister for his response. Minister, has your Department engaged with the Council for Catholic Maintained Schools (CCMS) on moving forward on and developing proposals for Dean Maguirc College?

Mr Givan: The Member has advocated on behalf of the college consistently over the past year and a half. Currently, the college has approved admission and enrolment numbers of 80 and 440 respectively. However, as I previously advised, CCMS is seeking to increase those numbers through the development proposal (DP). In the interim, the school can continue to request additional places on an annual basis through a temporary variation process until a DP is brought forward. I understand that CCMS wrote to the school in April 2025 and provided an update on the progress of the development proposal submission. However, obviously, as I will be the decision maker when the development proposal comes across my desk, it would be inappropriate for me to comment further.

Mr T Buchanan: Minister, which schools that were announced to have work done under the major capital works programme in March 2022 have now progressed through planning?

Mr Givan: An extensive list — there were well in excess of 20 schools — was published back then. We were able to move forward on seven projects. Those were Carrickfergus Academy; Dromore High School; Edmund Rice College; Loreto College in Coleraine; Malone Integrated College; Mercy College; and Portadown College. In each of those seven, the integrated consultant teams have been appointed and the initial feasibility studies to explore potential accommodation options for each school are under way.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Question 3 has been withdrawn.

Mr Givan: My officials are reviewing potential legislative gaps and are working to develop departmental guidance on the issue of children missing in education. Addressing that issue effectively requires a coordinated multi-agency approach. To that end, my officials continue to engage with colleagues in the Department of Health and the Education Authority (EA) to explore opportunities for improved information sharing and collaborative action in that policy area. Work is under way to examine the processes and policies that are in place across other jurisdictions, with a view to identifying best practice and informing local approaches. In parallel, consideration is being given to the range of data sources that may be required to support a more effective response to children missing in education.

Mrs Guy: Thank you, Minister, for that answer. The issue of children missing in education is a serious one and a genuine safeguarding concern, so thank you for the work that you are taking forward in the Department.

I first asked the question in relation to the tragedy of Kyran Durnin in the South, and I was so concerned about the answer that I got that I had to do everything that I could as a private Member to try to address the issue. As the Minister with the power to act, can you give assurances that, in this mandate, there will be movement and progress on legislation on guidance and data sharing?

Mr Givan: I thank the Member for her question. Her concern is one that I share.

When it comes to attendance levels, for children who are enrolled in a school but do not attend, there is a process involving education welfare officers (EWO). We know that, after the first four weeks of the academic year, there are children who have still not gone to school. They are actively being pursued by the EWOs in the Education Authority and by the schools. What we do not know is this: parents have a responsibility to pursue a place in education for the children in their family, but there is no legislative requirement on the parent to inform the Department of Education or the EA if they decide not to register or enrol their child in a school, because they are going to be homeschooled, for example. If a child has been registered and deregistered, we know that they have been deregistered. However, there is a challenge in sharing information. We know how many people are born in Northern Ireland — we have a record of that — but, if a child subsequently leaves the jurisdiction with their family, we do not know that.

There is, therefore, a lack of information, which, as I referenced in my response to the original question, requires collaboration between Health and the EA. We need to be able to determine, with clear and factual information, how many children are missing in education. I have outlined where I believe there are gaps in the information and that that has an impact on how effective we are in addressing those concerns. It is something that the Department is actively working on. Whether I can give the Member a guarantee that that will lead to legislation in this mandate remains to be seen. However, I assure the Member that there is an urgency to making sure that we have as much information as possible to help us.

Mrs Mason: I will ask about another group of children who are not able to access education: those who experience emotion-based school non-attendance. Recently, I met parents who are experiencing that with their children — they told me heartbreaking stories. What steps is the Minister taking to make sure that those children receive the right support and that schools receive the right resources to respond?

Mr Givan: The range of reasons why people do not attend school can be multifaceted. The Member has outlined one reason why a child may not be in attendance at school, and there are many others. If they are registered but not attending, we know that. There is support. Yes, the question, "How effective is it?" could be asked, but education welfare officers can proactively engage with the families. I am happy to look in more detail into that particular issue, but I assure Members that we want our children to be in school. It is where they are safest, and it is where they are best placed to gain an education. It is in nobody's interests for them not to attend school.

Miss McIlveen: In a previous mandate, I raised serious concerns about children missing from care and the lack of data on that in the Department of Health. The lack of accurate data relating to this issue is, as another example, also very alarming. Who has responsibility for monitoring protocols for children missing in education?

Mr Givan: The education welfare service within the EA has operational responsibility for children missing in education. A number of procedures and protocols are in place for such children, including protocols involving colleagues in other jurisdictions that relate to children missing in education, because that is also an issue for us. The education welfare service has operational responsibility in that area. Members have highlighted particular examples, and the information that was published in a media article is a result of the Department's work to understand what data is held by GPs and the health service and what information we lack as we try to move forward on this. That has generated a fair degree of interest, which is welcome, but we need to move beyond that kind of scoping work to real, meaningful processes to help identify children who are missing and to do what we can to make sure that they are engaged in education.

Mr Givan: Whilst my Department has no remit for education provision for young people with special educational needs beyond the age of 19, I am committed to working with the Economy and Health Ministers to ensure that young people with special educational needs are supported as they transition out of the school system into adult life. In July 2025, I responded to Minister Archibald's paper to the Executive on post-school provision for young people with special educational needs.

I have confirmed my broad support for her proposals and signalled my commitment to working with her Department in taking forward the proposals.

In addition, my officials have engaged extensively with colleagues in the Department for the Economy and the Department of Health through a cross-departmental working group on transitions as part of the end-to-end review of special educational needs. As we move forward, one of the actions in the SEN reform delivery plan is the development of a transitional support programme, and collaborative working across the three Departments is expected to continue.

Mr Butler: I thank the Minister for his fulsome answer. There has been a lot of debate about this since we returned to the Assembly. Families struggle to understand what the timescale for delivery might look like. I understand that that perhaps lies more with the Minister for the Economy. From my perspective, given the work that you have undertaken in the SEN space, you have a significant part to play. Is there any timescale that you can add for when delivery might happen and change might occur?

Mr Givan: The work of trying to ensure that the transition process is better is active and ongoing. That is why we need to ensure, under the legislation that we have, that people stay in the education settings until the academic year in which they turn 19. After that, there is the transition process that Health and Economy are involved in. We need to ensure that that works better than it currently does. There are good examples of where it works, but there are areas of concern where it does not work as effectively as it should.

A big focus for our three Departments is how we effectively manage the transition process. I have a particular interest in ensuring that that is effective, because we have thousands of children who need entry to our special schools at ages three, four and five and then into post-primary-type settings. We need to make sure that there is a flow of young people leaving education settings and transitioning, with Economy and Health playing their role in that; otherwise, we will not be able to accommodate all the children who rightly want their place confirmed in those settings. The transition process is hugely important for us to make that more effective. The Minister for the Economy is leading in that area, but I assure Members that I will play my full part in supporting the proposals that she has brought to the Executive.

Mr Mathison: This question highlighted the cross-cutting nature of this, and that is absolutely right. However, as for your Department's responsibilities, it is my understanding that, as of April this year, 9,000 young people in the system needed to avail themselves of the EA's transition service. Can you assure the Assembly that that service is properly resourced to meet the demand that is clearly in the system?

Mr Givan: I thank the Member for that question. The transition service currently supports over 11,000 young people. As with all SEN support, the transition service — he is right — is stretched, given the unprecedented increase in the number of young people with special educational needs. I referenced the reform agenda and the delivery plan that I published in respect of that. That includes an action to implement a transitional support programme that builds on the EA's existing service. Full implementation of that action requires some additional funding that is over and above my current budget. However, there are certainly plans there, if we can effect them, that will assist the EA's transition service in managing those issues.

Mrs Dillon: I thank the Member across the way for asking the question.

Minister, do you agree that the transition process at whatever stage, whether it is going to primary school from nursery school or to secondary school, is really traumatic for parents, because it is so poorly managed? Have you had any conversations with the Health Minister about providing a health and care plan from birth to post-19 for children with additional needs to ensure that they all achieve the most that they can and that we remove that trauma for families?

Mr Givan: The Member rightly outlines the emotional distress that is often experienced by families who rightly campaign and care for their loved ones. While there are challenges, the school environment is effective at supporting those young people. As they approach 19 years of age, there is a fear about the level of support or, indeed, the lack of support that will exist in the post-19 experience. That is why there needs to be a more effective process for allowing our young people to move from a special educational needs-type setting into other areas for which the Department of Health and the Department for the Economy have responsibility. I agree that that transition needs to be processed and managed in a better way. It is the parents who often carry the burden of responsibility, because they want the very best for their child. We need to give effect to the ambitions and hopes that they have for their young people by supporting them. We need to ensure that we give effect to that support where it
is best placed.

My Department has a role to play, but two other Departments have a key role to play. It cannot be left to Minister Archibald, to Minister Nesbitt or, indeed, to me. There is a collective responsibility on all of us to do better in the area.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Question 6 has been withdrawn.

Mr Givan: Literacy is the foundation of all education. Proficiency in reading, writing and spoken language is vital for pupils' success in school, training and work. I have signalled my intention to develop a new strategy for literacy that is grounded in international best practice and the latest evidence. The strategy will be developed in parallel with the work of the curriculum task force and will provide guidance to support schools in developing pupils' reading, writing and oracy skills. It will also set out a comprehensive programme of action to support teachers across Northern Ireland. In advance of that, I plan to issue a literacy circular to outline the key principles for effective literacy instruction, alongside practical strategies to enhance literacy development. That will be supported by professional learning opportunities in areas such as the science of reading, spelling, writing and oracy.

Through the RAISE programme, I have introduced a "Reading with AI" research project that will provide schools with an opportunity to see how AI tools can support literacy. The study is led by Oxford Brookes University using Amira learning, which is a reading support tool that is aligned with research-informed approaches to early literacy and is powered by AI.

Mr Martin: I thank the Minister for his answer. What does the research tell us about current literacy outcomes?

Mr Givan: While schools will hold their own rich data on pupils' progress and attainment, our system has limited publicly available national data on how children are performing in literacy throughout primary school and Key Stage 3. End of Key Stage assessment arrangements were not widely operational from 2014-15 right through until 2023-24, but, in the 2024-25 academic year, we saw a return of end of Key Stage assessments for the first time since the COVID-19 pandemic. Assessments were based on teacher judgement against the levels of progression in communication and in using mathematics. That gave us a clearer understanding of where our education system stands following the challenges of recent years.

The data published by CCEA shows that nearly three in 10 pupils are not achieving at the expected levels in literacy and numeracy by the end of primary school. That is a significant concern, particularly as those foundational skills are essential for pupils' future learning, well-being and life opportunities. It is also a stark reminder of the challenges that we face, and it highlights the urgent need for a renewed focus on literacy and numeracy in our schools. The new data provides a vital baseline for informing targeted support and future interventions.

Mr Donnelly: The Minister will be aware that the importance of reading is promoted through the Sure Start programme. Does he have any plans to expand that provision further in Northern Ireland as part of the forthcoming early learning and childcare strategy?

Mr Givan: Not only have we expanded Sure Start through the early years funding for which the Executive provided ring-fenced support but we were able to stabilise the organisation and expand its reach. Where there were temporary schemes in place, we have been able to mainstream them into a permanent zoning of areas where Sure Start operates, and there can now be referrals into Sure Start areas from neighbouring areas as well.

We have therefore been able to enhance Sure Start, but we have also provided early years funding through initiatives such as Bookstart. The Member rightly highlights how it is important not only that young people be proficient in reading and develop the skills but that they get a love for reading. I was not someone who really enjoyed reading, and I did not do enough of it when I was at school. We need to cultivate an environment in which there is a love of reading, because all the evidence shows that that can have a really significant impact on the academic success of young people as they progress through our education system.

Mr Givan: Where the delivery of specialist provision accommodation has been delayed, the Education Authority has been working with affected schools to ensure that contingency arrangements are in place to mitigate the impact on pupils and their families. Each individual capital work project is overseen by a dedicated project manager to monitor the delivery programme. However, unforeseen circumstances can still arise, such as the discovery of a live electrical cable at Ceara School in the Member's constituency, that will inevitably impact on the delivery programme. My Department, working with the Education Authority, continues to monitor active capital work schemes to reduce delays as far as possible.

Mr Tennyson: Thank you, Minister, for that answer. You referenced Ceara special school, where a number of children have faced delay. That has left their families feeling let down and as though their children are at the back of the queue. What assurance can you give that progress will be made towards Ceara having a second campus, so that we do not see a repeat of the issue in future academic years?

Mr Givan: There are two points. He rightly highlights that delay, which was caused by a live cable being identified. As regards trying to resolve the issue in that example, the modular accommodation has been constructed off-site and is ready for installation once the site is fully prepared. The contractor has indicated a projected completion date of 5 December, but the Education Authority is actively working to accelerate the programme to get progress in advance of that date.

As regards a new build, the Member will know that, only last week, we had a statement around special educational needs capital investment. The EA has produced detailed plans in which we have mapped out the provision that every special school needs. That is before the Executive as part of the 10-year plan for investment. It is through that long-term approach to investment that we will be able to address the capacity issues that the school that the Member referenced is dealing with; indeed, schools across all Members' constituencies face capacity challenges.

Mr Middleton: Minister, it is important that we mitigate all the delays where possible. Will you outline why specialist provision accommodation is delayed?

Mr Givan: The delay in the delivery of accommodation to provide placements for SEN pupils can occur for a number of reasons. I outlined in the Assembly on 16 September that the number of children with SEN requiring placements far outstrips the number of available places. That can cause delay in naming a school where a placement can be provided. Working with the EA, we engaged with schools over the past year and a half, and that has identified the potential solutions. However, in some instances, it has been possible to confirm those only at a very late stage. That resulted in a compressed timeline for delivery, despite every effort being taken to expedite completion. That must also include necessary approvals and tender processes, and, unfortunately, it is not always feasible to deliver accommodation in time for the commencement of the academic year.

There can be unforeseen events, such as the discovery of the electrical cable that I referenced, but the issue that we face is a lack of capacity across our school estate, particularly for special schools but also when it comes to specialist provision in mainstream settings. I outlined on 16 September a clear plan that will address that in the long term. We still have to react to need, which varies in certain parts of Northern Ireland — there is a higher level of need in some areas. We engage with schools, and I welcome the positive engagement that I have had with a number of school principals and the National Association of Head Teachers trade union, which has been proactive in seeking to engage with principals at a much earlier stage in the process. It is only through a collective effort by all of our schools, the Education Authority and my Department that we will be able to provide the right support for young people, who deserve it.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Colin McGrath, you have 30 seconds.

Mr Givan: Of the statements completed in August 2025, 44% were issued outside the 26-week time frame.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): You may ask a supplementary question very quickly, Mr McGrath.

Mr McGrath: That is not great. What are you doing to improve that?

Mr Givan: I am glad that the answer was short enough for the Member to get a response in. I agree with him: it is not an acceptable time frame. We have new special educational needs regulations, which will reduce the timescales associated with statutory assessments. We aim to reduce the process from 26 weeks to 22 weeks, but that will be a positive outcome only if 100% of assessments are carried out within the 22 weeks. We are finalising those regulations, and I will bring them to the Assembly in due course.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): That ends the period for listed questions. We now move to 15 minutes of topical questions.

Mr Givan: The Member knows the cynical comment that he made about AI during questions on the SEN statement. In his response, he has an opportunity to retract his false allegation and apologise. We will wait and see whether he decides to take that opportunity.

The Member is right to highlight the extreme capital needs that exist in the education estate. There is a crumbling school estate and an inability to carry out maintenance — we are down to doing only essential repairs to keep the schools open and safe — and we are unable to provide the level of investment that we need. However, it would be wrong and inappropriate for a Minister to say that we are not going to carry out the detailed work, which we endeavoured to do, to identify the special schools where specialist provision can be expanded. The principals responded in a hugely positive way to the statement that I made in the Assembly, which is with the Executive, and they were part of the process. Absolutely, the funding needs to be secured to deliver on that, but it would be a failure on my part not to commission the work and publish it, and, of course, I need to get the associated funding.

The answer was not generated by AI. I trust the Member will now retract and apologise for his false allegation last week.

Mr O'Toole: Since we are here — I was not going to raise the subject — I will not retract or apologise. My job is to ask the Minister questions. I make zero apology for that. The Minister is more than capable of coming in here to defend himself. With the indulgence of the Deputy Speaker, since the Minister raised the issue, I asked a question for written answer, which stated:

The answer from his Department was:

He cannot be definitive in his denial. I will infer from his statement that some tool was used, but I will leave the matter to one side.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Matthew, supplementary question.

Mr O'Toole: I want to ask about delivering on promises made. Have there been actual, practical conversations with the Finance Minister about the multi-year Budget that we expect later this year? Will what he has called for be backed up in a multi-year Budget? That is his responsibility too.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Minister, you can answer whichever part of that multiple selection you see fit.

Mr Givan: Never mind artificial intelligence, I am concerned about actual intelligence when the Member raises those questions. I have spent £110 million over the last two years to provide support and ensure that we have nearly 3,000 places for our young people who need them. I have engaged proactively with the Finance Minister, and he is working with me on the 10-year plan. I am engaging in proactive work.

What I say to the Member who raised AI is that his party put out a statement welcoming the use of AI. His party member for Foyle pays a subscription for AI to assist her with her job. If there is a cynic in the Assembly, it is the Member for South Belfast, leader of the so-called Opposition.

Mr Brooks: Constructive Opposition.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Mr Butler.

Mr Butler: Mr Deputy Speaker, it seems a shame to break that one up.

A Member: They do not like questions. [Laughter.]

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Back to Education questions. Thank you.

Mr Givan: I am nowhere near qualified enough to comment on medical and health issues. I did not follow in detail what President Trump said, but I believe that it was in reference to pregnant women. I am pretty sure that I am never going to be in that position. I have listened to some health professionals in Northern Ireland who dismissed what President Trump said. I defer to those medical experts. I certainly will not be saying anything that is contrary to their opinion.

Mr Butler: Thank you, Minister. The president further claimed that the MMR vaccine, which is a school-administered vaccine, should be taken separately. Will the Minister defer —?

Mr Brooks: This is Education questions.

Mr Butler: Yes, it is given in schools. Does the Minister have confidence in the MMR vaccine that is given to our schoolchildren?

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Before we continue and the Minister decides whether to answer, these are questions to the Minister of Education. Mr Butler, I am sure that you, more than anybody in the Chamber, know what Health questions are about. Minister, you can choose to answer that, or we can move on.

Mr Givan: I am happy to move on.

Mr Givan: I have said before in the Assembly that, when we get to the stage where young people and families have to go through a statementing process, we have failed them. We should not have to go through a statementing process in order to make the appropriate provision to meet their needs. We are trying to take forward changes for special educational needs so that we can identify the requirements of those young people and provide the appropriate support for schools to meet that need. That is part of the work that we are seeking to take forward as part of our special educational needs transformation programme.

Mr Allen: I thank the Minister for his answer. It highlights many more questions, two of which I will ping out, if I may. Minister, what interim support is being provided to schools for a child who is waiting for that educational statement? I appreciate that you said that that is not the approach that we should be taking, but it is the current approach. What support is available to parents who are going through that statementing process to allow them to interact and make sure that the statement best meets the child's needs?

Mr Givan: Obviously, there will be support throughout the process. The Member will know the various ways in which you can be referred into that. It can be through parental referral, through the school or through educational psychologists or paediatricians. They can all make referrals, and an assessment process can then take place.

Having engaged with a lot of principals on that area, I know that they feel that it would be better for them to have resources in the school so that they can have some autonomy in how best the needs can be met. The various needs present in different ways; the presentation can be in speech, communication or behaviour. Schools say to me that, if they were able to have a resource, they could utilise support in a way that would be more effective for the whole school population, not just those young people who have a statement. There are thousands of children who have additional needs but do not have a statement. We need to empower schools with a degree of autonomy, accompanied by resource, in how best that support can be deployed. That could involve employing a full-time teacher so that there are smaller class settings. It could be through a youth worker. I have been in schools that have employed youth workers. I have been in schools that employ counsellors. We need to find a better framework for our schools to operate in and in a way that will be more beneficial for our children and young people in achieving better outcomes.

Mr Givan: I thank the Member. On 27 August, I announced the establishment of the curriculum task force advisory committee, which will oversee, direct and lead the reform of the Northern Ireland curriculum. It will be led by Christine Counsell, with Lucy Crehan as the deputy. The committee includes a wealth of experience of curriculum design, classroom practice, evaluation and implementation.

The task force will commence work in October. Its role is to guide the development of a new, coherent and knowledge-rich curriculum framework. Following that, a new framework will be presented by spring 2026 and will then be subject to public consultation. It will be an ambitious and challenging framework, but I am confident that the task force will deliver and that the new curriculum framework will be operational by September 2027. That is what I have set out in my delivery plan.

Mr Clarke: Whilst we expect the curriculum to be important, Minister, teachers also have an important role to play. What engagement will you have with teachers as part of the review?

Mr Givan: The Member is right to say that teachers are hugely important. I have noticed the cynical way in which the SDLP leader of the Opposition has responded to the question. He does not have a particular interest but questions the merit and validity of it. Curriculum reform is fundamental to an effective education system. Do not take my word for it: this morning, I opened a conference at the La Mon hotel in Belfast with over 400 post-primary-school teachers who have a real desire to engage in the topic.

Tomorrow — the Member is welcome to join me if he wishes — I will be hosting 600 primary-school leaders, which represents a remarkable level of participation. That is testament to the passion and commitment of our education workforce. Those teachers are from every sector of the education system, all united behind the common belief in and desire to have an effective curriculum that enables them to educate our children and young people. Some Members may not realise what is going on in the education system, but what is happening is transformational, and it will be to the benefit of every single child, particularly those who have disadvantage, in providing greater equity and inclusion. No child being left behind: that is what we are engaged in when it comes to TransformED, the transformational programme that we are delivering in education.

Mr Givan: I have, and I welcome the survey's findings. I am pleased that parents in Northern Ireland were included in the survey, and I am grateful to Parentkind for providing insight into the issues that are important to parents and their children. The Northern Ireland report gives a clear indication of matters that are of relevance to our parents today, such as, for example, parental fears about children's safety, special educational needs and the overuse of mobile phones, and of parents' general views on school and home life and some of the broader challenges that they face. I have asked officials to consider the survey's findings as part of their work on policy areas.

Mr Frew: I thank the Minister for his answer. Is he able to outline anything in particular from the findings in relation to the use of toilets? Do those reflect the common sense of Northern Ireland people?

Mr Givan: Yes. The survey findings reflect the common sense of the vast majority of the people of Northern Ireland. In particular, two thirds of parents who were surveyed indicated that the use of toilets should be determined by biological sex. Regulation 10(2) of the School Premises (Standards) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 1973 states:

The survey findings reinforce the point that there is wider public support for the policy statement that I issued on 8 September, particularly on the use of toilets and changing facilities. I was confident that the overwhelming majority of the people of Northern Ireland supported my common-sense position when it comes to biological sex. The survey findings affirm that I am right and that other Members in the Chamber are completely wrong and out of touch.

Mr Givan: Under the expansion of the childcare subsidy scheme, we moved from 0-5 years of age to all school-age children up to the age of 11 in primary schools. We know that 72 schools in Northern Ireland are registered on the UK tax-free childcare allowance system. We have been working with those 72 schools in order to make sure that they can make the childcare subsidy scheme available, because that provides an additional 15% reduction in bills. We provide the finance to support the schools so that any administration costs can be dealt with; indeed, those costs are minimal. I would like to see even more schools provide that support, because we will support them to deliver it.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Time is up, Minister.

Mr Givan: Thank you.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): That concludes questions to the Minister of Education. I ask Members to take their ease while we get ready for the next item of business.

Mr Speaker: We now come to the second group of amendments for debate regarding content of guidelines. With amendment No 2 it will be convenient to debate amendment Nos 3, 4 and 6. I call the Minister of Education to move amendment No 2 and to address the other amendments in the group.

Mr Givan (The Minister of Education): I beg to move amendment No 2:

As we move into the group 2 debate, I reflect on the importance of the task in hand: making good legislation to enable effective guidelines that will make school uniforms more affordable for all. We have only four of my technical amendments to debate in the group, so I will move straight to them, while reminding Members that none of the amendments attempts to dilute the impact of what was done at Consideration Stage. Rather, any changes that they will make again relate to language, style and structure in order to make the best legislation possible. I am sure that Members will happily share with me the responsibility of making the best legislation possible in such aspects.

Amendment No 2 amends the wording of the amendment voted through at Consideration Stage while delivering the intent. That amendment used terms that are not used in other education law and are not commonly used in day-to-day school practice. Amendment No 2 therefore removes wording such as "play-based curricula" but replaces it with "play-based learning", which is a term more commonly understood in education. It expands the reference to outdoor learning so that it now reflects that the guidelines need to provide for uniform policies to address recreational, sporting or outdoor activities. I see benefits in doing that, particularly so that it does not bear to focus too narrowly on one aspect of the curriculum. You will note that it additionally refers to normal classroom and academic matters, as it would seem odd in this context not to refer to them as well. It considers the reality of a school day and applies it to the intent articulated at Consideration Stage, namely that schools consider how children learn and what activities they participate in as part of that learning and, therefore, consider how their uniform requirements need to support their pupils in that.

Amendment No 2 works alongside amendment No 6, which places the specific Foundation Stage reference more appropriately in clause 6. Again, I see benefits in broadening that out. It is preferable not to focus too narrowly in referring to one stage of education, noting that clause 6 already allows more generally for different provision for different age and peer groups, so clause 6 is the appropriate place to set the Foundation Stage reference. The House will note that it goes further by explicitly referencing Key Stages 1, 2, 3 and 4 as well. In addition, the opening words of new paragraph (b) are adjusted to reflect that practicality, along with comfort, is already covered by paragraph (a). As ever, it is the combination as well as particularity of provision that matters. Taken together, amendment Nos 2 and 6 are consistent with the Consideration Stage amendment while reflecting language that is more consistent with other legislation and education practice. I trust that the House will support the amendments.

Amendment No 3 merely paves the way for amendment No 4, just as there were similar paving amendments in group 1. Amendment No 3 leaves out provisions inserted into clause 2 at Consideration Stage so that amendment No 4 can place them in a separate clause with its own heading to index them. Amendment No 4 further refines the language in the Consideration Stage amendment, but the same matters are still provided for: limiting or ruling out single suppliers unless they demonstrate value for money and ensuring that information about any agreements, contractual or otherwise, is published at least annually, unless the agreement was in place before the Bill gains Royal Assent.

Again, I understand that some Members may be concerned that a declaration made by a school manager that single suppliers give value for money could simply state that. I assure Members that that is not the case. The ordinary meaning of the word "declaration" is a:

The amendment has been drafted by experts, recognising that, unless a specific definition is inserted, the ordinary meaning of a word has effect. I would not accept a declaration from a school manager that provides no information about exactly how using a single or limited supplier equates to being value for money. I do not consider that to meet the requirements of the Bill. Evidence will have to be provided about how exactly it delivers such value for money.

Amendment No 4 sets out the reporting requirements voted for at Consideration Stage in a more clear and consistent legislative framing, including to give some weight to the definitions of terms used: for example, being explicit that an agreement can be contractual or otherwise and that a pre-commencement agreement is one in place before the Bill comes into operation. In my view, that makes the detail in the new clause easier to follow.

I trust that Members will recognise the work that has gone into all the amendments that I have tabled to ensure that they deliver better flow but do not stray from the intent that was voted for at Consideration Stage. I also trust that Members will vote today for all my amendments, which, I remind the House, are technical in nature in order to provide consistency in language, style and structure in the Bill. I commend all my group 2 amendments to the House.

Mr Mathison (The Chairperson of the Committee for Education): As Chair of the Education Committee, I will speak to the group 2 amendments. They are amendment Nos 2, 3, 4 and 6, all of which relate to the content of the guidelines.

Amendment No 2 relates to the Committee amendment that was made at Consideration Stage to provide that school clothing is appropriate for the full range of activities that can be undertaken in a school day and within the curriculum, highlighting play-based learning and outdoor education. I was particularly struck by evidence from stakeholders about the limitations that can be placed on play-based learning if the clothing is not sufficiently suitable for that purpose. All members were engaged in framing that amendment at Committee Stage, with an emphasis on outdoor learning experiences.

I will pick up on some comments that were made about the amendment at Consideration Stage. I emphasise that it was never the Committee's intention that the amendment would require clothing additional to the core uniform; rather, it was to mean that the core uniform should be fit for purpose for all the activities that children take part in during a school day. It was absolutely never intended to place any additional burden on parents.

The Department proposes some revised wording, which I have no objection to. It appears to me that the proposal adheres to the Committee's intention, and I hope that it will get support on that basis. That, however, will ultimately be for Members to decide, as the Committee did not have the opportunity to come to a formal position on the amendment. I particularly welcome the reference to "play-based learning" in the revised wording in the amendment that the Minister has tabled. In fact, the wording has been broadened. It is important that we have confidence that school uniforms are appropriate for the whole range of activities that pupils undertake. Linked to that, there was a reference in the Committee amendment on the foundation curriculum, which Cheryl Brownlee contributed. That has been re-termed in amendment No 6, relaying the Committee's intention into the finalised Bill. Again, I have no issues to raise on that.

Amendment No 3 proposes to delete four subsections of clause 2, and amendment No 4 then inserts them into a new clause. The Minister wrote to the Committee, and I will quote from that letter:

On that basis, when we consider the issue of single-supplier arrangements, with which the amendments are concerned, it is good and appropriate to see them in their own space in the Bill. That provides clarity on their importance and effect. However, I emphasise that the Committee was always clear that single-supplier arrangements should only ever be permitted when the school manager provides a clear explanation of how they deliver value for money. The original Committee amendment was clear on that point: that an explanation would be required of how value for money would be achieved by the single-supplier arrangement.

The Minister highlighted the fact that the new clause uses the word "declaration" as regards how it will meet that test of value for money, rather than "explaining". I note the Minister's comments on that and welcome his assurances that evidence needs to be supplied and that a school manager cannot simply declare that something is good value and provide no evidence. We all want to avoid a scenario where a school charges hundreds of pounds for a blazer and simply says, "Yes it is a single-supplier arrangement, but I declare that it is good value", if anyone looking at it objectively could see that that is not the case.

I welcome the assurances that evidence would be required. On the basis of those assurances from the Minister, I am content to accept the new amendment, but other Members may well take a different view from the Committee. The Minister has provided assurances that any declaration would require evidence of how it delivers good value for money. I sincerely hope that the Minister acts in good faith on that and, when we see the guidelines, it is clear that that will be required. When it comes to the publication of the guidelines, the Minister should clarify further what the expectations will be around the "declaration" that amendment No 4 would introduce. It is vital that there is no uncertainty on that point. Those assurances are absolutely critical to my support for the amendment.

I will conclude by making some brief remarks as an Alliance member. This group of amendments is really about the content of the guidelines that we will end up with, which is ultimately what will make the difference to the cost of school uniforms for parents. I, along with a number of my Committee colleagues, would like to have seen — indeed, we sought to amend the Bill to ensure it — that the Bill included clear provisions to address affordability much more explicitly. That is not the Bill that is before us today. I therefore await the guidelines in the sincere hope that they are robust, enforceable and clear. The outcome that I want is that no parent is placed in financial hardship to send their child to school. The Bill and, ultimately, the Minister will be judged on its success or otherwise in ensuring that that outcome is delivered.

On the content of the guidelines, I would have liked to see a rights-respecting framework in the Bill to ensure that uniform policies are fit for purpose for the 21st century as regards choice, gender, disability, special educational needs (SEN) and cultural difference. Despite our efforts to amend it at the previous stages, again, that is not the Bill before us today. I hope that the guidelines, when published, do more than permit schools to adopt progressive uniform policies and clearly require them to do so.

We will watch how this progresses with interest. Our children and young people deserve uniform policies that respect their rights and support them to attend school and learn in comfortable practical uniforms that are fit for 2025.

Mr McCrossan: As my colleague outlined, the SDLP welcomes the progression of the Bill, but we are clear that its success will be measured in affordability. The second group of amendments goes to the heart of that question. If families are to feel any real difference in their pockets, it will be because the guidelines that are set out here make uniforms more affordable and practical and because they do so transparently.

The SDLP has always said that parents should not be priced out of education by the cost of a blazer, jumper or PE kit. Every amendment that Members consider today should be tested against one simple question: will it help to make uniforms more affordable for families, or will it weaken the protections that they deserve? We have applied each of those tests to the amendments in the group.

I start with amendment No 2, which improves clause 2 by broadening the requirement to consider the "nature and adequacy of clothing" across different parts of the curriculum.

That means that uniforms must be practical not only for classroom learning but for play-based activity, sport and outdoor work. It is a sensible, child-focused amendment, and the SDLP fully supports it.

Amendment No 6 adds further clarity by explicitly linking guidelines to Foundation Stage and Key Stages 1 to 4. Again, that is useful, and we support it.

The real battle in group 2 is over supplier arrangements, because those are key to the overriding consideration of affordability. At Consideration Stage, the Bill gained stronger provisions. It required schools to ensure that uniform items would be available from "at least one" open supplier. It also required schools to publish their contracts with preferred retailers. Those clauses would give parents a guarantee of choice and transparency. The Minister's amendment No 3 risks changing that. In place of those provisions, amendment No 4 inserts new clause 2A on 'Clothing supplier agreements'. At first glance, it looks similar: schools must ensure that uniform items are available from one non-contracted supplier unless a school manager signs a declaration that an exclusive deal represents value for money. The new clause may make it easier for schools to justify exclusivity, while parents will not have the same rights to see the details of contracts that drive up their costs. While the SDLP supports amendment No 2 and amendment No 6 for making the guidelines more practical and comprehensive, we have concerns about amendment No 3 and amendment No 4, because they risk weakening some of the Bill's most important elements.

The amendments that we support will make uniforms fairer and more affordable for families. The amendments that we oppose will undo those necessary and long-awaited protections. For us, the choice is simple. Families deserve to have enforceable rights, not vague promises; they deserve choice and transparency, not loopholes or hiding places; and they deserve a Bill that delivers on the promise of affordability. That is our wider criticism of the entire Bill. While it offers some improvements on what went before, it falls far short of what parents and pupils need and deserve. The Bill could have been a landmark from the Assembly in tackling the cost of school uniforms, but, instead, it risks becoming another missed opportunity.

Mr Sheehan: The issue of guidelines has been raised on a number of occasions during the debate. The content of the guidelines will be critical, because that is what will ultimately dictate whether the Bill will make any difference to hard-pressed families. As a member of the Education Committee, I place on record again my frustration at the fact that we have still not seen draft guidelines, despite having been promised sight of them before recess by senior officials from the Department.

I will speak in support of amendment Nos 2 and 6 and in opposition to amendment No 3. Amendment No 2 is straightforward. It broadens the guidance on practicality to cover academic work, play, sport and outdoor learning. That is sensible, and we can support it. Amendment No 6 is similar. It is a technical addition to link guidance to Key Stages; again, there is no difficulty there. The real battle is over amendment Nos 3 and 4. At Consideration Stage, we agreed a strong package to end the rip-off of single-supplier arrangements and the sweetheart deals that some schools and suppliers enjoy at families' expense. Schools would have been required to ensure that at least one independent retailer could sell every item, and they had to publish their supplier contracts. That is how you bring real competition into the system and stop families being ripped off.

Amendment No 4 is offered as a replacement, but it is clearly weaker. It allows exclusive supplier deals to continue so long as a school says that a deal offers value for money. The Minister made a case about having listened to experts and about experts having said that the term "declaration" has a legal meaning that means that schools would have to provide evidence of value for money, but I do not accept that. I am not an expert, but for the ordinary person on the street, the word "declaration" has a particular meaning, and it does not mean, in any definition that I have seen, that the school would have to provide evidence.

That, therefore, is not real accountability; it is a loophole, and the sweetheart deals could effectively continue, as will the rip-offs. Parents will be left carrying the cost. Families are watching the debate. They want to know whether we in the Assembly are serious about cutting costs or whether we are content to let schools and suppliers carry on as before. Our job is to stand with those families, and that means keeping the protections and provisions that were agreed at the previous stage. I agree with the other Members who said today that we have lost an opportunity. There is a missed opportunity. We had a real chance of bringing forward a strong and robust piece of legislation that would have driven down the cost of uniforms and made them more affordable for hard-pressed families. Unfortunately, the Bill has been weakened to such an extent that we are not confident that that will happen.

Mr Speaker: I call the Minister to make his winding-up speech.

Mr Givan: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I will go straight to some of the comments and questions that Members raised in order to aid them in their consideration of how they will vote.

I welcome Mr Mathison's approach to play-based learning. He could have taken the view that the amendment that he tabled on that had to stand and that he was right, but he has actually listened to how we can make legislation more effective. He has reflected on that and acknowledged that, actually, the amendment that I tabled broadens the provision on that as well. That is a demonstration of an MLA who can bring forward an idea, get support in the Assembly, which I objected to at the time but have now refined, and recognise that it will make the Bill better. That is what Members are meant to do. I am concerned, though, that some MLAs come in with a predetermined position and a script that they already have and from which they will not deviate. They acknowledge that they are not experts, but the ordinary person on the street will not know what a declaration means. Take advice from the experts. Do not necessarily take advice from me if you do not want to, but take it from the experts who actually know what they are talking about in those areas.

Mr Sheehan acknowledged in the previous debate that legislators make mistakes and that it happens all over the world as though it is OK for us to continue doing that. He has an opportunity, and Sinn Féin has an opportunity, to actually put effective law into place, which I believe that those in that party all want to do. I believe that they want the legislation to be effective, but, for whatever reason, on a couple of amendments, they are determined to say, "I am going to get my way, and I am not going to listen to the Minister."

Mr Sheehan: I just do not think that you are serious. Will the Minister give way?

Mr Givan: Mr Sheehan has made the point for me from a sedentary position. He would rather make a point than listen to the experts. I will give way to the Member in a moment.

I welcome that approach to play-based learning, therefore. Mr Mathison has rightly identified the issue on the declaration and value for money. I have highlighted why a school manager, who is responsible for getting in the uniform, could just make a declaration and say, "We have value for money" without having to provide any evidence. I tabled an amendment that will actually ensure that they have to provide evidence of that. My amendment is stronger than the position that Sinn Féin and the SDLP outlined. They want to let schools off the hook, and I do not know why — maybe it is because they have a misconception about my motivations. I will say this to them: listen, you are going to let schools off the hook by not supporting the amendment on this issue if that is the approach that you take. Evidence will be required. I assure Mr Mathison that I will ensure that we affirm that providing such evidence will be required and that that will be placed into the guidance.

Daniel McCrossan spoke on behalf of the SDLP and, again, outlined the fact that he does not want loopholes and or vague wording in amendment No 3. I am sorry; he is not actually in the Chamber. OK. If that is the case, the SDLP will vote against those amendments. When it comes to it, it will vote to stop getting clear legislation in place and will seek to retain vagueness and loopholes, such as a loophole that means that a school can declare that it has achieved value for money without having evidence of that. Those were the two main points about that group.

Mr Sheehan: I thank the Minister for giving way. One of the reasons why we are so sceptical is that there was so little integrity in the process. The only real integrity in the whole process came into it at the Committee Stage, because we were misled on a number of occasions. We were told that guidelines were imminent and that they would be with us the following week, but they never arrived. Of course, Minister, you gave a different account of that at Consideration Stage, during which you said that the guidelines would follow the legislation. We were misled in that sense.

Other issues have arisen. For example, Minister, half an hour before Consideration Stage, you called the Chair of the Committee in to ask him to withdraw the Committee amendments, but you did so in the knowledge that he could not do that. There is no point in saying, "Trust me". Trust has to be built, and you did not try to build a relationship with the Committee in any way during the whole process. I reiterate this point: there has been a lack of integrity at every single stage of the process, except the Committee Stage.

Mr Givan: The Member is absolutely flat-out wrong. I appreciate that he has never been a Minister in the Executive. I do not think that anyone currently on the Sinn Féin Benches has ever been a Minister, but some of them have been the Chair or Deputy Chair of a Committee, and they know how the process works. This discussion might be more for the Final Stage of the Bill, because we have not talked about the actual amendments; it has been more about sentiment and concern about the process. However, when a Bill is brought to the Executive, all Executive parties participate in that and see what is in it. They are given the opportunity to ask for information, as the First Minister often does, and to seek to shape the legislation. Every Executive party — I will give the SDLP a bye ball on this, because it is not on the Executive — had an opportunity to shape the Bill. It was then introduced in the Assembly and voted on at Second Stage, and it was voted through. There was absolute integrity in the progress of the Bill through the various stages of Assembly scrutiny. When I was able to provide information to the Committee, I did so as soon as I could.

I could not engage with the Committee Chair or Deputy Chair until I knew what amendments had been selected at Consideration Stage. I was not aware of that until the Friday evening or Saturday morning, when Consideration Stage was to take place on Monday. I immediately put pen to paper and advised the Committee. Similarly, when it came to Further Consideration Stage, as soon as I could table the amendments, in advance of the Speaker's selection of amendments — he did not select some of them — I sent a letter to the Committee to advise it at an early opportunity, saying, "Here are the amendments and the reasons for them". I have sought to engage with the Committee throughout the process. My officials have always been available to the Committee collectively and, indeed, to individual members. I reject Mr Sheehan's assertion.

I appeal to Members to reflect on the substance of what we are debating and our role as MLAs. We are here to put into law clear wording that gives effect to what we want to do. I believe that we all want to make good legislation on this matter. The four amendments in group 2 that we debated seek only to provide greater legislative clarity in the language used and through the placing of provisions in the Bill. Amendment Nos 2 and 6 address an amendment from Consideration Stage by providing language that is more consistent with existing legislation, the Bill and day-to-day school practice. They deliver the intent from Consideration Stage that school uniform should support pupil learning. They place the explicit reference to "Foundation Stage" in a more appropriate clause in the Bill, which provides powers for differentiation, as needed, across school types, pupil age groups and, as the amendment makes explicit, Key Stages.

When taken together, amendment Nos 3 and 4 move provisions that were voted on at Consideration Stage from clause 2 to a separate clause with a heading that signposts their purpose. Amendment No 4 further tidies language whilst delivering the Consideration Stage intention to limit or rule out single suppliers unless they demonstrate value for money and to ensure that information about any agreements that a school enters into is published unless they are put in place before the Bill comes into operation. That refines the Bill and ensures greater legal clarity in order to deliver the intention of the House. I commend those amendments to Members. Voting in support of them will demonstrate that we can work together and take our collective responsibility to the statute book seriously, and that we can deliver good legislation that is fit for purpose.

In conclusion, I will come back to my opening point, which was that my reason for introducing this legislation — indeed, Mr Mathison described the same objective, which he has shared throughout the process — was to address the affordability of school uniforms for parents and families who I know are struggling with the cost of living. This Bill will make a difference. If it passes Final Stage, it will make a difference to the cost of school uniforms from the 2026-27 academic year. I thank each Member for their contribution. I look forward to receiving the House's support when voting for these technical amendments. Doing so will put families first. Fundamentally, that is what the legislation is all about.

Mr Speaker: I remind Members that amendment No 11 is linked to amendment No 1 and offers alternative wording in a different place in the Bill.

Mr Speaker: That concludes the Further Consideration Stage of the School Uniforms (Guidelines and Allowances) Bill. The Bill stands referred to the Speaker.

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

Mr Speaker: I ask Members to take their ease while we make a change at the Table.

Mrs Dillon: I beg to move

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Linda. The Business Committee has agreed to allow up to one hour and 30 minutes for the debate. The proposer of the motion will have 10 minutes in which to propose and 10 minutes in which to make a winding-up speech. As an amendment has been selected and is published on the Marshalled List, the Business Committee has agreed that 15 minutes will be added to the total time for the debate. Linda, please open the debate on the motion.

Mrs Dillon: Go raibh maith agat, a Phríomh-LeasCheann Comhairle.

I propose the motion and accept the amendment that our Alliance colleagues have tabled.

I must be honest and say that the issue makes me really angry. I am angry on behalf of the many women and girls who have been disbelieved about their real and severe pain, which is minimised, discarded and ignored. Endometriosis is not rare; it is a serious, chronic disease that affects at least one in 10 women, and we know that it affects probably more than that. It tears lives apart and causes excruciating pain, infertility, internal scarring and damage to organs. The disease affects every element of life: education, employment, fertility and relationships. What is the response from our health systems? Women wait years just to get a diagnosis, and treatment plans are either non-existent or far from the recommended standard of best practice. That is not good healthcare; it is cruelty.

I have sat in rooms across this island with women who have told their stories of suffering with endometriosis through tears, anger and exhaustion. Girls are told to tough it out. Similar words were used recently on the issue of women's health by a certain US president. Women are forced on to the pill for years to mask the pain, not treat it, and undergo unnecessary surgeries. Expert evidence says that short-term treatment options — ablation surgery, chemical menopause and contraceptives — mask the disease and allow it to spread, often with significant damage to organs, including the bowel and bladder. All those options are still offered as first- and second-line management of the condition. There are women who had no choice but to leave this island and spend thousands of pounds to undergo major surgery abroad because there was nowhere here for them to turn. That is the reality for thousands of women across the island today.

This is not just about endometriosis; it is about how women's health is treated across the board, how pain is minimised and symptoms are dismissed and the fact that there are no services, with women left to rot on waiting lists. It is about a health system that still treats women as an afterthought, and that needs to end.

The motion is a demand for justice and dignity and for women to no longer be left behind. International best practice is crystal clear: the gold standard is specialist-led excision surgery delivered within a full multidisciplinary team (MDT). That means proper imaging, pain specialists, colorectal and urology care, fertility services and psychological support all working together. The women on this island deserve nothing less.

I understand that the Minister and his Department are under pressure not only financially but due to the number of specialist surgeons and specialist nurses who are required. The obvious answer is to work together, North and South and across these islands, to pool expertise, share infrastructure and make sure that, no matter where you live on this island, you get the same care. That is what an all-island health service should look like. It is not just sensible; it is urgent. The same challenges are faced.

I welcome the Alliance amendment on the women's health action plan; in fact, this is exactly the kind of case that proves why a women's health action plan is so desperately needed, not as a glossy document that gathers dust on a shelf — I appreciate that the Minister has outlined that that is why he wants it to be an action plan — but as a living plan with targets, timelines and accountability that delivers change for women.

Sinn Féin is fighting for action on endometriosis and women's health across the island. In the Dáil, we have taken the issue directly to the Minister for Health. We have stood with women outside Leinster House. We have forced the issue on to the agenda, and we will do the same here.

Women have waited long enough. Their lives have been put on hold long enough. Every month that passes without action means more women and young girls suffering in agony, more women having fertility problems and more families broken by the silent suffering that the disease inflicts. I ask the Health Minister to listen and to act. Do not leave those women floundering, relying on Facebook pages to get advice on how to cope — not to thrive but just to cope. I ask Members to stand with those women, support the motion and the amendment and send a clear message by calling on the Minister and the Department to bring forward a specialist service with targets for diagnosis and treatment; work with your counterparts in Dublin to build a joined-up, all-island approach that uses every ounce of the expertise that we have for better outcomes; and bring forward a women's health action plan as a matter of absolute urgency.

Women here have been ignored for far too long, and their pain has been written off. They have been made to feel invisible. Today, we have a chance to change that. The motion must be more than words on a page. I know that motions are non-binding, but, Minister, you can choose to be bound; you can choose to do something. If you truly want to tackle health inequalities, give us the plan that shows us that women's health and well-being matters and that it will not be only the women who have the financial means who get the treatment and care that is so badly needed.

I reached out to a number of women and girls whom I have been in touch with over the past few years — I know that all Members have been in touch with many women in this circumstance — and asked them for their thoughts on what they would like to be reflected today. They are the ones who are living it. It is they who will suffer if nothing is done, but it is they who will benefit if we get it right. Olivia said that we need:

Cara told me about having to go private to be seen, having to attend A&E on a number of occasions and being discharged with pain relief that made her sick and did not deal with the excruciating pain. She said:

Anne was a teacher who was passionate about her job and her students. She had to leave her job and was left almost completely immobile as a result of endometriosis. She wrote this to her younger self:

That is only a short excerpt of a brave, articulate, heartbreaking letter written by an amazing woman who became a shell of herself and had to spend thousands of pounds to go to England for surgery to try to become the woman that she wanted to be and was meant to be — the mother, the wife and the daughter that she aspired to be — and not the burden that, she felt, she had become. I urge you all to read that letter. The Minister's officials were given a copy of it at an event in the Long Gallery.

I will finish with the words of Mary Lee, a Monaghan-born woman who became one of the most fearless suffrage campaigners over a century ago. She said:

Today, I am protesting, not for the sake of protest but in the genuine hope that the Minister, our health service and our clinicians will work together to do better for women with endometriosis right across this island.

Miss McAllister: I beg to move the following amendment:

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: You will have 10 minutes to propose the amendment and five minutes in which to make a winding-up speech. All other Members who are called to speak will have five minutes.

Miss McAllister: Thank you, Principal Deputy Speaker, and thanks to my colleagues for tabling the motion. We are absolutely going to support it, and I think that it is a very worthwhile topic for focus in the Assembly Chamber. Apologies. Can I have a moment, please, Principal Deputy Speaker?

First and foremost, I want to say that around one in 10 women here suffers from endometriosis, but we know that those statistics are quite low compared with the true number. We know that there are many women who are yet to be diagnosed and treated for endometriosis and that specialists in endometriosis care simply do not exist. Minister, I have been working for the past few months with a number of medical professionals in the Belfast Trust, and I have brought this debate to you on many occasions, both in the Health Committee and in the Assembly Chamber. The issue of the diagnosis and treatment of endometriosis goes much beyond one trust, but we know that, in one trust, there is what amounts to what I can describe as medical misogyny. There is currently a robotics device that sits in the Belfast Trust that is used primarily to treat men. I am not saying that they should not be treated, but the statistics on the vulnerabilities and inequalities around women's health are overwhelming. In the past two years, over 600 men have been treated using that robotics device but under 50 women, despite medical professionals in the Belfast Trust telling us that they have banged down the door every year asking that they have more access to it. It is not about specialist training or about the availability of consultants. It exists, and it could treat endometriosis. We know that it can assist in hysterectomies, and we know that it can treat gynaecological cancers. I hope today, Minister, that you are able to actually answer the questions that I have brought to you on this issue.

Moving on to the debate on the motion itself, I will highlight a number of points that Mrs Dillon made. I will not reiterate them, but I want to pick up on some of the words that she used: "dismissed", "ignored" and "belittled". We have all heard those more than once today. We have all heard those words in our constituency offices, we have heard them in Committees and we have heard them on the doorsteps. Too many women are suffering from this every single day. Imagine, every single day, waking up in extreme pain, not knowing what it is about. For those who have had a diagnosis, imagine waking up in pain and also bleeding every single day but still having to look after your children, still having to go to work and still trying to have a social life, have friends and be happy, masking the fact that there are other issues going on. That is the case for many women here in Northern Ireland. Too many women are forced to go to GPs, to A&E and to gynaecologists to try to understand and figure out exactly what is wrong, and they cannot get an official diagnosis. We know that many today, who are making their first appointment with a GP, will wait upwards of nine years. They are faced with endless tests, they are faced with waiting lists and they are often faced with medical gaslighting: professionals telling them that there is nothing wrong and that the severe pain that they are experiencing is normal and is just what it is like to be a woman. That is why it is so important that medical professionals receive the proper training and education, and that is why, Minister, we want that specialist training and service to exist right across Northern Ireland today so that women do not have to wait for years to get medical help.

I thank the proposer of the motion for highlighting the experience of a number of her constituents. I was going to mention some as well, but I start by thanking my party leader, Naomi Long, for speaking out and sharing her experience of endometriosis, because, like too many women, she had to wait almost two decades before receiving a diagnosis, and it was received only after she had collapsed in severe pain. Sometimes, it is important for people to speak out, but some women feel that it is a private issue. I say to them that they should not be ashamed or hide behind their door. Speak out and advocate. We will continue to do so for you.

I am glad that we will get a ministerial response to the debate. I want to see how we can move forward right across Northern Ireland. As I mentioned, this is not just about Belfast or my constituency but about every single woman in every trust area in Northern Ireland. Unfortunately, as we have seen with breast cancer and gynae waiting lists, treatment really can be a postcode lottery.

We tabled the amendment not to detract or take away from the motion but simply to add to it. The first motion that the Alliance Party chose for debate when the Assembly returned was on a women's health action plan. At the time, we said that it was important to have a strategy and to have statistics but that it was also important to have an achievable outcome. Robin Swann, the Minister of Health at the time, said that he would bring forward the women's health action plan that was being developed. That was on 13 February last year. A year and a half on, and, despite hope being given at the time, we have still not seen an action plan.

I thank Queen's University and the Derry Well Woman Centre for the survey that they are undertaking on a women's health action plan. It was the Department of Health that commissioned it. Women, however, have been surveyed for decades. They have spoken up and shouted, and the community and voluntary sector has carried out surveys that reveal what we all have said for years: we do not need or want platitudes; seven-year waits are not good enough; living in crippling pain is not good enough; and being dismissed is not good enough. Women have had enough. The process is being dragged out for far too long.

We understand that, although the action plan is important, it alone will not deliver. Every organisation and every trust must work together. As we highlight the issue in the Chamber today, however, the reality is that women and girls in our society are struggling to use their voice to fight for their health. Hopefully, after today, we will see urgent action taken that will result in a women's health action plan and then see its actions implemented. I am thankful that the voice of every woman who has been mentioned so far today has now been heard in the Chamber. It is important that we all work together so that all those women can receive a diagnosis and access the treatment that they need.

Mr Robinson: Data suggests that one in 10 women in Northern Ireland is affected by the condition. From my maths, that translates as approximately 96,000 women living with a condition that currently has no cure. The figures are very similar to the UK average. It is further estimated that around 200 million women worldwide are affected, yet endometriosis remains one of the most common conditions that women face without its attracting the high-profile public attention that other conditions tend to attract.

The problem with endometriosis is with the diagnosis. It is shocking that it can take eight or nine years from the onset of symptoms for a woman to receive a formal diagnosis. In Northern Ireland, that is compounded by already-long waiting lists, with some patients even reporting that their symptoms have been misdiagnosed for many years. There is no specialist centre operating in the Province, so the problem is compounded even further. Any delay in receiving a diagnosis can lead to worsening symptoms, permanent organ damage and even infertility. There is no doubt that endometriosis is a chronic and debilitating condition that has profound physical, emotional and social implications for those who are affected. It is a disease — I have to be graphic — in which tissue, similar to the lining of the uterus, grows outside the uterus, often on the ovaries, the fallopian tubes or the bowel. That tissue tends to behave as it would inside the uterus — it thickens, breaks down and often bleeds — but it has no way to exit the body, so it can cause severe inflammation, scar tissue formation, adhesions and often extreme pelvic pain.

Anxiety and depression are said to be very common amongst those living with the condition due to the constant pain and the frustration of trying to obtain a diagnosis. Women with the condition suffer from intense chronic pain that can make everyday activities, such as work, socialising and even basic self-care, feel impossible. Those symptoms can lead to absenteeism from work and school, which, in turn, has an obvious impact on the economy.

Research tends to show that excision surgery, which involves the removal of tissue, is the most effective treatment for women with the condition, offering them better long-term outcomes. It is clear that specialist care is key to managing the condition effectively, and that the current system in Northern Ireland falls far short of offering the required levels of specialist service. Women who are affected want to see investment in the creation of specialist clinics to provide expert care. In areas of the UK, including Scotland and Wales, accredited specialist care has been shown to improve outcomes, including better public awareness.

As with the issue of the chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cells that we debated last week, Northern Ireland should not be left behind. As I said in last week's health debate, we have some of the very best hospitals; in fact, some are world class. We also have world-class staff. We should, therefore, be on a par with the very best.

Given the importance of the issue, we felt that the original motion was a little bit narrow in scope. Although we support cross-border cooperation, we need to ensure that women have the best care here locally, wherever and however possible.

Mr Chambers: I welcome the opportunity that motions such as this give us to discuss and highlight important medical issues faced by citizens across Northern Ireland. Endometriosis is not a rare or fringe condition but one that affects a great number of women: our mothers, daughters, sisters, colleagues and friends. However, for far too long, their pain was often minimised or misunderstood. The condition can mean years of severe pain, repeated hospital visits and the very real fear and anxiety about the hugely sensitive issue of fertility, and yet, as the motion highlights, there are still challenges with finally getting a diagnosis.

We know that our health service is under immense pressure, but women's voices in decades gone by were not always listened to. That must change, and, thankfully, it is changing. There is now much better awareness and understanding of the condition compared with even a relatively small number of years ago. Awareness is growing. Health professionals and patients have worked tirelessly to ensure that the condition is no longer dismissed as just bad periods but is recognised as the serious health condition that it is. That change in understanding has given hope to thousands.

I commend the women who have spoken out about their experiences. Campaigners and charities, including many here in Northern Ireland, have done so much to raise awareness and push the condition up the public and political agenda. Their work has brought us to the much higher level of understanding that there is today. With improved awareness has come improved outcomes: diagnosis is now an alternative to the endless years of uncertainty that many once endured. Better treatment pathways, supported by research and investment, are allowing patients to manage their condition more effectively. Workplaces and schools are also beginning to adapt and are acknowledging the reality of the condition, offering flexibility and support.

Of course, there is still much more to be done, which is why I welcome the efforts that are under way in the Department of Health. The upcoming publication of the women's health action plan will be an important step. I very much welcome the other, wider efforts that are already under way, not least those informed by the getting it right first time (GIRFT) review.

Of course, women's health is about so much more than one condition. It must be part of a much-needed, broader recognition that women's health matters and must be central to health policy in Northern Ireland. From this condition to menopause and fertility services, we need to listen and continue to act where necessary. I am confident that Minister Nesbitt is across the issues.

Ms McLaughlin: A few months ago, I joined other Members in a round-table discussion in the Long Gallery on endometriosis hosted by the all-party group (APG) on women's health. On that day, I heard some of the most heartbreaking stories from women living with the condition, one of which — Anne's story — Linda read out today. That was absolutely heartbreaking. There was not a dry eye in the room. Every story was different, but one thing was consistent: those women were being failed by our health service. They were told that their pain was not real, that it was in their head or that it was just women's things. Some even underwent surgery in an attempt to ease their pain only to be left in unimaginable agony.

As the motion states, at least one in 10 women across the island lives with endometriosis. That represents over 200,000 women across the island, which is a significant number. Yet, it can take up to 10 years on average for a diagnosis. Think about that: a decade or more of lost education, missed work, disrupted family life and untreated suffering.

For me, this is very personal. I first experienced my symptoms back in the 1980s, when I was 16. I was not diagnosed until the 1990s at the age of 27. Tragically, as I listened to people discussing their situation in 2025, I found that nothing had changed. When you look at the advancements in healthcare from the 1980s and 1990s to today, you see that the world is unrecognisable but that things in women's healthcare have not changed. That is just a tragedy.

The economic cost is also enormous. Studies across the UK and Ireland have shown that delayed diagnosis and inadequate treatment lead to repeated GP visits, hospital admissions, lost productivity and workforce absenteeism. It sometimes keeps families in poverty, because there is a real barrier for women in going to work and contributing. Every year of untreated endometriosis represents a real financial and social cost to society. International comparisons show that, when specialist-led, multidisciplinary care is available, outcomes improve dramatically. Countries such as Germany, the Netherlands and Australia have structured care pathways that reduce the time to diagnosis and improve treatment success.

They are chronic diseases that, when left undiagnosed and untreated, have absolutely life-changing impacts. Women in Northern Ireland deserve nothing less than structured care pathways. Specialist-led excision surgery that is delivered in a multidisciplinary model provides the best outcomes. That is the standard that women here should have access to. It means that we need specialised services, clear targets for diagnosis and treatment and a recognition that endometriosis is a serious, chronic disease.

The issue highlights something that is even bigger: the systemic failure in women's healthcare. Women's healthcare is the poor relation of the health system. There is no doubt about that. Women's health is not prioritised and does not get investment. We are the only region across these islands without a women's healthcare strategy. Yes, an action plan is great and is welcome, but it is no substitute for long-term commitment, accountability and structural change.

The cost of doing nothing in lost productivity, repeated interventions and human suffering is far greater than the cost of investing in care now. Surveys from Nothing About Us Without Us and Derry Well Women show that women are not listened to, their pain is minimised and services are often inaccessible. Almost 80% of women reported feeling unheard by health professionals, and more than 30% said that the services that they needed were "inaccessible" or "very inaccessible". Better women's health means earlier diagnosis, fewer emergencies, fewer repeat interventions —

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Time is up, Sinéad.

Ms McLaughlin: — and women being able to participate fully in education, work and family life. We must do better, and I look forward to hearing the Minister's response.

Mr McGuigan: It is estimated that endometriosis affects one in 10 women and girls, which is higher than the number affected by diabetes. I know that everybody has used that statistic in their contribution. I was going to take it out of mine, but it does no harm to reiterate how common the condition is in women and girls across the island. To be honest, until I moved to the Committee for Health in February, I knew little or nothing about it. It is important that debates such as this highlight not only the exact nature of the condition but, more important, what needs to be done to help the women and girls across the island who are suffering.

I listened to Sinéad, and I heard Naomi Long on social media last night. Their contributions and those of the individuals whose words Linda read out are vital to the conversation, with women and girls identifying for themselves the exact nature of the condition, how it has affected them and the barriers to treatment and living a full life. For many years, many of them have been dismissed or misdiagnosed and, in some cases, have had no option but to borrow or spend money to access the tests and treatment that they needed to manage the debilitating and chronic condition. As others have said, most wait almost a decade for a proper diagnosis. That is absolutely unacceptable and points to a wider systemic failure in women's healthcare. I welcome the debate on the motion that we have tabled. I also welcome the Alliance amendment calling on the Minister to urgently bring forward the women's health action plan.

As we have heard, endometriosis can have a profound impact on every aspect of a woman's life — work, education and relationships — and has implications for organ health and fertility. The lack of awareness and expertise in the area does not just delay diagnosis but adds to the mental and emotional toll of living with constant pain and uncertainty. We understand that many of the symptoms can vary and overlap with other conditions and that there are limited non-invasive diagnostic methods. That is why it is vital that we have a sufficient number of trained professionals who understand the condition and can provide timely referrals, proper imaging, speedy treatment and aftercare pathways — not the painkillers-and-platitudes approach that many women who have shared their stories have experienced.

International best practice is clear: specialist-led excision surgery delivered through a multidisciplinary model of care gives women and girls the best chance of having a good, pain-free quality of life. I welcome the Minister's recognition that women's healthcare must be given more focus and the fact that work is under way to reduce waiting times and develop a standardised regional pathway for patients with diagnoses of minor, intermediate or severe endometriosis. We also welcome the establishment of the regional Health and Social Care (HSC) gynaecology services forum, which oversees the implementation of the Getting It Right First Time report. I ask Minister to provide in his response an update on the progress of the recommendations in the report.

To be clear, there is a need for urgency. According to the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists' elective care recovery tracker, there are close to 60,000 patients on the gynae waiting list, with 32,000 of them waiting for more than 52 weeks. We can all acknowledge the challenges in our health service, but women cannot continue to be failed. This is about meeting a basic healthcare need and, as my party colleague rightly said, about fairness and dignity. Medical professionals who want to specialise in the condition must, where possible, be supported to undertake additional specialist training, but, ultimately, we need to see progress beyond reports and recommendations. We need to see the delivery and action that women and girls across the island deserve.

Ms Brownlee: I welcome the opportunity to speak on such a deeply important issue: how the lived experience of women and girls in Northern Ireland who are suffering with reproductive health conditions like polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) and endometriosis is being routinely dismissed and neglected.

Today, I want to tell a story about one of my constituents, Sophie, who has gone through years of physical pain, emotional distress and institutional failure. Sophie is one of many, but we know that her words speak for thousands. From the age of 18, she knew that something was not right. She was dealing with irregular periods, painful periods and extremely heavy periods. She went to her GP again and again asking for answers, only to be told that she was on a waiting list, but she then found out that she had never been referred. In 2021, after scraping together enough money to go private, she was finally diagnosed with PCOS, but, by then, the pain had worsened. Year after year, she ended up presenting at A&E multiple times in agony, but she was met with comments like, "Is it just a bad period?", or, "Have you tried a hot-water bottle or a warm bath?". She was truly heartbroken and felt that there was nowhere else to turn.

After her diagnosis, a consultant suggested further investigation, but, frankly, she just could not afford it. When she finally got private healthcare through her job, she was told by a doctor that she would not be considered for treatment — quote — "while you are this obese". That beautiful girl was 12 stone. At her most desperate, she asked to have her ovaries removed and was told no, because she was not married. She tried everything to be taken seriously, including weight-loss injections. She lost four and a half stone, went back to the same doctor and was still turned away. She was offered the pill and sent out the door. She saved again to go back to her original private doctor and begged for investigative surgery, because she feared that she had endometriosis. The doctor was not convinced, but, to give her peace of mind, he agreed. She had surgery, and the surgeon confirmed that she had been right all along. Her endometriosis was extensive and aggressive. It was so severe, in fact, that her internal organs were fusing together. She went through years of pain and years of being dismissed and gaslit by a system that should have helped her. That was not a failure of communication; it was a failure of care.

Sophie is not standing alone. She is sharing her story and has built a community of women across Northern Ireland who have gone through exactly the same thing. They have been dismissed, ignored, told that they were overreacting and even told that it was anxiety or depression and to get therapy instead of receiving real medical care. Many have waited six, eight or even 10 years for that diagnosis. Minister, we all feel that that is unacceptable. Women and girls in Northern Ireland deserve better. They deserve access to timely, accurate information about their bodies. They deserve medical staff who understand their conditions and do not treat pain as an exaggeration or a nuisance. They deserve care that is based on need, not weight, status or stereotypes.

That failure is not only a personal cost; it has wider economic consequences. Women are missing school, university and work. Many are forced to reduce hours or leave employment entirely, and the financial barrier to private healthcare creates inequalities in who gets heard and who does not. I really welcome the beginning of the real conversations about how we can educate people — medical professionals and our communities — about the conditions. My constituent is eager to meet and discuss how she can create a model of practice and a framework that can guide how health is treated in both education and healthcare, because no woman should be told, "You are too fat for treatment", no woman should ever be told that she cannot have surgery because she is not married, and no woman should have to beg to be believed about her pain. I welcome the fact that we are discussing this today, and I hope that it is only the beginning. Women in Northern Ireland have waited long enough.

Ms Murphy: I support the motion on endometriosis care that my party colleagues tabled. It is an urgent and deeply personal issue that affects the lives of thousands of women across this island. We know that endometriosis is a chronic condition that affects at least one woman in 10, but all the stats in the world cannot capture the lived reality for young women who begin to experience that debilitating illness in their early teenage years.

Puberty is already a confusing time for young women, but those who suffer from endometriosis have to cope with enormous and reoccurring changes to their bodies that impact on most aspects of their lives. Couple that with the excruciating pain and symptoms of endometriosis, and it is a lot to ask any young woman to handle. In many cases, it leads to many years of missing school, missing university, not competing in sports, not having hobbies, not having a social life and having to withdraw from their normal daily life any time that they have a period.

Endometriosis involves not just painful periods. It can have other consequences, such as infertility, internal scarring and organ damage. For a condition that affects so many, it is woefully difficult to get a timely diagnosis and access to proper care. I have constituents, friends and family members who have been told that their pain is normal. They are asked to distrust their own instincts, ignore the warnings from their own body and live with a constant cycle of agony. That is not just the reality in one or two isolated cases but the reality for most sufferers, and it points to a systemic failure in women's healthcare.

Supporting the motion is about changing the culture in healthcare so that women are not left fighting to be believed. Women deserve specialist-led services, targets and timely diagnosis, as well as a joined-up approach that utilises all the resources across this island.

Mrs Cameron: I welcome the opportunity to speak in this important debate, and I also welcome the participation of men across the Chamber. Although women are absolutely affected by this condition, it is really important that it not be seen as a women's issue for women to deal with. It is a problem for every one of us, and we should all take responsibility. I therefore welcome the participation of men in the debate.

Women do not have it easy throughout their physical lives, from periods and infertility to childbirth and menopause, and everything in between. The very least that women deserve is to be able to access appropriate, timely, compassionate healthcare when they need it most.

Endometriosis is a profoundly painful and debilitating disease that can significantly limit mobility and affect vital organs. The reality is stark. We still do not know what causes endometriosis, and there is currently no known cure. That is no comfort to the one in 10 women who are living with this life-altering condition. Treatment can help manage the symptoms, particularly the chronic and often unbearable pain, yet it is wholly unacceptable that women in Northern Ireland continue to face such pain and distress without having access to the appropriate and necessary clinical services.

I cannot imagine what it must feel like to live with the condition and then to be told that the average wait for a diagnosis is nine and a half years. That is utterly unacceptable and intolerable. There is a pressing need for a UK-wide strategy: one that equips the NHS with endo-experienced surgeons, fertility specialists, mental health professionals and pain management experts. Women deserve no less as they navigate what is often a devastating and isolating journey. The consequences of delayed diagnosis and inadequate care are clear. Long waits worsen health outcomes. They mean more time off work or school, more familial and financial strain and more invasive medical interventions. Put simply, the earlier that a condition such as endometriosis is diagnosed and treated, the sooner that women can reclaim their lives.

I quote the words of those who understand the impact of endometriosis best: our clinicians. The president of the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists said:

In addition to the personal toll, there is a serious economic consequence. Without adequate support, many women are forced to take extended leave from work or, in some cases, leave employment entirely. There is an urgent need for better, more accurate and more timely information for women and girls in Northern Ireland. It is simply unacceptable that so many are left feeling anxious, unsupported and forced to conduct their own research just to access basic care.

Most women are not asking for very much. They simply want to be listened to, believed and respected. The DUP has consistently called for greater support for endometriosis services, menopause care and perinatal health services. Too many women report that they visit their GP fearing that they will not be taken seriously, and, too often, sadly, they are right. Women in Northern Ireland deserve an appropriate care pathway backed by proper funding and specialist-led services. We therefore support the call for the Health Minister to urgently consider providing a specialist service in line with international best practice. That includes excision surgery delivered within a multidisciplinary care model, which has been shown to deliver best outcomes.

As my colleague Alan Robinson said, we also support cross-border cooperation to share expertise and best practice and to improve access to treatment. However, we must also ensure that high-quality care is available locally, here in Northern Ireland. No woman should have to travel overly long distances just to receive the standard of care that she should expect at home.

We owe it to every woman who has suffered in silence for far too long to finally act. Women should not have to fight for support, wait nearly a decade for diagnosis or be left to navigate the condition on their own. The care that they need exists; what is missing is delivery. The Department of Health must do better. Today, I call directly on the Minister of Health to listen to the voices of women across Northern Ireland, prioritise endometriosis care and deliver timely, effective treatment —

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Your time is up, Pam.

Mrs Cameron: — and the specialist services that women not only need but have waited far too long for. They have waited long enough.

Mr Carroll: As we have heard, one in 10 women faces endometriosis, but the figure is likely to be much higher. The cost is some £8·2 billion every year in healthcare costs, loss of work and treatment, and that probably only scratches the surface. Some 95% of those living with endometriosis report that it has a negative impact on their well-being, and, as we have heard, it takes an average of almost 10 years — nine years and five months — to get an endometriosis diagnosis. That is completely unacceptable for all women across the North and across the board.

As with many healthcare issues in the North, those who can afford it are forced to seek private healthcare for a diagnosis and treatment, while those who cannot afford to pay for private healthcare are left to suffer in silence while waiting years for even a simple ultrasound. That is unacceptable. Like other Members, I have spoken to women in my constituency whose endometriosis pain is so severe that they have been forced to go to A&E regularly and repeatedly, and some have had no choice but to give up work while waiting for treatment. That is forced unemployment. For those who suffer from debilitating symptoms, work, education, relationships and caring responsibilities are all impacted. Endometriosis has, in effect, prevented thousands of women across the North from going about their daily lives, something that we all, including me, take for granted.

For hundreds of years, women's pain has been pathologised as emotional or been normalised. As a starting point, we need to challenge that idea. That concept, combined with the underfunding of women's health research and a male-centred biomedical model, has led to a decade-long wait for diagnosis. Again, that is totally unacceptable. Without diagnosis, treatment and management, endometriosis may progress and lead to organs being damaged. Thousands of patients are on gynaecology waiting lists in the North, condemned to years of unnecessary suffering. As we have heard, many women have their symptoms downplayed or dismissed; that seems to happen across the board. Some are told just to get pregnant to fix their symptoms, which is totally unacceptable. Some are incorrectly diagnosed with IBS or are even told that their pain is related to anxiety or depression. Others are passed back and forth from gynae to gastro care. That is anybody's definition of medical gaslighting and is medical misogyny at its finest.

That is not to say that doctors are inherently misogynistic — definitely not. Many are doing the hard work on the ground to improve our health system for women. What it does reflect is the impact of misogyny and women's oppression in every facet of our life. It is still institutionalised and systemic in 2025. Healthcare does not exist in a vacuum. As much as it should be rooted purely in need, evidence, science and treatment outcomes, the history of healthcare is also the history of the humans who shaped it, and they were the product of the society and the conditions they lived under. The same strict gender norms, which were imposed on women and families, ensuring male dominance in society, were written into medicine. Those strict gender rules did not always exist, however, and there was a time when people lived very differently.

It is also worth emphasising that medical myths about gender roles and behaviours were constructed as facts before medicine became a more evidence-based science. Those myths were fundamental to treatment. For example, doctors once believed that women's nerves were too highly strung for them to receive an education and that their ovaries would become inflamed if they read too much. Obviously, that sounds bonkers, but it is not a million miles away from what Trump, Tate and others are saying. Thankfully, even today, we know much more about gender and sexuality. It is concerning, for example, that we live in a world where menstruation and menopause are seen by many people as credible reasons why women should not get certain jobs or hold positions of power. Endometriosis exposes the rotten core of commodified healthcare, long delays in diagnosis, a lack of reliable and accessible specialist services and a two-tier healthcare system in which those who can afford to pay are charged an arm and a leg for basic scans and precarious [Inaudible.]

I am happy to support the motion and the amendment. Thank you.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Gerry. I call the Minister of Health. Minister, you have up to 15 minutes.

Mr Nesbitt (The Minister of Health): Thank you, Principal Deputy Speaker. I am sure that you think that I will start by thanking Members because that is the standard procedure, but I do not think that this was a standard debate. It was a particularly important debate, and I thank Linda Dillon in particular for setting the tone. I am going to read her remarks when they are published in Hansard not because I was not listening but because I was, and I think that they are well worth a second airing. You probably think that I am going to say, "I am well aware of the need to do better in this area", but I know that your reaction to that will be, "Forget the words. Give me actions".

We have 20 actions in the GIRFT gynaecological report from last year. They have all been accepted in principle, so they are departmental policy. I want to see them implemented, but I acknowledge that some will require additional funding, which does not currently exist, and there will be a lead-in time for delivery. For example, I am fully supportive of clinical e-triage, but additional funding will be required to expand consultant sessions to provide the initiative and ensure that patients are seen in the right place at the right time by the most appropriate person. Initiatives such as direct to test, advice and triage will ensure that slots that are available in secondary care are used to their maximum benefit, particularly for complex conditions such as endometriosis.

Regional, standardised clinical criteria and standard operating procedures are being developed. Those will support e-triage and maximise consultant capacity and time. Additional investments are also required to develop gynaecology ambulatory hubs in secondary care. Those hubs will provide consultant and nurse practitioner procedure clinics and will also manage rapid access for women who require assessment and treatment within a short time frame.

Mrs Dillon: I thank the Minister for taking an intervention, because this is an important point. Can we ensure that, when the work is being carried out, there is no continuation of the treatments that are being given that just mask symptoms? We would never say to somebody with cancer, "Take painkillers and hope that you get better," while it is spreading. Let us not put women on the pill or into early medical menopause while the disease is spreading, connecting to and destroying their internal organs.

Mr Nesbitt: I thank the Member for her intervention. Every day is a learning day, and this is a big learning day for me on this issue.

I also advise that gynaecology services in primary elective care have been re-established. They are now at 100% capacity as of 1 April 2025. An additional £1,730,986 of funding has been committed out of the £2·9 million recurrent funding for primary care elective gynaecology pathways. That additional investment will enable over 6,000 patients to be managed by 16 gynaecology GPs with enhanced skills, and that will be across 18 host practices.

As of 31 August, 1,683 patients have been assessed and treated through that service. It is expected that that activity will incrementally increase, with full activity to be delivered by 31 March next year.

Further work is ongoing to explore the transfer of some of the longest waiters in secondary care who meet the criteria for management in the primary care elective service. That work is being undertaken in partnership with the strategic planning and performance group (SPPG), the Gynaecological Collaborative and the GP Federation Support Unit. That pilot will start in the South Eastern Health and Social Care Trust and Belfast Trust areas in the near future, and it will be implemented more widely, should it prove successful. SPPG is also working with the GP Federation Support Unit to map out training requirements. That will enhance the gynae GP enhanced services (ES) workforce to enable additional activity to be delivered in primary care and further reduce pressure on secondary care. Gynaecology services across the region will need to increase their workforce to allow that service reform to take place.

GIRFT recommends that robotic gynaecological surgery should be considered in the management of complex cancer cases. It is envisaged that that will be a regional resource and that sessions will be available for gynaecologists across the Province to enhance their skills and help attract newly trained consultants.

Nuala McAllister made a point about medical misogyny. A gynae robot is in the process of being approved regionally, so that will be a regional resource. It is different from the device in the Belfast City Hospital, which is a urology robot. The use of the gynae robot will be particularly important for complex endometriosis and other gynaecological procedures.

Miss McAllister: I thank the Minister for giving way. At this point, it might be helpful to say that the figures that I stated were incorrect. The numbers of procedures are slightly different. It is important that I highlight that.

I am aware that the robot is for urology. The gynaecology medical professionals also advocated a device, but it was the urology department that succeeded. We were informed that that was because those clinicians were professionally trained to use it, but our investigation found that that was not the case and the gynae department staff were also professionally trained to do so.

Mr Nesbitt: I thank the Member for her intervention. She has put that on the record.

The SPPG has established a regional forum with trust, primary care, Public Health Agency, policy and professional representation. That body will take forward the recommendations. A regional engagement forum is to be established to ensure that patients' voices are heard. Eight regional clinical pathway groups have been established as part of the GIRFT regional group. Those groups will promote consistency and standardisation across gynaecology services. One group is focused on the delivery of the endometriosis pathway and the service needs of patients who present with the condition at primary, secondary and tertiary level.

Members should be aware that the Belfast Trust and the Western Health and Social Care Trust previously held provisional accreditation as a British Society of Gynaecological Endoscopy (BSGE) endometriosis centre and that that accreditation was impacted during COVID. Part of the group's remit will be to determine how quickly accreditation can be achieved again in Northern Ireland, recognising the need to balance theatre capacity for urgent or cancer surgeries with acknowledging our funding constraints. The accreditation of endometriosis centres is a critical aspect of providing high-quality care for patients with that complex condition. The BSGE accredits centres where gynaecologists work in appropriate clinical teams, audit their outcomes and maintain their surgical skills. The accreditation process is designed to maintain high-quality standards of care and ensure that patients have access to specialist treatments.

The regional endometriosis task and finish group is working with GP gynaecology enhanced services to consider which patients can be managed by their GP or transferred to be managed via the gynaecology enhanced primary care service. The activity located in the service will depend on direct access to scanning and procedure facilities. Work is ongoing in each gynaecology condition pathway to set the criteria for referral into the GP enhanced clinics, including for endometriosis. Discussions are also under way to provide secondary care specialist nurses who will in-reach to GP ES that provide procedures such as pessary clinics.

In April this year, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) published an update on the management of endometriosis that recommends the use of relugolix for treating symptoms of endometriosis in adults of reproductive age who have had medical or surgical treatment. I am pleased to advise that that treatment is now available in line with the criteria set out via the process for the managed entry of new medicines on a cost-per-case basis. Individuals who require access to treatment should discuss the matter with their hospital consultant in the first instance, who will then decide whether it is appropriate to make a cost-per-case application.

Current waiting times in secondary care also need to be equalised, with recent information still showing significant variation across the region. That is one area that the newly appointed regional clinical director for elective care is determined to tackle. Examples of scaling up practice include the expansion of additional nurse-led ambulatory and procedure clinics and clinical e-triage protocols, ensuring that women are directed to the right place or diagnostic test at the right time. Improvements in gynaecology services, including the endometriosis service in the short, medium and longer term, will be aided by my recent announcement of 6 May. At that time, I outlined how funding in this year's budget had been invested across three areas of waiting list activities: to expand core capacity to reduce the red flag time-critical gap; to increase core routine capacity; and non-recurrent funding to start tackling the backlog of patient waiting lists. Gynaecology patients will benefit from the additional package of measures within that investment, as the service plans to target long-waiting patients in gynaecology via mega-clinics, waiting list initiatives and additional theatre sessions, as well as targeting red flag and time-critical patients. Between April and July 2025, an additional 1,968 women on secondary care waiting lists have been assessed or treated using waiting list funding at a cost of nearly £1 million. More activity is planned.

The elective care framework implementation and funding plan sets out proposals for how we will systematically tackle the backlog of patients and how we plan to transform services to meet anticipated future demand. Trusts are working with my officials to develop plans for the medium and longer term that will expand gynaecology capacity from primary care through to secondary and tertiary care. That work will take forward the GIRFT recommendations as well as service models, such as integrated gynaecology hubs, that will provide sustained additionality, modernising our services and addressing waiting times. It will also provide additional theatre capacity to ensure that we meet the requirements to secure the two endometriosis centres in Northern Ireland.

Work has commenced with trusts to determine what services are available for the psychological and emotional support of women diagnosed with endometriosis. The role of clinical nurse specialists cannot be overestimated in providing the complete holistic approach that is required. Nurse specialists will signpost patients to services in the community or to their GPs. There are also pathways to refer patients to general, psychological and pain services for further support. The Southern, South Eastern and Northern Trusts have more limited psychological and emotional support services available. However, they also have the ability to refer general psychological and pain services for women who are suffering from endometriosis.

In principle, I am open to exploring cross-border collaboration where there is a clear population health need and a feasible, sustainable proposal that can benefit patients and health systems in both jurisdictions. However, my current preference is to focus on improving capacity and performance in the HSC by implementing the GIRFT recommendations that I referred to. I recognise the need for improved public awareness, information and education on all women's health issues from an early age across the life course. While it is not possible to commit investment to any public awareness campaigns, it is envisaged that the Public Health Agency will work with my Department to deliver what is possible in the area through other means. That will be a key part of the women's health action plan that is being developed. That plan will seek to bring together the range of ongoing developments in women's health. The ongoing work on the GIRFT recommendations and on endometriosis specifically will be an important part of the plan. It will also include other actions and ongoing developments ranging from maternity safety to sexual and reproductive health and cardiovascular health, as well as links with my Live Better initiative, which is trying to address health inequalities.

I know that we have a long way to go to improve gynaecological services in Northern Ireland, with over 54,000 women waiting to access gynaecology outpatient services and over 5,000 women on inpatient and day-case waiting lists. As the Minister, I am determined to deliver significant improvements in that area. I am also determined to deliver the women's health action plan. I would love to give Members a timeline and a deadline for its publication, but I will not do so until I am sufficiently confident that we will deliver on that deadline. I have too long a list of broken deadlines to do that to the House.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Minister.

I call Danny Donnelly to make a winding-up speech on the amendment. Danny, you have five minutes.

Mr Donnelly: Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. Between 2020 and 2023, the average length of time for an endometriosis diagnosis in Northern Ireland increased from eight years and six months to nine years and five months. Women here sit for almost a decade in, as we have heard, debilitating pain and with an increased risk of infertility, internal scarring and organ damage. Nothing is being learned, and the situation is getting worse. Again and again, the Assembly fails women, leaving them behind in comparison with their counterparts elsewhere on these islands.

I was struck by one report, in which a woman was quoted as saying:

I was struck by the lack of regard for women's autonomy over their healthcare. In that case, a woman making a personal medical decision was denied the opportunity to choose. On the other side, women with endometriosis, many of whom want children, are denied autonomy by a failing system that ignores them and leaves them untreated for nearly a decade, causing infertility and robbing them of that choice.

The system as it stands robs women of autonomy over their health, simply because they are women. That is again cemented in the article "Misdiagnosis: The Overlooked Crisis In Women's Health", which speaks of the dismissal of women's pain being widespread and points to endometriosis as being the most frequently misdiagnosed gynaecological condition. The article highlights the fact that 74% of women saw five or more doctors before diagnosis; 47% saw 10 or more; and 78% said that "their concerns were minimised" as "making a fuss". The article reflects on the broader pattern of women's symptoms being downplayed by healthcare professionals as "just normal women's problems". Sit with that for a second: debilitating pain, infertility, internal scarring and organ damage are not "just normal women's problems".

The fact that a person facing a health issue is a woman cannot be used as a reason for delaying care and causing lasting harm. Pain or health concerns should not be considered less because it is a woman who is facing them. That fact, which is out in the open and so often seems prevalent now, shows that there is deeply ingrained medical misogyny. That needs to change.

I recognise that there is a need to speak out, but I also recognise my position. I do not know what it is like to live with the health issues that we are discussing. As a man and a healthcare professional, my role in the debate is to listen, support and make space for the women who know.

I will mention another issue that the British Heart Foundation has raised recently. The Minister is probably aware of its report 'Bias and Biology: The Heart Attack Gender Gap', which highlights the gender inequalities for women who have heart attacks. Women are more likely than men to receive a delayed diagnosis following a heart attack and are less likely than men to receive timely, guideline-indicated treatments following a heart attack. Women thus have a higher mortality rate. That is another clear example of why we need the women's health action plan to include cardiac issues as well as menopause and fertility. The idea that women, rather than men, die from a heart attack because one is treated differently from the other for the condition is horrendous.

I will finish by giving some women's experiences in their own words. On menopause:

Another woman said:

On gynaecology issues:

That is something of a theme: we have heard it again and again today.

On endometriosis:

On the support that is available:

Another stated:

On the change that they wanted to see:

and:

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Danny. I call Órlaithí Flynn to make a winding-up speech on the substantive motion. You have 10 minutes.

Ms Flynn: Go raibh maith agat, a Phríomh-Leas-Cheann Comhairle.

I will wind on the motion and, as the Minister did, thank everybody who spoke in today's debate. It has been genuine and authentic. From their remarks, you can tell that Members, across the Chamber, really care about this issue and, more broadly, about all those issues that impact on women's health.

I also appreciate the Minister's response and remarks. He has already provided some important updates and improvements. Following today's debate, it will be important for Members to follow some of that detail closely, and I am sure that they will. We wish him and all the health and social care staff who will be involved in delivering that work all the best. It will be good for the Health Committee to follow up anyway, and the Chairperson is here beside me. We will follow up on progress and, hopefully, we will be able to support the Minister and all the staff in all the work that will take place in the time ahead. I was really glad to hear about that.

As for the context, the importance of it and the delays, it is already clear that the issue does not affect only a few. We heard some statistics from Members who spoke. In the North, in particular, we are talking about tens of thousands of women. Across the island, we are talking about hundreds of thousands, and when you multiply that across these islands, you see that it is such a big issue that has an impact on so many women.

It has almost become normalised that a woman should live with constant, severe pelvic pain, with internal scarring. We are talking about damage to multiple organs. That is what a lot of women are faced with when they live with that condition, and it does make you wonder. When Danny spoke about inherent misogyny in the health system, it sounded a bit harsh, but when you think about scarring, damaged organs, living in constant pain, and that that has been the accepted way of things for so long, you do think about inherent misogyny in the system and in how the system was designed. Gerry mentioned that in his remarks, too. It is important to reflect on that and to appreciate everything that the Minister is endeavouring to do and take forward to try to make some improvements in that area eventually.

Mr Carroll: I thank the Member for giving way. I did not mention it in my speech, but does the Member agree that what we need to look at is some sort of paid leave for women who are suffering from endometriosis or other conditions? That has happened in Portugal, which allows three days' paid leave per month, and Spain became the first country to offer leave for women who experience menstrual pain. Does the Member agree that that should be looked at as well as the other, more obvious, healthcare measures?

Ms Flynn: Yes, and I thank the Member very much for his intervention. You would have thought that we had planned that, Gerry, because the next remark that I was going to make was about the example of women getting paid leave because they are living with that pain. The example of painful menstrual cycles was a point that I was coming to. A lot of women are dealing with endometriosis and living with that pain, but if it is fobbed off as just a bad period, it makes you reflect on the whole issue. A woman who does not have endometriosis might have to live with a monthly bad period, but when you are living with the additional impact, pain and pressure of having the condition on top of having a monthly menstrual cycle, it is just not fair. Yes, I would absolutely be in support of any measures that support women who are going through that. That is all women. Most women will, obviously, go through a menstrual cycle, but living with endometriosis is an additional burden.

A couple of Members referenced the fact that we are talking about these issues as women's health issues. Let us think about the girls — the children. So many young girls are already battling with the condition and going through that unbearable pain. We are talking about schoolchildren who, in some circumstances, have to miss school because the pain is too much and they cannot get out of bed. Again, that brings it back to how unfair it is for a young girl to live like that, grow into a young woman and, potentially, still not have received a diagnosis or an appropriate care pathway eight, nine or 10 years later. My God. It does not bear thinking about. If you have a daughter, a younger sister, a child or another female close to you in your life, put yourself in their position. I know that people get this, and that is why a lot of work is being done on it. Hopefully, we are making a bit of progress.

One of the women who was living with the pain said that it was so severe that labour pains were easier than endometriosis pain. Any women who are watching this who have gone through labour and contractions will know the pain of that process. I have been through labour — thankfully, I do not have endometriosis — and, as a woman, I cannot imagine how any woman can live with that level of pain on a daily basis. I mean that.

Some of the women whom we heard directly from were spoken about. Linda and Sinéad mentioned the fact that the APG on women's health held a round-table discussion back in March, I think that it was, which was Endometriosis Awareness Month. The Minister kindly sent some of his senior officials who have been heavily involved in the work on this. They genuinely listened to the speakers that day. Olivia, Cara and Anne have been mentioned. It was a brilliant event. We gave the floor over to the women there who had lived experience.

I took something that Sinéad said away with me that day. I do not know whether she mentioned it during or after the meeting, but she spoke about it in her speech today, so I am sure that she will not mind me referencing it. When I left that event, it stuck with me that Sinéad had said that she had lived experience of this 20-plus, or maybe close to 30 years, ago. You could see that she got really frustrated that day because, as she said, nothing had changed since that time. She said, "I am listening to the same conversations and to women sharing the same stories — they are the same horror stories — and nothing has changed". I could sense the genuine frustration of a woman who has lived this and who felt that frustration that day listening to younger and older women. It stuck with me that there has not been a change in that number of years.

That is not to put that burden on our Health Minister, however, who is with us today. He has not held the post for the past 20 years. It is about focusing on how we move dealing with the matter on and how we can try to make women's life better. The Minister mentioned some of the pilot and the gynae robot, and a lot of that sounded really exciting and positive. We need to shift our focus to asking, "How do we move this on? How do we get more women seen to in a timely manner, and how do we try to make their life better so that they are not living in terrible pain on a daily basis?".

Another element of the motion is cross-border cooperation. I take on board the Minister's points about how we would assess need, viability and the positive outcomes of any all-island approach, if required, but I am pleased that he is open to maybe exploring the benefits of that. We can do a wee bit of work on that in the time ahead.

Finally, I am really happy to support the Alliance amendment, which emphasises the importance of the overall women's health action plan, which is where we need to get to.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Órlaithí.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Will Members take their ease for a moment?

Mr Brett: I beg to move

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

Mr Brett: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. First, I thank the Minister for making herself available for today's debate. I know and appreciate that she had to rearrange a number of engagements, and I know the importance that she places on the issue.

For me, it is a simple but vital point that, without a proper air connectivity policy, Northern Ireland will never achieve its full economic potential. For more than a year, the Department for the Economy has had in its ownership the York Aviation report on air connectivity in Northern Ireland. The report made it clear that Northern Ireland has fewer direct international services than comparable regions, and its failure is costing us jobs, investment and tourists. The Department needs to come forward, because the economy is paying a price.

Connectivity is not a luxury; it is a necessity. It is the fundamental foundation on which we attract foreign direct investment (FDI); it is the way in which we ensure that our world-class manufacturing, engineering and service firms can access export markets; and it is central to growing our continually expanding tourism sector, which benefits communities in every corner of Northern Ireland. Yet Northern Ireland remains the only region of the UK without a direct air link to the United States of America. That is an extraordinary position for us to be in, given the scale of our economic, cultural and tourism ties with the United States. Over 200,000 American tourists visit Northern Ireland every year, but 87% of them fly into Dublin. That is business that we are losing day after day. The York Aviation report recommended urgent intervention. It highlighted the need for new and additional routes not only to North America but to Paris, Frankfurt and Copenhagen. It called for the creation of a route development fund to support those services, and it pressed for a clear aviation policy that sets out priorities and, more important, gives certainty to our airports. Yet, instead of grasping that opportunity, the Department has held round-table discussions but has not advanced a full-scale policy at this stage.

Let me be clear: for me and my party, this is not about one airport over another. Belfast International Airport, Belfast City Airport and the City of Derry Airport (CoDA) all have a vital role to play in Northern Ireland. They should see the benefits of increased connectivity. An aviation strategy, however, must treat all airports fairly and equitably, recognising their importance for regional balance and for ensuring that growth reaches every corner of Northern Ireland. What we have instead is no strategy to date, no policy intention to date and, unfortunately, delay from the Department in publishing a plan for Northern Ireland. That has led to ad hoc approaches being taken by different airports. Members from across the Chamber attended the launch of the master plan for Belfast City Airport last week. Over the last number of years, Belfast International Airport has made huge private investment, and the Department has supported the City of Derry Airport, but we have no joined-up overall approach that can ensure that those three airports, rather than competing with one another, can complement one another to ensure that they work together. The consequences of that are real.

The Northern Ireland Export Forum has set an ambition to increase external sales from 45% to 60% of GDP by 2030. That is achievable, but only if we modernise our aviation policy and secure better global connectivity. Our teams in Invest Northern Ireland work hard daily. They have supported more first-time exporters, secured millions in contracts abroad and attracted new inward investment. However, their efforts are being undermined, if we cannot even offer a direct flight to the very markets that we are trying to attract business from.

It is about ambition. It is about whether Northern Ireland wants to compete on the global stage, which is where we need to be. We need a comprehensive aviation strategy within the next three months. We need measurable targets for external sales, and we need a properly funded route development fund to secure the direct links to North America, Germany, France and Scandinavia that our businesses and our tourism sector need. Our airports are ambitious; our businesses are ambitious; and I hope that the Minister can set out her ambitious targets and plans for this important sector. Without improved air connectivity, our economy risks falling behind. That is why our motion today is important.

While I have some sympathy for a number of issues raised in the UUP amendment, particularly around a focus on North America and the ongoing campaign for pre-clearance in Northern Ireland, the removal of the route development fund and measurable targets would make our motion weaker. Therefore, I encourage Members to support the motion as it stands.

Dr Aiken: I beg to move the following amendment:

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): You have 10 minutes to propose the amendment and five minutes to make a winding-up speech. All other Members will have five minutes.

Dr Aiken: I will start by making a declaration of interest as chair of the all-party group on aerospace. Our amendment would enhance the motion by focusing on three key areas of what should be in an aviation strategy for Northern Ireland that I will shortly outline.

It is worth noting that we are at a considerable disadvantage compared with our friends in the South. As Members will be aware, the Republic of Ireland has so far benefited from a long-term tourism VAT rate of 9%. It has been recently increased to 13·9% but is highly likely to go back to 9% next year. In contrast, we are saddled with a VAT rate of 20% and, in addition, an air passenger duty (APD) tax of £13 a person. Furthermore, Dublin Airport is heavily subsidised by the Irish state, with, as some in the industry would say, sweeteners provided for long-haul aviation to use that airport. The Irish Government have also underwritten the cost of the new runway at the airport. All those issues combined add to what is a considerable state-aid advantage for the Southern airport, an advantage that should run counter to the trade diversion rules in the Northern Ireland protocol. Regrettably, neither the Minister for the Economy nor the Secretary of State has so far sought mitigations from that obvious distortion from the EU-UK Joint Committee.

What can we do to establish at least a level playing field for aviation on this island? Our Minister provides approximately a third of Tourism Ireland's budget. Globally, Tourism Ireland markets Dublin as the gateway to Ireland. As a consequence, much of the inward tourism and business market flows through Dublin Airport. That needs to stop, because we pay a third of the bill. Our airports therefore must be promoted at least one third of the time. Many airlines would find attractive the available ramp space; the airports' 24-hour availability; the secure fuel supplies; the all-weather options, with east-west and north-south runways at Belfast International; the good UK connections at Belfast International; and the move towards having an expanded Belfast City Airport. Airlines, however, find it puzzling that the only real marketing done by Tourism Ireland and Ministers at aviation industry events is focused wholly on Dublin Airport.

The revolution in the aviation industry is now in long-range, narrow-body aircraft, such as the Airbus 321XLR, with a range of up to 4,700 miles and 244 seats. Those allow airlines to serve point-to-point routes at much-reduced costs. The Airbus 321XLR or similar Boeing aircraft from Belfast can easily serve most of North America; indeed, they can reach well into existing Middle Eastern hubs. On the basis of the traffic numbers that already exist, there is more than enough business and tourist traffic to support those flights directly from Northern Ireland.

It also will not have escaped the notice of the majority of Members that Airbus is a major stakeholder in our considerable aerospace manufacturing sector and that, hopefully, Boeing soon will be. At the moment, passengers on international routes to the United States, other parts of North America or the Middle East either fly via Heathrow or Amsterdam or make the two-hour journey down the motorway. They spend one hour, if they are lucky, trying to find a parking space in the car park and get wet, as I do considerably often, as they wait for a bus, which, if they are lucky, takes about 10 to 15 minutes. They move in traffic for about 20 minutes, stand in the airline queue for about one hour and 30 minutes, spend 30 to 45 minutes in security, if they are lucky, and then stand for two and half hours if they are trying to get pre-clearance for travelling to the United States. That makes it a seven-hour journey before they start their seven-hour journey. There have to be better options.

Given the UK's improved relationships with the United States and particularly given the ever-chilling relations between the EU in general and Dublin in particular and Washington, it would now be advantageous for US pre-customs clearance to be facilitated at Belfast International Airport. Given the high level of data and security information sharing between the UK and the US and the easing of restrictions between us in comparison with the EU, it now makes strong sense to be calling for a US pre-clearance facility here; indeed, moving the Shannon facility or even the Dublin one to Belfast would be an easy option for the US Administration. Our Executive should call loudly for that facility. Having it would then enable Belfast International to become a narrow-body transfer hub for transatlantic routes and the Middle East, with significant opportunities to build inward tourism and build business. As my friend pointed out, we are doing a good job of attracting FDI, but people need to be able to travel directly into Northern Ireland. Arriving somewhere and then spending the better part of four or five hours getting here is not any form of direct route, and it is not useful.

Belfast City Airport and Belfast International could also become centres for sustainable aviation fuel, and the Department for the Economy and DAERA could bid for green energy credits from our national Government. Those could be used to offset our 2050 carbon obligations, and, if properly marketed, Belfast could become a sustainable aviation fuel hub for transatlantic aviation: general and private aviation. Sustainable aviation fuel can achieve up to a 70% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions compared with conventional aviation fuel, and it would definitely put us at the cutting edge of reaching net zero carbon.

Our airports, especially Aldergrove, are geographically well placed as logistics hubs. With the current global uncertainty only growing, the secure runways, large fuel stocks and location in the United Kingdom on the west of Europe and in NATO's secure airspace — unlike the Irish Republic — means that we should expand our role, particularly with the United States. Using the large amount of ramp space on both the civilian and military sides of the airfield and proactively marking it as a secure cargo trans-shipment space would pay considerable dividends.

There have been many debates in the Chamber about improving access to the airport by upgrading the road and rail links, but, by using the site to build additional warehousing and add to the ramp space in hard standing, we could attract much more cargo activity. As some of our Members are fond of saying, the unique access of the Windsor framework, coupled with the UK's advantageous trading relationships with the United States, should help expand the scope of our aviation strategy considerably. It is time for us to think broadly; it is time for us to take the advantages that we have been given; and it is time to move on those issues. I commend our amendment to the House.

Mr Delargy: Aviation is vital for businesses that want to invest, for universities welcoming students from across the globe, for families who travel, for staying connected and for communities across the island.

Last year, Conor Murphy and John O'Dowd transferred responsibility for airport policy to the Department for the Economy, a notable and important shift from what had gone before. The significance of that has been felt in Derry, where a historic wrong has been righted, and finally, airports have been centralised under one Department. The Sinn Féin Ministers who funded the City of Derry Airport lifted a significant rates burden off the people of Derry, and it matched our commitment to regional balance. It has created certainty and stability, which has allowed new airlines to introduce new routes and extend existing ones. For example, because of the certainty created by the announcement, EasyJet has introduced new routes between Derry and Birmingham and Derry and Manchester. EasyJet is also increasing the number of flights to Liverpool by up to four flights a week and to Edinburgh by up to three flights a week.

My focus and my party's focus is on establishing a Derry to Dublin route through the City of Derry Airport to connect us to our capital city and connect international business with Derry. That has resulted in numerous meetings, questions for written answer and parliamentary questions submitted by my colleague Pádraig Mac Lochlainn TD, and, finally, we are beginning to see the light at the end of the tunnel: a movement by Irish Government Ministers towards initiating a public service obligation (PSO) from Derry to Dublin.

I mention that because the glaring omission in the motion is an all-Ireland focus, a commitment agreed in 'New Decade, New Approach' (NDNA). The recent success at the City of Derry Airport has come on the back of the investment and a coordinated effort to create all-Ireland links, and that is where the focus of the motion should be. If we are to see an aviation strategy that truly promotes the economy, it must focus on our economic reality. The reality is a growing all-Ireland economy, and improved regional balance and connectivity are key to sustained economic growth. An all-Ireland strategy would ensure regional balance across all our airports, including Galway, Kerry and Cork, as well as Derry. The reality is that tourists coming to Ireland want seamless access to all of our country, and the same goes for businesses. Therefore, an aviation strategy must be underpinned by a commitment to look at the issue on a country-wide basis to increase connectivity and avoid duplication.

Minister Archibald has built on that work and has been clear that our aviation strategy must be coordinated, forward-looking and in line with our climate and economic commitments. Her focus on connectivity for the north-west, supporting tourism and making sure that our strategy delivers for businesses and workers alike is vital. The strategy cannot be rushed, and it cannot be done by halves. It means recognising the opportunity brought by stronger connections, particularly to international hubs. It means supporting regional balance to ensure that places like Derry and the wider north-west are not left behind.

It means investing in skills, apprenticeships and good jobs in the aviation sector, and meeting our climate obligations by building sustainability into every part of the strategy.

I commend the progress that has been made under Economy Ministers Conor Murphy and Caoimhe Archibald. Their leadership has brought us to the point where a serious, comprehensive aviation strategy is within reach. The task now is to ensure that it is delivered fully and correctly, in the interests of all the people of Ireland.

Mr Honeyford: We support the motion. I am laughing at some of the comments that have been made in the Chamber, because we come at the motion with a focus on creating jobs, greater investment, exports for our businesses, connectivity, support for our business community and opportunities for everyone; we are not that focused on the constitutional sound bites that we have heard here today.

The facts are unavoidable: we live on an island. Aviation is not a luxury in that regard; it is absolutely essential in order to connect us to the rest of the world. We are the only region without an aviation strategy. That failure needs to be put right. We need that connectivity and frequency of flights to GB and Europe. Essential to maximising the dual market access that we have is connectivity. People here want better job opportunities, higher wages and higher living standards. Public transport network links to the airports are essential. The Ulster Unionist Party left that out of its amendment. Connectivity via, for example, the Knockmore line to link my constituents and those in South Antrim to the International Airport must be part of that wider strategy.

Dr Aiken: I thank the Member very much for giving way. He will note the debate about the Knockmore line that we had in here not so long ago. The Ulster Unionist Party fully supports the circle line — the Knockmore line — and wants to see as much sustainable connectivity across these islands and beyond as possible, hence my mentioning of sustainable aviation fuel.

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

Mr Honeyford: Steve, if it takes you seven hours to get through an airport, I am not sure how long it would take you to get a train to Belfast airport and then get through it.

An aviation strategy must be about economic growth. It must be wider than just routes.

Mr Delargy: Will the Member give way?

Mr Honeyford: Yes.

Mr Delargy: Will the Member not acknowledge the context of his remarks? The economic reality that we are in is an all-Ireland economy that is growing. Surely you recognise that an essential part of that economy is an all-Ireland aviation strategy.

Mr Honeyford: I was about to say just that.

Part of the strategy has to be departmental. It has to be wider than just saying, "We want a route here" or, "We want a route there"; it has to be what our economies and businesses need. Infrastructure, including the all-island transport rail review, needs to be incorporated into it, as does the innovation strategy. It cannot be just some political vanity project.

The reality is that 70% of our tourists travel through the South, and 84% of all flights from this island leave from Dublin Airport. There is already a global hub on this island; it might take Steve seven hours to get there on some sort of slow boat, but it is a 90-minute drive for anybody else. In reality, you cannot have a strategy without referencing that. Any strategy needs to be based on the wider context, not just on the three airports here. It needs to look at the wider piece. If we look at Europe —

Mr Brett: I thank the Member for giving way. I agree with a lot of what you have said. Do you not think that the current cap on Dublin Airport provides further opportunity to all airports in Northern Ireland?

Mr Honeyford: I absolutely agree: there is an opportunity for us. We should grow the market here, but you cannot take it in isolation; you have to look at the whole. I go skiing every year in the Alps in France, and I fly into Geneva airport. The French are not having an argument about building a new airport because people fly into Switzerland. Putting forward something that suggests that we are two completely different and alien places is bonkers. It reduces the issue to being a constitutional one, rather than it being about the practical delivery of better provision for everyone.

Cork has a regional airport. Cork has Pfizer, Apple and other massive American companies. There is no connection from Cork to America. However, Cork does have connections to Frankfurt, Munich, Paris and Madrid, as well as to London, Manchester, Glasgow and all of those. It is about building connections and growing them as part of a wider strategy, acknowledging that there is an airport on the island that has worldwide links. There are eight million people on this island. There are not airports with worldwide connections for tourists and the business community in every region of France. France looks to Paris and then to Geneva and everywhere else. We have to think a little bit bigger than, "This is Northern Ireland. We have to have our own". The integration of the business community and investment in infrastructure has to be a part of that.

We have to share this island. Aviation is an example of an area in which that has to happen. At a time when a constituent cannot get to see a GP, and when delays meant that the Department of Health spent £2·5 billion on a computer system in the past three years, I am not putting my name to a call to fund an air link to America. We do not even have a flight. To put public money into that when people cannot get GP appointments is bonkers. There is no way that I can support the Ulster Unionist amendment, but I will support the DUP motion.

Ms McLaughlin: The SDLP supports the introduction of an aviation strategy that supports our economy and our people and helps us to meet climate targets. We need airports that facilitate connections to GB and beyond, as well as better connections from those airports to Belfast and Derry, such as through the rail links that are mentioned in the all-island strategic rail review. Given our geography, a healthy aviation strategy is vital. The DUP motion contains many sensible points, but the UUP amendment is ill-judged at best. Its focus on competing with Dublin rather than working in complement with it is risible. David Honeyford used the word "bonkers", and it really is.

Dr Aiken: Will the Member give way?

Ms McLaughlin: I am sorry: I want to get through this; OK?

More than 70% of visitors to Northern Ireland arrive via Dublin. That does not represent a nefarious plot to undermine Northern Ireland; it is a fact of geography and basic economics. Dublin is a major European air hub, with pre-immigration clearance and US customs. There is no realistic likelihood, on whatever planet the amendment was written, that the UK Government will negotiate pre-clearance for Belfast. To pretend otherwise is just codding the people.

Dr Aiken: Will the Member give way?

Ms McLaughlin: If there were, why would the UK Government prioritise delivering such a huge concession for a small region on a small island that already has pre-clearance, and for an airport that does not even have a regular transatlantic air route? It would be better to focus on ensuring that we have the most comprehensive links to London and the British regional airports, on looking for new connections to Europe, as Phillip Brett outlined, and on building our unique relationship with the European Union, rather than on the fantasy of displacing Dublin Airport for transatlantic travel. That is an obsession that has already cost millions of pounds of public money in APD subsidies.

We should be looking at much better rail links to Northern Ireland's airports and, indeed, to Dublin Airport. The Irish Government are planning to invest in a metro rail connection to Dublin Airport, per the all-island strategic rail review. We should be working to support that in order to ensure the best possible links to Grand Central station in Belfast and the onward journey to Derry. That would mean that people here could access Dublin Airport and that visitors to our shores could access the North as easily and quickly as possible. We need to exploit existing rail proximity to Northern Ireland's airports, all three of which are close to rail links that have either no connection or, in the case of Belfast City Airport, a very poorly signposted walk down a dual carriageway.

We need a serious aviation strategy that connects us and supports our people and economy, but I am sorry, Steve, the UUP amendment is just delusional.

Dr Aiken: Will the Member give way?

Ms McLaughlin: I want to talk specifically now about— [Interruption.]

Ms McLaughlin: — City of Derry Airport.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Dr Aiken, the Member is not giving way. Please resume your seat.

Ms McLaughlin: I am coming to the best bit, Steve. I am talking about City of Derry Airport, so let me get on with it. I also note, regrettably, that you did not mention City of Derry Airport in your amendment. Yet again, however, City of Derry Airport is central to the discussion. It is a vital asset to the north-west, but it needs more support to reach its potential. The Department for the Economy has committed to four years of funding, and the Birmingham and Manchester services are welcome progress, but we must go further. A Derry-Dublin connection is not a luxury but an economic necessity, and it must be delivered in partnership with the Irish Government.

At the same time, we cannot ignore developments elsewhere. In recent weeks, the British Government advanced their Sustainable Aviation Fuel Bill in the House of Commons. That legislation aims to establish a world-leading sustainable aviation fuel industry across the UK, reducing reliance on imported fuels, boosting energy security —

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

Ms McLaughlin: — and supporting decarbonisation.

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

Ms McLaughlin: Sorry.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Thank you.

Ms Sheerin: I am tempted to begin by saying that I agree with everything that the Member for Lagan Valley said, and, of course, what my colleagues from Derry outlined on the broad objective of the motion.

Obviously, we are an island nation, and that means that we rely on aviation and fly more than we might like, given our commitments to the climate. However, it is a requirement here that if you want to go elsewhere, you often have to fly. In the spirit of what Mr Honeyford said, it is important that we have an aviation policy — our Sinn Féin Minister in the Department for the Economy has already committed to such a policy — but one that works with our partners across the Twenty-six Counties. That makes sense. It is important that we strengthen our rail and road connections so that people can access our airports across the Twenty-six Counties more easily. It makes sense for us to be joined up here. We want to increase tourism to the island of Ireland. We want to see people coming in, whether that is via Dublin or Belfast, and travelling across the border, as we all should do, frequently and easily.

I want to point out in particular the Minister's commitment to City of Derry Airport, which is obviously in line with her objectives on regional balance. My colleague Pádraig Delargy and Sinéad McLaughlin outlined that when talking about increased funding, the Heathrow Airport route and the other routes that were mentioned. That is progress, and we would like to see it go further. We agree with the spirit of the motion.

Mr McReynolds: I support the motion, thank its proposers and look forward to the Minister's response.

As my party colleague outlined, we in Alliance believe that an aviation strategy could play a vital role in creating jobs, promoting tourism and enhancing our public transport investment. At the outset, I feel that I should, like Mr Aiken, declare an interest given that I have Belfast City Airport in my constituency of East Belfast. The airport supports more than 6,500 jobs in that area and more than 12,000 across Northern Ireland. It has generated hundreds of millions of pounds for our economy while, through its community fund, donating almost £1 million to support community groups and charitable causes across East Belfast and North Down.

Each airport here creates and sustains an important part of our economy and tourism, playing a critical role in allowing us to connect to the rest of the UK and Europe, whether that be for business or recreation. Through the introduction of an aviation strategy and by working with our airports, we could see more connections to more European hubs and an increased regularity of services, with businesses choosing to be based near our airports, thereby increasing jobs in the area. If we look to Cork as an example, we see that it has flights connecting two major European business hubs, and businesses choose to have their offices close by, allowing for fast access to the global market.

That draws businesses to the area, creates more jobs and boosts the economy. In that context, we in Northern Ireland are missing out.

Linking in with markets that we have yet to reach and increasing connectivity through additional services will allow more businesses to choose Northern Ireland first when deciding where to take their business. The York Aviation report notably referred to key European markets such as France and Germany and even to potential for connectivity with North America, which no airport in Northern Ireland yet provides. Along with dual market access, that would provide a massive opportunity for US businesses to choose Northern Ireland as one of the first English-speaking countries that investors meet when they cross the Atlantic Ocean to access European and British markets.

My colleague Mr Honeyford covered the economic benefits of an aviation strategy; as an infrastructure spokesperson, I will turn to the infrastructure perspective. There is a real opportunity to acknowledge the positive impact on and benefits for our public transport system. Through an aviation strategy, we could see increased footfall on bus or potential rail connections, which would increase the necessity for more public transport routes across Northern Ireland and our ability to ditch private vehicles and access airports via rail or bus. The knock-on effect would be extra funds from fares, which could be used to improve the standard of our public transport, and we could then deliver things such as late-night buses much faster and more easily than we have seen in recent months and years.

Last, but by no means least, we need to ensure that our net zero targets are not forgotten, and, to achieve those goals, we must use greener technologies and take environmental responsibility. Increased air use and the positives that come with it cannot be brought about to the detriment of our environment. Those goals can be realised in conjunction, as evidenced recently by the Belfast City Airport master plan, which I encourage all Members to engage with during its consultation period.

I welcome today's motion and the positives that could flow from it for Northern Ireland. However, I remind Members that it is not just about aviation but about creating greater connection, increasing opportunity for business and supporting our world-class tourism offering.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): I call the Minister for the Economy to respond to the debate. Minister, you have up to 15 minutes.

Dr Archibald (The Minister for the Economy): Thank you, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle.

While the motion is critically framed, I welcome the opportunity to engage with it, and I agree with the broad thrust of many, although not all, of the comments that have been made on it in the Chamber today.

I am keen to address the absence of an aviation policy to date, because, as a small island, we are highly dependent on air connectivity for business and leisure travel. Good connectivity is vital to our economy, our commercial life, our FDI proposition and our tourism. The Government have an important role to play in supporting the aviation sector, and that was particularly the case during the COVID-19 pandemic, which caused such a sharp decline in passenger numbers. Targeted financial packages for airports and the domestic aviation kick-start scheme helped our three airports through the pandemic. Post-pandemic recovery has been strong, with new airline routes and increased passenger numbers, thanks in no small part to the efforts of Tourism Ireland. We now need to continue that positive momentum in line with my economic vision.

The aviation sector can generate good, high-productivity jobs, and, by supporting the City of Derry Airport, we can promote regional balance. The most recent figures show that the City of Derry Airport was estimated to have contributed £21 million of GVA annually to the regional economy and supported 650 jobs, directly and indirectly. That is why my Department has pledged up to £12 million over the next four years in support of the airport, on top of the £4·6 million over two years that is co-funded by the British Government for the London Heathrow route, and also why I am working with the Irish Government to reinstate the Derry to Dublin route.

As Members have mentioned, there is a need to develop an environmentally responsible aviation strategy that aligns with my commitment to decarbonisation and our net zero commitments. There are already a number of companies here in the North that are developing the technology around sustainable aviation fuel production. That has the potential to generate hundreds of skilled jobs in engineering, logistics and research.

In October 2023, my Department commissioned aviation consultants York Aviation to identify a set of strategic routes that will help drive inbound tourism and business growth and to identify policy levers to enhance our air connectivity. That research was published on 26 March 2024. The York Aviation report noted that airports fell within the remit of DFI, while DFE was responsible for air connectivity. In order to reduce fragmentation across Departments and facilitate more coherent policy development, York Aviation recommended that responsibility for air connectivity be consolidated within a single Department. In response, on 10 June 2024, my predecessor, Conor Murphy, and the then Infrastructure Minister, John O'Dowd, agreed to the transfer of responsibility for airport policy to my Department. That does not involve legislative changes. It means that my Department will ensure a clear and coherent policy direction throughout the sector, for airports and for air connectivity.

For the new policy to be meaningful, it must take account of the perspective of the wider aviation, business and tourism sectors. Therefore, my officials are engaging with other Departments and wider stakeholders to ensure that a coordinated approach is taken on the future development of aviation policy.

Mr Brett: I appreciate the Minister's giving way. I seek some clarity. Your party colleague said that policy had now transferred to your Department. Will you outline when that policy transfer took place and when it was approved by the Executive?

Dr Archibald: As I said, the policy transfer involved no legislative changes, and it was completed over the course of last year. I am happy to write to the Member with the exact dates, which I do not have in front of me.

My officials are engaging across Departments and with wider stakeholders to ensure that we have a coordinated approach on the future of aviation policy. The introduction of a route development fund is a key recommendation, and therefore the policy will aim to identify monetary and non-monetary incentives to airlines that could open routes that would otherwise not be commercially viable. My Department also takes account of the important plans being developed by our aviation sector — for example, the ambitious plans that were published by Belfast City Airport just last week. It is also important that these plans incorporate the views of local communities who live near airports. In addition to route development, a comprehensive aviation policy must take into account ongoing major infrastructure plans and initiatives around skills development and education.

I recently met the management team of Belfast International Airport to see for myself the impressive new terminal extension, state-of-the-art security hall and expanded duty-free area. I have also met the CEO and senior team at Belfast City Airport to discuss their ambitious plans for expansion, and my officials continue to meet the management of all three airports, as well as Invest NI, Tourism NI, Tourism Ireland and councils, to discuss potential policy levers to encourage inward investment and tourism. These meetings will also include representatives from the business sector and the Consumer Council. It will be crucial to collaborate with the local aviation sector, tourism and investment partners, and the British and Irish Governments to help develop a more connected and attractive aviation network across the island. My Department's business plan for this financial year commits to consulting and finalising an aviation and route development policy. We remain on track to deliver that action.

I now turn to the second part of the motion, which is about exports. The Export Forum was established by my Department, with the aim of bringing together the main providers of export support and industry representatives. We are working together towards a delivering a single, joined-up operating model for export promotion. That means that businesses across all sectors can access high-quality effective support. Exporting is at the heart of the Department's economic vision. Businesses that export are more productive, create more jobs and pay higher wages. That is why my Department is focused on helping firms to recognise and realise their export potential. It is vital for innovation-led growth and delivering prosperity across all our communities.

Invest NI continues to play a pivotal role in supporting local businesses to access to new markets. Since April, it has delivered 13 international trade missions and exhibitions and offers tailored programmes such as Grow Beyond and Going Dutch to help early-stage exporters and SMEs. InterTradeIreland's first-time exporter accelerator is helping SMEs to trade cross-border for the first time. That is often the first step to exporting abroad.

Looking ahead, my Department is focused on supporting businesses at every stage of their export journey. Our sectoral action plan set out clear objectives to increase the intensity of exports and the number of firms participating in international trade. With the right support and by fully leveraging dual market access, businesses in the North can offer the products and services to compete and thrive in global markets. Over the period of Windsor framework implementation, exports here have increased by 2% compared with a decline of 9% in Britain. It is important that that relatively strong export performance continue.

I welcome the opportunity to have been able to respond to the debate.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Minister, thank you for that response. I call Robbie Butler to make a winding-up speech on the amendment. You have up to five minutes.

Mr Butler: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. My apologies for missing the start of the debate. I assure you that I was watching it on television in my room. It has been a good debate and very good-natured. There were a few pokes made at the Ulster Unionist Party's amendment, but I will poke Members back. I will get to that in a minute or two.

I thank Members for their contributions to the debate. It is an important debate, because Northern Ireland has a proud aviation history, which began with pioneers such as Harry Ferguson and Lilian Bland putting us firmly on the map. If Members have not been to the aviation museum at the Maze/Long Kesh, please go. It is probably the most under-visited and underappreciated yet excellent display that we have on this island. Please go and have a look at it. Later, we had Short Brothers and the considerable use of our airfields and factories during the Second World War to defeat the Nazis.

I have heard Members across the Chamber tonight, not from this side but from the other side, say that we are such a small place — we are just a small place — but we have to think big, guys. Some Members in here have shown that they are incapable of seeing the big picture. In Lagan Valley, we have Maghaberry and the Maze airfields, of which the Member for Lagan Valley who spoke earlier is well aware. We have a proud history, but it is sad to reflect on the disconnect between our Executive and that vital industry. As our amendment outlines and as has been said during the debate, we should be able to capitalise on our leadership and history in this space and on our ability to deliver, which is second to none. We have a competitive geographical and now geopolitical position. We should be able, at relatively little fiscal or environmental cost, to grow the industry. I make no apology for being ambitious about creating jobs and economic opportunities for the people of Northern Ireland, whether at Belfast City Airport, City of Derry Airport or Belfast International Airport. That ambition will always come first.

Having more airlines flying out of NI to more destinations in fuel-efficient aircraft should be a win. Making simple changes, such as our being granted access to US pre-clearance facilities, would transform things, but I did not hear anybody pick up on that part of the amendment during the debate. Members obviously do not have that ambition. Furthermore, why should we continue to export our jobs, revenue and tourism business accessibility to an airport hours down the road? Interestingly, in her contribution, Sinéad did not apply the same rules to the City of Derry Airport as she did to Belfast International Airport. Apparently, it is OK to drive to Dublin, because it has American pre-clearance, but it is not OK for the people of Londonderry to drive to Belfast. I agree, by the way, that they should not have to jump in a car and drive to Belfast, but you cannot run with the hare and hunt with the hounds. You cannot have the argument both ways.

Bizarrely, we pay two thirds of Tourism Ireland's budget without getting a third of its promotion. That really is not fair. Several Members —.

Dr Aiken: We pay one third.

Mr Butler: Sorry?

Dr Aiken: We pay one third.

Mr Butler: We pay a third. Sorry. We do not get a third of the output, however, and that is the point. We certainly do not get it in and around our airports.

Several Members said that we have been given a unique advantage through the Windsor framework. Hopefully, they will recognise that, equally, the UK-US trade relationship, because of tariffs, gives us a further advantage over the South. We have to utilise everything that is at our disposal and do so to our advantage, so why does our Department for the Economy not take the opportunity to capitalise on that specific angle?

I have a suspicion that we may not get the votes for the amendment to succeed, but I ask Members to review and reflect on some of the points that have been made. Mr Honeyford spoke with absolute passion. I enjoy listening to my Lagan Valley colleague speak on the issue, but this is not a constitutional debate. It is not about pitting North against South. It is not a green and orange issue. Rather, it is about jobs for our constituents. It is about improving prosperity and outcomes for the people who live in Northern Ireland. That is the point of the amendment. It is certainly not a constitutional amendment.

Mr Honeyford: Will the Member give way?

Mr Butler: No, I will not, because I will not get an extra minute. I have already made my point about the SDLP's contribution. Sinéad, you cannot have the argument both ways about two airports that are only 60 or 70 miles apart.

A Sinn Féin contribution gave me a wee chuckle, because you said that you were surprised to see the SDLP and Alliance agree with Sinn Féin on something. Nobody on this side of the House is surprised by that.

Ms Sheerin: Will the Member give way?

Mr Butler: Absolutely, yes.

Ms Sheerin: I did not say that; I said that I welcomed their contributions.

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

Mr Butler: I heard it differently. We will agree to differ.

I ask Members to reflect on my absolutely winning arguments and support the amendment. Thank you.

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

Mr Middleton: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. It is appropriate that we bring the debate to a close, because we are starting to get carried away with ourselves in some of our contributions.

It has been a good discussion. We need to highlight the importance of and need for a comprehensive aviation strategy for Northern Ireland, one that includes a properly resourced route development fund. Of course, as a representative of the north-west, I will touch on our airport in Londonderry, but I stress that it applies to all our airports in Northern Ireland, because the policy oversight is damaging our economy.

While other devolved Governments have acted, Northern Ireland, unfortunately, has lagged behind. Scotland has long operated a route development fund, supporting international routes to boost its economy. Wales has invested over £200 million in Cardiff Airport, including route support and infrastructure upgrades. Some £10 million has been committed to Heathrow Airport's route development fund to connect UK regions to global markets. As some Members have said, this is not a constitutional debate or a constitutional issue. We want to see Northern Ireland airports thrive. We want to see local businesses thrive and jobs being secured. We are so vocal about the City of Derry Airport, Belfast International Airport and Belfast City Airport, because we want those airports to succeed. We have no issue with Dublin Airport also succeeding; of course not. We feel no different about Heathrow succeeding. We want to ensure that the best connectivity is in place to support our businesses and airports.

CoDA is a vital asset for our region. It connects our businesses and supports our tourism, and it underpins the investment that we receive into the area. Yet, it continues to operate without the strategic support of a route development fund and an aviation strategy. That is why we make the case for it today. The case for City of Derry Airport — the Minister touched on this — is that it delivers £21 million GVA. That argument has been had. We know that the airport succeeds, and we want to see further investment in it.

Our motion talks about the need for a strategy that treats all airports equally. Nobody should have an issue with that. We need to support all our airports. We need to see a route development fund with clear criteria. We need measurable growth targets, and, of course, we want to see those within the next three months. Minister, I assume that, if you support the motion, we will see that as a matter of urgency. We look forward to seeing it in due course.

My colleague Philip Brett moved the motion and spoke of the need for a strategy to achieve full economic potential. He talked about the US tourism market and the fact that there is an untapped potential there that we need to tap into and how we need to ensure that Departments work together on it. He also spoke about treating airports equitably and the fact that we do not have a strategy. There is no policy and no plan. I look forward to the Minister bringing that forward as a matter of urgency.

Steve Aiken highlighted some of the challenges in comparison with ROI — the VAT rate and APD — but also some of the issues around ensuring that we have a level aviation playing field.

Pádraig spoke about the Department's airport policy and regional balance. He spoke about the Londonderry to Dublin route, which, of course, we support. We need to ensure that the UK Government continue to fund the PSO to London Heathrow, which is also important.

Mr Honeyford spoke in support of the motion, which we welcome. He talked about the need to improve our flight connectivity to GB and Europe. He also touched on the fact that 84% of flights go through Dublin. There is work to be done to ensure that those who fly through there come to Northern Ireland as well.

Sinéad McLaughlin spoke about the importance not only of the aviation strategy but of rail connectivity and the need to ensure that our airports in Northern Ireland are connected to one another and to Dublin.

Emma Sheerin expressed broad support for the motion and noted that it was important that we strengthen our rail connections as well. She welcomed the commitment to regional balance through CoDA.

Peter McReynolds spoke from an infrastructure perspective, noting the benefits for public transport, including increasing the use of buses, and the importance of meeting our net zero targets and of environmental responsibility.

The Minister's comments have been well documented. We welcome the fact that she made the time to come to the Chamber. Hopefully, we will be able to follow up with her on the targets laid out in the motion.

That is my summary. Mr Butler made a winding-up speech on his party's amendment. We urge people to support the motion, and we look forward to seeing the impact of it.