Official Report: Tuesday 04 November 2025

Mrs Dillon: I rise to mark Occupational Therapy Week 2025, which provides us with the opportunity to celebrate the vital and far-reaching contribution of occupational therapists across our health and social care system. Whether it is helping someone to regain mobility after injury, supporting a child with developmental challenges or enabling an older adult to live safely at home, their work is invaluable. It is about giving people independence and a good quality of life.

As you will all be aware, occupational therapists are central to improving hospital discharge processes, facilitating timely rehabilitation and strengthening community-based care. Their work spans a range of diverse settings, including in the home and in education and mental health facilities. The challenge, for them and us, is that there are simply not enough of them to meet the growing need in our community. I commend the Royal College of Occupational Therapists for launching its first workforce strategy action plan in January of this year. The plan sets out a clear and ambitious vision for the future of the profession. Cuireann sé i gcuimhne dúinn go mbaineann fíordhaoine le gach staitistic agus páipéar beartais, daoine lena bhfuil a gcaighdeán beatha ag brath ar thacaíocht thráthúil, oilte chomhbhách ó theiripeoir saothair.

As we celebrate this week, I call on the Minister of Health to prioritise strategic workforce planning. We must ensure that occupational therapists are equipped to meet future demand, supported in their development and recognised for the transformative impact that they have on individuals, families and our communities. Nuair a dhéanaimid infheistíocht sa lucht saothair againn, déanaimid infheistíocht i neamhspleáchas, i ndínit agus i ndeis ár bpobail — díreach na rudaí a ligeann do dhaoine togha saoil a bheith acu.

Ms Forsythe: This year's Royal British Legion Poppy Appeal was officially launched on Thursday 23 October. Many of us will wear a poppy proudly in memory of the fallen of our nation and for the future of the living. The sale of remembrance poppies and donations enable practical, financial and emotional support to be given to our armed forces community. I wear my poppy with pride.

Last week, I was made aware of a sinister threat to poppy sellers at Tesco in Newry. The faceless group behind the threat called on Tesco to:

That is disgraceful. Online intimidation is disgraceful. All intimidation is absolutely disgraceful. Newry city was the scene of many shocking and heinous attacks during the Troubles in Northern Ireland. Those attacks resulted in the murder of two British Army soldiers, one member of the British Territorial Army and four members of the Ulster Defence Regiment. Three former members and 21 serving members of the Royal Ulster Constabulary also lost their lives to terrorists. The humble poppy pays tribute to all of them.

To those poppy sellers in Newry, volunteering their time to support that valuable charity and its work to support our armed forces community, I say, "Thank you. We stand with you". I thank all the poppy sellers across the country for their dedication, and, of course, I thank our armed forces for their selfless service to us all. The Members on this side of the House will always remember those who fought in service of our country and those who died in defence of our freedoms and way of life. We will stand up for everyone's right to sell a poppy without the fear of intimidation. We wear our poppies with pride.

Mr Blair: Mr Speaker, I had the pleasure of attending the final plenary session of the second Youth Assembly on Saturday past, and I know that you were also there. I take this opportunity to recognise the dedication and hard work of everyone involved.

At Saturday's event, the Youth Assembly Members launched their legacy report, which chronicles their extensive work from 2023 onwards. The legacy report is a testament to the dedication and engagement of the Youth Assembly Members. They have played a significant role in shaping policy and debate across a wide range of issues. The depth and breadth of the Youth Assembly's involvement is highlighted by its collaboration with the Justice Committee on the Justice Bill; its input to the Education and Economy Committees during the independent review of education; and its valuable perspectives on the Dilapidation Bill, delivered to and through the Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs Committee. The Youth Assembly also engaged on and addressed a host of other issues, including the plight of young carers. Such a broad remit across all Departments truly demonstrates the scope of the Youth Assembly Members' understanding and why they are held in such high regard as credible, articulate representatives of young people in Northern Ireland. That important legacy report has been provided to every MLA and is also available online. I encourage everyone to take time to read it, as it offers a unique insight into the achievements and perspectives of our Youth Assembly Members.

I look forward to seeing what those remarkable young people will go on to achieve. I also look forward very much to working with the 90 newly recruited Members for the 2025-27 mandate. That new group reflects the diversity of our society, with Members coming from every constituency across Northern Ireland. We must always recognise and commend the hard work, commitment and enthusiasm of those young people. They have succeeded in their Youth Assembly roles while juggling demanding school or college schedules, exams and extracurricular activities. I also pay tribute to the dedicated and enthusiastic team of Assembly officials who have supported and encouraged our Youth Assembly since its inception.

I am deeply impressed by the increase in confidence and contribution that I have observed amongst the Youth Assembly Members. Their efforts should never be taken for granted, and they should be celebrated by us all. I wish all outgoing and incoming Youth Assembly Members every success for the future.

Mr Speaker: I am probably not supposed to, but I endorse all of that.

Ms D Armstrong: I commend the outstanding achievement of four pupils from Enniskillen Royal Grammar School, Conor Phair, Mackenzie Wilson, Jensen Lindsey and Alfie Thompson, who were recently crowned overall winners of the 2025 ABP Aberdeen Angus Youth Challenge. The four young County Fermanagh farmers claimed the top spot, competing against 20 teams across Northern Ireland.

Since they entered the competition in September 2024, it is safe to say that the boys were kept busy. On qualifying for the final, they received five calves from ABP Food Group to rear through to finishing. They went on to receive skills development in the beef industry on a 12-month programme, winning a £1,000 cash prize for their school at the end of it. As part of the challenge, the boys developed a project called "One Health: The Link Between Animal, Human and Plant Health", which tackled the critical issue of soil sustainability. They developed a soil analysis results guide to simplify complex data for farmers, distributed it to local vets, marts and agri-stores and hosted a "Healthy Soil, Healthy Future" conference, which raised an impressive £4,120. In total, the boys raised over £6,500 for Air Ambulance NI and Rural Support, which shows just how education and agriculture can come together to deliver real-world impact in the community.

I commend not only the boys but Ruth Moore, their College of Agriculture, Food and Rural Enterprise (CAFRE) adviser, and Enniskillen Royal Grammar School itself. The school fielded a total of three teams, with each reaching the semi-final stage. All three teams have done their school and County Fermanagh proud. It is clear that we have a strong, vibrant agriculture sector in Fermanagh and South Tyrone. Those pupils represent the next generation of farmers and rural leaders who have been equipped with knowledge and the drive to make a difference. Their success reminds us of the importance of investing in rural education and supporting initiatives that help young people to grow and make their mark in the agri-food industry. I trust that all Members will join me in congratulating the Enniskillen Royal Grammar School team on this remarkable achievement. The boys, their teachers and their families have done their school, their county and Northern Ireland proud.

Mr McAleer: I congratulate my home club, Cumann Naomh Treasa Loch Mhic Ruairí, on winning its first ever Tyrone senior football championship last Sunday. The game against Trillick and, indeed, the path to the final were extremely competitive and nail-biting but played in the best of spirits.

Our club was formed in 1972, so it is still relatively young. We spent most of those years playing in junior or immediate football, so to win a senior title in one of the most competitive counties in Ireland is a massive achievement of which I and countless others are very proud. The scenes when the lads returned home to the lough last Sunday evening were something to behold, and, of course, the celebrations continued for a number of days. That included when the Madden Raparees, who won the Armagh championship, arrived in Loughmacrory on Tuesday evening. Our two clubs are for ever connected through the Grimley brothers, one of whom plays for our club and two of whom play for their home club in Madden. That family, more than any, deserves great achievements such as this following the harrowing tragedy that it has endured.

Loughmacrory clubman and local historian Seamus Mullan penned the history of our club in a book called 'Making Our Own Heroes'. That title is a most fitting description of how the lads who make up the team and the panel are seen in our community: grounded, modest and disciplined. Our children need look no further than that group of players for role models. I am certain that that is the case for every GAA club across Ireland.

I pay tribute to Trillick, who really put it up to Loughmacrory in the final, in what was a tough physical encounter but was played in the best of spirits. I recognise that this has been an emotional year for Trillick, especially since the passing of its esteemed colleague Jody Gormley, whose spirit lives on among that team. I was delighted to see the club win the Tyrone league title at the weekend.

After the game last Sunday, Loughmacrory clubman Ciaran Meenagh said that, for 20 years or more, he stood in the stand or terrace in Healy Park on county final days hoping for even one day in the sun to see the lads in amber and black walking behind the band. That wish has come true, and it is due to decades of hard work and dedication. I sincerely hope for many more county titles to follow. Well done to Loughmacrory senior team, the lads from the lough, and good luck against Kilcoo in the Ulsters this Saturday.

Mrs Dodds: I rise to outline our opposition to the public health Bill, which the Minister has now withdrawn and on which he has told his officials to go back to the drawing board. First, I state clearly that no one doubts that public health legislation that dates from 1967 should be revised and that that should be done as soon as possible and that it should be up to date. We must also ensure that it tackles the issues of today. However, the public health Bill did not meet our criterion for such a Bill, which is that it strike a fair balance between fulfilling public health objectives and defending personal liberty as the cornerstone of a democratic society.

We are clear that sweeping powers should not be handed to the Minister of Health to impose restrictions that would directly impact on private and family life, education, employment and movement. Having lived through the experience of the COVID-19 pandemic, we understand that such powers and the lockdowns that they enabled led to major social and economic disruption, had serious impacts on personal health and derailed the educational and emotional development of many children and young people. In particular, we will continue to reject mandatory vaccination or plans to compel citizens to undergo any form of medical treatment against their wishes. Any future public health framework for Northern Ireland must be underpinned in law and practice by the principle of informed consent. I am glad that we are going back to the drawing board on the legislation, and I urge the Minister and his Department to ensure that the principles that I have outlined are fundamental to any new public health Bill.

Mr Dickson: Today marks the 75th anniversary of the European Convention on Human Rights. That charter was born out of the horrors of World War II, with the United Kingdom playing a leading role in setting minimum standards by which Governments across Europe agreed to abide. That improved respect for human rights across Europe. No signatory state has instituted the death penalty for 25 years, and the convention has facilitated cross-border cooperation on issues of joint interest, such as crime and human trafficking.

As a Winston Churchill Fellow, I am proud to know that Churchill was a key early advocate and the spiritual architect of the European Convention on Human Rights. In the aftermath of World War II and the Holocaust, he championed the idea of a united Europe based on shared values and human rights to prevent future atrocities and resist the spread of communism. As chair of the non-governmental European Movement, he presided over the 1948 Congress of Europe in The Hague, which called for a charter of human rights and a court of justice.

Today, in Northern Ireland, the convention not only plays a pivotal role in securing the foundation of our peace process but, along with the court, was and is integral to building trust in such public institutions as our Police Service and security services after decades of conflict. The convention is explicitly embedded in the Good Friday Agreement. The agreement requires that the rights in the convention be incorporated into Northern Ireland law, a requirement met through the UK Human Rights Act 1998.

Today, I highlight the convention's role in safeguarding fundamental freedoms and its critical importance for maintaining justice and democracy not just in Northern Ireland but across the 46 member states of the Council of Europe. The convention protects the human rights and fundamental freedoms of over 700 million people. It protects the right to life; a fair hearing; respect for privacy; private and family life; freedom of expression; freedom of thought, conscience and religion; and the protection of property.

The charter prohibits torture, inhuman and degrading behaviour and punishment through slavery or forced labour; the death penalty; arbitrary and unlawful detention; discrimination in employment and in the rights and freedoms that are set out in the convention and its protocol.

Let us today mark 75 years of the convention and remember its origins in the aftermath of World War II and the rights and freedoms that it protects.

Mr Gildernew: Céim stairiúil chun cinn don Ghaeilge, dár bpobal agus dár n-oidhreacht chomhchoiteann a bhí i gceapachán an choimisinéara teanga an tseachtain seo caite. D'fhógair Oifig an Choiste Feidhmiúcháin an tseachtain seo caite go rachadh Pól Deeds i gceann oibre mar choimisinéir nua sna seachtainí seo amach romhainn. Is geal liom an ceapachán seo, ceapachán a comhaontaíodh in Ré Nua, Cur Chuige Nua sa bhliain 2020.

Is bunchloch faoin reachtaíocht nua teanga atá againn ceapachán an choimisinéara, 20 bliain ó tugadh gealltanas ar dtús faoi Acht Gaeilge a thabhairt isteach. Tá rath agus bláth ar an Ghaeilge ar fad. Daingneofar agus neartófar an fás agus an fhorbairt sin le ceapachán coimisinéara. Beidh ról tábhachtach, lárnach aige, agus beidh dualgas air gearáin ón phobal a fhiosrú faoi údaráis phoiblí nach ndéanann de réir na gcaighdeán nua teanga.

Tá an Tuaisceart ar thús cadhnaíochta in athbheochan na teanga: chríochnaigh Oireachtas na Samhna Dé Domhnaigh, féile theanga a bhí ar siúl i mBéal Feirste; beidh Ard-Fheis Chonradh na Gaeilge agus Fleadh Cheoil na hÉireann ann i mBéal Feirste fosta. Is imeachtaí iad sin a bhfuil an Ghaeilge fite fuaite iontu, imeachtaí ina léirítear agus ina gcuirtear saibhreas ár gcultúir agus ár dteanga chun cinn.

Tá sé thar am coimisinéir a bheith ceaptha ag an stát le forbairt na teanga a stiúradh, a neartú agus a chinntiú. Strácáil na nGael agus feachtasaíocht pholaitíochta le 50 bliain anuas is bunsiocair leis an cheapachán. Gairim sibh as bheith chomh righin, dochloíte, dianseasmhach. Ba cheart eang a chur sa mhaide mullaigh toisc an ceapachán seo á dhéanamh. Guím gach rath air agus ar an Dr Kathy Radford agus ar Lee Reynolds ina bpoist nua. Go n-éirí libh uilig.

Miss McAllister: As chair of the all-party group on stroke, I am delighted to mark World Stroke Day, which fell on 29 October. There is an event today in the Long Gallery at 12.30 pm, and I hope that as many Members as possible can come along to it.

I want to highlight the impact and magic of modern medicine and how it can transform lives here. There are over 41,000 stroke survivors in Northern Ireland, and someone here will have a stroke every two hours. Many people will recover thanks to our skilled and dedicated specialist stroke staff, including consultants and nurses, who work across the entire stroke pathway to provide expert care in acute stroke units. After hospital discharge, we have speech and language therapists, physiotherapists, occupational therapists and support recovery counsellors who offer much-needed psychological, physical and emotional care long after a stroke has occurred.

I want to focus on one key aspect of stroke care: thrombectomy. A thrombectomy is a mechanical procedure that, if carried out on eligible stroke survivors in a timely manner, can save brains, save money and change lives. Some of the most powerful stories about stroke survivors whose lives have been transformed by that treatment have been captured in a documentary entitled 'Thrombectomy: Restoring Life' by Harry Bateman, a local film-maker. As chair of the all-party group on stroke, I am proud to sponsor the event today, which will highlight that video. We have had a preview of it. The film has an emotional impact, and it should be highlighted, particularly those families who support stroke survivors.

However, with only 4·3% of stroke survivors receiving a thrombectomy last year, we are still falling short. At least 10% of stroke patients are thought to be eligible, meaning that many are missing out on that life-changing treatment. The only way to ensure that every eligible patient receives a thrombectomy is by providing a 24/7 service. That was committed to by many parties, and, in the stroke action plan published in June 2022, the Department of Health committed to delivering such a service by the end of 2024.

We know that budgets are tight and services are strapped, but we must move to prevention in order to save. That is the magic of medicine. Medicine and science have evolved. They can eradicate disease, help to speed up recovery and take the strain off our health service, so we must invest. We must ensure that the over 100 people who missed out on thrombectomy services last year do not miss out again.

I invite Members to the event in the Long Gallery today to meet some of the survivors and hear their stories.

Mr Brett: Last week, the deputy First Minister and I were delighted to host the aerospace, defence and space council in Northern Ireland. It was a vital opportunity for us to showcase the industries that are at the very heart of Northern Ireland's economic strength and innovation. In every corner of Northern Ireland, world-leading companies are designing, manufacturing and maintaining the technology that keeps the United Kingdom and its allies safe. From advanced aircraft companies and cutting-edge defence systems to cybersecurity expertise, Northern Ireland's contribution to that vital sector is something that we should all be proud of. Already employing around 10,000 people and worth over £2 billion to our economy, the sector is set to grow even further, with last week's news of defence contracts being awarded to Northern Ireland and a defence growth deal of £250 million.

Those industries are not just about national security; they are engines of economic opportunity. They provide long-term careers for our young people, attract inward investment and sustain local communities. This success is a clear demonstration once again of Northern Ireland's place in the United Kingdom, giving us access to a national defence programme, shared expertise and a scale of investment not seen anywhere else. Yet, while Invest Northern Ireland's report recognises the importance of the defence sector, the Economy Minister seems intent on undermining it. Since taking up her role as Minister for the Economy, she has failed even to meet the ADS Group, which is the very organisation representing our aerospace, defence and security sectors. Instead, she issued a politically charged written ministerial statement that overstepped her authority and risked damaging confidence in the sector. That will come as no surprise because the self-proclaimed "First Minister for all" described recent investment as "incredulous" and, indeed, was unavailable when the Bank of America came to Northern Ireland to announce thousands of new jobs. That is why this party has acted. I pay tribute to the Ulster Unionist Party and the Traditional Unionist Voice, which have ensured that we have secured the 30 signatures required to call in to the Executive the disgraceful decision by the Minister for the Economy. While others talk this country down, these Benches will always turn up, stand up and proudly fly the flag for Northern Ireland.

Mr Burrows: The risk of political policing in Northern Ireland remains current, and that is a risk from Sinn Féin, which is continuing to interfere in policing in this country. I revealed last week that Sinn Féin was demanding — I see that its Members cannot look up, probably in shame — that PSNI officers not carry their firearms into meetings, community meetings and Sinn Féin offices. That is not only dangerous, putting an invidious pressure on our officers, but represents a breach of policing by consent and the very nature of democratic policing. No political party can interfere with the operational independence of our police officers, let alone a party with the history of Sinn Féin. I revealed that last week, and I have written to the Chief Constable so that he makes a clear direction that that does not happen again and that his officers are told to resist such approaches. This morning's 'Nolan' show revealed that that is routine practice in west Belfast. That is shameful. I want to hear what the Policing Board members say about that in the course of the rest of the week.

It is clear to me, however, that, since Sinn Féin joined the Policing Board in 2007, it has tried to control, coerce and manipulate police officers. After Gerry Adams was arrested, Bobby Storey stood up and said very clearly, "Hands off our party leader". Sinn Féin tries to create a chill factor every time that the police enforce a law against its community or against one of its own. I have heard the pressure and the lobbying, and I have had the phone calls, and I never succumbed to it. The previous Chief Constable lost his job because two senior members of Sinn Féin told him to suspend an officer who was entirely innocent and threatened that, if he did not, they would call for his resignation on the 'Sunday Politics' show a few days later.

That is what we are dealing with. This time, however, it is junior constables who are being manipulated, coerced and controlled. I will be eternally vigilant to the attempts of that party to control and manipulate our police officers. I can tell you that they trust me and will bring those issues to me if they feel that no one else is listening. I will hold you to account. You have a long way to go on policing. It is time that you took the final step and signed up to normal, democratic policing and stopped trying to use your influence to intimidate, bully and coerce our police officers day and daily in their jobs. You are politicians like anyone else. The army is gone, and you have no more threats. I will ensure that the PSNI stands up to your bullying and your pressure.

Mr Speaker: Mr Gaston, you have a couple of minutes.

Mr Gaston: Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. Over recent weeks, concerns have been brought to my attention regarding vandalism in Parliament Buildings. It is behaviour that would disgrace any workplace, never mind the seat of the Government. I refer specifically to the deliberate flooding of the toilets in this Building. On one occasion, I discovered taps intentionally left running with the sink blocked, leaving the floor saturated. On speaking directly to our hard-working cleaning staff, it became clear that that was not an isolated incident.

To get clarity, I tabled a question for written answer to the Assembly Commission, and the response confirmed the scale of the problem. There have been multiple deliberate flooding incidents in the past year alone. Those occurred on 14 January, in the first-floor ladies' toilets beside room 144, and on 19 May, in the second-floor male toilets beside room 282. On 14 October, there were two separate incidents in the same male toilet beside room 282. On 16 October, there was another incident in the same male toilet. On 20 October, there was an incident in the third-floor male toilets beside room 368. [Interruption.]

The members of the Alliance Party and the SDLP may laugh and sneer at my raising this issue, but I will stick up for our hard-working cleaners in this place, because somebody is deliberately flooding the toilets. It is childish vandalism, and it needs to stop. [Interruption.]

I am glad that you find it so funny, Mr McCrossan.

Mr McCrossan: There are bigger issues.

Mr Gaston: Absolutely. There are bigger issues, but that is happening in this place, which is the seat of the Government. That is what is going on. It is not happening in public areas but in areas that are accessible only to pass-holders: MLAs and their staff, and Assembly staff. Such behaviour is disgraceful —.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Please draw your remarks to a close, Mr Gaston.

Mr Gaston: It is shameful waste of public money —

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Thank you, Mr Gaston.

Mr Gaston: — and I am disappointed that there are MLAs here who think that that is funny.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Thank you, Mr Gaston.

Mr Gaston: It is childish vandalism —

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Timothy.

Mr Gaston: — and our cleaners have to clean it up. [Interruption.]

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Excuse me, ladies and gentlemen. Let us have a bit of order and decorum here. We have a Minister here who wants to make a statement.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): The Speaker has received notice from the Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs that he wishes to make a statement. Before I call the Minister, I remind Members that they must be concise in their questions. This is not an opportunity for debate, and long introductions will not be allowed. Over to you, Minister.

Mr Muir (The Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs): Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for the opportunity to address the Assembly on the outcome of the independent review of environmental governance in Northern Ireland and to set out my proposed way forward.

I have always firmly believed in an independent environmental protection agency (EPA) for Northern Ireland.

For too long, our environment and nature have suffered from a lack of robust protections, and we are all seeing the consequences of that. This short, sharp and comprehensive review has provided the foundations for building a brighter future for our environment. We cannot continue to dodge this critical issue. Now is the time for action: the people of Northern Ireland expect and deserve it.

As we all know, Northern Ireland continues to experience significant environmental pressures. For example, there are water-quality concerns, including the widely recognised issues that are affecting Lough Neagh, and ongoing remediation challenges at the Mobuoy illegal waste site. Those pressures are compounded by the impacts of climate change, which is driving more frequent extreme weather events, biodiversity loss and soil degradation. Alongside those pressures, we continue to face challenges in tackling waste crime, improving air quality, restoring habitats and species, and delivering on our commitments to a circular economy. Taken collectively, those issues underline the urgent need for more effective governance to protect our environment and restore public confidence and trust in our environmental protection arrangements.

As Members are aware, 'New Decade, New Approach' included a clear commitment from the parties that were entitled to form an Executive that, as part of a Programme for Government, a returning Executive would establish an independent environmental protection agency. Our latest Programme for Government commits the Executive to complete a review of environmental governance and commits me, as AERA Minister, to present a proposed way forward to the Executive for consideration and agreement.

In November 2024, I appointed an expert independent panel, led by Dr Viviane Gravey of Queen's University Belfast and supported by Diane Ruddock, a National Trust retiree, and John McCallister, a representative and member of the Ulster Farmers' Union. The panel was tasked with carrying out a review of environmental governance in Northern Ireland to assess the adequacy of the current arrangements and provide recommendations for improvement for my consideration. I put on record my sincere thanks to Viviane, Diane and John for carrying out that extensive and complex review as expert individuals.

The panel launched a call for evidence in January 2025. A total of 590 responses were received via Citizen Space and email. That was supported by three public events and substantial in-depth interviews with regulators, regulated parties and broader stakeholders across Northern Ireland, Great Britain and Ireland. The panel published its final report on 21 October 2025.

The report is extensive and detailed, and it provides a clear evidence-based case for change. It is unequivocal in its conclusion that the current environmental governance system is not fit for purpose and is failing everyone. The crisis in our environment is also a governance crisis, thus governance reform is a critical part of the solution.

The panel has set out a practical road map for reform that is structured around four key themes: clarity and coherence; meaningful independence; better compliance; and transparency and accountability. Those themes underpin 32 recommendations, which, when taken together, aim to deliver a governance system that the panel considers to be robust, trustworthy and capable of meeting Northern Ireland's environmental obligations and restoring public confidence.

At the heart of the panel's recommendations is the establishment of an independent environmental protection agency in Northern Ireland as a non-departmental public body. Its functions would include oversight of air and water quality, waste management, nature and biodiversity and the marine environment. In the panel's view, that model provides the right balance of independence, accountability and deliverability, ensuring clear separation between policymaking and regulation whilst aligning with best practice from across these islands. I agree.

Northern Ireland is an outlier, as we are the only region in the UK and Ireland that does not have an independent environmental protection agency. That position is simply not sustainable. I recognise, as does the panel, that independence is not a silver bullet that will improve environmental governance in Northern Ireland, but it is a critical part of the overall governance system. Establishing an independent environmental protection agency is about much more than just aligning with what other regions are doing.

I assure Members that, as a non-departmental public body, the new agency will still be accountable to the Assembly, and its functions and the legislative framework within which it would work would be determined by Ministers and approved by the Assembly. Crucially, though, it would be overseen by an independent board that is led by a non-executive chair and would have full operational independence in how it discharges its functions. That would ensure that a new EPA would be able to carry out its regulatory, advisory and enforcement duties without political interference. Effective functional independence is important in building trust and confidence in the body's work.

Now is a pivotal moment for us all: we should establish an independent environmental protection agency, as recommended by the independent panel. We are witnessing more and more visible signs that our environment is struggling, and we need to take the decisions now to change course. The costs of inaction are simply too great. We should look no further than Lough Neagh or the illegal dump at Mobuoy, which, as you will know, could cost hundreds of millions of pounds to resolve. Failed environmental governance and non-compliance with environmental law result in huge costs to the public purse, so we must invest now to make savings in the longer term.

Inaction also leads to increasingly degraded ecosystems, public health risks, negative impacts on people’s livelihoods and lost opportunities for sustainable growth. Without decisive reform, Northern Ireland will continue to fall behind in meeting its environmental obligations and the public will continue to pay the price in quality of life and economic resilience. Restoring trust and confidence in environmental protection is crucial for the economy and for our communities. Better and more accountable regulation will create a fair and level playing field for all.

I therefore intend to seek the support of my Executive colleagues to agree, in principle, to the establishment of an independent environmental protection agency in Northern Ireland as a non-departmental public body of DAERA. That agreement in principle would allow us to move swiftly to look in greater detail at the powers, functions and status of the new body, together with the financial implications. Following public consultation, firm policy proposals will be brought back to the Executive to enable my Department to draft and implement the legislation needed to set up the new non-departmental public body.

The report also makes a number of recommendations that fall within the remit of my Department. In parallel with our work to prepare for an independent environmental protection agency, I will work with my officials to take forward those recommendations. Some aspects already align with work that is ongoing or our own plans for improvement.

As I have said on many occasions, there are no quick fixes to the significant environmental challenges that we face today. Environmental governance is no different. However, I am fully committed to strengthening environmental governance in Northern Ireland, improving public confidence in our arrangements and, ultimately, reducing environmental degradation. I hope that Members will support me in seeking to establish a new independent environmental protection agency in Northern Ireland as a non-departmental public body of DAERA. I will, of course, update Members as the work progresses and following Executive consideration.

Mr McCrossan: It is nearly two years since you were appointed as Minister of this Department, four years since the Alliance Party promised an independent environmental protection agency and six years since the Executive parties agreed to it in 'New Decade, New Approach', yet all you have to show today is another review telling us what we already know. When it comes to reviews, this place could teach Tripadvisor a few things.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Daniel, is there a question?

Mr McCrossan: We do not need another report, Minister, to tell us that Lough Neagh is dying; we can see that with our own eyes. The simple question is this: when will the talking stop and the independent environmental protection agency finally be established, not in principle or in theory but in practice?

Mr Muir: I have set out today the process that I am taking forward. Since we left the EU, we have a very different environmental landscape. I need support, in principle, for an independent environmental protection agency. Now is the time for a decision on that. Once we get that agreed — hopefully — we will move to consultation. The cooperation of the Assembly is absolutely critical. If Members believe in this, they need to work with me on its implementation, so that we can have it legislated for by the end of the mandate.

I am up for doing it. You mentioned timescales. We lost two years of this mandate. You know why that was: it was not because of the Alliance Party or your party; it was because one party decided to walk away, which has constrained an awful lot of what we do in this place. I work night and day to deliver in my Department, within a constrained mandate and budget situation. However, I am determined to make progress on this, and Members need to back me.

Mr Butler (The Chairperson of the Committee for Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs): I thank the Minister for the advance notice of the publication of the report. The Committee will consider it for the first time this week.

The Minister has said that the agency will be a non-departmental public body. What specific vires or terms of reference does the Minister see the agency having to ensure that there is no crossover or duplication of work with agencies that already exist and that it will not be seen as another barrier to environmentally compliant and sustainable planning applications?

Mr Muir: The report, which is excellent, was written by three respected individuals, who came forward as individuals to look at the issue. They have outlined what the functions of the independent environmental protection agency should be, and those functions relate to air and water quality, waste management, nature and biodiversity, and the marine environment.

One of the key benefits of this — there are many — relates to planning applications. The speed at which the Northern Ireland Environment Agency (NIEA) turns around responses is not good enough. We need an independent environmental protection agency that is properly funded and properly resourced so that we can turn around responses to planning applications and allow people to move forward on all the issues about which they are asking for advice from the Northern Ireland Environment Agency. That will be critical. It will be absolutely fundamental that we are able to change that and turn it around. We have many non-departmental public bodies (NDPBs) in Northern Ireland. It is lost on me why anyone would oppose this.

Ms Finnegan: I thank the Minister for his statement. We absolutely support the creation of an independent environmental protection agency.

Minister, the review recommends developing memorandums of understanding and formal collaboration on North/South and east-west bases to improve coherence and share best practice. What discussions has the Minister had with his counterparts in the South regarding a joint, cross-border funding mechanism to support the environmental governance reforms and new regulatory structures recommended in the review?

Mr Muir: I thank the Member for her support. It is appreciated. The report sets out quite a lot when it comes to the independent environmental protection agency and the other issues that the Member has highlighted. We need to have much more joined-up working between Departments and agencies in Northern Ireland but, when it comes to regulators, also on North/South and east-west bases. That is why those memorandums of understanding are set out. There is work that I need Executive approval for, but there is other stuff that we can take forward as a Department. We should do that, because the environmental challenges do not stop at the border. We need to cooperate. We already do that through established functions and structures, but we need to solidify that through memorandums of understanding. I am keen to work with officials to take that forward.

Miss McIlveen: I thank the Minister for his statement. If the Department cannot adequately fund what is currently in place, how can we expect a new, additional organisation to be properly funded to carry out its functions? Further to that, what safeguards did the panel suggest should be established to prevent the mission creep seen with other independent bodies established through statute? The Equality Commission and Ashers case comes to mind in that regard.

Mr Muir: Right. When it comes to funding, the independent review clearly sets that out. I will quote from it:

one of the risks is reduced funding —

That is an important recommendation.

The other issue is in relation to accountability. There is a recommendation in the review that I have passed on to the Speaker about the scrutiny mechanisms of the Assembly in regard to the non-departmental public body. That has merit as well.

On the linkage to Ashers, I am lost, to be honest.

Mr Blair: I thank the Minister for his statement. In the Minister's opinion, what has the cost been to our environment of previous inaction on establishing an independent environmental protection agency? I ask that in the context of some in the SDLP, for example, forgetting that that party held the brief before and did not deliver on that.

Mr Muir: The cost of inaction and the lack of efficient and robust protections for our environment is substantial. The cost of remediation on the Mobuoy site could be between £100 million and £700 million, and, this year, my Department is spending over £17 million on the crisis at Lough Neagh. I could continue. The business case is very clear. We cannot allow ourselves to get into the same situation again. We also need to restore people's trust and confidence in environmental protection, because it is at an all-time low and we have to turn it around. I am setting out a way forward to do that.

Mr Gildernew: Minister, thank you for the statement. You know that I have raised issues in my constituency with you many times, particularly the issues with odours and air pollution in Killeeshil and Granville. I have also raised the issue of an independent agency. Can you assure those communities that the agency will have the teeth to address those issues and will work with those communities to ensure that they can live with sound air quality?

Mr Muir: Thank you, Colm. I have a couple of things to say. First, I thank all the staff who work in the Northern Ireland Environment Agency. I feel extremely privileged to work with them. I was with them this morning at an event on invasive species, and I will be with them throughout the week. They are good staff, they are working really hard under significant resource constraints, and I am very grateful to them.

I have set out the resourcing issue. Ultimately, it is about the budgets that are allocated, but we need to have mechanisms in place to call it out if the environment agency, as a non-departmental public body, is being underfunded.

One of the other issues is that, under the legislation, the penalties available to the agency would be set by the Assembly. That will not be a silver bullet. Ultimately, political leadership will be required here to ensure that sufficient deterrents are in place and that the environmental protection agency, as an independent non-departmental public body, can use the proper enforcement mechanisms. It is really important that we give it teeth.

I am progressing a consultation on the fisheries and water environment Bill. When I bring that to the Executive, I will need their support for it. I will also need the Assembly's support to ensure that we have legislation in place to provide sufficient deterrents on the issue of water quality and in so many other areas.

Mr Mathison: Minister, thank you for your statement. Will you outline in more detail the advantage of establishing an environmental protection agency as a non-departmental public body?

Mr Muir: The report has set out the way forward, and I thank the panel for doing that. A lot of people said to me that they wanted an independent environmental protection agency, but, when I asked, "What would that look like? What would its functions be?", they were not able to answer. The report has answered that, particularly in the context of our leaving the EU and of the different arrangements that we have.

The non-departmental public body would have not just the necessary independence but accountability, which is important. It would have specific structures, such as an independent board, and the functions that I set out. We have many non-departmental public bodies in Northern Ireland that play a valuable role; for example, the Arts Council and Sport NI. Now is the time to ensure that we end the situation whereby Northern Ireland is an outlier by not having an independent body for environmental protection.

Ms D Armstrong: Minister, thank you for your statement. You said that an independent environmental protection agency would have regulatory powers without political interference. One of the proposed themes is better compliance. How will the agency differentiate between deliberate discharge by NI Water, for example, and discharge from an old septic tank that no one knows is still working? How will it differentiate between phosphates that NI Water adds and phosphates discharged via household sources?

Mr Muir: One of the review recommendations, which I support, was that the independent environmental protection agency be able to set its own enforcement policy. It is important that it has that ability. That will answer a lot of your questions. If we get agreement in principle and people say, "Yes, we are on board with this. We want it" — to date, I have not had that from around the House; I am making a real effort to get support for this so that we can move it forward — we can scope out the details on the functions and the drafting of legislation.

Mr McMurray: Thank you, Minister. Can you offer any assessment of the panel's recommendation to exit the arrangement with NI Water known as the statement of regulatory principles and intent (SORPI)?

Mr Muir: I am on the record as consistently saying that the separate regulatory arrangement that has been in place for Northern Ireland Water since its establishment is not fit for purpose. The idea that NI Water often gets a bye ball on the pollution of our waterways is not acceptable.

I will quote from the review:

— call for evidence —

The review recommends that DAERA exit the current SORPI arrangement with Northern Ireland Water. Further to that, I will bring a paper to my Executive colleagues.

Mr McGlone: Minister, thank you for your statement. I note that the expert panel consulted widely and that you now intend to seek the support of your Executive colleagues to agree, in principle, the agency's establishment. I also note that that agreement in principle will lead to a further consultation exercise. Minister, can you give us assurances that we will not experience an environmental Groundhog Day with the EPA, which many of us support?

Mr Muir: There is a window of opportunity here for us to set up an independent environmental protection agency in Northern Ireland. I need support, in principle, to do that. We will then go through the process that we are required to do, which is consultation. Sometimes I am criticised for doing too much consultation, but I am legally required to do it. We will then look to get Executive support for drafting legislation. With the Assembly's cooperation, which is critical — if people want this, they need to work with me — we can legislate for it by the end of the mandate. However, people need to put their money where their mouth is and support me in establishing the agency. There are many issues in my Department that I work night and day on. People need to understand that this is a priority for me and to support me on it.

Miss McAllister: I thank the Minister for his answers. We are all aware of the devastating impact that the pollution of Lough Neagh has had on our beautiful natural environment. Alliance has long called for an independent environmental protection agency, and that included tabling an amendment to the climate change legislation, which many Members neither supported nor turned up for. Will the Minister detail other examples of where our current environmental protections have fallen short?

Mr Muir: The list is endless, unfortunately, Nuala. We have Lough Neagh, Mobuoy, nature decline and issues with air quality. Northern Ireland is a laggard in the environment. Whenever I say that or look to take action, I get vilified — vilified — because people are not prepared to take difficult decisions. This is a point of decision for this place, and people need to back me on it.

Mr McAleer: I thank the Minister for his statement. I welcome it while recognising that the matter is also an NDNA commitment. Minister, you will appreciate that there are now quite a number of organisations in the regulatory landscape, such as the Shared Environmental Service (SES), the Office for Environmental Protection (OEP), the NIEA, and there is now this new agency. Will it be important to unravel that landscape to explain to the public where precisely the functions sit in those organisations? I am thinking specifically of SES. Where will it sit in the new regulatory environment?

Mr Muir: Thank you, Declan. The independent panel's report was useful in teasing all that out. We have a very different regulatory landscape since leaving the EU.

SES supports district councils to process applications, and I respect that. NIEA has a separate role in planning applications. That would remain largely the case in the independent environmental protection agency. It is important to respect that. The Office for Environmental Protection's oversight function will remain in place and will replace, in part, the role of the European Commission. We should not underestimate the impact that leaving the EU has had on Northern Ireland. We all know that. We see it in not only the UK economy but the environment. There have been significant impacts and a changed landscape, and I am seeking to address that.

Mr McNulty: I thank the Minister for his statement. Minister, I entirely support the establishment of an independent EPA. It is long overdue, yet your Department seems to still be in go-slow mode. Minister, following decades of reports, commitments and promises, why has DAERA still not delivered a single ounce of accountability to those who are responsible for environmental destruction? Will the new EPA have any teeth? Why should communities believe that yet another agency will make a difference given that enforcement has not been acted on for decades?

Mr Muir: When you were asking your multiple questions, I was thinking about what the "S" in the SDLP stands for. I think that it is "sound bite".

Some Members: Ooh.

Mr Muir: When I came to this place to look for support to remove the cap on penalties for repeat polluters, your party did not support me. Who was it in Fermanagh and Omagh District Council —

Mr McNulty: Do your job.

Mr Muir: — who pushed for the return of Going for Growth? It was the SDLP, time and time again. You may turn round and pretend that you support the environment, but the reality is otherwise.

Mr O'Toole: That is utter nonsense.

Mr Muir: Sorry, but you are trying to turn around and do that. When I have looked for support on measures, you have not supported me. That is the truth, and sometimes the truth is inconvenient for you. [Inaudible.]

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Shush. Ladies and gentlemen, have a bit of decorum, please. Let us just keep it steady.

Mr Gaston: Minister, I will be upfront: I am highly sceptical of an independent environmental protection agency, as was my predecessor. In your statement, we are told:

That is a self-confessed, damning indictment of inaction from the Minister's Department. How will an additional quango make any difference, apart from blowing more public money?

Mr Muir: I set out the difference that it will make in my statement, as did the review report. If the Member does not understand that, I ask that he read it again.

Mr Durkan: I thank the Minister for his statement and welcome the progress. I do not doubt the Minister's industry and effort. However, where we are now, in seeking approval from the Executive, is as far as I got as a previous Minister. Hopefully, there is now a majority in the Assembly and, therefore, one would imagine, in the Executive that will support the progress that he proposes. Will the Minister outline the envisaged costings of establishing this new independent environmental protection agency?

Mr Muir: The Alliance Party sought to progress it via an amendment to the climate change legislation, and your party did not even turn up.

Mr Durkan: When was that?

Mr O'Toole: We are supporting this.

Mr Muir: Sorry, but if you are not across the detail, that is not my problem. I set out the need for support, in principle, in regard to the agency. If we get that support in principle, we will work through the costings, but the costs of inaction are very significant. It is a no-brainer that we want to progress this.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Minister, ladies and gentlemen. When we are debating this, please make your remarks through the Chair. That is what we are trying to do. On that point, I call Mr O'Toole.

Mr O'Toole: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. Minister, to be absolutely clear, we are the official Opposition. We respect the fact that you want to get it done, and we acknowledge that, but our job is to hold you to account. We make no apology for that. To be very clear, we hope that your proposals pass, and we will support them. We hope that they are passed through the Assembly before the end of the mandate. However, that looks very challenging in getting Executive support and getting it through the Assembly in the requisite time. That looks highly unlikely now, so why did you and your party not make it a specific red line and a condition when you entered the Executive? That is a reasonable question. Why not?

Mr Muir: People outside Northern Ireland look to this place with despair when they see people who turn around and hold these institutions to ransom over issues. We are focused on delivering for the citizens of Northern Ireland and working in a power-sharing Executive. It is difficult. Believe me, working in a power-sharing Executive is hard. Your party knows that as well, because it has been in the Executive before. You have to work with your partners in government, and they are partners in government. We do not see eye to eye on many different issues, but we have to work together. That is what I have sought to do since I became Minister, and I will continue to do that. However, if people turn around and we start going back to the world of demands and whether the institutions are up or down, I despair.

I will close by saying two things. First, the Chamber causes me great concern. It is nothing more than a toxic thunderdome in its engagement. Some people love that, and I think that that is poor. Secondly, I am happy to receive analysis and scrutiny on issues, but people need to make those points on issues of substance.

Mr McGrath: I welcome the statement. I welcome this line:

and

The people of Warrenpoint absolutely agree with that, because somebody has to wonder who under God the NIEA works for, because it is not the people of Northern Ireland. NIEA certainly does not keep an eye on the environment. I hope that this agency replaces the NIEA and that we can scrap it and get rid of it, because it is utterly useless.

Minister, will the new independent authority get cross-party buy-in and powers from other Ministers? For instance, the Department for Infrastructure looks after the ports, and, unfortunately, it is the people in areas such as Warrenpoint who lose out.

Mr Muir: I will seek support from others on the proposal. I will say to you, Colin, that the officials who work in the Northern Ireland Environment Agency —.

Mr McGrath: Useless.

Mr Muir: No.

Mr McGrath: Useless. Who pays for them?

Mr Muir: These are officials whom I have respect for. They are part of the Northern Ireland Civil Service —

Mr McGrath: No.

Mr Muir: — and they have my support. It is important that we respect individuals who work in public services in Northern Ireland. That is what I do.

Mr McGrath: Cannot even answer the question.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Ladies and gentlemen, please, no. That concludes questions on the statement. Just take your ease while we change the top Table.

Mr Speaker: I call the Minister of Finance, Mr John O'Dowd, to move the Consideration Stage of the Deaths, Still-Births and Baby Loss 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 is a single group of six amendments dealing with baby loss certificates; in addition to which notice has been given of opposition to clause 8 and to the schedule that concerns technical amendments relating to the registration of births and still-births by same-sex couples.

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

Mr Speaker: We now come to the opposition to clause 8 standing part, the six amendments and the opposition to the schedule standing part. I advise Members that amendment Nos 2 and 3 are mutually exclusive.

I call Timothy Gaston to address his opposition to the Questions that clause 8 and the schedule stand part and to address the other amendments in the group.

Mr Gaston: Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. As you pointed out, the first item on the Marshalled List is my intention to oppose clause 8 standing part of the Bill. Linked to that is my opposition to the schedule. My opposition is consistent with that of my party, a founding principle of which is support for and promotion of traditional family values. That is a founding principle of my party and one that made me choose TUV.

The schedule amends the Births and Deaths Registration (Northern Ireland) Order 1976 by inserting the term "second female parent" and replacing the words "both parents" with:

That amendment permits me to put some important facts on the record. I believe that a child needs both a father and a mother. That is a biological reality that has held true for as long as there has been life on this planet. While, sadly, there are occasions when families break up, that does not negate the need for a father in the conception of any child.

Writing a father out of a child's life is wrong. That would be done by paragraph 6(3) of the schedule. There will be those in the House who take strong exception to my saying that. I accept that, but my convictions on such issues are what brought me to the House, and, while I am here, I will continue to stand up for traditional family values and, more important, to be directed by my faith. My convictions will not allow me to ignore the fact that the issue is contained in the Bill. Anyone who shares that belief will join me in the Lobbies later, and I will certainly welcome the company.

I have tabled amendment No 4. Through that amendment, I seek to ensure that the regulations permit the certificate, if — "if" is the key word — the applicant wishes, to include:

Parents who want to name their baby on their certificate will be able do so. Parents who do not want to will not have to. Parents can add a line saying, "We recognise" — insert the baby's name — "as a member of our family", but, to be clear, only if they choose to do so. Why do that? It is because grief is personal. Some families name their baby and want the name to be in print. Amendment No 4 will allow them to do just that. Others prefer not to. The amendment is about choice, not compulsion. It turns a cold form into a living memorial to the little one whom they have sadly lost.

Amendment No 5 makes provision for a certificate to be issued:

I remind the House that, at Second Stage, when I mentioned the issue of abortion, Mr Blair, who occupied the Speaker's Chair at the time, interrupted me to say:

With those comments on the record, it is important to clarify what the Bill does and whom it does not exclude. The system must allow parents who lose a baby through termination to apply for a certificate but only if they want one. There is no forced participation. There is no clinical handout, as has been misrepresented by some in the media. A woman who miscarries at 20 weeks can apply for a certificate. A woman who has an abortion at 20 weeks, perhaps due to the fact that she has been told that her child will not survive outside the womb, should be able to do the same.

Mr Frew: I thank the Member for giving way. He has hit on a critical point. To be fair to the Member, it shows the intent of his amendment. Is it also the case that, in circumstances where, under the previous law, the mother's life was at risk and the baby was aborted to save the mother's life, parents can, if they wish, apply for and receive a baby loss certificate to mark and mourn the loss of that child?

Mr Gaston: I thank the Member for his intervention. Absolutely: it gets to the nub of what my amendment is trying to achieve. In the case that he has described to the House, absolutely —.

Mr O'Toole: Will the Member give way?

Mr Gaston: I will in a wee minute.

Absolutely: in circumstances where a baby has been aborted because of advice that the mother's life is at risk, the mother should be able to apply for a certificate if she so wishes. Over the weekend, I read a lot of commentary in the media in which, frankly, my amendment had been misrepresented. It is wrong to do that. Let us be clear about that.

Mr Frew: Will the Member give way?

Mr Gaston: I am happy to give way.

Mr Frew: Is the Member saying that it would be wrong to exclude from receiving a baby loss certificate a mother who has just lost her baby through abortion to protect her and save her own life?

Mr Gaston: Nobody should be excluded. It is up to the parent. It has to be choice-based. If that mother wants to apply for a certificate, she should be able to do so. Yes, some people have said, "Leave it to the regulations", but I want it to be in the Bill. I want it to be clear that, if somebody wishes — only if they wish — to apply for a certificate, they will have the opportunity to do so.

I give way to Mr O'Toole.

Mr O'Toole: One might speculate about your reasons for referring to abortion specifically. By putting that in the Bill, rather than waiting for regulations, where every other detail of the certificates will be covered, you are separating out that one form of baby loss from all the other forms of pregnancy ending. I could go through all the many traumatic and difficult circumstances in which pregnancies are lost or ended. You have chosen to single out that one form and to leave all the others for regulations. My question is this: why? Why does that one form of a pregnancy ending have to be dragged out and put in the Bill, other than to pick that fight?

Mr Gaston: I have a question for you, Mr O'Toole. We are talking about loss. Everyone agrees that loss matters, so why fear the clarity that my amendment would put in the Bill? It is important that it is in the Bill, especially after the comments that Mr Blair made when he was in the Chair during the Second Stage debate. We have to bring clarity to the debate. If I may say so, my amendments were tabled on 23 June, so it has not been dropped in at the last minute. The amendment was tabled well in advance. It is only the Members who have created opposition and hysteria who have made it an issue.

Miss McAllister: I thank the Member for giving way. I was not going to speak on the issue, but he talks about putting it in the Bill. Clause 11(2) states:

That is in the Bill. It is covered. You mentioned that you are talking about loss. It is right there in black and white in front of us.

Mr Gaston: I thank the Member for the intervention. As I said, on the basis of the comments from the Deputy Speaker previously, it is important to have it in the Bill.

Ms K Armstrong: I thank the Member for giving way. This is an important discussion today about legislation that will have an impact on many people. We should have said — perhaps the Member will agree — that there is a triggering and upsetting use of language. As a former bereavement counsellor, I know that using the word "abortion" to someone who has miscarried, when it is on their medical records as a spontaneous abortion, is incredibly callous and cruel. Using such language in the Bill, when it already covers all forms of loss, is more about political point-scoring and harming women than it is about making good legislation.

Mr Gaston: I do not accept that it is about point-scoring. I have been open and honest. I tabled the amendments well in advance. The only issues that have arisen were from Mr O'Toole and from Mr Tennyson in the paper over the weekend. I have never tried to raise this as a political issue, but it is important. I felt a conviction to bring it to the Chamber, which is why I have done so. I have tried and will continue to try to be as sensitive as I can on the issue as we progress.

It is important to recognise that, for those who have had an abortion that, in some cases, they deeply regret, giving them the option to apply for a baby loss certificate would help with the process of dealing with that loss. It is cruel to deny women in either circumstance that option or to suggest that it is wrong. My amendment removes that barrier. It says, "Grief does not discriminate by cause". Importantly, it mirrors the Scotland scheme, which includes medical terminations without controversy or compulsion. The FAQ paper on the Scottish Memorial Book of Pregnancy and Baby Loss Prior to 24 Weeks states:

All that I am trying to do is replicate the scheme that exists in Scotland.

Every year, thousands of families in Northern Ireland lose a baby before 24 weeks, some through miscarriage, some through medical necessity and some through abortion. All of them grieve. All of them deserve dignity. My amendments do not judge. They do not compel. They include but only if requested. I urge MLAs from all parties to support my amendments — amendment Nos 4 and 5 — as acts of basic human kindness. Parents who have lost a baby, however that loss happened, should never be told, "Your grief doesn't count".

I have heard some suggest that MLAs should leave all of that to the regulations. My question is this: which of my amendments do you disagree with? I understand that there will be deep division in relation to my opposition to clause 8 and the schedule, but who is opposed to a family's including:

plus:

on a baby loss certificate? Who is suggesting that someone who has had an abortion, perhaps as a result of medical advice, should be denied a baby loss certificate?

I commend my amendments to the House.

Mr O'Toole (The Chairperson of the Committee for Finance): I will speak first in my capacity as Chair of the Finance Committee, and I will then make some brief remarks in a political capacity. One of the most important issues that the Committee has considered with respect to the Bill is the immensely sensitive topics that it encompasses: death, stillbirth and baby loss.

Mr Speaker, I should take your guidance before I proceed: are we debating just Mr Gaston's amendments at this point? Is that right?

Mr Speaker: The debate is on all the amendments.

Mr O'Toole: All of them? OK. In that case, I will give the Committee's view and move on to give a party view.

One of the most important issues that the Committee considered with respect to the Bill is the immensely sensitive topics that it encompasses: death, stillbirth and baby loss. The Committee requested evidence from a range of interested organisations and carried out a detailed online survey to which it received 40 responses from individuals, organisations and representative bodies. The responses included highly emotive personal testimony from individuals. The Committee carefully considered the views of all those who provided written evidence. On behalf of the Committee, I thank all who took the time to provide detailed evidence to inform and support the Committee in its consideration of the Bill. That was especially important in the case of this Bill, given that its provisions had not previously been consulted on, and it was important that the Committee gave that time to ensure that the process was right. On behalf of the Committee, I also thank the Department, the Forget-me-not Group and the National Association of Funeral Directors, who provided oral evidence. I single out the Forget-me-not parents who made time for us and gave very sensitive and, at times, emotional evidence. Their input was greatly appreciated.

I note that the Committee managed to complete Committee Stage well in advance of the date in the extension motion, which shows — perhaps it is a lesson to others — that Committees are capable of not exceeding updated target dates and, indeed, can view such dates as limits rather than targets.

I now refer to some general issues that were raised by members during the Committee Stage. Clauses 2 to 10 relate to the recording of deaths and stillbirths and the repeal of the temporary provisions of the Coronavirus Act 2020. The Committee previously agreed a number of statutory rules made under the provisions of the Coronavirus Act 2020 that related to the recording of deaths and stillbirths. Those changes allowed the registration of deaths and stillbirths by telephone, without an informant's signature, and the electronic transfer of registration documents between the parties in the process. This Chamber subsequently approved regulations on a number of occasions. Members of the Committee were therefore well versed in the use of such provisions. The Committee's deliberations on those clauses were mostly of a technical nature to ensure the legislation's robustness. In its evidence, the National Association of Funeral Directors outlined how the arrangements were working, gave its support for the arrangements and conveyed its eagerness that they should continue in perpetuity. The Committee had no objections to that part of the Bill.

Clause 11 gives the Department the power to introduce a baby loss certificate scheme. As Members will be aware, the House has previously supported, via a private Member's motion, the introduction of baby loss certificates. It was the Committee that ensured that they were included in the Bill. There was unanimity on the Committee that such a scheme be introduced. Committee discussions therefore mostly centred on the potential for a monetary charge for a baby loss certificate. The Department confirmed to the Committee that a charge could not and would not be introduced without the approval of the House. Any potential charge would have to be introduced via subordinate legislation through the draft affirmative procedure, allowing the provisions of the statutory rule to be both debated and amended. The Committee therefore agreed to proceed without an amendment on that issue. The Committee is, however, aware of the amendments, including those on that issue, tabled to the Bill. Members, having seen the Marshalled List, will debate those today. However, the Committee did not discuss the specific amendments and therefore has not taken a Committee position on them.

The Committee unanimously supports the Bill. The ability to register deaths and stillbirths without having to attend a registration office in person is to be welcomed, and the opportunity for bereaved parents to obtain a baby loss certificate is an important step. As I indicated at Second Stage, the Committee welcomes the Bill. The Committee undertook its duty to perform scrutiny and fully supports the Bill's moving through the next stage of the legislative process towards, hopefully, Royal Assent.

I will make some brief remarks on the amendments in a party capacity. Mr Gaston has discussed his two amendments and his opposition to clause 8 and the schedule, which creates new registration rights for same-sex female couples. He will oppose the Question that they stand part of the Bill. I will take those points in turn. Obviously, my party, which believes in equality, will strongly support the Question that clause 8 stand part of the Bill. It is deeply disappointing and a regressive step to try to remove that one, small, modest, bureaucratic updating of the rules to reflect the fact that there are loving, supportive same-sex couples and families in this society. Mr Gaston is attempting to make his points today. He is entitled to his views on that. I do not prevent people having their personal views, but this is the law of the land. Once the Bill gets Royal Assent, the law of the land will be that same-sex female couples will be able to register births in exactly the same way as other families. That is a welcome step forward. It is regrettable that Mr Gaston has sought to oppose it, but I understand why he has done that.

I will move on to Mr Gaston's other two amendments. Amendment No 4 specifies that parents would have the right to request that the name, sex and other biographical details be on the certificates. There is much in that that is fine. I do not necessarily object to it, in principle, but it brings me on to a big part of the reason to oppose his amendment No 5. Both amendments are to clause 11. Amendment No 5 inserts the provision that the Department:

Amendment Nos 4 and 5 are putting the cart before the horse, and that is before we get to the morality, as it were, of some of the language that has been used. Amendment Nos 4 and 5 are very specific designs of how the scheme would work. The entire purpose of the Bill and clause 11 is not to design down to the minutiae how a baby loss certificate scheme will work. We had very detailed discussions in Committee about whether that was advisable. We discussed it with the Department, the Minister and the Registrar General, who is in the Chamber today, and we came to the view that the appropriate thing to do is to mandate the Department to go away and design a scheme. That scheme will then come back to the Chamber via draft affirmative regulation. Therefore, the Committee will be able to scrutinise the draft when it comes back and will then be able to advise the Assembly. The Assembly will be able to amend that, if it so wishes, so that it includes any other detail, and it will then go to a vote. Before I get on to the substance of what is in those amendments, the idea that we need to design every small, fine detail of how the scheme will work is simply not accurate from the perspective of making legislation. In fact, I am not sure that it is good practice, because, once you put things in a Bill, you then, ultimately, ask why other things are not in the Bill.

I will now come on to the detail of what Mr Gaston said about termination. Clearly, there are many circumstances in which pregnancies are terminated. People have views on that, and those are discussed here. I have my strong personal views, but, clearly, there will be circumstances in which people who have experienced termination will want to avail themselves of a baby loss certificate for different reasons. There is not necessarily a need for me to go through what all those personal and medical reasons might be, but suffice it to say that, yes, there are circumstances in which someone who has had an abortion or a termination, either where it is forced on them medically or where they have had it for other reasons, may want to apply to participate in the scheme and apply for a certificate. Here is the thing: the Bill does nothing to prevent that happening. Those people are already included in the Bill, along with everybody else who suffers any form of baby loss.

Mr Gaston: Will the Member give way?

Mr O'Toole: Yes, I will give way.

Mr Gaston: I understand the point that Mr O'Toole is trying to make, but cast your mind back to the Bill's Second Stage and the Deputy Speaker's remarks and his ruling during that debate. Do you not believe, based on the Deputy Speaker's comments, that clarity is needed in the Bill?

Mr O'Toole: You seem to have a particular bee in your bonnet, if I may say so through the Chair, about something that Mr Blair said when he was in the Deputy Speaker's Chair. It is not really for me to litigate that between the two of you, and I do not know whether it has any ultimate legal effect. The point is that the Bill is drafted to be inclusive in the sense that it creates the broad mandate that a scheme is designed, and the Department will then go away and come back. The upshot of what you have just said to me is that, because of something that was said in the Speaker's Chair and a particular understanding, you have to insert that particular form of baby loss into the Bill. One might argue that, in doing so, you are excluding all other forms of loss; for example, a miscarriage that followed a car accident. In some ways, I hate to be so specific, because these are very sensitive issues. Does that have to go into the Bill? Does every single form of very traumatic, sad and very difficult baby loss have to be included? By the way, I am aware that the people who are watching this are traumatised, and have been traumatised, by baby loss, so I feel a bit flippant having to talk about it. However, since I have to explain why I am opposed to Mr Gaston's amendments, I am explaining the illogicality of them and not simply the insensitivity of them. We will be strongly opposing that. To be clear, that is not to say that I do not think that the scheme should exclude families who have experienced termination. It should, and I hope and trust that it will and that we can look at that when the scheme comes back in draft affirmative regulations. That is the place to do it. That is probably also true of amendment No 4, but that is somewhat less sensitive than amendment No 5.

I will move on to some of the other amendments. I am not sure of the status of all the other amendments or whether they are going to be moved. There was some discussion around the potential for charging for certificates. It is important to say that there was a broad view in the Committee that you would not want to see a situation in which somebody is charged for receiving one of these certificate. A practically reasonable point made by officials in evidence was that you may need some mechanism for limiting or regulating the number of certificates that can be issued to individuals. That may be the genesis of where the question of charging arose. I would like to hear from others, including the Minister, as to their position on charges, and hear assurances that they can give, before taking a final position on some of the amendments that relate to charging. Our broad view is that there should not be charging at all. If there is a very good, plausible explanation for why you need to include that provision to deal with some hypothetical situation, I will not be completely close-minded or ideological about it, but I would like to hear that during the debate — including from the Minister — before taking a final view.

I have covered most of the amendments, but not all. Notwithstanding the remarks that I have made about particular amendments, I look forward to this proceeding through to its next stage, both as Chair of the Committee and as an SDLP politician. It is hugely positive, first, that we are formally enacting these COVID-era powers and getting them on to the statute book, not in a timely way, but belatedly and eventually, and, secondly, that we are creating the provision for a baby loss certificate scheme, which is hugely important and poignant for a group of people. I hope that, as those people watch today and follow and engage in the detail of the legislation, they are not too despondent about some of the debate and they stick with it. Once we get through this stage, I hope that we will have the legislation on the statute book fairly soon.

Miss Dolan: This Bill will ensure that changes that modernised the process for death and stillbirth registration during COVID will be enshrined in permanent legislation. Enabling the electronic transfer of documents will make the registration process for families who have suffered a bereavement easier, reduce stress and improve overall efficiency, while also still allowing people the choice of opting for an in-person process if they wish. Ensuring equality for registering births and stillbirths for same-sex female couples is also an important aspect of the Bill. Moving forward, that will mean that they are able to register in the same manner as opposite-sex parents.

The development of a baby loss certificate scheme will give families the opportunity to have formal recognition of their heartbreaking loss and send a clear message to parents who have lost a baby prior to 24 weeks that their love and grief is real and that they are not alone. During the Committee Stage, we heard directly from parents who have suffered such loss. I thank them for their courage in coming forward, sharing their experiences and helping to shape this positive legislation. Their voices must continue to be heard as we move forward. I welcome the commitment from the Finance Minister and his officials that they will continue to engage with those groups while designing the scheme to ensure that it meets their needs.

However, it is disappointing that some seek to use this as an opportunity to oppose equality for all couples and to bring amendments that focus on creating division. I remain focused on the compassionate objectives of the Bill in its existing form and the benefits that it will bring to many people, particularly grieving parents. Throughout the Committee Stage, those directly affected by loss during pregnancy made it clear that the scheme should be as accessible as possible, and it is vital that the regulations that follow from the passing of the legislation reflect that. I look forward to the Bill progressing in the compassionate manner with which it has been dealt with to date.

Ms Forsythe: I am pleased to debate the legislation. It is a piece of legislation that, whilst largely procedural, is made with a spirit of compassion to help people at a time of loss. We all know that death is a part of life, but, when we are faced with it, that does not make it any easier. There are practical things that need to be done at that time. Whilst the legislation is not the usual Finance Committee work, I was proud to work alongside colleagues to bring it through. We consulted on it and heard from members of the public, funeral directors, councils and representatives from baby loss groups. I give special thanks to the Forget-me-not Group for working closely with us so that we fully understood the reach, impact and importance of the legislation and its language for those who face those difficult circumstances.

In relation to deaths and stillbirths, which are defined in legislation as babies who have died in pregnancy at 24 weeks or beyond, the temporary provisions introduced by the Coronavirus Act 2020 enabled telephone and electronic communications to support the registrations during the lockdown restrictions. They have proved to be efficient and effective and have significantly reduced the trauma for those who have suffered a loss. I am pleased that the Department has brought them forward as law. A number of clauses in the legislation today relate to recording deaths and stillbirths and the repeal of the temporary provisions in the Coronavirus Act 2020, which we welcome.

As an unashamedly pro-life party, the DUP recognises and values the life of every baby from the moment that it was formed in the womb. We believe that every loss of a baby represents the loss of a precious life. The existing law on registration makes the clear difference that babies who, sadly, pass away during pregnancies that reach 24 weeks are considered to be stillbirths and formally registered in that way and that babies who, heartbreakingly, pass away before 24 weeks do not receive that. The difference is heartbreaking.

Today, I am pleased that, through the legislation, we are bringing forward baby loss certificates to Northern Ireland to provide a way to formally record and recognise the lives of all babies lost here. We saw it brought forward in England, and it was great to be in the Chamber when, with a united voice, we supported the need for it in Northern Ireland. I thank the Minister for working with the Committee at pace to consult and bring it forward for parents here and especially for those babies who, until now, have left only footprints on the hearts of those who love them. They will now be able to have a certificate that recognises their life.

I know, as a mother, the feeling the moment you find out you are pregnant and will have a baby. You know your due date, you know what age they will be for their first Christmas, and you have hopes and dreams for that child. No matter how old the baby grows to be, the baby lived, it existed, it mattered, and it was your child. When that child passes away, your loss is huge. It is so real, and it matters.

At the Consideration Stage, I turn to speak to the amendments that have been tabled. We are content to support amendment No 1. It is notable that, in England, the baby loss certificate scheme is not enshrined in regulations. The provisions of the Bill, therefore, provide security for the introduction of the scheme in Northern Ireland. Making the act of bringing forward parent regulations compulsory for the Department will not affect the flexibility in the rest of the clause with respect to the scheme's criteria and implementation.

On amendment No 2, whilst we agree with the focus on removing unreasonable barriers to accessing the scheme, it does not seem prudent to make a provision to prohibit any fees in any circumstances, as was highlighted by the Department during the Committee's deliberations. That will particularly be the case if there is demand that exceeds the Department's expectations from those who formally wish to have their loss recognised.

Paul Frew and I tabled a compromise in amendment No 3, which would provide for a free certificate plus another free copy and permits the ability to levy a fee for a replacement, second copy or subsequent copies of the certificate. We felt that that wording struck the fair and right balance between ensuring that controls are in place for potential costs that may arise from the scheme and the need to ensure that the system is as accessible as possible for grieving parents and families, and that is our intention. We seek clarity from the Minister on how we move forward on that.

On amendment No 4, the DUP is an unashamedly pro-life party. We believe that every loss of a baby represents the loss of a precious life. In keeping with that belief, we feel that it is appropriate that the Bill provides assurances that any future scheme will afford applicants the opportunity to have their baby's identity, including name and sex, formally acknowledged.