Official Report: Tuesday 02 December 2025

Mr Speaker: I have been notified by Carál Ní Chuilín that she is not available to raise her Adjournment topic on mental health de-escalation services in North Belfast, so that debate will not happen today.

Ms Sheerin: I rise this morning, in what is becoming an annual tradition, to congratulate Robert Emmet's GAC Slaughtneil on its retention of the Ulster Club Senior Hurling Championship title, having won the final on Sunday past. That is its sixth title in nine years, which is an amazing feat for the small south Derry club. I congratulate the club following its emphatic 13-point victory over St John's of Antrim and wish it all the very best in its next game against Galway champions, Loughrea. I know that the people of Slaughtneil are very proud of their team and their club. Their success is the result of an awful amount of commitment and hard work over the past year. I mention in particular my friends the McMullans from Moneysharvan — Patrick, Myra and Jimmy — who will, no doubt, be shouting, "Up the Robbies" for many weeks to come.

Mr Brett: The people of Belfast deserve better. They deserve better than the absolutely disgraceful scenes that we witnessed at Belfast City Council last night, when 32 members of that council showed exactly where their priorities lie, and it is not with the ratepayers of Belfast.

In a move that is now subject to legal action, councillors changed the rules to try to avoid court scrutiny. They forced a member of staff to work after midnight last night, but they were not asked to empty the overflowing bins that are in every part of our city or remove the 80 alley gates that sit derelict in Duncrue industrial estate and are meant to be used to protect pensioners but cannot be installed due to a lack of staff. Nor was the staff member instructed to fix Grove leisure centre, which has been closed for two years. Instead, they were forced by the party opposite to stay in City Hall to erect the flag of Palestine. That was a blatant abuse of process and a disgraceful attempt by Sinn Féin and the SDLP to run ahead of the court, which will sit in 25 minutes' time. The very party that introduced minority protections in the Local Government (Northern Ireland) Act 2014 — the SDLP — has ridden roughshod over those protections.

Last night, a letter from the Jewish community, which I am honoured to represent, was read into the council record, outlining the community's objections to the decision. When it was read, members of the council laughed and sneered at its opposition. They laughed and sneered at the fact that that community, which is a minority in Belfast, felt intimidated by that decision. Of course, shortly after the attacks of 7 October, the parties opposite blocked the lighting up of City Hall in solidarity with the victims of the Hamas terrorist attacks. Their record is clear when it comes to the protection of the Jewish community in our city.
Unionism in Belfast will not be walked over. We successfully legally blocked the previous decision, and we will continue to use every legal and political protection to ensure that the people of Belfast are not discriminated against by a pan-republican front that is more interested in fighting wars in the Middle East than delivering for the people of the city that we should all feel honoured to represent.

Mr McMurray: It is the season of peace and goodwill to all men. It is also the season of Advent, which, Mr Speaker, I am sure that you are reflecting on. Advent defines the story of a young family making their journey in a challenging political, social and economic situation. I reflect on that story a lot, but some people in our society have missed the whole point of it. Last night, a threat was issued to all elected reps in Newry, Mourne and Down District Council against the council's decision to endorse the area as a council of sanctuary. At the outset, I stand in solidarity with all elected reps in Newry, Mourne and Down, be they councillors, MLAs or MPs, and with all parties sitting here today, because it is such a humbling and proud role to be an elected rep and serve society.

I also thank the PSNI for the proactive role that it has taken. The issue has been ongoing, and the PSNI is working hard and was quick last night to phone around and offer support and advice. I will also say that having men in balaclavas standing in front of flags reading crumpled statements and holding guns has not defined my politics and does not define my politics, nor will it ever. What defines my politics is this: my party colleagues here and the political discourse with other parties in the Chamber, whether we agree or disagree. That is what moves society forward.

I stand in solidarity with other elected reps, I thank the PSNI, and I completely refute the threats made by the group last night. On the matter of the city of sanctuary designation for Newry, Mourne and Down District Council, the decision was the right, just and empathetic thing to do.

Mr Beattie: The issue of non-disclosure agreements (NDAs) has been thrown into sharp focus since a criminal investigation was launched into the Presbyterian Church in Ireland. I do not intend to talk about that case but about NDAs in general.

Of course, NDAs are needed for commercially sensitive material or privileged medical information, for example, but, having been approached by multiple individuals, I have grave concerns about the general use of NDAs. NDAs are mostly put in place following employment disputes. However, there seems to be a prevalence of NDAs in the charity sector and in religious organisations, to the extent that I am concerned that the Charity Commission is blind to many of them or is turning a blind eye. Women seem to be more susceptible than men to being asked to sign NDAs. There are cases of coercion being used to force individuals to sign NDAs, including, in one case that I heard about, a family member in employment being targeted to get their spouse to sign an NDA.

NDAs are used to cover up bullying, harassment and sexual impropriety, and, incredibly, they are used to hide criminal offences.

Those who sign NDAs do not know the long-term effect on their future employment, because they have no way of explaining to a future employer that the issue that they had with their previous employer was settled between them. Why is that? It is because industrial employment tribunals no longer give a full judgement on the NDA's being agreed, apart from saying, "The claim was dismissed following withdrawal". That is all that it says on the judgement. The judgement is not publicly registered, so nobody can go on to the industrial tribunal web page to see that a case has been settled. We now have the ludicrous situation whereby, because it is no longer recorded, charities, churches, employees and government organisations can neither confirm nor deny whether an NDA is in place and the public and an individual's future employers have no way of checking whether there is a systemic issue. If you are a claimant, you are not even allowed to say that you have an NDA. That needs to change. The wording of any tribunal needs to reflect exactly what has happened, and that needs to go on to a public register. Sadly, the Assembly changed those rules only last year. We need to sort out the system for the Justice Department and the Department for the Economy, because, right now, it is being abused.

Mr O'Toole: I will speak on the same subject as Mr McMurray. No doubt, other local reps in the Chamber will wish to mention it.

Last evening, a video emerged to which I am almost loath to give the oxygen of publicity. It was clearly, in part, a disgraceful attempt to garner publicity for a group of masked men who were wearing balaclavas and holding what appeared to be weapons, although we do not know whether they were real. Thankfully, the PSNI has moved quickly to investigate. Those individuals sought to verbally intimidate and issue threats to elected members of Newry, Mourne and Down District Council, which stretches from Saintfield at the outskirts of my constituency all the way to Crossmaglen at the border.

A number of months ago, a vote took place endowing the council with the status of council of sanctuary. That status is not in any way what lots of online misinformation has suggested that it is. Lots of that misinformation has been grotesque and deliberate, and online actors have used it to stir up hatred. Social media companies have allowed that to fester and ferment, and that has culminated in masked men regurgitating last night the tropes that so many of us thought that we on this island had moved on from. Masked men with guns issuing threats to elected representatives is grotesque, contemptible and unacceptable.

I do not wish to overestimate what this means, nor, however, do I wish to minimise it. Individuals have been elected to that council, many of whom are friends and colleagues of mine for whom I have the utmost respect. I have the utmost respect for representatives of all the parties that are represented in the Chamber who are on that council and who serve as elected representatives more broadly. They get up in the morning — often they have their own family responsibilities and things going on in their lives — and they do their best, whatever their political perspective, to represent their district and constituency. Those representatives put themselves forward; we all put ourselves forward. We put our faces on election posters and our names on a ballot paper. We put our email addresses and other contact details out there so that the people who elect us can contact us with their views and we can articulate those views. That is the precise opposite of the cowardice that is represented by people putting out a video threatening elected representatives. That is grotesquely anti-democratic.

I stand in solidarity with colleagues not just in my party but in every party. I also say to all Members in the Chamber that we need to stand united as democrats against this kind of wicked and grotesque intimidation, which is being fomented online by parts of the far right. We do not know which international actors are helping to spread it. There is, apparently, no accountability for social media companies, but we cannot allow this incident to chill democracy. In Newry, Mourne and Down, as well as everywhere else, the people who are elected —

Mr Speaker: The Member's time is up.

Mr O'Toole: — will do their jobs without intimidation.

Ms Ennis: I, too, will speak about the disgraceful escalation in threats against elected representatives in Newry, Mourne and Down over recent weeks. The sinister threats issued online against elected members of Newry Mourne and Down District Council are an attack on democracy and the mandate that each of us has received from the public, and they deserve unequivocal condemnation from political leaders. I express my solidarity with my colleagues on Newry, Mourne and Down District Council and colleagues from other parties with whom we work collegiately and have done since being elected. I also express my solidarity with their families.

These individuals represent no one, and they will not deter Sinn Féin elected representatives, or any democratically elected representatives, from carrying out our work of representing constituents daily. Those pushing fear and scapegoating minorities promote a failed, backward agenda that has no place here. The overwhelming majority of people across this island reject that toxic narrative. Ireland, today, is diverse, inclusive and compassionate. Sinn Féin elected representatives will continue building an Ireland that rejects racism, hatred and division and promotes equality, compassion, socio-economic justice and unity. As others have said, we have seen a dangerous escalation in these incidents. It started with online abuse, threats against people, graffiti at people's homes, people being harassed when they are out shopping and socialising, bombs left at their offices and, now, this latest threat last night.

Someone is going to get hurt as a result of this, and it will not be enough to offer condemnation after that. All elected representatives have a responsibility to promote human rights and equality. The language and tone of elected representatives in the Chamber and in the media should be accurate, respectful and promote unity rather than division. There is no place in our society for paramilitaries, thugs and gangsters. The gangsters behind the threats represent no one. They speak for no one, unlike those of us who have been democratically elected. We are from and of our communities, and we will continue to speak for them.

All of us here must work together to face down these chilling threats against people who are democratically elected to represent their constituents.

Mr Kingston: Yesterday, my colleague Phillip Brett put a question for urgent oral answer to the First Minister regarding the clear contradictions in Sinn Féin's position on the damage caused to the portrait of a DUP Lord Mayor at Belfast City Hall during an Irish language event in October 2024. What resulted in that Question Time was a blatant example of stonewalling and evasion, with the First Minister refusing to give any meaningful answers.

Some may ask why the DUP and other parties are going on about the issue. We have a duty to expose the blatant cover-up that Sinn Féin is engaged in. Let me repeat the key contradiction in Sinn Féin's position at two different points in time.

On 22 October 2024, First Minister Michelle O'Neill informed the Northern Ireland Assembly in the Chamber:

— Sinn Féin —

You would think that that is pretty clear-cut. She also said that the employee had resigned from their employment and from party membership. However, in the statement from the Public Prosecution Service last week, in which it said that it would not be progressing the case due to lack of evidence, we are told:

That is a total contradiction to what the First Minister said in the Assembly. She said that the Chief Whip had been informed by the individual of his involvement and that Sinn Féin had reported it to the police, but, in her statement, the Chief Whip then said that he had made no admission to being at the event and had denied any knowledge of the damage.

As we said yesterday, either the First Minister misled the Assembly or the Chief Whip misled the PSNI.

Sinn Féin needs to confirm which it is. Both are serious matters.

The truth matters. The public expect those who make the rules to follow them. We will continue to expose the shameful cover-up.

Mr Dickson: I want to address the proposal for a ministerial trade mission to China and invite the Economy Minister to rethink it. I want to set out why it is not the right course of action at this time.

As an Executive and legislature, we all recognise the importance of international trade in attracting investment and opening new markets for Northern Ireland. We all want our economy to grow, our innovators to thrive and our businesses to compete on the global stage. However, economic engagement cannot be detached from the principles on which this place is supposed to stand: human rights, democracy and respect for the rule of law.

China is currently the subject of serious, credible and sustained allegations of human rights violations, including the mass detention and surveillance of the Uyghur community and other minority communities, the dismantling of democratic freedoms and civic space in Hong Kong and severe restrictions on the freedom of religion, association and expression across the country. There are well-documented concerns around forced labour in supply chains linked to key sectors, such as textiles, solar components and technology.

In that context, a high-profile trade mission led by a Northern Ireland Minister risks being interpreted as indifference to those abuses. It risks being used by the Chinese state to project legitimacy and normalisation of its society. It risks placing commercial opportunity above universal human dignity. That is not the message that Northern Ireland should send out. We need to recognise the issue of consistency. If we take a strong stance on human rights in some parts of the world, we cannot adopt a different standard when it comes to others. Our approach must be principled, predictable and fair. Turning a blind eye to abuses in one country while condemning them in another weakens our credibility and undermines the very values that we claim to uphold. Consistency is not only morally necessary but essential to maintain trust in our international voice.

We must acknowledge another concern, which is that the Executive Office already allocates significant public funds to support an overseas bureau in Beijing. At a time when resources are under intense pressure, public services are struggling and every pound spent has to be justified, many people will reasonably ask whether expanding engagement with China is appropriate, particularly in the absence of clear human rights safeguards and transparency objectives.

Until there is demonstrable progress on human rights in China, the proposed mission should not proceed. Northern Ireland must show leadership by proving that prosperity and principle are not opposing forces but inseparable aims. I look forward to hearing the Economy Minister's future plans in respect of China.

Ms Forsythe: The DUP unequivocally condemns all violence. We condemn threats of violence towards elected representatives. Last night, as has been mentioned, we saw a disturbing video appear online in which masked men made threatening comments towards local politicians in the Newry, Mourne and Down area. That is unacceptable. People who have stood up for the community and been democratically elected to those positions by the public should never be subjected to that. The PSNI has confirmed that it is investigating the video. We fully support the investigation to establish the identity of those involved, who that group is and the viability of the threat and the steps to ensure the safety of elected representatives as they go about their business.

In this online world, such videos and threats are even more dangerous than they were when I was young because they are shared so widely. This morning, it was disturbing for me to face questions from my children, who asked, "Mummy, is the IRA back?". Growing up in the minority unionist community in South Down in the 1980s and 1990s, we were terrorised regularly. I do not want that for my children; they deserve better. That is a key reason why I stand in the House as an elected representative for South Down: to make this a better place for them and their future.

It is imperative that the PSNI identifies who posted the video and their IP address. No matter what is discovered about the organisation, those who were involved in posting the video and the malicious communications need to be prosecuted. In this modern world, everyone who has a platform needs to take responsibility and be held to account for how it is used. It is difficult for those of us who stand as minorities in our constituencies, such as myself and the six unionist councillors — five of whom are from the DUP — in the Newry, Mourne and Down area. My colleague Willie Irwin in Newry and Armagh, my colleague Gary Middleton in Foyle and I suffer abuse and threatening behaviour regularly. It is not lost on us. That is unacceptable for every one of us. The video last night was unacceptable. Like the leader of the Opposition, I do not like to give it any further publicity, but it needs to be called out.

The hypocrisy of the Sinn Féin MP for the area is also not lost on me. He spoke of "faceless thugs", but, when we think of the history of South Down, we think of the faceless thugs of the IRA who murdered William Heenan in Legananny and Alan Johnston in Kilkeel as he went about his work. We do not want to return to the days of the past. This is not the future that we want for our children. We deserve better in Northern Ireland. We stand with our elected representatives, and we support the police investigation.

Miss McAllister: Katie Simpson was murdered in August 2020. Her death and the failure to achieve justice for her is still felt today, but her legacy will live on. That legacy will be that this will never happen again. However, that legacy will be truly lived only if there is full transparency and accountability in respect of what happened.

At the weekend, we saw the release of the second half of the BBC Sounds podcast 'Assume Nothing' about Katie's death and the subsequent investigation. I have known the details around the issues for some years and have brought them to the relevant authorities every time that new information has come to light. I have often been met with raised voices and patronising remarks, with people telling me to keep my questions private. I give credit to Tanya Fowles, a journalist who kept pressure on the police to ensure that the information came out to the public.

The revelations about Katie's death and the subsequent investigation that finally came out at the weekend are so significant that attention must be drawn to them. Tanya Fowles has made it public that a staff member of an elected representative contacted her to tell her to back off and that there was nothing to see, using information that could have been gained only from inside the police. That is hugely significant, so I will say it again: political interference by a staff member of an elected representative with knowledge and information known only by the PSNI. Another element of the podcast is that it shines a light again on the resistance of many in the PSNI to investigating Katie's death, which many knew was a murder. The question of why her murderer's records were hidden from the internal PSNI systems has been made public again. That could not have been a mistake.

The release of the episodes has brought a raft of new concerns into the public domain. I assure everyone who has listened and contacted me, Tanya and others that I remain committed to uncovering the full truth behind those events. I want to make sure that nothing like this ever happens again, and, for that, there must be accountability and transparency from everyone involved.

Miss McIlveen: On Saturday evening, I was delighted to host a gala ball in Parliament Buildings, bringing to an end a year of celebration for Carrickmannon Primary School as it marked its 200th anniversary. It is proudly Northern Ireland's oldest school. It began in 1825 in a one-room thatched-roof schoolhouse on the outskirts of Ballygowan, with a grant of £22, on land granted by Lord Dufferin.

That little school witnessed the Industrial Revolution, the reign of Queen Victoria, the launch and sinking of the Titanic, and two world wars. Its influence can be traced through generations and through individuals whose contributions have shaped our cultural, academic and medical landscape. One of its earliest former pupils was James Munce, the renowned Ulster-Scots poet who produced a 400-page volume of poetry that continues to be recognised in Ulster-Scots literature. Sir John Henry Biggart, who started attending the school in 1911, became dean of the faculty of medicine at Queen's; a post that he held for an extraordinary 28 years. His leadership was instrumental in the development of the blood transfusion service, and he played a defining role in the evolution of the health service of Northern Ireland.

The legacy of Carrickmannon Primary School is not confined to the achievements of individuals. It is also seen in how that small school has inspired collective action: action that changed healthcare in Northern Ireland. In the late 1980s, the Carrickmannon scanner appeal was launched. At that time, no MRI scanners existed anywhere in Northern Ireland or the Irish Republic. A local child's illness exposed the urgent need for one. Dr McKinstry, an early and passionate advocate for MRI technology, was invited to Carrickmannon to explain its potential. In a packed room, he described how the scanner could detect abnormalities as small as a grain of sand. The school's former principal Mrs Montgomery asked what could be done. His answer: £700,000 to secure Northern Ireland's first MRI scanner. What followed was extraordinary. A school that normally raised modest sums for annual charities became the heart of a Province-wide movement. Schools, churches, businesses and community groups rallied around Carrickmannon, organising countless fund-raising events. Driven by the commitment of staff, parents and local people, the target was reached and exceeded. The first MRI scanner in Northern Ireland was housed in a purpose-built facility, known appropriately as Carrickmannon House, at the Royal Victoria Hospital. It was transformative for healthcare in Northern Ireland.

Carrickmannon is a family-oriented school with a big heart, welcoming pupils from the village and the rural community. It has been recognised for its exceptional pastoral care and academic achievements, and it is a shining example of what a small rural school can achieve. On its bicentenary, it is fitting that the Chamber recognises Carrickmannon Primary School's remarkable contribution to our society.

Mr Speaker: I call Sinéad McLaughlin. Will you confine your statement to two minutes, please?

Ms McLaughlin: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I am in danger of having that one transferable speech, and it is about regional balance. I speak today about the challenges facing Derry and the wider north-west but also the reality shared by other areas right across Northern Ireland. Communities in places such as the Causeway Coast and Glens area, Fermanagh and Omagh lag behind the Northern Ireland average across a range of outcomes, from health and employment to education and connectivity.

I will not go into any of the statistics at the moment, but they show real, damaging consequences for people's everyday lives. They are the workers who struggle to get to their jobs because of limited or unreliable transport options. They are the young people, from Derry to Ballymoney and Enniskillen, who feel that they must leave home to build a future. They are the children who are learning in classrooms — I am glad that the Education Minister is here — with fewer resources or in buildings that have seen better days. Many of them are in my constituency. Those gaps in opportunity shape a person's outcomes, their choices and their life chances. They are not the result of bad luck: they are the result of political ineptitude that has occurred in this place for decades.

On that note, I want to say, "Thank you" to the Speaker, who wrote to me last week to give me permission to access drafting services for my Member's Bill that will seek to legislate on regional balance. I thank the Speaker for that, and I look forward to engaging with the Members' Bills development unit as I get on to the next stage of the process.

Mr Givan (The Minister of Education): I beg to move

Mr Speaker: In accordance with convention, the Business Committee has not allocated any time limits. I call on the Minister of Education to open the debate on the Bill.

Mr Givan: Thank you, Mr Speaker. The General Teaching Council for Northern Ireland, commonly known as GTCNI, was established as a non-departmental public body (NDPB) under the Education (Northern Ireland) Order 1998. It was intended to be the professional body for our teachers, setting and maintaining professional standards, setting qualification requirements to teach in our schools and taking prompt action where a teacher's conduct or competence was unacceptable. It was also established to provide the Department with advice on teaching standards and teachers' professional development needs, helping us to better support our current teachers and future school leaders. Regrettably, GTCNI has consistently struggled to fulfil those goals.

I begin by reminding Members of the breadth of the GTCNI's problems, doing so to illustrate why the Bill is needed at this time. GTCNI was established with a large 33-person leadership council, which was made up of 14 elected teachers, five teaching union representatives, 10 nominees from educational stakeholders and four departmental public appointees. That slant towards a representative membership was intended to ensure that GTCNI's decision-making was always well informed by a broad overview of the needs of the education system. In latter years, that approach proved problematic, since board members repeatedly struggled to separate their decision-making in council from the preferences of the bodies that they represented. That led to the pursuit of different agendas within the council and, over time, gave rise to entrenched positions being adopted.

The election and nomination processes that were used also led to some members coming on to the council through their own self-assessment, with very limited understanding of public-sector governance and accountability standards or strategic leadership. Some also lacked any appreciation of their responsibility, as board members, to take decisions that were solely in the best interests of GTCNI.

Relationships among council members deteriorated, with council and committee meetings becoming openly adversarial. Rather than seeking to build consensus, decision-making was characterised by partisan voting. Approval of the minutes of previous meetings often required hours of debate, leaving no time for the consideration of any other business. That led to essential operational decisions being left untaken, governance failures being left unaddressed, and GTCNI staff resources being squandered on internal, unproductive work that was of no value to teachers or the wider profession. It would not be unfair to say that, had it been a concerted strategy to render GTCNI ineffective and destroy teachers' confidence in the body, it scarcely could have been more successful.

In trying to remedy matters, the Department placed the body into special measures on two occasions, offering additional support and oversight to try to stabilise the very troubled ship. Despite those efforts, by mid-2021, over one third of the council's membership had either resigned or been withdrawn by their nominating body, citing dysfunctionality, toxicity and unprofessional behaviour within the council as the reasons for their departure.

In response, the Department commissioned an independent effectiveness review of GTCNI's council and committees, which reported in autumn 2021. It concluded that the leadership of the body was irredeemably divided, with such low levels of trust among its members that it could see no way for the body to be salvaged and brought back into compliance with normal governance requirements. Based on members' feedback, the consultants assessed the leadership council as being the worst-performing board that they had ever encountered.

Given that assessment, the review recommended that GTCNI be dissolved and replaced, and that the Department should consult on what form a replacement body should take. It specifically recommended that if a new body were to be established, it should be overseen by a much smaller board, the members of which would all be selected on the basis of their skills and experience and chosen through a public appointments process.

In December 2021, the then Education Minister, Michelle McIlveen, announced her acceptance of the recommendations of the review report and her decision, in line with those recommendations, to stand down GTCNI's leadership council with immediate effect. Teachers in any grant-aided school here are legally required to hold GTCNI teacher registration, and the then Minister also therefore decided that, pending the body's replacement, GTCNI staff would, operating under direct departmental oversight, continue to work to register new teachers.

Since then, my officials have been working to follow through on those decisions. The Department has undertaken a public consultation and a teacher engagement exercise, seeking views on a GTCNI replacement and the roles and functions that it should deliver. In each case, a majority of respondents felt that all GTCNI's functions were important and that they should be retained, since they were regarded as directly supporting the quality of our teaching workforce.

At the same time, under departmental oversight, the GTCNI staff team has managed to transform its operation. It has not simply been handling new teacher registrations; it has reduced application processing times and completed a major upgrade to its IT platform and critical teacher registration database. That replaced an obsolete system and was a critical upgrade that successive councils had failed to progress. Despite the uncertainty over its future, the GTCNI staff team has built a settled staffing structure, helping to protect the organisation's experience and expertise. It has enhanced all aspects of the body's information management processes, systematically resolving all the governance and accountability issues that it inherited from the old council, and it successfully exited special measures in December 2024. The scale of that transformation suggests that GTCNI's staff and structures were always fundamentally correct and that the leadership and operational difficulties identified in 2021 stemmed principally from the body's dysfunctional leadership council.

Earlier this year, I received an options analysis and supporting business case that examined many potential methods for replacing GTCNI. Given GTCNI's recent strong performance, that included an option to retain and reform GTCNI rather than dissolve it. The analysis found that retaining and reforming GTCNI provided the quickest and most cost-effective way forward, delivering all the desired functions with the lowest associated risks while avoiding the time, costs and complexities involved in closing one non-departmental public body to establish an identical replacement. I accepted that assessment, so the Bill will now see GTCNI's retention, the reform of its board and the correction of legislative weaknesses that have to date prevented GTCNI from regulating the profession in the manner that was originally envisaged.

I will move on to some of the policy changes that the Bill will deliver. I have set out the compelling need to reform GTCNI's board. The second core element will be to create a legally robust framework, allowing GTCNI to effectively investigate and, where necessary, take disciplinary action on allegations of unacceptable professional conduct or serious professional incompetence that it receives. GTCNI will convene independent investigatory and fitness-to-practise panels without board involvement or influence. It will be given a broad range of sanctions, from reprimands and conditional registration orders to suspension or prohibition orders. The Bill will require those facing allegations, and relevant witnesses, to participate in its investigation and fitness-to-practise proceedings and will place a duty on employing authorities and schools to share relevant information with GTCNI.

The Bill will establish two new criminal offences covering individuals who falsely claim to hold GTCNI registration or who supply false information to secure GTCNI registration. While such cases are uncommon, a small number have arisen, so we will give GTCNI the ability to respond strongly, ensuring the safety of pupils and, in doing so, protecting the reputation of the wider profession.

The Bill will see GTCNI continue to be funded through annual registration fees. Teacher registration and regulation safeguard the quality of our teaching workforce, and annual fees allow those things to be delivered without adding to the pressures on the education budget. Registration fees are charged by professional bodies and regulators throughout the United Kingdom, and it is hard to argue that teachers should pay nothing to belong to their professional body. However, it will be a matter for the GTCNI's new board to review its financial position and determine whether any future fee increase is required. In giving GTCNI greater autonomy over its financial future, the Department will no longer have any approval role in the setting of fees.

When legislating, it is important that Departments plan for future needs where those can be reasonably anticipated. The Bill will therefore provide two powers that other teaching regulators already use and that could serve to strengthen the profession and the teaching workforce here. It will provide for a new class of provisional registration for teachers. It is envisaged that that would allow someone whose initial teaching qualification was judged to have minor deficits against GTCNI's qualification standards to be allowed to teach for a period, after which they would receive full registration, having addressed their deficits, or lose their provisional registration and be ineligible to continue to teach.

Secondly, the Bill will permit GTCNI to require all teachers to periodically validate their registration again by demonstrating their continuing participation in professional learning. All student teachers learn the importance of reflecting on their classroom practice to identify specific learning needs and areas where their practice could be improved. Most regulated professions require their members to demonstrate that their knowledge and skills remain up to date if they wish to continue to practise in that field. Our intention is to give greater prominence to the importance of career-long teacher professional learning, raising teacher standards and, ultimately, improving learning outcomes for all our pupils. Rather than adding to teachers' existing workloads, we envisage that, by making those part of a formalised process, teachers will, in most cases, simply need to record the professional learning and development that they are undertaking.

I recognise that those developments represent two significant changes and that each raises issues for teachers, trade unions and oversight bodies such as the Education Committee. The Department has therefore already offered a commitment that the powers will not be commenced immediately and that that will happen only after there have been suitable consultations.

That summarises the Bill's key elements. Its intention is simple: to provide our teachers with the robust and effective professional body that they deserve while raising teacher standards without compromising the quality of the workforce. Our teachers enjoy a unique level of public trust. In return, they are expected to be technically excellent educators and to demonstrate characteristics such as honesty, integrity and trustworthiness. Those should inform their practice and be modelled for their pupils, which can help to shape the values that those pupils will, in turn, take forward into adulthood. Professionalism among our teachers is already the norm. The Bill seeks to support and strengthen that by ensuring that teachers have a professional body that sets, expects and guards the highest standards for all. I commend the Bill to the House.

Mr Mathison (The Chairperson of the Committee for Education): Successive Committees for Education have engaged in scrutiny of the General Teaching Council for over two mandates, and some of the issues highlighted by the Minister have been well rehearsed in that context. It is therefore welcome to see legislation coming forward that tries to address some of the issues that have been identified with the General Teaching Council over the past number of years.

Some of my comments will reflect the broad chronology outlined by the Minister. As has been set out, the General Teaching Council for Northern Ireland is the professional body for teachers in Northern Ireland. It is one of the Department of Education's arm's-length bodies (ALBs) and is accountable to the Education Minister and the Northern Ireland Assembly. The GTCNI's council and board were stood down in December 2021 following an independent board effectiveness review that, as the Minister set out clearly, identified systemic failures in its leadership and recommended the dissolution of the organisation. At that stage, the Department judged that that step required legislative change.

Officials have outlined to the Committee the interim leadership arrangements that have been in place since 2021, under which the GTCNI has reportedly made significant operational improvements, in particular on teacher registration and governance. In that interim period, consultations and engagement exercises have been undertaken that confirmed that all GTCNI's statutory functions, in the view of the stakeholders who engaged with those processes, play an important role in protecting the quality of our teaching workforce. The view that came through was that all those functions needed to be retained.

I note both from the Committee evidence that we received from officials and from the explanatory and financial memorandum (EFM) that was provided by the Department and is supplementary to the Bill that not all those consultation exercises received particularly high levels of contact or engagement. From the Committee's perspective, it is essential that the Bill represent the culmination of work that has had the appropriate level of input from relevant stakeholders if it is to have the confidence of teachers and the wider public. I know that the Minister has referenced the need for further engagement on bringing forward some of the powers in the Bill, so perhaps he can speak directly today to what that engagement and consultation process may look like.

As has been set out, General Teaching Council NI staff have continued to operate under Department of Education oversight. It is welcome that the Department has reported major improvements not only in its work on teacher registration and governance but in its governance structures and accountability requirements as an arm's-length body.

The Committee is grateful to the officials who provided it with a pre-legislative brief in October. A range of questions was raised at that meeting about the GTCNI's role in respect of training, career development for teachers and the setting of standards rather than the Department setting them. Members were also concerned about how the proposed new board might be appointed, the role of teaching professionals on the board, the make-up of the six non-teaching members and how independence from the Department would be ensured. The Committee also asked questions about the annual fee, how it would be calculated, what feedback mechanisms there would be for teachers and the handling of disciplinary processes and sanctions.

Officials were clear in their evidence in that session that some of those questions would be for the newly constituted council to address, once established. The legislation, in many ways, creates powers that the newly established body can develop in relation to the setting of fees, appointing committees and subcommittees and setting rules for the qualifications required to register, much of which was referenced in the Minister's opening remarks. However, the Committee will want to look at whether the appropriate balance is being struck between delegation of those powers to the GTCNI and the requirement for clear and robust departmental oversight.

I note — no doubt, the Committee will want to look at it in detail — that the Bill makes provision for two criminal offences. It will make it an offence for a teacher or individual, with deliberate intent to deceive, to claim falsely to hold GTCNI registration or to provide false or misleading information to the GTCNI when seeking to obtain teacher registration. I have no doubt that the Committee will seek to scrutinise the balance between the importance of safeguarding and how that is weighed up against the criminal penalties being proposed. As we go through the Bill's Committee Stage, following today's debate, it is important that the Department sets out the clear rationale for the approach that is being adopted on the matter.

Other issues that the Committee will, undoubtedly, scrutinise in more detail will include the reasons why there has been a departure from the previous Education Minister's position of winding up the GTCNI entirely and establishing a brand new body — the Minister referenced that briefly in his remarks — and why an appointment system is being adopted, rather than a system in which at least some elected members are appointed to the GTCNI's board. I am happy to stand corrected if I have misunderstood this, but I would like clarification of whether we are moving towards a 12-member board. I am not sure whether that is specifically referenced in the Bill, but it was recommended in the review and appears to be the direction of travel.

It was clear from the Committee's pre-legislative briefing with officials that the GTCNI is often poorly understood by teaching professionals and the wider public — indeed, Committee members reported that their dealings with the body had been infrequent — and that there is a need to ensure that everybody clearly understands the precise functions of the GTCNI and exactly how the Bill will alter them. That is something that we will need to reflect on as the Bill goes through its legislative journey.

It is important that we do not lose sight of the fact a body responsible for registering and regulating teachers in Northern Ireland carries out a critical function in our education system. In the past, the body has had its leadership and governance problems, but that does not detract from the importance of its function. It is right that we should want such a body to deliver effective regulation that will ensure appropriate and robust standards of registration and advise the Department effectively on the training and professional development of the teaching professionals who are paying into the system.

It is also essential that we acknowledge that there were, undoubtedly, failings in the previous iteration of the GTCNI. Those failings were endemic and were in place for many years. In many regards, the Committee will need to judge the legislation on the basis of its assessment of the extent to which it can adequately redress the failings of the past. The GTCNI must have the confidence of stakeholders across the system. It must have the confidence of teachers but also of parents, who will want to be assured of the maintenance of the highest possible professional standards in our education system.

I look forward to engaging with the Bill in more detail as it progresses through the Assembly, and I look forward to the more detailed scrutiny work that lies ahead.

Mr O'Toole: I speak on behalf of my Education Committee colleague, Cara Hunter. She is unwell, so I am stepping in. That is the reason that she is not in the Chamber. Clearly, I am not on the Education Committee, so I was not involved in any of the pre-legislative scrutiny, but the Education Minister loves to debate with and hear from me, so I made a special effort to come to the Chamber today to talk to him.

The General Teaching Council Bill is important legislation, and we want to hear more about it. It is not a Bill that we can endorse today, albeit we are not minded to divide on it. However, it is important that the Opposition put some robust questions and concerns on the record, and, assuming that the Bill proceeds through Second Reading to Committee Stage, those issues will need to be answered by the Committee. It is somewhat concerning that the Opposition have to set the concerns on the record now, but I trust that the Committee will engage on all the questions.

The Committee Chair, Nick Mathison, mentioned that a couple of specific questions came up in the Committee's pre-legislative session. The SDLP Opposition and I also have those questions. The Minister touched on the first question in his opening remarks: why not do what his predecessor, his colleague Michelle McIlveen, who was just in the Chamber, had said would happen and wind up the General Teaching Council NI entirely and replace it with a new body? I understand, as the Minister said, that he received advice that suggested two things. First, it suggested that the culture, performance and staffing level of the GTCNI had improved radically over the past couple of years. That is good to hear, but I am sure that the Committee will want to understand, unpack and challenge that advice in detail to be persuaded of that. Secondly, he said that his approach is, effectively, a quicker and more cost-effective way to achieve the improvements covered by the Baker Tilly Mooney Moore — that is a bit of a mouthful — review. That may well be true, and, if anything can be done in a more cost-effective and straightforward way, why not do that? Indeed, that should be the priority.

The review was robust and clear that the organisation, as the Minister acknowledged, had spent years in special measures and had never fulfilled in any real way the provisions that were given to it in the 1998 Order. The consultants' judgement was absolutely scathing:

and that the Department of Education:

That is a call not for restructuring or reform but for complete dissolution.

Mr Martin: I very much thank the leader of the Opposition for accepting my intervention. He is right; I was in the Department when the report was provided. However, as the Minister outlined, the problems with GTC were not with the staff who inhabited the organisation. The Member may or may not be aware of that. There were specific problems identified in the report that he cited. The Minister used another quote, which the Member did not use. Baker Tilly Mooney Moore said that GTCNI was the "worst-performing board" that it had ever come across. Does the Member accept that the report might have been talking about the board rather than the actual GTCNI organisation and the staff who inhabited it?

Mr O'Toole: I am reading from the report, and it says the:

Obviously, it had specific complaints about the board. On the face of it, we cannot support the Bill, but we acknowledge that it will go to the Committee, and the Committee should ask those questions.

The purpose of the Second Stage debate is to indicate whether the Bill has the overarching support of the Assembly. We are indicating that we cannot give our overarching support at this point, but we recognise that the Bill will go to Committee Stage. I suggest that the Committee members need to ask those questions, because advice has gone to the Minister that said, "Be assured that performance has improved over the last couple of years, and we now advise you, Minister, that it is possible to make the requisite improvements by changing the structure of the board and inserting a public appointments process, rather than the election process" — the teaching unions are not thrilled about that — "and we are persuaded that that will deliver the changes we need to the General Teaching Council". We shall see.

We should not simply wave the Bill through without interrogating that. The Bill will now go to Committee Stage, and it will be for the Committee to interrogate that. The Committee Chair wants to come in.

Mr Mathison: I think the Member for giving way. I am not sure whether there was anything in my remarks to suggest that the Committee was not going to ask some of the questions that you have highlighted. In our discussion and our pre-legislative briefing, I do not think that I heard anything particularly clear coming through from the Opposition around any concerns with the Bill. However, will the Member agree that, if it is possible to deliver an effective, functioning GTCNI at a reduced cost through the reforms being proposed in the Bill, we will want to do that in the most cost-effective way, and, if it proves to be the case that that is not a viable proposal, we should keep other options on the table?

Mr O'Toole: Yes, absolutely. Of course, that is what the Committee is there to do. I was not undercutting the Committee's work. I am simply saying that these are questions that need to be asked. There is no harm in putting them in Hansard in the Second Stage debate. I have no shyness about being an effective Opposition and putting these points on, because that is what we are supposed to do. That is literally the reason why the Assembly created an official Opposition, so I am afraid that there will be no apology from me in that regard.

To go back to the point about the GTCNI and what changed, I do not have an ideological preference, and nor does the Opposition, for complete replacement if reform is possible. Yes, if reform is robust and comprehensive enough, with a smaller board, an appointments process and updated investigatory and enforcement powers that are adequate, that is OK, but we need to be assured of that. That needs to come out in the Committee process, because it is not just a change of emphasis; it is a change in policy. We have not seen the advice that the Minister has received from his officials. I am not aware of whether the Committee has seen that advice yet. We have the upshot of the recommendations, but we do not have the detail or the basis on which they were made, nor have we seen — I certainly have not seen, but it may have been in the Committee packs — the detailed analysis of how performance has improved at a staff level. I accept that the former special adviser in the Department, Mr Martin, has drawn a distinction between the staff and the board. That is fair enough. We just need to understand why a body that was described as being "beyond repair" is now repairable. Obviously, it is great if you bring your car to a mechanic, and the first time that he investigates, he says, "Scrap it. It is useless", and then you go back to see him a couple of weeks later, and he says "Well, actually, I can fix it if you give me this amount of money". Perhaps that is a slightly facetious analogy, but I use it to simply say that these are things that we need to investigate and check.

I do not say this to be hyper-political, but the Minister has clearly undertaken a lot of initiatives in his Department. I do not think that I am being too churlish when I say that it is fair to say that not all those initiatives have been overwhelmingly welcomed by the teaching profession. I encourage them — the teaching unions, and teachers more broadly — to engage with the Bill in a constructive way and not simply in an oppositional way, though we are the Opposition. If they have robust concerns, they need to communicate them to all elected representatives.

In relation to the public appointments process, some people will query the replacement of an elected system — perhaps people can see in a superficial way how having people appointed will create a slightly different dynamic from having people who are elected. Sometimes a public appointments process, with all its safeguards, is more appropriate than an elected process, but that is a fundamental change that needs to be understood. It is also true to say — I say this in the most constructive way possible — that there have been a couple of examples where the Minister has used — I will not say "abused" — the public appointments process in ways that have, to put it mildly, raised eyebrows. In the Education Authority, the chair and chief executive did not arrive in their current posts entirely without controversy and through a completely straightforward and unremarkable public appointments process. That will be a question that Committee members will want to interrogate, along with the potential consequences of having a public appointments process rather than an elected process for the GTCNI. If that is an improvement and if there can be safeguards, and if Committee members can be assured that that is the right way to go, that will be useful.

We have concerns about the Bill, but we acknowledge that it will proceed today to Committee Stage. We will not divide the House on it. We want to see a robust Committee Stage in which those questions are asked. I will also make the point again, and that is why —.

Mr Brooks: Will the Member give way?

Mr O'Toole: I will happily give way to Mr Brooks.

Mr Brooks: Is the Member making any specific allegations about whether there was any impropriety in those appointments, or is he just throwing muck and hoping that some sticks?

Mr O'Toole: No, I am not throwing muck at all. The Member decided to intervene after I had moved on to another point, but since he raised it — I was not going to make a whole big deal out of it — an extraordinary process was used to appoint the chief executive of the Education Authority. There was a clear, very sharp division on the board of the Education Authority about whether that was appropriate. That was a controversial matter and was said to be so at the time. Subsequently, the chair of the Education Authority was appointed, and he was a serving DUP politician. He is a very personable man who is a committed public servant, but he is a serving DUP politician with very strong views, and he was inserted on to the board of the Education Authority as chair. Those were not uncontroversial things, to be clear, Mr Brooks. I am not throwing any muck at those individuals; I am simply saying that those were controversial things that were done by the Minister, OK? I have dealt with that. I do not want to get into a whole slanging match about it, but I will not back away from being honest about that.

Mr Speaker: The Member is not going to get into a slanging match because —.

Mr O'Toole: I will come back to the point about the Bill, Mr Speaker.

Mr Speaker: Order.

Mr O'Toole: Yes.

Mr Speaker: I am speaking. We are drifting from the debate in question, so we will not be getting into a slanging match on it. I ask you to return to the issue at hand.

Mr O'Toole: Yes, Mr Speaker.

Mr Speaker: I did give you a fair degree of latitude because —

Mr O'Toole: Yes, indeed. I was responding to an intervention.

Mr Speaker: — you were talking about appointments, but come back to [Inaudible.]

Mr O'Toole: I am happy to come back to the point. I was responding to an intervention.

In conclusion, I say that we need to do our job as legislators really carefully and be mindful not just of the fact that this place is down nearly as much as it is functioning but of the fact that we have passed legislation here and then been scundered about it afterwards. We have been made to look like fools and not up to doing proper legislative scrutiny, so it is important that we are robust and put concerns on the record. I trust that, when the Bill goes to the Committee, it will be robust. I am not saying that it will not be; I am not prejudging the Committee process. I have no qualms about saying that there is a particular onus on the Assembly, given the abysmal levels of public trust in it. Public trust has already been referenced in relation to the teaching profession. We can only aspire to have the levels of trust that the teaching profession has. It is our job to scrutinise the Bill properly. We cannot endorse it at this point, although we will not divide the House on it. I look forward to hearing about the Committee's scrutiny.

Mr Sheehan: It is worth reminding ourselves of how we got here. In 2021, in an independent board effectiveness review of GTCNI, the council was described as dysfunctional, ineffective and inefficient and operating with deep divisions and conflict among members to the extent that it could not provide effective leadership or governance. Ultimately, the then DUP Minister was advised to dissolve the body altogether. Yet, after all that, what we are presented with today is not a fresh start but a slightly reformed version of the same body. That is a bizarre position to arrive at, especially after so much time has passed and so many opportunities to do better have come and gone.

We recognise the need for a regulatory body for teachers. It is absolutely necessary to maintain public confidence and professional standards. However, what is on offer here is something that the Minister has a long way to go in selling, not to us but to the teaching workforce, because, as things stand, teachers are not convinced, and who can blame them? There will be no elections to the new council, and clarity is needed on whether there will be a guaranteed majority of practising teachers on the board. The public appointments process, while welcome in principle, lacks any clear published competency framework or pathway to ensure that real classroom voices are heard. If the body is to work, it must reflect and represent the profession. It must be grounded in the realities of schools, not just the Minister's agenda. Teachers are under enormous pressure. The cost-of-living crisis is hitting them hard, and they have every right to ask what they will be paying for. What is the proposed fee? Will there be hardship exemptions or protections for early-career teachers? What added value will teachers see for their money?

We also want to see joined-up thinking across these islands. We know of too many cases where teachers from the South face unnecessary bureaucracy when trying to register and work here. We need real alignment between our systems, and that is not just about fairness but about workforce planning, breaking down barriers and mutual recognition. If the new body is going to work, it needs to have the confidence of the workforce. That starts with listening, and I hope that the Minister is prepared to do that.

Mr Brooks: I do not intend to speak for too long. It will not surprise those present in the Chamber that we support the general thrust and direction that the Minister has outlined. Like others, however, we look forward to grappling with the Bill at the Committee for Education and asking some of the difficult questions that the leader of the Opposition was talking about. We will not forgo our duty in that regard.

It is clear that the GTC's existing format and governance arrangements were not working for anyone, least of all the teachers whom the body was intended to serve. It was underperforming and had significant issues at board level, as has been outlined. It is also clear, however, as the Minister said, that there has been significant improvement, and we heard at the Committee that the GTC has been operating under the Department's oversight. That has shown that, with the right structures in place, the body can have a future and serve its purpose. That avoids the problem of completely dismantling the existing organisation and, essentially, creating in its image a rebranded and reformed version of the same body. Doing that would take significantly more time and resource than it would to make the necessary reforms to the existing structures.

I understand that previous Ministers and others looked at doing away with the GTC, and for good reason. Some of the people who continue to call for a new structure, and, in particular, want a significant stake in the leadership of that structure, probably contributed to some of the issues that brought about the necessity for reform. Therefore, to further the leader of the Opposition's car analogy, it would be insane to go to the effort of creating a new independent body and give the keys of the new vehicle to the same unreformed driver who drove the previous vehicle into a ditch. The reformed GTC must have the leadership experience, knowledge and skills that, we were told, had been absent from it previously, as well as board members who can fulfil their roles and understand the parameters of their work and their responsibilities. I am reassured by the use of the public appointments process, which will be beneficial in ensuring that those who are appointed have a better mix of skills, knowledge and experience, and that they will be chosen on that basis rather than the factionalism that contributed to the failures of the past.

As I said, I look forward to grappling with the Bill at the Committee and, alongside other Committee members, growing my knowledge of the GTC's work and roles. It is right to say that our knowledge about a body that has such an important role in our education system is not as wide as it should be. I look forward to doing that in the Committee.

Mr Burrows: I am glad to speak to the Second Stage of the General Teaching Council Bill. This is the first piece of legislation that I will be involved in end-to-end, so I look forward to providing some real scrutiny. I want to put some high-level points on the record, but there will be detailed scrutiny at the Bill's further stages.

The first point is that it is right that there is a professional body that sets and uphold standards for teachers. Of course, that body must role-model those standards, which was not the previously the case. The second point is on the requirement for teachers to have ongoing training, which is in the Bill. It is important that the management of that is thought through for workloads and substitute teachers. There are a lot of substitute teachers working in our schools, and we need to make sure that they are catered for in that provision. It is right that teachers pay a fee to a body, but it must be set fairly and be value for money.

Where I really want to bring some insight to the Bill, however, is on disciplinary procedures. I was previously involved in running what is, effectively, a regulated body for the police: the PSNI's professional standards department, That is a stand-alone, regulated professional body for the police. Disciplinary bodies can make many mistakes when they are first created. They tend to become slow and disproportionate; focus on finding blame instead of finding learning; and bring great stress to those who are investigated. Often, the investigators think that their job is to find fault, as opposed to the facts, and to exonerate the innocent as well as find the guilty. I wanted to put that on the record.

There are some key points that we will need to focus on at the next stage. First, if the body is to deal with discipline, it will need, at an early stage of investigating an issue, to differentiate between issues of conduct that are about integrity and those that are about performance. Safeguarding and ethical issues need to be clearly separated from learning and competence issues. Those things must be dealt with in totally different ways: that is really important.

The second point is that we must not get bogged down, with everything being dealt with in a centralised and slow way. It is important that, if the misconduct is minor at most, the teacher knows at the earliest stage that their career is not at threat and that the issue will be dealt with quickly, efficiently and locally. The centralised systems should kick in where there is high-level misconduct that could, if proven, result in someone losing their job. That is where you really need investigators to understand their job, which is to get inculpatory and exculpatory evidence that rules people in and out of an inquiry and to understand the rules of disclosure. The professional body that will adjudicate on guilt or innocence must also understand all those things, including disclosure and how to run a proper hearing, because someone's job is at risk. Unfortunately, a lot of those bodies cannot separate the wheat from the chaff. They end up so bogged down in so many minor cases that the real problem teacher slips through the net or, as I have seen in the police and other bodies, sits suspended for years on full pay.

That is why, at the outset, you need to strip it down into two or three different lanes. Is it a matter of performance of learning? If it is, deal with it in that way, quickly. Is it misconduct? If it is proven and it is minor, let us get it dealt with quickly and locally. If it is the serious stuff, where someone's career is at risk, let us make sure that the teacher is properly represented; that whoever is running the investigation and the panel to decide on their future is properly trained and compliant with things such as civil disclosure regulations that will apply; that there is transparency and fairness; and that we do not end up bogged down for years, with teachers working under huge pressure and with huge workloads. It cannot be lost on us that there is a danger of getting a culture that does not obtain learning from that.

When it comes to safeguarding, first, it is important for fitness-to-practise certificates to be properly policed. That will require good information sharing across every part of the two islands, effectively, so that we do not have teachers moving around and avoiding the fact that their fitness-to-practise certificate has been withdrawn. Secondly, we also need to be sure that there is clarity from the outset on issues such as allowing people to resign during an investigation. That has bedevilled many organisations: someone is under investigation, they ask to resign and the school allows them to do so. That needs to be sorted out up front, because it damages public confidence. It is also a safeguarding risk, because, when that person resigns and the school takes their resignation, three years later, they pop up in another school. It happens in my old job: people pop up in another police service. That has happened time and time again, and those things to be need sorted out at the start as opposed to being dealt with later on. Of course, there are tricky issues to discuss, because it could be that a teacher wants to resign and that it is better for the public purse for the school to let them resign rather than go through years of having to prove a case against them. In that situation, how do you update the system to make sure that they are not allowed to practise? Those are all the little things that need to be finely looked at in the scrutiny stage.

Training, a fair fee system and getting the disciplinary processes and safeguarding processes right are really important issues that I look forward to contributing on in the scrutiny stage. We will not divide the House at this stage, and I am glad that there will be a professional body to set, uphold and role-model standards, as long as that is done properly.

Mr Givan: I thank Members for their contributions to the debate. I will pick up on some of their questions at the end of my closing remarks. Mr Sheehan referred to wanting to make sure that the matter is taken forward based on what schools want, not the Minister's agenda. I am not quite clear where the conflict is between what I want and what schools want: our positions are the same. I want a General Teaching Council Bill that protects and strengthens the teaching profession in Northern Ireland. The Bill recognises the high standards that already exist while safeguarding them and demonstrating that the public trust in our teachers remains well founded. The quality of our teachers is the foundation on which our high educational standards are built, and the establishment of a strong and effective professional body will directly support the efforts of every teacher in that. I would be surprised if schools did not agree with my agenda on what I am trying to achieve in the Bill, so I do not think that there is a conflict between my agenda and what schools want.

I fully recognise that a majority of teachers have come to see GTCNI as almost invisible, delivering little that is of value to them while demanding an annual fee. Members have touched on the fee issue. That perceived invisibility stems directly from the historical failure of those who were supposed to provide the body with leadership and direction. That is, to my mind, the most damning indictment of all against the old GTCNI.

One Member said that opportunities for improvement from the report have come and gone over the past number of years. There has been significant improvement, and that is why GTCNI has been removed from special measures. I referenced in my opening comments the significant transformations that GTCNI staff have achieved under the supervision of the Department of Education. It is only right that we acknowledge the significant progress that those staff have been able to make. That quiet, behind-the-scenes progress that GTCNI staff have achieved over the past four years has convinced me that a renewed GTCNI is well placed to deliver the reforms.

The leader of the Opposition and others quite rightly asked this legitimate question: why not dissolve, dismantle and create a new body? I would ask the Minister of Education that question if I were on the opposite Benches. I did ask that very same question, and I have no doubt that, as officials engage with the Committee, they will explain all the processes that have been followed to improve GTCNI and why the decision has been taken to reform it through this Bill. Fundamentally, you would be asking me to bring legislation to the Assembly to dissolve an NDPB and to then create an identical body with the same functions. The reform functions are in the Bill, and that is exactly what would be in a new body, were we to dissolve GTCNI.

I asked whether we could we rename the body, because people will associate the name with their experience of the past and with the report on its dysfunctional nature. Having asked that question, I found that it is not straightforward to repeal in law the name that is associated with the General Teaching Council for Northern Ireland. That would have required more work and could have delayed the Bill. That is why we have proposed a much reformed GTCNI. Obviously, it will create challenges in repairing the reputational damage that is associated with the past GTCNI. I want to put my efforts into that, but, ultimately, it will be for the new board to repair that reputation and rebuild trust among the profession and the wider education sector.

The Bill can address only the historical failures that undermined the work of GTCNI, correct the legislative weaknesses that hindered its work and ensure that there is timely, well-informed decision-making to support its operational effectiveness. Consensus, not conflict, must be the hallmark of its future leadership. Some have already expressed the view that the new board will not be sufficiently independent of the Department. My response to that suggestion is to repeat that the 2021 board effectiveness review, which was based on council members' feedback, found that GTCNI had the worst-performing board that its consultants had encountered, having undertaken 645 similar reviews. Therefore, I will not apologise for insisting that, in line with the review report's recommendations, a public appointments process will be used for all future board members. It would be a serious failure on my part if I did not use the Bill to ensure that a future board does not collapse into division and infighting once again.

That having been said, I recognise that, in order for it to be effective, GTCNI's board will require the input of experienced teachers and an understanding of the realities of life in the classroom. That is why, in regulations to be brought forward in support of the Bill, the new board will consist of 12 people — the Chairman asked me to clarify that — and 50% of its members will be required to be GTCNI-registered teachers.

As I said in my opening remarks, our teachers are highly educated, skilled and committed individuals, whose professionalism should be recognised and commended. Professionalism in any regulated field is a matter not only of a particular qualification but of a personal commitment to a set of standards and to being the very best practitioner that you can be. That holds true whether you are a doctor, a nurse, a social worker, an accountant, an engineer or a teacher. As a professional, you accept that you will be held to account if your practice becomes ineffective or if your actions fall below those standards that you and all your peers have promised to uphold. Professionalism is a commitment to the collective good rather than individual self-interest. A strong, effective professional body underpins that commitment.

"What do I get for my fee?" will always remain a valid question. However, it is one that can be answered only in terms of the collective benefits that the new GTCNI will deliver for our teachers. Going forward, the new board will be responsible for fees and will wish to be transparent about how that money is being spent and the value for money that it delivers.

Mr O'Toole: I appreciate the Minister's giving way. I have a specific question. Earlier, he referred to the options paper and business case that he got from officials. Is he willing to either publish that business case or, at least, share it with the Committee, so that it can be examined and unpacked by its members?

Mr Givan: I will take that request away. Ultimately, when officials come before the Committee, in the advice that they give in responding to members' questions, they will not try to withhold information from the Committee about all the submissions processes that were followed. I do not think that it would be the norm to provide ministerial submissions to a Committee. However, I am quite happy for my officials, in engaging with the Committee, to provide information in response to any requests that it has in that respect.

I will deal with a number of the questions that I picked up on. Given his experience with the police, Mr Burrows's input to the Committee will be very insightful. I have not spoken about it in this Second Stage debate, but it will be important that, when it deals with conduct issues, the body, in its reformed capacity, does so in the manner that Mr Burrows has articulated. We do not want spurious claims to be brought forward and for those to take considerable time to be investigated, to the individual's detriment. If someone can be dismissed, they should be dismissed rapidly. We live in a world where, at times, people, for whatever different reasons, will make spurious claims. For the individual concerned, it is unsatisfactory that there would be a protracted period of jeopardy when they have done nothing wrong. It is important that those issues can be expedited and filtered, and that, quite rightly, when people bring forward serious claims, there is appropriate investigation and support. Again, that needs to be conducted in a timely fashion. That will be helpful insight as the Committee deliberates on those issues. I agree with the sentiment that has been expressed.

There is no doubt that the Committee will ask a number of questions. People have raised things at Second Stage. Having had experience of the Committee, I know that it will leave no stone unturned when it comes to delving into all those matters.

That is to its credit, and it will be important in refining the legislation. I am not saying that the Bill, as presented at Second Stage, will not be subject to refinement or, indeed, improvement. I am happy to engage with the Committee. However, it is important that we retain the integrity of the Bill's fundamental principles and the reasons that we got to where we did throughout the various processes and in Members' consideration of amendments that may be proposed.

I will not labour this point, as it has been raised before, but it would be remiss of me not to correct some of Mr O'Toole's points about appointments. People have raised issues about the public appointments process for six of the 12 registered teachers. I appoint hundreds of boards of governors. I am the appointing authority for a considerable number of boards of governors. No one has ever challenged my appointment of those governors when I have approved them.

I have appointed other people to senior positions through a public appointments process. The appointment of the EA chairman was carried out in line with all of the processes. It came through a process, and I then had to select the individual. It appears to me that some are contending that I should discriminate on the basis of someone's political opinion or identity. Would it be the same if a person from a different political party had been appointed? I suggest that it would not. Therefore, it is unfair to characterise that appointment in the way in which it has been characterised. The chief executive of the Education Authority was appointed by the head of the Civil Service. A permanent secretary was identified and brought forward. The appointment was ratified by the Education Authority board. The inferences that are being drawn about that process are unfair to the individual who is chief executive of the Education Authority. I appeal to Members to desist. I wanted to address that point without labouring it.

Members have contributed to the debate on a Bill that will give teachers the professional body that they deserve. I commend the General Teaching Council Bill to the House.

Mr Speaker: That concludes the Second Stage of the General Teaching Council Bill. The Bill stands referred to the Committee for Education.

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

Mr Speaker: The Business Committee has agreed that there will be no time limit on the debate. I call the Minister of Finance to open the debate.

Mr O'Dowd: Thank you, a Cheann Comhairle.

I am pleased that we have reached the Final Stage of the Deaths, Still-Births and Baby Loss Bill. I am grateful to Members for the support that they have shown for the Bill to date and, in particular, for the positive comments from all sides in respect of the proposed baby loss certificate scheme. I also thank the Finance Committee for its detailed scrutiny of the Bill and the report that it provided.

Members will be aware that the Bill started as legislation with a narrow focus. It was designed to place the temporary powers in the Coronavirus Act 2020 that enabled the remote registration of deaths and stillbirths and the electronic transfer of registration documents on a permanent footing. It was first expanded to remove differences in registration processes for same-sex couples. It was then rightly expanded to include provisions for a baby loss certificate scheme that would recognise the suffering of families who endure the pain of baby loss before the end of the twenty-fourth week of pregnancy. Although the Bill has widened from its original intent, I know that Members on all sides agree that the extensions have enabled us to address important registration issues and make new provisions for baby loss certificates that are required to take the scheme forward.

The initial purpose of the Bill was to make permanent the temporary provisions made under the Coronavirus Act 2020. As Members will be aware, those temporary provisions were introduced at the beginning of the pandemic and have been in place for more than five years. It is clear to the Assembly why the provisions were important in the context of the pandemic: they reduced the need for face-to-face contact for grieving and, sometimes, vulnerable members of the public and for registration staff; and they enabled the registration system to continue to operate even when its services were, sadly, under significant pressure.

In the five years that have passed since the start of the pandemic, those arrangements have become the normal means by which the vast majority of death registrations take place. Importantly, the provisions have eased the burden on grieving members of the public. They have helped the registration process be more efficient and more productive, and they carry the support of stakeholders, ensuring the smooth passing of important documents and enabling registration staff to handle any errors or omissions in advance. In short, although the powers were introduced as the pandemic took hold, they have become the established means by which deaths and stillbirths are registered, and they have helped the registration service become more empathetic, modern and efficient. Given the positive effect of the provisions, it is right that we put those temporary provisions on a solid statutory footing, providing permanent powers with sustained remote registration and electronic transfer of documents. The Deaths, Still-Births and Baby Loss Bill will end the use of the Coronavirus Act 2020 powers in the context of the registration service, something that, I know, Members on all sides are keen to see.

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

Thirdly, the Bill will provide a statutory footing for a baby loss certificate scheme. As Members on all sides will testify, losses in early pregnancy have a real and lasting effect. The trauma of the loss is significant, heartfelt and, too often, borne in silence. Throughout the scrutiny of the Bill in Committee and in the Chamber, we have heard personal accounts of the impact that such losses have had on families. I commend the bravery of all those who have spoken out, either in this debate, through our recent consultation, in the course of their charity work or in correspondence. I also pay tribute to all the baby loss support organisations that have campaigned tirelessly for the baby loss certificate scheme. Today, we have a chance to act on the powerful testimonies that those families have given.

Under the existing law, the registration service can only recognise losses during pregnancy that occur after 24 weeks. Losses after that point are treated as stillbirths. The Bill will change that and make provisions to recognise losses that occur earlier in pregnancy. The baby loss certificate scheme will offer the opportunity for those who have experienced a baby loss prior to the end of the twenty-fourth week of pregnancy to have their loss formally recognised. While no certificate can undo their pain and grief, the new scheme will help to support families at the most difficult and challenging times of their lives, providing a voluntary way of acknowledging and recognising their loss. It will confirm that their baby existed and can be used to start a conversation with siblings or other family members. Once the Bill receives Royal Assent, I intend to introduce regulations through the draft affirmative resolution process that will set down the detail of the baby loss certificate scheme. It is my intention that the scheme will become operational by the end of the financial year.

As Members of the Legislative Assembly, our role is to shape legislation that makes a real difference in people's lives. The Bill covers three important issues that will impact on a large number of the people whom we are here to represent, often at some of the most challenging moments that they face. By working together, we have come together to agree and deliver changes that will have a real, lasting and positive impact on the lives of our constituents. Today is a powerful reminder of the good that we can achieve when we unite and work in partnership. I therefore commend the Bill to the Assembly.

Mr O'Toole (The Chairperson of the Committee for Finance): I will speak on the Finance Committee's scrutiny of the Bill, but, first, I thank the Minister for his comments today. It is a really important and welcome day.

One of the most important issues that the Committee considered in respect of the Bill was the immensely sensitive topics that it touches on: the registration of deaths and stillbirths and the introduction of baby loss certificates. 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 testimonies from individuals. The Committee carefully considered the views of all those who provided written evidence, and, on behalf of the Committee, I thank all those who took the time to provide detailed evidence to inform and support the Committee in its consideration of the Bill. That was especially important for this Bill, as its provisions had not previously been consulted on, and it was important that the Committee gave the time to ensure that the process was right.

I also offer thanks on behalf of the Committee to the Department, which was constructive in its engagement and robust at times. That included the Registrar General and his team. The Forget-me-not Group and the National Association of Funeral Directors provided oral evidence to the Committee: their input was extremely useful and appreciated.

I note that the Committee managed to complete the Bill's Committee Stage well in advance of the date outlined in the extension motion, which demonstrated that Committees can use extension motions not as targets, as they are sometimes accused of being, but rather as a limit to expedite thorough consideration.

I will go through some of the broad issues that were considered 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 (SRs) under the provisions of the Coronavirus Act 2020 that related to the recording of deaths and stillbirths. The 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. The Chamber subsequently approved those regulations on a number of occasions. Members of the Committee were, therefore, well versed on the use of the clauses. The Committee's deliberations were, therefore, mostly of a technical nature to ensure the robustness of the primary legislation. During its evidence, the National Association of Funeral Directors outlined how the arrangements were working. It gave its support for the arrangements and was eager for them to 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 previously supported the introduction of baby loss certificates, and the Committee worked on a cross-party basis to ensure that the power to produce regulations to formally enact certificates was included in the Bill. There was not just consensus but unanimity in the Committee that such a scheme be introduced. The Committee's decisions were, therefore, mostly centred on some of the potential provisions, most of which will obviously come via regulations that will be brought at a later date to the Assembly.

There were particular discussions around the potential for a monetary charge for supplementary baby loss certificates or, I suppose, any baby loss certificate. That is what we discussed and interrogated. 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 statutory rule to be debated and amended in the Assembly. The Committee, therefore, agreed to proceed without its own amendment.

There were, of course, other amendments proposed by Members who engaged with the Department. We noted the Minister's amendment, which was passed at Further Consideration Stage, albeit the Committee did not take a formal position on that amendment. I note the contributions of former and current members of the Committee in working with the Department to achieve a resolution. I thank them and acknowledge that.

I also congratulate the Minister for introducing the Bill, and thank him for working and engaging with the Committee on it to, hopefully, get a piece of legislation that is robust and brings real change to interested parties and people, particularly those who have been affected by the traumatic event of baby loss. The passing of this legislation will be an example of parties working together to achieve change.

I pay tribute to all families that have suffered baby loss. The passing of the legislation will show that their loss will never be forgotten. Their voices have helped to shape a piece of legislation that has compassion and recognition at its heart. As I indicated at the previous stages, the Committee very much welcomed the Bill and the opportunity to work with the Department to scrutinise it and make our contribution. We gave a clear indication that we wanted to see a provision for baby loss certificates in the Bill, so we are delighted. I think that I can say that on behalf of the whole Committee as the Bill is moves through its Final Stage.

I will say a few words in a party capacity, but I will largely echo what I said as Committee Chair, namely that this is very positive. In the Assembly, we often engage in contentious debate. Indeed, I often engage in contentious debate with the Minister because that is my job and his job, but it is also our job to, where we can, work together to pass legislation on a cross-party basis that will bring meaningful change for the people whom we serve. The Bill will bring meaningful change.

In broad terms, the Bill will do two things. It will make permanent the provisions of the coronavirus laws that we debated here nearly six years ago and that created emergency changes, including the electronic registration of deaths and stillbirths. All the people who work in that area — funeral directors, in particular — were clear that it is much better for bereaved families, and indeed for them regarding speed of process, to make those powers permanent. They were very clear on that.

However, the more novel and, in a sense, historic bit of today's legislation is the creation of the power to issue baby loss certificates, which will allow people who experience baby loss as a result of the ending of a pregnancy before 24 weeks to acknowledge that via a certificate. That is often one of the most traumatic things that happens in people's lives. They respond to it in a range of ways but, in many cases, they experience life-changing grief and sometimes on more than one occasion. They, via the Forget-me-not Group, gave the Committee extraordinarily poignant, thoughtful and brave evidence. We were pleased to be able to come together as a Committee and advocate strongly for the inclusion in the Bill of a provision on baby loss certificates. I am very pleased that the Minister and his officials acted on that, and that we have that provision in the Bill.

We will, I hope, have regulations in the new year after Royal Assent that give effect to those certificates. The certificates will offer people a small but deeply meaningful acknowledgement of their loss; enable them to have conversations with other family members; and enable them to remember their loss but also remember something and someone very poignant for them.

On behalf of my party, having already spoken on behalf of the Committee, I am pleased to mark the Bill's Final Stage. I thank the Minister and my Committee colleagues, and I thank the Assembly, which will pass the Bill.

Miss Dolan: I am delighted to be able to speak in the Final Stage debate of the Deaths, Still-Births and Baby Loss Bill. Being the first jurisdiction on these islands to introduce legislation that makes provision for a baby loss certificate scheme is an example of the positive change that we can make when we work in partnership, and I am proud to have played my small part in that through the Finance Committee.

The legislation has compassion and equality at its core, helping to reduce stress for those who have suffered a bereavement by enabling the electronic transfer of documents, providing same-sex female couples with the same rights as others, and ensuring formal recognition for parents who have lost a baby prior to 24 weeks.

Throughout the development of the Bill, we heard directly from parents who had suffered a heartbreaking loss, and their voices will continue to play a crucial role in the development of the regulations that will provide for the baby loss certificate scheme. I again acknowledge those parents who shared their stories with us and their role in shaping the legislation. I welcome a commitment from the Finance Minister to continue to engage with that group in shaping the regulations.

Working together, we have been able to introduce compassionate legislation whilst modernising the registration process for deaths. That will have a real impact on people as they navigate extremely challenging times. I once again congratulate the Minister on bringing it forward.

Ms Forsythe: I am also pleased to speak at the Bill's Final Stage today. The legislation will see compassion being written into the law in Northern Ireland through the registration of deaths process. As others have said, it is a great example of how we can deliver something really good here when everyone works together.

When baby loss certificates were introduced in Great Britain, many people called for them here. The Health Minister and the Finance Minister shared a commitment to introducing them quickly, but I congratulate the Finance Minister on being the one to bring the scheme forward through the Bill. When the Committee moved to replace the COVID regulations, we recognised the opportunity for legislation to provide for baby loss certificates. We thank the officials for working at pace to develop that within the Bill. Working alongside the Minister, our Committee is really pleased to have been able to bring forward the scheme.

The Committee heard evidence from members of the Forget-me-not Group who shared their powerful stories, and, in debating the Bill, Members bravely spoke of their experiences. During Baby Loss Awareness Week, Committee colleague Jemma Dolan had a ribbon display at the front of Stormont, where we welcomed some of those groups. It was a really powerful moment as we joined together to remember all the babies who had been lost.

As the legislation has progressed, it has opened up conversations, and I am proud to have played a small part in that. So many people have reached out to me on baby loss in generations past. It is my understanding that the legislation will, through the guidelines that will be developed, have a retrospective element. For those who have lost a baby but have never spoken about it and who are starting to move forward in their grief, receiving a certificate will be powerful and important for them in that journey.

Again, we think of all those who have experienced loss, and we remember all those babies. We are really pleased that, through the Bill's passage at Final Stage today, we are recognising the lives of all babies who have been lost in Northern Ireland. We welcome the legislation.

Mr Tennyson: I, too, welcome the opportunity to contribute to the Final Stage debate on the Deaths, Still-Births and Baby Loss Bill. Too often in our society, baby loss has been met with silence or stigma, and, for many parents, it is one of the most traumatic experiences of their life. Today is therefore a truly significant day, as the Assembly legislates for the first time to offer people voluntary and formal acknowledgement of the loss of a baby before 24 weeks. I pay tribute to the women, the bereaved parents and families, the charities and the organisations that have long campaigned for change and to those who bravely and courageously shared their personal testimony with the Committee and the Department during the scrutiny of the Bill. I pay particular tribute to Nikcollette and Louise from the Little Forget Me Nots Trust in my consistency whose insight was absolutely invaluable.

I hope that today can be a first step, because, although acknowledgement is important, it was clear from speaking to bereaved parents that they also want to see improvements in women's health and maternal healthcare and to see us make progress on things such as a women's health strategy to ensure that bereaved parents are supported through every step of their journey.

As other Members have said, throughout the scrutiny of the Bill, including Committee Stage, there was a perhaps unusual degree of political consensus and unanimity. Even where there were differences of opinion on things such as charging and cost, we were able to set aside the politics and find consensus and common ground. That is an example of how the Assembly ought to function at all times: parties come together and work together, focus on the common interest and the people whom we represent and find ways through our differences where they arise.

As Members have also said, the Bill makes other important provisions that modernise the registration process. That will make a real, tangible difference to families in times, good and bad, when they have to visit a registration office to register a birth, a death or a stillbirth. The Bill includes a welcome provision that updates the Civil Registration Act (Northern Ireland) 2011 to enable a second female parent to register a stillbirth without the mother being present. That is a very small but, for those families, hugely significant act of equality. It is a signal of dignity, equality and fairness, and I am very proud that parties have been able to come together to get to this stage and to pass the Bill today.

I close by paying tribute to and thanking the other members of the Finance Committee — we worked unusually well together on the Bill — and the Minister and his officials for their engagement. It was appreciated, and it aided the passage of the Bill, which I am really pleased to see here today, so thank you.

Miss Hargey: I echo the sentiments of those Members who have spoken. It is great that we are at the Final Stage of this important piece of legislation. It has progressed at pace. The Bill makes temporary provisions permanent, which I know that Paul Frew will be delighted about, and it builds on those provisions to ensure that we have a progressive and, most importantly, as the Minister said, compassionate piece of legislation.

We have all listened to the lived experiences of women in particular and to those of individual family members from whom we heard about the wider ripple effect that a loss can have. Good work has been done through listening to those people and making sure that we have legislation that is fit for purpose. Good work has also been done between the Minister and the Committee, as well as in the Chamber when the Bill was debated in each of its iterations.

Importantly, the legislation recognises loss. That was one of the issues that we heard about from families, particularly the women who came forward. I can reflect on my family. My mother lost a baby 12 hours after he was born, and she has a baby loss certificate for him, but she does not have certificates for the miscarriages and losses that she had before the end of pregnancy. That is one illustration, and I am sure that there is not one individual in the Chamber and beyond who has not been touched by these issues.

The legislation can make a huge difference across our communities. The introduction of the baby loss certificate scheme will be broadly welcomed. I recognise that the Minister said this morning that he is going to move at pace to ensure that he brings forward the necessary regulations and, importantly, that he is working with the baby loss organisations and others that support those organisations and families during their time of need.

Again, I recognise the stage that we are at. I commend the work of every MLA in the Finance Committee, and, importantly, the Minister, who has brought the legislation to this stage. At the Bill's Further Consideration Stage, I reflected on the fact that we come from a history of women across this island who were stigmatised. Today is a good day for those women. We are starting to break down that stigma and meet their needs. Again, I commend the Bill at its Final Stage.

Mr Frew: I welcome this day in the Chamber. It is a good news day, and that is for a number of reasons, not least because of the sensitivity of the Bill. It is a very heartfelt, sensitive Bill, and it proves that the House is listening to the people out there.

The Bill started off as a very dry, mechanical Bill to move what was temporary legislation in the Coronavirus Act 2020 on to a permanent footing. That concerned the registration of deaths and births, which are very emotive, sensitive issues. It was basically a functional Bill to move good ideas from being temporary to permanent in order to lessen the burden on people who had to register deaths and births, as well as all the people who work in that field, such as undertakers and registrars. It is a very common-sense piece of legislation. The Minister and departmental officials will know that I badgered them to introduce the Bill as soon as possible. Of course, we kept getting the six-month extensions to the Coronavirus Act.

Therefore, it is good news today that we have achieved a small victory with the repeal of a piece of the Coronavirus Act 2020, albeit one of the most positive pieces of that legislation. It proves that it can be done. Even though the Coronavirus Act apparatus is still in place and although the Assembly has removed the practices of the Act, it proves that we can repeal the Coronavirus Act and completely remove it from the statute book, even though most of it is now dormant. The Assembly should take up that cause.

The Committee and my party and I pushed for the baby loss certificates. It proves that the Department, the officials and the Minister are listening, and moves were made to add the baby loss certificate provisions to the Bill. It took time and effort to get clause 11 and everything that comes with it into the Bill. That is to be applauded, because the Assembly is here to pass legislation. It is not good enough just to pass legislation: the Assembly, the Committee and the Department, with the officials and the Minister, should aim to improve legislation. From the First Reading until the Final Stage of the Bill, our job is to make the legislation better as we go through the process.

I am glad to say that the Bill has been improved because of pressure from the Committee and because the Department and the Minister listened and amendments were put down in the name of Eoin Tennyson and the DUP. The Minister listened and saw what we were trying to achieve, which was to ensure that parents would not pay a fee for a baby loss certificate.

It is also commendable that this is the first place in the British Isles to legislate for a baby loss certificate, and we should be proud of that. If we compare it with the policies in other parts of GB, we have to afford the Department and the Minister the latitude to bring forward regulations under the provisions that will give the flexibility to ensure that the baby loss scheme is fit for purpose not only now but into the future. When you put something in statute, you have to allow flexibility, and that is what the regulations and parts of clause 11 will bring.

I commend the Bill to the House. I am glad to see this day for a number of reasons, not least because it gives recognition to all parents who have lost a child, whether it was stillborn or did not make it through the pregnancy. The loss will be recognised — a loss that nobody has seen or held and one that even grandparents and other family members could not see. It is important to recognise the loss, even if it is just through a baby loss certificate. It will mean something, but it also means that the Assembly, the Minister, the Department and the Committee are listening to the people who have suffered loss, and we acknowledge and register it. It is a good day. I commend the Bill to the House.

Ms Kimmins: I, too, welcome the passage of what, for me, is significant legislation. This will be a momentous day for the thousands of women across the North who have experienced the devastating loss of a baby at whatever stage of pregnancy. They will finally feel seen and heard, and we have acknowledged and recognised their loss as being as real as any loss in pregnancy.

I thank my Sinn Féin colleague Caoimhe Archibald, who instigated the legislation, and the now Finance Minister, John O'Dowd, for bringing it through. We cannot overstate its importance. As others have said today, it is a proper reflection of what we can do in this place. Despite the challenges and the political differences that we may have, we can work together and deliver really important legislation that will have an impact on people's lives.

When I proposed the original motion on the issue in April 2024, which asked the Finance Minister to bring forward a baby loss certificate scheme in the North, I started the debate by remembering a little baby who is very precious to me, baby Robyn Purvis, who was sadly born sleeping in April 2023. Her passing and the impact that was felt by her parents and, indeed, the wider family motivated me to look at how we can make a difference for families like Robyn's across the North.

I will end my contribution to the debate by remembering baby Robyn and paying tribute to her amazing mummy, Jessica, who asked me what we could do here, because we had seen what happens in other jurisdictions. I feel that the family have ensured that Robyn's legacy will ease the pain and the deep loss felt by many parents and families across all our communities and recognise that loss not just now or in the time ahead but for many years, as others have so eloquently articulated here.

I commend the Minister for showing such leadership, the Committee for its engagement and all the organisations that had an input into making and shaping the legislation. I take this moment to remember all those beautiful angels, who will now have a formal place, and everyone who has experienced a loss

Mr Carroll: Like others, I hope that the Bill provides some solace and comfort as part of the healing process for people who been through bereavement, loss and tragedy. Some will want a certificate to recognise their loss, which is their right, and others may not. It is not for me or anybody else to dictate that. However, as Members have said, a certificate can be important for people to acknowledge their loss and give them that space. I genuinely hope that the Bill will have a positive impact and help people who have experienced that trauma and bereavement. Despite some criticisms and shortcomings, that is a genuine view that I and others have.

I extend my sympathies to everybody in the House and on the Committee who shared their heartfelt trauma and stories and to my constituents who have been through baby loss, stillbirth or miscarriage. I can only imagine that it is traumatic to share that, but I commend them for doing so.

I have two quick points. There are still some issues in the Bill that have not been addressed that I raised throughout the process. There are huge gaps in the existing bereavement services. I pay tribute to people who provide counselling and support services in the trusts and elsewhere, but such a small number of people do that. There is probably an expectation that, as a result of the Bill, more people will come forward to get a certificate, as is their right. They may be — I emphasise the words "may be" — traumatised or in need of more in-depth support and counselling services, and I fear that those services are not in place. I repeat the previous point that I made: the Finance Minister needs to work really robustly with the Health Minister to expand those services to make sure that they are in place not only as a general point but to protect those people and support them when they come forward.

The other point that I want to make is that there has been some progress in the Bill on support for same-sex couples, which I welcome. That is a positive move, but there are gaps when it comes to same-sex couples who live in the North but go through IVF treatment in the South. The non-birth mother cannot be on the birth certificate, and that is an oversight and a missed opportunity. I would welcome the Minister's moving on that in some other capacity, but I fear that he might tell us that the time has gone. I hope not, but that is what I fear. That is a missed opportunity in an otherwise, for the most part, positive Bill.

My final point is about payment. I welcome the fact that this was pushed by some members of the Finance Committee, and I recognise that there has been some movement from the Department. However, I reiterate the fact that, even if it is one person, a charge for the second or third copy in circumstances that we do not know about and that, frankly, are none of our business could create unintended consequences, to use the terminology of this place. I repeat my issue with that. That could be problematic, to put it mildly, for people going through a bereavement process. I will leave it there.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Thanks to all Members who have spoken. That concludes the list, so I call on the Minister of Finance to conclude the Final Stage.

Mr O'Dowd: Thank you, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle.

I thank again all the Members of the House who have contributed to the heartfelt debates on the matter, who have corresponded with my office about the Bill or who have otherwise engaged meaningfully in helping to push this important Bill forward. I again record my thanks for the work of the Committee and the Committee staff, who have also been crucial in relation to the Bill. I also thank my staff in the Department, who have worked on the Bill, driven it forward and engaged with many Members of the House, not only in Committee but outside it, in a bid to get the Bill to where it needs to be. In relation to the elements of the Bill to establish a legal footing for a baby loss certificate scheme, I am grateful for the support received from across the House. It has been said time and time again that our ability to work in partnership on the issue has paved the way for, hopefully, a successful conclusion to the Bill process today.

I remind Members of the Bill's aims. It is to ground in permanent legislation the remote registration practices for deaths and stillbirths that have become the normal way of operating. It also removes my need to present myself in front of Mr Frew for an extension to the Coronavirus Act 2020, which, we can say, is a blessing for us all. If there is one thing that you do not want to start Mr Frew on, it is the Coronavirus Act, and I have now removed my need to do that. The Bill removes inequalities in registration procedures for some couples, and that is an important step forward in the legislation. As has been said, the Bill provides for the establishment of a baby loss certificate scheme.

I have had the privilege of bringing several pieces of legislation through the Assembly in different eras, all of which were important in their own right, but I can think of no other legislation that is more important or more meaningful than the legislation that I propose to the House today. It will, in many ways, offer a small candlelight of hope to many families who have gone through terrible times. Today, the Assembly has stepped forward, and I hope that the Bill offers them some light at the end of that very dark tunnel in that we are now recognising the loss of their baby through this scheme. Well done to you all, and well done to everyone who has been involved in the legislation. I commend the Bill to the Assembly.

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

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

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): The Business Committee has agreed to allow up to two hours for the debate. The proposer of the motion will have 10 minutes to propose and 10 minutes to make a winding-up speech. All other contributors to the debate will have five minutes.

Mr McGuigan: As Chairperson of the Committee for Health, I welcome the opportunity to speak to the Committee's report on its inquiry into access to palliative care services in the North. I look forward to hearing the contributions to the debate. We also look forward to hearing from the Minister, and we will listen carefully to how he engages today on the report's findings and recommendations.

I begin by acknowledging the presence in the Public Gallery of professionals from the palliative and end-of-life care sector, as well as those with experience of being a patient requiring palliative care and families and carers who have provided palliative care to loved ones. Later this afternoon, the Committee will host an event to thank the sector and those with lived experience who have contributed to the inquiry's findings. I hope that the event will be well attended. Those who attend the event will watch a video in which a family member of a patient describes the care that is given by the hospice as "beyond special". That was the experience of Committee members when we visited each of the hospices. The quality of care and the services that are provided by the sector, through patient and community services, is something that we should all be proud of.

Early in the inquiry, the Committee learned that the sector has an exceptionally skilled workforce, in statutory and community settings across the North, who have a passion to keep improving access to high-quality care services for patients and families. Not only does the sector understand the challenges facing services, but it has many of the solutions to those challenges. It is, however, facing barriers to effecting the change that is needed and required. The Committee intends that its report will shine a spotlight on that area of the healthcare system and that it will, hopefully, greatly assist the Minister, the Department and the relevant arm's-length bodies in meeting our shared goals of high-quality care and outcomes for patients and their families and carers.

The World Health Organization states:

It states that palliative and end-of-life care:

It is important to note that palliative care is not just for older people. Many of those who are terminally ill leave behind young families. Paediatric palliative care services see families from before the child's birth right up until they are 18 years of age. When a child and family receive that diagnosis, palliative care aims to improve quality of life, to support families emotionally and practically and to help children to live as well and for as long as possible. It is a long-term, holistic approach that is not just about the final stage.

Nothing sums that up better than a quote from the evidence that the Committee heard when members were told:

Good palliative care allows the bereaved to recover sooner and continue living their lives without crippling memories of unnecessary suffering. That is an important statement because, when there has been a gap in the patient's care or a barrier to accessing proper and timely palliative and end-of-life care, the effects are disastrous for the patient as well as for the families and the carers and key workers who were involved with the patient.

Palliative care is unique. We have only one chance to get it right for a patient and their loved ones at a time in their life when they are at their most vulnerable. The Committee's 27 recommendations provide the overall steps that are required for us to get this vital service in our health service right. Palliative care is key to bringing about a more efficient and effective system for healthcare, and the Committee hopes that the Minister will today acknowledge the importance of prioritising palliative care services.

We are already working to an underestimated need for palliative care. The Office for National Statistics projects that we will experience the largest proportional increase on these islands in the number of deaths that require palliative care, with a 32% rise expected between 2023 and 2048. That outlines the need to increase the focus that has been placed on palliative care and put the correct structures in place that will ensure that, as demand for palliative care increases, the systems are in place to be able to provide patients and families with the holistic care that is needed.

I want to touch briefly on the key themes of the evidence that we heard and some of our recommendations. Universal access to palliative and end-of-life care is a recurring theme as is our call for a legal right to palliative care. It was acknowledged that legislation alone would not solve all challenges but would raise the profile of palliative care, ensure consistent commissioning across trusts and help to secure equitable access.

Another constant theme was hospice funding. Our hospices face constant financial instability and risk, which prevents meaningful development and growth. Without multi-year budgets and long-term planning, meaningful service development is impossible, leaving clinical needs unmet and communities underserved. For inpatient services, we need an immediate move away from the long-standing practice of providing 50% funding on the basis of the cost of a general medical bed in a hospital. What hospices provide, in their inpatient services, is specialist multidisciplinary care, and we are doing staff and patients a disservice by continuing the current practice. In their evidence, departmental officials highlighted the fact that it is difficult to assess the cost of providing specialist care. However, the Committee did receive correspondence from the Department that provided information on the cost of providing specialist care in a fully funded trust service, which was significantly greater than the amounts that are provided for hospices and inpatient services.

While we need to consolidate and build inpatient services, the Committee has significant concerns about community services that are provided through hospices and trusts. The Committee held an event in June with the Voices4Care group and other family members who had lost loved ones who had received palliative care. The Committee was concerned to hear the lived experience of families, who, at times, struggled to get support and were told to take their loved ones to emergency departments to wait for treatment. Those families had to drive for hours in their loved ones' last days to find urgent medication. We must do better.

The sector is innovating, and the Committee saw some really good examples of community care, including out-of-hours nursing support, just-in-case boxes and 24/7 telephone support. However, such community care exists only in certain areas of the North, which results in inequity of access for patients and families. That inequity exists in rural areas in particular.

The Committee believes that immediate investment in palliative and end-of-life care is necessary. There is a significant gap in out-of-hours palliative care services, particularly for symptom management. That lack of service can be a barrier to patients returning home, and the absence of 24-hour care makes it difficult for patients to receive timely support. Community and palliative pharmacy play a critical role in keeping the patient stabilised in their home and in the hospital setting, especially at the point of discharge. It is important that those functions are adequately resourced to support patients.

General palliative care is provided predominantly by GPs and district nurses. That service is undervalued and under-resourced, and it is not meeting the public's expectations. Specialist palliative care by multidisciplinary teams is an essential healthcare service that should be fully funded through Health and Social Care. It has been underfunded for a prolonged period. There is a critical need for investment in the community specialist palliative care workforce. As more individuals choose to receive care at home, there is an urgent demand for a sustainable, multidisciplinary, community-based workforce. The current strategy for paediatric palliative care is not adequately funded.

As I conclude, I place on record my thanks to those in the sector who so willingly engaged with the Committee, including the hospices in the North, Hospice UK and the All Ireland Institute of Hospice and Palliative Care. I thank all the organisations, health professionals and individuals who provided valuable evidence to the Committee as it considered this important issue.

I thank the Committee Clerk and his staff for their valuable assistance and contribution throughout the inquiry process in organising and managing the sessions and, in particular, for collating the evidence and drafting and redrafting the report. I also thank my fellow Committee MLAs for their considerable and considerate consideration of the issue. I thank the Minister, permanent secretary and departmental officials for engaging with the Committee over the past year.

Lastly, I pay tribute to those who shared their lived experience with the Committee, including individuals receiving palliative care and families who have lost loved ones. That cannot have been easy for them, but I want them to know how important their contribution and testimony was to the Committee: your experiences have, hopefully, shaped our inquiry report for the better. A report that hopefully, but —

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Your time is up.

Mr McGuigan: — more importantly, can be a blueprint or a road map for doing things better.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): The Business Committee has agreed to meet at 1.00 pm. I propose, therefore, by leave of the Assembly, to suspend the sitting until 2.00 pm. The debate will continue after Question Time, when the first Member to be called will be Diane Dodds.

Mr Speaker: Question 8 has been withdrawn.

Mr Muir (The Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs): I was pleased to establish earlier this year a new stakeholder body, the TB partnership steering group, to help us address the challenges of getting bovine TB under control in Northern Ireland. That work led to the group's blueprint for eradication, which I endorsed and published in April this year. New departmental structures are now in place to implement the blueprint, and initial work is focused on five key areas, including preparations for a new consultation on the full range of potential wildlife intervention options that are available. The officials who are preparing the public consultation are exploring all legislative avenues that may form the basis of a future decision on wildlife interventions to ensure that they will be robust in the face of any future legal challenge. The options are expected to include the two that are in the Member's question; however, no decision has been made, given that advice on the matter has not yet been finalised. It is expected that final advice on the best legislative route for wildlife intervention will be presented for my consideration in advance of a wildlife intervention consultation being undertaken in the spring.

Mr McAleer: I thank the Minister for his response. Minister, you will know the devastating impact of TB on herds and on farmers' health and their finances. We met a group of farmers earlier. Whilst any investment in eradicating TB is welcome, including the £6·4 million from the Shared Island programme, is there not a danger that, without a targeted badger cull strategy, the strategy may not be as effective as you want it to be?

Mr Muir: I am acutely aware of the devastating impact that bovine TB is having on our farm families in Northern Ireland. That is why we set up the partnership group and designed the blueprint that we seek to deliver. It is based on three pillars: people; cattle; and wildlife. By making a collective effort in those three areas, we can move forward and reduce TB in Northern Ireland. We must do that, and we owe it to the farming community in Northern Ireland to achieve it. Wildlife intervention is a key part of that plan, which is why we will consult on wildlife intervention options in the spring of next year. It is important that we do that correctly. Alongside that, we are already working to increase testing and advise farmers on biosecurity. We have to work together on that, which I am committed to doing. Officials in my Department are actively engaging with stakeholders on that.

Miss McIlveen: The regionalisation programme was meant to be a year-long short, sharp intervention. We now have the prospect of a five-year programme in an area of lower-than-average incidence. Is the Minister serious about wildlife intervention and eradicating TB, or is he in the business of kicking the can down the road and tying a future Minister's hands?

Mr Muir: As I outlined in my previous answer, I am serious about the issue. We have three pillars: people; cattle; and wildlife. I have been clear previously and will be clear again today about the need for a wildlife intervention option, but it is important that that is done correctly. That is why we will consult on it in the spring of next year. A regionalised approach has been proven to be successful in other parts of Europe, and we are pursuing that as well. I am doing all that I can on this issue, which is challenging. I speak to many farmers who tell me that it has been an issue for many decades, and we are seeking to work together to address it.

Mr McMurray: Minister, will you provide more detail on the recently announced cross-border bovine TB pilot, which comes under the Shared Island programme?

Mr Muir: I am grateful to my Irish Government colleagues for working with me on that pilot, particularly the Taoiseach's office where the Shared Island funding for it is concerned. It is a regionalised approach that, as I said, has proven to be successful in other parts of the world. It is informed by the three pillars, particularly that on people, giving farmers practical biosecurity advice. Education and knowledge sharing will be a key part of the plan. It is also about those biosecurity measures that we can put in place, so several cattle-related measures will be considered, potentially on a voluntary basis, but we are looking to work with people on that. That will include testing all herds every six months, particularly in relation to risk-based trading, and considering what more we can do to assist farmers in that area. It also includes a wildlife measure: a two-year test, vaccinate and remove programme across the area.

Mr Butler: The Minister referred to the three pillars of people, cattle and wildlife. The reality is that inaction, over several years, means that the pressure on people, cattle and wildlife has grown, and there is also a fourth pillar: the taxpayer. It is estimated that the bill for 2024-25 will be £75 million, which is a £10 million increase on the year before. Are we looking at another £10 million increase on that bill in 2025-26, as a result of further inaction?

Mr Muir: The cost is unsustainable for my Department, and, most importantly, for the farming community. Whilst we cover 100% compensation for this, I fully recognise that that does not reflect the full cost to the farming community in Northern Ireland as a result of a herd breakdown and TB.

I am conscious of a previous wildlife intervention having gone to judicial review in October 2023 and of that judicial review being successful. We need to learn from that and proceed in a way that is robust and enables us to deliver for people around those three pillars. That means delivering on wildlife, but also on people and cattle. I have put resources, by way of officials, on this, as well as the Department putting money into compensation and additional testing. It is important that we work together on this and understand that it is a complex problem. Collectively, we must deliver the blueprint, and I am committed to doing that.

Mr Muir: I am aware of the importance of the apple-growing industry in County Armagh and the positive impact that it delivers to the economy, the environment and the biodiversity of the region. I have seen that for myself, both as Minister and before I took up the role. The draft green growth strategy sets out our long-term vision and framework for a future in which Northern Ireland has transitioned from a high emissions society to a net zero emissions society and in which we can enjoy the longer-term economic, social, health and environmental benefits that that will bring. Growing the horticulture sector is vital to achieving that vision and a sustainable Northern Irish agri-food sector.

My Department's sustainable agriculture programme provides options for all farm businesses in Northern Ireland, including apple growers, to secure and improve viability and environmental sustainability. The sustainable agriculture programme encompasses a wide range of schemes that will be available to apple growers in County Armagh. The horticulture pilot scheme comprises three sub-schemes: the sustainable sector growth groups pilot scheme, the growers' training and support pilot scheme and the innovation driver and support pilot scheme. The horticulture pilot scheme aims to increase cooperation, investment and growers' capabilities. The sustainable farming investment scheme will provide financial support for equipment and technology to improve environmental performance and business efficiency. In addition, schemes such as the farm sustainability payment, the Farming with Nature package, Farming for the Generations and the supply chain scheme are available to apple growers.

Mr McNulty: I thank the Minister for his answer. Minister, that was all, "Blah, blah, blah". You talk about all that, but we see our orchards being ripped up and grubbed out. That happens monthly across our "Orchard County". Despite Ireland being ideal for orchards, 90% of apples here are imported. The benefits of supporting the apple industry are enormous, environmentally, culturally and economically. What are you doing specifically to support the apple industry, especially in our "Orchard County"? Does the Minister see the merit, economically and environmentally, to the apple industry and producer organisations of supporting and promoting producer organisations such as those associated with NI horticulture? Minister, how do you like them apples?

Mr Muir: I provided a detailed response to your original question, in which I outlined the schemes that are available to the horticulture sector, particularly in relation to apple growing. I have been down to visit producers and processors in Armagh. My Department is committed to supporting them. We should be very proud that we have that industry. I am happy to meet you, Justin, if you would like to go through some of the specific issues that are of concern to you. It is important that we support all the agriculture sector in Northern Ireland, which my Department is doing.

Mr Boylan: Minister, what measures are in place to ensure that Armagh apple growers continue to benefit from their protected geographical indication (PGI) status, particularly in relation to EU market access post-Brexit?

Mr Muir: Thank you, Cathal. I am very proud of our PGI status, and it is important that we continue to support it. We have a range schemes in place already. As I outlined, there are also horticulture pilot schemes to support the industry. If there are any other specific suggestions that people want me to take forward, I am happy to listen and engage. If you want me to meet some producers and processors in your constituency, I would be delighted to do so.

Mr Irwin: The Minister may be aware that the Bramley apple industry in County Armagh is worth in the region of £20 million to the local economy. For growers, cold stores are vital to the protection and keeping of the apples. Most of those cold stores are now 30, 40 or 50 years old. Growers need help to replace and renew those stores. Will the Minister undertake to look at a plan to try to help?

Mr Muir: I am very conscious of the infrastructure that is required for the apple industry. We will roll out the sustainable farming investment scheme next year. That will provide support for required equipment. I am happy to engage with officials on whether cold stores are within the scope of that scheme or whether we could work with the Department for the Economy on that matter. I understand how proud we all are, particularly those of us who, like you, represent the "Orchard County". We want to be able to support the industry in the time ahead through practical measures, such as the one that you described.

Mr Donnelly: Will the Minister outline his plans for horticulture under the sustainable agriculture programme?

Mr Muir: Thank you, Danny. It is really important that I outline what we are doing through the sustainable agriculture programme, because the horticulture sector is an important part of our wider agri-food industry, and I am keen to support it. The Department's sustainable agriculture programme provides options for all farm businesses in Northern Ireland, including horticulture businesses, to secure and improve their viability and environmental sustainability. The horticulture pilot scheme aims to increase cooperation, investment and growers' capabilities. It should be of real and practical benefit. I strongly encourage growers to consider applying.

The horticulture pilot scheme comprises three sub-schemes: the sustainable sector growth groups pilot scheme; the growers' training and support pilot scheme; and the innovation driver and support pilot scheme. Applications for the sustainable sector growth groups pilot scheme and the growers' training and support pilot scheme are now open. Applications for the innovation driver and support pilot scheme will open next year. The sustainable farming investment scheme will provide financial support for the equipment and technology required by those in the industry. In addition, other wider schemes are available, such as Farming with Nature. I know that there is quite a lot of detail there. If people want more information, it is available on the departmental website.

Mr Muir: The coastal forum met on 19 November and provided a valuable opportunity to review progress that has been made on coastal management issues. I co-chaired the meeting with the Minister for Infrastructure. I am pleased to report that there has been significant progress in delivering the agreed work programme.

A major achievement is the high-quality evidence base that is available from the Northern Ireland Coastal Observatory. That milestone follows investment of approximately £2·5 million by my Department and provides a platform that can be used for future policy development and decision-making. In particular, the coastal change information tool provides scientific interpretation of historical coastal change patterns and offers insights into how our coastline may respond to future challenges, such as sea-level rise and climate change.

The coastal forum was provided with an update from Ulster University and the National Trust on how €9·6 million from the PEACE PLUS programme will be invested in coastal monitoring and adaptation planning. That funding will ensure that momentum is maintained, and it will provide opportunities for coastal communities to participate in climate change adaptation planning.

The coastal forum working group will produce a stocktake report of the current work programme and make recommendations for the 2026-2031 work programme. That will provide an opportunity to set priorities for the next five years and consider new work areas, such as the potential role of blue carbon habitats as nature-based solutions for coastal resilience.

Ms K Armstrong: I thank the Minister for his answer. I am delighted to hear that coastal communities will be able to have input into the forum. Minister, can you update the House on your work on marine protected areas (MPAs), such as Strangford lough in my constituency?

Mr Muir: My Department consulted on the review of the Northern Ireland marine protected areas strategy in 2024 and has now produced an updated MPA strategy for 2025-2030. The strategy sets out the priorities for the next five years and will focus on ensuring that MPAs are managed effectively. My Department has recently received very encouraging updates from a pilot project at Strangford lough that demonstrates how damaged seagrass habitats can be restored using eco moorings. The updated strategy and synopsis of consultation responses have been shared with the AERA Committee. I intend to publish the strategy in January 2026.

For those who want more information on the coastal forum, the minutes and detailed work programme will be published on the Northern Ireland Coastal Observatory website.

Ms Brownlee: I welcome the fact that the coastal forum is meeting, but how will it help to protect our critical infrastructure and work collaboratively with the Department for Infrastructure in East Antrim? We have concerns about the A2 corridor, the rail line and protecting our harbour assets from the increasing risk of coastal erosion and rising sea levels.

Mr Muir: I am conscious of the concerns about that and the risks to infrastructure in Northern Ireland. Detailed and robust modelling work and scientific analysis is being done on where we are going in that regard. That helps to give us evidence for where we should intervene. Work is also being undertaken to explore any potential legislation on this. I am conscious that there is no lead Department with responsibility for this. In addition, I will send a climate adaptation plan to the Executive for agreement. It is important that we take action in the wide range of areas that are of concern to people in Northern Ireland, particularly in relation to your constituency.

Mr Muir: I have written to the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to highlight my concerns about the impact of limiting agriculture and business property reliefs pertaining to inheritance tax to £1 million on family farms and succession planning. I have put forward alternative mechanisms for consideration, including a clawback option with similarities to the relief available to farmers for capital acquisitions tax in the Republic of Ireland. Most recently, along with the First Minister, the deputy First Minister and the Finance Minister, I issued a letter to the Chancellor of the Exchequer on 12 November, urging her to reconsider her approach to inheritance tax during the Budget process and asking that she give serious consideration to raising the agriculture and business property reliefs threshold from £1 million to £5 million and to making the allowance transferable between spouses. While it is a step in the right direction that the £1 million threshold will now be transferable between spouses and civil partners, that does not go far enough in protecting family farms. An analysis from my Department shows that a quarter of farms, accounting for 58% of the area farmed, have agriculture and business property values exceeding £2 million and will still be affected.

The Farming for the Generations pilot scheme aims to raise awareness of the need for succession planning on farms. The pilot includes support for farm businesses to develop a succession plan, a farm business review and a personal development plan for the nominated successor. It is planned that a full programme will be rolled out next year.

Mrs Dillon: I thank the Minister for his answer. To be fair, I have no doubt about the work that you, Minister, are doing in relation to this. However, farmers are really concerned. I met the Ulster Farmers' Union last week, and I know that there were meetings last week at which farmers raised their concerns about the issue. They are making comparisons with the South of Ireland. It is becoming more and more apparent that the British Government have absolutely no understanding of what it means to be a farmer or have a family farm in the North or anywhere on this island.

Given the widening gap in the property relief thresholds, which is causing the agri-food industry grave concern, as, I am sure, you are well aware, and for the long-term sustainability of farming, does the Minister believe that the comparisons being drawn with the protections available in the South — has the Minister assessed how the North/South divide on this island and on inheritance tax is causing farmers to question where their long-term economic interests will be protected —

Mr Speaker: Minister.

Mrs Dillon: — along with the interests of family farming?

Mr Muir: As Minister, I am aware that, since we left the EU, the disparity between North and South has become more acute. That is a result of Brexit and because of decisions by the UK Government, particularly on inheritance tax. That continues to cause real anxiety in the farming community, particularly in the run-up to April of next year. That is wrong, and we have made collective representations from the Chamber on the issue, particularly in relation to the disproportionate and detrimental impact that it has on Northern Ireland. I will continue to make those representations. I am conscious of the impact that it has on farmers in Northern Ireland, and I will continue to urge the UK Government to listen and act. That has been very much absent in recent times.

Mr Clarke: One of the things that are particularly important for family farm succession is young farmers' schemes. It is disgraceful that no such scheme is planned. You said today, Minister, that there are no definitive plans for 2026. Your Department rolled out a pilot of the Farming for the Generations scheme, and that was a disaster. We are in December, Minister: will you give a clear indication today of whether you are introducing a scheme that will help to secure our young farmers, our future in farming?

Mr Muir: My Department's sustainable agriculture programme contains the Farming for the Generations scheme. I thank everyone who has been taking that forward. It aims to raise awareness of the need for succession planning on farms and supports farm families through a three-phased approach: planning for succession, developing the successor and supporting the lead generation within the farm family. The scheme will also link farmers without a family successor to new entrants to provide access to land and other resources.

As Minister, I am committed to supporting our farming families to ensure that succession planning can be a straightforward process and smooth transition. That will not happen overnight. I will continue to engage constructively with stakeholders to listen to what support they require and what my Department can do to assist them.

Last autumn, I launched the Farming for the Generations pilot scheme to help farm families to develop succession plans. It is being supported by farm family mentors and professionals such as solicitors and accountants. The pilot is ongoing and will conclude in the spring of next year.

Mr Dickson: Minister, will you give us an assessment of the UK's recent Budget and, in particular, its implications for the agriculture sector?

Mr Muir: The Budget has had implications for the farming community because there was hope that the UK Government would rethink the inheritance tax. They have not done that. That is the major concern of the farming community in Northern Ireland. The Minister of Finance outlined more about that on Monday. The challenge ahead for the Executive is to agree a three-year resource budget and a four-year capital budget. I will play my part, and I am working extremely hard to ensure that I deliver a balanced budget this year. I am confident that I will do that, but it is important that other Ministers do the same.

Mr O'Toole: Minister, it is clear that, in the UK Government, there just is not a basic understanding of how patterns of land ownership, multigenerational family farms and higher land values affect here differentially. You say that you have written to the NIO and DEFRA, and I appreciate that. Has a clear, worked example been given to the Treasury of how this place is fundamentally different? If they still do not listen, what consideration is being given to some kind of intervention in the multi-year Budget that allows you and other Ministers to respond to the clear frustration among farming families?

Mr Muir: A worked example has been given. Representations have been made by the farming unions, by us and by many in Parliament, including the EFRA Committee, in relation to the suggestions from the Centre for the Analysis of Taxation (CenTax), which is a tax advisory body. It outlined practical suggestions on how we could realise the revenue that is desired so that we could tackle tax avoidance, which is what we want to be able to do, and protect farm families in Northern Ireland and across the UK. There are practical ways forward in that regard. My frustration has been the lack of proper engagement and, frankly, empathy, particularly from Treasury, on the matter. That is a concern for me. I have outlined what we as a Department are doing through Farming for the Generations, and it is important that we do that.

Given the size of the issue in relation to the fiscal levers that we have in Northern Ireland, it is challenging for us. I am on record as saying that we should have more fiscal devolution in Northern Ireland so that we can have more autonomy around the matter, and I will support the Finance Minister in regard to that.

Mr Muir: A business case for the scheme of financial assistance for commercial Lough Neagh fishermen due to the closure of the 2025 brown eel season has been completed. It is being quality-assured by my Department, before the proposal is submitted for my consideration later this week.

Blue-green algae is a symptom of broader ecosystem issues. Whilst research is conducted to understand what impact ecosystem issues may have on brown eel stocks, support is being considered on the basis that they may have had an impact on marketability due to concerns around the quality of fish and the presence of toxins, despite the provision of Food Standards Agency assurance. The provision of financial assistance will be based on the income forgone by fishers from their landings of brown eels during the 2024 season. The support will provide some financial easement to enable fishers to consider the current challenges and to allow time for the implementation of operational and fishery management adaptations for the next season. Such challenges will include the identification of new, alternative markets for brown eels. The provision of support should help to address the challenges, with the aim of maintaining that historic fishery at a sustainable and viable level that contributes to the rural economy and employment around the lough.

Mr McGlone: Thank you very much for that, Minister. You will appreciate that a number of people who fish on the lough have been out of pocket for some while now. I appreciate the efforts that have been put in by the Department, but will you indicate when payments will be made to those eligible under the scheme, please?

Mr Muir: Thank you, Patsy. I am keen to get it on to my desk, so that I can consider it and give you a definitive answer. I know that time is of the essence in providing that support, and it is important that we do so. The serious impact on fishermen as a result of the ecological issues in Lough Neagh is something that weighs heavily on me. Fishing on the lough is part of our culture, tradition and heritage as well as people's employment. I am keen to support, in the here and now, those who fish there and provide a pathway for future resilience.

Mr Muir: Mr Speaker, with your permission, I will group questions 6 and 15.

Under the Windsor Framework (Implementation) Regulations 2024, the supply of veterinary medicines to Northern Ireland is a matter under the direction and control of the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. Since taking office, I have engaged regularly with the UK Government on future supply arrangements from 1 January 2026. I have raised concerns directly with successive Secretaries of State, including Steve Reed and Emma Reynolds, and maintain frequent bilateral meetings with Baroness Hayman where veterinary medicine supply is regularly discussed, with one taking place as recently as last week. I sit on the UK Government’s veterinary medicines working group jointly chaired by Baroness Hayman alongside veterinary experts, industry representatives and political stakeholders. That forum enables me to provide advice on measures to prevent disruption to supply.

I welcome the UK Government’s protecting animal health policy, published in June 2025, and its two new support schemes designed to address supply challenges, including unforeseen issues. In the months ahead, I will continue working with the UK Government and the working group on governance and oversight to ensure that those schemes deliver their intended outcomes.

Mrs Dodds: Minister, you have given us a long list of people with whom either you or your Department communicate. It seems, however, that you are not communicating with the industry. At a recent Committee meeting in Westminster on the Windsor framework, a representative of the Ulster Farmers' Union said that he was unsure of DAERA's position on veterinary medicines. Mark Little, who is the honorary secretary of the British Veterinary Association, said:

As well as giving a list of all of the people with whom you are communicating or with whom you sit on a working group, will you tell us the answers for 1 January, which is in a few weeks' time?

Mr Muir: As I outlined at the beginning of my response to the substantive questions, the matter does not sit under my direction and control. I have made the case to the UK Government on a number of occasions about the importance of communication and clarity to the sector. I will continue to make that case to the UK Government. It does not sit under my direction and control as a result of legislation that the DUP asked for.

Ms Finnegan: Does the Minister agree that a comprehensive veterinary agreement between the EU and the British Government would go a long way towards addressing the issue of veterinary medicine?

Mr Muir: A comprehensive agreement between the UK and the EU would be a welcome development. I know that it was not part of the announcement on the sanitary and phytosanitary (SPS) agri-food agreement in May, but there are ongoing discussions now. If it becomes part of that agreement, that will be welcome. The closer the cooperation between the UK and the EU, the more benefit there will be for all our citizens across the UK.

Mr Muir: With fireworks being set off after dark, potential impacts are difficult to assess. My Department does not hold any data or evidence on their effect on wildlife. In common with domestic pets and farmed animals, possible impacts are likely to include fear, stress and disorientation, which may result in self-injury or abandonment of the young. Organisers of firework displays, whether public or domestic, should be aware of the possible risks to animals. Fireworks should not be set off near habitats where concentrations of wildlife are known to be present, such as woodlands and lakes, or known bird nesting sites during spring and summer.

Mr Robinson: I thank the Minister for that response. What discussions has his Department had with the Department of Justice regarding the enforcement of firework regulations?

Mr Muir: My Department is conscious of its responsibilities for raising awareness of the matter, which we do every year in the run-up to Halloween. It is also aware of the responsibilities of the Department of Justice. I reached out to the Minister of Justice today in anticipation of such a question. The Minister is conscious of the impact that fireworks can have on wildlife. Her reminders always encourage the public to follow the law, keep fireworks safe and be considerate. Information on fireworks is available year round on the NI Direct website to remind people of the impact that fireworks can have on older or vulnerable people as well as on pets and farm animals. The information also highlights the availability of low-noise fireworks.

Mr Speaker: We move to topical questions.

Mr Muir: Thank you, Mark. The public consultation on the draft remediation strategy closed on 2 October. In total, 26 responses were received. Those responses and the views of the consultees will be carefully considered in order to inform any necessary amendments to the draft remediation strategy. There will then be further significant decisions to be made. Any necessary updates to the strategy will be determined further to the assessment of the consultation responses.

Our integrated consultancy team is progressing the technical review of the responses. Officials plan to present the report on the consultation to me by the end of January next year. If the necessary updates do not significantly alter the draft strategy — we have to keep an open mind on the consultation — it is envisaged that the revised strategy will be presented to me in February or March next year. An updated cost estimate for delivery of the strategy will follow in March or April.

Mr Durkan: I thank the Minister for his answer. We will have to wait until the consultation is assessed and the strategy finalised before costings can be arrived at, but how has the Minister's consideration of them informed any bids as part of the multi-year Budget process for the money — the resource — required to remediate Mobuoy?

Mr Muir: As the Member rightly outlines, it is about resource rather than capital, which adds extreme complexity and challenge to the issue, particularly in relation to the potential cost. The process for agreeing that, getting Executive approval and then undertaking the work will take a number of years, and we will have to factor that into our Budget bids. How the situation came about in the first place has caused me great concern. That is why I believe, as the Member does, in an independent environmental protection agency and why I am seeking Executive agreement for such an agency. I am deeply disappointed that the DUP has decided to block it.

Mr Muir: Officials have started work on that; I would need to check whether they are on-farm today but I know that they want to have that testing completed this week. It is important that we do that for additional surveillance. Alongside the testing, midge traps have been set so that we can test those. There is also additional surveillance in abattoirs. We are doing all that we can on surveillance. We are looking to get out and get testing on those 20 large farms. We are engaging with the farmer whose herd has been affected and testing the entire herd. I believe that, collectively, we can move out of the restrictions. However, it is important that people understand them: there is to be no movement unless that is directly to slaughter, in which case a form to enable that should be downloaded from the departmental website.

Mr Kingston: I thank the Minister for his answer. Given the widespread concern about the outbreak, will the Minister consider, as a belt-and-braces approach, restricting movements of animals from Europe?

Mr Muir: We take a risk-based approach to that. There have been no movements from GB to NI for a significant period because England and Wales, unfortunately, have been affected by bluetongue. We will continue to take a risk-based approach. Essentially, Northern Ireland is in lockdown when it comes to bluetongue, and it is important that people observe the rules that are in place.

Mr Muir: I am very proud to be the only Minister in the UK to secure over £300 million in ring-fenced funding for agriculture, agrienvironment, fisheries and rural development. That is not the case in England, Scotland and Wales. We are determined to utilise that funding to support farm families in Northern Ireland. That is part of the sustainable agriculture programme. There are a range of measures in that programme, be they about advice or the investments that can be made on-farm. The sustainable farm investment scheme is a capital support scheme that will launch next year. It will offer a range of options to support farmers to take up the technology that they wish to use. It is important that we support farmers, which is what my Department is doing, and I thank officials for that.

Mr Harvey: I thank the Minister for his answer. Minister, how will the Department ensure that the new standards will be applied fairly and proportionately across all farm types?

Mr Muir: Part of that involves the farm sustainability standards that the Committee agreed, and I thank the Committee for its engagement with officials on those. The farm sustainability standards are a balanced, proportionate and robust way forward that replace cross-compliance. Hopefully, people will get acquainted with the details of the standards, which are on the departmental website.

Mr Muir: Those are major challenges not only for my Department but for the farming community in Northern Ireland. We have the financial resources to deal with them in our current situation, but we cannot predict the future. That is the nature of animal disease. It is important that I reassure you that we have put resources into that and that we are compensating farmers under our statutory obligations. I am conscious that this is a very difficult time for the farming community, particularly those who are in the dairy sector because of the effect on milk prices. My Department is focused on delivering its vision of a thriving and resilient agri-food sector with an economically and environmentally sustainable future. We are determined to do that.

Ms D Armstrong: I thank the Minister for his answer. Minister, when will you get to grips with the TB situation and drive down TB costs?

Mr Muir: As I outlined, we have agreed a blueprint and are focused on delivering that under its three pillars. We have made a bid for transformation funding from the Executive Office, we have Shared Island funding and we are pushing ahead with a regionalised approach. We are putting resources into the situation. I reassure people that I am committed to tackling it not because of the cost to my Department, which is an important consideration, but because of the cost to the farming community and the mental distress that it is causing. I am committed to doing that in a robust manner while respecting the science and evidence.

Mr Speaker: Mr Carroll is not in his place.

Mr Muir: Thank you, John. A just transition commission arises from the Climate Change Act (Northern Ireland) 2022. It was the result of an amendment that the House agreed without Division. It is a very important commitment, because just transition runs throughout the climate change legislation. It is about ensuring a fair and balanced way forward and safeguarding everyone as we move towards decarbonisation. It is a legal obligation, and I am determined to deliver upon it. We consulted on the regulations, and I have sought Executive agreement on them. I have been seeking Executive agreement since September, and, hopefully, we can get agreement on the regulations so that we can set up a just transition commission to provide delivery on what is a key principle of the climate change legislation. Providing a fair and just way forward should be a key principle in all our policies.

Mr Blair: The lack of progress, despite the Minister's efforts, is extremely concerning. Will the Minister outline what other papers continue to be delayed as they await Executive approval?

Mr Muir: As Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs, I am committed to power-sharing and to working with my Executive colleagues. However, I am finding the gridlock that we have in getting papers agreed by the Executive increasingly frustrating. The extent of that gridlock means that we now have to maintain a spreadsheet of the papers that we are looking to get agreement on. I am awaiting Executive agreement on six papers. I have been waiting for almost a year for agreement on one of the papers — the green growth strategy. We are also waiting for agreement on papers relating to an independent environmental protection agency, ways that we can improve our levels of recycling, a fisheries Bill and a water environment Bill, and we are awaiting agreement on a technical paper on sheep carcass classification. There has been engagement with the Executive Office regarding those, but it is important that we can progress those papers at the next Executive meeting. I am doing the work, and I need others to be able to support me and allow us to progress it. It is extremely frustrating that there is gridlock at the Executive due to one party — the DUP.

Mr Muir: Farm sustainability standards are a modern, proportionate and simpler regime covering environmental, public and animal health and welfare issues in Northern Ireland. The majority of farmers care deeply for their livestock and want to protect the environment for future generations. The new penalty regime, which was developed in close collaboration with agriculture stakeholders, recognises the importance of education and understanding. Our goal is to help farmers meet those standards. I am fully committed to supporting farmers to remain compliant, avoid penalties and receive their full payments. Together, we are laying the groundwork for a thriving, resilient and sustainable agri-food sector that supports family farms and benefits our communities, climate and economy.

Mr Donnelly: I thank the Minister for that response. How are the new standards an improvement in cross-compliance in environmental protection and animal welfare, and fairer for farmers?

Mr Muir: These standards have been developed to meet the agricultural and environmental needs that are unique to Northern Ireland. Through them, we can take a more focused approach in helping to address current issues in water quality, for instance. The standards promote good farm management and responsible stewardship, which help to underpin the integrity of Northern Ireland's agri-food industry. Animal welfare is a concern to us all, and requirements for the welfare of birds have been added, along with requirements for the welfare of animal transportation regulations. New biosecurity requirements have also been introduced to reduce the risk and impact from animal diseases. The new penalty arrangements are more proportionate, fairer and easier to understand, and they reflect the severity of the impact of any breach of a standard.

Mr Muir: Engagement with the agriculture sector is a core part of the blueprint. That is why we have the stakeholder partnership and want to work together on it. We are keen to work with people on the issue, particularly in relation to the cattle interventions. We want to be able to understand if there are any concerns and how we can help drive the TB incidence down. Alongside that, we are moving forward with the regionalised approach. I fully acknowledge the need for a wildlife intervention in Northern Ireland, and the importance of its ability to withstand legal challenge. That is why we will be consulting on it next year. Be assured that we are putting resources to the issue. It is a priority for my Department. Collectively, we can move forward on it, but we also have to respect the science, evidence and law.

Mrs Mason: I thank the Minister for his answer. In a previous answer on this issue, he mentioned an all-island approach. What would that be? What work has he undertaken with his counterpart in the South to try to tackle the issue?

Mr Muir: Thank you. The funding that we have received from the Shared Island Fund for the regionalised cross-border approach is absolutely key. The island of Ireland is a single epidemiological area. That is why we want to work together on this. I thank my ministerial counterpart in the South, Martin Heydon, and the Department for Agriculture, Food and the Marine for the way in which they are working with us on the issue. This is something that does not respect borders, and something on which we need to work together. People need to understand that we are taking forward this initiative, which is based on wildlife intervention, people and cattle measures. Engagement is taking place, and, hopefully, everyone can get behind these positive interventions on a key issue in the agriculture community in Northern Ireland and the South of Ireland.

Mr Muir: Thank you, Andy. I have received a letter from the Communities Minister asking whether I want to participate in it. I am waiting for advice from officials because we have to consider how we do it correctly. Once that advice comes back, I will write back to the Communities Minister. I see the benefits of the fund, but if I am to engage in it, I need to make sure that I do so correctly.

Mr Allen: I thank the Minister for his answer. Does the Minister envisage that, with his current budget envelope, he will be in a position to provide further capital funding to allow that fund to reach more of the groups that are providing impactful work in communities daily?

Mr Muir: Thank you, Andy. I would like to take part in the fund, but you have asked the key question of whether I have the budget envelope to do so. I do not want to write back to say yes and then not have the cash. I will get advice from officials, but there is a benefit to my Department working in conjunction with all Departments, including the Department for Communities. The Executive have to work together. They are our partners in government, and we are committed to doing that.

Mr Speaker: That concludes questions to the Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs. Members should take their ease for a moment while we change the personnel at the Table.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Question 13 has been withdrawn.

Ms Ennis: I thank the Member for his question. The Assembly provides extensive information for the public about Committee business. Most Committees meet in open session, and the proceedings are broadcast live. Forward work programmes, agendas and minutes are published promptly online to ensure transparency. Our website offers details about Committees, their membership, their roles and how the public can engage through evidence sessions and consultations. The Communications Office supports the Committees with press releases, media notices, social media content and the handling of queries from the public, as well as by providing tailored assistance for inquiries and legislative scrutiny.

The participation and outreach team delivers sessions in Parliament Buildings and constituencies, attends key events and helps Committees engage with people who have relevant experience. To broaden accessibility, we produced a glossary of parliamentary terms in British Sign Language and Irish Sign Language. That has been supported by signed summaries of evidence sessions as part of the Committee's scrutiny of the Sign Language Bill. Looking ahead, the clerking and member support team will publish clear explainers on the Assembly’s responsibilities, including the vital role of Committees.

Mr Durkan: I thank the Member for her answer. I recognise and welcome the good progress that has been made, but will she outline whether the Assembly Commission will explore more accessible formats to help the public better understand the outcomes of Committees' work?

Ms Ennis: The Assembly Commission is developing a new website to enhance navigation and the user experience and improve search functionality and accessibility. The new website will also facilitate the better integration of Committees' digital media content, and all those improvements will better promote their work.

Social media is important when it comes promoting the work of Committees, and the Commission has recently enhanced its digital content resources to better support Committees with video and image-based content. Those focus on calls for evidence and consultations and on showcasing the engagement work of the Committees on external visits. The Assembly's social media channels support the work of the Committees on X, Facebook, Instagram, TikTok and LinkedIn, and they cover a broad range of demographics.

Mr Clarke: I thank the Member for her question. The Assembly Commission has used the security hut in the lower east car park for a number of years. The hut was originally installed and maintained by the Department of Finance, although, recently, it has fallen into a state of significant disrepair and is now considered to be close to the end of its service life.

The Department of Finance has indicated that it is not minded to replace the hut in the foreseeable future and has left it for the Assembly Commission to determine the way forward, since it is the primary user of the car park. Assembly Commission staff presently monitor and manage the lower east car park on the busiest days of the week, although plans are already well advanced to erect an automatic barrier at the car park entrance in early 2026. Once that work has been completed, those staff will be withdrawn, and, should occasional monitoring of the car park be required, it can be carried out from the existing search facility at the east glen.

Mrs Dillon: I thank the Member for the answer. Can he give us a timeline for when the automatic barrier might be put in place? This is an issue of staff welfare, and everybody should be able to come to a decent place of work. We all get to a come into a nice, warm building that might not be perfect, but it is certainly much better than what they have to tolerate down there. I do not think that any of our staff should have to work in facilities that are not fit for purpose. If we can get a timeline, that will be really good.

Mr Clarke: I cannot give the Member a definite time frame, other than to say that it will be early 2026. A lot of consideration has gone into it in previous meetings, and that is why it is at an advanced stage. The Commission was very aware of the state of the current building and of all the factors that have been highlighted by you today. All Members are alive to the fact that the staff are working outside. That is part of the reasoning behind the automatic barrier. It would prevent them from having to be there, and occasional supervision of the car park could be carried out from the east glen.

Miss McAllister: I thank the Member for his question. Further to a direction from the Assembly in June 2021, the Assembly Commission provides a simultaneous and passive system for interpretation. That service is provided by the Interpretation and Translation Service, which has been operational and available to interpret from Irish to English since May 2022.

The cost of providing the Interpretation and Translation Service, from Irish to English, over the two years from 1 October 2023 to 30 September 2025 has been £387,000. That cost reflects the salaries paid to one senior interpreter at Assembly grade 5 and two interpreters at Assembly grade 6. Sundry costs incurred by the Interpretation and Translation Service, including for learning and development and office equipment, have been absorbed by the budget allocated to the Office of the Official Report (Hansard).

Mr Martin: I thank the Member for her reply. Have any efficiency savings been considered for translation services, particularly AI?

Miss McAllister: I thank the Member for his question. The Assembly Commission is examining AI in its entirety. We have not yet discussed that particular issue, but it is something that I am more than happy to take back to the Assembly Commission, and, if the Member is content, provide him with a written answer.

Ms Sheerin: Ba mhaith liom mo cheist a chur as Gaeilge.

An aontaíonn an Comhalta go léiríonn an ceart gnó an Tí seo a dhéanamh trí Ghaeilge aitheantas fíorthábhachtach ar chearta phobal na Gaeilge dul i mbun gnó i dteanga dhúchais na hÉireann?

Miss McAllister: It is very important to preserve any native language, no matter the jurisdiction. The Member will be aware that other jurisdictions across these islands — in particular, the Welsh Parliament — also offer simultaneous interpretation services. The protection of minority languages is particularly important, but so, also, is the welcoming of that language. It is important to ensure that the protection of a minority language is not about a minority language belonging to one single community. However, I agree that it is an important issue and one that should be debated in the House with care, being reflective of all jurisdictions across these islands.

Mr Carroll: Ag leanúint as ceist Emma,

does the Member agree that the DUP culture war, not wanting to see or hear Irish, needs to come to an end and that we owe a debt of gratitude to our interpreters who, while a small team, do exceptional work for me and other Members across the House?

Also, can the Member outline whether the Commission has received any complaints or issues about Pi Comms, which does not employ our interpretation staff, but provides the facilities to allow us to record speeches and items in the Chamber?

Miss McAllister: Unfortunately, I cannot provide that information to you today, but I can take it back to the Assembly Commission. I am not sure how long it might take to gather that information. If there are zero complaints, it will be quite quick, but I am sure that we can get back to you on it. The Member will understand that I am here today to reflect the overall Assembly Commission's position, so it is important that we do not engage in political content when we are answering questions. However, I hope that I can get the answer to your last question to you as quickly as possible.

Mr Allen: I thank the Member for his question. The Assembly Commission conducted a planned fire drill on Monday 29 September 2025. Building users evacuated the Building between 11.00 am and 11.09 am. All Building users were back in the Building by 11.16 am. While the drill was successful overall, as with every such exercise, a list of improvements requiring attention has been compiled, and those have been or are being implemented by the health and safety team in collaboration with colleagues across relevant business areas. It was the first such fire drill to be carried out on a sitting day, enabling the Assembly Commission to ensure the widest possible participation and to help familiarise all Building users with the evacuation procedures.

Mr Chambers: I thank the Commission for that answer. I had never been involved in a full-scale evacuation in all the time that I have been here, but I want to offer a couple of observations that I hope will be seen as helpful.

The process was that most people seemed to be coming out of the front of the Building and going down the steps. When they got to the bottom of the steps, there was only one gate to let people out, so it was a case of funnelling people into one exit to get them off the steps. In an orderly situation, that is fine, but, in a panicked situation, it really could be a poor outcome. The other thing was that I thought that —.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Conclude. I think that you have asked a question already, and questions should not be as long as that.

Mr Chambers: OK. I will finish very quickly. I thought that the assembly of people outside was very poorly handled.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): OK. Thank you. I call Andy Allen to reply.

Mr Allen: Thank you, Deputy Speaker. I thank the Member for his follow-up question. Indeed, the purpose of the drill was exactly for the reason that he outlined: there were those who are frequently in the Building but may not have participated in a drill previously. Several issues — I appreciate that the Member raised some — were identified during the drill, including a shortage of fire wardens and staff trained to operate evacuation chairs, as well as uncertainty among some Members and staff about their designated muster points. Building users should proceed to the numbered marker on the front lawn that corresponds to the floor on which they work, such as the basement, the ground floor, the first floor and so on. I encourage the Member — indeed, any Member — to write to the Commission with further points, and we can take those points into consideration.

Mr McGrath: With your permission, Deputy Speaker, I will group questions 5 and 12.

I thank the Members for their questions. The Assembly Commission is committed to ensuring that Parliament Buildings is accessible to all. To that end, we have recently undertaken a Disability Discrimination Act (DDA) survey. That comprehensive assessment identified any areas where improvements could be made to enhance accessibility for all people with disabilities, additional communication needs or mobility issues. Now that the DDA survey is complete and the final report has been received, we will carefully consider its findings and develop a plan to implement necessary adaptations, where possible.

Mr Harvey: Thank you for your answer. It is vital that everyone can access the estate. Does the Commission have any plans to assess whether the current number of disabled parking bays is adequate?

Mr McGrath: I am not sure whether that is a consideration at the minute. However, without speaking out of turn — without the facts — I know that some new spaces have been provided in the upper car parks of late. I have seen those myself, but we can come back to you on the finer details of the question in a written answer.

Mr McGlone: Can the Commission confirm whether a full accessibility audit has been completed and whether its findings will be published to ensure transparency on progress?

Mr McGrath: I thank the Member for his supplementary question. The disability access audit provided a comprehensive assessment of accessibility across Parliament Buildings in accordance with the Disability Discrimination Act 1995. It encompasses all key areas, including approaches and entrances, internal circulation routes, sanitary facilities, signage, general amenities and evacuation arrangements.

The report recognises the Building's grade A listed status, which places inherent constraints on the scope of physical adaptations that can be made to its historic fabric. Therefore, the recommendations seek to balance statutory and best-practice accessibility standards with the preservation of the Building's architectural and heritage significance. Where physical modifications are not feasible, the audit highlights the importance of operational adjustments and management strategies to ensure accessibility for all users. In total, 34 recommendations have been identified, such as automated doors, lift controls and toilet layouts. Officials are considering options to address the recommendations, and an update will be provided to the Assembly Commission.

Ms Ennis: I thank the Member for her question. The Assembly Commission installed a Changing Places facility in Parliament Buildings in 2011, with the official launch taking place on 5 October 2011. To mark the occasion, children from Glenveagh Special School enjoyed a tour of Parliament Buildings before visiting the new facility alongside representatives of Mencap.

Standard accessible toilets do not meet the needs of many people, including those with profound and multiple learning disabilities. Our Changing Places facility is designed to address those needs and includes a height-adjustable changing bench, a ceiling-mounted hoist, an adjustable sink and ample floor space for carers and equipment. The facility is located on the ground floor, near the rear entrance to the Senate Chamber. No key or pass is required for access, but we respectfully ask all building users to keep the room available for those who require its full specialist features. To help ensure that people can easily find the facility, it is also listed on the Changing Places Toilets website.

Ms Mulholland: Are there any plans to install additional Changing Places facilities in Parliament Buildings?

Ms Ennis: I fully recognise that the Building must be accessible to all users, regardless of their disability. There are currently no plans to install additional Changing Places facilities, but we are more than happy to keep that under review.

Mr Martin: What engagement is there between the Assembly Commission and Changing Places in order to assess the need for any additional places?

Ms Ennis: I was not a Member when we installed the existing Changing Places facility. As I said in my previous answer, if we think that we require more facilities, as, I am sure, happened in 2011, we will, of course, do that in conjunction with Changing Places.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): David Brooks is not in his place.

Miss McAllister: With your permission, Mr Deputy Speaker, I will group questions 8 and 15. I may require an additional minute for my answer, as there is quite a lot of detail.

The Assembly Commission recognises the importance of ensuring that robust measures are taken to support and strengthen the Assembly’s cybersecurity and digital resilience. Across the world, cybersecurity risk has grown exponentially over the past number of years, and every high-profile organisation’s systems are under attack every day. The Assembly Commission is mindful that a range of states and rogue actors have an interest in obtaining information about organisations’ cybersecurity arrangements. In that context, just as the Assembly Commission would not discuss the details of physical security arrangements at the Assembly on the Floor of the House, it would not be wise to discuss the details of the Assembly Commission’s efforts relating to cybersecurity.

I am happy to inform the House that an independent cybersecurity assurance review was carried out in June 2023 to ascertain the Assembly Commission’s cybersecurity position. That review was aligned to the good practice guidelines established by the National Cyber Security Centre’s '10 Steps to Cyber Security’ and the requirements of information security good practice guidance.

The Assembly Commission has recruited an interim information technology security officer to support the head of IT in further enhancing cybersecurity. That role has a specific focus on ensuring that Members, their staff and Assembly Commission staff receive regular cyber-related training and that systems and applications are secure by design. Since March 2023, the Assembly Commission has invested in hardware and software to support the removal of outdated and vulnerable services, to improve the cybersecurity position and to ensure the reliability of digital systems used by Members with specific reference to cybersecurity. Further investment is planned, with the procurement of a security operations centre service, as recommended across the public sector. It will provide continuous monitoring, detection and response to cybersecurity threats.

Mrs Cameron: I thank the Member for her comprehensive answer. Given that MLA constituency offices handle large volumes of highly sensitive personal information from constituents, can the Commission tell us whether anything further is being planned — I appreciate that there was a lot in the Member's answer and that a lot is being done — to ensure that data is fully protected from cyberattacks? Is any further investment and training required to strengthen those protections?

Miss McAllister: I thank the Member for her question, some of which, I hope, I can answer. The Assembly Commission undertakes regular phishing awareness campaigns to support Members and their staff in identifying potential threats; you will see those in emails and circulars. The Commission also offers follow-up training and support. In addition, a personal cyber advisory scheme is being offered to support Members, their staff and Assembly Commission staff to stay safe. Perhaps it is not well known that that is available to Members' staff. We, as the Commission, can take that message away to ensure that, if possible, that is extended, given that so much of the training takes place in Parliament Buildings rather than in constituency offices. It is an important point that we could look to extend the training to constituency-based staff in particular. I hope that that is helpful.

Mr McNulty: Further to the Member's question, can the Commission outline whether all MLAs and staff will receive updated cyber awareness training to ensure that internal capacity matches the scale of the threat?

Miss McAllister: I thank the Member for his question. Training is available; the onus is on the individual MLA to ensure that they and their staff undertake it. I encourage anyone who has not yet done the training or met the team to do so urgently and as quickly as possible. We will take back to the Assembly Commission the message that we need to remind and encourage MLAs to participate. That can be done on a party-wide basis, but it is perhaps more beneficial to do it on an individual basis.

Mr Allen: The Assembly Commission currently has five defibrillators, all of which were registered with the British Heart Foundation’s national defibrillator network, The Circuit, on 19 September 2025. The devices are routinely checked and maintained to ensure that they are always ready for use.

Mrs Guy: Thank you. What first aid training is provided to staff in Parliament Buildings, and does it include training on how to use defibrillators?

Mr Allen: I do not have all the information to hand, but 52 members of staff are trained in first aid. The use of defibrillators does not require first aid training but is covered in the first aid training. The Assembly Commission will continually keep that under review. The Assembly Commission regularly — yearly, I believe — invites additional staff to undertake that training.

Ms Ennis: I thank the Member for his question. On 18 March 2020, the Assembly Commission agreed that determining MLA salaries and pensions should continue to be the role of an independent body but that the determination of allowances could be undertaken by the Assembly Commission. Powers to make determinations on allowances were conferred on the Assembly Commission by the Assembly on 30 June 2020. Those powers include determining matters relating to MLAs’ support staff salaries.
On 27 August 2020, the Assembly Commission made the Assembly Members (Salaries and Expenses) (Amendment) Determination 2020. It introduced several changes relating to the terms and conditions of MLA support staff, including updated pay scales. That was in response to the ongoing concerns raised by MLAs regarding staff terms and conditions and the Assembly Commission's desire to ensure that the terms and conditions for support staff were fair and reasonable. At that time, the pay scales and grading structures were aligned to those of Assembly Commission staff, including a provision for annual indexation, which aligned to the rate used by the Assembly Commission each year.

Pay scales for MLA staff and the associated grading structures are not dependent on MLA remuneration. Therefore, it is not necessary for reviews to be undertaken at the same time. A new determination was published in February 2025, and, while no changes were made to the pay scales or grading structures at that time, the Assembly Commission continues to keep the provisions under review.

Mr Dickson: I thank the Commission member for her response. I am sure that she and all Members recognise the value of staff to Members. When will the next review of those salaries and pay scales be undertaken?

Ms Ennis: I wholly concur: we could not do our jobs without the valuable support of our staff in our constituency offices and in Parliament Buildings. As set out in paragraph 1 of the determination, its purpose is to ensure that Members do not suffer financial detriment by reason of costs incurred in connection with the exercise of functions as Members. Therefore, the Assembly Commission is mindful of the need to ensure that the provisions of the determination fulfil that purpose and are set at an appropriate level.

Indexation provisions were introduced in the 2020, as I said, in the determination in relation to the salaries of Members' staff, and further indexation was introduced in the 2025 determination in relation to constituency office operating costs. A further comprehensive review of the determination is therefore not scheduled. Typically, that would be undertaken in advance of a new mandate, and I hope that we would look at that in advance of the 2027 election.

Mr Clarke: I thank the Member for his question. The Assembly Commission has a policy entitled 'Conduct and Behaviour of Visitors in Parliament Buildings', which can be found on the Assembly's website. The purpose of the policy is primarily to ensure that the Assembly's core business and other events, be they at Parliament Buildings or at an outside location, can proceed without interference from or disruption by visitors or any other persons.

The policy is extensive and provides clear guidance on the general rules of entry and the behaviours expected at Assembly plenary sittings and Committee meetings. However, it is important to note that, under Standing Order 66, access to the Public Gallery is within the procedural responsibilities of the Speaker, including the ability to require someone to leave the Public Gallery if necessary to preserve good order.

With regard to the incident on 10 November 2025, a member of the public was removed from the Public Gallery during plenary proceedings because they had risen from a sedentary position and begun shouting in the direction of the Floor. Usher Services staff who were nearby promptly intervened. The Speaker directed that the person be removed, and she was escorted from the Public Gallery. The incident lasted just over 20 seconds, and there was no further disruption to business.

Section 7 of the policy deals with that type of incident and provides guidance on what will happen if a visitor interrupts or attempts to interrupt plenary proceedings. That policy was applied during the incident on 10 November.

Mr Robinson: I thank the Member for his response. The behaviour that we saw in the Chamber on 10 November was unsavoury. Was it tasteless for MLAs in the Chamber to applaud such unsavoury behaviour? What advice will be given to Members going forward?

Mr Clarke: As the Member knows, I am here as a Commission member and am not supposed to have a political view. However, those matters are all subject to different codes. If someone had a particular issue on that day, they should have raised a complaint through the normal procedures.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Question 13 has been withdrawn. Phillip Brett is not in his place. That concludes questions to the Assembly Commission.

Members should take their ease for a moment.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): We return to the debate on the Committee for Health's motion on its inquiry into access to palliative care services. The next Member to speak will be Diane Dodds.

Mr Nesbitt (The Minister of Health): Hear, hear.

Mrs Dodds: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, and I am glad to have the Health Minister's acclamation, completely. [Laughter.]

It is a real privilege to discuss the report. The DUP is unashamedly a pro-life party. While we are debating having better and more palliative care services in Northern Ireland, MPs in Westminster are debating assisted suicide legislation. It has never been more important that we provide palliative care for everyone in Northern Ireland.

I thank all who have contributed to the report, particularly those who have lived experience of palliative care who have spoken of their journey with their loved ones. I also thank the indomitable Christine Campbell, who makes the point that she is "living" while availing herself of palliative care. I know how difficult it is to speak of such issues, and we owe those people our thanks.

Thanks are also due to the sector: the hospices, Marie Curie and all those too numerous to mention. I probably should not mention anyone, because I will always leave someone out. They go over and above to provide in times of need and at such a difficult time. Thanks also to our clinicians; to those who provide specialist palliative care; to GPs, who provide the huge bulk of the service at home, helping to fulfil the wishes of the vast majority to die at home in a familiar place, surrounded by their loved ones; and to district nurses and specialist palliative care nurses. We really appreciate your efforts.

Committees write many reports, and many reports are just accepted by Ministers with a gracious thank-you but remain on a desk somewhere in a Department and are not actioned. We need this report to be different, Minister: we need this report to be actioned. I heard some conversation earlier about the fact that the report could prove to be a good pathway for palliative care in the future. We really need to see some progress on that.

Some of the key issues that were apparent from evidence that the Committee heard were inconsistencies in provision across Northern Ireland; the need to appoint a clinical lead for palliative care, Northern Ireland being the only part of the UK without one; a sense from families of a lack of information and a need for improved communication; and a lack of out-of-hours support beyond 9 to 5, particularly when it comes to pharmacies and access to medicine and pain relief.

I will focus first on the need for consistent and sufficient funding for palliative care services in Northern Ireland. Trevor McCartney from the Northern Ireland Hospice outlined the importance of that in his speech at our launch event today. Hospices are currently not funded for the specialist services that they provide. Beds in a hospice are not general medical beds but a specialised service to individuals who are at the most vulnerable time of their life. They are individuals with complex medical needs who can be cared for only in that setting.

The importance of recommendations 1 to 3 in the report cannot be overemphasised. Our health service should provide, as a fundamental right, access to equitable palliative care services in Northern Ireland. That needs to be statutory commitment. Recommendation 3 is for 100% funding for all hospice services, with an initial 50% of the actual cost of care to be provided in 2026-27 and a sliding-scale increase over the next five years until that 100% funding has been reached, is important. We recognise the public's generosity towards local hospices and our volunteers' phenomenal fundraising, but that should be for top-ups and bringing in extra services, new initiatives, research and so on, rather than for the core service.

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

Mrs Dodds: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker.

Miss McAllister: One of the few certainties in life is death. Unfortunately, everyone in the Chamber has likely experienced the loss of a loved one through the years. We will all be touched by that at some point in our life. That is why it is so important that we ensure that proper services are available to provide support through those tough and dark days. We in the Chamber greatly believe in an NHS that is free at the point of entry, from the cradle to the grave.

It is important to highlight the significance and importance of palliative care. It means not only end-of-life care but care that is delivered by specialist healthcare workers to adults and, often, young children to ensure that their quality of life is enhanced. The Health Committee heard evidence throughout its inquiry from a significant number of palliative care providers and health bodies about the services that they provide and, crucially, what they believe the Department of Health and trusts need to put in place to ensure not only that services can continue but that they can be improved.

I appreciate, as so many others in the Chamber do, that many of the recommendations in the report are resource-heavy and focus strongly on the need for increased funding. We are acutely aware of the challenges that the Minister faces with progressing the issue. However, I emphasise that much of the inquiry report can be progressed that will have a significant impact on the ability of trusts and charities to provide palliative and end-of-life care.

I will shed some light on recommendation 9, which highlights the need to have a 24/7 central point of contact for palliative and end-of-life care. Families and individuals who need such care are at a time of great distress, and their priority is ensuring that family members are supported. It is essential, therefore, that we do anything that we can to make the process easier. A 24/7 central point of contact that consists of telephone or online services, or perhaps both, and provides crucial advice on referral pathways, emergency out-of-hours care and pre- and post-bereavement services could be crucial for every individual and family during that time. It would, of course, require resources, but progressing that recommendation would make a meaningful difference.

During the inquiry, the Committee heard of the challenges that palliative care providers face with access to prescription medications, which recommendation 5 seeks to address. Multiple suggestions are made in that area, but I will point to some of the less cost-intensive aspects that would have a significant impact on service delivery. Those include a pathway to ensure that there is out-of-hours access to palliative care medicines. That could be done in tandem with establishing the central point of access that I mentioned. Recommendation 5 also includes pharmaceutical wholesalers keeping sufficient stocks of certain palliative medicines and the inclusion of palliative and end-of-life care in core training for undergraduate, foundation year and postgraduate pharmacists. Often, where palliative care is provided, time is of the essence. I urge the Department to look at the individual components of that recommendation and ensure that it speeds up any actions that it can take.

Before I finish, I will focus on a number of the visits that we undertook as a Committee and as individual MLAs. As an MLA for North Belfast, I made sure to visit the Northern Ireland Children's Hospice. I also visited the Marie Curie Hospice. For me, one of the most important aspects of both visits was talking to the specialist healthcare providers and, most importantly, the patients and their families. During the Marie Curie visit, I talked to one gentleman, who, unfortunately, has now passed, about what being an inpatient in that unit meant to him. He told me that it was about being looked after by people with specialist practice who cared about his every need — not just his clinical needs but his personal needs. For families with children in the Northern Ireland Children's Hospice, it is about having access to the outdoors, respite, space to grieve and space to love and look after siblings in an environment that reminds them of home.

I finish by thanking all those organisations that came to the Committee to provide evidence to the inquiry, and, most importantly, each and every one of the family members who provided evidence and allowed us into their homes or organisations to hear what the service means to them.

Mr Chambers: I certainly welcome the opportunity to speak in this important debate. I am sure that there is political unanimity right across the Chamber on the desire for high-quality, dignified care from diagnosis through to the end of life. Through lived experience with friends and family, some of us have likely seen at first hand the importance of person-centred support at the most vulnerable points in life. Despite what many of us already knew about such care, the recent Health Committee inquiry has still provided an incredibly comprehensive examination of the palliative and end-of-life care that is undertaken in Northern Ireland. It was certainly an informative, and sometimes eye-opening, scrutiny of the issue.

Palliative care in Northern Ireland has many strengths. Our hospices, community nursing teams, hospital specialists, GPs and pharmacists provide care that is marked by professionalism and humanity. That was remarked upon often throughout the inquiry. However, the inquiry also highlighted real challenges. Access remains uneven sometimes, particularly in rural and isolated areas, where travel distances and gaps in community provision can limit choice at the end of life. Workforce pressures can also impact on the consistency of care that people receive. As has been discussed before, hospices often rely on charitable fundraising to sustain the core services that the public rightly expect to be available. Various central departmental investments have been made in recent years, and I welcome those.

Another theme that emerged clearly from the inquiry is the need for earlier identification of palliative needs and better planning. Too many people still associate palliative care only with the final days of life, when, in reality, its purpose is much broader: supporting quality of life, better management of symptoms and strengthening family resilience over a longer period.

I look forward to the Minister's consideration of the Committee's findings. I trust that he and his officials will engage meaningfully on them. However, I am also conscious that, whilst some of the recommendations can be implemented quickly and at minimal or no cost, the report also calls for significant investment. As much as we may all support that, no one in the Chamber will be unaware of the wider budgetary reality that faces the Department. Ultimately, our goal must be a Northern Ireland where every person, regardless of diagnosis, home address or circumstances, can access timely and quality palliative care in the setting that best supports them and their loved ones. I hope that the inquiry will further help to deliver that.

I take this opportunity to state my party's thanks and appreciation for the caring work that is carried out by everyone who works in that important and, at times, very demanding sector.

Mr McGrath: We often say that how a society treats people at the end of life says everything about who we actually are. Today's motion asks us to confront that truth with honesty, compassion and unity of purpose. Across the Committee's work this year, through more than 350 written submissions, powerful evidence sessions and visits to hospices across the North, we heard again and again that palliative care in Northern Ireland is sustained by extraordinary people, but constrained by inconsistent structures.

At the outset, I pay tribute to the dedicated and effective Health Committee staff, who waded through reams of notes, reports, evidence sessions and members' contributions, which were not always brief, to produce the report that we have before us.

In the course of our inquiry, families told us of communication failures, of support that disappeared at 5.00 pm, of their being unaware of services, and of their experiencing trauma that stayed with them long after their loved one had gone. Those conversations were not easy. I acknowledge the collegial spirit among Committee members throughout the inquiry. I appreciate that not everyone was able to attend every visit, and, naturally, we did not agree on every element, but the messages that we heard were consistent, and we were united in our determination to amplify the voice of patients and families.

The findings were clear. There is no clinical lead for palliative care in the North. We are the only region in these islands without one. There is no adult palliative care strategy. Our outdated funding model forces hospices to raise huge sums of money just to keep essential services open. There are stark inequalities; where someone lives often determines the support that they receive. That is not good enough. The people whom we met deserve better.

There is a human reality behind all of this. Many people across Northern Ireland were deeply moved by the recent BBC story of Anne Sheppard, a lady whose final days were marked not by comfort but by unnecessary suffering. Her family's courage in speaking out forces us to confront what happens when the system fails. Their experience is not isolated; it echoes too many others that we have heard about in our work. No family should ever have to face their loved one's being alone, unsupported or in fear in their final days. Today, we commit through the report to changing that. Palliative care is not about death; it is about how we honour life to the very last moment. That is at the heart of palliative care.

As an MLA, I was profoundly moved to see the work that goes on in Life and Time in Rostrevor, which provides a life of care to people in South Down in their own homes. It does the work that we want the Department to do. We should have heard from it in the inquiry, but, sadly, we did not have time.

End-of-life care is about dignity, presence, relief from pain, a hand held, a voice heard and a family supported. The report published today is not the end of the journey; rather, it is a stepping stone that leads us towards the next step in delivering palliative care that works. The report gives us a framework that is built from lived experience, but it will become meaningful only if the Executive pick it up, prioritise it and resource it. I say "the Executive" because I believe wholeheartedly that the Minister has a desire to commence that work, but that will need financial buy-in from his colleagues around the Executive table. I implore the Minister and the Executive to implement the report's recommendations; to fund the shift to 24/7 care and support; to deliver proper advance care planning; to move to true-cost funding for hospices and plan the pathway to 100%; to appoint a clinical lead; and to build a strategy that finally meets the needs of our people.

Our job today is simple: it is to welcome the report, honour the lives of those who shaped it, and commit fully and urgently to building a palliative care system that is worthy of the people whom it serves.

Mrs Dillon: I welcome the publication of the report. I commend all those who contributed to the inquiry — patients and their families, and staff in the statutory and voluntary sectors — and all those who took time to tell their stories. The evidence given to the Committee was powerful and often very emotional, particularly for those of us on the Committee who have been affected and understand this issue all too well, which was almost all of us.

When people do not receive the palliative support that they need, it is not an inconvenience; it is a trauma. We heard at first hand about that trauma. It is suffering that is avoidable and unacceptable. Families told us of loved ones left without care packages; without help to eat or move; without proper symptom or pain management; and without access to medicines out of hours. They described the fear, exhaustion and guilt that is felt when the health system withdraws and the responsibility falls entirely on them and those who support them. That is harm, and it damages people long after those final days.

One of the clearest messages in the report is that palliative care does not mean dying. It is not something that belongs only in the last hours of a person's life. Palliative care is about living with dignity. It is about pain control, nutrition, mobility supports, emotional and spiritual care, support for carers and families and enabling people, where possible, to remain at home if that is their wish. The report's recommendations on advance care planning, recording emotional and spiritual well-being through Encompass and supporting families though a 24/7 point of access all speak directly to that wider, holistic understanding of palliative care. The submissions from hospice groups and professionals made that crystal clear.

Despite the dedication and compassion of staff, access to palliative care remains deeply unequal across the North. The report outlines long waits for services, workforce shortages, limited community provision and significant gaps in out-of-hours care. It highlights the particular challenges that are faced by people in rural and border areas, who cannot depend on timely or consistent support.

For Sinn Féin, that reinforces the need for an all-island approach. Today, in the Long Gallery, we listened to Fintan Fagan, chair of the All Ireland Institute of Hospice and Palliative Care. He was very clear in how he wants to provide support. He was very good in coming to the Committee and assisting us, and he was very clear, Minister, that he will help your Department and your officials to set up an implementation framework. All of that is to be welcomed, because we understand that your Department and officials are under severe pressure.

We want to see an all-island approach in which people living in border communities can access services seamlessly; expertise, specialist teams and data are shared; and palliative care is planned on the basis of need rather than geography. Recommendation 21c calls on the Minister to examine cross-border cooperation to make access easier for rural communities. We fully support that direction.

The inquiry also highlighted something that we cannot ignore: the South has fully funded hospices, which has reduced the reliance on fundraising to deliver essential services. We need to move in that direction. I assure you that families in our community will continue to fundraise, which will allow our hospices to do what the likes of the St Francis Hospice have been able to do: improve their facilities where they have people —.

Ms Ferguson: Will the Member take an intervention?

Mrs Dillon: Absolutely.

Ms Ferguson: As a Foyle MLA, I note our much-cherished Foyle Hospice, which has been operating in the city for over 40 years. It relies on the fundraising and goodwill of the people for 60% of its funding, and it is a much-loved organisation. Do you agree that the funding model is totally out of date and that we should move urgently to a 100% funding model, as has happened in the Twenty-six Counties?

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

Mrs Dillon: I thank the Member for the intervention. The report is explicit in recommendation 3: the Department must move to 100% funding for hospice services, standardised contracts and long-term financial certainty. That recommendation is welcome and long overdue. I understand that such action requires funding, but the people who are affected are ending up in our hospitals, where they should not be.

The inquiry makes it absolutely clear that palliative care must be treated as core health care and be fully funded, fully staffed, coordinated across trusts and backed by legislation. It needs proper workforce planning; investment in community teams; improved access to medicines; a single, 24/7 point of contact for families; better training across the system; and a new regional strategy that finally meets the growing needs of our population. The report points towards that direction of travel, and we support that. We want to see a system that gives people comfort, dignity and choice rather than fear, delay and bureaucracy.

I thank the Committee staff for all their work. Importantly, I also thank the families who shared their experiences with honesty and courage, and those who shared their lived experience, such as Christine Campbell, who was mentioned earlier in the debate. Their voices remind us that this is not an abstract policy debate: it is about people in their most vulnerable moments.

As we reflect on what the report demands of us, I am reminded of the words of Ann Richardson, a writer whose work on hospice care captures the heart of the issue:

That simple truth lies at the heart of the report. The responsibility on all of us is to ensure that every person's journey is shaped by dignity, compassion and proper support — not fear. I absolutely concur: all of the Executive —

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

Mrs Dillon: — and all of us MLAs should support the Minister in implementing the recommendations.

Mr Robinson: I very much welcome the opportunity to speak on such an important issue. The Committee did a lot of good work in its inquiry, in gathering evidence and hearing powerful testimonies from patients, families, providers and others across the public sector and the independent health sector. That work helped to identify areas that require greater focus and brought forth the recommendations in the report. We all very much hope that the Minister and his Department can translate those recommendations into changes for the better.

Palliative care is an approach aimed at improving quality of life for patients, adults and children, as well as their families, who are dealing with life-threatening illnesses. It works to prevent suffering through early identification, proper assessment and treatment of pain and other issues, whether physical, emotional or spiritual. A key line is that it provides a support system to help patients live as fully and actively as possible until the end of life.

The outcome of the inquiry reinforced our concern that the current system fails to support patients at the most vulnerable time in their lives. We are grateful for the evidence that we received from 37 organisations, 71 health professionals and academics, 221 individuals with lived experience, RaISe, the Department of Health and the independent hospice sector. We are also grateful for the warm welcome that we received on a number of visits. As other Members have said, it is really important to thank the Committee staff, who spent long hours bringing together the report and the 27 recommendations therein.

Some of the recommendations are very powerful, and we will all have views on which is the most important, but the introduction of legislation to mandate the commissioning and funding of palliative end-of-life care is number one. That is to be underpinned by the appointment of an interim independent clinical lead, which should need no explanation: we are the only region across these isles that does not have such a post. The long-standing funding arrangements for hospices are not fit for purpose, relying heavily on charitable fundraising to support what are, in reality, core health services. Dependency on outsourcing essential healthcare to charity is wrong on so many levels. Just imagine intensive care services being dependent on cake sales or the selling of second-hand clothes and furniture.

I will also mention recommendation 27, which calls for the introduction of a new palliative and end-of-life strategy. Having as a current strategy one from 2010, dating back 15 years, cannot serve a population marked by demographic change, medical advances and the mounting pressures across our health service.

The inquiry report is a landmark moment; it lights a path forward. Our work highlighted so many challenges but provides so many opportunities. This cannot become another long-term aspiration for the Department: the Committee has done its job, and now it is time for the Department to urgently take up the baton and do its job. Early palliative care improves quality of life and reduces costs by avoiding unnecessary hospital admissions. Now is the time for the Department to truly shift left in its words and its actions.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): I call the Minister of Health to respond. Minister, you have up to 20 minutes.

Mr Nesbitt: Thank you very much, Deputy Speaker. I will begin, as I must, by congratulating the Committee on its very detailed piece of work. I also congratulate it on the speed at which it got a debate in the Chamber. The debate was opened, I think, before the report was officially launched: that could be a first. Genuinely, I thank the members of the Committee for undertaking the inquiry.

I am particularly aware of the personal insights that were provided by people with lived experience, and I am pleased to see them reflected throughout the report. The impact of those personal stories and experiences has been acknowledged by the Chair, and that chimes with my view that all healthcare is personal; in fact, it is as personal as life gets.

I also express gratitude for the dedication of our palliative care workforce, who demonstrate professionalism and compassion: professionalism based on their training and experience and compassion based on their empathy and humanity.

That is a wonderful combination.

My Department and I will wish to consider the report fully, and we will, of course, respond in detail to the Committee in the new year. In the meantime, I want to outline some of the work that is already under way, which, I hope, will fulfil some of the report's recommendations, including the ongoing scoping exercise. It is important to note, though, that some of the recommendations call for significant additional investment in palliative and end-of-life care services. Some are not costed, and that is fair enough, because the Committee does not have a full Department and its resources behind it. If I am being a bit cheeky but honest, however, I had a bit of a Victor Meldrew moment when I realised that Diane Dodds had signed up to uncosted recommendations. However, I recognise that she was called away for an unavoidable reason, so I will not take the hand on that any further.

It was acknowledged in the debate that access to quality palliative and end-of-life care when it is needed is something that we all wish for those who are important to us and, indeed, for ourselves. Over recent years, we have seen significant improvement in palliative and end-of-life care. We have a partnership programme that is co-led by my Department's strategic planning and performance group (SPPG) and the Public Health Agency (PHA). Through a collaborative ethos in bringing together stakeholders, including service users, carers and Voices4Care, which the Chair mentioned, the partnership has been at the forefront of shaping holistic and person-centred palliative care services for adults at regional and local level.

While we have undoubtedly seen progress, we cannot escape the fact that, as we look to the future, we need to ensure that we have in place the policies, the practice and the workforce that will allow us to respond to the projected growth in need. To do that, we have to have a fuller understanding of the palliative care landscape and the evidence base that will allow us to plan for where we need to be in the years to come. That is why, at my request, my Department is undertaking a baseline scoping exercise to consider existing services across the region and whether they meet the palliative and end-of-life care needs of the populations that they serve and those that they will need to be prepared to serve in the future. That extensive programme of work will include a population-based palliative and end-of-life care needs assessment, as well as engagement with service users and those important to them. I want to understand the experience and quality of palliative and end-of-life care. Our ultimate goal is that the outcomes of the exercise will better inform the future planning and commissioning of palliative and end-of-life care services and will have direct benefits for people with palliative care needs and those who are important to them.

Miss McAllister: I thank the Minister for taking an intervention. Will the scoping exercise replicate or duplicate the work that the Committee has already undertaken? I understand that there are methods that each Department has to adhere to, but there are clear recommendations in the inquiry report. Can the Department of Health use those recommendations instead of starting from scratch?

Mr Nesbitt: I thank the Member for her point. Obviously, we are just very recently in receipt of an advance copy of the report. We will now see where there is an overlap so that we do not duplicate. The Member's point is acknowledged.

I also acknowledge the concern expressed by the Committee about the pace of progress. I assure Members that that does not reflect a lack of focus or prioritisation on the part of my Department. This is a significant and complex project that involves working across our system. The outcomes will provide the robust evidence that we need to plan for, commission and deliver adult palliative care and end-of-life services into the future. To that end, good preparation is essential, and my officials have been taking time to engage with stakeholders. I want to ensure that we get the foundations right. Work is under way. The task and finish group is leading on the scoping of existing services, staffing and contracting of all providers. That will be part of a review at a workshop planned for next month.

The Committee has stressed the importance of access to community-based palliative care services, including out-of-hours, and ensuring that services are rural-proofed. Those are all important issues. In September, as part of Palliative Care Week, I spoke at a Hospice UK event on the particular challenges of accessing care services in rural areas. Having access to those services is important for everybody. It is right, therefore, that people with palliative care needs who live in our rural communities should be able to expect to receive the care and support that they need.

Access to services closer to home is very much in line with the vision that I set out in my recently published reset plan. That included a commitment to develop a model for primary, community and social care that will deliver greater levels of care for citizens in their communities, alongside a funding plan to support delivery, starting in April 2026. The model will see a range of stakeholders working closely together in formal partnership to provide integrated care. I hope that it will facilitate a preventative approach to healthcare and help manage demand more effectively.

Officials have commenced work to develop the new neighbourhood model, which is an important enabler for the commitment to shifting left. Building a neighbourhood model will require providers from across Health and Social Care to work in new ways to deliver services to people. That will be an important cultural change, as well as a planning and commissioning challenge. Palliative and end-of-life care providers will play a key role in developing the new model; indeed, there was a lot of interest and engagement from the hospice sector at our recent stakeholder event with the voluntary, community and social enterprise sectors. A central principle of the neighbourhood model will be providing better care to people in their homes and communities, thereby reducing attendance at hospitals and emergency departments. It is important that people who have palliative care needs do not inappropriately have to attend an ED when their care is better supported at home or in the community.

An example of palliative care support that is currently provided in the community is the community pharmacy palliative care service model. Under that model, a network of 60 pharmacies builds on the support offered by all pharmacies, providing advice and access to supplies from a regionally agreed list of specialist medicines that aims to ensure that the needs of vulnerable patients are met at the end of life. My Department's winter preparedness plan outlines how work is already under way to review and consolidate the model. My Department has worked in partnership with Community Pharmacy NI and the Pharmacy Forum NI to encourage community pharmacies to sign up to the Marie Curie Daffodil Standards for end-of-life care and to do so ahead of this winter. That will support pharmacy teams to build on existing palliative care provision and improve the care that is already provided to patients and their families.

One of the best ways to prevent patients from needing to seek urgent access to medicines out of hours, in the evenings or at weekends is to further develop access to anticipatory prescribing so that patients have medicines at home when they need them. "Just in case" boxes have already improved access to anticipatory medicines in some areas. I am keen to see the learning from that pilot applied across the whole region.

My Department is also actively progressing the scale-up of other areas of best practice, such as the roll-out of urgent community prescribing pathways for patients receiving care in the community from hospice providers. That builds on the successful pathfinder in Foyle Hospice that has had a positive impact in allowing patients' families and friends to be where they are needed most: with their loved ones. It has also afforded the additional benefit of reducing pressure on the healthcare system.

I note that the Committee has called for increased funding for hospices, recommending that, over the next five years, my Department move to 100% funding for all hospice services, with the introduction of 50% funding for actual costs from 2026-27. That is a big challenge, but we all asked to be elected in order to overcome challenges, so let us face those challenges and not let them become insurmountable obstacles to progress.

Mr McGrath: Will the Minister give way?

Mr Nesbitt: Yes.

Mr McGrath: On that theme, given that a model that funds our hospices 100% would alleviate pressures in other parts of the healthcare system such as emergency departments, will you undertake to apply to the Department of Finance's transformation fund to get funding for that? If you were to do that for one year, the savings that would be available in other parts of the service would make it cost-neutral.

Mr Nesbitt: I thank the Member for the intervention. He understands that I do not make policy on the hoof in the Chamber, but that is certainly something that I will take away and consider. The Member will know that there are many moving parts. The "invest to save" rationale could be applied across the Health and Social Care system, but it is about finding that initial investment. The transformation fund could, perhaps, be a source in the area that he identified.

Since I have taken up post, I have visited hospices and met representatives, service users and families. I fully recognise the role that hospices play in supporting people who are living with life-limiting conditions and the difference that they make to the quality of life not just for the patients but for the families and carers. I am also aware of the funding challenges that hospices face, so I acknowledge the Committee's desire to see changes in funding. My Department has undertaken work to ensure that current adult hospice funding is in line with existing commissioning arrangements to secure that 50:50 funding for hospice inpatient beds and commissioned community specialist palliative services for 2025-26. I acknowledge that the Committee's report states that that is not good enough.

My Department has also engaged with the Northern Ireland Children's Hospice to understand the costs incurred in delivering procured services and to benchmark against similar services. I want to ensure that we get value for money and that the funding received is in line with the level of service provided. I anticipate that that work will conclude within the current financial year.

The Committee has also highlighted the need to implement the advanced care planning policy as a matter of urgency. I assure the Chamber that implementation of that policy remains a strategic priority. The associated benefits are evident and understood across the HSC system. Importantly, that includes the adoption of the recommended summary plan for emergency care and treatment (ReSPECT), which will enable a standardised approach to recording all recommendations about a person's care and treatment, including "Do not attempt cardiopulmonary resuscitation" (DNACPR) orders.

As further evidence of my commitment in the area, the policy has been included as one of the work streams for consideration under the HSC "Big Discussion" winter preparedness programme. It involves consideration of the short-term benefits that may impact winter pressures this year and the longer-term benefits from a system-wide roll-out. Those are important early steps and have helped build momentum.

It is equally important that the wider implementation of advanced care planning is done in a coherent and managed way. That will require collaborative engagement across the system that involves multi-professional teams in all care settings for a sustained period. It will also require a societal shift to ensure that advanced care planning becomes a routine part of healthcare, with discussions becoming the norm rather than something that is often put off until later. There is common agreement that advanced care planning is the right thing to do, primarily for the individual but also for the wider system. I am confident that progressing implementation in that way represents the best chance of success.

The Committee's recommendations reflect the breadth of its ambitions for palliative care in the immediate and longer term. I assure Members of my commitment and desire to ensure that quality palliative care services are available and accessible to people wherever they live in this country. That is a basic tenet of how, as a society, we value and care for people when they are often at their most vulnerable.

I am aware of calls for new palliative and end-of-life care strategies. In a recent meeting with hospice representatives, my Department indicated that it would support a new palliative care strategy to replace Living Matters, Dying Matters. However, it is important to recognise, as reflected in the report, the wide-ranging aspects of palliative care that are not restricted to Health. In the context of increasing demand for palliative and end-of-life care, the Committee's report can provide a road map that will inform a strategic direction now and into the future.

In looking to the future, the Finance Minister has indicated his intention to bring forward recommendations to the Executive for a multi-year Budget, as Members will be aware. I very much support and welcome that drive. A multi-year settlement would allow my Department to plan for the next three years, enabling us to prioritise spending, investment and workforce planning much more effectively. However, we will still be constrained by the funding allocation that we receive. While it will not be possible to provide a definitive assessment of our future funding position until that final budget settlement for future years has been reached, it is likely that we will not have all of the resources to do everything that we want to do or, indeed, everything that needs to be done.

I am determined to drive forward the reform that we need for the medium-to-long term.

I want to create, in the next three to five years, what I believe can be a world-leading health and social care system. To do so, I need the support of my Executive colleagues, I need the support of the Chamber and I need a multi-year budget that prioritises the health of the people of Northern Ireland. You have got to give me the capability to deliver.

I thank the Committee for its comprehensive inquiry report. I thank Members for the dignity and empathy with which the debate has been conducted. I will have to take time to carefully consider the Committee's findings and recommendations, and I will respond when I have done so. I guarantee that I will not leave the report on a shelf.

Finally, I mentioned visiting the Children's Hospice. My first visit was a real surprise to me, because I discovered something that I did not expect to discover, and I saw it in the children, the parents and the staff. It was joy, and, to me, that is a motivation to do better in this area. Once again, I thank the Committee for putting it on my radar and giving me a focus.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Minister, thank you for the response. I call the Deputy Chairperson of the Health Committee, Danny Donnelly, to conclude and make a winding-up speech on the motion. Danny, you have up to 10 minutes.

Mr Donnelly: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. It is a privilege to make a winding-up speech on this debate as Deputy Chairperson of the Committee for Health. I thank Members for their contributions on this important issue and the Minister for responding to the motion.

I place on record my thanks to the sector and the healthcare professionals who so ably care for the most vulnerable in our communities and provide support to patients and their families in the most difficult of circumstances. We have heard many stories about the impact that your care has had on families for a long time after their loved ones have passed away. Over the past year, we have seen many projects providing much-needed support to patients and families. Last week, when the Committee visited the South West Acute Hospital, we called into the Cancer Focus hub in Enniskillen and heard about the great work that it is doing, including providing support for families.

I also pay tribute to the businesses and the public who support our hospices through their donations. Without that support, some of those services would not exist.

I also thank the patients and families who have shared with us throughout the process when we have visited hospices, in written submissions and through the lived experience event that we held. Your experiences have shaped the recommendations in the report.

I also thank my fellow Committee members and the Committee staff for their work on the inquiry. The report has taken over a year to produce, and it outlines the priority that the Committee gives to the issue.

Many issues have been covered in the debate, and I will comment on some of the contributions. The Committee Chair, Philip McGuigan, opened the debate. Diane Dodds noted the assisted dying Bill that is passing through Westminster and thanked the contributors with lived experience and the sector. She noted the inconsistencies in provision across Northern Ireland — something that we heard about time and again. Also, she noted the lack of out-of-hours support, which was also a constant theme in the evidence. She highlighted the fact that hospices are not fully funded to provide specialist services. She highlighted the importance of the recommendations, especially recommendations 1 to 5.

My colleague Nuala McAllister noted that the Committee heard from services about how they could be improved, and she highlighted recommendation 9, which is the need for a 24/7 central point of contact, be that a telephone or online service, which would be crucial for families and would make a meaningful difference. She also highlighted the need for swift access to palliative care medications — again, something that was very common across a lot of the evidence. She mentioned speaking to patients and families with experience of palliative care.

Alan Chambers spoke about the political unanimity on high-quality care at the end of life and highlighted the uneven access to palliative care, particularly in rural areas, which again was something that we heard about quite a few times. He also highlighted the fact that too many people still associate palliative care with the end of life and miss the fact that it improves the quality of life.

Colin McGrath said that palliative care is sustained by extraordinary people but is constrained, and that there are communication issues, particularly due to the lack of support after 5.00 pm. Again, out-of-hours issues came up, as did the fact that the current system unfortunately provides trauma to people long after their loved ones have passed away. Colin highlighted the stark inequalities of support being different across Northern Ireland because of where you live. He highlighted the experience of Anne Sheppard and her husband, which was reported by the BBC today, and I do not think that any of us who heard that would not be moved.

Linda Dillon talked to the evidence that was heard, stating that it was powerful and emotional. I agree with Linda. At times, it was very emotional in the Committee. She said that not receiving palliative care is a trauma in itself and that palliative care is not about dying; it is about living with dignity. I agree completely with Linda there.

Alan Robinson highlighted a key line in the report and said that palliative care provides a support system for patients to live as fully and as actively as possible until the end of life. He highlighted the need for a clinical lead for palliative care and, in particular, highlighted recommendation 27, which is the need for a new palliative and end-of-life care strategy. He called the inquiry report "a landmark moment", which I agree with.

The Minister responded to the debate and thanked the Committee for undertaking the inquiry and, in particular, for the personal testimonies, highlighting that all healthcare is personal and that it will affect many of us and many of the families that we are aware of. He thanked the palliative care workforce and committed to responding in detail in the new year. The Committee will look forward to that.

Mrs Dillon: I thank the Member for taking an intervention. I will keep it brief. I agree with the Minister. When you visit the Children's Hospice, you see joy. It is not what you expect to see, but that is what it looks like when you get the very best. That is what we want for everybody.

Mr Donnelly: Thank you, Linda. I agree with the Minister and with Linda. We had many visits to hospices, and we did see that. That is palliative care being done at its very best.

The Minister also referred to the Department's ongoing scoping exercise and how that would work in parallel with the report. He highlighted the fact that some of the recommendations have not been costed and pointed out recent improvements in palliative care and end-of-life care. He highlighted the need to look to the future in order to plan for palliative care needs in years to come and reassured us that any concerns that we have about the pace of progress are not due to a lack of focus. The Minister said that a review at a workshop is planned for next month, which was very reassuring to hear. Again, he noted the discrepancy in access to palliative care in rural areas. Finally, the Minister highlighted his visit to the Children's Hospice, stating that he observed joy with the families and the patients in there at that time.

I will highlight a couple of issues that could be introduced immediately with little resource. We have heard of the importance of having discussions with our family about our wishes when a terminal diagnosis is given, and we have heard from those with lived experience about the importance of advance care planning and how, at present, there is not enough communication of patients' wishes across the system. We have heard stories of patients having to share their wishes a number of times across different service providers. The Committee had been told that the bulk of the work on advance care planning has been completed, and I ask the Minister to implement that as soon as possible.

We heard of the need for a clinical lead for palliative care in the system. The Committee believes that the Minister, the Department and the sector would benefit from the expertise of a clinical lead. That could increase the visibility of palliative care in the system and provide the necessary priority for the issue. The Minister can and should appoint an interim clinical lead as soon as possible.

There has been no strategy for adult palliative care since the last strategy ended in 2015. The Department should use the scoping work that it is undertaking and the work of the inquiry to bring forward a cohesive strategy and implementation plan that takes into account the growing need for palliative care. My real concern is that, if we do not build sustainable community services now, in 10 years, we will not have improved access to palliative care services. We spend too much money on unplanned care in Northern Ireland.

The Marie Curie report showed that, in 2022, in the last year of life, approximately £350 million is spent on palliative care. Of that £350 million, approximately £195 million is spent on emergency admissions. While I appreciate that patients should be treated in the best place for their care, I do not see how we cannot plan better to provide services in the community and prevent those emergency admissions. It is proven that, when we provide better services in the community, emergency admissions are greatly reduced. Palliative care should be one of the pillars of the Minister's shift-left agenda. Not only does it provide better services and support for patients and families but it is a prime example of providing funding in the community to reduce pressures on our hospitals.

The important part is what we do now, and I make it clear to the sector and the Minister that access to palliative care services will remain a priority for the Committee. We are happy to work with Minister and the Department on taking forward the recommendations to achieve real progress for patients and families and to build a sustainable sector that is able to meet the needs of our communities. I commend the report to the House.

Mr Brooks: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I apologise to the House for missing my question to the Assembly Commission during Question Time. I was feeling unwell at the time.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Mr Brooks, that is noted and appreciated.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): As you were advised earlier, the Speaker was notified that the proposer will not speak to the Adjournment topic in the Order Paper.