Official Report: Monday 26 January 2026

Ms Ennis: On Friday, we buried Mickey Brady. As we said goodbye to one Newry legend, another Newry legend was being born, as Rachel Duffy was soon to win 'The Traitors' in the most amazing style. Apparently, us Newry women now have the reputation of being ruthless and treacherous, and we certainly are, if you cross us, but the Rachel whom I know — I have known her for some time — is funny, kind, good craic, works very hard in the community and voluntary sector, and is fiercely proud of her roots and where she comes from. Watching Rachel over the past month has been brilliant TV. It has been exciting for Newry people, and watching her progress, week in, week out, has brought a buzz to the town. I sincerely congratulate Rachel on her win: it could not have happened to a better woman. I thank her for representing herself, her family and Newry so proudly. We are proud of Rachel. We will have to make some space at the town hall, beside Banjo Bannon and Pat Jennings, for a statue of Rachel. She is so deserving of all the opportunities and success that will no doubt flow her way following this. I wish her every success in the future.

Ms Brownlee: It should come as no surprise that I rise to celebrate the fantastic achievements of Carrick Rangers Football Club, which proudly lifted the County Antrim Shield last Tuesday at Seaview. After a phenomenal second half, the match finished a 1-1 draw, taking us straight to penalties. It was there that young Pengelly showed nerves of steel as Carrick Rangers won the shootout 4-2 against very, very worthy opponents in Cliftonville.

Despite what my Facebook may have suggested, Carrick Rangers went into the match as the underdog. It was a monumental victory. It was the first time in 33 years that the club had brought the shield home, and it will live long in the memory of all supporters. As the shield was lifted, I looked around the ground at the roaring support — the loyal, dedicated fans, many of whom had a wee tear in their eye. I do not think that any of us is able to describe what it meant to us on the night.

That success did not happen overnight; it came from years of hard work and dedication not only from the players on the pitch but from the coaching staff, the board, the chairman and all the volunteers who are the backbone of the club and stick with Carrick Rangers through thick and thin and in difficult times. I was particularly struck when I saw the chairman, Peter Clarke, run onto the pitch and take sight of the packed-out north stand. His face filled with pride and emotion. In that moment, you could see the weight of all the work, sacrifice and passion that have gone into building and sustaining the club. Carrick Rangers is much more than a football club: it is a community, one that now stretches far beyond the town of Carrickfergus to America, where we have a phenomenal and growing fan base.

That night provided an opportunity for reflection, and we remembered those who are no longer with us, especially Davy. He would have loved nothing more than to be there front and centre, sharing in that historic win. I am immensely proud of Carrick Rangers and our amber army. I am perhaps even prouder that I managed to convert a dedicated Blues man on the night. However, football has always been about more than the result, and I was deeply moved when a Cliftonville supporter came to the aid of a Carrick Rangers fan who had become unwell.

I congratulate everybody associated with the club and, of course, the team on its hard work in achieving that monumental success. Carrickfergus is so proud of them. Up the amber army.

Mr Honeyford: I rise to celebrate some success for the people of Lagan Valley. I acknowledge and recognise the outstanding achievement of St Mary's Aghagallon GAC, which won the All-Ireland Scór na nÓg title at the weekend. It is a fantastic achievement for everybody at the club. That incredible result is richly deserved. It speaks volumes of the dedication, commitment and hard work put in by the team, the supporting members of the club, their families and those around the club.

Sorcha and I had the privilege of meeting the club last year — it is hard to believe that it was only a year ago — before it went off to the final. It narrowly missed out on that occasion, but that makes this victory even better. For anybody in the Chamber who might not know, I say that scór is the part of the GAA that involves music, storytelling, language and performance arts. It is about passing those things on from generation to generation.

I place special focus on one person: Bronagh Lennon. Bronagh and I first met at my club in Glenavy many years ago when we hosted the Ulster semi-final. She has made an unbelievable contribution to scór in keeping it there, keeping people active in it and making sure that it has the prominence that it deserves in the area. I pay tribute to her for that.

Well done to St Mary's Aghagallon GAC from your Alliance team. We wish you all the success in the world. You are a credit to the club and the area.

Mr Beattie: I did three tours of duty in Afghanistan in the dismounted close combat role. My eyes are not as bright as they once were; my waistline is a little more expansive; and my hearing is not as sharp. Some people wonder why I shout, and that is why. However, I still remember the sights, sounds and smells of Afghanistan. I also remember the taste, because, when you see a body being eviscerated in front of you, the blood hangs in the air like a mist and invades your nostrils, and its coppery taste lands on your tongue. That is not something that you are likely to forget.

I served with some of the most fantastic men and women that this country has ever had. They were dedicated, committed and courageous. I served with people from other countries, such as the United States, Canada, Estonia, Poland, Denmark and many others. Their young men fought shoulder to shoulder with me in the incredibly difficult environment that we shared. We shared the hardships and the isolation. Fear was our continuous companion, and we shared that. Sometimes we used dark humour to get through our day, and I fell foul of that — trust me, I know, and I apologise for doing so — but that is how we got through our days.

We patched up our wounded, carried our dead with dignity and did everything that was asked of us on the front line, yet an individual sitting in Mar-a-Lago, 8,000 miles away from the front line that I was standing on, thinks that he can insult the people who fought, died and were injured on that front line. That is absolutely appalling. He cannot get away with it, and he cannot get away with saying that it was just an unfiltered remark. He is the president of the United States, and I am in no doubt that he cares not one jot about somebody like me who stood on that front line and fought with other nations. He has no interest. His attempt to row back on what he said about those whom I served beside in Afghanistan are hollow words.

All those people whom I stood beside — Americans, Canadians, Danish people, Estonians and Polish people — gave so much. The United States invoked article 5 of the North Atlantic treaty, which states that an attack on one NATO member is an attack on all, and all those nations answered the call. I will say simply this: while the president continues to attack and insult the memory of the nations who gave so much, be that the UK or others, I will never accept it. He needs to give a full apology, and I expect it.

Mr O'Toole: I will talk about a subject that is close not just to my heart but to the hearts of many communities and people who value the role that our pub and hospitality sector plays in Northern Ireland. I grew up working in small rural pubs. It is part of the DNA of my family and that of many families across the island. The revaluation that was announced last week by the Department of Finance risks forcing pubs and other hospitality locations over the edge. In an extraordinary development, many of our hospitality venues will face tens of thousands of pounds — in some cases, hundreds of thousands of pounds — in increased rates liability. That will force them out of business: it will force pubs to close; it will prevent small rural villages and towns from having access to those vital community meeting points; and it will damage our hospitality offer. The Irish pub is fundamental and critical to the hospitality offer not just in the North but on the island of Ireland.

The revaluation exercise happens every number of years. It is not a revenue-raising exercise, so, before anybody says, "Where else would we raise the revenue?", let us be clear that it is a revenue-neutral exercise. That is clear from the Minister and from the Department's website. However, that revenue-neutral exercise has clearly been designed to create a huge additional burden on our pubs and hospitality sector at a time when it faces rising costs related to labour, goods and other things such as Sky TV. That last aspect does not necessarily jump to the front of one's mind, but my understanding is that the Sky Sports bills — Sky Sports subscriptions are often critical to getting people into pubs, including on wintry nights such as we have been having recently, when people go in to watch the Champions League — that pubs pay to get that critical part of their offer, are based on their rateable values, so those bills will go up by thousands of pounds. That is a completely unacceptable situation.

The SDLP Opposition will not stand by and allow our pubs to be punished like that, with all the consequences for their workers — they could lose their jobs — communities and our tourism offer. It is not good enough to blame the Brits, as some have already done, and to say, "Austerity did this". The revaluation is not raising any money. If it were raising money for public services, that would be another matter. The Sinn Féin MP for North Belfast responded to a pub on the Antrim Road that is facing crippling additional costs by saying, "It is a consequence of austerity". The revaluation is not raising any money to deal with austerity; it is just rebalancing our rates system while punishing pubs. We cannot stand by and let that happen. We cannot allow small rural pubs and critical hospitality venues to go to the wall because of the revaluation. We will stand up and fight against it in order to protect those critical community assets and tourism resources. There will be more to say about that in the Chamber in the weeks ahead.

Ms Murphy: I welcome the publication of the report 'Delivering Rural Health and Care in a New Ireland'. The report reflects the important discussion held in Enniskillen on the challenges faced by people in Enniskillen, Tyrone and across our border regions in accessing Health and Social Care services. For border communities, the conversation about healthcare is not abstract. It is shaped by distance, rural isolation and services that, too often, are stretched to breaking point.

Nowhere is that reality felt more clearly than at the South West Acute Hospital (SWAH). The SWAH is not just a hospital; it is a vital lifeline for the people and communities of Fermanagh, yet chronic challenges in workforce recruitment and retention, along with ongoing uncertainty about future provision, have left people anxious about whether the care and treatment that they need will be available.

We have seen the loss of services disproportionately impacting on our rural communities. Long journeys, poor transport links, the absence of adequate ambulance cover and delayed care can mean the difference between early intervention and crisis. If we are to be serious about equality of access to healthcare, the SWAH must be properly staffed, properly resourced and recognised as essential infrastructure for the entire region. However, the pressures do not stop at our hospital doors. In Fermanagh, we know all too well how difficult it has become to access GP services. Practices are struggling to recruit and retain doctors, patient lists are growing and appointment systems are not fit for purpose. For many people, particularly our older residents and those living with chronic illnesses, even getting an appointment can be a challenge. When access to primary care is limited, illness goes untreated, conditions worsen and more people end up in hospital.

Alongside that, we cannot ignore the crisis in our social care system. Across Fermanagh and Tyrone, families are doing extraordinary work in caring for their loved ones, often with minimal support. Home care packages are delayed or reduced, carers are underpaid and overstretched and, too often, people are left in hospital beds, not because they are unfit for discharge but simply because the care that they need at home is not available. That is unfair to patients, unfair to families and unsustainable for our health service.

The report rightly highlights that, on a small island with just over seven million people, running two entirely separate health systems makes little to no sense, particularly for our rural and border communities. Indeed, when the South West Acute Hospital was commissioned, it was always envisaged that the uncommissioned theatre and other clinical areas would be developed for use on a cross-border basis. An all-island approach to workforce planning, specialist service provision and rural health delivery would transform outcomes for communities such as ours, but only if is rooted in local communities and firmly focused on free public care.

I encourage Members and the wider public to engage with the report. The debate is about the future, but it is also about the here and now.

Mr Frew: It is right that we take the time to mark and condemn the words of President Trump when he described NATO forces in the way that he did. His commentary was truly awful, reckless, disrespectful and removed from any reality or fact. I am deeply proud of all those from all nations who served with honour in Afghanistan and fought for freedom and democracy. From the UK, 457 personnel paid the ultimate sacrifice, including a number from Northern Ireland, and they are much-loved and deeply missed family members. The 1st and 2nd Battalions of our own Royal Irish Regiment served together with great distinction and honour on the front line.

President Trump's words were insulting, disrespectful and ridiculous. Many of our service personnel are used to that type of commentary but from our enemies and from people down the pub who do not realise what service is about. To hear it from the US president, who is the commander-in-chief of an allied country, is hard to take. Those words will have caused deep trauma and hurt to the brave people who suffer to this day because of their injuries, both physical and mental. The words came from a president who does not really know what service is, the experiences that come with it or the deep respect that one gets when serving alongside soldiers from other nations, including those from the US, who will be ashamed of the commentary from their commander-in-chief.

Many of my constituents who served with distinction still suffer, and I try to help them every week. Constituents who are no longer with us paid the ultimate sacrifice, even years after their service ended. My thoughts are with their families today as we reflect on the disrespectful and truly awful words of the US president.

Mr Mathison: As everyone will know, thousands of children across Northern Ireland received their Schools' Entrance Assessment Group test results at the weekend. Many will be delighted with the outcome, while others will be disappointed. There will be others who chose not to sit the test who will be unsure of their next steps in the post-primary transfer process.

I put it clearly on the record that I believe that our current system of post-primary transfer is failing many of our children. It is an unfair and unnecessary process for our 10- and 11-year-old children to sit those tests simply for them to move on to the next stage in their education journey, where they will engage in a common curriculum at Key Stage 3 with all their peers, as they have done throughout primary school.

Many parents will be all too aware of the stress placed on our children and young people that is created by their preparing for, sitting and then receiving the results of any sort of academic selection. The evidence is clear. It demonstrates that failing to gain access to the school that they had hoped for, or to gain the result that they had hoped for in the test, can have a profound impact on our children's mental health.

The independent review of education was clear that our current process of academic selection perpetuates socio-economic division between selective and non-selective schools. We continue to facilitate a system that serves to benefit a few already generally privileged pupils and to perpetuate demographic trends, which are at odds with building a shared and inclusive society.

We will all be aware of the unprecedented budgetary pressures and financial context in which the Department of Education is currently operating. Our system of academic selection plays a role in impacting on some of those costs, whether that be through the area-planning process and skewing decisions about where we need schools, the impact on home-to-school transport funding or the continued duplication in our school system. Academic selection comes at a financial cost as well as at a cost to children's mental health and well-being.

Every year, I hear from parents who are fed up with the system. They want to see politicians and political leaders come up with a better approach to how our children move from primary to post-primary education. It is therefore time for the Minister of Education to facilitate a public conversation on the future of our post-primary transfer process so that we can get to grips with the issue, bring the current system to an end and deliver better outcomes for our children and young people.

Mr Sheehan: Bhí Lá Idirnáisiúnta an Oideachais ann Dé Sathairn seo a chuaigh seo. Athdhearbhaíonn Sinn Féin a thiomantas lena chinntiú go bhfuil an tús is fearr ag gach páiste agus ag gach duine óg agus iad ag gabháil i gceann an tsaoil agus go bhfuil rochtain acu ar oideachas ardchaighdeáin. Is ceart bunúsach é an t-oideachas, ach, thairis sin, is gléas cumhachtach é leis an chomhionannas agus an t-athrú sóisialta a bhaint amach.

Ar Lá Idirnáisiúnta an Oideachais i mbliana, bhí mé ag smaoineamh ar pháistí agus ar dhaoine óga na Palaistíne. "Léann-díothú" a thugann an t-aos léinn ar an scrios a rinneadh in Gaza: scriosadh córas oideachais; rinneadh ionsaithe ar ollscoileanna, ar mhúinteoirí agus ar mhic léinn, agus rinneadh sin uilig d’aon turas. Sa chomhthéacs sin, ba náireach é an cinneadh a rinne ár nAire Oideachais féin Paul Givan cuairt a thabhairt ar scoil atá i gcríoch faoi fhorghabháil — cinneadh a bhí ag teacht salach ar an uile dhóigh ar an dlí idirnáisiúnta agus ar chearta an duine.

Aithnímid na dúshláin atá roimh scolairí, roimh thuismitheoirí agus roimh mhúinteoirí abhus sa Tuaisceart. Leanfaidh Sinn Féin leis de bheith ag gabháil i ngleic leis an tearc-ghnóthachtáil oideachais, leis an tsoláthar don riachtanas speisialta oideachais a athrú ó bhonn, le cúram páistí a dhéanamh inacmhainne agus le cothrom na Féinne a fháil don Ghaelscolaíocht. Ba chóir do earnáil na Gaeilge áiseanna cuí, infheistíocht chaipitil leanúnach, a dóthain foirne agus acmhainní cearta a bheith aici má tá sí le coinneáil léi ag fás. Tá mé ag tnúth go mór le mo Bhille um lucht saothair gaelscolaíochta a thabhairt os comhair an Tionóil, agus le beith ag déanamh feidhm don earnáil murab ionann is Airí de chuid an DUP, duine acu i ndiaidh an duine eile.

Leanfaimid orainn fosta de bheith ag cur i gcoinne na mbeart úd ar chlár oibre an Aire a thabharfadh ar gcúl muid amhail a chuid iarrataí leis an smior-chailleach a bhaint as an churaclam, le cos i bpoll a chur leis an mheasúnú leanúnach agus le córas a thabhairt isteach arís ina bhfuil scrúdú aonair strusmhar amháin ann, scrúdú ar a bhfuil barraíocht ag brath. Níl sin le leas an aosa óig. Leanfaidh Sinn Féin leis de bheith ag seasamh leis an oideachas agus de bheith ag obair le daoine eile le córas oideachais cuimsitheach, lánacmhainne a chruthú, córas nach bhfágfar aon duine ar deireadh ann.

Ms Forsythe: On Thursday past, businesses across Northern Ireland received notifications from Land and Property Services (LPS) of revaluations of their business premises as a result of Reval2026. We all know that property valuations have increased, and most businesses expected it. What those businesses received, however, was outrageous, and the situation has been handled so badly.

Let me be clear: Reval2026 was not issued by the Executive. It was not voted for in the Assembly. The revaluation exercise was completed by LPS and was issued under the direction of John O'Dowd, the Sinn Fein Finance Minister. The catastrophic, unbuffered impact on local businesses seems to have been of no concern to the Sinn Féin Ministers in either Economy or Finance.

There appears to have been no appraisal of the economic consequences of the revaluation. The statement on the Department of Finance's website says that the revaluation is "revenue neutral" and:

In the real world, however, that is ludicrous. Property valuations are used by LPS to multiply the rates factor in order to generate rates bills for every property owner and business owner. The increased valuations mean increased rates bills. Every business owner across the country has recalculated their rates bills based on the new valuations that were issued last week. The new bills will be crippling for so many. Hotels face a hike in their rates bills of 85%, and the bills for pubs will increase by 57%. Hospitality Ulster has said that that may be the final nail in the hospitality industry's coffin.

For weeks at the Finance Committee, I have been asking what Reval2026 will mean for businesses, whether they have they been warned and what the impact will be, only to face continued feedback that it will not make a huge difference. Here we are, however; the reality is stark. The revaluation will cost jobs, livelihoods and well-established businesses across our cities and towns. That is before the Finance Minister's planned 3% increase in business rates in each of the next three financial years, as per his multi-year Budget proposals, and the local council rates hikes. That is absolutely unacceptable, and it has been handled so badly.

The Finance Minister must reflect on what he has issued here. The Sinn Féin Finance and Economy Ministers must not ignore pleas from local businesses. Whilst we know that Sinn Féin does not want to see Northern Ireland succeeding, is that the case at any cost, including closing businesses, making workers unemployed and crippling our local economy? I will be clear on this: the DUP stands firmly with our local businesses. We will fight on their behalf against this catastrophic action by Sinn Féin.

Ms D Armstrong: I, too, want to raise serious concerns about the impact of Reval2026 on our local economy, particularly on the hospitality, tourism and food-to-go sectors. We are seeing projected rates increases across Northern Ireland that are nothing short of staggering. As has been said, hotels are facing rises of up to 83%, with pubs facing rises of as much as 57%. Cafes, visitor attractions and the wider tourism economy are all being dragged into the same crisis. One hotel in my constituency has seen its rates bill rise to £338,000 a year, which is an increase of 83%. That is not sustainable, nor is it reform: it is a direct threat to jobs, investment and the future of that business.

The new valuations are based on a snapshot of trading conditions in 2022, which makes the situation even more alarming.

That data bears no resemblance to the reality that businesses face today. Since then, profits have collapsed due to soaring wage costs and staff shortages, the national living wage, increased employers' National Insurance and the relentless rise in energy, food, insurance and supplier costs. Yet Land and Property Services continues to value businesses as if rising prices mean rising prosperity. In reality, margins are being wiped out. The system now effectively taxes turnover instead of profit and is doing so at the worst possible time. It is not just businesses. Halls and community facilities are seeing sharp increases, threatening the very organisations that hold many of our towns and villages together.

The Finance Minister promised a rates review. What we have instead is a revaluation that is driving fear, uncertainty and anger across the private sector and voluntary sector alike. It is a tax on jobs, a tax on success and a tax on opportunity. Is that Sinn Féin policy? Northern Ireland is already a high-cost place to do business, and the revaluation risks making us completely uncompetitive compared with both Great Britain and the Republic of Ireland. I call on the Minister to urgently introduce a freeze on rates for 2026 and to finally deliver meaningful reform of a system that is clearly no longer fit for purpose. If the revaluation proceeds as planned, it will not stimulate the economy but actively damage it. The Ulster Unionist Party will always be a friend to business, to workers and to ratepayers. We will always champion their cause.

Mr Speaker: Daniel, please confine it as much as you can.

Mr McCrossan: I rise on behalf of the SDLP in support of the women against state pension inequality (WASPI) and to record the full support of my party for the long-running, dignified and entirely justified campaign that has been led by tens of thousands of women across Northern Ireland.

Women born in the 1950s planned their lives around the state pension age that, they were told and believed, would apply. They made decisions about work, caring responsibilities, savings and retirement on that basis and then, with little to no notice, the rules were changed, with some women receiving just months' notice and some none at all. As you will agree, that is not equality but maladministration. WASPI women have never opposed the principle of equalising the state pension age; they support equality. What they oppose is the way that those changes were implemented without adequate notice and without any meaningful transition protection. That distinction matters.

The scale of the injustice was confirmed by the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman following a six-year investigation. That investigation found maladministration in the way that the Department for Work and Pensions failed to communicate changes to the state pension age, including a failure to act on its own research that showed that women were unaware of the changes being made. As a result, women were denied the opportunity to make alternative arrangements for their retirement, and many continue to suffer the consequences of that today. The out-of-court settlement reached between WASPI and the Government on 2 December 2025 marked an important turning point. It represented an acceptance that the Government's initial refusal to compensate the women was flawed and included a commitment to carry out a full review of the findings.

At this point, it is important to be absolutely clear that women born in the 1950s did everything right. They worked, they paid in and they planned for their retirement on the basis of a pension age that, they were told, would apply, and then the rules were changed with little to no notice. Yes, the ombudsman has found fault, but the Government must now take action and put right the wrong and redress the harm caused by the state's failure. This is so important, and I thank all of those who have campaigned and spoken up for the women across Northern Ireland.

Mr Givan (The Minister of Education): In compliance with section 52 of the Northern Ireland Act, I make the following statement on the meeting of the North/South Ministerial Council (NSMC) in the education sector held on Friday 23 January. The meeting took place in the Monaghan Peace Campus and was hosted by Minister Naughton TD, the Minister for Education and Youth in the Republic of Ireland. The Minister of Finance, Minister O’Dowd, also attended as the accompanying Minister. Minister O’Dowd has agreed the statement and for me to make it on his behalf.

The following main areas were discussed at the meeting: addressing educational disadvantage; special educational needs; digital literacy; and school, youth and teacher exchanges. I will go through each one in some detail.

Ministers welcomed the continued progress and cooperation by both Departments on implementation of the agreed programme of cooperation on educational attainment, supported through an allocation of up to €24 million from the Government of Ireland’s Shared Island Fund.

The Council noted the update on overall progress by the Department of Education in Northern Ireland on implementation of the RAISE programme with the publication of strategic area plans for each of the 18 RAISE localities and the success of the open call for locality-led projects. The NSMC noted the launch of the RAISE reading with AI research project and Halloween revision support programme. Ministers noted the progress of the teachers' research exchange (T-REX) platform and the Creative Connections arts education pilot programme, which are both now under way.

The Council noted the continued progress that is being made in implementing projects supported under the PEACE PLUS programme that contribute to addressing educational disadvantage.

Minister Naughton and I recognise the ongoing cooperation between Departments in both jurisdictions and the willingness to enter into constructive mutual assistance on a variety of challenges in the special educational needs sector. The Council noted that both Departments and the Middletown Centre for Autism are assessing the potential for service expansion to respond to current and emergent needs across the jurisdictions.

The NSMC welcomed the proposed project to support teacher professional learning on digital literacy, including on misinformation or disinformation and the impact of AI. Ministers noted the opportunities for enhanced cooperation in digital education, particularly in teacher professional learning, curriculum development and digital safeguarding.

The Council welcomed the presentation on behalf of the PEACE PLUS ASPIRE shared learning project. The NSMC noted progress made to date in delivering the PEACE PLUS projects across respective investment areas and recognised the joint work that is being taken forward across both jurisdictions.

Ministers acknowledged progress made by both Departments and the Mary Immaculate College of Limerick to extend delivery of the teachers' research exchange platform across both jurisdictions and welcomed the announcement of the expansion following the meeting.

The NSMC noted the ongoing review of the North/South Education and Training Standards Committee (NSETS), the work being taken forward through the North/South Youth Work Sector Practice Development Hub and developments in relation to the United Kingdom-Ireland Youth Work Forum.

The Council also noted the continued cooperation across education inspectorates and welcomed opportunities being explored for cooperation on well-being in education, including the recent positive shared learning event held in Dundalk.

The next meeting will be held in spring or summer 2026.

Ms Hunter: I thank the Minister and welcome the range of issues touched on at that important meeting. As AI is mentioned in an ethical context in the statement, I declare an interest, as I sit on an AI ethics board outside my role as an MLA.

With the topic and the week that is in it, digital safeguarding is so important. We have talked about AI harms this week and last. Will you tell the House whether you wish to offer or issue any guidance to our school leaders and parents on how to talk about those emergent technologies and the threats that they bring when it comes to online safeguarding of our children?

Mr Givan: We discussed at some length the benefits of enhancing digital literacy skills. It is part of the findings of the review of Northern Ireland's curriculum that Lucy Crehan carried out. It identified that there is a lack of literacy skills. Therefore, as we take forward the work on the new curriculum for Northern Ireland, digital literacy will have greater emphasis.

As we look at artificial intelligence, particularly generative AI, we all recognise that there can be benefits, if it is appropriately harnessed, when it comes to helping around teacher workload and in respect of administration. We have been piloting some of those schemes with principals in Northern Ireland already through Microsoft Copilot technology. There are also benefits when it comes to devising lesson plans and carrying out assessment. Undoubtedly, there are opportunities, if it is harnessed appropriately, for AI to have a significant impact.

In all the conversation that we had in that meeting, we talked about the importance of safeguarding and effective regulation when it comes to the frameworks in which AI and digital skills need to be taught. That is paramount, and all schools take it seriously when it comes to well-being.

Some of that is being utilised already, with pupils utilising open-source material. It is important that, as technology advances, we respond to the changing environment, and we need to find a way to have appropriate guard rails in place, so that AI is utilised effectively but safely.

Mr Baker: Thank you for your statement, Minister. Can you provide any further detail on greater cooperation with the South on special educational needs?

Mr Givan: As we engaged on SEN, the Middletown Centre for Autism was referenced as being an organisation that helps, particularly with its expertise on autism. The same issues that we have in Northern Ireland, with the exponential growth of the number of children with a variety of educational needs, is replicated in the Republic of Ireland, where they are grappling to find the most effective way in which to provide the resources that will benefit those children and young people. In that meeting, we talked about how we are trying to examine what we do in Northern Ireland. Where work is taking place in the Republic of Ireland, we should, obviously, share all that information. Our officials already engage in that collaboration, but we recognise that there is a need to do more. One of the undertakings from the meeting was that we would seek to find more ways in which to share what we are doing and what we are trying to address, as they are doing in the South. If we can learn from each other, we should learn from each other.

Mr Mathison: I thank the Minister for his statement. I will expand on the previous question. You mentioned the role of the Middletown Centre for Autism and the services that it provides for SEN across jurisdictions. In the challenging budget context that we are in, how do you anticipate that role being enhanced?

Mr Givan: I have been to the Middletown Centre for Autism. For Members who have not been, I commend the facility to them. There is an issue with accessing the building currently, due to some structural challenges for transport and with the road to the building. That was touched on in the meeting. There is an ongoing issue with the assessment of those structural challenges and the work that we can do to try to resolve them.

The Member is right to mention the budgetary challenges. We face significant challenges. The South also has restraints on its level of expenditure, although not to the same extent as us. We are trying to identify how Middletown can be utilised more effectively. Obviously, that could relate to potential budgetary issues. As those issues emerge, we will need to address the issue of the allocations that we can make. The Member is right: we are somewhat constrained by the financial resources that are available to us.

Mrs Cameron: I thank the Minister for his statement. Will he explain how the RAISE scheme addresses budgetary pressures?

Mr Givan: It has been an ongoing challenge to try to release the funding for that, but I am pleased to inform the House that we have made significant progress. Shared Island funding of €24 million has been made available to my Department to take forward interventions to address educational underachievement, which is welcome. I will always take funding, from whatever source I can acquire it, to benefit young people in Northern Ireland.

Those interventions have been designed for the areas that were selected, which are various. The projects have all been developed. We are at the stage of finalising the letters of offer that will allow us to make progress on RAISE. It is a welcome intervention that will have a meaningful impact on tackling educational underachievement.

Mr Burrows: I thank the Minister for his statement. The Washington Ireland Program (WIP) has benefited many people here by bringing on emerging leaders in Northern Ireland. Are there any opportunities either to build on the success of that or to get more people from Northern Ireland on to that programme?

Mr Givan: I am happy to take the Member's suggestion away. There are different programmes that give young people an opportunity to engage internationally. Those are welcome, where they can be availed of. Part of the meeting referred to the establishment of the United Kingdom and Republic of Ireland youth forum, which would allow not just more North/South exchanges but more east-west exchanges, so that there would be greater opportunity to empower young people across the British Isles, and for them to have their voices heard.

Mr Sheehan: In the course of his engagements with his counterpart from Dublin, has the Minister ever expressed curiosity about the fact that educational outcomes in the South far exceed those here, or has he asked for an explanation of why that is the case?

Mr Givan: The Member raises an important point. I have looked at where Northern Ireland is being outperformed internationally, particularly in measurements such as the programme for international student assessment, the trends in international mathematics and science study and the progress in international reading literacy study. The Republic of Ireland is outperforming Northern Ireland, as are other high-performing jurisdictions, in educational attainment. That is why we are taking forward the TransformED programme. We, as a Department, have to perform statutory functions to ensure that we have an up-to-date curriculum. We also have to consider what the most effective way is of assessing that. It is not just about the substance of what is being taught but about how it is being taught and how you measure that by way of assessment. There are good examples of what the Republic of Ireland is doing in the type of curriculum and teaching that it applies. I absolutely want to benefit from that to enhance Northern Ireland's educational output. That is why I selected a former chief inspector of the Republic of Ireland's education system to be part of the international ministerial advisory panel. It will help to inform the educational transformation work that we are doing here in Northern Ireland.

Mr Harvey: Thank you, Minister, for your statement today. Did you have the opportunity to meet any other Education Ministers last week? If so, will you tell us what was discussed?

Mr Givan: I thank the Member for the question. Last week, there was the North/South Ministerial Council meeting in the education sectoral format. We also had an East-West Council meeting, which was hosted by the Secretary of State and was held in Belfast. I attended that meeting, at which we discussed taking forward a twinning programme between schools in Northern Ireland and Great Britain. That is an outworking of the Command Paper that the DUP helped to secure. We updated the East-West Council on the progress of that twinning arrangement. I also attended a UK-wide ministerial summit that was facilitated by the Secretary of State for Education, Bridget Phillipson MP, on artificial intelligence and the opportunities that exist for it to be developed in education. I engage North/South, but I also engage very much on an east-west basis, given Northern Ireland's place in the United Kingdom.

Mrs Guy: I thank the Minister for the statement. How can we collaborate more across this island and with the rest of the UK to ensure that we are doing all that we can to protect our children and young people from online harms?

Mr Givan: That is similar to what the Member has asked about previously. We know about the dangers of online harm. It is why I support Safer Schools NI's project that encourages parents not to let their children access social media on their smartphone in their early, formative, teenage years. It is also why I introduced the capital programme to limit access to mobile phones. Nine schools are taking part in that pilot scheme. Some Members were critical of that, but the principals who have been engaged are very supportive of it. King's College London will carry out an evaluation of that, which will be independent of the Department and will reflect the effectiveness or otherwise of the approach. In addition, it is why I introduced a clear departmental policy that says that primary-school children should not bring phones to school at all and that, at post-primary level, such phones should not be accessed by children from when they enter school until they leave. That recognises the harm that smartphones can cause to our children and young people in particular. I welcome the public consultation on social media that is being carried out by the UK Schools Minister. I encourage parents to feed into that, but I am also considering whether we should try to address the issue from a Northern Ireland perspective.

Mrs Mason: Minister, you mentioned the RAISE programme in answer to an earlier question. How much of the initial £20 million that was earmarked for RAISE has been spent to date? What evaluation of the programme has taken place or will take place?

Mr Givan: The challenge with the RAISE programme has been that some Members have undermined its work and created unnecessary confusion in their constituencies, which led to a legal challenge. [Interruption.]

Mr Baker laughs, but he and Mr Sheehan said that the programme was flawed, that it discriminated against disadvantaged communities and that it needed to be taken back to the start and rethought. What were the consequences of their misinformed and ignorant commentary? It was to create the environment for those in their community to decide to take a legal case to challenge the programme. Unnecessarily, Members decided to be critical of it, but the judgement that was delivered on Friday 12 December 2025 dismissed all legal challenges to the Department's methodology for allocating funding under the RAISE programme. The judgement was clear. The court found that the Department had acted lawfully and rationally in developing a Northern Ireland-wide place-based approach to funding, using objective indicators of educational need.

That was the judgement of the court, and I am glad that it was presiding over the case, as opposed to Sinn Féin Members. They now ask about the delay in distributing the funding. The reason for the delay was the legal challenge. We are now able to proceed with allocating the funding. The terms of offer are being conveyed in letters to groups, but the case is now being taken to the Court of Appeal. Three days have been set aside for it to be heard in April. We will proceed with the schemes, however, thus allowing West Belfast and North Belfast, constituencies that have needed such interventions, to have funding allocated to them at long last.

To the Members opposite, I say, rather than take cheap political shots at the schemes, reflect on the words that you use. Your words generated a legal case that undermined RAISE, which was found to be a perfectly rational and logical programme, as determined by the judge. Not only did those Members delay the allocation of funding but they caused my Department to incur considerable expense — over £100,000 so far — defending its policy. We successfully won that case. [Interruption.]

Some Members: Hear, hear.

Mr Givan: The applicants also got legal aid, so the Department of Justice's Legal Services Agency (LSA) had to provide them with taxpayers' money. Not only is my Department therefore out by over £100,000 so far — [Inaudible.]

Mr Givan: — but the LSA is out funding likely to the tune of £300,000 to £400,000 —

Mr Speaker: Order, Mr Baker.

Mr Givan: — of taxpayers' money. That money was wasted as a result of Sinn Féin challenging the decision. It politicised a scheme that the courts found to be perfectly legitimate.

Mr Brett: Minister, do you share my concern that departmental resources that should be focused on tackling educational underachievement are being wasted by political opponents in this place, be that on challenges from the Alliance Party to legislation that it created or on challenges from Sinn Féin? Do you agree that, instead of focusing on lawfare, you are getting on with delivering for the people of Northern Ireland?

Mr Givan: Members in the Chamber and people outside of it have talked about the Department of Education budget's reckless waste. I say to Members that there has not been reckless waste. Indeed, I listened carefully to the principals this morning on 'Good Morning Ulster'. A principal of one of Northern Ireland's largest schools said:

I also read today's published statement from the National Association of Head Teachers (NAHT) about the Sinn Féin Budget. I quote the NAHT's warning, which has been attributed to its president, that John O'Dowd's draft Budget:

to education in Northern Ireland and is:

yet we have some Members actively encouraging people to take legal cases.

Of the two most significant cases, one was on integrated education, which I won convincingly. However, the cost to the taxpayer was hundreds of thousands of pounds. The other was on RAISE, which I won, but the cost to the taxpayer was hundreds of thousands of pounds. Such activities starve our education system of funding. I trust that Mr O'Dowd, who says that he is listening,

will listen to the principals of the schools in his constituency and to the trade unions who have said that his Budget

represents the biggest threat to education.

Mr Baker, do your job, lobby your own Minister and start fighting for schools.

Mr Durkan: I thank the Minister for the statement. Schools and communities on both sides of the border face similar challenges with deterioration in an ageing schools estate. The management and maintenance of the schools estate in the North has been criticised by the Audit Office and a subsequent Public Accounts Committee (PAC) report. Is there anything different in how those issues are approached south of the border? Is there anything that we can learn from there?

Mr Givan: My Department has been looking through some of the recommendations of the Northern Ireland Audit Office report and, indeed, the PAC report. A key recommendation on which I absolutely agree with the Committee is about having planned maintenance programmes in order that we do not have to react. My response to that has been to say that, at the moment, because of inadequate funding, we have to react with emergency-type responses, as Members will know from their constituencies. However, I want us to have planned maintenance so that we do not take that reactive approach. That will provide greater value for taxpayers' money.

I am keen to learn from any jurisdiction as to the most effective way of managing the finite resources that are available when it comes to capital expenditure. We know that the Republic of Ireland is in a different place when it comes to budgetary allocation and what is currently available to it.

My job is to make the case for the Department of Education. When it comes to our capital, we have not been funded properly over the past number of years — it is not just me saying that; the independent review of education said it — and that needs to be reflected in the budget that we receive. It also needs to be reflected in how we engage with the Treasury. A case needs to be made around the structural underfunding of Northern Ireland for many years. We are still living with the legacy of that. That is why, as we engage in the Budget discussions, I will champion Education, but there is also a need for the Executive collectively to robustly engage with the Treasury and London on the challenges that we face.

Mr Gaston: Minister, Protestant working-class boys remain one of the most educationally disadvantaged groups in Northern Ireland. While the Irish Government might not care much for educational achievements in working-class Protestant areas at the North/South meetings, I certainly do. What progress have you made to ensure that working-class unionist areas are not left behind?

Mr Givan: As result of devolution, I have been taking actions in areas that were neglected under direct rule and would continue to be neglected if we had direct rule. As a DUP Minister in the Department of Education, I have taken forward work on establishing a controlled sector unit in the Education Authority that has a clear and dedicated focus. The controlled sector is the underperforming sector. It does not have the same level of advocacy as other sectors. There is inequality in how the controlled sector is treated by comparison with others. I have taken steps to do that. I have also consulted on the establishment of a managing authority, for which, when the consultation concluded, we had overwhelming support. I will take a paper to the Executive.

We have also taken forward the transformation of our education system through the TransformED programme. That is underpinned by a curriculum task force and by pedagogy — the practice through which we teach the content — and we are looking at methods of assessment. We need that multiple approach to make sure that our curriculum is properly supported by way of content and how it is taught and assessed. Getting those things right will benefit pupils in every school in Northern Ireland but particularly those from the most disadvantaged backgrounds whose parents do not have the same means as others to harness private tuition, get teachers to coach their children and enhance the learning opportunities that they have. The only opportunity that many from a more disadvantaged background have is the limited time in the classroom in front of the teacher. We need to make sure that this is given the best possible support, which will be transformative in helping working-class communities not just from a Protestant background but from every background in Northern Ireland.

Mr Brooks: It was worrying but not surprising to hear school leaders today echo the Minister's concerns on the Sinn Féin Budget.

I was going to ask about the court case, but the Minister has answered that comprehensively, so does he agree that the Members on the Benches opposite have routinely peddled falsehoods around the RAISE scheme, particularly in relation to the idea that the money will fall into the coffers of grammar schools? Will he speak to the benefits that working-class communities will see from the scheme?

Mr Givan: I agree with the Member's sentiments. The RAISE programme was grossly misrepresented not just by Sinn Féin but by others. It has now been demonstrated, as Members will see from the outworkings of the specific projects, that it will be targeted at helping address educational disadvantage. That is what underpins it, and the rationale for the selection process has been vindicated by the courts. I trust that Members will now get behind the RAISE programme in their communities and encourage and support the work that it will take forward.

Members will, I hope, reflect over the next number of weeks, as the consultation continues to take place on the Sinn Féin draft Budget, and make sure that their voice is heard loudly that education cannot be underfunded in the way that it has been and that people should express those opinions. I trust that the Finance Minister will be listening, as that voice is being heard clearly from school principals and others.

Mr Sheehan: On a point of order, a Phríomh-Leas-Cheann Comhairle.

In a number of the Minister's responses, he referred to the RAISE programme and accused Sinn Féin of being responsible for a judicial review having been taken. My point of order has a number of aspects to it, but, first of all, many people commented on the RAISE programme, not least teachers, principals, educationalists, journalists and others in the community and voluntary sector. It is false to say that Sinn Féin was responsible for a judicial review. Secondly, judicial reviews are accepted on the basis of their legal admissibility, and there is a fairly high threshold that applicants must pass. Thirdly, the Minister should know, as a former Chair of the Justice Committee, that there should be no commentary in the Chamber on ongoing legal proceedings, and the Minister knows that an appeal against that original judicial review has been lodged.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: I will take your last point first, as it was a point of order. The other two were commentary, Pat. Your last point probably comes under Standing Order 73, which deals with sub judice. That is my view: there should be no commentary on ongoing legal cases. That is a well-worn precedent, but I will refer it to the Speaker. Your other two points, which were not points of order, are on the record and have been noted.

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

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

Mr Muir: Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker.

This is the second legislative consent motion that I have brought forward on the Biodiversity Beyond National Jurisdiction (BBNJ) Bill. The motion is required because the UK Government made six amendments at House of Lords Report Stage on 12 January that introduced new clauses 10, 11, 12, 16, 17 and 18, which were not part of the Bill when the Assembly debated and approved the first legislative consent motion on 12 January. Under Standing Order 42A(9), any such amendments that deal with devolved matters or alter departmental functions require a subsequent legislative consent motion, and that is the purpose of today's debate.

The amendments were introduced following discussions between the UK Government and the Scottish Government. To ensure that the Bill fully reflects the devolution settlements across the UK, the same amendments will apply equally to Northern Ireland. The Bill is now in its final stages, and I am grateful to the First Minister, the deputy First Minister and my Executive colleagues for their urgent consideration of the legislative consent motion. I am also grateful to the AERA Committee for considering the amendments at its meeting on 22 January.

I will briefly outline the purpose and effect of each of the six new clauses that the Assembly is being asked to consent to today. Clause 10 provides DAERA with concurrent powers to make regulations relating to the implementation of part 2 of the biodiversity beyond national jurisdiction agreement covering marine and genetic resources and digital sequence information, insofar as those matters fall within the devolved competence. That brings Northern Ireland into line with Scotland and ensures that DAERA is empowered, where appropriate, to legislate directly, rather than relying solely on UK Ministers.

Clause 11 sets out the procedures for regulations made under clause 10. Where regulations amend Northern Ireland legislation, create or vary civil sanctions or create civil offences, they must follow the affirmative procedure. In urgent cases connected to article 24 of the agreement, the made-affirmative procedure may be used. That ensures strong Assembly scrutiny whilst allowing flexibility where urgent international measures must be implemented quickly.

Clause 12 creates a statutory consultation duty, requiring the Secretary of State to consult DAERA before exercising regulation-making powers in devolved areas under clause 9. That guarantees that Northern Ireland's views must be considered before UK-wide regulations are made.

Clause 16 provides DAERA with concurrent powers equivalent to those in clause 10 but for Part 3 of the Bill, which concerns the implementation of area-based management tools designated under the agreement. That will allow DAERA to legislate directly on devolved aspects of area-based management tools decisions taken at the Conference of the Parties (COP).

Clause 17 mirrors clause 11 by establishing the Assembly procedures for regulations related to area-based management tools. That includes the affirmative procedure for any regulation that amends legislation or creates sanctions or offences that are made under the affirmative procedure for urgent measures adopted under article 24. Again, that enhances scrutiny while supporting timely responses to international obligations.

Clause 18 requires the Secretary of State to consult DAERA before making area-based management tools regulations under the UK-wide power in clause 14. The statutory consultation requirement ensures that decisions that affect devolved matters cannot proceed without considering the views of Northern Ireland.

Taken together, the six clauses significantly strengthen Northern Ireland's role in implementing decisions under the new High Seas treaty to ensure that DAERA can act directly where appropriate, guarantee consultation before UK Ministers act and embed Northern Ireland-specific scrutiny procedures in the legislation. The UK Government have emphasised the need to maintain momentum, and, subject to consideration of the amendments, the Bill could receive Royal Assent in the very near future. Supporting the motion ensures that Northern Ireland has an equal voice alongside Scotland in shaping implementation, that DAERA has the powers it needs to act in devolved areas and that the Assembly retains full scrutiny over future regulations.

In summary, the amendments do not change the policy intent of the Bill that was agreed in the first legislative consent motion. Instead, they enhance the devolution arrangements for Northern Ireland and ensure that our interests are properly represented as the UK implements that significant international agreement. I therefore commend the motion to the House and invite Members' support for it.

Mr Butler (The Chairperson of the Committee for Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs): I welcome the opportunity to speak on behalf of the AERA Committee on the second legislative consent motion for the Biodiversity Beyond National Jurisdiction Bill. The Committee had previously noted the broad aim of the Bill, which is to address the governance gap that exists in areas beyond national jurisdiction, and that it facilitates the United Kingdom's implementation of the international BBNJ agreement under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. That convention covers marine genetic resources, area-based management tools and environmental impact assessments in areas beyond national jurisdiction otherwise known as the "high seas", the seabed and the ocean floor beyond the limits of national jurisdiction.

The Committee is aware that this is a subsequent LCM for the same Bill and that it may be moved in accordance with Standing Order 42A(9). On this occasion, however, the Committee is pleased to note that it had the opportunity to consider the subsequent LCM at its most recent meeting, which was last Thursday, and hold an evidence session with the Minister's officials. For that we are grateful, as it was scheduled at short notice.

Members will recall that the Committee agreed to support the Minister in seeking the Assembly's endorsement of the first legislative consent motion, which was supported by the Assembly on 12 January. Members will have read the Committee's report, which was published on 12 December. The Committee was notified by the Department on 20 January that, at House of Lords Report Stage on 12 January, the UK Government had secured agreement to a series of amendments to insert six new clauses — clauses 10 to 12 and clauses 16 to 18 — which the Minister has outlined.

At its meeting on 22 January 2026, the Committee had before it a copy of the draft subsequent LCM and held an oral evidence session with officials. The Committee heard that the effect of the amendments — the six new clauses — will be to strengthen arrangements for implementing decisions that affect devolved matters by providing concurrent powers and a statutory consultation mechanism. The Committee understands that that, effectively, permits Scottish Ministers and DAERA to legislate in parallel with UK Ministers, under those clauses, to implement decisions taken at the BBNJ Conference of the Parties. The exercise of power by a UK Minister under those clauses must be carried out in consultation with Scottish Ministers and DAERA, where it will impact on devolved competencies.

Overall, the Committee welcomes the amendments to the Bill. They will provide more opportunities for the Assembly to scrutinise the development of regulation. At its meeting on 22 January 2026, the Committee agreed to support the Minister in seeking the Assembly's endorsement of the subsequent legislative consent motion.

Ms Finnegan: I welcome the opportunity to speak in support of the legislative consent motion. The Biodiversity Beyond National Jurisdiction Bill gives effect in domestic law to the High Seas treaty — a landmark international agreement that was the first of its kind to offer meaningful protection to marine biodiversity in areas of the ocean that lie beyond any single state's control.

The provisions before us concern enforcement mechanisms, environmental impact assessments, the regulation and oversight of activities carried out on the high seas and the establishment and management of marine protected areas. While those measures operate within an international framework, their success depends on effective cooperation across all jurisdictions on these islands. From the perspective of the North, it is sensible and necessary that we support the clauses. As an island community, our relationship with the sea is fundamental: our coastal economies, fishing communities and marine ecosystems are deeply interconnected with ocean activity that takes place far beyond our territorial waters. The reality is that ocean ecosystems do not recognise borders, nor do the consequences of pollution, overfishing or climate breakdown. The legislation places environmental responsibility, scientific evidence and international collaboration at the centre of how global marine activity is governed. By extending the provisions here, we ensure that the North will actively contribute to that shared global responsibility, rather than standing on the margins.

Importantly, the approach is consistent with Sinn Féin's long-standing commitment to environmental protection. Safeguarding biodiversity, meeting our climate responsibilities and preserving our natural environment for those who come after us are our core priorities, not secondary considerations. Supporting the motion reflects that commitment practically. The measures proposed are proportionate and necessary. They do not create unreasonable obligations but provide clarity and authority for local bodies to assist in enforcing international standards, tackling unlawful exploitation and supporting the long-term protection of our oceans. Endorsing the motion is the correct course of action for the environment, science and future generations.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: No other Member has indicated that they wish to speak. Minister, it is over to you to conclude the debate and make a winding-up speech on the motion.

Mr Muir: Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. I thank the Members who contributed to the debate. I hope that the Assembly will consent to the Government's amendments that were made at the House of Lords Report Stage that apply to Northern Ireland. The changes are positive for Northern Ireland. They strengthen our ability to influence UK-wide implementation of the agreement, ensure that devolved interests are fully protected and provide DAERA with important concurrent powers and statutory consultation rights.

Were the Assembly not to grant its consent, the UK Government would be required to remove Northern Ireland-specific provisions from the Bill, which would reduce DAERA's role, weaken the devolution settlement and limit Northern Ireland's ability to shape and implement decisions taken under the high seas treaty.

I thank Members for their contribution and hope that they support the legislative consent motion. I particularly thank the officials who have done all the work in drafting the LCMs and briefing the Committee on them. It is really appreciated.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Members, take your ease before we move on to the next item of business. Thank you.

Miss Dolan: I beg to move

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: The Business Committee has agreed to allow up to one hour and 30 minutes for the debate. The proposer of the motion will have 10 minutes to propose and 10 minutes to make a winding-up speech. All other Members who wish to speak will have five minutes. Jemma, please open the debate on the motion.

Miss Dolan: Go raibh maith agat, a Phríomh-Leas-Cheann Comhairle.

The Economic and Social Research Institute (ESRI) report provides a stark analysis of the different average living standards that exist in the two jurisdictions on our island and shows the many areas in which we have common challenges and shared policy objectives. The assessment of economic trends shows that the South outperforms the North in almost all the key indicators that are used to measure the health and well-being of our citizens.

The 10% difference in disposable income is one of the statistics in the report that highlights just how much more money a person has in their pocket if they live in the South. It is a particularly useful metric for comparison as it recognises just how much a person has to spend after earnings and taxation are considered.

Life expectancy is a valuable measurement of long-term outcomes, as it reflects how well public services are performing and the socio-economic environment in which people are living. Again, the results show that the North is behind, with men living two years less and women living one and a half years less. To put that into perspective, it means that people living in Ballyshannon live longer than people living in Belleek. Th two villages are just nine minutes apart.

As well as such disparities, however, the report highlights the fact that there are common themes across the two Programmes for Government (PFGs), such as supporting small and medium-sized businesses, tackling housing shortages, delivering better public services and ensuring decarbonisation. Despite shared policy objectives across the island, there is also recognition that, owing to limited fiscal powers, the Executive do not have the same ability as the Dublin Government to intervene with the resources required to deliver better public services and improved living standards for their citizens. The division of our public services on a North/South basis means that all those living on our island are being disadvantaged, not just those living in the North.

We can see how much better it is when we take a coordinated approach to tackling challenges. That can be seen from highly successful health initiatives such as the North West Cancer Centre, the all-island children's cardiology services in Dublin and the cross-border waiting list reimbursement scheme. Given that there are many shared objectives, there is something that can, and should, be replicated across all Departments. The reference in the report to the fact that the British Government's decision to increase employers' National Insurance contributions is having a negative impact on economic growth here is just one example of the damage that not having full control of our political and economic affairs continues to do to us. Several of the economic measurements indicate that the gaps between the two jurisdictions on our island are continuing to grow, primarily because the North is tied to a failing economy in Britain following Brexit and a decade and a half of austerity measures.

Although I believe that only constitutional change will enable us to implement policies that close those inequality gaps, there needs to be, in the interim, further fiscal devolution to provide us with more flexibility and opportunities for interventions in our local economy. I support the ongoing work of the Minister of Finance and the Minister for the Economy in that area.

Mr Brett: There is a phrase that we hear repeated again and again in the Chamber: the so-called all-island economy. It is often presented as established fact and something beyond challenge, but repetition of untruths does not make them true. The reality, which is backed up by evidence rather than ideology, is that there is no single, all-island economy. Rather, there are two distinct economies on this island operating under different currencies, different tax systems, different welfare models and different regulatory frameworks. That is not a political slogan but an economic and political fact.

Northern Ireland's economy is, always has been and always will be overwhelmingly integrated within that of the rest of the United Kingdom. Our biggest market is Great Britain: fact. The majority of our goods come from Great Britain: fact. Our service sector relies on the UK economy: fact. Energy flows from the rest of the UK: fact. Supply chains move from east to west, not from North to South: fact. Cross-border trade of course exists. No one sensible would deny that, but let me set out the facts. That trade is limited in scale, concentrated in a small number of sectors and represents only a fraction of Northern Ireland's overall economic activity, yet some continue to push the idea of an all-island economy, as it justifies sweeping constitutional change. They do so to downplay or simply ignore the reality that Northern Ireland's trade with the rest of the United Kingdom is what sustains our economic success. That trade sustains jobs and businesses in every community and underpins living standards in communities right across Northern Ireland.

We heard the proposer of the motion talk about the devolution of additional fiscal powers, yet, in the 10 minutes that were allotted to her, she did not give one example of the powers that she wants to see devolved. Moreover, the Minister of Finance has not set out a credible plan for devolving the powers that he wants to see devolved. That shows the seriousness with which Sinn Féin takes the issue. It is not honest politics, and it is not serious economics. The danger of that narrative is that it is not only wrong but leads to bad policy. We have already seen what happens when abstract concepts are used to justify arrangements that disrupt trade within the United Kingdom and the real cost of that for businesses across Northern Ireland. As another Member rightly articulated last week, we have yet to see the damage that the "Alliance tax" will cause for businesses and householders across Northern Ireland.

Economic policy in this place must be based on fact, not on political aspiration. Northern Ireland benefits from cooperation, where it makes sense; openness to trade; and constructive relationships across these islands. That does not, however, require us to pretend that two very different economies are, in fact, one. If we are serious about growing Northern Ireland's economy, creating jobs and delivering opportunity — the very thing that each and every person in the House was elected to do — we need to get away from that political agenda.

Mr Delargy: I thank the Member for giving way. The Member seems to have missed the point of the motion. The motion is about cooperation; it is not about taking away or reducing our east-west relationships. It is about enhancing all-Ireland relations and economic opportunity. For example, in 2021 —.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Interventions are supposed to be short, Pádraig.

Mr Delargy: Fair enough.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: The Member has an extra minute.

Mr Brett: Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. Mr Delargy, I would take you at your word if that was mentioned in the text of the motion, but there is no recognition in the motion of the vital nature of Northern Ireland's place in the internal market of the United Kingdom. What it does call for are additional tax-raising powers. I have yet to hear a Sinn Féin Member give an example of those powers and what they would use them for. Given the proposals for hospitality that have been made by the Sinn Féin-controlled Land and Property Services (LPS), the people of Northern Ireland will join with us in saying that we do not support additional tax-raising powers being handed out at this stage.

The motion is very interesting and serves some people's political agenda, but it does nothing to move on the conversation about how to have the best possible economy in Northern Ireland. It is about having open trade with our neighbours in the Republic of Ireland, but we need to tackle the imposition of the Irish sea border, which takes away Northern Ireland's place in the internal market of the United Kingdom, which the facts show is clearly our most important market.

I look forward to hearing people's solutions to some of those issues, but this party opposes the motion.

Mr Honeyford: I came into the Chamber to debate a motion on growing our economy. We have just had minutes upon minutes of constitutional nonsense. I was at the launch of the ESRI report; I went to that because I wanted to hear about and see the trends. Too often, we do not have evidence on which to base policy and have mature political debate. The ESRI report gives us that factual baseline for understanding what our economy is doing, what is happening in the South, how we are performing, how we are succeeding and how we can grow.

As I said last week, our economy in Northern Ireland is growing by 2·8%. That fact is in the report. That should be celebrated because it is more than double the average growth in the UK, which is growing at a rate of 1·3%. The reason for that difference in the rate growth is uncomfortable for the people sitting on my right, but it is because there is a difference in the situation here and that in the rest of the UK. Invest NI has said very clearly that we are growing our economy and seeing that difference because we have access to the two markets for the very first time. Equally, growth in trade with GB has increased in both directions, from just over £10 billion three or four years ago to £17 billion in the last financial year for which the figures were counted. Some 51% of trade is now with UK. Trade with the South has grown to 26%, and trade with the EU and the rest of the world has also grown. Those are all good news stories; it is not a choice between one or the other, as has been said. We should celebrate the good news because it brings better for ordinary people.

I have talked many times in the Chamber about sharing this island, collaborating North and South to grow opportunities, deliver better for people, break down barriers, make sure that people have better opportunities for skills, grow our economy, reduce our energy costs, put more money in people's pockets, improve our health outcomes and everything at the very beginning of what has been listed. Those are barriers to creating better wealth, better health outcomes and a stronger economy. That is just common sense. One colleague called it the common-sense alliance. We want better for people. I am not interested in a debate about the constitution; I am interested in making things better for people. If we are serious about that and serious about increasing and growing living standards, we need to start looking at what needs to change. When we start to look at that, we need to start making the changes and the reform. We hear the word "reform" used, and we talk about it all the time, but what does that look like?

I was at the launch of ESRI's report in its offices in Dublin, and my question after the launch was: what do we do? Give me one or two things that we do to make a difference and to make a change. First, we have a problem because we left the EU, which was uncomfortable for some, and we do not have freedom of movement. Therefore, we have an issue with the number of people coming through to continue and sustain the growth of our economy. The second thing is that we have a skills gap in Northern Ireland. We do not have the link, which we have been talking about for quite a while, where businesses can input into how we develop and grow courses and skills. Education needs to reform. We cannot sustain 25,000 people under the age of 25 not in education, employment or training. That is not sustainable. We need reform without the cliff edges of what is happening in education, where people are basically in the dustbin very early in life. Outcomes in the South are much better. Those are changes that we can make.

We also need changes in the North for Skillnet Ireland, which we have cross-community support for in the House. We need that brought through urgently. We need the Minister to start work on that to align the further and higher education colleges to the employment that we have on the island, North and South, so that somebody can live somewhere here and a job will be there for them when they come through training. Those are the changes and reforms that we need.

Ms Nicholl: Will the Member give way?

Mr Honeyford: I am out of time.

Ms D Armstrong: I begin by saying something that should unite every Member in the Chamber: Northern Ireland's prosperity matters more than any party's constitutional aspirations. Economic policy must be grounded in evidence, not in wishful thinking. On that basis, the motion falls short. The Ulster Unionist Party will not get too exercised about the ESRI report as a panacea for change. It is the first in a series to examine economic developments and linkages between the two economies. At its introduction, its stated aim was to:

Sinn Féin's motion asks us to recognise all-island economic trends as if they point inevitably towards a particular political destination, but, when we look at the actual data, particularly the work of Ulster University economist Esmond Birnie, the picture is far more complex and far less convenient than the narrative being presented today. Let us start with the fundamentals. North/South trade has grown in recent years. That is a fact, and it is welcome, but Dr Birnie's analysis shows that the growth is driven largely by trade diversion and a rerouting of supply chains in response to post-Brexit frictions.

Mr Honeyford: Will the Member give way?

Ms D Armstrong: Yes.

Mr Honeyford: If that is totally accurate, and if that is the only reason for that, why is trade east-west growing in both directions?

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: The Member has an extra minute.

Ms D Armstrong: Thank you for your intervention. Trade is growing east-west, but trade North/South has grown because of Brexit and because businesses had to make a decision to find their supply chains to that market east-west through a different diversion.

Returning to the topic, it is not evidence of an emerging all-island economic model; it is evidence of businesses adapting to disruption. Even with that increase, the scale of North/South trade remains modest. Our trade with Great Britain is still several times larger. Our UK internal market remains the backbone of our economy, our supply chains and our consumer base. That is not a political slogan; it is an economic reality and a fact.

We also need to be honest about the differences between the two jurisdictions on this island. Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland operate under fundamentally different economic systems, different tax regimes, different welfare models, different labour markets and very different levels of public expenditure. Esmond Birnie has been clear that those structural differences matter far more than short-term trade fluctuations. Let us not forget that the Republic's headline GDP figures are heavily distorted by multinational profit shifting. Building sweeping political arguments on those figures is not serious economic analysis. Yes, we should cooperate North and South where that benefits people — on health, infrastructure and tourism — but cooperation is not the same as convergence. It certainly is not the same as a constitutional inevitability. The data simply does not support the claims that are being made in the motion.

I also want to address the proposal that is implicit in some contributions to the debate, which is that the answer to every economic challenge is to devolve more fiscal powers to the Finance Minister. Let me be clear: the Ulster Unionist Party supports responsible devolution, but responsibility requires realism. Northern Ireland already struggles to manage the fiscal levers that we have. We face structural pressures in health, education and infrastructure. We rely on significant financial support from the UK Treasury: support that allows us to maintain public services at a level that would be extremely difficult to replicate under any alternative arrangement.

Before anyone rushes to demand new tax-raising and borrowing powers, we need to demonstrate that we can use our existing powers effectively, transparently and sustainably. Devolving further fiscal powers without the necessary capacity, safeguards or economic base would not be bold; it would be reckless. Let us be honest: some of the calls for additional fiscal powers are not about improving public services; they are about creating the optics of divergence from the rest of the United Kingdom. That is not a responsible basis for economic policy.

Northern Ireland's economic future will be secured not by constitutional theatrics but by focusing on productivity, skills, investment and stability. We should strengthen our place in the United Kingdom internal market, deepen practical cooperation with our neighbours and base our decisions on rigorous analysis and not on selective reading of trade statistics. For those reasons, while we welcome the opportunity to debate economic trends on this island, the Ulster Unionist Party cannot support a motion that misinterprets the evidence, overstates the significance of short-term trade shifts and uses economic language in order to advance a constitutional agenda. I urge Members to reject the motion and to commit instead to having an economic strategy that is grounded in realism, partnership and the best interests of all the people of Northern Ireland.

Ms McLaughlin: I welcome the motion and the publication of the ESRI report. It is a serious and timely piece of work, and it is right that it will now become an annual report through the Shared Island initiative.

The report identifies clear synergies between the two Programmes for Government, particularly around improving productivity, accelerating decarbonisation and supporting small and medium-sized businesses. That alignment really matters, because, if you live, for example, in a border county, the border does not really exist when it comes to going to work and moving around the place. Alignment really matters a lot.

Mr McGlone: I thank the Member for giving way. Does she accept that as far as the likes of the agri-food sector is concerned, there is no border?

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: The Member has an extra minute.

Ms McLaughlin: Thank you.

Absolutely. In many walks of life, increasingly, even in healthcare, there is no border, and there are better outcomes if we share our services.

I have to say, however, that there is a glaring contradiction at the heart of today's debate. The Sinn Féin motion is about urgency in economic delivery while Sinn Féin holds the Economy Ministry and is failing to deliver on the basics. So, before we get carried away with ambition, we need some honesty. It is easy to table a motion, but it is so much harder to govern and deliver. The ESRI report is clear that shared ambition alone is not enough. Without reform, urgency and delivery, particularly here in the North, those synergies will not translate into higher productivity, better living standards and stronger incomes. That is why my central message is simple: we must go further, and we must go faster. However, Northern Ireland continues to underperform against the very indicators that matter most in people's lives. The figures are stark. In 2023, gross national income (GNI) per capita in Ireland stood at €63,500, compared with GDP per capita of €30,500 in Northern Ireland. That is an 84% gap. As has been said, there is a similar pattern with households' disposable income. In 2022, disposable income per household was €36,900 in Ireland, compared with €33,400 in Northern Ireland. That is a 10% gap. Those are not abstract statistics but translate into whether families can cope, whether young people can stay here and whether work truly pays.

Productivity is at the centre of the gap. The Lyons review criticised Invest NI for failing to properly measure or improve productivity, yet it is now years since that Lyons review, and there is little or no evidence of improvement. If productivity is truly central to the Minister's economic vision, where is the delivery? That leads me directly to talk about the Department for the Economy, because the uncomfortable truth is that Sinn Féin cannot propose motions about economic transformation while presiding over economic delay. Take the 'good jobs' Bill. We were told that that would lead to the biggest change in workers' rights in a generation, yet it still has not been brought to the Assembly. Deadlines have slipped, again and again, and, from what we heard at last week's Economy Committee meeting, it seems that there will probably be a further six-month delay. That causes concern. That uncertainty hurts workers and businesses alike and at precisely the time when we should be improving productivity and living standards for people.

It is worth noting that Sinn Féin in the Republic of Ireland has been vocal about calling out Governments when they have failed workers. The Sinn Féin spokesperson for enterprise, tourism and employment said:

I would argue that workers across Northern Ireland have never worked harder and that they deserve delivery, not delay. Sinn Féin cannot demand ambition in a motion today while presiding over slippage and missed deadlines in the Economy Ministry at home here.

On energy, the story is much the same. In fact, it is probably worse. We were once a leader on the transition to a greener economy, but now we are missing out on investments because the frameworks are not in place. Where is the legislation to support renewable electricity, and why does uncertainty persist around the North/South interconnector, which would deliver real benefits for consumers, investors and our long-term energy security?

Regional balance is another area in which Sinn Féin's rhetoric does not match reality. Regional inequality has doubled here since the Good Friday Agreement. That is shocking. In 1998, Belfast's GVA was 42%. That now sits at 80%. People in the north-west do not experience regional balance. They see that too many good jobs are still concentrated in and around Belfast, and too many young people have to leave if they are to build a future. We are almost 16 months on from the publication of the 'Sub-Regional Economic Plan', yet only a minute proportion of the £45 million that was allocated to local economic partnerships has been spent. That does not represent regional balance or urgency —

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Time is up, Sinéad.

Ms McLaughlin: — and it is not serious delivery.

Miss Hargey: It is nice to see that Sinn Féin is in the frontal lobe of the SDLP's brain today. I thank the proposer of the motion and add my support. The ESRI report, which is the first to consider annual economic surveys and to assess economic trends across Ireland, using comparable data, is good, and it would be good for everybody to look at it and, importantly, to learn from it for policy formation.

This is a significant development. It is the first time that policymakers across our island will have access to a shared and consistent evidence base on economic output, labour markets, incomes, living standards and public finances. That matters because good decisions depend on good data, and, until now, such data simply did not exist in a comparable form.

The findings are positive, but they also, obviously, highlight challenges and areas for future work and collaboration. Both economies record a solid growth in-year until the second quarter of 2025. Economic output in the North grew by 2·8% and in the South by 3·2%. In an uncertain global environment and amid political instability, that points to a resilient all-island economy and suggests that, when we work together, that can translate into positive outcomes and results for our workers, our communities and the economy.

I know that Diana highlighted the area of Brexit, but, since as far back as the financial crash of 2008, there have been economic shocks every couple of years. It is important that we use such research and surveys to mitigate those shocks. When you look around the world at the moment, you can tell that the shocks will continue, and, obviously, they all have an impact on our economy. For that reason, the research is important, and we must use it to collaborate and mitigate those future shocks.

The labour market stands out as a particular strength. Employment is at a near-historic high across the island, with 20,600 jobs added to the North and 64,000 to the South. Strong participation rates show continued demand for workers and underline the importance of skills and workforce planning.

The report also provides a clear, evidence-based picture of incomes and living standards and confirms that average earnings and households' disposable incomes are higher in the South, reflecting the differences in productivity, sectoral mix and, of course, wage structures. Those are areas that the Economy Minister is addressing through her economic vision and not least through her progressive "good jobs" Bill, which will focus on creating good and well-paid jobs and, importantly, will protect employment rights and workers' rights. A lot of people have talked about that, but I am keen to find out, when the workers' rights Bill comes to the Chamber, where people will stand. Will they stand for protecting workers, enhancing trade union rights and representation and growing our local economy, or will they stand against those things? We will wait and see.

Importantly, the survey also identifies shared policy priorities across the island, ranging from supporting SMEs to addressing skills shortages and managing the transition to a low-carbon economy. That alignment highlights real opportunities for cooperation across all those areas.

For the North, the implications are clear: the report strengthens our ability to plan strategically and makes the case for investment in design policies grounded in the robust evidence that has been presented. It also reminds us that, without sustained action on areas around productivity, infrastructure and skills, existing gaps in living standards may widen.

Ultimately, the survey is not just about statistics but about better jobs, higher incomes and improved opportunities for all our people and communities, particularly, as has been highlighted, in the border and regional areas such as the north-west and west of the Bann that, let us face it, through the policies of Executives and Governments in the North since partition were deliberately and politically marginalised and sidelined from economic opportunities.

The ESRI annual survey provides a foundation for more informed debate, better policy-making and stronger cooperation, and it is a resource that we should all fully use. It is about coordination and planning across our island and about good alignment, but, importantly, it is also about better outcomes for our people, our communities and an economy that works for those things —

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Your time is up.

Miss Hargey: — and not against them.

Ms Forsythe: While some play party politics, real data is at the heart of the issue.

Data is critical in analysis, and, as an accountant — a number cruncher — I believe in the value of good data in assessing value for money, assessing our economy and making good use of information. It is well known that, in Northern Ireland, data is not adequately gathered, assessed, published or verified across a number of fields. We need to focus on getting our own house in order rather than on looking beyond here.

The Assembly's focus should be on Northern Ireland. Last year, when the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee met representatives of the Finance Committee, it highlighted that point about our data. We on the Public Accounts Committee see that all the time. Hundreds of millions of pounds are being spent through many of our services here, with no tracking of data on how that affects health outcomes or our economy. We need to get better data and use it across the board in Northern Ireland. That applies even at the heart of our Budget system. You were at the same event as me last week, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker, at which the Northern Ireland Women's Budget Group highlighted how we can look at our gender budgeting and at the well-being framework underpinning our Programme for Government. Better use of data is needed for all of that.

Crucial to the understanding of the economic and social conditions on the island is the need for us to understand the reality that we have two very distinct jurisdictions with two distinct economies. The ESRI report itself highlights the fact that Northern Ireland and the Republic "differ in important structural respects", with the two countries having separate legal systems, social security systems, education systems and monetary systems. Although the two economies may neighbour each other, they are very distinctive. Notably, there are separate currencies and different tax regimes. The differences are clear to all observers. Northern Ireland is in union with the rest of the United Kingdom, whereas the Republic of Ireland is a separate state and fully part of the European Union.

We do not fear the report or accurate data. We believe, however, that time and effort would be better spent on focusing on the UK internal market. Our economic prosperity is clearly overwhelmingly linked to our links to the UK internal market. That must remain the primary context for interpreting labour market and mobility statistics. Will parties in the Chamber show the same level of endeavour when it comes to comparing Northern Ireland data with that of other UK regions, particularly data on our interconnectedness socially and economically? Why would we want to obscure an understanding of Northern Ireland's specific needs and circumstances within the UK or the enormous contribution that the NHS and other UK-funded services make to the lives of our citizens by blending our data with that of the Irish Republic?

The Sinn Féin Economy Minister has stated that her priority is to protect the all-island economy, yet her responsibility should be to champion the interests of Northern Ireland's economy and its businesses above all else. The DUP is and always has been committed to growing Northern Ireland's economy. Our continued priority is to make Northern Ireland the best that it can be.

Ms Nicholl: There is a lot that I agree with in Diane Forsythe's contribution, especially on the importance of data. I chair the all-party group (APG) on policy and public data. That will sound boring to many people, but it is actually one of the most interesting groups. The issue is so important. Northern Ireland is data-rich. From the minute that we are born until the minute that we die and beyond, data is collected on every one of us, yet, so often, policy decisions are based on a sample of a couple of thousand people. If we had better access to data and if we were to share data across Departments, the better our policy solutions could be not just now but in the future. I therefore welcome the opportunity to talk about the massive importance of data, especially to our economy.

Where I diverge, though, is that I think that all data is important. We cannot say that data is really important but we want only some of it. So much of our economy is on an all-island basis: for example, energy, tourism, waterways and agri-food. Our interconnectedness, our interdependence, how we operate and knowing where we diverge and where we are similar are so important. Having a report that looks at that baseline is really important. Highlighting the structural differences between our economies sets a baseline for future monitoring, and that is to be welcomed.

The report's focus on data gaps and on identifying those that hinder a North/South analysis of productivity, labour markets and cross-sectoral working is really interesting. As I said, having a better understanding of that would allow us to make policy for the future. We are criticised for all sorts of things, but the one that sticks the most is that we just do not think in the long term. So much of that is structural, because we do not create policies for the long term. The report is really good and really welcome. It allows us to provide a framework for future annual assessments.

I hold the Chair of the Economy Committee in high regard. He is an excellent politician. I disagree with a lot of what he says, but he is excellent. The "Alliance tax" line has really annoyed me, and I will call it out every time I hear it. If we are serious about economic growth in Northern Ireland, such silly sound bites are ridiculous and really annoy me. The charge on parcels has come from the EU. We have already said that our solution is to have a UK-EU customs union. Blaming that charge on us will annoy me, and I will pick it up every time that it is said. We in the Assembly should ensure that we use evidence, work together and improve lives; we should not pick on people or make things up.

Mr Brett: I appreciate the Member giving way. I hold her in the same high regard. On the issue of sound bites, the motion calls for "additional revenue-raising powers": in 15 minutes of speeches, Sinn Féin Members have not given one detail of those powers. How can Members be expected to troop through the Lobbies and support the motion when there is no data on what powers Sinn Féin wants to devolve or what it wants to do with them?

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: The Member has an extra minute.

Ms Nicholl: We need to have more conversations about revenue raising. When we look at our economy and how we operate, we see that there are lots of things that we could do to be more efficient and to save. We need to have honest conversations about how we revenue-raise. For us, as a party, it has to be progressive and fair, and we need to make sure that it will make a tangible difference in people's lives. Alliance will not stand back from those conversations; we are happy to be involved in them.

We have to be serious. People who are looking at the Chamber and at what we are doing are saying, "Well, they're not very efficient. They won't talk about how we actually deal with the issues in public finances". We all need to take tough decisions, work together and look at evidence. We need to approach the debates in a good spirit to identify ways in which we can work together and find solutions. So often, that will be about evidence, so collecting more data can only be a good thing. I look forward to seeing how the proposal is taken forward.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Kate.

Jon Burrows will be the next Member to speak after Question Time. Question Time is at 2.00 pm, so I propose, by leave of the Assembly, to suspend the sitting until that time.

Mr Muir (The Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs): My Department regards biosecurity as a cornerstone of animal health and disease prevention. Our approach is proactive and risk-based, recognising the interconnection between animal, human and environmental health. The agriculture sector operates in an environment where infectious diseases such as bovine tuberculosis, avian influenza and bluetongue pose significant risks to animal health, farm productivity and market access. Biosecurity is critical in preventing disease transmission and mitigating the impact of disease outbreaks, which can lead to severe financial loss, herd disruption and long-term impacts on rural livelihoods.

DAERA has comprehensive biosecurity guidance available online, alongside a statutory biosecurity code for Northern Ireland farms, which sets out best practice for livestock keepers, vehicle operators and those involved in food production. DAERA continues to deploy wide-ranging communications, reminding all flock keepers of the necessity of adhering to high levels of biosecurity, particularly at times of heightened disease risk. It always remains the case that robust biosecurity is important and is the most effective defence against specific epizootic diseases when they do occur, helping to protect individual flocks, herds and the wider agri-food industry.

Mr McGuigan: I thank the Minister for his response. The Minister is aware that the livestock industry plays a vital role on an all-island basis. On biosecurity, will his Department consider assessing the potential of an all-island approach to bovine electronic identification (e-ID), particularly for enhanced disease control, improved traceability and smoother cross-border trade?

Mr Muir: It is an important issue, as the Member rightly says. The island of Ireland is one single epidemiological area, and we must cooperate on these issues, as we do. We are consulting on the specific issue that the Member outlined. Northern Ireland and the South operate on the same basis, being members of a single market. That means that the e-ID technology that we will use is going to be the same in the North and the South, and I encourage people to respond to the consultation on e-ID.

Mr T Buchanan: Minister, biosecurity is an important issue in the farming community. When will you introduce a robust programme to deal with the ongoing TB issues, which are continually on the increase?

Mr Muir: I am glad that the stakeholder group was able to agree a blueprint. That was published last year, and we are progressing its implementation. Biosecurity is a key element in our collective efforts with the farming community to drive down incidences of TB. Alongside that, we will commence a consultation on wildlife interventions this spring.

Mr Dickson: Minister, what proactive role can farmers play to promote good biosecurity?

Mr Muir: Thank you, Stewart. Biosecurity is the first line of defence to protect livestock and business. Good biosecurity reduces the risk of the introduction and spread of disease. It is about taking all the efforts to reduce the risk of contact between disease-causing organisms and agents and susceptible animals, both from outside and inside the farm.

First, farmers can take measures such as minimising purchases and, where purchases are necessary, doing so from low-risk disease sources; good farm-boundary management; cleansing and disinfection of vehicles, equipment and people before entry on to their farm; and application of measures to control vermin and minimise contact with wildlife. Secondly, farmers can protect their livestock inside the farm by quarantining newly purchased animals to ensure that they are not carrying the disease with them; providing good standards of husbandry, hygiene and nutrition, thereby minimising stress on animals; promptly isolating and treating any sick animals and seeking veterinary attention as required; and improving immunity through vaccination protocols under veterinary direction.

Mr Muir: As a statutory consultee in the planning system, my Department has a duty to respond to a statutory consultation within 21 calendar days or an otherwise agreed timescale. Statutory planning consultations are formal applications submitted to a local authority for permission to carry out development, as required by the Planning Act 2011. They include a full application for development, an outline application for development and environmental impact assessments. The Department also receives planning consultations that are non-statutory but considered relevant to the planning system due to policy or other interests. Those include pre-application discussions.

The current year's performance on statutory consultations is 65%. From 1 April 2025 to 31 December 2025, 2,956 statutory consultations were received, with responses being issued for 2,528. Of those responses, 1,916 were issued on target. An additional 725 non-statutory consultations were received in the same period, with responses being issued for 686.

I am fully aware that our response times for applications need to improve, but I am also aware that there are challenging factors such as the complexity of some cases, staff and resource pressures and the variable quality of the applications presented for consideration. To improve our response times and service to planners, a planning improvement plan has been developed and is being implemented at pace.

Mr K Buchanan: I thank the Minister for his answer. I will stay on the theme of planning consultations. Shared Environmental Services (SES) is simply not responding to consultations — it is just not doing it; it has stopped — and that is, literally, killing agriculture, building and development. Minister, is it answerable to you, or is it following your guidelines? What is happening with that organisation?

Mr Muir: I thank the Member for his question. I understand the frustration about planning applications and statutory consultees, and, in Northern Ireland, we need to do better.

Shared Environmental Services was set up by the councils and is ultimately within their purview: that is where the accountability is. Overall, the Minister with responsibility for local government is the Communities Minister, but I urge the Member to raise any concerns about it with the relevant councils.

Ms Finnegan: I am glad to hear questions being asked about SES and its role. We have met farmers and the agri-food sector and have heard that some planning applications have taken three or more years to be decided. Minister, what is your Department doing to help in those cases?

Mr Muir: I am aware of the frustrations about the time that it takes the Department, as a statutory consultee, to reply to some planning consultations. Consequently, my officials have developed and are implementing the Northern Ireland Environment Agency planning improvement plan.

That strategic plan aims to increase DAERA's performance rate for responding to statutory consultations through reducing delays and streamlining workflow processes; improving the quality and consistency of planning decisions; enhancing communication with stakeholders and applicants; increasing staff capability and resource efficiency; improving customer satisfaction and trust; and ensuring compliance with regulations and best practice. The actions under the plan are categorised in five work strands: technical advice and guidance; caseload management; monitoring and reporting on performance; processes and IT systems; and communication and stakeholder engagement.

I get that we need to do better on this, and that is what we are focused on.

Mr Butler: I thank the Minister for engaging with the Committee on this important topic. I will ask the Minister about a specific, imminent threat. There has been a reduction by a figure of about 20 million in the production of chickens in the past three years. Producers say that it is the planning quagmire that is holding them back. Will the Minister commit to meeting planners in my area — there are applications to talk through — when we have the answers, which are based on betterment and tackling the ammonia strategy head-on?

Mr Muir: Thank you for your question. I am happy to meet on the matter, but we have to be careful about conflating the issues of planning and ammonia pollution. We have extremely high levels of ammonia pollution in Northern Ireland. I am trying to find a way forward to reduce that pollution, which we must do because it is having a real impact on our environment, but also to deal with practical issues such as replacement sheds, which are coming in as a result of animal welfare commitments.

This is difficult. Anyone who wants more information on the ammonia issue should read the report from the Office for Environmental Protection. It found that the Department previously acted unlawfully on it. That is a challenge for us. Air pollution is an issue of concern for me. It may be different from water pollution in being harder to identify, but it is a serious issue of concern, and we need to find a way through it.

Mr McNulty: Planning in the countryside is on the go-slow or has stopped. I know that that is not the Minister's responsibility — it is the responsibility of the Minister for Infrastructure — but the planning response team in the NIEA, which is within the Minister's purview as a statutory consultee, states that it will no longer provide detailed responses to "any requests for updates" or undertake any prioritisation of representations made. Is the Minister concerned about that? If so, what will he do about it?

Mr Muir: Since November 2021, the Department has not been provided detailed responses to requests seeking updates on time frames for issuing consultation responses. Provision of detailed updates to the high volume of requests received from applicants, their agents, political representatives and planning officials significantly reduced the time that officials had for processing consultation casework responses.

I will provide some context. The Member should be aware that my Department has received approximately 355 planning consultation update requests in the past three months alone. In combination, it would take a significant time for case officers to respond to those requests in detail, and the provision of such a service would cause additional delays to consultation response times. The measure that the Member referred to was initiated in order to maximise the time that case officers have to spend on responding to planning consultations as opposed to on providing those updates.

I am aware that stopping the provision of detailed updates has caused frustration to planning authorities and planning officials, who would like to be able to speak to an individual case officer about queries that they may have. It should be noted that officials are available to offer advice about technical queries, and anyone who wishes to make such a request can contact the DAERA planning response team, which will seek the most appropriate casework officer from DAERA's internal planning teams to respond. There is also a new inbox for planners with specific operational questions for the natural environment division.

Mr Gaston: I know of North Antrim farmers who have been waiting on consultation responses from SES for over four years. That delay is holding up investment to make the farms more viable and efficient. SES has taken the position that, before issuing responses, it needs to know the impact of land spreading on sites in the Republic for farmers who want to export hen litter across the border. No objections or other responses have been received to many of those planning applications, yet SES continues to hold up the issuing of its consultation responses. As the Minister for Agriculture, what will you do to resolve the issue?

Mr Muir: I am aware that those concerns have been expressed. As I outlined, Shared Environmental Services is a collaborative function, shared between the councils. The Northern Ireland Environment Agency wrote to Shared Environmental Services recently to set out its opinion on how it should deal with the transboundary issue. That is a very technical matter, but, following Question Time, I will write to the Member to set out what we have done to engage with Shared Environmental Services in recognition of the concerns about the delays that have been experienced.

Mr Muir: The land eligibility rules for the farm sustainability payment, which came into effect on 1 January 2026, have been simplified, to the benefit of farm businesses. That has made them easier to understand and reduced the associated bureaucracy and potential for error. The new rules make previously ineligible features, such as rush, scrub, bracken, heather and bogs, eligible. That is to the benefit of the environment. Specifically, it will help to address soil and water quality issues and challenges to biodiversity, as well as to mitigate climate change. Farmers no longer need to be concerned about receiving over-declaration penalties for areas of rush or scrub on their land that they have inadvertently failed to remove from the claim. Importantly, the simplifications will reduce the risk of environmental damage and the impact on biodiversity or water quality through activities undertaken to maintain eligibility, such as burning heather, the removal of scrub by mechanical means or controlling rush by spraying.

Full details of that are in the 'Guide to Land Eligibility', which is available on the Department’s website.

Mr McMurray: Thank you, Minister. How will the roll-out of Farming with Nature support farmers to look after nature and our environment?

Mr Muir: The roll-out of Farming with Nature is critical to supporting farmers, as the custodians of the countryside. I am conscious that agri-environment support reduced post the EU exit, and I am seeking to restore that. Last year, we launched the Farming with Nature transition scheme. A number of actions were available then, and there will be a further roll-out this year. I want to see the pace quicken, because it is important that we support farmers, and Farming with Nature is a key support scheme from the Department under the sustainable agriculture programme.

Mr McAleer: Minister, I welcome the simplifications and recognise the value of the changes for biodiversity. However, the inclusion of additional land in the rules for the farm sustainability payment and the closure of the regional reserve, with no new entitlements being issued, will mean that there is a shortage of entitlements to cover the new eligible land. Will you look again at the decision to close the regional reserve?

Mr Muir: There was significant debate about that issue at the Committee and in the Assembly. After leaving the EU, we had to set up our own farm support scheme. Change is difficult, and it requires decisions to be made. There are also actions under way on that through the historical years exercise. It is important that we proceed with the changes. There is overall environmental benefit for Northern Ireland from the changes to land eligibility. I note that the changes have been warmly welcomed by organisations such as Ulster Wildlife, and I was glad to see that.

Mr Muir: Members will be aware that I made an oral statement to the House and launched the draft nature recovery strategy for public consultation on 20 January. The consultation will remain open for eight weeks, following which the strategy will be finalised for publication. It is extremely important that citizens from all parts of society and of all ages engage in the consultation. Nature provides us with our most basic needs, such as food, water and shelter. It helps regulate our climate and provides us with spaces in which to enjoy recreation. Unfortunately, nature is in decline not just here but across the world, which is why delivery of the strategy is one of my corporate pledges.

At a local level, there is a statutory requirement under the Wildlife and Natural Environment Act (Northern Ireland) 2011 for my Department to develop and regularly review a biodiversity strategy to further the conservation of biodiversity in Northern Ireland. At a global level, Northern Ireland, alongside the rest of the United Kingdom, has committed to 23 targets and four goals in the global biodiversity framework agreed at the Conference of the Parties in December 2022. Therefore, my draft nature recovery strategy proposes new actions for Northern Ireland that add to the existing framework of targets in relevant policies and strategies that are already in place. The aim is to provide bigger, better managed and more connected nature to help biodiversity recover and regenerate for generations to come.

Mr Donnelly: Thanks to the Minister for his answer. What funding has his Department allocated to nature recovery projects? Will he provide some examples of the benefits of that financial support?

Mr Muir: Investment in nature is critical if we are to halt and reverse biodiversity loss. In 2025, I committed £3·2 million to support nature recovery projects through the environment fund. The nature recovery challenge fund offers grants to support environmental projects to deliver in the key areas of nature recovery networks, species recovery networks and 30 by 30 projects. Nine projects are being funded that will help deliver environmental improvement. They include oak woodland restoration in Fermanagh; developing nature recovery networks in Belfast; and habitat improvements in Portmore lough. The fund will award £1·4 million in grants in this financial year, totalling over £3·2 million by 2027-28.

Mr Speaker: Mr Carroll is not in his place.

Mr Muir: Trees and woodland play an important role in reducing the pollution entering our waterways, which is particularly relevant due to the scale of the Lough Neagh water catchment areas. Over the past three years, approximately 242,000 trees have been planted in the Lough Neagh catchment under forestry grant schemes. DAERA also provides financial assistance to landowners through the Farming with Nature transition scheme, which has replaced the environmental farming scheme. Those schemes support farmers and land managers to deliver environmental improvements, including measures that reduce nitrate run-off. Funding through the schemes enables the planting of trees for hedges, small woodlands and riparian buffer strips. Over the past three years, around 2,500 trees have been planted in the Lough Neagh catchment through the schemes. Together, those measures form an important part of my Department's broader approach to improving water quality, enhancing biodiversity and supporting more sustainable land management practices across the Lough Neagh catchment.

I want to increase tree planting across Northern Ireland and within the Lough Neagh catchment. That will require collaborative working between the Government, landowners and environmental organisations. That is why I have commissioned the co-design of the Northern Ireland tree planting action plan, which will outline the actions required to increase tree planting, including in the Lough Neagh catchment.

Mr Bradley: I thank the Minister for his answer, which nearly answers my supplementary question. Does he acknowledge that restoring Lough Neagh will require a more strategic and ambitious approach? Will he commit to extensive afforestation to improve water quality and nutrient catchment in the whole of the lough, including the Bann corridor?

Mr Muir: I agree with the Member that restoring Lough Neagh requires taking an ambitious approach and difficult decisions. It is important that we do so for the sake of people who rely on the lough and the communities around it, as well as because 40% of our drinking water comes from it. Afforestation is an important issue for us in Northern Ireland. We have obligations to increase it, but there are also opportunities. That is why we have launched the tree planting action plan.

Mr O'Toole: Tree planting will be a huge and important part of the Lough Neagh mitigation measures in order to rescue Lough Neagh. The draft multi-year Budget commits, I think, £5 million a year for the period. We do not know whether that amount will be agreed, as we do not know the status of the multi-year Budget. Even if it is agreed, £5 million seems like a small amount. Minister, for how much did you bid for the Lough Neagh recovery plan over the period of the multi-year Budget? Is £5 million a year enough?

Mr Speaker: I think that Mr O'Toole is referring to the previous question, which was not asked. I will leave it to you whether to answer, Minister.

Mr Muir: I will write to the Member setting out the figures for which I bid. I will say, however, that the draft Budget, which is out for consultation, makes for grim reading for my Department. If the funding materialises, it is likely that we will not be replacing posts when they become vacant and that no additional staff will be recruited beyond those in place currently. That paints a difficult picture, considering the work that needs to be done on our environment and to support agriculture in Northern Ireland. In addition, a fundamental issue with Lough Neagh is the need to invest in the waste water infrastructure. It is critical that we turn the situation around, but the draft Budget does not meet the requirements for investing in the waste water infrastructure.

Mr Blair: I go back to the strategies for the planting of trees. What action is the Minister's Department progressing to increase the number of trees being planted?

Mr Muir: Increasing woodland cover is one of my Department's priorities. The current forestry strategy, 'Northern Ireland Forestry: A Strategy for Sustainability and Growth', sets out the long-term objective to increase woodland cover, which is currently 8·6% of Northern Ireland's land area, to 12% by 2050. That aim aligns with the recommendations of the Climate Change Committee (CCC) on the level of forestation needed to contribute to the 2050 net zero targets. In October 2025, I announced the commissioning of the Northern Ireland tree planting action plan, to be developed in co-design with stakeholders. The plan will highlight the key actions needed to deliver the strategy of 12% forest cover by 2050. I expect to see a draft plan in spring of this year.

Mr Muir: Animal welfare remains one of my key priorities, and I am pleased that work is continuing at pace to take forward the reforms contained in my animal welfare pathway. In terms of progress to date, legislation on mandatory CCTV in slaughterhouses has been drafted, and steps are being taken to secure the necessary approvals.

The consultation response document on Lucy's law and my agreement on next steps for the sale and supply of puppies and kittens will be published shortly. Following that, I will be asking officials to progress the laying and making of the legislation. I am determined that that policy and its implementation will have a positive impact on the lives of pups and kittens in Northern Ireland. In addition, the expert review of dog-breeding regulations is due in early April, with a further report from the group, on canine fertility clinics, due in June. I will review all recommendations provided to me before deciding on next steps. I am committed to making progress in that area, where feasible, during this shortened mandate.

On communications, I am pleased that a responsible dog ownership and animal welfare social media campaign was launched last August and is being delivered in conjunction with councils.

Finally, my officials are continuing to work on a consultation, to be launched before the summer, on the remaining proposed reforms outlined in the pathway. This will include an exploration of a ban on aversive training devices; proposals for an increase in dog licence fees; regulation of rescue and rehoming, dog microchipping enhancements; and a call for evidence on the potential introduction of mandatory cat microchipping.

Mr Tennyson: Will the Minister provide an update on his efforts to ensure the mandatory use of CCTV in slaughterhouses?

Mr Muir: I thank the Member for his question. We are the only part of the UK that does not have mandatory CCTV in slaughterhouses, so I was glad to get agreement from the Executive last week to progress such legislation. We will engage with the Committee on the issue so that we can legislate for it and bring it in as a requirement in the short time ahead.

Mr Buckley: The Minister says that animal welfare is one of his key priorities, but how does that stand up to scrutiny when we continue to see thousands of otherwise happy and healthy dairy cows and other cattle being sent to slaughter because of positive TB reactions? Will the Minister deal with the wildlife issue and ensure that those animals have the welfare status that they deserve?

Mr Muir: As I outlined earlier, I was glad that we agreed a blueprint for the way forward on the issue on the basis of three pillars: people, cattle and wildlife. It is important that we take action on the matter. I will consult on wildlife interventions this spring, and I encourage people to respond to that consultation and give feedback. We need to take learnings from the previous intervention that was announced, which was successfully judicially reviewed.

Mr Muir: The highly invasive quagga mussel was confirmed as present in Lower Lough Erne, which was the first Northern Ireland occurrence, on 10 December 2025. Due to the similarity with zebra mussels, DNA sequencing was used to verify identity. Departmental officials are scoping an environment DNA (eDNA) surveillance programme of larger waterbodies in Northern Ireland to monitor for the presence of quagga mussels.

As with most aquatic invasive species, there is no effective control or eradication method for quagga mussels once they are present in a waterbody. Departmental efforts focus on encouraging better aquatic biosecurity by water users through the long-running Check, Clean, Dry campaign, which highlights the need to clean boat hulls and equipment in contact with water. A focused cross-border Check, Clean, Dry signage campaign, funded through the Shared Island biosecurity and invasive species initiative, is being developed to raise awareness of the ease of spread of all aquatic invasive species through poor biosecurity.

Ms Murphy: I thank the Minister for his substantial answer. Minister, you have answered most of my supplementary question. Will you detail the further steps that your Department is taking to increase preventative measures and its engagement with people who use the waterway?

Mr Muir: Quite a lot of work has been done, and more will be done. Fundamentally, it is about raising people's awareness of the importance of biosecurity. We will engage through that Shared Island initiative, because we recognise that the issue does not respect borders. We want to continue to raise awareness of it. I understand the Member's concern about the reports of quagga mussels with regard to her constituency.

Mr Muir: As a result of the social farming capital grant scheme, recipients will be able to provide enhanced facilities for participants to take part in meaningful farm work. Improvements to social farms because of the social farming capital grant scheme 2025-26 include the renovation of existing farm buildings, improving access at farms, the installation of energy-efficient measures and the purchase of equipment to aid and enhance the social farming experience for participants.

It is important for farms delivering social farming to achieve their social farming standards. Therefore, the grant aid allows them to undertake improvements that will both enhance their farm enterprise and help them to achieve their social farming standards. Farms that deliver social farming will also receive reimbursement from referral partners. That income will help to support the sustainability of small rural farms.

I am a strong advocate of social farming, as it is a practice that benefits those delivering the service and, very importantly, the participants, who are some of the most vulnerable in our society.

Mr McReynolds: I thank the Minister for that response. Minister, how will participants share in the benefits from the social farming capital grant scheme?

Mr Muir: Thank you, Peter. Participants in social farming experience benefit as a result of reduced stress, anxiety and depression alongside increased physical activity. The carers and participating social farmers feel more connected to their community and develop new friendships and social networks. Participants also acquire new skills, gain confidence in their abilities and feel a greater sense of purpose. The practice of social farming also contributes to sustainable farming methods, biodiversity and landscape preservation. It also fosters a sense of community, promotes social cohesion and builds stronger community relationships. Those delivering social farming also receive an income from referrals, which aids the sustaining of farm diversification projects.

Mr Muir: My Department has been working with Causeway Coast and Glens Borough Council on three growth deal projects that will result in investment of £15·3 million in rural areas across the borough. The Dungiven regeneration project is a £6·7 million project that encompasses an upgrade of the public realm, a streetscape improvement scheme and the transformation of an unused building on Main Street, Dungiven, into an enterprise hub.

Unfortunately, there has been some delay in submission of the Dungiven regeneration project outline business case to the Department by the council. The draft of the OBC, which was initially expected in June 2025, was submitted to my Department on 16 December last year. My officials are reviewing the OBC, and, subject to compliance with the Better Business Cases Northern Ireland Five Case model, the Department expects to have approvals in place in advance of deal signing, which is currently planned for June 2026.

Mr Speaker: We move to topical questions.

Mr Muir: Thank you for your question. As I outlined earlier, there is a planning performance plan that we are seeking to progress. It is important that we do that, because we need to turn around those responses quicker. There is also an obligation on those submitting those applications to ensure that they submit all the information at the beginning so that we are not going back looking for further clarification. In addition, we need resources for this, and that is where the draft Budget is a challenge for me and my Department, because it requires individuals to consider these. However, I recognise these issues, and that is why we are focused on improving performance.

Mr McCrossan: Thank you, Minister. Do you accept that delay is not neutral and that every stalled permit or planning application represents lost investment, lost emission reduction and lost confidence among farmers?

Mr Muir: We need to improve planning performance so that people can get decisions on their applications swiftly. The NIEA is just one of a number of statutory consultees. There is also a wider issue with our planning system in Northern Ireland, and we want to make sure that we are turning decisions around much quicker. I recognise my role in that, and we are focused on delivering the improvements that are needed.

Mr Muir: I thank the Member for his question. I am aware of the specifics of that, because the constituent who raised it with him has also raised it with me. It is a great part of Groomsport village that we want to value. I am happy to meet the Member — not on site, because we would have to go across the water — alongside officials so that we can talk through those concerns. I am very conscious of the impact of vermin, but there are no quick solutions to some of these things.

Mr Martin: I was going to ask whether the Minister would consider meeting me, some constituents and some experts to discuss how Arctic terns could be better protected. They are like the special forces of bird wildlife, travelling more or less all the way around the world and landing back in Groomsport every year. Therefore, Minister, I am really keen to take up your offer of a meeting so that we can see how those birds can be protected during this season. They really are remarkable creatures.

Mr Muir: I agree with you on that. Let us see whether we can get officials from my Department to meet you and other relevant individuals so that we can ensure that actions are taken to preserve the terns for future generations.

Mr Muir: Thank you, Danny. That is a really important issue, and that is why I am glad that the Justice Minister has announced, and will work with my Department on, a sentencing review in those two areas. It is important that we do that. Alongside that, there are other actions that we are taking as a Department, whether in relation to an animal welfare pathway or the fisheries and water environment Bill. It is important that we take action on this, and I am glad to see the Justice Minister moving ahead with that. We will cooperate closely on it.

Mr Donnelly: Thank you, Minister, for your answer. How will the fisheries and water environment Bill strengthen penalties for water pollution?

Mr Muir: I am glad to have got Executive agreement to progress that, and the Bill is being drafted, after consultation was undertaken last year. It will raise the maximum penalty. It is important that we do that to act as a deterrent, but it also gives us the ability to issue fixed penalty notices in relation to water pollution events. That allows us to have a more agile response to that, and, hopefully, it will be a sufficient deterrent in relation to pollution occurring in our waterways so that we can chart a course for better water quality in Northern Ireland. Legislation is an important thing that we do, and I am glad that the Bill is being drafted. I look forward to cooperating with the House during the Bill's passage.

Mr Muir: Thank you, Carál. That is an important question, because air pollution disproportionately impacts on deprived communities in Northern Ireland, and it is important that we take action. We are working on a clean air strategy for Northern Ireland. Officials are pulling that together, and it will hopefully go out to consultation soon and people will respond.

We need to look at how we travel in Northern Ireland and at the decarbonisation of our fleet. We also need to look at how we provide a just transition to help people move away from burning fuels at home, such as coal, because of the impact that it can have on the air quality. In Northern Ireland, there are many actions that we need to take to improve air quality, and I am very conscious of its impact, particularly on deprived communities.

Ms Ní Chuilín: I thank the Minister for his response. He will know that I am from an inner-city community in North Belfast. It is no coincidence that many residents who live on congested roads suffer from respiratory diseases. Will the Minister, along with his colleague in the Infrastructure Department, consider the addition of some plants and foliage to the motorway system to reduce the awful pollutants that the residents face daily?

Mr Muir: I am happy to engage with the Infrastructure Minister about the matter. I am acutely aware of the impact that pollution has had on generations of communities in that area because my family came from the New Lodge. I am happy to engage with the Infrastructure Minister and will come back to you on that.

Mr Muir: My Department supports rural businesses and voluntary and community organisations through the rural business development grant scheme and the rural micro capital grant scheme, which are delivered under the tackling rural poverty and social isolation framework.

In December 2025, over £6 million of grant aid was awarded to 1,310 businesses through the rural business development grant scheme, which is delivered in partnership with the 10 rural councils. The grant aid allows rural microbusinesses to purchase capital equipment that will help them to enhance sustainability and growth and, in many cases, to create employment opportunities that, in turn, will strengthen the rural economy. Additionally, in December of last year, 1,048 rural voluntary and community organisations across Northern Ireland received capital grants totalling £1·74 million through the rural micro capital grant scheme. Those grants assist community and voluntary organisations to purchase capital items or undertake minor capital works to help address locally identified poverty or social isolation issues, with an estimated 165,000 rural dwellers benefiting from that.

In addition, my Department continues to fund the rural community development support service and contributes to the regional infrastructure support programme, which is delivered by the Department for Communities.

Ms Mulholland: I thank the Minister for his answer and for the work that he and his Department have done so far. Will the Minister give an update on the new rural policy framework?

Mr Muir: Thank you, Sian. Last year, I committed to developing for consultation a new evidence-based rural policy, which received the support of my Executive colleagues. My Department has worked closely with rural stakeholders, Departments, local government and other stakeholders to co-design outline proposals. My intention is to consult on those proposals in the early part of this year. In advance of that, I recently shared with my ministerial colleagues the draft outline rural policy proposals.

Whilst the policy is being developed, my Department continues to address the needs and to develop the assets of rural communities by delivering significant Executive priorities in partnership with the Special EU Programmes Body and councils. That includes delivering PEACE PLUS funding of €80 million and £31 million of city and growth and complementary funding initiatives, alongside a range of initiatives under the tackling rural poverty and social isolation framework.

Mr Muir: One of my 10 pledges for the mandate is to publish and work to deliver a nature recovery strategy to ensure that 30% of land and sea is protected and well managed for nature by 2030. The Member will note that I recently launched a draft nature recovery strategy for consultation. Improving our environment is vital for the benefits that it brings to people, the economy and our precious wildlife. I am keen to support projects that share my vision of an environment that is bigger, better managed and more connected for the future, such as the national park city initiative, which will bring nature closer to people in urban areas.

Mr McReynolds: Thank you, Minister. Do you agree that working to achieve national park status would improve health and well-being for everyone across the city of Belfast?

Mr Muir: I agree that access to nature would bring significant benefits to Northern Ireland, and particularly to the city of Belfast. If that project were progressed, it would increase access to walkable green spaces, cycle paths and outdoor recreational facilities. It would encourage more active lifestyles, reducing chronic illnesses and obesity rates.

Mr Muir: That is an important intervention that we are duty-bound to take. It is also important that we take those actions if we are to protect our communities, society, businesses and the economy from the impacts of climate change. The third climate adaptation plan has been with the Executive for a while, and I will continue to engage with my Executive colleagues on it, because it is important that we get it agreed and published. We are particularly conscious of the impact of climate change in the winter months, with there being more severe and more regular storms. We need to be better prepared for that.

Ms Bradshaw: Thank you for that answer, Minister. You will recall that, at the end of October 2025, there were scenes of severe flooding, especially in the Lisburn Road area, where residents and businesses were severely affected. Minister, will you come with me to meet some of those who were affected, so that they can discuss that and you can maybe allay some of their fears about a potential repeat of that?

Mr Muir: It is important that we carry out climate adaptation. There is an impact on communities. You just outlined the impact in your constituency, and I would be only too delighted to come along with you to meet those residents.

Mr Muir: Northern Ireland Environment Agency response times are a long-standing issue. When I became Minister, my first-day brief set that out. I am committed to trying to turn that around.

One of the biggest challenges that my Department has is resources: getting people in post so that they can do the jobs that are need to be done. I continue to engage with the Finance Minister on the recruitment of staff into post. We need to do better on that, but the planning system, more broadly, needs to be improved so that it results in response times that are more prompt. I will engage with the Infrastructure Minister as required, but, more importantly, I will progress the improvement plan for the Northern Ireland Environment Agency.

Mr Clarke: I thank the Minister for his response. You said that that was part of your first-day brief. From your response to a previous question, it seems that it is only now that you are setting up a system to track the length of time that the process takes. Do you believe that that is good enough, given that that was in your first-day brief? It is holding back the development of some farms in Northern Ireland.

Mr Muir: The tracking of applications has always been in place. It is important that that happens so that when the applications are received and turned around is tracked. I reassure the Member that that has always been the case.

Not every planning application is the same. Some issues and challenges with ammonia pollution are reflected in the responses from the Northern Ireland Environment Agency. That is a challenge that I inherited. Ammonia levels are going up. There is severe pollution in Northern Ireland. We have an obligation to turn that around.

I am aware of the farming community's concerns about the replacement sheds that they want. We are trying to find a solution to that. If it were easy, it would not have been sitting for so long before I came into office.

Mr Muir: I am aware of the concerns around that. I have been in contact with my counterpart in the South. A case of the bluetongue virus has been identified in the South, and they are responding to that there. We will assist when necessary.

To date, five cases of bluetongue have been identified in Northern Ireland. We have been able to ease movements within the temporary control zone. We will keep the matter under review. I understand the concerns of the farming community. I gave a direction that we would help with some of the costs of pre-movement testing, and, thankfully, that has been taken up. As the picture unfolds, we will continue to respond.

Mr Frew: I thank the Minister for that answer. What specific support can he give to instil confidence in businesses in North Antrim?

Mr Muir: The Department has given, and will continue to give, advice on biosecurity. That is important.

The temporary control zone, which is where people have been primarily affected, does not fall within your constituency.

My concern is that more cases of bluetongue will be reported as we move into warmer weather in spring and summer. We will continue to engage with the industry and the farming community around the support that we can provide. Bluetongue has been in England for a long while and has now arrived on our shores. We did not perceive its arriving in winter, but it is here, and we are responding to it. I thank veterinary service officials for their work in that regard.

Mr Speaker: That concludes questions to the Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs. Congratulations, Minister, on answering all your questions.

Mr Lyons (The Minister for Communities): I do not want anyone to find themselves in this position. I have supported the Housing Executive in putting a severe weather emergency protocol in place during periods of extreme weather for anyone who is sleeping rough. That is in addition to the statutory homelessness services that are already provided by the Housing Executive in partnership with voluntary and community sector organisations. Aside from introducing the first ever ring-fenced funding for strategic homelessness prevention, I have allocated £37·3 million to the Northern Ireland Housing Executive's homelessness budget, which is the highest funding on record.

The SWEP includes additional outreach, crash beds and a rest centre. I have sought and received assurances from the Housing Executive that it retains sufficient capacity in crash beds in order to meet, during SWEP, the assessed levels of ongoing rough sleeping. That will continue through my officials. I also intend to spend some time with those who operate the Housing Executive's out-of-hours service, including partners, so that I can see for myself how it is working. I express my sincere gratitude to Housing Executive staff and our voluntary and community partners for working tirelessly around the clock in challenging situations to make sure that SWEP provision is available.

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

To put it in context, there is a storm warning for tomorrow. Minister, you will be aware of the recently reported situation in which 11 people from Belfast were not provided with accommodation during the recent cold spell in early January. I note that you have discussed the matter with the Housing Executive. Will you go a bit further and explain the circumstances that led to that unacceptable outcome?

Mr Lyons: First, the Member is right to highlight the weather that is currently being experienced. That is why the SWEP was put in place last night and is in place for tonight and tomorrow night. On the night in question, the service was provided to those who required it. My understanding is that some calls to the Housing Executive from those who may have needed services were not returned. Partners tried to get in contact with callers again, but contact was not made. I am assured that the provision is there, but we need to make sure that there is communication.

Mrs Cameron: Does the Minister agree that it is vital that the Public Health Agency and the Belfast Trust are fully engaged in finding solutions to address chronic homelessness, given the devastating impact of and, indeed, the complexities around health issues caused by homelessness?

Mr Lyons: Absolutely. If you take a deep dive into many individual cases, you will see that, unfortunately, many of the issues are health-related. It is not just about the lack of provision. There are often issues such as addiction and other tragic circumstances as well. That is why it is important that this is a collective effort, not just from a housing perspective but, importantly, from a health perspective. The Health Minister and I have been working together on the New Foundations pilot as an example of how we need to make sure that we work together to tackle the situations that are faced by those who, we know, are most in need. That is what we are doing and will continue to do.

Ms K Armstrong: I will speak up, because it is quite hard to hear everyone on the microphones today. Minister, we understand that 4 January was a difficult time for 11 people who did not have access to emergency accommodation. Do you agree that it is counterproductive to blame the community and voluntary sector for not having enough space? The SWEP system needs to be reviewed to make sure that emergency accommodation is available. I believe that there are still some issues around the Housing Executive's opening up its premises. Do you agree that we should work more with the community and voluntary sector rather than apportion blame to it?

Mr Lyons: It would be counterproductive, but that is not what has happened. There is no blame being apportioned.

Mr McGlone: Minister, when talking about the severe weather emergency protocol, you said that the greatest amount of resources had been allocated to the Housing Executive. Can you explain how much higher that allocation is than that to organisations in the community and voluntary sector that provide a resource for people who find themselves in often terrible circumstances, especially during this very bad weather? Are you assured that the Housing Executive and the community and voluntary sector have sufficient resources to accommodate people who find themselves in such awful conditions, often not as a result of their own actions?

Mr Lyons: The capacity is there, but, unfortunately, communication with those who need the service is not always what it should be. The Member asked specifically about resources, and I can tell him that, in the year that I came into office, the funding for SWEP was £9,837. In the most recent financial year, it was £51,523. That is an indication of the seriousness with which I take the issue.

Mr Lyons: I have made no such assessment, because I will not be in a position to determine the level of Exchequer funding for Sport NI until the Executive have agreed the Department's budget. The Member will be aware that Sport NI also disburses National Lottery funding, and that is operated independently of my Department. The chief executive officer of Sport NI has advised me that it issued a letter to sports bodies in December 2025 to advise that, in principle, it would continue funding at current investment levels in 2026-27, specifically to ensure that there was no uncertainty over Sport NI funding.

Mr Honeyford: I spoke to the sports bodies just before I came in here, and they did not get that guarantee. The Commonwealth Games are in six months' time, and we do not have secure funding for our athletes, coaches or support staff. They are being absolutely failed. Minister, you have spoken a lot over the past two weeks about providing clear, unequivocal guidance, but what are you doing as sports Minister to address the issues that are affecting our athletes and our sports?

Mr Lyons: I just gave the answer to the Member. If he has —. Perhaps he should let me answer the question before shaking his head. It is always better to listen first. That is how Question Time should work. I am telling him that that is the letter that has been issued to the sports bodies. I was about to say that, if the Member wishes tell me which individual organisations did not get that guarantee, I will be happy to hear from him. He is shaking his head again, so he does not want to do that. I therefore say to any of the sports involved that have not yet got that assurance that they can bypass Mr Honeyford and get in contact with me directly.

Mr Bradley: We are talking about funding, so will the Minister provide an update on the Olympic legacy fund that he has rolled out?

Mr Lyons: Yes, I am delighted to. I have committed to recognising the remarkable achievements of our Olympians and Paralympians at the Paris games in 2024. We all remember the incredible sporting moments and the incredible medal haul, which, I know, will encourage future generations to reach the pinnacle of their sport. We are building on that legacy by providing £1 million of capital funding to create new opportunities for people of all ages and of all abilities to take part in sport in their local area. Although "Olympic" is in the title of the fund, the projects are not solely for Olympic sports. The legacy fund is there to support all sports at the grassroots level and to encourage continued growth and participation. Sport NI has already approved 37 projects across nine different sports and 11 council areas, and an additional 39 projects are being held in reserve.

Mr McNulty: I am sure that the Minister will agree that further uncertainty over sports funding will have impacts way beyond workforce retention and affect participation and competitiveness. Will he provide an update on commitments to introduce a multi-year funding programme for NI? Moreover, can he assure us that sport will not be the poor relation for him and the Executive?

Mr Lyons: It certainly has not been. The Member can see the actions that I have taken so far for sport. I have introduced the Olympic medallist fund and the Olympic legacy fund and am making sure that we are focusing on where we can get more people involved in sport.

I was also delighted to increase the budget for the Your School Your Club programme. In the year that I took office, the budget for that programme was £500,000. It has now been brought up to £3 million because it invests in our school estate and allows more people to take part in sport after the time that the school gates normally close.

I have, therefore, done everything that I can within my budget to make sure that we promote sport. I also want to see a multi-year programme, but it needs to be one that works for the people of Northern Ireland.

Mr Lyons: My Department is developing regulations to establish a registration threshold, below which charities will no longer be required to register with, or report to, the Charity Commission for Northern Ireland. Those regulations are expected to be brought before the Committee for Communities in the coming weeks.

My Department also plans to introduce a charities (amendment) Bill in spring of this year to amend the Charities Act (Northern Ireland) 2008. The Bill will deliver reforms that were recommended by the independent review of charity regulation and amend the 2008 Act to support its practical application.

Ms Flynn: I thank the Minister for his response. The Minister knows that the Charity Commission is dealing with an extensive backlog in registrations and the administration of accounts. I appreciate that he intends to introduce legislation to try to streamline the process, but has he considered any further reforms in the meantime, such as putting in place a stricter definition of what constitutes a charity?

Mr Lyons: Of course, I want to make sure that we make it as simple and straightforward as we can for charities to operate. We know the work that they do and that many charities have had to stop work because of some of their more onerous commitments. We will keep this under review. I have mentioned the changes that we want to make to the Act, but I also want to look at the charity audit threshold. We know that changes have been made in England, Wales and Scotland, and we will look at how those changes can be made here as well.

Mr Kingston: Will the Minister outline more about the charities (amendment) Bill, including a timeline for its progression and when the Assembly will have the opportunity to scrutinise it?

Mr Lyons: Absolutely. I want it to be introduced as soon as possible. The Bill's Consideration Stage will facilitate the scrutiny that the Member mentioned. It is anticipated that that will take place late this year or early next year. It is anticipated that the Bill will be before the Chamber for a final vote before the end of the Assembly mandate.

Mr Dickson: Minister, will the review of Northern Ireland's charities legislation resolve the issues with section 167 of the Charities Act, which causes confusion and difficulty in the registration of charities in Northern Ireland and the United Kingdom?

Mr Lyons: Yes, it will include a review of section 167 of the 2008 Act. I am sure that everyone in the House knows that section of the Act. The review will provide certainty for institutions that are not established under the law of Northern Ireland but operate here for charitable purposes.

Mr Lyons: The Department of Finance leads on engagement with the UK Government and other stakeholders on the local growth fund and other funds that are delivered directly from Westminster. I have already raised concerns at the Executive about the proposed reduction in resource funding in 2026-27, which will have a direct impact on community and voluntary sector organisations that are funded under the Shared Prosperity Fund and deliver important services across Northern Ireland to support those who are furthest from the labour market.

Mrs Dillon: I thank the Minister for his answer. Minister, given that you and your party were such great advocates of Brexit, which lost us — sorry, not "us" but local community groups and voluntary organisations — all European funding —. You can roll your eyes all you want, but those groups and organisations are the ones that you were talking about earlier when you talked about homelessness. They are the groups and organisations that hold our community together. What engagement are you having with the British Government to ensure that the promises that we were given on replacement EU funding are honoured —

Mr Clarke: Calm down.

Mr Speaker: Minister.

Mr Clarke: Calm down.

Mrs Dillon: — so that the people here do not suffer —

Mr Speaker: Minister.

Mr Clarke: Calm down.

Mrs Dillon: — because of the decisions that were taken by Members on the other side of the Chamber? You calm down.

Mr Lyons: Looking at solutions is what is most important. I have been raising those concerns at Executive level and with UK Ministers. I am sure that she will not —. [Inaudible.]

Mr Lyons: I am sure that she will not want me to step out of the agreed protocol, which is that the Department of Finance leads on these issues. It is right that we make the case, and I am happy to do that. However, it is more appropriately a matter for her party colleague.

Ms Forsythe: Minister, I know that you are acutely aware of how many of our voluntary and community sector organisations have been impacted. You have worked closely with me, chair of the all-party group on the voluntary and community sector, on that. Just last Wednesday, hundreds of people stood out on the steps of this Building campaigning on that very issue.

Why has the decision been taken to make the local growth fund a primarily capital fund? Were you shocked, as I was, to see no reference to the voluntary and community sector in Sinn Féin's three-year Budget proposals?

Mr Lyons: Absolutely. First of all, Treasury took the decision to allocate only 33% of the local growth fund as resource funding, with the remainder as capital. That is in stark contrast to the Shared Prosperity Fund, which was 75% resource funding.

I agree with the Member: I was shocked to see that there was no provision, and I wrote to the Finance Minister along those lines. There was no reference to this in the Sinn Féin Budget. Many people will find that confusing, considering that, although the party has publicly backed the calls of the voluntary and community sector, it has not backed that up with funding in the Budget.

Mr McMurray: What investigations have the Minister and his Department carried out to measure the impact that the 64% reduction in the local growth fund will have on the Department's access to employment objectives?

Mr Lyons: As the funds are administered directly by the UK Government and funding awards have not yet been confirmed, it is not possible to assess in full the impact of the reduced funding. However, we will continue to work with those organisations to get that information. There is no doubt that it will have a significant impact. That is why it is important that we make the case around the Executive table to the Finance Minister, so that he can take the issues forward with the Treasury.

Mr Lyons: My Department relies on official statistics produced to recognised professional standards and high-quality administrative data to inform legislative change across its wide range of functions. Data also underpins statutory impact assessments, including section 75 considerations. Where required, my officials undertake bespoke analysis to address specific policy questions, assess differential impacts and provide assurance.

Ms Mulholland: Take the anti-poverty strategy, for example, Minister. Academics have raised with me the fact that some references in the draft strategy go back as far as 2008. In fact, there is Joseph Rowntree Foundation research from 2012, which has been updated. What can your Department do to ensure that you liaise with academics to ensure that the research that you use is as up-to-date and current as possible?

Mr Lyons: I hope that others will have raised that issue as well during the consultation process. The Member raises it now, and we are happy to look at it as well. We engage regularly on the issue. We regularly seek out up-to-date information. If there are any gaps in that, I am more than happy to take those on board to ensure that we have up-to-date information, because that is key for us to make the decisions that we need to make.

Mr Robinson: What steps is the Minister taking to ensure that data held by his Department on issues that impact on deaf and disabled people is fit for purpose?

Mr Lyons: Absolutely. I appreciate the Member's question, because it is important to highlight the fact that we do not have the adequate capture of data that we need that represents the diversity of deaf and disabled people and the issues that they experience. Through the draft disability strategy, we are committed to working to improve collection and increase the availability of high-quality, reliable and inclusive disability data. My strategy commits the Department to publishing that information on a two-yearly basis, with all the disability data held by all Departments. That will increase the visibility of disability data, highlight any gaps and support the monitoring and reporting processes for the strategy, as well as policy development and legislative reform.

Mr Lyons: Yes, the bid submitted by my Department for the proposed draft Budget process included a resource bid for the delivery of actions likely to emerge as the result of work being undertaken through my heritage, culture and creativity programme.

Mr O'Toole: Minister, you and your party colleagues have not been behind the door in criticising the multi-year Budget from the Finance Minister. That is fine: neither has my party, but we are the official Opposition.

Shamefully, real spending on arts in this jurisdiction is by far the lowest in these islands. It has fallen by nearly half in real terms over the past decade and a half. Meanwhile, in England, in the past week or two, we have seen a £1·5 billion commitment to the arts at a UK level. Minister, you and your party are keen to talk about alignment with the rest of the UK: have you made a specific request that at least some of the Barnett consequential connected to that be devoted to arts here?

Mr Lyons: I want all of the Barnett consequentials from Treasury to come to the Department for Communities, because we are the biggest losers in that regard.

The Member asks specifically about the bid. I have made a bid for £4 million of resource over the three years to deal with the additional requirements that will come from the heritage, culture and creativity programme. I have increased funding to the arts and culture during my time in office. I want that to continue, because I see the benefits of that. I have been able to make announcements, even in recent days, although some of his party colleagues were sceptical about it, about how we can use the 250th anniversary celebrations in America to promote our arts, music and culture. We are allocating additional funding. I have made bids for additional funding. Maybe the Member will support me in that regard.

Ms Brownlee: I thank the Minister for his support for the arts. How will the new arts policy address regional disparity?

Mr Lyons: The Member is right to ask about that, because there is very wide disparity in the funding of the arts regionally. Equality of opportunity is a core principle that underpins the work to develop the arts policy. I hope that she is aware that I wrote a letter of expectation about that to the Arts Council. I want to ensure that support reaches younger people from more deprived areas, those living in rural areas and across Northern Ireland and those not currently engaged in arts or cultural activities.

Mr Lyons: While it is outside the remit of my Department, I welcome the changes announced to the Motability scheme on the basis that they ensure fairness for the taxpayer while continuing to support disabled people by enabling them to lease a car, wheelchair-accessible vehicle, scooter or powered wheelchair. The reforms will not affect eligibility for the Motability scheme; nor will they affect eligibility for the relevant disability benefits provided by my Department that passport access to the scheme. The changes will not apply to the current leases or wheelchair-adapted vehicles, and the scheme will continue to offer vehicles that require no advance payment, meaning that people will still be able to access a suitable vehicle using only their qualifying disability benefit. The Motability Foundation will continue to offer means-tested grants to support eligible people who would otherwise struggle to afford the advance payment or adaptations for a vehicle leased through the scheme.

Ms Murphy: I thank the Minister for his answer. Minister, the changes to the Motability scheme that were recently announced by the British Government have been widely condemned by the disability community. Can you give some detail on how many people in the North will be affected by the changes?

Mr Lyons: I cannot, because, as I said, the scheme does not primarily lie with the Department for Communities. However, it comes at a considerable cost. We need to start thinking about what our priorities are. I want to make sure that people have access to the transport that they need, but we need to do that in the most cost-effective way. I will support changes that make a difference, save money and ensure that support goes to those who need it.

Mr Brett: Minister, the Motability scheme is a vital lifeline to many in our community, but it is being undermined by a minority who engage in fraud. Will the Minister articulate any work that his Department has done to tackle that fraud? What support or lack thereof has he received from Executive colleagues?

Mr Lyons: My Department's role in the Motability scheme is limited to confirming that the relevant disability benefit is paid for the required duration. Motability Operations has its own investigations unit that investigates allegations of misuse of scheme vehicles and breaches of its policies. When its investigations identify potential benefit fraud, the information is passed to the Department for consideration. Tackling fraud in the benefits system, including the disability benefits that passport customers to the Motability scheme, is a key priority for my Department and me. We will continue to make the case for additional funding to do more to combat fraud and error.

Mr Brett asked about my Executive colleagues: he will be well aware of the position of other parties around the House. I want to take a tougher line on welfare fraud, because we should give support only to those who actually need it and who are entitled to it. If someone deliberately misrepresents their circumstances, that is wrong and needs to be dealt with. Unfortunately, other parties around the Chamber do not support that approach. That is shameful, because that hurts those who need it most.

Mr Lyons: Thirty-four.

Mr Clarke: I thank the Minister for that answer. Like many Members, my office is inundated with people who require houses. Indeed, every night, on my journey home, I pass six ex-council houses, two or three of which are now privately owned and three of which have been vacant for more than two years. People come into my office about that daily. I think of one family in particular: a husband, wife and child who live in a crowded bedroom and have been on the waiting list for some time. What is your Department doing to press the Housing Executive to get those houses back into circulation?

Mr Lyons: The Housing Executive has given me the following figures for vacant and void properties that are under its jurisdiction: 17 are pending approved improvement schemes; eight have been approved for demolition; four are being used for decanting to support wider programmes; two are being used for exceptional circumstances; and three are exceptionally uninhabitable.

We need to crack down on the issue. I want to hear from the Member about the properties in question. I want to hear from everybody about such properties. There is a housing crisis here, and we need to deal with it. We need to make sure that we use every home that we have, as well as building more homes. I stand ready to work with the Member to make sure that we have houses for those who need them most.

Mr Lyons: I will shortly bring the first action plan for the strategy to the Executive. The plan will detail a range of actions that Departments will deliver over the first three years. We know that increasing overall supply is the most effective way to prevent homelessness and reduce pressure on the private rented sector. The actions in the strategy action plan will therefore be focused on addressing the whole-system issues that impact on supply across all tenures. The strategy included a commitment to introduce much longer notice to quit periods for tenants in the private rented sector. I launched a consultation on the secondary legislation to enable that on 5 January, and I intend to put that protection in place later in the year.

Mrs Guy: A recent report showed that the average monthly rent for a house in Northern Ireland had passed £1,000. How concerned is the Minister about the impact that that has on people who present as homeless?

Mr Lyons: I am concerned, because that is additional financial stress on people. Many struggle to find somewhere to live, and it is incumbent on us to do everything that we can to make sure that we have homes for people in Northern Ireland who need them. Those homes need to be across all tenures. That is why I have introduced the intermediate rent scheme, using financial transactions capital to get more homes built; it is why I am pushing for the revitalisation of the Housing Executive; it is why we are using Housing Executive reserves to buy more homes, so that we push down on the temporary accommodation budget as well; and it is why we are changing the housing association rates so that we can stretch the money further and build more homes.

We recognise that that is a problem in the private rented sector. It affects everybody. That is why we need to do everything that we can to build more homes.

Mr Brooks: I agree with the Member who asked the question and with the Minister's response: things are getting incredibly difficult for those in the private rented sector. What will the Minister's fuel poverty strategy do for those people?

Mr Lyons: It is important that the fuel poverty strategy help people across all tenures, not just those in housing association or Northern Ireland Housing Executive properties. Many of those who are most affected by these issues are in the private rented sector. We need to secure those interventions and help those who are impacted on most. I will make a significant announcement on that very soon.

Mr Speaker: We move on to topicals.

Mr Durkan: I know that a question for urgent oral answer has been tabled on the Minister's latest breach of the ministerial code, so I will ask about something else.

Mr Lyons: I am sorry to hear about that case. I encourage anyone who faces an issue such as the one that the Member mentioned to contact the Department's debt management branch, which will advise on a sustainable repayment plan or any other options that may be available to deal with outstanding debt.

Mr Durkan: I thank the Minister for his answer. That case is far from unique.

In November, an independent review of carer's allowance that focused on the issue in England and Wales — the Sayce review — was published by DWP. It found that unclear rules had resulted in thousands of carers' minor earnings breaches having led to major overpayments being accrued. The Government will launch a reassessment exercise this year that will potentially cancel or repay those debts. What is the Department for Communities doing about the issue here?

Mr Lyons: The report was initiated by DWP. It has been received by the Government, and we are looking at the recommendations to see what applies to Northern Ireland and what work needs to be taken forward. Where the specific circumstances relate to Northern Ireland, we will take that work forward; I can assure the Member of that.

Mr Lyons: No, I do not. I welcome much of the evidence that has been brought forward, because it is based on the fact of what I did: what I published and the reasons why I published it on that day. She is wrong on a number of levels. The entire point of the post was to ensure public safety. It was to deal with the violence that had broken out and that was anticipated would break out.

Members can tut all they want, but I will not take any lessons from Sinn Féin on ministerial standards. Absolutely not.

Mr Gildernew: Minister, your responses here and in the media are straight out of the Trump playbook: denying the facts, ignoring reality and showing utter contempt for the commissioner and the mechanisms that have been put in place to hold Ministers to account. Do you accept, Minister, that you are demonstrating absolute contempt for the public?

Mr Lyons: In the hours after the events of that day, the Member, as Chair of the Committee, had no evidence about what had happened. He did not ask any questions of me, nor did he seek any information, yet, within hours, without looking at any evidence whatsoever, he proceeded to call for a vote of no confidence in me. It is a bit rich of him to talk about facts and evidence, when he was not prepared to consider any. It is no surprise that he agrees with what the commissioner —.

Mr Gildernew: commissioner.

Mr Lyons: I am not surprised —. [Inaudible.]

Mr Lyons: Do you want me to answer the question?

It is not at all surprising that the Member has taken the view that he has, because it has been his position from day one, regardless of any evidence.

Mr Gildernew: It has been vindicated.

Mr Lyons: The position has not been vindicated. We have to look at the facts, but, unfortunately, we had a commissioner —.

Mr Gildernew: The commissioner looked at the facts.

Mr Speaker: Carry on, Minister.

Mr Lyons: Unfortunately, we had a commissioner in place who looked at the evidence but seemed to ignore it when it came to her analysis and her viewpoint and opinion. That is all that it is: her opinion.

Mr Gildernew: Her expert analysis.

Mr Lyons: There was no expert analysis. Come on.

Mr Lyons: Newtownards library is a priority for the Department. I was very pleased to have Michelle McIlveen invite me out there. I continue to have some questions about the library's redevelopment. I want to see progress made and to make sure the budget is allocated for it, but there are processes that need to be gone through. I hope to have fuller answers for the Member on the matter very soon.

Mr Mathison: I thank the Minister for his answer. Back in 2025, he made an announcement in the House that £200,000 was being provided as a capital budget allocation for the project, but, as far as I can tell, none of that money has been spent on the redevelopment of Newtownards library. Is there a risk that the money for the project will be lost? What assurances can the Minister give the people of Newtownards that it is a project that he will progress?

Mr Lyons: It is absolutely a project that I want to progress. The Member will be aware of the considerable work that needs to be done. It is complex work, and there are interactions to be had with the council and with those responsible for the facility in which the library will be built and expanded. Issues need to be overcome. We have not overcome them yet, but I can give the Member my commitment that I will do everything that I can to make sure that the library is built. For a town the size of Newtownards, I could not believe how small its library is. It is not fit for purpose, and I believe that a town such as Newtownards deserves to have a new library.

Mr Speaker: I remind Members that there is a question for urgent oral answer dedicated to that subject. It is general procedure that if something is in the Order Paper, we do not pre-empt it by asking questions on the subject in advance, and that applies to Matters of the Day as well. Does the Member therefore have another question that he would like to ask?

Mr McHugh: I have another question about that.

Mr Speaker: Is it on another issue?

Mr McHugh: It is not on another issue, no.

Mr Speaker: OK. We will move on.

Mr Lyons: I am happy to do that. The Member will be aware that, because of the Department's significant breadth, I receive many, many invites. I am certainly happy to visit the area with him, and I hope that a visit can be pencilled in as soon as possible. I have no objection whatsoever to doing so, and I will get back to the Member on the matter as soon as I can.

Mr Burrows: Does the Minister agree that some of the frustrations in areas such as Drumtara are because the community sees problems but are not quite sure with whom to raise them? Sometimes they should be raised with the Department for Infrastructure, sometimes with council and sometimes with the Department for Communities. Can assistance therefore be given to communities to make it clear whom they should contact about the bread-and-butter issues that they face and are seeking help to address? Can some clarity be given about the different pathways and the most appropriate agency for them to contact?

Mr Lyons: Whom they should contact will depend on what the issue is. If the Member has any specific thoughts or is fielding queries as an elected representative and would like to know whom to contact, I am happy to answer on his behalf. As always, I encourage people, if they do not know where else to go, to contact their local elected representatives.

Mr Lyons: They can have confidence in me, because I brought forward an anti-poverty strategy that is realistic and deals with the core issues that contribute to poverty. I very much look forward to releasing the results of the consultation, because I think that some people will be surprised at the extent of the support for the measures that not just I but the Executive have put in place. Quite frankly, I am fed up with Members from the other side of the House calling for all the things that they want to see included in a strategy, given that, at the Executive table, I do not have a Finance Minister who will come forward to offer to fund them.

The Member also mentioned the Irish language strategy and the Ulster-Scots strategy. She will be aware of the cross-departmental working group that is in place and that the Departments involved are meant to each be bringing back their work on that. The last time that I was in the Chamber, I said that nothing had come back from the Department for the Economy, the Department of Finance or the Department for Infrastructure in that regard. Maybe she wants to encourage her ministerial colleagues to make sure that they get on with that work.

Ms Ní Chuilín: I will raise that, because it is a Programme for Government commitment that has been there for a long time. I have to say, Minister, that your arrogance is unreal. Where is the LGBTQIA+ strategy? You did not mention that. Is there a reason for your not mentioning it? Can we ensure that you adhere to your ministerial responsibility to adhere to section 75 and act regardless of creed, colour or race? What is your response to that?

Mr Lyons: My first response is this: what did she do when she was Minister? She did not publicise that strategy. She wants to know what I am doing on the LGBT strategy. I recently met some of those who are involved in the working group, and I have asked officials to bring options to me in order to see whether such a strategy can be taken forward.

Ms Ní Chuilín: Process, process, process.

Mr Lyons: She talks about, "Process, process, process". Maybe she is referring to what she did when she was in office, because she certainly —.

Ms Ní Chuilín: At least I brought them forward.

Mr Lyons: Did you publish an LGBT strategy in your time? No, she did not. Now she is saying, "Process, process, process". That seems to be all that she was involved in.

Mr Lyons: No, I do not accept that I did not show any empathy. I believe that that is wrong. I hope that she will hold her Ministers to the same standards, because, during the Bobby Storey funeral — the disgrace that was that event — I did not hear her comment once about the actions of the Sinn Féin Ministers and MLAs who took part in that funeral. Where was the empathy for those who had to bury their loved ones alone? Where was her empathy for those who did not get a chance to say goodbye? Sinn Féin is quite happy to do what it wants without showing any empathy, but, in this instance, it is content to forget all about that.

Mr Speaker: Given that, as already stated, a question for urgent oral answer on that subject has been accepted, asking a topical question on it is a discourtesy to the Member who tabled the question for urgent oral answer. I will give questions to as many Sinn Féin Members who want to ask questions. I will create that opportunity, but it is not proper that —.

Ms Ennis: It is Question Time.

Mr Speaker: This is Question Time. The question for urgent oral answer has been accepted and will be asked immediately after this. You will have the opportunity to quiz the Minister on it then. If you have another question on another subject, I would be very happy to hear it.

Ms Ennis: I want to ask a question on this topic.

Mr Speaker: We will hear it after Mr O'Toole asks his question.

Mr Lyons: My Department is committed to town centre regeneration and has recently invested £150,000 in the Limavady revitalisation scheme. That investment has benefited 35 properties in Catherine Street and Irish Green Street, allowing businesses to repair and replace signage, repaint frontages and install new windows, doors, shutters and guttering.

In 2024, my officials engaged with the council in the review of the Limavady master plan 2011, within which many of the derelict sites were highlighted as development opportunities. My officials also took part in a walkabout of Limavady town centre with council officials on 15 January 2026 to identify derelict and vacant sites and regeneration opportunities.

Mr Speaker: Thank you. That brings to a conclusion questions to the Minister for Communities.

Mrs Dillon: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am certain that you are well capable of doing your job, Mr Speaker. If you were not content with my tone during Question Time, you would have held me to account. Is it in order for the Whip of the party opposite to repeatedly tell a Member, in the middle of her question, to "calm down"? I have never heard the words "she" and "her" in the Chamber as much in the past 10 years as I have during this Question Time.

Mr Speaker: Members know that I am quite relaxed about a bit of argy-bargy across the Chamber. The Member was quite vociferous in her style today, and that is acceptable. However, when you say things that are, perhaps, a bit provocative, do not be surprised when someone is provoked. It is about give and take. If you are going to be robust, expect a bit of that back. I do not discourage any of that, because I like to see a robust Chamber where Members are passionate advocates for their constituents and the people whom they represent.

Ms Ennis: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. What has just happened here in Question Time is highly irregular. Is it convention, or is it in Standing Orders, that you prevent Members from asking questions? It is Question Time, after all. Furthermore, given that the Communities Minister was up for Question Time, I question whether you should have accepted the question for urgent oral answer. Was that in keeping with Standing Orders and convention?

Mr Speaker: Ms Ennis, you are coming very close to challenging the decisions of the Speaker. I urge you to row back on doing that. I was reminded by the Clerk that the question for urgent oral answer was coming up. It is only good courtesy. I would do it on all sorts of issues. This is not the first time that an issue has come up during Question Time, and Members have been reminded that the matter is in the Order Paper at a later point and is to be discussed fulsomely then. I can understand that maybe Members wished to pre-empt what Mr O'Toole put in, but they did not succeed.

Mr Speaker: Mr O'Toole has given notice of a question for urgent oral answer to the Minister for Communities. I remind Members that, if they wish to ask a supplementary question, they should rise continually in their place. There will be plenty of opportunity for you, Ms Ennis, and everybody else to ask their supplementary question.

Mr Lyons (The Minister for Communities): I am grateful to the Member for asking the question and giving me the opportunity to respond to the findings of the report. I welcome the fact that the report has confirmed what I said in the immediate aftermath of the events of that day. Her investigation has confirmed that, first, the PSNI asked me to put out a message clarifying that those who moved to the leisure centre were not there, and, secondly, that I did not reveal the location of anyone, despite the comments of some Members, nor was I the one who had initially revealed where they had been. Most of all, I welcome the fact that the commissioner has said that there is:

between my post and violence.

As Members will be aware, I disagree with the findings, because I believe that they are based on statements that are incorrect and that the commissioner has introduced a new standard for leadership, which includes what she considers to be an appropriate demonstration of emotion and a refusal to criticise public bodies. Therefore, I am in the position where I encourage everybody to read the report and my response.

What happened at Larne leisure centre that evening was nothing short of a disgrace. It had serious and continuing impacts for the swimmers and staff who were at the leisure centre at that time. Discrimination or violence against somebody because of their race is abhorrent and has no place in society. I will always work with others to ensure that we remove that scourge.

Mr O'Toole: Minister, to be clear, you said in your answer that the PSNI asked you to communicate the information, but it did not. It asked your colleague, a DUP councillor. You said that the standards commissioner has introduced a "new standard" for empathy and non-criticism of public bodies; she does not. She is clear in her articulation of how you breached the Nolan principles and the ministerial code. In addition, it is not your first rodeo, Minister, as you breached the ministerial code by blocking the operation of the North/South Ministerial Council.

Minister, many people feel that you have repeatedly proven yourself to be unfit for office, and you have been found repeatedly in breach of the ministerial code. I welcome the fact that you have belatedly and eventually offered some words of solace and empathy for those who were caught up in the appalling racial violence in Larne and Ballymena, but is there anything — anything at all — that would ever lead you and your party to demonstrate any accountability or humility?

Mr Lyons: Entirely predictably, Mr O'Toole has got it wrong again. Let me be clear: he states that today is the first time that I have shown any compassion for those who were caught up in the events of June last year. That is an absolutely outrageous thing to say. Before those events, I stood against previous race rioting and difficulties. When there were attacks in Antrim, I stood shoulder to shoulder with Grainia Long outside the Northern Ireland Housing Executive offices after showing support and condemning what had taken place. In the aftermath of what happened, I repeatedly condemned the events in the media. It is wrong for the Member to stand in the Chamber and say, "This is the first time that the Minister has condemned this", and he knows that it is wrong, but he says it because he is trying to pull the wool over people's eyes. He was floundering on the radio this morning because he could not answer the questions that were put to him.

Among all the theatrics and dramatics from the Member, there is a serious lesson for us all: watch out, because a new standard has apparently been set. The bar has been raised in relation to what we can and cannot say. It is not just about me. Tomorrow, it could be about anybody else, if the same standard is applied to everybody else. Failing to display appropriate emotion or criticising public bodies should not lead to a finding of a breach of the ministerial code of conduct or the MLA code of conduct, because freedom of speech is the cornerstone of any democracy.

The idea that it would have been my intention to —.

Mr Speaker: Minister, I remind you of the two-minute rule. You may get an opportunity to continue that answer in response to another question.

Mr Gildernew: Minister, you have been embroiled in a series of court cases. You very helpfully pointed out earlier to Members and the public that the Committee for Communities has expressed a lack of confidence in you. You have been found to be in breach of standards not once but twice now. Is it just the case that you are simply incapable of accepting that you are ever wrong about anything?

Mr Lyons: I will say to the Member the same thing that I said to Matthew O'Toole: it would be good for the Member to consider what is in the report. Yes, I will not say that I agree with something when I believe that it is wrong. That would demonstrate a complete lack of integrity on my part. It would be wrong for me say, "That is fine; I accept it" when I know that it is not true. That is not something that I will do.

I will point out the errors that I see in the report and defend the actions that I have taken. Again, I encourage people to read the report and make up their minds for themselves.

Ms Forsythe: The commissioner said:

Does the Minister feel that it is appropriate for a commissioner to express an opinion on the views of DUP voters and, indeed, his constituents?

Mr Lyons: No, I do not. That was an absolutely disgraceful comment for the commissioner to have made. It presumes what my constituents believe. In fact, I believe that it stereotypes them. It was highly inappropriate. For a standards commissioner to have credibility, they need to produce reports that are based on fact. The commissioner needs to make sure that all people are held to the same standards.

Ms Mulholland: Does the Minister believe that the ministerial code has any meaning whatsoever, if Ministers can reject the findings on a breach not once, but twice, and face no consequences? The public cannot hold you to account, Minister, and this Assembly cannot hold you to account. Is that correct?

Mr Lyons: The public do hold me to account. They have returned me to this place three times, and I leave it entirely up to their wisdom to decide whether I come back again. The commissioner has published her report. I agree with the evidence that she produced, but I disagree with her findings. I will not say that I agree with something if I believe that it is wrong.

Dr Aiken: I make a declaration of interest, as my office was named in the report of the Commissioner for Standards, a member of my family was present in the swimming pool on the evening in question, and I was in the vicinity that evening. I also thank the Minister and Danny Donnelly MLA for their work on that particularly difficult evening.

Does the Minister find it surprising that the commissioner based her conclusions about his lack of empathy and compassion on the information that she cited, when, despite citing our offices, she never contacted our offices, our staff or, indeed, any of those to whom you have subsequently reached out? She never bothered to seek our views, which were expressly the opposite to those that she wrongly expounded.

Mr Lyons: I had not considered that. It is fascinating, but not all that surprising, that the commissioner did not seek to interview you. She made a number of presumptions about what people on the ground may have thought that night, but she did not speak to anybody. She said that my actions "may have" had a consequence but gave no evidence. My actions may, equally, have had no consequence or have had the opposite consequence.

No, I am not at all surprised, but it is wrong: she should have sought that. I certainly believe that there may have been a different outcome had she gone a little further and interviewed some more people.

I thank the Member for his support. It would be very easy for him to join the political pile on. Knowing what he does, however, he did what I believe to be the honourable thing.

Mrs Mason: Minister, what we witnessed last June was nothing short of appalling. I will say this in my role as Deputy Chair of the Communities Committee. Minister, your attempts to paint yourself as a victim of — in your words — a "political pile on" are absolutely disgraceful and simply not credible. People see it for what it is. Surely you can accept how insulting that is to the actual victims — those who were subjected to those disgusting, violent and racist attacks.

Mr Lyons: Absolutely. The people who were impacted on are the victims; I made that clear in my original answer, and I stand with those people and with those who continue to face the impacts. However, the report has consequences for all Ministers and MLAs. I ask the Member this: is she content for her Ministers to be held to the same standard? There she goes — she just shrugs it off.

Mrs Mason: You have not answered the question.

Mr Lyons: They are not prepared for their own Ministers to be held to the same high standard. That is the point.

Mrs Cameron: I am privileged to have known the Minister in lots of capacities, over many years, and I am proud to call him a friend. I know about his very good character and the type of things he does and says. Does the Minister believe that the report contains opinions rather than facts?

Mr Lyons: Yes, it does, and I highlighted those in my response to the Committee. Indeed, the commissioner has form in that area. She wrote to me with her findings of fact, and I responded to her to say that I believed that she was incorrect. In her response, she said:

I believe that, in her subsequent report, she continued to indulge in giving opinions rather than in providing evidence-based information.

I thank the Member for her kind words. The idea that it would have been my intention to use my ministerial platform for what I have been accused of is not only absurd but offensive and entirely untrue.

Those who know me will know the truth of the situation, and, for those of you who do not, there is certainly some political opportunism on show today.

Mr Tennyson: Minister, the truth of the matter is that, last June, a number of families, including a pregnant mother, were moved into temporary accommodation for their own safety, and your response, as Minister, was to amplify the location of the temporary accommodation and distance yourself from the decision to place them there. Beneath the bravado, Minister, you know that, if you were a Minister in any other part of these islands, you would already be gone. Surely you owe those families an apology.

Mr Lyons: There we go again: there is the insinuation and the mistruth from the Member. Let me be clear: I did not reveal anybody's location, because my post was published hours after those vulnerable people had been moved. It did not reveal the location. Did it reveal where they had been? Yes, after advice from the PSNI. The PSNI contacted a member of staff in my office, who is also a councillor, to highlight the fact that there was concern that people were going to use the leisure centre as a protest point. The PSNI wanted to get the information out that the people who were seeking refuge were no longer there. I was not the one who initially revealed the information: it had been publicised by Mid and East Antrim Borough Council, and it had been published online by a media outlet.

My intentions that day were clear: to keep calm, stop any violence and make sure that we had a satisfactory outcome. That did not happen, and I am deeply angered that it was not the case. However, the idea being insinuated here that, in some way, I revealed the whereabouts of vulnerable people is absolutely incorrect.

Mrs Dillon: The tone of the whole conversation is sad. If it happened in the town that I represent, as a community leader, I would ask the council to open the leisure centre. I would bring the people who had been driven out of their homes by violent thugs to the leisure centre and make sure that they were safe while they were there. That is exactly what all of you who are talking now, including Mr Aiken, should have done.

Dr Aiken: That is what I was doing.

Mrs Dillon: You should be honest in these proceedings and admit that you have an axe to grind.

Dr Aiken: That is what I was doing.

Mrs Dillon: You have an axe to grind with the commissioner.

Dr Aiken: That is what I was doing. You can ask people who were there.

Mrs Dillon: You have an axe to grind with the commissioner.

Mr Speaker: Order, order. Can we get to a question, Ms Dillon?

Mrs Dillon: Absolutely.

Dr Aiken: You were not there.

Mr Speaker: Order, order, Mr Aiken.

Mrs Dillon: Having previously sat on the Committee on Standards and Privileges, I assume that the commissioner took legal advice on her report.

Mr Speaker: Can I have a question, please?

Mrs Dillon: Therefore, the report carries legal weight. You do not have to say, "I agree with everything in it", but, for once in your life, will you just accept that you were wrong?

Mr Lyons: The Member should not complain about the tone of debate and then cast about some of the assertions that she has made. I have set out why I took the actions that I took. She can pontificate all she wants, but I will come straight back to her: you are not prepared to hold your Ministers to the same standard as you would hold others. She should reflect on that. I encourage her — I am fairly sure that she has not done so — to read the whole report.

Mr Buckley: The Minister is right to highlight the far-reaching consequences of the introduction of a new empathy test. Perhaps we should put it to the test. How would the Minister rate the Alliance Party's Andrew Muir on that empathy? He is a man who continues to demonise the agricultural community and wage war on their livelihoods and who recently received a no-confidence motion from the Ulster Farmers' Union. How is that for empathy? [Interruption.]

Mr Speaker: Order. Mr Buckley, that is not relevant to the Minister.

Mr Lyons: The response from the Alliance Party says it all. The Member makes his point in his unique way. I will say it again: a new bar has been set; a new standard has been established. Do they really want that same standard to apply to everyone?

Mr Donnelly: Like Steve Aiken, I declare an interest: I was present at Larne Leisure Centre with members of the swimming club, local families and staff on the night that it was attacked and burned. It is a miracle that nobody was injured or killed. It was an incredibly serious incident, and, regardless of his intention, the Minister's Facebook post formed part of the wider public rhetoric in the period leading up to what occurred.

Following the attack on the leisure centre, what steps has the Minister taken to ensure that his future public communications are unambiguous, responsible and fully compliant with the ministerial code and actively support de-escalation for everyone in our community? Why did he not ask people not to go to the protest?

Mr Lyons: He talks about de-escalation: that is exactly what I was trying to do. Read the post.

Mr Donnelly: No, it was not.

Mr Lyons: Yes, it was. The Member is now taking it on himself to decide what I was or was not intending to do. That is what I was intending to do. The fact is that I called for people to be peaceful. The fact is that I was establishing information to make sure that it was in the public domain so that it could have been of assistance.

I say clearly that I will always do what I think is in the best interests of my constituents. I felt that, at that time, I was doing what I could to defuse a situation and provide clarity. Unfortunately, those involved did not listen to me, but I will continue to do what I can.

Ms Ennis: Minister, the arrogance that you continue to display and your complete inability to accept your own failings is truly breathtaking. We all recall the violent scenes at Larne Leisure Centre last summer. Do you accept that your comments may have heightened tensions further and contributed to the unrest?

Mr Lyons: No, I do not. In fact, I remind her of the commissioner's findings:

a connection between my post and the violence. The Member has been shaking her head throughout my contribution this afternoon, but those are the facts, and those facts are backed up by evidence that the commissioner found.

I will ask the question again: is she prepared to criticise on the same basis the Sinn Féin Ministers who attended Bobby Storey's funeral

and created a huge amount of upset?

Ms Ennis: This is about you.

Mr Lyons: They created a huge amount of upset.

Ms Ennis: You are deflecting and distracting.

Mr Lyons: You say that it is about me today, but it is about equality of standards and equality of — [Interruption.]

You talk about deflection, but who is deflecting now? [Interruption.]

Who does not want to talk about the Bobby Storey funeral? That is key to the issue. We are talking about a new standard of empathy. In June and July 2020, there was no empathy on display at all for people who were not able to go about funerals in the normal way. The Member would do well to reflect on that if she agrees that it is a new standard to which Ministers should be held.

Mr Frew: The Minister spoke of a concern about Ministers being held to a new and novel standard on empathy. The same commissioner recently undertook a report on the conduct of Michelle O'Neill under the ministerial code. What is the Minister's analysis of how the two investigations compare?

Mr Lyons: I have not done an analysis, but, helpfully, somebody sent me an analysis that was produced using AI. AI was asked to compare the two reports and how the commissioner approached each of them. [Interruption.]

The analysis stated that the commissioner applied two — [Interruption.]

Mr Lyons: You might want to listen, Mr O'Toole. I know that you have a great interest in AI.

The analysis stated that the commissioner applied two materially different standards — a qualitative, impact-based standard in the Lyons case and a narrow, evidentiary standard in the O'Neill case — and that inconsistency raises legitimate questions about consistency, proportionality and application of the ministerial code.

Mr Durkan: In isolation, some people — definitely not all people — may be inclined to accept the Minister's explanation and pleas of innocence, but, in the context of some of the same Minister's utterances and those of his party colleagues about immigration, it is a little harder to swallow. The Minister naturally continues to contend strongly that he did absolutely nothing wrong. Does that mean that, heaven forbid, were a similar situation to arise in the future, he would do absolutely nothing differently?

Mr Lyons: I would take the evidence that I had. I would listen to those, such as the PSNI, who gave their opinion and assessment of the security situation, and I would respond accordingly.

Ms Nicholl: I am minded that, at the heart of this, there are people who were terrified by an awful occurrence in our society. The Minister does not agree with several Members in the House, but does he agree that relations feel very low and that trust seems to be at rock bottom across the House? For him to deliver in his job, we need to be able to work together. What steps will be taken to restore the faith that is missing in the Chamber?

Mr Lyons: I cannot speak to other people's views or on what steps others may or may not take. I will give this commitment, however: I will continue in the vein in which I have been working for the past two years. I will get on with delivering what I can; I will work with Executive colleagues to deliver where I can; and I will operate within the bounds of the Department. I am more than happy for my record as Minister to be scrutinised. I am more than happy for people to look at the actions that I have taken and at what I have been able to do within the context in which I have been operating. I will continue to do that.

I am willing to work with others. I have seen some of the outrageous comments that others have made on social media and elsewhere. That is OK; that is fine. I will continue to work with other people. It is up to them to decide what approach they will take.

Mr Gaston: Minister, do you believe that the current standards process properly protects Ministers and Members from unjust or unsupported conclusions? Furthermore, do you believe that the findings against you undermine other decisions that the commissioner has taken?

Mr Lyons: I certainly believe that there are questions to be asked about that approach, and I have outlined some of those today. The comparison between the report on me and the report on the First Minister is telling. Changes need to be made. We have a new commissioner in post, and there is further work to be done, particularly on the ministerial code and when it applies. I understand that Cathy Mason sent a letter to the First Minister and the deputy First Minister because of uncertainty around that.

Is there work to be done? Absolutely. We need to be able to have confidence in the procedures that are in place. Having gone through the process, I find it hard to have that confidence.

Mr Carroll: The first thing is that empathy is not a dirty word. It should be the bare minimum for people involved in politics. [Interruption.]

Point somewhere else, Mr Pro-Israel, point somewhere else. [Interruption.]

May I continue? [Interruption.]

I will not be shouted down. Empathy is not a dirty word; it should be the bare minimum for anybody who enters politics, never mind holds ministerial office.

Minister, how many breaches of the ministerial code are acceptable before a Minister should, first, apologise, never mind step aside because they are clearly unfit for the job?

Mr Lyons: This is maybe one Question Time that the Member should have sat out. It is outrageous that he has the cheek to ask questions about what I have done. Let us remember what Mr Carroll did. When hundreds of Jews were being massacred on 7 October, what was his response? "Up the Palestinian resistance". Empathy? Where was his empathy? He comes now with his double standards. He had empathy with Hamas, but he had no empathy with innocent people who were attending a music festival. So, no, I will not take any lessons from Gerry Carroll after the outrageous and disgraceful comments that he made online. I was trying to tell people to stay away from violence, whereas he was encouraging it. That is absolutely disgraceful.

The Member talks about empathy, and he is absolutely right on one point: we should all have empathy and compassion for others. What I dispute is that I have failed, in my public life, to show empathy. It is not up to a commissioner, on the basis of one post, to decide whether I am demonstrating empathy in the work that I do or to hold me to the moralistic standards of others. It is absolutely outrageous that the Member would take part in these questions, considering what he has been involved in.

Mr McHugh: Following on from when I was interrupted the previous time, I make the point that the Commissioner for Standards has found the Minister guilty on two points. Minister, are you incapable of accepting that reality? Are you challenging the independence and impartiality of the commissioner's office?

Mr Lyons: Do I accept that she has made the ruling? Yes, it is a fact that she has made a ruling. I disagree with it, yes, and I absolutely question it, because I believe that some of it is based on inaccurate information and some of it is based on a standard that has not previously been in place. I think that we should challenge something when it is wrong, and I will absolutely challenge it, as is my right, as someone who has been elected to this place to stand up and speak up for my constituents, regardless of whether that may go against the grain and regardless of whether, at times, that may offend the sensibilities of some. It is important that we feel that we can speak up in this place and stand up for our constituents. There were some quite frankly ridiculous comments about my supposedly criticising public bodies. I did not do that, but, even if I did, we should all have the right to criticise those who also hold public office and ensure that they can be held to account. I think that it is absolutely wrong that someone is trying to gag public representatives and impinge on their freedom to properly stand up and speak up for their constituents.

Mr Brett: Minister, do you agree that you will take no lectures on the ministerial code from the party opposite, given that the only Minister in the history of this state convicted of religious discrimination against a Protestant was a Sinn Féin Minister? On the issue of public safety, we will take no lectures, given that Sinn Féin set aside public safety for a Provo show of strength. Finally, does he agree that, when it comes to empathy, the Ministers opposite should stop attending celebrations of bloodthirsty IRA sectarian killers?

Mr Lyons: I thank the Member for North Belfast for so succinctly pointing out the hypocrisy of the position of the Members opposite. He is absolutely right, and one thing that has been very clear today is that the double standards of Sinn Féin have been on show for everybody to see.

Mr Speaker: Are there any more Members who would like to ask a question? I would not want to be accused of not facilitating the appropriate scrutiny of the Minister. OK. Thank you. That brings to a conclusion questions to the Minister for Communities.

Mr O'Dowd (The Minister of Finance): Regular revaluations are a central pillar of the rating system here. Reval2026 will redistribute business rates in the fairest possible way, using the most up-to-date rental values based on market evidence at a point in time, to ensure that properties are contributing on a consistent and fair basis.

Revaluation does not increase the overall amount raised from rates. Business representatives have consistently called for more frequent revaluations. The draft values now reflect market conditions on 1 April 2024. Overall, the values of non-domestic properties have increased by 15% since the previous revaluation, with around two thirds of ratepayers potentially seeing little or no difference in their rates bills as a result, including many high street shops in towns and villages. However, as with all revaluations, some ratepayers will pay more. Pub and hotel sector discounts applied during the previous revaluation, which took place during the pandemic, have been removed. In some cases, increases also reflect increased trading performance and material changes to premises, such as extensions or refurbishments, resulting in higher rental values.

It is important to highlight the fact that a percentage increase in a property value will not lead to a rates bill rising by the same percentage, as poundages will be adjusted ahead of the rates bills being issued and will take account of the growth in property values at Reval2026. Draft values have been published to allow ratepayers to plan for the change on 1 April. I encourage anyone who has not previously engaged with Land and Property Services (LPS) to take the opportunity to do so now and share any evidence that may help to reflect their individual circumstances. The hospitality sector has, to date, been less likely to provide accounts information, with only 30% of it responding. We are keen to hear from businesses. Any additional information that they provide will be carefully considered by my valuation officials.

Mr Brett: It is clear that something has gone badly wrong here, and, once again, our hospitality sector is the victim. How can the Minister stand over a process that, at two months' notice, imposes tens of thousands and, in some cases, hundreds of thousands of pounds of rates increases on our hard-pressed hospitality sector? Will he commit to pausing the review's implementation, at this stage, until he meets representatives of the hospitality sector? Will he commit today to meeting representatives of the hospitality sector in North Belfast, who have invested in parts of our city that no one else has in years and are expected to pay tens of thousands of pounds extra, which they cannot afford?

Mr O'Dowd: The Member states that something has clearly gone wrong, but he did not state what that was. I have heard commentary and discussion on the matter, and understandably so, but, when the Member comes out with a statement such as that, saying that something has clearly gone wrong with the rates valuation process, he needs to back it up with evidence.

Mr Brett: You need to back up [Inaudible.]

Mr O'Dowd: I have the evidence. That is the difference between me and you.

Mr Brett: So what —?

Mr Speaker: Order. [Inaudible.]

Mr O'Dowd: A set process is in place; it is carried out by the valuators. That process has been conducted. I recommend this to the Member and to any other Member of the House: if any business approaches you and is concerned about the revaluation, the first thing that you should ask them is, "Have you provided to Land and Property Services the information requested from you, at least 16 months ago? If you have not provided it, there is still an opportunity for you to provide that information before 1 April. If you provide the information to Land and Property Services before 1 April, it will be able to look at your case to see whether there has been a fair valuation and everything has been taken into account, and there may be a change to your valuation". The Member cannot stand in the Chamber and say that something has clearly gone wrong without backing it up with the information.

Mr O'Toole: We have already seen one display of ministerial arrogance in the Chamber. Now, it seems, we are seeing another. Minister, you have previous in blaming other people for things that are happening in your Department. Now, it seems that it is publicans and hospitality owners who did not do the work. Let us be clear: pubs across the North are going to shut as a result of this. They face real cost pressures already, as a result of a whole range of things, and you simply tell them, "It is not my problem. Go away. You should have submitted your homework earlier". Minister, are you genuinely standing by this revaluation as it stands? We are all hearing from pubs and hospitality businesses in our constituencies that this is going to shut them down. That will have real impacts on communities, loneliness and employment in local areas.

Mr O'Dowd: Again, the Member makes a claim without backing it up with any evidence: that I come to the Chamber and blame other people for my mistakes. Would you like to take the opportunity to give me an example of that? Give me an example of when I have done that. [Interruption.] [Inaudible.]

Mr O'Dowd: If we are seriously interested in helping local pubs and hotels, let us have the opportunity to debate the issues instead of trying to make a headline.

Let us look at the facts. Again, I say this: if a pub or hotel is concerned that the valuation that it has received is not correct or accurate, the first question that you should ask them is, "Have you submitted the evidence that was required by the valuators to value your property?". To ask that is not about blaming anyone; it is part of the process of helping your constituent. If they have not done that, for whatever reason — I do not blame anyone for not doing it: I just point it out — they should approach Land and Property Services before 1 April with the information. If they bring the information forward to Land and Property Services, it will be able to evaluate it and come to a decision as to whether the valuation that they received was correct and fair. If the constituent disagrees with that decision, they can make an appeal to the district valuer. If they are not satisfied with the decision from the district valuer, they can go to the commissioner. If they are not satisfied with the decision from the commissioner, they can use their rights of appeal to the Lands Tribunal. It is not the end of the process.

When Mr O'Toole asks me whether I stand by the process, my answer is that the process has been carried out properly. The process has been carried out properly and has brought us to the point that we are at: the point at which the hospitality industry in particular has seen an increase in its valuations in certain circumstances. That is a reflection —

Mr Speaker: Time is up, Minister.

Mr O'Dowd: — of the market as it was on 1 April 2024.

Miss Dolan: Minister, you have partially answered my question. For the purposes of clarity, will you confirm that businesses still have an opportunity to engage with LPS?

Mr O'Dowd: That needs to be the message that comes out of the Chamber today, rather than people's seeking to grab headlines that will disappear as quickly as they appeared.

Mr McNulty: Businesses will disappear.

Mr O'Dowd: What are you mumbling?

Mr McNulty: Businesses will disappear.

Mr O'Dowd: Right. Clearly, you are not interested in hearing what the process is. [Inaudible.]

Mr O'Dowd: Clearly, you are not, or you would not interrupt.

Mr Speaker: Address your remarks through the Chair, Mr O'Dowd.

Mr O'Dowd: The process has not been completed. If individual businesses are concerned about their valuation, they should approach LPS before 1 April, provide the information, and LPS will evaluate their claim. After 1 April, they will have to go through the statutory process, which, as I said, is through the district valuer, the commissioner and the right of appeal to the Lands Tribunal. I am giving you the information that you need to assist constituents who approach you.

On the broader principle, this is about the fair and equitable distribution of the rates burden across the sector. Those Members who tell me, "Go away and stop that" are actually telling that to their constituents who have got a rates valuation that is either the same or lower than it was previously —.

Mr Brett: Give us an example.

Mr O'Dowd: There are many examples in your constituency.

Mr Brett: Give us an example.

Mr O'Dowd: You are telling those ratepayers who have received a valuation that is either the same or lower than it was previously that they should carry a greater rates burden than they do currently. That is what you are saying to them: "Carry a greater rates burden than you do currently".

Mr Tennyson: As a result of the revaluation, some pubs and hospitality businesses have seen their rateable values increase by 70% and 80%. They face a pincer movement of rising costs, which could lead to them closing their doors. During the last revaluation in Scotland, a transitional revaluation relief was offered. Have you considered taking such an approach to support businesses?

Mr O'Dowd: A transitional revaluation relief was also offered here during the COVID pandemic. As far as I am aware, England and Scotland are carrying out a rates revaluation that is based on the market as it was on 1 April 2024, so they will reflect the COVID period as well. I emphasise the fact that the valuation that Members' local businesses will have received is not their rates bill or what their rates bill will be. Before we will understand fully what the rates bill will be, the district rate has to be set by our councils, and the regional rate has to be set by the Assembly and Executive. That will give Members the full picture of what the rates bill will be.

Of course, if the valuation increases, it is logical to say that the rates bill will increase. It will not, however, increase by 86%, 90% or whatever it might be, as some people have said and as has been reported in some headlines. It will increase across the board. The other thing to remember is that this is not about my Department or the Executive collecting more rates. The poundage will be adjusted, and, as a result, the same rates will be collected. Rates collection will increase only as a result of the regional rate and district rate percentages increasing.

Mr Stewart: Minister, you said that the plan was for Reval2026 to be fair and reasonable. It is not fair and reasonable to the hospitality industry or to the constituent of mine whose small hotel has not made a profit for four years and who, despite having filled out all the necessary requirements, will see their rates bill double. They are telling me that it might be the final nail in the coffin. Your colleague in the Department for the Economy is rightly trying to encourage people to go into hospitality and tourism, yet your Department is hammering them into the ground. How do you square that circle, Minister? What do you say to the hospitality sector?

Mr O'Dowd: I do not know the circumstances of the individual case, and I am reluctant to get into it. However, if your constituent is telling you that they have not made a profit for four years, and that they have provided all the information to Land and Property Services, I suggest that they go back to LPS, because, if their rateable value has increased by 50%, which, I think, is what you said —.

Mr Stewart: It has doubled.

Mr O'Dowd: It has doubled? I do not know what the outcome will be, but I suggest that they ask Land and Property Services for a revaluation to be done, as is their right. As I said, once 1 April kicks in, there will be another three steps that businesses can take to challenge the information.

When a revaluation is carried out, there will be changes to individual properties. Some properties will face challenges; other properties will see no change at all; and some will see lower valuations than previously. No one has yet pointed out to me how the process is faulty or flawed. The process is correct, but there may be circumstances in which individual businesses believe — it may be the case — that the revaluation will lower their rateable value outcomes, but they need the information to prove that.

Mr Delargy: Minister, have you considered any plans to support businesses that may wish to expand?

Mr O'Dowd: Yes. As part of the proposals that I brought before the Assembly earlier this year, I said that I would like businesses that are expanding and building extensions etc to be given a rates break of up to a year. That is part of the proposals that I would like to bring forward. We have to encourage businesses to expand. Some premises have seen a significant increase in their valuation as a direct result of a significant physical expansion. The bigger the premises, the more rates you will pay, but I would like to see a scenario in which rates on the expansion are either reduced or removed for the first year.

Ms Forsythe: Minister, the hospitality sector was shut down during COVID and has struggled to get back on its feet. It was hit hard by the increases in employers' National Insurance. It is vital to our tourism industry, and it has now been hit with rates increases. Is there a realistic prospect of hospitality businesses being able to increase their revenues to the level of the rates increases before the new bills take effect on 1 April 2026?

Mr O'Dowd: It is clear that COVID had a major impact on the hospitality sector. That was recognised for several years in the support that it was given during the COVID pandemic, which was considerable, and the rates break that it was given during COVID, which cost significant amounts of money. However, we are no longer in COVID, as your colleague beside you will remind everyone. We have moved on. It is now time for a rates evaluation based on 2024 so that everyone pays a fair and equitable amount of rates. As I have said repeatedly, there are businesses that, as a result of significant physical change to their premises, the potential of their premises or the information that they have or have not returned at this stage, will see a change in their value this time. However, to date, no one has shown me how the system or process has not been properly run, and no one has come forward with an alternative and said, "No, we should do it this way". The system that we use delivers a fair and equitable rates base, but it will always present challenges to some.

Miss McAllister: Minister, the Sailortown area of North Belfast has often been neglected when it comes to investment from government bodies. I think of the lack of decision about the York Street interchange and the lack of connectivity between Sailortown, the rest of North Belfast, the city centre and Ulster University. Yet, there are businesses, including hospitality organisations and pubs, that have been there for years. The American Bar and others have put a stake in the area to really try to regenerate it. Seatons of Sailortown has seen its value increase by 282% in the current assessment. Should issues such as the lack of investment, the decisions around the York Street interchange —

Mr Speaker: Question, Miss McAllister.

Miss McAllister: — and dereliction be a contributory factor in the assessments?

Mr O'Dowd: I am reluctant to talk about individual cases. If there is an argument to be made about the rateable value of a premises — I think that, in general, the environment surrounding a premises should affect its rateable value — that should be presented to LPS. I encourage you and the constituents with whom you are working to do so before 1 April.

Miss Hargey: Minister, will you outline the supports for local businesses under the current rating system? What provisions are there in the proposed three-year Budget for further supports?

Mr O'Dowd: The Member makes a good point. Some 70% to 75% of businesses benefit from the small business rate relief scheme. In proposals that I have brought forward, I would like to see more businesses brought into the rate relief scheme in recognition of the challenges that they face. There are already a significant number of businesses in the scheme, and we can broaden that number. In the draft Budget, I have set aside £10 million in 2026-27 directly for the purposes of supporting small-to-medium businesses through this period to meet future challenges and to take up opportunities.

Mr Frew: The information that the Minister has put out on the valuation of businesses and the percentage increases that some have received have sent shock waves through the industry. That is only part of the story that the Minister has told today, however. Will he commit to opening a direct line to all the businesses with massive concerns about their valuation so that they will be able to work out, per pound, the increase in their rates bill?

Mr O'Dowd: As I said, you will not be able to work out the actual rates increase until the district and regional rates have been set. LPS has, however, taken on extra staff and put in place resources in the knowledge that businesses will want to speak directly to someone. I again encourage MLAs to engage with their constituents and encourage business owners who have concerns to engage directly with LPS. The service is there: LPS is expecting calls. Indeed, some of the businesses that have expressed concerns are already in contact with LPS, and I encourage anyone who has concerns to contact it.

Mr Honeyford: Minister, I appreciate that you do not want to answer questions about specific businesses, but I will give you an example, because rates are based on hypothetical turnover figures that LPS produces for what a business, such as a pub, can achieve. I am not getting at any businesses, because I want all to excel, but a large American food chain pays rates of approximately 1% on an £8 million turnover. If I speak to a pub owner in Moira in my constituency, however, I hear that he is paying rates of 3% to 5%. Both have same similar rates bills — about £80,000 — but one has a turnover of £8 million, and its gross profits are similar, at 67%. The pub would need to be doing £10 million. I want all businesses to excel —.

Mr Speaker: Do you have a question, Mr Honeyford?

Mr Honeyford: Yes.

Mr Speaker: Your explanation is a bit long.

Mr Honeyford: Have you undertaken a review of the methodology to see where this comes from?

Mr O'Dowd: At this stage, I am not in a position to respond to the Member on whether the statistics that he quotes are correct or incorrect. When a premises does not respond to the valuation request with the information that is asked for, that leaves the valuers in the position of having to make an estimate. That estimate is based on the size of the property; what services it provides, such as food or alcohol; and whether it has bedrooms. Corresponding valuations in the area are also considered. It is always best for a premises to produce the information that is requested to allow for a fair valuation to take place. For pubs and clubs, that is done on the basis of receipts and so on. Some information can be got from Companies House and other places.

There is a proposal coming forward in England and Scotland about how exactly pubs and clubs are to be evaluated on the basis of turnover. In the Chamber, I have already committed to reflecting on the outcome of that to see whether we can learn lessons. There is therefore always potential for a process to evolve. The process used to date has proven to be fair, however. That may sound harsh to a business that has had a significant increase in its valuation, but it may be accompanied by a business with a valuation that has gone down or remained the same. It has to be fair across the board. I assure everyone who is listening that LPS is ready to engage. That is the best way forward.

Dr Aiken: Minister, the Finance Committee was at LPS a couple of weeks ago. One discussion that we had was about how the revaluation process would be flatted and how there would be ups and downs. We have heard much from the hospitality industry about how its valuations have gone up. Minister, from your briefing by LPS, will you explain the areas in which valuations have gone down?

Mr O'Dowd: The retail sector in particular, perhaps unsurprisingly, given the changing nature of our shopping trends, has seen a decrease, probably everywhere apart from Belfast. For office accommodation, valuations have remained static — they have gone down. The valuations of warehouses and other areas of manufacturing have stayed about the same.

Mr McNulty: Minister, I have spoken to hotel owners, coffee chains, publicans and businesses who say that your rates hikes are a scandal and a disgrace. They say that nobody can afford them; they are not fair; jobs will be lost; and town centres will be further gutted. They say that your proposed rates hikes are the final nail in the coffin and will increase the shutdown. Minister, are you telling me that they do not know what they are talking about?

Mr O'Dowd: No, but I am suggesting that you do not know what you are talking about. I suspect that I am not the first person to say that to you.

The issue is this — [Interruption.]

If you had been listening to me — [Interruption.]

Mr McNulty: I am not laughing.

Mr O'Dowd: I did not ask you to laugh.

Mr McNulty: Enjoy your laugh and then get on with it.

Mr Speaker: Through the Chair.

Mr O'Dowd: I did not ask you to laugh. I gave you my opinion.

The reality of the situation is this: when you speak to the pub owners and hotel owners in your area, you will have the information that I have given you that will assist them on the journey through this. You can meet them and make political points, if you wish, or you can say, "During Question Time, I learned this: if you're not satisfied with your valuation, you should contact LPS immediately. If you don't contact it before 1 April, you will have to make an appeal through the district valuer. If you don't agree with the outcome from the district valuer, you will have to go to the commissioner. If you don't agree with the commissioner's outcome, you will have to use the right of appeal through the tribunal". There are a number of processes. Grabbing headlines will not help any business in your constituency, but the information that I have given you just might.

Mr Kingston: Minister, businesses might expect and understand a small change in rateable value and rates, but Hospitality Ulster tells us that some pubs and hotels have seen increases of 300%, 400% and 500% in their rateable value. We will quiz LPS officials at the Finance Committee on Wednesday, but have you sought an explanation from LPS for those massive increases? How are they justified?

Mr O'Dowd: For confidentiality reasons, I am not going to start trawling through the books to see why certain businesses' valuations have gone up by so much, but, if quotes such as that come back to you, I suggest that there will be a number of elements to them. One is that an extension of the building, with an increase in its physical size, would lead to a valuation increase. It may be turnover. The services that the business delivers may be popular with the public, so its premises may see an increase in footfall. The vicinity of the premises may have seen significant investment and therefore become a more attractive place to be. The only people who can tell us the story properly will be from the individual business. That story is best told to LPS.

Mr McMurray: Many businesses are directly competing with counterparts in the Republic of Ireland. What steps has the Minister taken to ensure that the challenging environment faced by those businesses is properly reflected during the revaluation process?

Mr O'Dowd: One of the biggest challenges facing businesses is the difference in the VAT. I have met trade representative bodies, along with the Economy Minister, and we have undertaken to do some work in trying to ensure that the VAT levels are closer than they will be as a result of a reduction in the South. I will continue to work with the representative bodies to pursue that.

Mr Gaston: Last Wednesday, the Minister's Sinn Féin Economy colleague promised the sun, the moon and the stars to the hospitality industry at the Tourism Ireland event in Belfast. Just 24 hours later, the Minister served rates bills on the Galgorm Resort and Spa, with a net annual value increase of 128%; the Marine Hotel in Ballycastle, with an increase of 140%; and the 14-bed Fullerton Arms in Ballintoy, with an increase of 455%. Meanwhile, Kilroot power station has been paying reduced rates for over two years while its input has increased year-on-year. Is this a Sinn Féin economic policy laid bare for all to see, only giving the industry eight weeks' notice of the increases that are coming their way?

Mr O'Dowd: The previous two revals were published in January. I will not get into the detail of the individual cases that the Member referred to. The broader aspect of the reval has shown that, for rentable value, properties and businesses across the North have increased in value by something in the region of £230 million since the previous reval. That is actually a wee insight into the economy and how the economy is doing. From those figures, the economy is doing OK.

Mr Gaston: You are going to tax it to death.

Mr O'Dowd: In any society, you have to have to —. Well, perhaps in the Member's Trumpian world, you would not have to pay tax. You would just let people go about their business and make huge profits. [Interruption.]

Mr O'Dowd: I do not know whether you are for Reform UK this week or Trump. I do not know what you are. Here is the reality, Mr Gaston: if you want public services for the people of North Antrim, taxes have to be paid. I believe that if taxes have to be paid, they should be paid in a fair and equitable manner. I believe that the reval is a fair and equitable way of doing that, with three to four opportunities for an appeals process.

Mr Gaston: Is a 455% increase fair?

Mr Speaker: Order.

Mr O'Dowd: I do not know whether you have listened thus far —

Mr Gaston: Oh, I have.

Mr O'Dowd: — but I hope that he is better equipped now to go back to his constituents and say —

Mr Gaston: I hope you have listened to the industry.

Mr Speaker: Order.

Mr O'Dowd: — "Folks, I was in the Assembly today and I learnt something. This is what we need to do, and I will support you in doing it. We need to contact the LPS and present evidence to support our case, and we will continue to move through that as well."

Mr Harvey: Has the Minister met any business organisations as yet, or is it his intention to do so? How does he feel about their feelings at present?

Mr O'Dowd: I have met numerous business organisations during my tenure as Finance Minister, and I will continue to meet business organisations.

Mr Durkan: Sinn Féin told us that it was going to do something about the cost of doing business, and it has done that all right. Bizarrely, and maybe not reading the room too well, one of the Minister's colleagues asked what he is doing to help businesses that are looking to expand. What is the Minister doing to help businesses that are struggling to survive and keep people in jobs?

Mr O'Dowd: There are limited powers available to the Executive around fiscal responsibilities, and the Member will be aware that I am seeking more tax-varying powers. We currently spend about a quarter of a billion pounds a year on subsidies for small and medium-sized businesses, and for businesses in general. I think that that is quite a significant investment, in fairness, into the business sector. I have set aside funding in the draft Budget to further increase business support and to broaden the scope of how businesses will qualify for that support. As I said to Mr Delargy, I also want to see a rate relief for a period for businesses that physically expand their premises and move forward. As I said, one of the reasons why some businesses — each case will tell its own story — have seen such a significant increase in their rateable value is that they have expanded. They have expanded because they are bringing in business and have the support of the local community and others who come in, because they present an attractive package. I wish them continued success for the future. I will play my part to support businesses as best I can. We have to have a fair and equitable rating system, and I believe that the process involved is fair and equitable.

Ms Nicholl: I thank the Minister for his answers, which I have listened to. He has been very clear about the fact that he believes that the process is fair and equitable. Does he believe that the communication process has been adequate? Businesses in south Belfast are in shock. This is not about an abstract thing; it is about livelihoods. Is the Minister content that communication has been adequate? What further support and reassurance will his Department, outside LPS, give?

Mr O'Dowd: If there are lessons to be learned about communication, we will certainly learn them. The revaluation had been mooted for a considerable time. Indeed, as I said in my original response, businesses have argued for more regular business revaluations, and we will attempt to deliver that. If there are lessons to be learned, we will do that. If any value has come out of this afternoon, I hope that it is that colleagues in the Chamber are now more informed about how the process works and, more importantly, how they can support businesses in their area to navigate their way through the next number of weeks.

Mr Robinson: Can the Minister tell the House how many businesses' valuations decreased?

Mr O'Dowd: I do not have the figure in front of me, but I am sure that I will be able to supply that to the Member.

Mr Wilson: My question relates to another line of business that is very applicable in my rural constituency, and that is farming. The Minister mentioned having a fair and equitable rate base. Minister, do you agree that farmers have not been treated fairly, especially given the focus on old farm dwellings that have been replaced? Some farmers are now living in a new farm dwelling but are still paying the same amount of rates on their old dwelling, and they are not, unfortunately, able to apply for any of the existing exclusions. Will you agree to look at the list of exclusions, with a view to increasing eligibility and to remove the weight of rating for two houses when only one is lived in and the other is simply there as an heirloom, if you like?

Mr O'Dowd: Again, it is very easy for Members to stand up in the Chamber and call for exclusions from rates or from this tax or the other tax. The more that you exclude, the less rates that you bring in, and the less money that you have to spend on public services and promoting the economy. Anyone who has concerns about having to pay rates on a property that, they believe, should not be of rateable value should contact their district valuer, and the district valuer will engage with them.

Mr Speaker: That draws to a conclusion questions to the Minister. It has been quite fulsome.

Mr Brett: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. The Finance Minister accused us of not knowing what we are talking about. If we read the LPS publication, we see that it states:

The Finance Minister —.

Miss Hargey: That is not a point of order.

Mr Brett: Sorry, you are not the Speaker.

Miss Hargey: It is not a point of order.

Mr Brett: I know that you do not like the truth, but can you stop? Thank you, Miss Hargey.

Miss Hargey: On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

Mr Speaker: I will take your point of order [Inaudible.]

Mr Brett: The Finance Minister informed the House that office rates have gone down. That was factually incorrect. How can the record be corrected, given that the Finance Minister has misled the House?

Mr Speaker: Miss Hargey, you have a point of order.

Miss Hargey: Yes. I would like you to rule on whether that was a point of order or just a DUP political speech.

Mr Speaker: It would not be the first time that Mr Brett or any other Member has committed that offence.

Mr McNulty: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. [Laughter.]

Mr Speaker: Many Members have used points of order in the House to make a point. Mr Brett has made a point that what the Minister said about office rates is perhaps not correct. I am sure that Mr Brett, as Chair of the Economy Committee, will take the opportunity to put in a question on that, and I am sure that the Finance Committee, under Mr O'Toole's tutelage, will also ensure that those questions are asked. There are plenty of opportunities to scrutinise, not just in the Chamber but beyond. That is the beauty of this place: it is a scrutiny Assembly. I will always encourage scrutiny to take place.

If Members take their ease, we will change the top Table.

Mr McNulty: Point of order, Mr Speaker.

Mr Speaker: Oh, you have a point of order, Mr McNulty.

Mr McNulty: Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle.

This is not the first time that the Minister has accused me of not having a clue about what I am talking about, but I am up for robust debate and a bit of argy-bargy: I love it. To clarify, and to correct the record, however, it is not me who is going on about this: it is the business owners, hotel owners, coffee chains, publicans and restaurateurs. The Minister is, therefore, telling them that they do not have a clue what they are talking about. If that is what he wants to say, that is fair enough.

Mr Speaker: You have made your non-point of order, Mr McNulty. What really counts is what the constituents think of you. Thank you.

Mr Burrows: I will keep it short, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker, because my colleague Diana Armstrong made excellent points that were full of facts and devoid of ideology, which is refreshing, given some of the contributions.

The proposers of the motion failed to read the room when they proposed that extra tax-raising powers be brought to this place. The people of Northern Ireland have no trust in the performance of this place: it is held almost with contempt because of its failure to spend money wisely, fix problems, transform public services or deal with waste.

A Member: Will the Member give way?

Mr Burrows: No, I will not give way yet. The public are being short-changed by the Executive. There is only one thing that is worse than being short-changed and that is being taxed more and short-changed. That is why it really is worrying to think that Members would think that there is any public appetite for giving us more powers. We need to demonstrate that we can spend money wisely and deal with problems, rather than always blaming someone else.

The other big concern that I have with revenue-raising powers is that many Members subscribe to Marxist-type ideologies. The last thing that they need is more power to tax, spend and cause problems.

I will add one other thing that does not require any new powers whatsoever. There is a failure on the part of many parties in the Assembly, particularly Sinn Féin, to sell to the world the benefits of the Northern Ireland economy. I never hear anyone shouting from the rooftops that we have the lowest unemployment rate in Europe; that we have a vibrant and highly skilled cybersecurity sector and fintech sector; or that we feed a quarter of the people of the United Kingdom through our excellent agri-food industry. Unfortunately, Northern Ireland gets called a basket case or, even worse, as it was by a former Sinn Féin Member, as an s-h-i-t-hole.

What impact does that message have on the morale of people here and the confidence of those who might inwardly invest?

Rather than look for more powers, we should use the good influence that we have to extol the benefits of Northern Ireland and encourage people to invest. We should not use ideology to discourage foreign investment. The motion is ill founded. In particular, it will cause many out there — those who get out of bed to go and work hard and who already have tax taken out of their pay packet — to shudder, because, even though this place is unreformed and does not show a willingness to find savings and spend wisely, it would have more powers to raise revenue.

My party has no ideological objections to working with our good friends in the Irish Republic and having real economic cooperation, but it is not about creating an all-island constitution. It is about raising prosperity for everybody North and South. Unfortunately, too much ideology is brought into such debates.

I note the depth and strength of the UK economy. We should never lose sight of the fact that the relationship with our greatest trading partner goes east-west. Not only is that where the bulk of our trade is, but we are part of a United Kingdom with a domestic market of £60 million, instead of somewhere with one of only a few million. That is why groceries are cheaper here than down South. It also means that, when the global shocks that have been talked about happen, as they did in the credit crunch 20 years ago, our economy has resilience, because the broad and deep UK economy can help it through those shocks. That is why it was benevolent of the United Kingdom to lend the Irish Republic £3·25 billion on favourable terms to help to bail out its economy.

We need to remember that we are more prosperous in the UK and that we can cooperate North/South, but let us leave ideology out of it and work hard for the good people of Northern Ireland. I shudder to think of a Sinn Féin Minister for anything having powers to raise more revenue and waste that money.

Mr O'Toole: Not for the first time, I shudder as I listen to the quality of the debate in the Chamber.

I want to touch on a few points. We support the motion. It talks about an extremely important thing. The Economic and Social Research Institute (ESRI) was commissioned by the Shared Island unit to develop a programme of work that modelled the difference between the two economies — they are two economies, but there is also an all-island and all-Ireland economy that I will come on to talk about in more detail — how they interact, the differences in performance and the advantages of greater integration and dynamism on the island.

We talk often about ideology: ideology is not the same as having a considered view. I make no apology for the fact that I am genuinely of the view that ending partition, building a new Ireland and Northern Ireland's rejoining the EU via the only plausible means, which is a new Ireland, will be good for our economy. It is wrong to pretend that that is some kind of strange ideology. That view is evidence-based, and increasing numbers of people, not just those from traditionally nationalist backgrounds, are embracing it, which is, perhaps, why Members opposite are somewhat nervous, shall we say, about this debate.

I turn to the context of the motion. We support virtually everything in it, but I add this caveat, and I do not do so to be churlish: you would think that the motion was tabled by a Back-Bench party or, indeed, an Opposition party. In fact, it was tabled by a party that has all the economic levers at its disposal in the North, so the matters in the motion are not theoretical. We do not need private Members' motions on the North driving forward the all-island economy via energy, greater fiscal devolution and good jobs; we need Ministers to do that.

Earlier on, my South Belfast colleague said that Sinn Féin is living in our cerebral cortex. I sometimes get accused of using $10 words, but that was very nice. I think that the phrase that is sometimes used is "living rent-free". No: we are just doing our job as the Opposition. Sinn Féin has power. You have more seats than us and all the main strategic drivers. You have the First Minister, Finance Minister, Economy Minister and Infrastructure Minister. You have the opportunity to drive the North/South interconnector, the all-island strategic rail review and all-island tourism. Get on and do it. Do not blame us. We will hold you to account, because that is our job.

Progress is not happening at the pace at which it needs to happen. We talked about the 'good jobs' Bill earlier, and I talk repeatedly about fiscal devolution, because we have the theoretical agreement of the Finance Minister. Conor Murphy set up the Fiscal Commission six years ago. I welcomed the fact that it was commissioned, but we have not seen a single calorie of energy put into implementing its report. I want to see that.

Some of the Members opposite have, in different ways, sought to deflect from and diminish the idea of all-island cooperation, which is, I am afraid, nonsense.

Mrs Dillon: Will the Member take an intervention?

Mr O'Toole: I will take a very quick one.

Mrs Dillon: Does the Member agree that, while he may not agree with our position on issues, the public trust us and that that is why they voted for us? Most of us in the Chamber were voted for to be here, so we are the people whom the public trust.

Mr O'Toole: If you are telling me that your party has more votes and more seats, I am not disputing that; I am telling you to get on and use your power to —.

Mrs Dillon: I do not agree that the public do not trust us, Matthew.

Mr O'Toole: If Ministers from whatever party, be it Sinn Féin, the DUP or Alliance, hold office, they should get on with doing their job.

Do I have an extra minute, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker? I took an intervention.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Yes.

Mr O'Toole: I am just checking that my generosity will be rewarded in this life, not in the next. Yes, the Member is right: the public elect people to take up ministerial office, and they should have the power to do that.

It is remarkable that we have often had a situation in which unionist politician after unionist politician stands up in the Chamber and says, "It is awful what the British Government are doing to us. It is awful what the Tories did because of Brexit". No one agrees with that more than me. They now say, "It is awful what Keir Starmer is doing", and I agree with that most of the time too. There is pretty much agreement that it will also be awful if and when there is a Nigel Farage-led Government. Let us take power on this island. Let us talk about how we build power and responsibility, first in the North through greater fiscal devolution and then through a new Ireland. Even if you do not support a new Ireland, it is clear that a huge amount can be achieved through developing and expanding the all-island economy.

I will be clear about what the ESRI report states. I do not dispute that there are wonderful points in it about the Northern Ireland economy. It is not talking down Northern Ireland, Mr Burrows, to point out that we are consistently one of the worst-performing parts of these islands in economic terms. We have actually somewhat outperformed the UK in economic performance. Since when? Since we have had the awful sea border. The protocol allowed us the dual market access that has enabled us to outperform consistently, probably for the first time, the rest of the UK.

I will come on to the ESRI report. I have only a minute left. The report measures North versus South in GDP performance, productivity, economic performance, demographics, employment growth and living standards, and I am afraid that it is fair to say that the South is doing better than the North on pretty much all those measures. That is not ideology or fantasy; those are facts. I point out to the Members on the same side of the House as me that we would do better if we did not constantly harp on about how awful the South is when we are trying to persuade people of the argument that we are making for a new Ireland. I simply say this to colleagues: we have an enormous opportunity. One of the agendas of this century is to overcome some of the barriers on this island that, for a range of historical reasons, we put up in the previous century. Let us embrace that agenda, whether or not Members believe in completing the task —

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Time is up, Matthew.

Mr O'Toole: — via constitutional change.

Mr Gaston: Unionism must remember that the document that the motion focuses on was produced through the Shared Island initiative, which the Irish Government established with the express purpose of advancing the case for breaking up the United Kingdom. Even the report acknowledges the obvious fact that the economies of the Irish Republic and Northern Ireland are not comparable. One is a sovereign state heavily distorted by multinational profit-shifting and an ultra-low carbon tax, which is something about which the professed socialists in the Chamber seldom talk. The other is a devolved region that belongs to the sixth-largest economy in the world and is a G7 member, with public services funded UK-wide.

The motion asks us to draw sweeping conclusions about living standards and economic performance without addressing the most important economic fact, which is that Northern Ireland receives a block grant from the United Kingdom of more than £18 billion a year. Even the nationalists in the House must acknowledge that benefit. Our block grant pays for our hospitals, our pensions, our schools and our overgenerous welfare system. The report offers no analysis whatever of how those services would be funded in the event of the break-up of the United Kingdom. Will people in Northern Ireland wake up in what they thought was a utopia, only to discover that they need to get out their credit cards when they want to call the fire brigade? That is what happens south of the border, but there is no mention of it here.

It is also notable that some of the data relied on in the report exists only because Northern Ireland has been placed under a different trading regime from that in the rest of the United Kingdom. Chapter 7.2, on page 41 of the report, expressly states:

What does that mean? It means that, because Northern Ireland is, for trading purposes, treated differently from the rest of the United Kingdom, data is now being generated and deployed to advance a wider republican agenda, aided and abetted by the Alliance Party. Those who returned to the Assembly on the basis of the false claim that the Irish Sea border had gone would do well to reflect soberly on that fact.

Mr Honeyford: Will the Member give way?

Mr Gaston: I am happy to give way.

Mr Honeyford: We get the blame from unionism for everything, which is hilarious across here. The figures show that there was 2·8% growth in Northern Ireland and 1·3% growth in the UK. The difference is our dual market access. Without it, those figures would not be there. Will he at least acknowledge that?

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: The Member has an extra minute.

Mr Gaston: Thank you very much for the intervention. That is Mr Honeyford, who likes to be the champion of the rigorous implementers. He has not said much about the Alliance tax that his party is responsible for and that Kate Nicholl loves to pontificate about and champion at every opportunity.

I say to the Member that divergence has been about breaking up our east-west supply line in order to go North/South, which has increased costs to our suppliers and increased the cost of our everyday commodities. They might laugh, sneer and giggle, and think, "Oh my goodness, that is great". No. Your Alliance tax, your rigorous implementation and your Irish Sea border have increased the cost of everyday goods in Northern Ireland. When Alliance held the balance of power in December 2024, it decided to go with Sinn Féin and the SDLP to ensure that 300 areas of law were not governed in this place or at Westminster. Brussels has its claws in Northern Ireland because of the decision that that party made.

Let me be clear: the Assembly should not endorse a document that is dressed up as an economic analysis but is designed to undermine the constitutional position of Northern Ireland. No unionist should implement a protocol that is being used to build the economic case for dismantling our very union.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Our next speaker will be the Minister for the Economy. Minister, you have up to 15 minutes to respond to the debate.

Dr Archibald (The Minister for the Economy): Go raibh maith agat, a Phríomh-Leas-Cheann Comhairle.

I thank the Members who tabled the motion. The ESRI report is a welcome contribution to the debate on how best to achieve our economic goals. It is worth pointing out that the North is outperforming Britain in economic output, earnings and export growth.

Key to our success is the rise in all-Ireland trade. According to the Central Statistics Office (CSO), from 2020 until 2024, sales from North to South increased by 128·5% to £5·5 billion. According to NISRA, the number of businesses in the North selling goods and services to the South increased by 11% between 2018 and 2023. The Chair of the Economy Committee is not in the Chamber, but, when he was setting out the east-west dimension, he left out the fact that more businesses trade North/South than east-west.

Despite those positive trends, we continue to do less well than the South on a number of measures.

The more integrated that the all-Ireland economy becomes, the more that we can expect to see a convergence of performance. There is strong evidence that greater all-island integration is in our economic interests. Businesses have led the way on that and recognised the opportunities in trade and collaboration. It is important that the Government also recognise those opportunities and support businesses in maximising the economic benefits. My Department is working more closely than ever with the Department of Enterprise, Tourism and Employment to ensure strategic alignment across key policy areas. That partnership is already driving progress through initiatives such as Shared Island and PEACE PLUS.

The ESRI report makes clear that we have ground to make up in comparison with the South on indicators of economic inactivity, living standards, household incomes and participation in post-16 education and skills. Those are areas on which I am focused through the delivery of the economic vision. I have set four clear economic objectives: creating good jobs; promoting regional balance; increasing productivity; and decarbonisation.

To safeguard and deliver more good jobs, my Department is taking forward the most significant improvement in our employment law in a generation. It will improve working conditions, strengthen trade union representation and help to prevent good employers from being undercut by competitors using poor working practices. To drive the growth of good jobs, we must raise our productivity, which is at least 20% lower than that of the South. I am very ambitious in my aspirations for our economic delivery, but the Member for Foyle, who wants me to turn our productivity around in two years, is even more ambitious. It will take some time to make a difference in relation to some of the historic underinvestment that we have seen that has led to poor economic outcomes.

Driving up business investment in technology and skills is essential, and we are supporting the growth of seven high-productivity sectors through the delivery of sectoral action plans. Through one of those sectors — cyber and software — we can really boost our productivity through artificial intelligence. I have set out a broad framework as a starting point to make the most of our opportunities through AI. That follows investment of £16 million in the new Artificial Intelligence Collaboration Centre, which is a partnership between Queen's University and Ulster University.

On regional balance, my Department has established 11 local economic partnerships, and I have now approved four action plans, with the rest due to come to the Department for approval in the next few weeks. Those partnerships will directly support regional economic development. Importantly, they will also ensure that the Government have a clearer view of local needs and priorities and can respond accordingly. Invest NI is also responding to the regional balance challenge and has been challenged to increase the number of investments outside Belfast from 56% to 65% over three years. It is on course to achieve that target, and I am sure that Members will be pleased to hear that the gap between the lowest and highest earnings per council area has narrowed by 2% over the past year, indicating that progress is being made in tackling regional imbalances. In the north-west, the expansion of Magee is proceeding at pace. The Magee task force has delivered a comprehensive road map to reach 10,000 students. Having delivered a 22% increase over the past two years, we now have a record 6,500 students at Magee. The ability of businesses in Fermanagh to avail themselves of the Ireland's Hidden Heartlands brand will bridge our tourism offering, North and South, and boost visitor spending in that part of the island.

On the delivery of net zero, overall emissions have been reduced by 31·5% since 1990, but we still have a considerable distance to travel. I am committed to bringing people with us as part of that process. The renewable electricity price guarantee will ensure that people living near renewable electricity generators get a discount on their bills. We are also promoting more green jobs through the green tech sectoral action plan and the green skills action plan. These are growth industries that help us to deliver net zero and develop our economy at the same time.

All four of my objectives are underpinned by investment in ensuring that people have access to economic opportunity through education and training. Last year, we invested an extra £12 million, through a flexible skills fund, in 20 different projects, supporting over 10,000 people and 500 employers. I have continued that support into this year, with a further £10 million invested across 15 projects, supporting over 8,000 individuals and 500 employers. In addition, I recently published a comprehensive skills action plan to ensure that there is a clear pathway for everyone to enhance their skills.

Members will be aware that my colleague the Minister of Finance issued a draft Budget for consultation earlier this month. He has set out the scale of the challenge that we face when we look at our finances and the need to effect real change, as well as the significant opportunity for strategic planning that having the first three-year Budget in over a decade would bring. We need additional powers to control our own finances. Department of Finance officials are actively engaging with their Treasury colleagues in order to consider the scope of a full fiscal framework, with fiscal devolution forming a central pillar of that. The Finance Minister has made progress in that area.

I know that some Members in the Chamber might denounce the desire to have increased fiscal powers and might demand to know what it is that we want to do with them. As Matthew O'Toole mentioned, the Fiscal Commission published a report a couple of years ago. It made recommendations, and those are the type of things that we want to see brought forward. I am sure that Members will appreciate that we need to have an Executive position in order to move that forward.

When it comes to the types of initiative that we could take, simply having fiscal powers, for example, on income tax, means that, if we take positive steps to increase people's incomes and prosperity, we would get the benefit from that, and it would not simply return to the British Treasury.

Mr O'Toole: I thank the Minister for giving way. She mentioned that we needed an Executive position before we proceed.

Dr Archibald: To engage with the Treasury.

Mr O'Toole: To engage with the Treasury. However, it is also true to say that the Minister of Finance clearly does not yet have an Executive position on the draft Budget. What is to stop the Minister of Finance saying, "Here are my preferences on fiscal devolution", given that he is already effectively saying, "Here are my preferences for what I am going to do with the draft Budget"? Why is a multi-year Budget without Executive agreement OK but fiscal devolution proposals are not?

Dr Archibald: I am sure that we could set out what our position would be in relation to fiscal devolution. However, as I said, we need to have Executive agreement in order to move forward with devolution. That is not a difficult concept to grasp. As part of the interim fiscal framework with which, I know, the Member will be very familiar, there was agreement to proceed to engage around the principles of fiscal devolution, which is what the Finance Minister is trying to do.

The ESRI report provides very welcome evidence of economic trends across the island. Businesses are already seeing the opportunities in the all-island economy. That organic growth will be supported under my stewardship of the Economy Department, because that is in the economic interests of all our people.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: I call Pádraig Delargy to conclude the debate and make his winding-up speech on the motion. Pádraig, you have 10 minutes.

Mr Delargy: Go raibh maith agat, a Phríomh-Leas-Cheann Comhairle.

I thank all those who participated in the debate, which has been really interesting. I will go through some of the points in more detail, but, first, I want to look at the context for the debate. The ESRI report is a significant and timely piece of work, not least because it measures economic trends on an all-Ireland basis and reflects how our economy operates, but because it is grounded in robust data on productivity, labour markets, skills, infrastructure and regional performance. That is the evidence that should be central to how decisions are made going forward.

The data shows that the all-Ireland economy is not only real but growing. InterTradeIreland figures demonstrate that cross-border trade has increased significantly in recent years, reaching record levels and supporting tens of thousands of jobs across this island. Of all the key words that have been used in today's debate, the most important one is "collaboration". It is about how we do things better when we work together. As Members across the Chamber have mentioned, good data leads to good decisions being made. It is about creating well-paid jobs and a sustainable economy that is based on the Minister's economic vision.

The disparity in disposable income and life expectancy across Ireland is related to a number of factors, one of which, in particular, is partition. That is related to the fact that, in my constituency and in other border constituencies, there are fewer options for healthcare and employment. Those regions in particular have a lower life expectancy. We must, therefore, grasp any opportunity that we can to make more informed and better policy decisions and to work collaboratively across Ireland. The North West Cancer Centre is just one example of our doing that. Members across the Chamber worked to make that a reality, and it now delivers world-class, leading healthcare in the north-west — healthcare for people in Derry, Donegal, Tyrone and further afield. Everyone benefits from closer cooperation.

Some of the reactions from the unionist Benches to the debate have been disappointing, and I disagree with them. They have tried to present this as a zero-sum game. That is not the case. It is not about talking down any trade or economic opportunity but talking up all-Ireland economic opportunities. That is what we can do when we work together: we can achieve far more. Let no one feel that it is about taking away from what we have; it is about adding to that, enhancing and augmenting what is there already. I will go through some of the figures to back that up. In 2001, all-Ireland trade was €3·1 billion in the South and £1·9 billion in the North. In 2015, those figures were fairly flat and static. The 2024 figures show a comparative figure of €10·6 billion in the South and £9 billion in the North. Those figures speak for themselves, and the only ideological arguments on that today have come from the unionist Benches, because the reality is that those Members are ignoring economic opportunity for people across Ireland — that goes for your constituents as much as it does mine. You are ignoring opportunities for businesses, you are ignoring opportunities for economic growth and you continue to do what you do regularly, which is to bury your head in the sand.

When we look at the opportunity for all-Ireland trade, we also look at what has happened here in the North. Many of you have talked about the barriers that the Windsor framework apparently presents. However, the reality is that the majority of you voted for Brexit and championed Brexit. The Windsor framework is the opportunity that has resulted in economic benefit in the North. It has protected our businesses and constituents and has continued to show economic growth and upward economic trends. When representatives from Invest NI presented to the Committee, they told us, in no uncertain terms, that the reason that businesses are not talking up the Windsor framework opportunity is that they are afraid to, and that the reason that they are afraid is that the Windsor framework is continually politicised by unionism. That is not good enough. Everyone in the Chamber needs to work together and push in the same direction to properly support our businesses.

Mr Brett: Will the Member give way?

Mr Delargy: Yes.

Mr Brett: Thank you. The Member is not afraid to highlight the issues that he has, and he cannot be accused of being intimidated. Minister Murphy was unable to give a single example of FDI resulting from the Windsor framework. On Wednesday, at the Committee, Minister Archibald was unable to give an example. Perhaps, given that you do not fear promoting the Windsor framework, you can give an example.

Mr Delargy: The Member has continually made that argument, and he has heard continually from businesses that have presented to the Economy Committee, on which we both sit, that they do not want to raise the issue of the benefits of the Windsor framework, because it has been politicised by his party and others. The reality is that it is one of a myriad of issues and one of a plethora of opportunities to explain why businesses open here. There is not one singular reason why any business opens here; there is a combination of reasons, including the fact that we have a world-class education system, that we have opportunities for all-Ireland trade and that we support our businesses. I have heard from many businesses that have invested in Derry that they have access to Ministers continuously, that they feel supported by the economic vision and that they see the economic benefits of investing here. Not only do they invest here but they stay here and build. I think that the Member and other members of the Committee should champion that.

I will move on to the points that were made by Alliance Members. David and Kate made some great points. Kate, you are a real champion of data, which has been at the core of all the arguments today. This is about informing better policy and better opportunities. To come back to the original point, David highlighted the fact that this is not zero-sum politics. It is a fact that east-west trade has also grown. We want trade to grow for every area, with every region. That does not exclude anyone: it is inclusive, and it promotes trade across the board.

A number of points were made about listening to industry and supporting further education. Obviously, Minister Archibald has already taken steps to do that and has continually supported the skills pipeline. We will continue to see more of that and support it as well.

Regional balance was brought up on numerous occasions in the debate. The ESRI report shows the benefits of that. It shows the benefits across Ireland, but particularly in regions such as mine, which have lost out not just because of political decisions taken here at Stormont prior to the Good Friday Agreement but because of decisions taken in the South that meant that the border communities suffered. We have an opportunity now to rectify that, work together and support our economy right across the island.

We talked about having more fiscal powers and fiscal levers. They were mentioned by the Minister and Mr O'Toole. We looked at the fact that the fiscal framework and the Fiscal Commission report were produced in 2022. Some of the things that we would like to see the benefits of are the apprenticeship levy, partial income tax, stamp duty and airport duty, to name just a few. I am happy to hear whether anyone has any objections to those. We need to support our businesses by ensuring that those with the broadest shoulders can carry and support people in the North and that those burdens do not fall back on constituents.

Mr Burrows cited stats on unemployment. I have not seen those, but I am happy to give way to the Member if he wants to clarify them. They certainly do not chime with any of the economic data that I have seen. Ms McLaughlin talked about the synergies and the productivity of SMEs, and those things are really beneficial. We need to hear about them and look at what we can do better. On Mr O'Toole's and Ms McLaughlin's points —.

Mr Burrows: I thank the Member for giving way. It is a fact that we have the lowest unemployment rate not just in the United Kingdom but on the island of Ireland and across Europe. That is a good news story. The Member should know it and should be out there showcasing it and encouraging more businesses to come here, because we have an outstanding skilled workforce.

Mr Delargy: We do, but we need to look at economic inactivity, because it is one of the key barriers that holds back people here. I say this to the Member: I agree with you in part, but you should be championing all-Ireland benefits to business in your constituency just as much as I do in mine.

I also note that we talked about legislation. The Economy Minister is introducing eight pieces of legislation in this mandate, compared with one in the past 10 years.

I am tight for time. Just to conclude, the report is hugely beneficial. It offers huge policy opportunities, and it shows the benefits of collaboration, cooperation and working together.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Members, I have received notice from the members of the Business Committee of a motion to extend the sitting past 7.00 pm under Standing Order 10(3A).

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

Ms Hunter: I beg to move

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): The Business Committee has agreed to allow up to one hour and 30 minutes for the debate. The proposer of the motion will have 10 minutes to propose the motion and 10 minutes to make a winding-up speech. All other Members who speak will have five minutes.

Please open the debate on the motion.

Ms Hunter: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I thank the Members who have joined us for an important debate, and I look forward to their contributions.

We speak often in the Chamber about ending violence against women and girls, and I am confident that every Member of the House wishes to do that and supports that objective. I want to make it absolutely clear, however, that the motion is about recognising a new and rapidly evolving entry point for that violence, one that the Assembly can no longer afford to ignore. Deepfake and so-called nudification apps represent a profound abuse of technology. They are designed to violate, humiliate and control. While women and girls are overwhelmingly the targets, I state clearly that men and boys have also suffered the abuse, and they, too, deserve recognition today as well as protection and support.

What unites all victims is this: their consent is stripped away, their dignity is destroyed and the consequences can follow them for a lifetime. The issue is not niche, nor is it hypothetical. It is not something that happens elsewhere. The apps are being used every day in Northern Ireland in our schools, our workplaces and, sadly, our communities. Children's images are manipulated and shared before they fully understand what is happening. Lives are altered in minutes, sometimes irreversibly. That is why I want to start by sharing some of the testimonies of deepfake victims in Northern Ireland. They are individuals with whom I have had the absolute pleasure of engaging over the past number of years.

I will begin with a young student. This is not her real name, but, for today, let us call her "Sarah". Sarah became aware that a normal image of her wearing a floral dress had been deepfaked so that her breasts were visible. To this day, she is too traumatised to tell her parents that that happened. When speaking about her experience, Sarah said:

That is not just traumatic; that is a system failing a victim at every possible point. Another victim told me:

No victim here in our home in Northern Ireland should live with that fear.

Sadly, the crisis recognises no border. The problem exists on an all-island basis and is escalating. I acknowledge the extraordinary bravery of Gráinne Seoige, a journalist of decades' standing and a Fianna Fáil candidate, who experienced one of the most horrific deepfake videos during the previous election. She shared her experience with RTÉ:

Unforgivable stuff. Since then, Gráinne has become an unstoppable campaigner, writing to the Garda Commissioner, the Taoiseach, EU commissioners, Ministers, TDs, Senators and major tech platforms. Victims should not have to become full-time advocates just to survive, but thank God for voices such as hers and those of academics such as Professor Clare McGlynn at Durham University; for campaigners such as Jess Davies and Adele Walton, who do phenomenal work in safeguarding the online space; and for organisations such as Not Your Porn, founded by Elena Michaels, for stepping in when victims do not know where to turn or how to navigate the technology being used against them.

Let me say this clearly to the House: victims should not have to advocate for themselves, and they should not be forced to retell their trauma again and again. They should not be left torn apart by faceless trolls who can ruin their lives at the click of a button and then move on and have a laugh in the group chat, while the damage to the victim lasts for ever. I ask the House what we Northern Ireland are doing in to stop this. What are we doing to ensure that it never happens again? I have spoken to teachers and school leaders every day this week who contacted me to say, "Thank God the issue is finally being flagged. We are dealing with it constantly, and we do not know how to protect the children we teach".

Nudification apps are readily available. You do not need a degree in Photoshop any more; you could be a 12-year-old boy and use them. There are not enough words to describe the painful purgatory of victims who lie awake at night with phones pinging constantly with messages that say, "I saw that video of you. You must be a deviant. I saw it on my phone". That is what deepfakes are really about: reducing women to sexual objects — reducing them to nothing — and deriving sick satisfaction from the humiliation of and the harm done to women in Northern Ireland. To that I say this: no more. No more of that unique form of cruelty.

Recent headlines have shown just how close to home the issue is. In early January, sadly, a GAA club in the Portadown area warned parents, after a young member was targeted in an AI-generated blackmail attempt. Sexualised images were created, faces superimposed, threats made and friendship networks weaponised, with a young person targeted in one of the most isolating ways humanly unimaginable.

Today is not about pity. This is not a pity party. Every victim to whom I have spoken carries severe shame and embarrassment for something that, fundamentally, they did not do. Today is about lifting the blame and shifting the shame to where it belongs: with the perpetrators. That is why the motion matters.

I welcome the engagement that the Minister has had on the issue. We need to get some clarity on timelines today. We need to understand what new laws could look like, when they could be introduced and how the Minister will engage with her counterparts in the South and across the water. Will it be retrospective? Will past victims be able to seek justice? We need to know how new laws will interact with encrypted platforms and, due to the intense sense of privacy that those platforms provide, how we can balance the right to personal freedoms with tackling harm and harassment. Something important that has come to my attention is the legal loophole of images being qualified for personal use and of that loophole being used for abuse.

Stormont is often criticised for moving too slowly, but I believe firmly that today can be different. Let us show cross-party leadership on the issue. Let us show victims that this place really works for them and that their safety and dignity matter. Minister, today is the moment. We can provide assurances today, and we hope that you will do everything in your power to get this over the line within the mandate, because this issue affects every constituency, every constituent, every family and every child who is growing up online. Today, we can provide hope and understand the next steps in providing adequate protection for our children. Let us ensure that Northern Ireland leads, not lags, on the issue and stands up to AI-enabled abuse.

I thank Members for their attention and their contributions. I thank those who have been vocal on the matter. I urge Members across the House to support the motion, please. I believe that we all share the core value that nothing should harm our children. What we have seen from those social media giants and tech companies over the past number of weeks has been truly abhorrent. It is despicable. Today, hopefully, the Minister will be able to provide clarity on those issues and on what legislation will be brought forward, potentially in this mandate, to protect our young people.

Ms Sheerin: At the outset, I thank those who tabled today's motion. I commend Cara in particular for the courage that she has shown in speaking so openly about her experience. That has to be admired and respected.

It is vital that we give the matter the urgent attention that it deserves. In recent weeks, we have seen how world leaders across the globe have scrambled to deal with the issue. I sometimes think that it would be nice for us to go back to the time when all we had in our pockets was a Nokia 3410, but, unfortunately, technology is moving very fast, and that means that we have to respond even quicker.

Women's reputations being ruined by the notion that they are sexually active is not a new phenomenon. Blaming women is not a new phenomenon. AI is new, but it is exposing a tradition and a culture that are as old as time. What deepfakes prove beyond doubt is that the victims are never to blame. The victims never provoke violence upon themselves. When the AI tools came into being, misogyny was not long kicking in and doing the rest. It is not funny. It is not a bit of craic. It is not a frequently forwarded WhatsApp message that is to be passed on and shrugged off. This is abuse. The fantasy of using someone else's body, portrayed in HD, is as harmful as physical violence. The jokes, the metaphors, the comments and the slurs in video format digitally degrade us.

We in the Chamber cannot be behind every locked door. We cannot be inside the keyboard of every troll. However, we can send a clear and united message. We can outlaw such activity. We can track those responsible. We can tell our young girls and boys, "Your bodies are your own. No selfie that you send or outfit that you wear makes it your fault." We must do more. We must protect our young people.

Mr Frew: The Democratic Unionist Party is supportive of proposals to criminalise sexually explicit deepfake images as part of a holistic approach that includes legislation, enhanced support and resources for victims and increased public awareness, because we realise how important the issue is and how impactful such images can be on the victims. It is fair to say that it is mostly females who are targeted for that hideous activity. We should have legislation in place that makes it an offence to create, share or threaten to share a sexual digital forgery of an adult. It should also be an offence to request such an image. The manufacturers and the platforms should ban those requests or at least prevent them from being made. I am not for banning any social media platform, but it is really easy — it probably involves the flick of two switches — to ensure that the technology that is used to create nude pictures and deepfake forgeries that have sexual content is prohibited. The platforms should have no excuse. They should delete the parts of their apps and the technology that can do that. What good comes from using technology to do that? I can think of no positive outcome from creating nudity pics or forgeries of sexual activity. It just does not make sense to me. That is why I and my party will support legislation in that regard.

I then come to my frustrations, because we have a vehicle to deal with the issue — the Justice Bill — and we have a Minister who has promised to bring forward amendments on deepfakes to her Bill. I was critical of the Minister at the Second Stage of the Justice Bill, which I have called "half a Bill". My frustration is that, although the Justice Bill was introduced on 17 September 2024 and the Second Stage debate was on 1 October 2024, we have yet to see the amendments on the deepfake issue from the Department and the Minister.

Mrs Long (The Minister of Justice): Will the Member give way?

Mr Frew: I will.

Mrs Long: To be fair, I offered to bring forward the deepfake amendments. Indeed, I wrote to the Executive on 4 November, seeking permission to do so, but I did not get clearance for that until last Thursday. It is fair to say, however, that I share the Member's frustration, because the Bill has now been sitting in Committee for almost 18 months. The question is this: what is the Committee scrutinising at this point?

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

Mr Frew: I thank the Minister for her intervention. The Committee has taken its time with the Bill itself but also with the Minister's proposed amendments. We have been in the precarious position of having had to scrutinise not only the detail on the blue pages of the Bill but the file of proposed amendments received from the Minister after Second Stage, which meant that the Assembly was not able to debate the detail of those amendments. She was able to bring forward amendments on restorative justice schemes, on organised crime groups, on matters to be included in criminal record certificates, on biometrics, on live links and on the repeal of public order offences, but we are still waiting for the deepfake amendments so that we can do some work on scrutinising them.

Mrs Long: Will the Member give way?

Mr Frew: I will.

Mrs Long: The Member will, of course, be aware but has not reflected that, initially, the deepfake issue was to be dealt with by Westminster legislation and that Westminster would then have sought a legislative consent motion (LCM) from us. It was only at the point at which the LCM was no longer a possibility that it even entered Westminster's consciousness that we would have to legislate locally. That is the reason that deepfakes were not covered in the first round of amendments. Initially, the deepfake issue was to be covered in the Crime and Policing Bill, and it was then moved to a different Bill. We were therefore not able to grant legislative consent within the required time frame. The Member knows all that, so why he is blaming me is beyond me.

Mr Frew: The Minister can make excuses all that she wants, but she brought the vagrancy amendments to the Committee when they had not yet gone through the Executive, so why has she not been able to deliver the deepfake amendments to the Committee to allow us to do a job of work to ensure that the legislation that we produce in the Assembly is fit for purpose? We have been left wanting in that regard. I am being critical of the Minister because she is being unfair on the Justice Committee and its work. I therefore look forward to seeing the deepfake and nudity amendments, on which the Minister and, according to public utterances, her party are working. It is about time that we saw them, Minister.

Ms Egan: I welcome today's debate on the motion, because, every day, technologies utilising artificial intelligence facilitate online violence at an increasingly alarming rate. We know that it can happen to anyone — anybody can be a victim — but the evidence points to the fact that it is a gendered issue, particularly when we have data that reveals that 99% of victims of deepfake pornography are women and girls. The use of AI globally is providing fuel for campaigns of abuse at the click of a button and providing more opportunities than ever to undermine and attack women online for simply daring to exist.

Motions on working together to end violence against women and girls have come to the Chamber on multiple occasions during the mandate. I thank my colleagues in the SDLP for tabling the motion in light of recent documented use of AI to perpetrate gender-based abuse. I also thank Cara for speaking out about her experiences. She was very brave to do so.

Technology-facilitated gender-based violence can seem distant when viewed on a smartphone or laptop screen or read about in the news, but the creation of abuse such as deepfakes comes from a real person making a choice to harass, humiliate and attack and from making real people, more often than not women and girls, the victims of those choices, and they are then left to deal with the real-world consequences. My Alliance Party colleagues and I continue to support the motion's condemnation of:

We need robust and strong action from all Governments — here in the Assembly, at Westminster and internationally — to safeguard people from the dangers of artificial intelligence.

As the motion implies, artificial intelligence is being weaponised as a tool to demean and silence women, girls and other marginalised groups. The '2023 State of Deepfakes' report found that there had been a 550% increase in deepfakes from 2019 to 2023, with 98% of all deepfake videos online being explicitly pornographic. The grotesque use of AI in that way is nothing short of repulsive. Sadly, the creation of deepfakes is not the only use of AI for those who want to harm women and girls online, and we must find ways to keep legislative pace with quickly evolving technological advancements.

Alliance welcomes the fact that the UK Government have recently made commitments to take action on the issue. Members from across the Chamber will be aware that sections of the Online Safety Act 2023 that legally compel social media companies to carry out an illegal content risk assessment for UK users came into force in March last year. The Online Safety Act also made it a priority offence to share or threaten to share intimate images of someone without their consent.

Using software to generate sexual deepfakes became a criminal offence in the Data (Use and Access) Act 2025, which received Royal Assent in June 2025. I question, however, why the UK Government only commenced that Act's provisions in January this year after incidents related to Grok and X, when there could have been a much more proactive instigation of the law.

As a member of the Justice Committee, I recall the Minister's communication in the spring of last year, which highlighted the fact that that legislation was originally contained in Westminster's Crime and Policing Bill, on which she had been planning to bring a legislative consent motion. However, the relevant clauses in that Bill were withdrawn in the final stages and placed in the Data Act instead. The timeline of that and the particular clauses that had been placed in the Data Act meant, in part, that it was not possible for the legislation to be introduced in Northern Ireland as that was not the correct vehicle for doing so.

I understand that the Committee was pleased to support the Minister's intention to bring in the provisions through an amendment to the Justice Bill at Consideration Stage to ensure that the creation of sexually explicit deepfakes of adults in Northern Ireland will become a criminal offence as soon as possible. I commend Minister Long for not allowing that legislation to fall through the cracks and her Department's team for working tirelessly at the last minute to ensure that the provisions are included as quickly as possible and in the most effective legislative vehicle.

The use of AI in the targeting and harassment of women and girls is of extreme concern to my party colleagues and me. It is the victims who suffer the most when there are no consequences for such crimes. Action must be proactive and keep pace —

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

Ms Egan: — with our growing technological world.

Dr Aiken: I declare an interest: as a member of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association, I attended the AI conference that was hosted by the Inter-Parliamentary Union in Kuala Lumpur last year. That was about the use of AI and how it was undermining democracy, but the real issue was how it was undermining people's lives and the effect of that.

One of the most disappointing things about the conference was the reactions. First, industry representatives basically said, "It's not our problem, because we have First Amendment rights. This is all about freedom of speech". I found that absolutely despicable and disgusting. Secondly, the representatives of the law enforcement agencies basically said, "There's so much going on here that we can't deal with this. Let's put it in the "far too difficult" column. Unless we are given a specific example for which we can go through the IP system, we are not going to deal with it". The most disappointing reaction of all the groups was that of the parliamentarians, who basically said, "Well, if all the major groups, software companies, IT companies and everybody else to do with AI say that they cannot do anything about it, what can we do? If all the international justice organisations, such as Interpol and everybody else, say that there's nothing that they can do about it, we can't do anything about it". There was a collective shrug from the parliamentarians. It was like saying that the issue is so endemic that we will not be able to stop it.

Some of the evidence that we were given was horrific, but there was something even more insidious about it. It was not just that images of women — let us be honest; they are nearly always of women — were being taken and put in pornographic poses; it was the fact that the digital identities of those people were being hacked. That is important because so many areas of our lives now involve a digital identity.

They were back-creating the story on social media platforms. An absolutely extraordinary level of computing power would go into doing that. Of course, that used to be a thing that only Governments could do, but now anybody can do it, because the speed and the move — Moore's law on computing power — particularly through the AI system at the moment, means that we are now reaching a point where it is virtually impossible to deal with that.

I for one know that there is an answer to this, because I can rest assured that, while there is a technological solution for creating all those images, there is equally a technological solution that the AI companies, law enforcement agencies and parliamentarians should be pushing to change it. Just as you can use AI to do one thing, you can use AI to do the exact opposite. We are told about programs that were in use that were basically hunting programs — finding the images and hunting them down. Why have we not heard about them? Why are they not being pushed? Why are the companies not saying, "Right, we see that this is a problem. We are going to deal with it in exactly the same way as the problem happened in the first place"? What is stopping people doing that? It is our problem as parliamentarians, because we are not making the issues strong enough. We are not saying to the tech companies, "You cannot do this". We already know that, across Europe and, indeed, in the United Kingdom, various things have been done, and we have gone to the tech companies and said, "Unless you fix that, we are unplugging you". Then, lo and behold, something is done.

Why all the hand-wringing that we do as parliamentarians across the piece about this? We are here to enact legislation and to do things to make things change. I am the father of four daughters, and I have seen examples done to other young women. We have one in the Chamber; it is absolutely disgusting. It makes me sick every time I see this sort of thing, but what makes me even angrier is the fact that there is a solution but we are not doing it.

As legislators, we need to set the tone. We need to legislate to stop it, and, if we make it difficult enough for them, it will stop. That was the lesson that came out clearly from meeting some of the largest companies, because, believe it or not, the one very large company that sat behind the bamboo curtain — obviously, I will not mention the name of the company — made it clear that, if it becomes a problem in this particular country, it will be stopped and will not be allowed to occur. That is what we should be talking about —

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

Dr Aiken: — and, as legislators, we need to be able to do that.

Ms Finnegan: I start by echoing the comments commending Cara for moving the motion and for sharing her difficult story. I can only imagine it.

Sinn Féin welcomes the motion and supports its core intent. The use of artificial intelligence to facilitate online violence against women and girls is deeply concerning, rapidly evolving and causing real and lasting harm. It is not an abstract or distant issue. In my constituency of Newry and Armagh, we saw a deeply disturbing example just last week where AI-generated deepfake images were created and circulated in a school setting. That incident underlines the urgency of the debate and the reality that the abuse is already affecting our young people, our communities and our families.

Sinn Féin is committed to tackling the scourge of violence against women and girls, and I am proud that our First Minister and the Executive have shown real leadership by prioritising the ending violence against women and girls strategy. That strategy recognises that online abuse is not separate from real-world harm and that technology is increasingly being weaponised against women and girls. In a world where coercive control is becoming better understood, where perpetrators are increasingly being held to account and where we acknowledge that we still have much more to do, online platforms now represent an additional and dangerous layer of abuse. Those platforms can enable coercive control, harassment and humiliation at scale. Platform owners and AI developers must not be allowed to be complicit in protecting perpetrators through inaction or weak safeguarding.

The issue cannot be addressed in isolation. Online violence does not respect borders, and our response should reflect that reality. There is a strong case for an all-island approach. Coco's law is in place in the South. It not only criminalises the sharing of intimate sexual images without consent but has made it an offence to send deepfake images. There is no doubt that the law can be strengthened to include deepfake images. We can work together to properly protect women and children across the island.

Education is vital, but the responsibility does not rest with the children or victims. The buck stops with the online platforms. Technology companies and AI developers must be held to account through regulation, enforcement and meaningful penalties.

Sinn Féin supports the motion and urges the Minister of Justice to act with urgency, ambition and cooperation to ensure that women and girls are protected and perpetrators are held to account.

Ms Brownlee: I thank the Member for proposing such an important motion and for sharing some real-life experiences, including her own.

It is right to express grave concern about the documented use of AI technologies in ways that are absolutely horrific. It is another attack on women and girls, and, of course, men and boys are also affected. We know that AI offers benefits, but we cannot ignore the real and growing harms that arise from its misuse.

We know that there have been numerous incidents of deepfake pornographic content being created and shared online, and, overwhelmingly, it targets women and girls. There are victims in the Chamber, and I can only commend them for coming forward and being vocal about what they have gone through. We know that the images and videos are used to harass, humiliate and silence individuals and that it can often lead to devastating consequences. Behind all the statistics that we have spoken about today, there are real people, and the overwhelming majority of them are women. They end up experiencing anxiety, trauma and stress. They worry about their job, their family and their relationships. In some cases, they can have suicidal thoughts and, of course, even worse. At the heart of it are real people, and they are potentially changed for life.

The House must be unequivocal that such behaviour is wrong. It is damaging, and it must carry real consequences. Of course, I am particularly concerned about our young people. Data from Ofcom reports that 43% of people aged 16 and over said that they have seen deepfakes online in the past six months. For our young people, the fear of being targeted or, in some cases, the reality of being targeted can be life-altering. The motion rightly calls for a commitment from the UK Government to criminalise deepfake activity, and victims in Northern Ireland should not be left behind. We know, again, that legislation is not enough. As a member of the Policing Board, I have serious concerns about the PSNI's capacity to deal with the issue. A recent report entitled 'The Police Service of Northern Ireland: An inspection of police effectiveness and efficiency' was deeply worrying and revealed significant gaps in the PSNI's child protection team.

We live in an age when predators are online and anonymous and too many platforms continue to turn a blind eye to the abuse taking place in their services. We know that online crimes are complex and not easy to solve — we recognise that — but urgent action is, of course, required. The teams must be properly staffed, funded, equipped and trained to meet the growing demand in the complex world that we now live in. I know that the Minister is working with urgency to progress the Chief Constable's business case to increase the workforce and address the critical gaps.

It is also vital that all social media companies are held to account. The PSNI has been clear: the biggest platforms must do more. They must provide access to the information, cooperate with investigations and stop washing their hands of responsibility while the harm continues on their platforms. No matter where the abuse takes place — X, WhatsApp, TikTok or anywhere — it is never acceptable.

It was not acceptable before the introduction of AI, and it is not acceptable now. Whether you create the content or share it, you are wrong.

Such treatment is not new; it has simply evolved. Many Members in the Chamber and many people listening online will have experienced abuse. That is why it is so important that we call it out for what it is: abuse. We must empower victims to speak out and ensure that they are protected when they do so. We must make it clear that people who engage in such acts, who often hide behind faceless accounts, will be held accountable. We have some of the data in front of us, but we must remember the quieter voices. There are those who suffer in silence and, through fear, shame or lack of support, do not feel that they can come out and be part of the statistics. They have done nothing wrong, and they deserve action, not words. We stand with them.

For all those reasons, I support the motion and urge the Assembly to send out the clear message today that the abuse of anyone through AI-generated deepfakes will not be tolerated and that victims will not be left to fight this alone.

Ms Nicholl: I thank Cara for tabling the motion. She is an extraordinary advocate on the topic, and we are lucky to have her in the Chamber. I welcome the debate and thank Cheryl for how she ended her piece. I wrote a speech, but so much of what I wanted to say has been said already, so I will focus on a few core areas and on what Cheryl ended her contribution on: the victims.

There are so many dark elements to humanity. The creation of non-consensual sexually explicit images is just another example of the abuse that so many women face. The way in which such technologies are being used, particularly around children, is incredibly troubling. That is an area that I have been thinking about a lot: how the victims of abuse in all its guises feel during discussions such as this and how, as an Assembly, we pass the right legislation and have conversations, as a society, to end such abuse. So many people live in shame and fear, and we need to do more on the societal conversation.

I am the founding chair of the all-party group on artificial intelligence. I believe passionately that, when used responsibly, AI has enormous potential to transform our public services, boost productivity and find solutions to some of the most pressing issues that we face as a society, but we also have to recognise the enormous harm that it can bring. If we are talking honestly about wanting to end violence against women and girls, the way that we deal with it is a massive part of that. I echo what everyone else has said: the creation of non-consensual sexually explicit images is abuse and must be treated as such. With technologies evolving so quickly, legislation needs to follow suit. Naomi Long has been such a strong advocate for ending violence against women and girls in this mandate and the previous mandate. The work around deepfakes is so important and something that she personally cares about deeply.

We have seen changes made in the House of Lords and legislation in Australia and Minnesota seeking to ban nudification apps. I have been working with the Bill Office on an amendment to bring an end to those apps. It is beyond belief that it is perfectly legal to have one of those apps on your phone. You can download them: you can have one of them, and that is totally legal. That needs to change.

As a mother and a politician, I think that it is a pressing issue. Parents raise it with me. They are really scared. They do not understand the development of technology and the impact that it will have on their children. Someone said to me that parents in every generation worry about what their children will face: at one point, it was rock and roll. Now, however, it really feels as though we are living in the complete unknown, and it is so hard for parents to understand how they can support their children. My colleague Michelle Guy has been doing really important work in that area. As legislators and representatives, we need to do more to have those community conversations and to bring people together. Ultimately, how we tackle it is a societal issue that needs a holistic response.

On Wednesday, I will host a town hall meeting with the YMCA at Stranmillis, and anyone who wants to come along will be welcome. We will have senior people from tech companies, members of the PSNI and people who work in safeguarding, as well as people who care very much about online safety. Facilitating conversations that will be led by young people, who are most impacted, is really important, as well as legislating to end the behaviour.

I thank Cara again for the work that she is doing. I am really heartened by the fact that we are all on the same page on the matter. It is about keeping people safe and making sure that they are treated with dignity. It is also about sending a clear message: if you are a victim of abuse, whether online from AI or in any other circumstance, please come forward to speak to one of us so that we can signpost you to the support that you are entitled to and deserve.

Ms Ferguson: Whilst the rapidly expanding development and use of artificial intelligence provides many benefits in productivity, enhanced innovation and economic growth, there is another side to it that we are all becoming way more aware of and that is enabling the exacerbation and acceleration of violence against women and girls in our society. I acknowledge the proposer of the motion's specific focus on the creation and sharing of degrading, non-consensual, sexually explicit images, including AI-generated deepfake images.

Under section 138 of the Data (Use and Access) Act 2025, it is a criminal offence to create or request the creation of non-consensual intimate images. In addition, work is under way to make non-consensual sexual deepfakes a criminal offence under the Online Safety Act 2023. That is vital to ensuring that platforms, rightly, are held to account in taking immediate, proactive steps to prevent and remove harmful content.

As my colleague Aoife mentioned, the Harassment, Harmful Communications and Related Offences Act 2020 in the South of Ireland, commonly known as "Coco's law", criminalises the recording or distribution of intimate images without consent. That legislation is a vital tool in increasing prosecutions of such offences and empowering those who have been victims of such contemptible crimes. Sinn Féin fully supports Ireland's AI Advisory Council recommendation that Coco's law be strengthened to include a specific offence of creating deepfakes without consent, and we will pursue that in the Oireachtas. I also acknowledge that the legislation was named after Nicole Fox Fenlon from Clondalkin, who was affectionately known by her loved ones as "Coco". Tragically, Nicole took her own life at the age of 21, after being abused physically and online for three consecutive years.

Reports indicate a growing issue of AI-generated, non-consensual, sick, sexually explicit content being created and shared among adults and young people alike throughout Ireland. As recently as last week, we became aware of active investigations having been launched in respect of that very issue for the protection and safety of local schoolchildren. I therefore acknowledge Safer Schools NI, which has created a guide for schools on preventing and responding to AI-generated image exploitation, alongside its guidance for parents and carers and its staffroom briefing PowerPoints and checklists. I also want to promote the Safeguarding Board and PSNI's Trust Trap online safety campaign, which is delivered as part of the online safety strategy. The campaign aims, through social media graphics and a campaign toolkit, to educate young people and adults about online abuse prevention and how to report it. The project also aims to reduce the number of children who fall victim to fake profiles, grooming and sextortion. Importantly, it also reassures those who feel in crisis that they are not to blame and works to enhance the confidence to report, alongside signposting to available supports.

Developing understanding among children and young people of the harms caused by violating a person's consent, dignity and privacy is key. However, the focus, in the first instance, must be on adequately tackling the perpetrators of digital, domestic, sexual and gender-based violence and holding to account all platforms that enable them. Perpetrators must not be able to evade responsibility or hide behind a veil of anonymity due to weak or inadequate regulation. To that end, I acknowledge my colleague, Emma Sheerin, who condemned the owners of X, formerly known as Twitter, for their inadequate response to the use of the AI tool Grok on that platform. Disgracefully, X placed the feature behind a paywall, which served only to monetise the harms being inflicted, rather than remove it altogether. While I welcome its formal investigation of X, Ofcom also should reflect on the leadership required by being willing to label such content as unlawful and unethical urgently. I welcome the fact that the European Commission has now opened an investigation as well.

To conclude, I recognise our Executive's strategic framework to end violence against women and girls. The framework rightly recognises the fact that online abuse normalises unacceptable behaviour, inhibits women and girls from expressing themselves and can have long-lasting impacts. Services here must be suitably equipped to provide consistently high standards of specialist, sensitive, trauma-informed care in response to cases of that nature. As AI systems evolve, so must our protections across the island.

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

Ms Ferguson: We must strive to deliver proactive, inclusive and ethical policies.

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

Ms Forsythe: I thank the Members who tabled the motion. Cara and I, in the 2022 election, were both targeted in that way. We did not know each other. She was running in East Londonderry for the SDLP, while I was running in South Down for the DUP. On the face of it, we did not have too much in common, but what we had in common was that we were females in politics, and that was the focus of the attacks. The Minister was active in her response to that election, which was horrific for women in politics, and I commend her for that.

Online violence is unacceptable for anyone and has been proven to be predominantly directed at women. A 2023 survey by the online security adviser Security Hero assessed all deepfake videos online, with 98% shown to be pornographic, of which 99% were of women. Its analysis also showed a 550% rise in deepfake pornographic videos since 2019. Those are horrific numbers. It is part of the wider problem that we have in society of violence against women and girls, with AI a new tool in those attacks. As chair of the all-party group on domestic and sexual violence, I want to ensure that our approach and our language today is victim-centred. The victims of any type of violence, including online violence against women and girls, should be at the forefront of our minds.

As a woman in politics, I am, sadly, regularly a victim of this. I hate to be accused of playing the victim or to give perpetrators satisfaction by letting them know when they have got to me, so I do not often speak out. I am a victim, however, and I am using my voice here today. As I said, in 2022, at the end of a difficult and prolonged hate campaign against me in the run-up to the Assembly election, a fake pornographic video was created that implied that it was me and was put into mass circulation. My experience was difficult. I had three young children at home, and I had to ring my dad and my elderly grandads to tell them what was going on. It was humiliating even to have those conversations. Then, when I reported it to the police, my experience was that two young male police officers came to my home. They met me alone in my living room, where I played a copy of the video for them to record it on their body cams. Even that was humiliating. It was not me, but it was being portrayed to be me. In that room, that process was incredibly uncomfortable, and I fed that back to the police. Having to do that humiliates victims even further. There was nothing that those police officers could do. They could not trace the source of the video, yet it was circulated to thousands at pace. People were messaging me from far and wide, including from Canada and Switzerland.

Deepfakes are a horrific, misogynistic tool to attack women, to degrade us and to try to drive us out of public life. In my role, there is not a week that goes by where I am not sent degrading, offensive and aggressive messages and comments online. If I post mundane information about a pothole or bin collections, the messages and attacks that I get are horrific. Many male colleagues do not believe it until they see it when they tag or share posts of mine. The experience of my colleague Carla Lockhart testifies to that often. It is therefore no surprise that women stay out of the public eye, but my concern is about the increased misogyny online.

Dr Aiken: Thank you very much for giving way. A member of my staff who is now a senior politician in local government on Antrim and Newtownabbey Borough Council came under absolutely horrendous attack. One of my biggest concerns is that it puts women off getting involved in politics full stop. Would the Member like to reflect on how difficult it will be to attract really good politicians, which most women are, to the Assembly?

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

Ms Forsythe: Thank you. I thank the Member for his intervention and completely agree with him. I would not lie to anyone: this is what you are faced with as a woman when you enter this career. All we can do is support one another and call it out, and you can see that across the Chamber. As I said, the Minister is also vocal on the issue. A campaign through the centre of society is committed to in our Programme for Government in order to change attitudes and end violence against women and girls.

Like others, I am a mother. I have teenage girls. I often say to them, "Please keep conversations open. Tell me anything that happens to you or your friends". I am a safe space, even if other people do not want to tell their parents. I tell them to please tell their teachers, that nobody will blame them and that we will do all that we can. We know about the technology that is out there, and we know that it is lies: do not ever think that people will think that that is you or that they will blame you. However, it is very worrying. Many of us are parents. This is the modern world. As Kate said, people were frightened of rock and roll, but this terrifies me. Recently, at conferences run by groups like Nexus, I have seen images of children and been shown what can be done with them on screen. It is absolutely horrifying.

In the Assembly, we have an opportunity and must do all that we can. We are talking about real women in Northern Ireland: victims in our society at every level. It is me, us, our —.

Mrs Dillon: I thank the Member for giving way, particularly as she has already done so. She says that we would not blame victims and would not disbelieve them. However, does the Member agree that the problem is that victims, whether they are victims of physical abuse, sexual or domestic violence or AI abuse, are not believed, are questioned and interrogated and have their integrity completely undermined? That is why so few women report those crimes.

Ms Forsythe: Absolutely, I agree with the Member. That is reflected in my experience: you are re-traumatised through the process.

As Cara said, the process and the whole justice system need to be reviewed. Groups on the ground, such as Nexus, Women's Aid and others, provide invaluable support. Often women go to them when they do not even go to the police. We must always remember the victims: keep them at the heart of things, provide them with support and do all that we can to support them, change attitudes and make a difference.

Mr Beattie: I rise to wholeheartedly support the motion. I commend its proposer for handling and dealing with the abuse that has been directed at her with dignity, stoicism and, as we can see in the motion, a long-term vision for better. I also commend the testimony of Diane Forsythe. As men, we do not fully grasp what women have to go through at times.

The issue that the motion addresses is not a distant, abstract concern about technology but a clear threat, causing profound harm to women and girls in our community. It is happening right now. In many ways, we are already way behind the curve on this and are getting further and further behind as technology improves.

The core promise of AI is progress and problem-solving. The Ulster Unionist Party included a section on artificial intelligence in our Westminster manifesto, outlining how it can be used positively and ethically but realising its inherent dangers. However, as the motion states with grave accuracy, predatory individuals are weaponising artificial intelligence. They use those powerful tools not for innovation but for exploitation, humiliation and to perpetrate a particularly insidious form of online violence. We are talking about:

We are talking about deepfakes, where a woman's face is seamlessly grafted onto pornography without her knowledge, consent or hope of control. It is not a prank; it is:

It is digital assault that shatters autonomy, damages mental health, ruins reputation and forces the victims — the survivors — into a devastating fight to reclaim an identity that has been stolen and violated in the most intimate way. The psychological and emotional toll is catastrophic. It is a violation that follows a woman from the bedroom to the boardroom, from her social life to her professional life, 24 hours a day. It is a tool of coercion, revenge pornography and sheer malice.

Therefore, we rightly welcome the Government's commitment to criminalise this abhorrent activity. We note the Department of Justice consultation to address the issue, but the consultation cannot be where this ends. Momentum must become law. Protections must be realised and not just discussed. I think that that is genuinely what the Minister wants and where we will get to. That is why the final clause of the motion is so crucial.

We must ensure that women and girls in Northern Ireland are not left behind. We cannot allow a lag in our legislation to create a safe haven for this sort of abuse. Perpetrators exploit digital borders. Our legal protections must be seamless right across these islands. The Justice Minister must — I believe that she will — treat this crime with the utmost urgency. We need robust, specific criminal offences that match the severity of the harm. We need enforcement powers that give our police and prosecutors the tools to investigate and prosecute effectively in this digital age. Critically, we need victim-centred protections that prioritise support, removal of the imagery and the right to dignity and justice for the victims.

The Assembly must send an unequivocal message that the digital violation of women and girls is a serious crime, that we all stand with victims and that we will act swiftly and decisively to ensure that our laws keep pace with technology. We must have a criminal justice response to this insidious crime. We must have deterrent-based sentencing. I believe that we can get there. However, time is running out as technology overtakes us.

Mr Carroll: I thank the Member for proposing the motion. I pay tribute to the Member for East Derry and all women in this Building and beyond who have been affected by this horrendous practice. It is clear that our current laws are not fit for purpose and cannot manage the emerging risks from artificial intelligence. The Grok development shows that, as Mr Beattie said, Governments are playing catch-up on AI. That is putting it mildly. AI systems are developing at such a rapid pace that our existing laws cannot keep up. I do not want to give anybody else sleepless nights, but, if we think that the situation is out of control now, we need to be concerned about the dangers of superintelligence, which will make these already real risks even worse. That is why we should stop the development of superintelligence before it is too late. People who have worked in the AI sector, not just the socialist in Stormont, have warned about the risks to humanity from superintelligent AI. They have talked about human extinction. That is the gravity of what we are talking about.

AI has paved the way for a new era of misogyny. Chatbots parrot sexist tropes. Software is used to discriminate against women who apply for jobs. Dating apps make it easier than ever to harass women, not to mention how dangerous those apps and chatbots are for people with mental illness, as has been mentioned. Some people have been encouraged to commit suicide by those apps, which is horrendous.

The feminist writer Laura Bates explains that, although deepfakes are a new form of abuse, the underlying power dynamics are as old as time. The statistics are stark: 96% of deepfakes are non-consensual pornography, and 99% of that material features women. The way in which AI is being weaponised against women and children can be understood only in the context of the oppressive capitalist system that we live under. Unfortunately, men have been abusing women for thousands of years. They have been enabled by a society that oppresses women and subjects every one of us to repressed, alienated lives. AI has not created misogyny, as others have suggested: it has just given it new tools and unprecedented reach. At this time, I warn against Executive Ministers running ahead with AI in a general sense because it is being promoted across the board, not only because of its harms but because it is a bubble that is likely to burst quite soon.

The Executive talk about their investment in programmes to tackle violence against women and girls. However, £3·2 million spread across multiple initiatives is a drop in the ocean compared with the scale of the crisis. While the big parties pat themselves on the back for their minimal funding, perpetrators continue to abuse and degrade women and girls online with impunity. It is abundantly clear that we cannot expect the likes of Mark Zuckerberg and the owners of the other big tech companies to willingly subject themselves to more scrutiny and moderation, but the British and Irish Governments have not exactly been quick to act, either. The Member to my right asked how that can be allowed to happen. It is a fair question. It is because Governments are beholden to those companies in particular. In some cases, they base their entire economies on supporting those AI systems.

Like many, I use social media, although I would prefer not to; I would rather go back to the old Nokia systems, which were referred to. Other companies exist. Social media companies have hugely damaged our collective public health in pursuit of profit. They have purposely exacerbated the crisis of violence and harm against women in order to line their pockets. They dangerously change algorithms to silence voices and bolster the far right. They will stop at nothing for profit. Only strong legal and regulatory action will curb online violence. Democratising and breaking up those huge organisations is part of the equation, too. My colleagues in the South are introducing a Bill in the Dáil that would crack down on recommender algorithms, especially for under-18s. Those algorithms pump the feeds of children and young people full of harmful, toxic content that promotes self-harm, eating disorders, misogyny, racism, homophobia and transphobia. A recent study found that, terrifyingly, 10 male-identified accounts of young people on 10 blank smartphones were all fed anti-feminist and other extremist content in just 23 minutes — and we wonder where the hate comes from. Within three hours, the vast majority of recommended content was toxic, mainly alpha male and anti-feminist material, with, unfortunately, Andrew Tate's featuring heavily. Obviously, that is about keeping people on the apps, which is their primary goal.

I support today's motion, but we need far more transformational change that holds giant tech corporations to account, protects our children from algorithmic manipulation and builds a society in which women's liberation is the norm, not the exception.

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

Mrs Long: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I am very grateful to Cara and her colleagues for bringing this important motion before the House today, and specifically Cara and Diane, who, again, very powerfully shared their personal experience of the issue.

Recent political, media and public focus on the issue of the use of X's AI chatbot, Grok, has brought into sharp focus how advances in technologies that may bring benefits to society are also used by those with malign intent to perpetrate further sexual abuse and exploitation against women and girls. Members will know that I am fully committed to strengthening the law to try to stop all abuse and violence against women and girls, and against men where that happens, although Members have rightly identified that the vast majority of victims of this abuse are women and girls. In the previous Assembly mandate, I introduced a new domestic abuse offence that captured controlling and coercive behaviour and psychological, emotional or financial abuse. It also covers online abuse, where abusers exploit the use of technology, social media and other online means to control or coerce their victim. I introduced new offences of stalking, upskirting, downblousing, cyberflashing and four new offences to tackle adults who pretend to be a child with a view to sexual grooming, which bolstered the child grooming offences. I created a stand-alone offence of non-fatal strangulation to provide greater protection against behaviour that is often used by abusers to exert control and create fear, serving as a precursor to further violence, and which is closely linked to domestic homicide. I enhanced protections around the offences of the abuse of a position of trust and the disclosing of private sexual images, which is more commonly referred to as revenge porn. Those offences have added real, tangible and valuable protections against online and offline abuse.

The extension of the provisions in the UK Crime and Policing Bill to Northern Ireland will further strengthen those protections. The first of two intended legislative consent motions was agreed by the Assembly on 23 June 2025, and the second motion is scheduled for debate here on 2 February. They include measures to amend the current offence of the possession of a paedophile manual to bring AI-generated child sex abuse images within the scope of the offence definition, and to criminalise pornography that depicts strangulation and suffocation; and provisions for a new offence of child sexual image abuse generators to criminalise those who make, adapt, possess, supply or offer to supply anything that is made or adapted to create, or facilitate the creation of, child sexual abuse images.

Further new reserved offences that will be introduced by the Bill to extend across the UK include the creation of a new offence of online facilitation of child sexual exploitation and abuse and a new power to scan for child sexual abuse images at the UK border, meaning that phones could be taken at the border, when people are entering the country, and scanned for those images.

Members will agree that, while that is a welcome and significant framework of protective measures, its necessity illustrates the level and nature of the harms, the level of abuse that is targeted at women and children and the dynamic and rapid changes that we have seen in those over recent years. Sadly, those with malign intent will always find new ways to continue the abuse. Women and girls now have to face the growing threat of having their image sexually manipulated online. I am deeply concerned about the exponential rise and the proliferation of online abuse in the form of non-consensual sexually explicit deepfake images. Unfortunately, AI tools have made it significantly easier to create such abusive images. That is an abhorrent form of sexual abuse and exploitation that is targeted overwhelmingly at women and girls. Many Members noted that research shows that deepfake pornography makes up 98% of all deepfake videos online, and that 99% of the individuals who are targeted in those deepfake videos are women.

Everyone has a right to the protection of their image, their autonomy, their privacy and their dignity. Those images and the people who create and share them seek to take those rights away from their victims and to humiliate, harm and abuse them. The harm that is caused by the creation and sharing of such images is incalculable. Victims report feeling embarrassed, violated and unsafe as well as suffering from anxiety, post-traumatic stress disorder and suicidal ideation because of their experiences.

People assume that so-called non-contact sexual offences are, in some way, less harmful or less real than contact sexual offences. Speak to any victim, and they will tell you otherwise. Knowing that a prospective employer who googles your name may find a deepfake image before they find out any of your qualifications or skills for a job is a profoundly disturbing experience for any person to go through, and many people do. In 2023, it was reported that more deepfake videos were viewed in that year than in all the preceding years put together. On the top deepfake sites, videos had been viewed more than 4·2 billion times. The psychological impact on individuals of knowing that those images are out there is severe.

The proliferation of those images online has a wider societal impact. It perpetuates, promotes and normalises misogyny and the sexualisation of women. Such images dehumanise and objectify us. I believe that they also desensitise people, particularly men and boys, to the harm that such objectification can cause in real life. I will turn, briefly, to the impact on boys. It is extremely worrying that there is an increasing number of reports worldwide, including in Northern Ireland, of schoolchildren creating sexually explicit deepfake images of their classmates and other peers. That vile behaviour is already an offence under the Protection of Children (Northern Ireland) Order 1978 and is punishable on summary conviction by up to six months' imprisonment or on conviction on indictment by up to 10 years' imprisonment. It is vital, therefore, that boys know that creating such images can have serious consequences for them, lasting the rest of their lives.

There is currently no legislation governing sexually explicit deepfake images of adults, but I am determined to address that gap and the threat and harm that such images cause. I will introduce a new deepfake offence by way of an amendment. It will be tabled at Consideration Stage of the Justice Bill, which is going through the Assembly. The timings will, ultimately, be dictated by the Assembly and the Committee, but the aim is to complete the amendment to introduce that offence in March. New offences to criminalise the creating —.

Mr Frew: I thank the Minister for giving way. Will the Minister give any indication as to why she could not forward the wording of that deepfake amendment to the Committee earlier?

Mrs Long: It is because of drafting pressures in the Office of the Legislative Counsel and because — I will get on to this later in my speech — we had to look at the outcome of the consultation. That is why. It is easy to eliminate the issue of vagrancy by repealing two pieces of legislation: that is a simple delete, following the consultation that had already been done in the previous mandate. This is a new consultation that had to be done at pace. The two are not comparable.

New offences to criminalise the creation of sexually explicit deepfake images of adults, the request for their creation, their sharing and the threat to share them will be included. The draft provision will be shaped by responses to the recent public consultation on legislative proposals. My intention is for every aspect of the despicable behaviour to be captured. That, of course, is the fundamental difference between the draft provision and other amendments: they were developed in previous mandates and are simply being introduced in this one. If enacted, the provision would bring Northern Ireland into line with England and Wales in providing for offences of creation and sharing and, in fact, would provide a more comprehensive package of measures than would have been possible via the LCM route.

Members referred to retrospectivity. Article 7 of the European Convention on Human Rights states that no one shall be held guilty of a criminal offence for an act that was not a crime at the time that it was committed. In introducing criminal offences, therefore, it would be highly unusual and potentially in breach of article 7 to make them retrospective, which is why there is a degree of urgency in delivering the provision now.

Unfortunately, the availability of AI tools or nudification apps has made the creation of the images all too easy. The UK Government recently announced their plans to ban such tools where their sole purpose is to use generative AI to turn images of real people into fake nude, sexually explicit pictures and videos. The proposed legislation, which will be tabled next month at Lords Report Stage as an amendment to the Crime and Policing Bill, would allow the police to target the firms and individuals who design and supply those tools. Regrettably, the plan to table an amendment to an existing amendment to the Bill means that it cannot be extended to Northern Ireland despite our best efforts. However, I very much welcome the recent announcement by my colleague Kate Nicholl of her plans to provide for similar legislation to make it illegal in Northern Ireland to create AI tools that enable non-consensual, sexually explicit AI-generated images. I hope that it will be possible to get consent from all parts of the Chamber to ensure that we keep pace with developments elsewhere.

More widely, I will continue to do everything possible to keep women and children safe from harm and to protect them from all forms of online abuse and exploitation. Social media and online activity are increasingly central to our lives, but they also present serious risks. As technology evolves, so do the tactics of those who seek to cause harm. We cannot stand still when the creation, manipulation and sharing of sexually explicit deepfake images and child sexual abuse material using AI underscore the need to remain constantly vigilant.

Our devolved powers are limited, given that telecoms is a reserved matter, so we need to work with Westminster to deliver a comprehensive response in this space. In that context, I highlight the UK-wide protection afforded by the Online Safety Act 2023. That places a duty, regulated by Ofcom, on social media companies to take steps to protect users from illegal content. If an organisation is considered to have broken the law, Ofcom can impose a penalty of a fine of up to 10% of that organisation's worldwide revenue, or £18 million, whichever is the greater. Where there is a failure to comply, Ofcom can seek a court order to force internet service providers to block access to the site in the UK altogether.

Members will, no doubt, be aware of recent announcements by the Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology on the UK Government's intention to issue a three-month consultation on further measures to keep children safe online, including, potentially, restrictions on addictive features, a ban on social media access and better age checks. As I did on the development of the Online Safety Act, I will continue to liaise with UK Government Ministers on any developments in that area.

It is important to recognise that a criminal justice response alone will not fully address all the harms encountered online. The worrying reports of children making sexually explicit deepfakes of their peers emphasise the need to take a holistic approach focused on prevention and education, as set out in the cross-cutting Executive online safety strategy that has been put in place to assist children and young people who participate in the online world and want to do so in a positive, safe and responsible way. If my proposals for the new offences are enacted, my Department will liaise with the Department of Education to raise awareness of their introduction and of the existing offences that criminalise sexually explicit deepfake images of children. That needs to be part of the curriculum not only to equip young girls who are growing up with the threat of being the subject of such explicit deepfake images but to educate young men on the risks of engaging in what they may think is banter but what is a seriously damaging behaviour that has long-term consequences for them.

I am sure that Members will agree with and support me on the steps being taken to address the despicable behaviours associated with deepfake images — behaviours that are unfortunately becoming increasingly pervasive. It is unacceptable that we live in a society in which some men and boys still think that it is acceptable to sexualise and objectify women and girls in that way. We have to do all that we can to protect our community from the harm that those and other forms of online abuse cause and seek to address the wider issue of misogyny and violence against women and girls, which is, sadly, all too prevalent in Northern Ireland. We will do that only by working together, but no one should be under any illusion. Even if we pass all this legislation, there will still be issues in the online space.

Just today, I met campaigners for Caoimhé's law, who wish to see an end to people taking and uploading roadside photographs at car accident sites. This is an opportunity for people to talk about what socially responsible use of social media is and about the digital access that we have. The idea that people would send up a drone to photograph dead bodies lying at the side of a road after a car accident is repugnant on every level, particularly in the knowledge that the families of those people may see the images before they have been notified of what has happened. That is what passes for normal in today's society, however. It is therefore not enough simply to close down deepfake images or to have Caoimhé's law. It is about starting to engage as a society about what kind of people we are and what kind of people we want to be and then starting to educate our young people about discernment when it comes to using what are powerful tools when they are used for the good but can be utterly destructive tools when they are not.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Thank you, Minister. I call Sinéad McLaughlin to conclude the debate and make a winding-up speech on the motion. Sinéad, you have up to 10 minutes.

Ms McLaughlin: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I thank all the Members who made really powerful contributions to this evening's debate, and I thank the Minister for attending and responding to it. A number of important points were made, particularly on the need to have robust criminal offences, enforcement powers and proper victim protections. I do not intend to go into each of those areas, but I do want to return to some of the realities behind the motion. For all of us, the discussion about artificial intelligence platforms and criminal offences is ultimately about power, harm and dignity. It is about women and girls whose images are weaponised against them. It is about lives disrupted, reputations destroyed and voices silenced, often anonymously and without consequence, and, too often, without adequate protection from the law. It is also about fear and uncertainty. The future is scary, and it is frightening to consider the world in which our children are growing up and what unknowns lie ahead. We continue to fall behind the pace of technology and the scale of harm that is now being inflicted.

I pay tribute to my colleague Cara Hunter. Her campaigning has really forced the issue on to the political agenda, and she knows personally what it is like to be targeted and abused online. It never stops for her. It just keeps going on, not because of anything that she has done but because she is a woman who speaks out publicly and refuses to be silent. That really matters.

I also thank Diane Forsythe for her testimony today about the attacks and the hate that she has experienced. The attacks started during her election campaign and have not eased up. I am really grateful that we have people in the House such as Diane who speak up for other women. When women in political life are subjected to that kind of abuse, the message that is being sent is clear: stay silent and shut up. That is an attack on women's participation in public life and an attack on democracy itself.

The creation and dissemination of non-consensual intimate images, including AI-generated images, is a serious and escalating form of abuse. It is not funny or a joke; it is a really serious crime.

AI has accelerated that harm, making it faster, cheaper and harder to trace or prosecute. We must, however, be honest. The technology is not the root cause. As Emma Sheerin and Gerry Carroll said, it is a symptom and tool of a deeper problem: a wider culture of online misogyny that normalises humiliation, rewards cruelty and treats women's bodies as content, and it is happening at scale. It is happening in spaces where anonymity is not just a feature but a protection for perpetrators. It is giving anonymity behind the abuse, and the protection that falls in behind the perpetrators is on a scale that we have never seen before. Someone can cause profound harm and disappear behind a username or an encrypted group while the victim lives with the consequences.

We also need to be honest about the mindset behind these acts. The people who commit such abuse do not care about their victims, and they do not care about trauma, reputational damage or lifelong harm. They care about themselves, gratification and power — nothing else. That is why this must be treated as a serious form of abuse.

None of this exists in a vacuum. Online misogyny has been amplified and monetised. We see it embodied in figures who have built enormous platforms by selling grievance and hate back to young men as empowerment. Andrew Tate is one example of that. He has described himself as a misogynist, said that women belong to men and suggested that women should bear responsibility for violence committed against them. That world view teaches young men that dominance is strength, that women are objects and that cruelty is something to be admired. However, it is not about one individual; it is about a wider ecosystem that profits from anger, insecurity and resentment and targets young men who feel lost or disconnected. They, too, are victims of these platforms.

We are now seeing the consequences spill into our schools, as has been mentioned by the Minister. In recent months, schools across these islands have had to respond to the online circulation of explicit images, misogynistic content and threats of sexual violence. Teachers and parents have spoken of their shock at the language that is being used and the casual way in which abuse is being shared. That should be a concern for all of us, because it forces us to ask about the type of world our children are being raised in and the kind of future that they are absorbing as normal.

I want to be clear that this is not about blaming men. Most men are appalled by what has been described. Many are actively challenging misogyny and abuse. I appreciate my male colleagues speaking passionately about the issue today. However, when misogyny is amplified and monetised at scale, it becomes a culture and a system, and politics has a responsibility to act. When online spaces are controlled by those with vast wealth and influence and accountability is weak, it is ordinary people, particularly women and girls, who pay the price. As Kate Nicholl said earlier, there is so much darkness in this space.

The motion is clear. It calls on the Minister to ensure:

That should be the bare minimum. I welcome the Minister's resolve to table an amendment to the Justice Bill so that legislation can be passed on deepfakes. That is urgent, and it needs to be done. As Cara said in her opening remarks, we could lead the way. We have cross-party support on the issue, and it would be great if the Minister could force it through as quickly as possible. If the Committee intends to act quickly — I think that it does — let us get it to the Committee and through the House.

I welcome the Minister's comments and her response to the motion. As Members said in the debate, law without enforcement is not protection; it is symbolism. Victims deserve far more than symbolism. However, as we all know, legislation alone will never be enough. If we are really serious about ending violence against women and girls, we must tackle the culture as well as the crime. Ciara Ferguson made a really good point. She drew attention to the importance of properly resourced education, digital literacy that keeps pace with technology and support for schools, parents and youth workers. Tackling the culture means asking deeper questions about masculinity, identity and belonging. If young men are being drawn towards voices that teach them to hate women, it is because someone is offering them belonging, certainty and status, however toxic their message may be. We must offer them something better: respect, equality and empathy.

Steve Aiken and Doug Beattie spoke on the need to act with urgency. If we do not act with urgency, we are contributing and continuing to hurtle towards the worst place possible. If we keep falling behind, we will be debating not the same issue in a few years but something much worse. Women and girls deserve more than reactive politics. They deserve safety and dignity. They deserve leadership that refuses to look away. Thank you, Members, and I ask you to support the motion.