Official Report: Monday 21 September 2026

Mr Speaker: A few issues arose last week in my absence, and I will be writing to Members from a number of parties about their behaviour in the House, in particular about some exchanges that took place within the scope of the Second Stage debate on the Conversion Practices (Criminalisation) Bill. Members will know that a Second Stage debate needs to relate to the Bill and that they must craft their remarks to comply with that.

I also remind Members of the clarity that Deputy Speaker Blair provided to the House last week when he said that the Bill had 11 clauses and that the debate should relate to its principles. That is what the Second Stage debate is. The Bill includes references to gender identity. Discussion of gender identity is therefore permissible in the context of the Bill.

Some Members may have attempted to raise issues about the position of other parties rather than about the Bill. A number of Members discussed gender identity without intervention from the Chair. The position that gender identity can be discussed in the debate on the Conversion Practices (Criminalisation) Bill is therefore clear, as Deputy Speaker Blair outlined. However, Members need to comply with the normal rules about linking their remarks to the Bill in front of them.

Some Members sought to challenge the Chair. Some Members sought to use language in the House about other Members that was entirely inappropriate. Some Members published exchanges with the Deputy Speaker. None of those things were appropriate. I will write to each of those Members on that.

On another matter, last week, the Justice Minister responded to a question for urgent oral answer in the House. It appears that the information provided to the House at that time was not fully accurate. It is the responsibility of any Minister or Member to inform the Assembly and correct the record at the earliest opportunity if the Assembly was told something, even inadvertently, that subsequently is discovered to be inaccurate. Over the weekend, the Justice Minister was in touch with my office to make arrangements to make a statement to the House on those matters today, and I welcome that. However, I point out, particularly to officials, that I do not expect any Minister to be put in a position where they are exposed in the Assembly because they have not been given full information. The House should expect that, if a Minister is called to address a matter in the Assembly, that Minister is fully and accurately briefed by their Department so that the Assembly gets a full picture.

On the progress of legislation, debates continue, and the Business Committee has put arrangements in place for debates to be concluded this week and next. Some of the provisions brought forward by the Committee on Procedures on Members' Bills have been effective. While much will depend on the length of each Bill's Committee Stage, we are on course to have all Second Stage debates on Members' Bills completed two or three months earlier than was the case in the previous mandate.

Mr O'Dowd: I return again to the subject of the proposed Orange Order parade down the Garvaghy Road. In the past 24 hours or so, residents' groups from across the North that have previously been involved in issues around Orange Order marches and band parades have issued a statement in solidarity with the residents of the Garvaghy Road. That statement illustrates once again that it is not a local issue, as some would have us believe or would hope, that can be dealt with without consequences for other parading issues. The residents are clear in their statement that they express solidarity with the Garvaghy Road Residents' Coalition (GRRC) and the residents of that area and that they see it as an issue that impacts across the North. They also express their concerns that there may be an intention among some people in political unionism, the Orange Order and marching bands to reopen what were once seen to be settled parades across the North. I hope that that is not the case, because those of us who have experience of the past understand that the resolutions to parading issues across the North were hard won. They came about through accommodations between residents and the loyal orders and bands at local level. They are of precious value and have benefited us all in moving forward.

I appeal once again to those who are behind the proposed parade to stop what they are doing; to allow the past 28 years of relative peace to be protected and advanced; and not to reopen old wounds. There is no requirement for an Orange Order march down the Garvaghy Road or to open up parading issues across the North. The 11 residents' groups that have made the statement are clear in their views. There can be no return to the mistakes of the past.

Mr Wilson: It is with major concern that I note a serious matter of public safety and environmental impact in Newry. Last week, a serious sewage overflow occurred in Second Avenue in which a significant amount of raw sewage flooded that residential area. The scenes were deeply concerning for all who were impacted, with sewage flooding the pavements and roadways and then, alarmingly, cascading into the storm drain network in significant quantities. It is not the first event of its kind. I am grateful to Northern Ireland Water for its prompt action, at my request, to visit the area, tend to the problem and conduct a clean-up operation. That is very much appreciated.

It goes without saying that nobody deserves to live with the constant worry of sewage overflow. When, like in that instance, the overflow is substantial and reaches the Department for Infrastructure's storm drain network, it is not only a serious public health problem but a serious environmental problem.

It is very clear that there is a dereliction of duty on the matter, and given that Sinn Féin holds the Infrastructure Ministry — indeed, the Minister is a Sinn Féin Newry MLA — I can see why residents are rightly fed up with the inaction on that troubling issue. I, on the other hand, will continue to represent everyone in Newry and Armagh.

Residents, you are being failed by a Sinn Féin Infrastructure Minister and, sadly, by Northern Ireland Water, who, collectively, have not put a stop to that pollution. Residents, you are paying the price in hazardous inconvenience, but the environment is also paying a price in untreated sewage reaching our waterways. Consider the complexity and cost of a consent-to-discharge process for a private dwelling, which must, by law, avoid exactly the scenes in Second Avenue and the areas around it. A homeowner has to spend a considerable amount of money on obtaining permission, buying a new septic tank, feeding it with electricity and servicing it yearly, all to avoid untreated sewage reaching our waterways. The rules do not seem to apply to DFI.

I was again concerned to note that, yesterday, only a couple of days after the previous incident, another overflow situation occurred — this time, worryingly, on higher ground on the green area on the Camlough Road. I contacted Northern Ireland Water again last night, and, hopefully, that issue can be dealt with today. The problem will only be resolved if the will to fix it is there, but I detect no will. To continue my lobbying, I have tabled an Assembly question for written answer asking Minister Kimmins to detail any action being taken to address the prevalence and impact of those overflows. The partnership agreement between the Department for Infrastructure and Northern Ireland Water states very clearly that both organisations must seek to "resolve issues quickly and constructively". The time to act is now. The fact that this is happening repeatedly shows that those with the power to solve the problem are abdicating their responsibilities and adopting a reactive, not a proactive, approach. That needs to change.

Miss McAllister: The unacceptable inequalities affecting cancer patients in Northern Ireland is an issue that has been further highlighted in the past week after the news that the breast cancer drug Enhertu has become available to patients in England. I congratulate all who campaigned for the past two years to make that drug available in England and Wales. When it is prescribed to eligible patients, Enhertu can extend the life of someone who has terminal breast cancer by an average of almost seven months, but there have been reports of people living up to three years. Whilst seven months may not seem like a very long time, it is everything to someone who has been given a diagnosis of terminal cancer. The fact that people are receiving the drug across the UK but not in Northern Ireland comes as another blow to patients here.

Following the decision to recommend the use of Enhertu for HER2-low metastatic breast cancer, we need that urgent clarity and action from the Department of Health and the strategic planning and performance group (SPPG). The website for the Northern Ireland Formulary, which everyone can access on their phone, outlines that, following the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guidelines, it is available in Northern Ireland because they have already calculated the cost on a case-by-case basis. We need clarity from the Department of Health and the Minister on that. This is not the first time that we have seen drugs added to the Northern Ireland Formulary that mean that they technically should be available in Northern Ireland yet people are not getting them. We know that NICE sets the guidelines, but, because of resources, the Department of Health and SPPG often diverge from what is available, whether that is because there is no specialised nurse to administer the treatment or because of ongoing treatment plans. That does not make it any less unacceptable.

My colleague Sorcha Eastwood and I have been working on the issue of inequalities across cancer care in the UK and have written to the Minister of Health to ask him to outline that. We hope that he takes the opportunity during Question Time today to confirm that the issue will be resolved as soon as possible. It is not the only issue, and breast cancer is not the only cancer. There is also ovarian cancer and prostate cancer. Young people's cancer fund — we do not have a specific one here for the local scheme. Another issue is the cost of travel to hospital for treatment; there is no similar scheme here in Northern Ireland. Cancer patients are consistently being let down. Alliance will continue to advocate for all cancer patients here in Northern Ireland, because they are of equal value and worth as any patient across the UK.

Mr Burrows: The fundamental purpose of the justice system is public protection. Our justice system has fundamentally failed to discharge that solemn duty in the case of Gary Anderson, a dangerous convicted murderer, who is on the run. My thoughts today are with the family of Karol Kelly, brutally murdered. Not only have they been bereaved, having lost a loved one, but they have been re-traumatised by the catastrophic errors in the case. I have not yet heard the leadership that is required to tackle the issue. Just last week, I raised my concerns that, in the decision that was made, while substantively correct that this man should never be released on day release, there were procedural flaws that did not make it resilient to legal challenge. I was told by the Justice Minister that there was nothing to see here. It turns out that that is exactly what the issue is.

This is the highest-risk area of justice, when you are making decisions on whether someone is suitable for release on to the streets who has committed a violent murder. It seems that the wrong score was listed in the forms. When the Prison Service was asked when the last review was done, it said that it took place in 2026, but then it could not find any record of that review. Vital information was not recorded in the governor's decision, such as the fact that the prisoner had failed two mandatory drug tests — he had refused to do them. That would have strengthened the decision to refuse the application. And then the catastrophic failure: when the judge said that the decision was not procedurally sound and invited the governor, via the legal representative, to remake that decision, that did not happen. Either the Prison Service did not take up the invitation or the departmental solicitor did not pass on that request. That led to the inevitable decision that a dangerous man was released with a civilian chaperone with no training and no handcuffs. We now have a dangerous prisoner on the run. Why on earth was a member of the Northern Ireland Prison Service not at the court with the departmental solicitor in order to close the communication gap? It was inevitable that there was going to be a to and fro between the prison and the court on a Sunday afternoon. There are serious lessons to be learned.

My message to the on-the-run thug Gary Anderson is this: hand yourself in. If anyone is harbouring him, assisting him or withholding information about him, they are committing a crime. The Police Service of Northern Ireland and an Garda Síochána need to redouble their efforts to get that man behind bars. However, we need real answers from the Justice Minister so that this never happens again. We are here to keep people safe, not the opposite.

Mr O'Toole: I do not normally pay all that much attention to the DUP conference. I offer my condolences to my colleagues on the opposite Benches, and I hope that they had an enjoyable and productive weekend. This weekend, however, I could not help but notice some of what was emerging from the DUP conference. Any political party of any stripe is entitled to and should meet to discuss policy, priorities and future plans. We all do that, and my party did it the weekend before last. It is clear that the DUP had a very particular agenda around unionist unity — it is up to version 6.0 or 7.0 — that it is trying to push.

The thing that I want to talk about and which concerns me, however, was not necessarily any DUP politician — although I agreed with virtually none of what they said, they are entitled to meet — but the presence of a Mr Danny Kruger from Reform UK, who was there on Friday night as the keynote speaker. I would have thought that, as many people have said, having sadly been run over by many buses driven by members of the British hard right and having exhausted lots of party funds on Sudocrem for having been burned so many times by political movements led by the British hard right, the DUP would have thought better, but I am afraid not.

There is a serious point here. I am afraid to say that I spent a few minutes reading Mr Kruger's remarks to the DUP conference on Friday night, in which he announced a particular policy for a Reform UK Government. Mr Frew is nodding, so I presume that they would like to see a Reform UK Government; certainly, the DUP invited that man along to speak. Danny Kruger said that, under a Farage-led UK Government, Reform would insist on travel authorisation for any non-UK or Irish national arriving in Dublin Airport and travelling North.

Let us be clear: that is a catastrophic, grotesquely stupid and utterly impractical policy for a number of reasons. First, it would, of course, be a profound violation of the settlement that we have on this island. However, in practical terms, as well as being utterly impossible, it would devastate our economy, including our tourism economy. Where do 70% of the people who come to Northern Ireland arrive? Dublin Airport.

Once again, the geniuses in the DUP are inviting not a hard border on the island of Ireland, which is a fantasy of parts of unionism, but a hard border, which I do not want to see, between Britain and Ireland: another sea border. It would be the worst kind of sea border and one that I, who have spent most of my adult life in Britain and care deeply about those ties, do not want to see, and nor does my party. The DUP, by flirting once again with the English hard right, is bringing that on itself and the rest of us. Since Reform and the DUP seem to be really into nostalgia — old-fashioned, English/British-style nostalgia — let me offer a bit of pop culture nostalgia to colleagues in the DUP once again, since they are going down the same road again. Lads, don't be plonkers all your lives. Don't be plonkers all your lives.

Mr Speaker: The Member's time is up.

Mr Boggs: As a former teacher, I understand completely the invaluable role that classroom assistants play in our schools. Last week, Unison's classroom assistant members gathered in Strabane to highlight the issues that they face. While I could not be at the event, I have supported and continue to support their good work charter campaign. Councillors Brian Harte and Collette McAllister attended and were shocked, to say the least, by the broad issues that classroom assistants spoke to them about.

Unison's good work charter breaks down their concerns, frustrations, everyday experiences and, more important, how, they feel, those would be best addressed. Their asks are not unreasonable. They want to ensure that they have secure, contracted work with fair pay, terms and conditions. They want to feel valued alongside teachers in how vital they are to the classroom, with job descriptions that accurately reflect the work that they do. They want professional development and progression aligned with appropriate recognition of their qualifications and experience. They also want to be involved in the reform of SEN provision, ensuring that their experience in supporting children is reflected in new ways of delivering SEN support. Every MLA across the Assembly will have heard from parents just how invaluable classroom assistants are to their child's learning. As a former teacher, I know how invaluable they are to teaching and to learning.

At last week's meeting, classroom assistants referenced the proposed enhanced support model that could mean in real terms that one-to-one support for pupils could be in jeopardy. Their fear and frustration are focused purely on the loss of support for the young people with whom they work. What has struck me most in engaging with the campaign are the parents from whom I have heard emotional accounts that show that they, too, are fully on board with the need to better value our classroom assistants, because they see first-hand the positive impact that classroom assistants have on their children. Frankly, it is hard to listen to the people who are the backbone of our education system speak of how undervalued they feel, how their year-long pleas for action have not been addressed and how decisions continue to be made over their heads.

The message from classroom assistants, parents and children is loud and clear: the role of classroom assistants is crucial to the development of our children. Our classroom assistants deserve better. The young people whom they support deserve better. I will continue to stand with them every step of the way. Today, I call on the Minister, the Department and the Education Authority to do likewise.

Ms Forsythe: I thank Matthew O'Toole for being so excited in his contribution when highlighting our excellent DUP conference at the weekend and our good unionist friends in Great Britain.

Fuel prices are shocking. Diesel has hit £2 a litre, and we feel that pain at the pumps, but we can be assured that the rise will affect much more than that. Our hard-pressed working families feel it in their fuel and heating costs. It is also hitting the heart of our economy. Our farmers and fishermen, the backbone of our local agri-food sector, are being hammered once again. Those sectors are heavily reliant on fuel, and soaring costs run the risk of putting them under for good. Our small businesses and local tradesmen are on the road across the Province daily, and they continuously see their profits diminish. The prices that they pay for their fuel have been rocketing since they quoted for jobs. How are they supposed to manage running their businesses? For transport businesses, including hauliers, it is devastating for an industry that is already under pressure, with a large coach or HGV taking around 400 litres of diesel. The recent increase could see them hitting an extra £180 on average for a tank of diesel. That is unmanageable.

People do not often think of the bigger impact of the pressures on the haulage sector. It means that less food and fewer supermarket products make it on to our shelves and that more of our restaurants and building suppliers are pressurised when it comes to getting supplies. It further drives up the prices for those who cannot access those materials.

We also have the impact on our public services. Transportation services, including taxis, are contracted on rates that are based on the fuel cost at that time, which may be lower. With those costs escalating, it might be unaffordable to run those businesses. We could have children who might not get to school and patients who might not get to their appointments. We could see pressures on airports, our tourism sector, sports teams and weddings. No aspect of our lives will be unaffected by it.

We need to see an intervention on the escalating fuel costs now. They are crippling our households, businesses, sole traders, farmers and fishermen. It is pressurising our public services. It is felt by every person here. We need to see an extension of the reliefs for hauliers and cuts in fuel duty and taxes on red diesel beyond this year. We need to see further interventions. Action is needed now, before it is too late to recover.

We saw a UK Government intervention on electricity costs, but any support on fuel needs to be direct. It should not have taken a special scheme in Northern Ireland to sort it out. The zero rate on VAT for domestic electricity should have applied automatically. The Windsor framework was a barrier, and the Government need to stand up to the EU on that. We need action on fuel costs, which are crippling everyone. Our DUP MPs will raise that issue at the heart of Westminster, and every MLA should raise it at every opportunity.

Ms Mulholland: A real and increasing concern for people in Ballymoney relates to traffic congestion and whether our road infrastructure is keeping pace with the changing town. Anyone who tries to travel through Ballymoney at the wrong time of day knows exactly what I mean. At the bottom of Main Street, four roads — Main Street, Castle Street, Meeting House Street and Seymour Street — converge at one crossroads. At peak times, significant tailbacks develop, stretching back along all the roads that lead into the town.

The issue is, however, about more than one junction. Over recent decades, Ballymoney has changed. We have seen considerable housing development to the south of the town, particularly along Bann Road, Bravallen Road and Finvoy Road. There has been further development along Charlotte Street, and more homes are being built on the Knock Road. The way in which people live and work has also changed massively. Ballymoney is increasingly part of a wider commuter belt, with many people regularly travelling into Belfast for work, while choosing to make their home in the town. Whilst that growth is really positive, our infrastructure needs to grow with it.

Along with a local councillor, I, as a local MLA, have been raising that issue with the Department for Infrastructure since I came into this role, yet the situation has not improved. If anything, the pressure on the network has continued to worsen. We regularly raise concerns about congestion on Castle Street, at Gate End, on Milltown Road, on Ballybrakes Road and in that whole part of town. When those routes become congested, we see a knock-on impact on Kilraughts Road and Kirk Road. Increasingly, Ballymoney is being used by through traffic, despite parts of it simply not being designed for the volume of modern traffic that its roads now carry. For residents, it is not an abstract infrastructure debate. It means sitting in traffic while trying to get to work. It means that a short local journey takes so much longer than it should. It means that parents are stuck in congestion during the school run. It means concerns about rat-running and pedestrian safety, especially about whether children are able to safely walk or cycle to and from school. We hear those concerns from residents. That has to help with what happens next.

We need something more than just an isolated intervention. My call to the Infrastructure Minister has been straightforward: commission a strategic review of Ballymoney's transport and road infrastructure. That review should be used to develop, fund and deliver real long-term solutions to the town's congestion, infrastructure pressures and safety concerns. It has to be about future-proofing the town, especially as development grows. I want the Minister to know that we need her to listen to residents, assess the network as a whole and plan for the growth that is already happening.

Ms Ferguson: Today marks the United Nations International Day of Peace. In this society, we all know too well the value of peace and the Good Friday Agreement, all parts of which must be protected and upheld. We also know that peace requires continual, inclusive dialogue, the safeguarding of international law and human rights, and the promotion of Irish neutrality.

Ireland must continue to stand for peace, diplomacy and international law in an increasingly dangerous world. Today, more than five million Palestinians live under occupation, denied fundamental rights and subjected to devastating violence, displacement and dehumanisation. On this International Day of Peace, we must be clear that there can be no meaningful peace without justice, freedom and dignity for the Palestinian people.

In Derry, four people have now been convicted and fined for taking part in a peaceful but unnotified procession in solidarity with Palestine. Whatever about the notification issues, criminalising people for participating in peaceful protests raises serious questions about how we protect the fundamental right to peaceful assembly and expression. The campaign in support of Palestine must intensify. The democratic and human rights of the Palestinian people must be recognised and upheld, and the international community must act in good faith to secure a just and lasting peace.

I acknowledge all those in our communities who continue to raise their voice for Palestine and artists including Macklemore, Kneecap and CMAT who have used their platform to strengthen public solidarity. No person should be punished simply for using their voice in peaceful protests, pickets or performances in support of the rights of the Palestinian people. Justice is the soul of peace, and when people harness their voice, powerful things can happen. If the UN International Day of Peace is to mean anything, Palestinians must be allowed to live free from occupation, in freedom, dignity and peace.

Mr Frew: Every weekend, we seem to hear about an Alliance Party disaster or catastrophe, but I ask Members to cast their mind back to when 51 cattle were slaughtered in an open field in full view of the public on the watch of the Alliance Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs, Andrew Muir. I am glad to report that the DUP tabled a motion of no confidence in the Minister at the behest of the farming community across the country, because of the weight of its concern. I am glad that the TUV signed the motion of no confidence and that the UUP has now signed it. I thank both parties for doing so. There are many farmers in North Antrim who vote for Sinn Féin, but it has yet to sign the motion of no confidence. Sinn Féin may be energised only about unionist Ministers, but surely its voters who are farmers in North Antrim and throughout the Province have been on to Sinn Féin constituency offices, concerned about how the cull could have happened on the Alliance Minister's watch.

I appeal to my colleague in North Antrim the Sinn Féin MLA Philip McGuigan and his party to sign the motion of no confidence without delay. Let us send the message that the farming community of Northern Ireland has delivered loud and clear: the Minister must go.

Dr Aiken: Last week, I attended the annual Commonwealth Parliamentary Conference in Cape Town, South Africa. The themes of the conference were delivering democracy across the Commonwealth nations; the impact of the day-to-day use of AI; the challenges to the international system of trade; and particularly how the rules-based international system is being abused. The conference also concentrated on war in the Horn of Africa; on the horrors of what is happening in Sudan, Nigeria and the Democratic Republic of the Congo; on how the West appears fixated only on Gaza and not on the millions elsewhere facing starvation, actual genocide and sexual violence; and on the scramble for resources that is turning many parts of Africa into warlord fiefdoms, in which the use of child labour and child soldiers is helped by our obsession with the latest technology.

It was, however, the discussions about gender-based violence that really struck home. The thoughts and prayers of every Member should be with the nine female victims, and their friends and families, at Kempton Park, which is near the international airport in Johannesburg. Over 5,500 people are murdered every quarter in South Africa, over 1,600 of whom are women. Gender-based violence is a disease everywhere, and it must be dealt with.

The conference, with over 900 delegates representing 56 nations and one third of the world's population, welcomed representatives from Morocco, Brunei and Ukraine as associate members. Members from across the Commonwealth asked me why Ireland decides to boycott that valued North/South and east-west organisation, which is a developed and developing world body that contains some of the key members of BRICS. One person who put that point to me was a senior member of the African National Congress. It is well beyond time that Ireland parked its anti-Britishness and looked to join the Commonwealth as at least an associate member. We should all be asking why it does not do so.

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

Mr Burrows: On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

Mr Speaker: I will take your point of order after this business is concluded.

Mr Burrows: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am concerned about the comments from Ms Ferguson of Sinn Féin. She seemed to indicate that people should not be held to account for breaking the law in relation to un-notified processions, based on whether she thinks that that procession is meritorious. That seemed to promote breaking the law and be against the culture of lawfulness.

Mr Speaker: We will take a look at that. Of course, MLAs should not encourage people to break the law in any circumstances. I assume that that is not the first time that that has happened, but, nonetheless, we will take a look at it.

Mr Lyons (The Minister for Communities): I wish to make the following statement on the 45th summit of the British-Irish Council (BIC), which took place on 9 and 10 July 2026. The Minister for the Economy and I represented the Northern Ireland Executive. The summit was hosted by the Government of Guernsey. A full list of the principal delegates is attached to the statement, which has been provided to Members.

The theme of the summit was nurturing beginnings, strengthening early years and family support for happy, healthy childhoods and lifelong well-being. The plenary discussion focused on the shared priority areas across member Administrations to give every child a happy, healthy and secure start in life. The Council considered efforts to support integrated, high quality early years services alongside increased access to strong family and workforce support. Members also discussed children and young people's digital access, recognising that needs, risks and opportunities will evolve as they grow older. The discussion acknowledged the benefits of digital technology and the importance of ensuring that children can learn and play in new and appropriate ways whilst remaining safe, supported and protected from harm. Minister Archibald and I took the opportunity to highlight the Executive's draft early learning and childcare strategy and its aims of supporting children's development, easing financial pressures on working families, and ensuring that the Northern Ireland childcare sector is stable and sustainable. We highlighted the importance of affordable, high-quality childcare in enabling more people, particularly women, to return to or remain in work. We underlined the need to invest in the early years workforce, helping to strengthen productivity and ensure that early years provision supports families, enables employers and invests in the workforce of the future.

We also reflected on the wider ongoing work across our government to assist families, including through childcare affordability, community-based support services and initiatives to help people to engage in their children's development. We stressed the Executive's commitment to help families and communities thrive, reduce inequality and ensure that every child has the opportunity to reach their full potential.

Council members briefed colleagues on significant developments in their Administrations and reflected on a range of domestic and international topics of mutual interest. We raised the important issue of community cohesion, noting that this summer had marked the third consecutive year in which Northern Ireland experienced disorder. We highlighted the key steps that are being taken by the Executive and their partners to maintain preparedness, strengthen cohesion across communities and improve public communications. We stressed the Executive's commitment to tackling racism and supporting victims, including through the draft framework for race relations and the progression of legislation to strengthen penalties for hate crime.

All Administrations welcomed the ongoing preparations for a cross-cutting symposium at the BIC, entitled 'These Islands: Cultivating Communities and Tackling Inequalities', which will take place in Edinburgh on 29 September. The Council noted the fact that the next BIC summit will be hosted by the UK Government. A date for that summit is yet to be confirmed.

Mr —. Madam Principal Deputy Speaker — unless Edwin has changed — that concludes the statement.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Minister.

Mr Durkan: I thank the Minister for his statement. Parents have heard repeated commitments with regard to childcare but continue to fight high costs and limited availability. Will the Minister tell the House what specific and measurable improvements families will see in affordability of and access to childcare over the next 12 months?

Mr Lyons: Those issues were raised at the meeting. We heard from member Administrations about the approaches that are being taken in each jurisdiction. The Member will understand that I was at the summit in place of the Minister of Education, who will, I have no doubt, wish to give a fuller answer to that question. I can say, however, that we are working across government to ensure that the provision is there. Under the leadership of Paul Givan, we have gone further than ever before on childcare provision, but it needs to go further, and that needs to be done in a joined-up way with other Departments. We all have a role to play in making sure that that support is in place, because it helps us in the work that Departments, including my Department, are doing.

Mr Gildernew: I thank the Minister for the statement. Minister, you highlighted the importance of family support to reducing inequality. Given your Department's responsibility for the anti-poverty strategy, will you tell us how the learning from the summit may factor into measures that will be brought forward in the anti-poverty strategy to support families?

Mr Lyons: The Member will be aware of the work that we have been doing and the updated work that has been done over the past months with local government and interested parties that are involved in that. We touched on some of those issues at the BIC meeting, and information has been requested from some of the other member Administrations about the work that they are doing in that area and how it could factor into that. Let me be clear: I believe that the issues that we are talking about are essential to what we want to deliver and how we tackle poverty in Northern Ireland. I certainly do not believe that we have a monopoly on the wisdom on the subject, which is why I think that it is important that we continue to engage with other Administrations to look at some of the best experience, practice and learning from elsewhere. I will continue to do that.

Ms K Armstrong: The Minister has described childcare as being a cross-government priority. What, specifically, will the Minister do through his Department to contribute to the delivery of the early learning and childcare strategy, particularly for families experiencing disadvantage, rather than having the responsibility rest solely with the Department of Education?

Mr Lyons: The Member is absolutely right: it does not lie solely with one Department. If we want to improve outcomes for people and improve people's experience of early years, there are a number of ways in which other Departments can help. I have said time and again — I genuinely believe this — that making sure that a young person has a warm, safe and secure home is one of the best things that my Department can do for people. That is where it ties in for us: making sure that we give that certainty and stability in life, where we can.

Of course, there are responsibilities for other Departments, and that is why the Department of Education continues to work closely with the Department for the Economy so that we can support training, apprenticeships and other opportunities that arise for early learning and childcare. Work is also being taken forward on plans to establish a dedicated business advisory service for childcare providers, recognising the practical challenge that many providers face. I am aware that the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs is also involved to make sure that the planned actions reflect the needs of rural communities. Of course, there is a role for the Department of Health, and the Health Minister recently announced £59·2 million of investment in Together for Families. That is a once-in-a-generation opportunity to improve the life chances of children and families across Northern Ireland. Whether it is Education, Health, Communities or Justice, all need to be involved in making sure that we are dealing with this issue, and that is why cross-departmental collaboration is taking place.

Mr Allen: Minister, was there anything specifically that you took away from the other Administrations on community cohesion that either DFC or the wider Executive could apply here to improve community cohesion?

Mr Lyons: That part of the discussion came up in updates from individual member Administrations, and we, sadly, had an issue to report that did not come up in the same way with other jurisdictions. However, we are going ahead and doing work on that. That is being led by TEO, of course including the involvement of other Departments. The meeting was in early July, and I do not recollect anybody having anything additional to contribute to that. That does not mean that we do not learn from the experiences and value of what takes place in other jurisdictions.

Miss Brogan: Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire as a ráiteas.

Given that so much of the theme of the meeting was around supporting communities, can the Minister explain his plans and how he will support the community and voluntary sector, which has seen massive and really devastating cuts to its funding since Brexit and the loss of EU funding through that?

Mr Lyons: It certainly is an important issue. It was not directly referenced — this was specifically about childcare and early years — but the Member is absolutely right to highlight that as an issue. It is right to say that many of those organisations provide support in this area, if not directly in the area of early years then in some of the other supports that can be around that, especially with how we can help people get into work. We continue to hear the impacts of the decisions that have been made, and, although it is the Finance Minister who leads on that, we have all been listening to those concerns. There is now a gap that needs to be filled, and the Member can be assured that the Executive will work together to do our best to make sure that we put what provision we can back in place, identifying the need that is there. She will understand how difficult that is because of the funding that has been removed in that way.

Ms Mulholland: Thank you, Minister, for your statement, even if it is on behalf of another Minister. You highlighted the importance of affordable, high-quality childcare in enabling women to return to work or remain in work. As your Department is responsible for the gender equality strategy in that suite of social strategies, what action are you personally and your Department taking to address childcare as a barrier to women's participation in the labour market?

Mr Lyons: That is absolutely being taken forward as part of the work that we are doing on the anti-poverty strategy. You cannot separate the two. I hope that the Member will be pleased with the work that we have done on that when it is announced.

On the specific gender equality strategy, she will be aware of some of the issues that are being taken forward by TEO, specifically on violence against women and girls. As recently as last week, I have been engaging on that issue with officials to ensure that we can find a way forward and see what is possible in the rest of the mandate. Many social strategies were promised at one time. As many as 19 were proposed in the 'New Decade, New Approach' document, and we are taking those forward sequentially. I hope to say more on that. That does not mean that work has not been done in the meantime on those areas, including the anti-poverty strategy; work is being taken forward.

As I have just said, I am clear that a large part of anti-poverty is about enabling people to get into work. Childcare is a massive barrier to that. That will be part of the document, when it is produced, and I hope that she can support it.

Mr Boggs: I thank the Minister for his statement, which references a "happy, healthy" start for children. Tackling child poverty and holiday hunger can help to give children and young people the best start in life, and we know that that can be done through the extension of free school meals during holiday periods. Minister, will you confirm your and your party's support for my colleague Danny Baker's Bill to end holiday hunger and extend free school meals as a measure to give children that happy and healthy start?

Mr Lyons: Of course, I want to make sure that everybody has that best start in life. Our job is to make sure that we find the best ways to do that and use the resources that we have in the best way possible. The Member is new to the House — I welcome him to his place and to the Communities Committee — but he will learn very quickly that every decision that we make in this place and every pound that we spend mean that money cannot be spent elsewhere. Therefore, the questions for us are whether it is the best use of the money that we have and, if we put the money into a specific area, where it will be taken from. The costs in the Member's Bill are around £30 million. My question is this: where is that money to be taken from? If a Member's Bill is putting that responsibility on the Executive, where does the money come from? What will we defund in order to put that extra provision in place? We may well decide, "This is the right thing to do. This is the way that we can tackle poverty. This is one of the best things that we can do with the money", but I do not think that it is appropriate that it is done by way of a Member's Bill. As Members will see in other legislatures, there can often be limits on how much can be spent through the Member's Bill process. This puts a significant additional burden on the Executive. My simple questions to Members are these: "Where is that money coming from? What will it be taken from?". Those are the main questions that we have to ask, and I do not yet have the answers to them.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Minister. That concludes questions on the statement.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: The Speaker has received notice from the Minister of Justice that she wishes to make a statement. Before I call the Minister, I remind Members that they must be concise in asking their questions, as this is not an opportunity for debate, and long introductions will not be allowed. Minister.

Mrs Long (The Minister of Justice): Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. I wish to make a statement to the Assembly on the case of Gary Anderson, the circumstances surrounding his compassionate temporary release, his subsequent absconding and information that has come to light following further examination of the matter.

At the outset, I reiterate that Karol Kelly's family remain at the very forefront of my thoughts. They have already endured unimaginable pain and loss, and recent events have, understandably, renewed their distress and caused significant concern. The family should never have had to relive that trauma in this way. I know that many members of the public will share those concerns. Subject to the family's wishes, I hope to meet them in the coming days to listen to their concerns and provide assurance that a thorough examination of the case is proceeding. I have asked the permanent secretary to commission an independent review. I will say more about that matter later.

I wish to be clear that Gary Anderson remains unlawfully at large. I urge him to hand himself in immediately. I also ask anyone who has information about his whereabouts to contact the PSNI without delay.

When I responded to a question for urgent oral answer last Tuesday, I indicated that the court had not afforded the Northern Ireland Prison Service (NIPS) an opportunity to reconsider or retake its original decision to refuse compassionate temporary release. That was my understanding at the time; it was also the understanding of the Prison Service. It was only when the judgement was published in full on Friday that a different version of events emerged. I immediately directed officials to establish the facts surrounding the case and the briefing provided to me. I also advised the Speaker that I would return to the House at the earliest opportunity to provide Members with an update based on the fullest information available.

Following further examination of the case, it has become clear that the possibility of reconsidering the original decision was discussed during the judicial review proceedings. However, the Department's inquiries indicate that the decision makers in Maghaberry prison were not informed by the Departmental Solicitor's Office (DSO), acting on behalf of the Northern Ireland Prison Service, that the court was considering such a course of action. The officials responsible for the original decision were, therefore, not given an opportunity to review, reconsider or reaffirm that decision nor were they made aware at the relevant time that the court was exploring whether the matter should be referred back for further consideration.

It is important to place on record that the original decision reached by the Northern Ireland Prison Service was to refuse compassionate temporary release. That decision was taken following consideration of issues including risk and public protection.

The urgent review that I commissioned in light of that information has identified shortcomings in the handling, communication and escalation of information during the judicial review proceedings, including by the Departmental Solicitor's Office. While those issues arose in the context of rapidly developing litigation and significant operational pressures across the Prison Service, they nevertheless warrant careful scrutiny. The urgent review also identified issues requiring further examination in relation to information relied upon by the Prison Service during the original decision-making process. As I made clear last week, those matters were already subject to review. However, the new information regarding the handling of the litigation means that both issues must now be examined together to establish the full facts and identify any lessons learned.

Accuracy and transparency are fundamental principles of ministerial accountability. It is important, therefore, that I place the updated information before the Assembly at the earliest opportunity. Given the seriousness of those developments, however, and the public concern that the case has generated, I have asked the permanent secretary of the Department of Justice to commission a fully independent review of all aspects of the handling of the case. That review will examine the handling of the case from the original compassionate temporary release application through to the judicial review proceedings and the events following Mr Anderson's release. It will consider the actions, decision-making, communications and governance arrangements across the Northern Ireland Prison Service, the Department of Justice and the Departmental Solicitor's Office, as well as the advice provided to me. That review will establish the facts, identify any lessons learned and make recommendations for improvement. I have asked the permanent secretary to agree the terms of reference urgently and to appoint a reviewer who is fully independent of the Department.

I have been clear throughout that, where lessons can be learned, they must be learned; where improvements are required, they must be made; and where accountability is necessary, it must follow. I will keep the Assembly informed of the outcome of the review and of any actions arising from it.

Mr Durkan: What a mess, and the more that we have heard, the messier it has got. Minister, while the family of Karol Kelly welcome the steps that you have outlined today and your willingness to meet them, it is hard to convey the impact that this situation is having on them. It must also be said, Minister, that the family's confusion has been compounded by some of the misinformation in the answers that you gave in the Chamber last week. It has been a week since Anderson bolted.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Is there a question, Mark?

Mr Durkan: The family wants to know what changes the Minister will implement to spare other victims and families such stress and suffering.

Mrs Long: The Member will be aware that I am willing to meet the family, and we are making arrangements to do that. His office requested that I did so, but I would have wanted to do so anyway to apologise in person for what happened in this case and for any role that the Department may have played in it. I also want to take the opportunity to hear from the family about how this matter has impacted on them because it is important that I do so, and do so face to face. I will seek to do that as quickly as possible.

With respect to the changes that will be implemented, it is impossible for me to prejudge the outcome of the independent review that I have commissioned. At this stage, it is impossible for me to say with certainty what recommendations it may bring forward. Therefore, it is impossible for me to answer that question at this juncture without potentially going off track and not doing the things that need to be done.

To be absolutely clear, when I answered the question for urgent oral answer last Tuesday, I advised the House that it would be highly unusual for a court to reach a final determination in a case of that nature without first affording the Prison Service an opportunity to review its decision. We were therefore surprised, to put it mildly, that the court had done so, but we were not aware that there had been any discussion of an offer to review the information until the full judgement was published on Friday afternoon. There was no intention on my part either to confuse the family or cause them distress or to confuse Members or cause them distress.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Some Members came into the Chamber after the statement had started. I will call them in the order in which they came in, and I will try to keep to the d'Hondt system. Members who arrived late should not expect to be called next.

Mr Frew (The Chairperson of the Committee for Justice): My thoughts are with the Kelly family, while my concerns are about public safety. When misleading the House, even inadvertently, last week, the Minister stated that the Prison Service had:

The Minister also stated:

Will the Minister apologise to the House for misleading it? I ask that she address my concern that she leads a Department that sees fit to provide her with false information and then withholds the facts from her until the courts intervene with the full court statement.

Mrs Long: First, I take exception to the suggestion that I misled the House, inadvertently or otherwise. I was fully transparent in providing the information and did so with full candour. The issue of what my officials provided to me was also addressed with full candour. In the legal read-out that we got of the case, there was no mention of the opportunity to review the case being offered. Although the judge understood the offer to have been made in the court, that was not conveyed to my officials. There was therefore no one in the Department who could have advised me of that fact last Tuesday so that I could make it known. We were aware, of course, that what happened was highly unusual, which is why I brought it to the attention of the House.

The reference that I made to the judgement was correct. The judgement itself had been published at that point, and, again, that was without reference to NIPS being asked to reconsider. It was the transcript of the full case that was of interest, and that became available to us only on Friday. Not only did we have to read the transcript, at which point we realised that there was a discussion in the court about whether the matter could be retaken by NIPS, but my officials had to go to the court yesterday to listen to the recordings in order to work out exactly what had happened when the offer was first discussed. That is highly unusual.

As I said, I have been absolutely transparent. At the point at which I realised that the information that I had, in good faith, presented last week was not as full or as candid as I would wish, I contacted the Speaker's Office and requested to come to the Chamber at the earliest opportunity to correct it. I cannot see what more a Minister could do.

I am confident that my officials keep me informed, but they can do so only to the extent that the information is available to them. I am therefore commissioning a full review of all the processes so that we can identify whether any information that was available to my officials was not passed on to me — at this point, I have no reason to believe that that was the case — or whether there was instead simply a failure of communication between the Departmental Solicitor's Office and my Department.

Ms Sheerin: I thank the Minister for her statement. Minister, you have been clear in your view that no one in the Department is responsible for what has happened. Such cases are delicate, and we have to ensure that the rights of everyone involved are protected. Our thoughts are with the Kelly family, given the re-traumatising effect of this incident. There is no way that such decisions can be made with complete guarantees. However, for the judiciary to make a decision, it is crucial that the information provided be accurate and up to date, and it appears that the Prison Service has failed in that regard. Who, in your view, is responsible for that failing? Where does accountability lie?

Mrs Long: There are a couple of things. I am not saying that there was no one in the Department with any responsibility for the decision-making process. To be clear, that is not what I am saying. I am saying, however, that I do not believe, as I stand here today, that officials deliberately sought to mislead me before I came to the House last week. The allegation made was that my officials routinely lie to me: they do not.

On the issue of the failures, there are three aspects. The first is about the original information that was provided to the courts. The judge deemed that information to be flawed and therefore felt that it was not a basis on which he could stand over the decision of the Northern Ireland Prison Service that Mr Anderson should not be released. That is the first thing.

The second thing is that, if such a circumstance arises, we are normally offered the opportunity to review it and to provide further data or clarification as required. That was not communicated to the Department and the decision makers in the Prison Service. No one in the Prison Service was aware that that offer had been made in the court, so that was not a failing of the Prison Service. It was not conveyed either at the time or in the legal read-out of the case by those from DSO who represented us. That needs to be looked at carefully. They have accepted that there was a procedural failing in that regard.

The third element is about the substantive decision that was made to release Mr Anderson and to do so in the recognisance of his uncle — a family member. Again, there may be those who question the wisdom of that; I am not in a position to do so. It was for the judge to make the decision, and the judge made that decision. There is, however, a wider issue around civilian escorts in such situations that we need to bottom out.

Those are the three key things that appear to me from what I know now. However, I am aware that, even over the past 48 hours, this story has continued to evolve. I am not going to sit back and blame individuals because — I would love anyone in the Chamber who thinks that they have never made a mistake to stand up and say so — I do not want to see people hung, drawn and quartered in public for what was a very difficult and finely balanced decision. I want the review to bottom out exactly what happened and exactly what structures are in place to stop such failings and, if those structures are not adequate, to give me direct advice and guidance on what we need to do to improve things, because, whilst we can provide very little comfort to the Kelly family, I think that they would at least be comforted to know that no other family will have to face the same challenge.

Ms Egan: My thoughts are also with the Kelly family, given how distressing this incident must be for them.

Minister, from your statement, it is very clear that there are questions for the Departmental Solicitor's Office about how communication with the Northern Ireland Prison Service was handled in this case. Will you confirm whether DSO sits under your Department?

Mrs Long: No, the Departmental Solicitor's Office provides advice and guidance to all Ministers on legal matters and sits in the Department of Finance. It provides us with legal guidance and advice as we proceed through such cases.

It is very important to remember that there are individuals who work through what are highly challenging and highly sensitive decisions, often in short time frames and with considerable pressure applied to them. We need to allow the review to take its course and identify where the failings are. If those failings are in my Department, I will take responsibility for them and deal with the individual circumstances. However, it would be unwise for us to play pass the parcel with blame. I said last week that, when the decision was made by the judge, he was entirely within his rights to make that decision and that he perhaps applied a different lens to the decision than colleagues in the Prison Service would have done. I stand by that comment today. It is important that all of us in the justice system — and, indeed, all of us in the House — recognise how sensitive, challenging and finely balanced such decisions are.

Ms Finnegan: I thank the Minister for coming to the House to clarify the situation. I reiterate the message that our thoughts are with the Kelly family. We can only imagine what they are going through.

Minister, the more details that emerge about the release of Gary Anderson, the more troubling the decision-making process seems to have been, especially considering the risk to the public. The judgement is clear that counsel acted on her client's instructions, but why did the duty governor not receive communication that the judge had offered the Prison Service the chance to reconsider the decision not to release Gary Anderson?

Mrs Long: I cannot answer that question because I only have DSO's response, which said that the failure to communicate was a procedural failing on its part. I grant everyone that it is an unusual set of circumstances; it is also an unusual set of circumstances in a highly controversial and sensitive case, and I understand that. However, it is one of the reasons why I believe that a fully independent review of all the various stages of the case is absolutely necessary to establish how we move forward in a way that ensures such an instance will not be repeated, because most people want that reassurance. Last week, I said that we would look again and review the basis on which we advise the courts on those issues, and if our robustness and clarity are found wanting, we will deal with it. However, given the communication issue between those in the courtroom and those waiting to hear about the litigation, it needs to go further than that and look at the wider issues, which is why an independent review is proportionate and appropriate.

Mr Clarke: I join my colleague in suggesting that you misled the House last week, Minister. Many of us believed that your statement was clear and concise and, indeed, lauded the fact that you had a copy of the judgement, which was a deflection on your part. Last week, when I asked you about reviewing the circumstances, you said that you believed that it was not "necessary or proportionate" to do that. Do you still hold that same view today? In your response today, you said that you changed your view after you saw the full judgement at the weekend. However, the court service —

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Question, Trevor.

Mr Clarke: — was out very quickly last Tuesday afternoon. Who will you blame tomorrow?

Mrs Long: First, I object to people making claims and impugning my integrity. I accept — [Interruption.]

I accept that what I said in the Chamber was based on the information that was available to me at that time, and there is now additional information.

Mr Frew: Will you apologise?

Mrs Long: I have already apologised, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. I have already apologised, both to the family and to those in the Chamber, over the airwaves, and I am happy to apologise again. There was no intention on my part to mislead the Chamber. I was fully candid about the information that I had at the time. Mr Clark has asked a specific question: why were we not aware of the difference on Tuesday, when the judgement was published, and Friday, when the full transcript was published? It was because the judgement that was published on Tuesday included no reference to referring back to the Prison Service; it did not say that.

Mr Clarke: You said that you had a judgement.

Mrs Long: It did not say that.

Mr Clarke: You said that you had a judgement; it was in front of you.

Mrs Long: With respect, each Member—

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Excuse me. Sorry, Order. The Minister has a right to be heard, and Members have a right to be heard. Minister, continue.

Mrs Long: When the judgement came out, it set out the conditions under which Mr Anderson would be released; it did not set out the detail as to whether the Prison Service had been afforded an opportunity to review its position. I made that clear when I came to the House last Tuesday. On Friday, the full transcript of proceedings was made available, and, at that point, it became obvious that the judge had, in the course of the proceedings, discussed the opportunity for the Prison Service to take the decision again. He read that it had been rejected by the Prison Service. In fact, it had not been referred to the Prison Service to be considered, and that is the critical point in the miscommunication, which I referred to earlier.

The Member is desperately trying to make it a party political issue, and that is unfortunate.

The reality is that, unlike others, if I misspeak in the House or am provided with information that is less than 100% accurate, I return immediately to correct the record, as you should. There are others, frankly, who make all sorts of wild allegations, including during the questions today, who never correct the record or apologise for anything.

Ms Forsythe: Minister, a murderer is at large. This is not a Civil Service bureaucracy issue, which is how the statement reads. My heart breaks for the Kelly family. You came to the House last week, and I believe that you misled the House. You blamed the courts. There was misinformation in a lot of what was said. Will you take the opportunity today to apologise to the House, the courts, other bodies that you have blamed in the past and to the Kelly family?

Mrs Long: First of all, I did not blame anyone; in fact, I — [Interruption.]

To be absolutely clear — it would be helpful if I could answer the questions, as opposed to being bombarded with more of them — I did not blame anyone. I am on record throughout last week as saying that it is not about apportioning blame. To say that I came here today not recognising the seriousness of the issue is also false.

The statement does not read simply like bureaucracy; in fact, it starts with recognition of the pain that was caused to the Kelly family. That is an untruth being spoken in the Chamber: will that be apologised for? I suspect not. I have apologised in the House today, and I have said that I would never willingly mislead the Chamber or lack candour in my dealings with the Chamber. I caution those who continue to insinuate that I would, because there are plenty of times when the things that they say do not stand scrutiny, yet they do not return to the Chamber.

The truth of the matter is that we have a dangerous person at large. He is a danger to the public and to himself. The PSNI is now following various lines of inquiry, and it is doing its best to ensure that he is returned to custody, which is where he belongs and where, the Prison Service believed, he should have been all along.

In answer to Mr Clarke's question, I said last week that initiating a full review would be disproportionate, but, in answer to Mr Burrows's question, I undertook that I would be willing to review the information that was provided to the courts. In doing that job, some of the rest of this has become apparent, which is why I am now saying that, in light of the additional information, a review is proportionate and appropriate.

Ms Brownlee: Like my colleagues, my thoughts are with the Kelly family in this horrific situation. Given that the Prison Service's original position was to refuse compassionate temporary release on public protection grounds and given that there have been acknowledged failures and, clearly, serious communication problems during the process, does the Minister accept that serious systemic weaknesses have been exposed? What immediate changes have been directed to her officials to implement before the independent review report is complete, given the real seriousness of a situation in which we have a dangerous murderer at large?

Mrs Long: Changes will be made. For example, there will be more checking of the information that is sent to courts in such cases to ensure that there are no typographical errors or mistakes in the information provided. That is a basic thing. At the same time as that review was going on, a review of this person's brother also took place, and it was not overturned on appeal. Therefore, there is clearly a qualitative difference in the information that was provided to the courts in that case. That is the starting point for what we need to do.

I do not see the independent review as being lengthy and protracted. I want it returned to me at speed with recommendations on how to take it forward. I also want to ensure that I have all the facts before I make decisions. Unfortunately, too many people are willing to reach their conclusions before the review has started. I want to give the review the opportunity to reach those conclusions. Where change is necessary, we will make that change. Where accountability is required, that accountability will not be found wanting.

Mr Buckley: It is a catastrophic failure of the justice system that has caused widespread hurt and concern, and that has been acknowledged across the House. Another damning revelation that concerns me about the case is that it appears that the Department of Justice is presiding over no-go areas for prison officers in this country, with some sort of back-room deal having been done with MLAs such as Mark Durkan and former IRA prisoner Raymond McCartney. Does such a scheme exist to allow a former or current MLA to chaperone a dangerous criminal such as, in this instance, a murderer?

Mrs Long: First of all, we do not preside over no-go areas in Northern Ireland. We must, however, defend the article 2 rights of all those who work in the Department. Article 2 is the right to life. I will not send prison officers into danger, where they are unable to protect themselves and where they could, in fact, place the public in greater danger. The advice that we receive about the security situation is clear, and we follow that advice. I am sure that the Member is not suggesting that I send prison officers into areas where they might find themselves under attack or lose their lives. We do not do that routinely with our Prison Service, nor would it be appropriate to do so. What we do is done under the advice of the Police Service.

The issue of civilian chaperones needs to be looked at, and I have said that it will form part of the review. There are circumstances in which members of the community who are of standing will find somebody handed over to their recognisance in order for them, for example, to visit a dying relative or go to a family funeral. Often, that person will be somebody of standing — an elected representative, a pastor or a minister of faith — who is a trustworthy and upstanding person. That has been the case and is always an option available to the judge. However, it was not my Department or Prison Service that recommended that Gary Anderson be released on the recognisance of his uncle — a family member — nor would they have done so, because their conclusion was that it was not safe to release him in the first place.

I am willing to look at the issue of civilian chaperones because I understand the concerns that people have rightly raised. It needs to be looked at. However, we also have a duty, which some Members of the House are not interested in, to those who are in the prison system to treat them fairly and with respect. When they seek to exercise their legal rights, including their right to apply for and seek compassionate temporary release in certain circumstances, we have a duty to consider it. If it is appealed, the courts have a duty to review it and the right to make those judgements. Other Members may disagree with that, but, unfortunately, in my situation, I am bound by the law.

Mr Bradley: Mr Buckley partly raised the question that I was going to ask. I thank the Minister for coming before the House. Before I say anything else, I share my concerns for the Kelly family. It must be traumatising for them to relive this.

Will the Minister explain her policy governing who may accompany prisoners on compassionate temporary release, including prisoners from certain areas who have reportedly been permitted to be chaperoned by elected representatives, whereas prisoners from other areas must be accompanied by prison officers? Will she publish the criteria and the equality assessment and guarantee that security arrangements are determined by objective risk, not geography, political representation or perceived community background?

Mrs Long: First of all, I say this: objective risk is, unfortunately, in Northern Ireland, attached to locality in many cases. That is a factor in any assessment. The fact that some places are safer to go to than others is a reality of our situation. Every day, I work to change that so that every community is safe. I do not make the decisions about who chaperones prisoners who are released, but, if Prison Service decides to release a dangerous prisoner, its officers will normally accompany that prisoner. Part of its reason for refusal may be circumstances in which its officers are unable to do so.

As part of the independent review, I want to provide the clarity that the Member seeks on the circumstances in which it is appropriate for non-police or non-Prison Service personnel to accompany somebody. Clearly, their ability to restrain or restrict the movement of the individual will be much less than that of a fully qualified prison officer or police officer. That normally happens in cases where people are not serious offenders, but the decision on chaperoning in this case was not taken by the Prison Service, so it was not a matter of departmental policy. The decision was taken by the judiciary, which is able to take a decision in its own right and without regard to any policy that I might have.

Mr K Buchanan: Minister, this country does not have a good track record on letting murderers out. It has let them out for years and years, but, obviously, this is a more recent case, so we cannot really be too proud of that. My question relates to handcuffing, and I mentioned this last week during the question for urgent oral answer. Bear it in mind that my colleague Trevor Clarke brought you to the Chamber last week; you did not do so yourself. With respect to chaperones, why are the prisoners not handcuffed? Have you stopped all visits or all people going out with chaperones? The chaperone was an uncle of that prisoner, so what responsibilities lie with that gentleman? What responsibility lies with you if that gentleman strikes again on your watch?

Mrs Long: It is fairly clear at this stage of the questions that some people want to make this a political football. References to people being released historically — murderers and so on — have nothing to do with compassionate temporary release. It is just another political jibe in the Chamber that, of course, we have come to expect, as is the suggestion that I am personally responsible for the actions of any prisoner, let alone one who is illegally at large. That is a really serious thing for the Member to suggest. I caution him. Does that mean that, if someone in our schools commits a crime, it is Paul Givan's fault? If somebody in the community commits a crime, is it Gordon Lyons's fault? That is a nonsense argument. Such decisions are not signed off at ministerial level.

I have already told Members of the House that I intend to look at the chaperoning issue specifically. Such things are not happening all the time or every couple of minutes. I am working with Prison Service on what we can do in the short term and looking to the review to give us more indication of what we can do in the longer term. However, politicisation — turning the issue into a political football and trying to score capital — is not the way to show that you care either about the Kelly family or, indeed, the safety of the public. Being respectful and responsible in your remarks would demonstrate that much better.

Mr Gaston: Like other Members, my thoughts are with the Kelly family today. Gary Anderson was, shamefully, granted release from prison because his legal team cited his rights under the European Convention on Human Rights. Minister, when will the rights of victims be placed above those of victim-makers? Is quitting the ECHR not an essential step in that?

Mrs Long: First, I think that victims' rights should always take precedence over the rights of perpetrators, and I have been clear about that throughout my tenure as Justice Minister, whether that is through ensuring that people have been able to read their victim impact statements to the courts, through the work that we are doing on the Victim Charter and the Witness Charter or through the Victims and Witnesses of Crime Bill that I have introduced to the House to be dealt with in this mandate. Victims' rights are always the most important thing.

I remind the Member that, even if we were to leave the ECHR, that would not leave us in a vacuum where human rights are up for debate and it is a free-for-all. The ECHR codifies basic human rights. I do not know what kind of society people want to live in, but I want to live in one that is governed by fairness, respect and human rights, and that includes for those in our prisons. A wiser person than me once said, "If you want to know the state of a society, look at the state of its prisons". I want to ensure that, when people look at Northern Ireland, our society and our prisons, they see people being treated with compassion and dignity while being robustly challenged on their behaviours and confined for the protection of the public.

Mr McGlone: Minister, thank you for being open with us today.

I wonder whether you can answer two questions. Do you know whether representatives from DSO were present in court for the entire hearing and whether any DOJ representatives were present for any of the hearing?

Mrs Long: The answers to those two questions, in short, are this: yes, we had counsel and a solicitor in the court; and, no, there was no one from the Department of Justice or Prison Service in the court. Again, that would not be unusual. There was communication between DSO and Prison Service during the judicial review, but that did not include the offer to retake the decision.

Mrs Middleton: My thoughts remain with the Kelly family, as they have done throughout this terrible ordeal. First, Minister, do you acknowledge the fear and anxiety that is being experienced in my constituency of Foyle at the moment? Secondly, do you agree that there should never be a no-go area when it comes to law and order in our country?

Mrs Long: I acknowledge that it is a frightening time not just for people in Foyle but for people in Donegal and in the border counties more generally, who will be concerned that Gary Anderson may have absconded across the border. The police have been in touch with their Garda Síochána counterparts to alert them to the risk and to any actions that they may need to take to ensure that he is returned to custody as quickly as possible.

I agree that there should be no no-go areas when it comes to justice. I say this, however: I am not, on a point of principle, going to send pretty much defenceless prison officers into areas where they may be shot. I am not going to do that. I would rather that the prisoner stay in prison, if that is the only option. I say that clearly and openly today. That, for me, is the substantive choice that was made. It was not made by me, nor was it made by Prison Service.

Mr Burrows: It is tone deaf of the Justice Minister to choose this day to start talking about the rights and dignity of prisoners. We have a dangerous prisoner on the run. The public are frightened, and the victim's family have been re-traumatised. The duty of the justice system is to protect the public, but, on the Minister's watch, the opposite has happened. Minister, you are following not leading, and it is not your integrity that I question but your competence. Why was it —?

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Is there a question, Jon?

Mr Burrows: There is a question. Why was it, when you got the judgement on Friday, as I did, that you waited until after we put out a press release to clarify the details for the public. That is not transparent. Why did you not update the public on what was happening until Saturday afternoon?

Mrs Long: First, the Member, as always, knows everything. I do not know why we need a Civil Service, a judiciary, a court system or anything else, because the Member can do it all single-handedly and is an expert on absolutely everything. He can question my competence from here to eternity, but the reality is that my competence is not being questioned by those who work most closely with me and see the job that I do.

Others judge their competence against how many TikToks they can issue over a weekend. We do not do that, because the job that I have to do as Justice Minister is a serious one. My job when communicating is not to whip up fear and get likes on social media but to reassure the public and to make sure that the House is informed at the appropriate juncture. I therefore wanted to be sure of my facts before we put anything else into the public domain. Every time that we put something into the public domain that then needs to be changed, altered, corrected or developed, that creates more stress for the victims in the case.

As I said, when I saw the judgement on Friday, it did not take Mr Burrows on social media to motivate me to do work. I immediately commissioned an urgent review from the director-general of the Prison Service in order to bottom out what had happened. I immediately put a press release on hold against query, because I did not want to release anything before coming to the Chamber, and I wrote to the Speaker. If the Speaker's Office so wishes, it can confirm that I did so. It was important to me that I come to the Chamber, be transparent and be held accountable by the House.

On what transpired over the weekend, it was not until Sunday morning, when my officials were finally able to listen to the entire proceedings, that we got the clarity that was needed. Mr Burrows does not need clarity to make wild allegations on social media, but I need clarity if I am going to make statements in the House. I seek clarity first, then I come and make my comments. That is how I will continue to do my job, because that is required of me under the ministerial code.

Mr O'Toole: Minister, tone matters. A family is traumatised by what has happened, and a murderer is at large. Whatever the tone of Members opposite, you are the responsible and accountable Minister, so your tone matters too. Let me remind you of that, Minister.

I will ask a question specifically on the judgement. You answered a question for urgent oral answer last week, on 15 September. A court judgement published on 13 September though not, presumably, made public until days later is clear throughout that the judge is surprised, to put it mildly —

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Matthew, is there a question? Thank you.

Mr O'Toole: — that the Prison Service refused, it says, to reconsider the grounds for its objection to compassionate temporary release. That was why the judge felt that they had to uphold the judicial review.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Matthew, is there a question?

Mr O'Toole: That was a major structural failing. Can you confirm whether anyone in your Department saw or read that judgement before you came to the House last Tuesday, 15 September?

Mrs Long: The judgement that we had in front of us last week and on which we based the information that I put before the House was the judgement that, I said, Members could look up. It included no reference to the opportunity for us to review. That became apparent only when the full transcript of the judgement remarks were available, and the judge rightly questioned why we had declined the opportunity to do so. You can imagine the shock in Prison Service: it was never offered the opportunity to do so, so it did not know that that offer was made in the court; that was not conveyed to Prison Service. I have already said that that is a procedural failing. DSO has accepted that it is a procedural failing. We are now trying to get the whole picture so that we can give full transparency, ensure that there is accountability and ensure that it does not happen again.

With respect to tone, Members come to the House and do not consider tone. When I came to the House, my tone was entirely reasonable. However, when my integrity is constantly questioned; when I am accused of lying; when I am accused of being incompetent; when I am accused of putting and raising the rights of prisoners over the rights of victims on a day like today — I did not do that; I responded to a question that I was asked — then , yes, I will sound vexed. I sound vexed because this matters. This matters to me. It is not just another performance piece in the Chamber. I care about the impact that it has had on the family. I care about the concerns that Julie Middleton spoke about on behalf of her constituents. This has vexed me, so, if my tone perhaps sounds slightly more stringent than usual, it is because I find it unthinkable that anyone in the Chamber who has known me for as long as they have would think that I would not care about it.

Mr Beattie: Minister, the issue goes far deeper than Gary Anderson. I can cite multiple similar failings, not just in this case, that are due to individual elements of our criminal justice system not engaging with one another. That is, in large part, because our Criminal Justice Board still does not have a shared vision or shared priorities, as outlined by Criminal Justice Inspection in November 2024 — two years ago. There is a leadership issue.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Doug, is there a question?

Mr Beattie: Minister, when will that be sorted so that our criminal justice system can become more coherent, joined-up and effective?

Mrs Long: To be absolutely clear, no vision statement written on a piece of paper would have prevented what happened last weekend with Gary Anderson. It simply would not. There are not multiple failings of this kind. The Member always insists that that is the case. A very small number of prisoners go unlawfully at large. Over recent years, that number has been quite small. A lot of work is done when Prison Service makes the decisions around whether people should be released. It is not a repetitive thing. Lots of other people are released for different reasons and return to custody, but I will not get into that.

The issue of the criminal justice vision has taken somewhat longer than what we anticipated. That is not because we have different visions but because my Department does not have the resources to fully move it on when we are also trying to deliver legislation, improve communications with victims, deliver better for witnesses in the system, ensure the safety of the public and increase police numbers.

Mr Beattie: Two years.

Mrs Long: Yes, two years. I hear the Member chuntering behind me. I know that it has been two years, but, of all the priorities in the Department, writing a vision down on a piece of paper is, perhaps, not the main one, particularly not in the past few weeks. However, given the scale and significance of our ambition around criminal justice, we have been taking that work forward, albeit not as speedily as I would have wished. It did not produce something that, stakeholders felt, was appropriate when we consulted. That has led to further engagement with stakeholders, and we have had to revise that vision considerably.

While the vision is critical to setting direction and tone, implementation is more critical. Significant work is going on across the justice system outwith the vision work that will help to drive the focus on victims. The Victims and Witnesses of Crime Bill is just one tangible example, and it is more tangible than a simple statement on paper.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: That concludes questions on the statement.

Mr Buckley (The Chairperson of the Committee for Infrastructure): I beg to move

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: The Business Committee has agreed that there will be no time limit on the debate.

Mr Buckley: Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. As Chairperson of the Committee for Infrastructure, I welcome the opportunity to set out the Committee's reasons for seeking an extension of the Committee Stage of the Harbours Bill until 15 January.

As Members are aware, the Committee has commenced its scrutiny of the Bill, which seeks to modernise the legislative and governance framework for Northern Ireland's trust ports, strengthening their ability to operate efficiently and enhancing their contribution to the regional economy. The Committee has made good progress to date following the Bill's introduction. We launched a call for evidence that closed on 2 September and received 37 responses. I record my sincere thanks to all the organisations and individuals who took the time to engage with the Committee and submit evidence. The Committee also received an initial research briefing on the Bill and looks forward to taking further evidence in the weeks ahead. In particular, members wish to hear directly from the four trust ports that will be affected by the Bill, the Office for National Statistics, given its role in classification decisions, and other relevant stakeholders who can assist the Committee in its consideration of the legislation.

While there is a broad recognition of the opportunities that the Bill may provide, including increased investment capacity, greater operational flexibility and enhanced commercial powers, the Committee is also aware of concerns that have been raised by local residents, particularly those that relate to Warrenpoint. In light of those concerns, the Committee has commissioned legal advice on the scope of the powers currently available to the Minister and on the implications of the changes proposed by the Bill. It is important that the Committee has sufficient time to consider the advice carefully and assess any issues that arise from it as part of its scrutiny.

The Committee is also mindful of its wider programme of work. Over the coming months, members are likely to face a demanding legislative agenda, with scrutiny of the Harbours Bill taking place alongside work on other legislation and the Committee's other ongoing responsibilities. That will be set against the backdrop of increasing pressures as the mandate progresses and the practical impact of Assembly recess periods. The Committee therefore seeks a realistic time frame that will allow for thorough and effective scrutiny while ensuring that the Bill can continue to progress without unnecessary delay. The proposed extension to 15 January will provide the Committee with the time necessary to complete its work. However, I assure Members that it does not prevent the Committee from concluding its consideration of the Bill at an earlier date, should that prove possible.

Before I conclude, I thank the Minister and her departmental officials for their engagement with the Committee to date. I also thank everyone who has already contributed evidence and the stakeholders who will assist the Committee in the weeks and months ahead.

I therefore ask the House to support the motion and provide the Committee with the additional time required to ensure that the Bill's scrutiny is conducted in a rigorous, thorough and effective manner.

Mr Frew (The Chairperson of the Committee for Justice): I beg to move

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): The Business Committee has agreed that there will be no time limit on the debate.

Mr Frew: As Chairperson of the Committee for Justice, I welcome the opportunity to speak to this motion and set out the Committee's position in seeking this extension, which is until 22 January 2027. As I have done previously, I begin by placing on record the Committee's thanks to the Minister and her officials for their engagement to date on the Bill.

The Bill establishes a statutory commissioner for victims and witnesses of crime and introduces special measures in cases aggravated by hostility and measures to protect complainants in proceedings for serious sexual offences. The Bill was introduced on 22 June, and the Committee's engagement began in advance of that. We received a pre-legislative briefing in October 2025, during which officials outlined the provisions in the draft Bill. The Committee has also considered the victims and witnesses of crime strategy during this mandate and most recently received a briefing from officials in February 2026. The officials outlined the link between the strategy and the Bill, and it is good to see themes and objectives in that work borne out in the Bill.

Part 1, which contains 23 clauses, deals with putting the commissioner on a statutory footing. These are technical and detailed provisions about the commissioner's function and powers that set out how the commissioner will interact with other bodies to best deliver for victims and witnesses of crime. I have previously spoken about the importance of the work of the Commissioner Designate for Victims of Crime, with whom the Committee has had good engagement throughout the mandate. Indeed, the commissioner designate will give evidence to the Committee tomorrow on the Criminal Justice (Sentencing etc.) Bill. I suspect that every Member in the Chamber has heard about the importance of making sure that the justice system is victim-focused. The role of the commissioner will be of huge importance in that regard. The Committee has heard from the commissioner designate and departmental officials about the difference that can be made by placing the office on a statutory footing and about the powers that will enable the commissioner to better advocate for victims. It is therefore important that we get that aspect of the legislation right so that it benefits victims and witnesses and they can see the tangible benefits associated with the commissioner role.

The call for evidence on the Bill is live, and responses are still coming in. Submissions received so far indicate a particular interest in Part 2, which may contain only four clauses, but those clauses have the potential to be hugely important in providing further protections for victims and witnesses. Judge Marrinan's review of hate crime legislation highlighted serious concerns that victims might be discouraged from giving evidence if special measures were not considered. As well as providing for special measures in crime aggravated by hostility, Part 2 includes provisions that prohibit anyone charged with offences under the new statutory aggravation model from personally cross-examining the victim. The Committee is scrutinising the sentencing Bill, which introduces the aggravator model, and it is fair to say that there has been a good deal of discussion on that aspect.

The Bill also reflects recommendations from the Gillen review, with clause 26 containing measures to protect complainants in cases of serious sexual assaults. The Bill will allow complainants in such cases to make oral or written representations, to be legally represented and to attend hearings concerning applications to disclose their sensitive personal material. We, as a Committee, will undoubtedly welcome those provisions and the extra support for those most vulnerable of victims. We also have to ensure that the right balance is struck between the need for privacy and not to re-traumatise victims and the right of defendants to a fair trial.

Overall, the measures in the Bill aim to give victims and witnesses greater confidence and protection when engaging with the criminal justice system. The Bill must deliver for victims and witnesses of crime; people who, through no fault of their own, have had what are often traumatic and horrific experiences. It is therefore vital that the Committee properly scrutinise the Bill's intention and outworkings. I have said previously in the Chamber that the Committee recognises the importance of giving legislation priority and that we need to be effective and efficient in the work that we carry out. Our scrutiny must be robust. In order to do that, the Committee needs time, which, as we all know, is at a premium as we approach the end of the mandate. I recognise the concerns about the amount of legislation that will be compressed into a very small time in the latter stages of the mandate. However, as I mentioned earlier, the Committee is undertaking scrutiny of the Criminal Justice (Sentencing etc) Bill, which is complex, detailed and impactful legislation. In order to make both pieces of legislation as good as they can be, we have to balance our work. The Committee will only just have completed hearing evidence on the Sentencing Bill and will be undertaking our detailed deliberations on that Bill as we go straight into oral evidence on the Victims and Witnesses of Crime Bill. We expect to meet twice a week over the coming months in order to manage the legislation that we have before us.

The Committee has also agreed to return earlier than it normally would after the Christmas recess to make sure that we meet the timescale that I am proposing today. It is a tight timescale, and, with another Bill in front of us and the normal and important work of the Committee continuing unabated, it is ambitious. However, the Committee is focused on delivering.

We will, of course, try to complete the work as quickly as possible. If we are satisfied that our work is completed and if it is possible to do so, we will report early. However, we need to make sure that we have the time to properly scrutinise this important legislation, so the Committee believes that the extension is proportionate and necessary and that it affords us the best chance of doing so. Therefore, on behalf of the Committee for Justice, I ask Members to support the extension of the Committee Stage of the Victims and Witnesses of Crime Bill to 22 January 2027.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Ladies and gentlemen, as the next item of business in the Order Paper is Question Time, I propose, by leave of the Assembly, to suspend the sitting until 2.00 pm.

Mr Speaker: Question 14 has been withdrawn.

Ms O'Neill (The First Minister): A Cheann Comhairle

, with your permission, I will answer questions 1 and 13 together.

Ending violence against women and girls (EVAWG) remains a key Executive and Programme for Government (PFG) priority. Our second delivery plan, which runs until 2028, builds on the success of our first delivery plan and is focused on continued investment in the EVAWG local change fund, on deeper partnership working and on campaigns to increase understanding of violence, abuse and harm. Since 2024, more than £9 million has been invested through the change fund in community-based action, supporting over 5,000 events and reaching more than 96,000 people.

The Head, Shoulders, Knees, and Toes initiative, which is just one of the campaigns that we are running, was developed in partnership with Ulster University and is specifically designed to raise awareness and understanding of coercive control. The initiative has two elements to it: a public awareness campaign, which encourages people to check in with themselves and reflect on how they feel within their relationships, thus helping them recognise the signs of coercive control and understand when support is needed; and a train the trainer initiative, which is designed to equip front-line workers with the tools to recognise and respond to coercive control. We are delighted to say that, following the pilot, there has been significant interest in that training initiative. Our officials continue to work with Ulster University to develop arrangements for its wider delivery.

We know that ending violence against women and girls is a long-term issue. We have said many times in the Chamber that there is no quick fix. Through sustained investment, strong partnerships and collective action, however, we will continue to play our part in ending violence against women and girls.

Ms Egan: Thank you for your response, First Minister. As we all know, the Executive have not agreed a Budget for this year. What assurances can you give your delivery partners for ending violence against women and girls, which are community groups and women's organisations that are tackling the issue head-on on the ground, about their funding in the absence of an agreed Executive Budget?

Ms O'Neill: First, I assure the Member that we are doing everything that we can to get an agreed Budget. Your party is one of the four parties that, collectively as an Executive, agree a Budget. It is important that we get the right Budget, that it is fit for purpose and that it creates a baseline for our funding so that we do not end up limping from crisis to crisis. That remains our endeavour, and I can tell you that work is under way to agree a Budget.

For the area of ending violence against women and girls, we have planned an allocation of over £4 million — almost £5 million — in our contingency planning envelope, based on our assumptions about the Executive Budget process. Work is therefore continuing, and we are still investing in the campaigns and areas of work that I outlined in my initial answer. It is important that that work do not stop, and I can assure the Member that we are making sure that it does not, because we want to build on the success that we have had thus far. We want to build on all the progress made and sustain everything that has proven to be really effective. There is no delay to our plans to continue with the work that we have started.

Ms Hunter: Thank you for your answer, First Minister. Coercive control can happen to anyone at any age, and many teenagers may not know that they are experiencing it, owing to a lack of efficient relationships and sexuality education (RSE) in our schools. What level of engagement have you and your Department had with the Education Authority (EA) and schools on educating teenagers about coercive control?

Ms O'Neill: The Member and I agree about RSE and what is needed in our schools. We have to get it right. It is where pupils' minds are open to taking on board what can be the complex area of understanding what a healthy relationship looks like. All Departments are represented on the cross-departmental body, and that is part of the conversation. The part that we play in that is through programmes such as Head, Shoulders, Knees, and Toes. We hope that those programmes are getting through.

Head, Shoulders, Knees, and Toes is about raising awareness. It is an information campaign that was launched in partnership with Ulster University. The campaign is about promoting an understanding of the fact that coercive control is abuse, which, unfortunately, is not always recognised in today's world, particularly by young women. It is about helping them, where they see it, to recognise coercive control and to understand the need to get themselves away from such a situation. Our toolkit is about all of that. It is about asking everybody to reflect on their relationships. I hope that, for our part, to deal with coercive control in our society, the campaign builds on the significant work that has been done over the past number of years. We had a pilot that worked with front-line professionals, and that work is continuing. It is about awareness raising and training resources, and planning is under way for the next training phase, which is on work to get support. Hopefully, that shows that there is a real willingness to get to the root of the problem.

Ms Ní Chuilín: What strategies or initiatives, other than the Head, Shoulders, Knees and Toes campaign on tackling violence against women and girls and identifying coercion and control, can you bring forward to tackle the issue?

Ms O'Neill: Thanks. To build on what I have just said, a considerable amount of work is going on in this area. Last week, myself, the deputy First Minister, the Justice Minister and the Chief Constable of the PSNI came together to launch our Power to Change campaign. That is very much a collective effort, building on the first stage of the awareness-raising and other work that we have taken forward already. It is very much targeted at young men and boys. As we all know, young men and boys have a role to play in challenging harmful attitudes and behaviours, and becoming positive allies. It is important that we are not always simply talking to them and that they know that they can be part of the solution. The message of that campaign is that online abuse has real-life consequences. We all know that; Members know that from their experiences. Things are said online — on TikTok, on Snapchat, shared through WhatsApp or whatever; it does not matter the platform — and the campaign is designed to say to young boys, "When you see something that isn't on, say it's not on. Call it out. Show leadership in your friendship group". It is not about lecturing young people; it is about asking them to think. When you see the imagery of the campaign, you see a number of adverts targeting different scenarios, which, in fact, have been designed in cooperation with young people, because they know how to speak to their peers much better than we do. There is strength in that. It is about showing respect, calling things out when you see them and recognising that young men and boys can be our allies in this problem that we have across society.

Ms Brownlee: The First Minister frequently speaks of being a First Minister for all and has, rightly, championed efforts to end violence against women and girls. Given that commitment, will she explain how her attendance at an event commemorating Thomas McElwee, who was convicted in connection with a firebomb attack that led to the death of Yvonne Dunlop, a mother of three, is consistent with that message? Does she recognise the hurt that that has caused to the victim's family? Will she unequivocally state that such violence was wrong?

Ms O'Neill: I regret the way in which you have brought that question forward. Tackling the problem that we have with violence against women in girls is a subject on which we should all be united. The collective effort that we have around the Chamber on the issue is important, so I encourage you not to point score. I also encourage you not to use victims. I have said consistently in the Chamber, because each of your party's representatives stand and ask about the past, that there were many tragedies and injustices in the past and we need to create space to allow people to remember their dead. Let us do so respectfully; let us create space for each other; let us ensure that we look towards the future with more confidence and allow young people to grow up in a world that many in the Chamber did not get the opportunity to grow up in. I encourage you to look to the future. I know that that is not your party's style — you look to the past. That is certainly not my style. I am about the future. My eyes are focused on the future. You can continue to look backwards. As your party conference told us, you want the days of old. They are not available to you.

Mr Gaston: Here we have it: the First Minister of "no alternative" attends the terror fest that is the national hunger strike commemoration, which glorifies 10 terrorists who chose to starve themselves. Ms O'Neill, you stand here and pontificate about ending violence against women and girls. Geoffrey, Yvonne Dunlop's son, says, "What about my mummy?". What do you say to Geoffrey? What do you say to the other sons and daughters of the women that the IRA, which you glorify to this day, made victims, when you stand here and champion ending violence against women and girls? It is hypocrisy of the highest order —

Mr Speaker: First Minister.

Mr Gaston: — for you to go to the commemoration and then try to champion this strategy. You do a dishonour.

Ms O'Neill: As I say on every occasion that I am asked those questions, when parties like yours want to look back, there were many tragedies and injustices in our past. The duty of political leaders in 2026 is to try to heal the wounds of the past, try to look towards the future and try to build a better society. I do not play games with victims' feelings. You do.

Mr Gaston: No, I do not think so.

Ms O'Neill: You do that; you bring that to the Chamber.

Mr Gaston: You were the one who —.

Ms O'Neill: What is much better is that we recognise that we are not going to agree on the past. None of us in the Chamber will agree on the assessment of the past. We have different narratives and lived experiences, and do you know what? That is also OK. Our job is to heal the wounds of the past and look towards the future.

The question is about ending the violence against women and girls that is a problem across our society, and I will not be found wanting in playing my part in that.

Ms O'Neill: The Executive are firmly committed to achieving a multi-year budget that is balanced and sustainable. That will help to provide the certainty required. We continue our negotiations with the Prime Minister, the Secretary of State, the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Chief Secretary to the Treasury in our efforts to finalise a multi-year Budget for 2026–2030.

The current offer on the table still falls very much short of what is required. What we need is a fair and sustainable financial settlement that properly recognises local need, allows us to stabilise public finances and ensures that households and businesses are supported through the ongoing cost-of-living challenges. The Holtham review of our level of need concluded that we require a central relative funding of 128% compared with England. Analysis by the Fiscal Council also demonstrates that we are funded below need and significantly below the relative level of funding provided to Scotland and Wales. If we were funded above need in the same way as Wales, we would have in the region of an additional £1 billion to spend in each year of this spending review. If we were funded above need like Scotland, that could be around an additional £3 billion in each financial year.

Those are the realities in the absence of an agreed Budget. We are continuing to press hard to get an agreed Budget but it must be the right Budget, it must be baselined, and it must tackle what we need to invest in public services to keep the lights on, transform public services and deal with all the other public sector issues that we have.

Ms Ferguson: I thank the First Minister for her answer. Workers, families and businesses pay their taxes and rightly expect quality public services in return. With pressures now exceeding £1 billion and funding below assessed need, does the First Minister agree that the time for short-term Budget fixes is over and that the British Government must now deliver a fair, sustainable and baselined funding settlement that gives the Executive the resources to protect services and plan ahead?

Ms O'Neill: I absolutely agree with the Member. That is the point that we are making and the negotiation that we are engaged in. Those are the conversations that we are having with the British Government, because we want a fair and sustainable, baselined funding settlement. That is the position of all four Executive parties, because the current situation cannot stand. We cannot keep limping from one cliff edge to another, with Westminster throwing some money on the table, walking away and leaving us with the same problem soon after.

My focus is on ensuring that our Executive have the money necessary to invest in our public services, because we want to protect and stabilise our front-line services, deliver on public-sector pay and have people's backs in the middle of a cost-of-living crisis. It will be a difficult and challenging winter ahead. We want to build more homes, invest in waste water and critical infrastructure, tackle health inequalities and reduce waiting lists. To put it simply, we need the right financial envelope to do that.

Some commentary has suggested that we should have simply agreed a Budget by now and moved on: that is not the case. We should not accept less for our people. We should fight the good fight for our people. We should fight for more money for our public services. Our endeavours are to land at a point where we secure a much fairer funding settlement for our public services that protects jobs and supports workers, families, communities and small local businesses in getting through these times. That is what we are engaged in and will continue to be engaged in.

Mrs Erskine: There is an irony in what the First Minister has said, because she has been fixated on breaking up the Union instead of focusing on getting the settlement that we need for Northern Ireland. For once, the First Minister should focus on putting Northern Ireland first. Instead, she travelled last week to Cardiff, and what she put very high on her agenda was breaking up the Union. She wrongly claimed that she was there as First Minister: she was not. She was there as deputy leader of Sinn Féin and was actually locked out of meetings. For once, will the First Minister start acting for Northern Ireland instead of trying to break us away from the Union?

Ms O'Neill: There is no irony, actually, but I welcome your interest in the fact that I was in Cardiff with the First Ministers of Scotland and Wales. I very much welcome the interest from everybody on your Benches. Is that not great? Welcome to the conversation. Let us talk about what is better for all of us; let us talk about the future; let us design that future together; and let us work together to end all the damages and ills of partition. Your MP colleagues continually refer to the fact that Westminster fails people here. It will always fail us. Let us recognise that together and work to build something better together.

When I became First Minister, I said that I would be a First Minister for everybody: I meant that, and I have lived up to it at every turn. As I also said, I am a republican, and I will never surrender who I am — I never ask you to surrender who you are — so you should not be surprised. If you are surprised, you need to read into politics a wee bit more.

Mr McMurray: First Minister, do you recognise that, in order to maximise our case for securing a fair share and adequate funding, we also need to maximise the efficiency of our spending and that doing so involves the reform and, dare I say it, given the previous interlude, reimagining of the institutions?

Ms O'Neill: As I just said, we have to look at how we do business here; we have to look at how we can improve people's lives; and we have to look at how politics can work better for people. I am absolutely up for reform in the areas where we can do that. That is why we published our reform proposals: we believe that this is the space for reform and that we can do business better. Politics is only good to people if it delivers for them, so let us find ways in which we can transform how this place operates to allow us to do that. You will find that in our proposals, and I know that we will find it in other parties' proposals as well.

Mr O'Toole: First Minister, I have no issue with your going to Cardiff to engage with Scotland and Wales; I commend it in relation to constitutional conversations. However, no First Minister or Finance Minister in Scotland or Wales has ever refused to set a Budget halfway through a financial year — in the age of devolution, that simply has not happened. I therefore ask you to rule out a preposterous and grotesque situation in which the UK Government have to set a Budget here. We know that that Budget would be nowhere near what you are asking for and what public services here demand. Can you confirm that, come what may, you will fight for the best possible settlement — the Opposition will agree with you on that — but you will not allow London to set a Budget for this place because we will not fulfil our responsibilities?

Ms O'Neill: Matthew, I can tell you that all four parties of the Executive are deploying every effort to get a Budget: that is our endeavour. Do you know why Scotland is not knocking on the door or why Wales has agreed a Budget? Because they have more money, because they got a fairer settlement. People here deserve exactly the same. If we had the same arrangement as Scotland, we would be having a conversation about an additional £3 billion for our public services. If we had the same arrangement as Wales, we would be divvying up an extra £1 billion for our public services. They do not need to be in the position that we are in, because they are being funded to a different capacity. Our job is to maximise what we can achieve from the British Government to invest in our public services. Why should people here get any less than people elsewhere? They pay their taxes; they are entitled to good public services.

We are in the middle of a negotiation with the British Government. We have made some improvements and advances, but that is still not enough for the four parties of the Executive, so we will continue to work on that. I hope that we can quickly get to the point at which we have an adequate Budget that allows us to do all the things that we all speak about in the Chamber day after day: investing in our public services; bringing down our waiting lists; ensuring that we invest in special educational needs; doing more on childcare; doing all the things that we want to do. We will be able to do that only if we have sufficient funding. The fight that we are having right now is the right fight, and I am determined to take it to the end of the line.

Ms O'Neill: Fleadh Cheoil na hÉireann really was an incredible success. It brought together people from across these islands and around the world to celebrate our music, our culture and our diversity and created an incredible atmosphere that many will remember for years to come. I was delighted, alongside the deputy First Minister, to attend the opening ceremony. There is no doubt that, from the first day, there was a real buzz about the city. You felt it no matter where you went. Belfast was thriving, and the fleadh showcased our people and our communities at their best. It was welcoming, inclusive and outward-looking.

The figures speak for themselves. More than 1·6 million visitors came to Belfast during the fleadh, an increase of over 89% compared with 2025, with more than 600,000 additional journeys made on Translink services. While detailed assessments are still going on, we believe that the economic benefit has surpassed the original £50 million projection. What an achievement that is as an economic booster, as well as a moment of joy and pleasure for everybody. It was a huge boost for our tourism, hospitality and retail sectors. The Executive were determined to make the best of it and to do everything that we could to take that opportunity.

I was delighted to see the progress made by, for example, the Department for Infrastructure on late-night transport. That allowed people to travel to the fleadh, enjoy themselves, have the craic and then safely travel home. That really helped the Belfast night-time economy, and more progress is being made there.

The Department for the Economy provided £1 million to support Belfast City Council and Comhaltas Ceoltóirí Éireann. A further £300,000 was given to Tourism NI to maximise the impact of the fleadh.

I am really delighted that the fleadh will come back next year. Look what we have to build on for next year: it is phenomenal. It was an absolutely amazing summer for that one showcase, never mind everything else that happened alongside it.

Miss Brogan: Gabhaim buíochas leis na Aire as an fhreagra sin.

Does she agree that planning for Fleadh Cheoil na hÉireann in 2027 should begin as soon as possible so that we maximise its potential economic, societal and cultural benefits?

Ms O'Neill: Before I answered the first question, I should have welcomed the Member back from her maternity leave and congratulated her on her baby twins. I do not think that I have had the chance to do that in the Chamber thus far.

I agree with the Member. Planning for next year is already well under way. The fact that we secured hosting the fleadh for two years meant that there was a lot of preparation and planning. As I say, Belfast City Council has begun the work of evaluating the economic impact of the fleadh. We know, even anecdotally from businesses and traders in Belfast, that the events held over that week had a hugely positive impact. Today, as I speak, our Executive Ministers Caoimhe Archibald and Liz Kimmins are at City Hall meeting members of Comhaltas Ceoltóirí Éireann and the Mayor of Belfast to discuss how we can ensure that the fleadh in 2027 is even bigger than what was achieved this year.

It is important that we learn the lessons about where things can be improved — there is always room for improvement; such is life — find ways to plug any gaps and bring forward any possible additions. It is another opportunity. I think that it was the best of us. The fleadh was absolutely the best of us on show, with the inclusivity that it demonstrated. The welcoming hand for everybody was real to see. There really was something for everybody across the whole of the festivities. I look forward to welcoming it back in 2027. I know that it is on a two-year cycle, but 2028 is the 30th anniversary of the Good Friday Agreement, so it would be amazing to have the fleadh again to celebrate all that has been achieved across this society. Despite the challenges and the politics of this place, there is no disputing the fact that the last 30 years have been transformative, so why not have the fleadh to celebrate that moment?

Mr Brett: First Minister, I share in your comments and positivity about the fleadh. I was particularly delighted to welcome the Taoiseach from the Irish Republic to the Belfast Bands Forum event. It was unfortunate, First Minister, that, on that occasion, you were unable to attend but, hopefully, you can do so next year.

The fleadh represented the very "best of us" at a time when we were in the city centre representing both Irish and British traditions. At the same time, you and your party colleagues were at Féile an Phobail events at which people were shouting, "Up the 'Ra" and "Go on home, British soldiers". Did the fleadh represent — to quote your words — "the best of us", and did the féile, which you attended, represent the worst of us?

Ms O'Neill: I am glad that your request is that I be cloned so that I can be everywhere all the time. Thank you, Phillip. You cannot get to everything at the fleadh. It was a huge success. There was so much that I did not get to go to this year but will go to next year. The fleadh demonstrated the best of us — absolutely; all day long. What we put on display for the world to see — the international media were watching — was inclusion. To me, that is what a new Ireland looks like. That is exactly what it looks like.

Mr Brett: You are already in Northern Ireland, and the UK can already deliver that for us.

Ms O'Neill: It looks like a place —.

Mr Brett: That is the UK delivering.

Mr Speaker: Order.

Ms O'Neill: You do not like the answer, but you have asked me a question —

Mr Brett: No, you do not like the facts.

Mr Speaker: Order.

Ms O'Neill: — so let me give you the answer.

That is what a new Ireland looks like: a society that is based on inclusion, that is fair across the board, that allows us to celebrate our identity and who we are and that does not allow one to diminish the other. You do not build your own identity by diminishing another, to quote some of your party colleagues. What I saw over the summer —.Do you know that the féile is one of the biggest community festivals across Europe and the biggest in Ireland? I commend it for going from strength to strength. Its programme is amazing. I cannot wait to get it every year so that I can see where I will go. Again, you cannot get to everything, but I try my best. Over the summer, we had the féile, the fleadh, Belfast Mela and so many other positive events. Why not try to focus on the positives for once in your life? Stop being such a naysayer and a negative person. Stop looking behind you. Start looking towards the future.

Ms Bradshaw: The First Minister will be aware that people from the arts sector and artists recently came to Parliament Buildings as part of a campaign to save the arts. In their meeting with MLAs, they said that the fleadh's success had come off the back of their many years of hard work that had led up to the event. For example, they said that the fleadh was given £6 million of investment, and there was a great return on that, which was brilliant; however, TradFest, which happened the week before, had received £37,000 of investment and £20,000 the previous year. What will the First Minister do with her Executive colleagues to protect the arts sector in order to ensure that, when big festivals come to our city and country, the people who have built them up are properly remunerated and supported?

Ms O'Neill: Like the Member, I engage with many people from across the arts, and they often make the comparison with the support for artists in the South. We do not have that here, which is unfortunate, because we have so many amazing artists. We have a talented base here. We need to find ways to support them, and the summer's events proved that even more. A number of businesses said that artists came into their premises and played for free; they did not get paid because they just wanted to be part of something special. Part of the learning and lessons from that has to be this: when we have that type of showcase, how do we support our artists to come forward and create those opportunities? Unfortunately, the arts are often treated like a poor relation across the Department for Communities. We need to do more, and we need to find ways to put in place a strategy to support artists within the resources that we have. We need to look at examples of how that is done elsewhere. Let us not try to reinvent the wheel if there are ways to do that. We have had our own commission and have spoken to artists from across various areas, and they are begging for support and help. I want us to be able to do something: let us make it something that we can work on together, because the arts should unite us all.

Mr Nesbitt: Will the First Minister join me in congratulating and thanking all the volunteers who made the fleadh a success, particularly those from St John Ambulance, which kept well over 100 people out of hospital with its field hospital at Ulster University, its presence beside City Hall and its mobile units?

Ms O'Neill: The efforts of volunteers across the board, including St John Ambulance, played a role, as did the statutory agencies, such as the PSNI. The way in which they all worked together showed that we can host an event of that scale and can do it well because of what we have here. The capacity of the volunteers was second to none, and I met many of them when I was walking around the streets. I concur with the Member and put it on record that we are so grateful for their support; it would not have happened without them. They told me that they enjoyed it. Again, it was the best of us.

Mr Durkan: The First Minister has said previously that we should push and do all that we can to ensure the return of the fleadh to Belfast in 2028 to mark the 30th anniversary of the Good Friday Agreement. Will the First Minister agree that the argument for the return of the fleadh to Derry or somewhere else in the North would have more merit, so that the massive socio-economic benefits that should have been brought by the Good Friday Agreement would be spread fairly across the North?

Ms O'Neill: I am not going to take away from the success of the fleadh. It was excellent in Derry, and it was excellent in Belfast. Let us bid for it to come to the North again. The learning from hosting the fleadh this year will be applied to next year's event. Today, as we speak, the Minister for Infrastructure and the Minister for the Economy are meeting Fleadh Cheoil na hÉireann and the Lord Mayor of Belfast to actively plan for next year. We should bid for the year after that, because we have a lot to celebrate with the 30th anniversary of the Good Friday Agreement. Despite the challenges, there is a lot to celebrate because our society has been transformed, and the fleadh is a wonderful way to celebrate that.

Ms O'Neill: With your permission, Mr Speaker, I will ask junior Minister Reilly to answer the question.

Ms Reilly (Junior Minister, The Executive Office): Through the current Programme for Government (PFG), we are committed to improving outcomes for everyone in our society, and that includes older people. The progress is measured in two ways. First, we monitor the delivery of the Programme for Government commitments, including those that are particularly relevant to older people. The publication of the PFG annual reports has shown the tangible progress that we are making on a range of commitments, including reducing health waiting times, tackling fuel poverty and providing housing-related support to enable people to live independently in their communities. Secondly, the well-being framework, which was published alongside the PFG, provides a broader assessment of the outcomes across society over time.

Many of the framework's indicators can be analysed by age, thus helping us understand the experiences of older people, identify areas where inequalities exist and assess whether outcomes are improving over time. We are committed to supporting people at every stage of their life, and we continue to engage with key stakeholders, including the Commissioner for Older People, to understand the key challenges that remain.

We recognise the considerable work that the Member undertook to develop and introduce the Age Discrimination (Goods, Facilities and Services) Bill and the importance of the issues that the Bill seeks to address. We also recognise that the Member is continually a champion for older people. I congratulate her on that work and look forward to the Bill's Second Stage.

For our part, we will continue not only to track the delivery of our Programme for Government commitments but to assess whether long-term well-being outcomes are improving for people across our society, including older people.

Mr Speaker: We now move on to topical questions.

Ms O'Neill: What a preamble. Our job in here is to try to make politics work. The public are very tuned into how difficult this arrangement is. They are very tuned into the complexity of the situation and know who wants to move forward and who wants to look backwards. They are very tuned into who is blatantly sectarian in their approach in their Departments and to the financial challenges that we have because of the block grant. They want us to work together to deliver for them, however. I can say, hand on heart, that, where we can get that cooperation, that is what we will work towards getting. Where there are blockages, we need to call them out and name them for what they are. We can, however, say confidently that, in this very short mandate, a number of things have been delivered on. Are they enough? No, never. Will we work to do more? Yes, we will. We have a short window left in the mandate, and I will do everything that I can to make sure that we deliver what we can and to build on that delivery in the next mandate.

Mr O'Toole: I am not being negative. I am not deflecting from the obstruction by the DUP, which does exist, or the financial challenges, which do exist. Challenges exist for all Governments, but my job as leader of the Opposition is to hold you and the Executive collectively responsible.

In 2022, very clear promises were made, but they have not been met. Not a yard of the A5 scheme has been built. There is no sign of a ball being kicked at Casement Park. We are six months into the financial year with no Budget. Public-sector workers have no idea whether they will get a pay rise, but they see people here about to get yet another pay rise.

Mr Speaker: I think —.

Mr O'Toole: People expect the Sinn Féin First Minister —

Mr Speaker: Mr O'Toole.

Mr O'Toole: — to deliver for them.

Mr Speaker: Mr O'Toole.

Mr O'Toole: First Minister, what do they —

Mr Speaker: Mr O'Toole.

Mr O'Toole: — have to show for it?

Mr Speaker: Mr O'Toole, please. Less rambling and more getting to the point.

Ms O'Neill: You are being a bit disingenuous. Where is the A5 scheme? It is stuck in the courts. That is not about political will but —

Mr O'Toole: It is. [Inaudible.]

Ms O'Neill: — about the courts. I know, but be honest. When you say that there is a problem, name it and diagnose it as what it is. Yes, there are things that are stuck that we want to see advanced quicker but have not been. Yes, there are things that the DUP has turned its mind towards thwarting at every turn. You would be better working with me to ensure that we get those things over the line, as opposed to trying to point-score.

I take the point that politics has to deliver for people. We need to do everything that we can to work together where we can, but we also need to diagnose things as what they are, Matthew. Let us be honest as well.

Ms O'Neill: As the Member knows, that is an issue that we have raised repeatedly. The deputy First Minister and I have raised it with every Prime Minister that we have had to deal with in recent years, and we have raised it with Secretaries of State. We continually raise it as part of our Budget discussions. If we are to build houses, we need to have access to the funds to do so. If we are to build houses, we need to be able to invest in our waste water infrastructure. Those two points have very much been heard in our ongoing Budget discussions with the Secretary of State.

John O'Dowd has also raised it at every turn. We need more money to build houses and invest in waste water infrastructure.

Mr Martin: The First Minister touched on waste water infrastructure. Is she aware that the crisis in waste water infrastructure is stopping 6,000 houses being built across Northern Ireland? Does she still believe in the three-pronged approach of her party's Infrastructure Minister as a solution to the waste water crisis, or does she agree with business analysts and experts in the field who have described her Minister's solution as woefully inadequate?

Ms O'Neill: As the Minister — I elevated you there. As the Member will know, the Infrastructure Minister has invested in waste water infrastructure with the ability that she has within the funding that she has been given. An extra 5,300 homes have been unlocked as a direct result of what she has done. When the Minister brings her paper to the Executive on how we can unlock infrastructure over the next 10 years, I look forward to the Member's party getting right in behind that and giving her the money to do it. You do not get to apportion blame for that in the power-sharing arrangement. You actually have to join up the dots, follow through and put money where you want it to go. That means investing in waste water infrastructure. I am glad that we have your support.

Ms O'Neill: I will come back to the Member on any detailed conversations that we have had. Certainly, questions have been asked. There was big disruption that caused real havoc for people for a few days. The British Government have to get to the bottom of it. We cannot keep having that interruption. While, obviously, it is not a devolved issue, we pay a lot of attention to it, given our dependency on connectivity. If we have anything else to add for the Member, I will ensure that he gets that in writing.

Mr McMurray: Thank you, First Minister. I appreciate that.

More extreme weather events will also put pressure on air travel. Will the First Minister press the UK Government to revisit their participation in the European geostationary navigation overlay service (EGNOS)?

Ms O'Neill: I will take that on board. That is quite the title. I will take that away and come back to you on it.

Mr Speaker: Topical question 4 has been withdrawn.

Ms O'Neill: I thank the Member for the question, which is very topical given that the adjudication will be made this week. As I have done repeatedly throughout recent weeks, I send my full support and solidarity to the people of the Garvaghy Road. That is a very strong and proud community, as you have heard our colleague John O'Dowd restate in the Chamber. It is a community that is confident and very much focused on the future, and one that has made much progress over the past 30 years. I saw that for myself when I visited the community in recent weeks.

It is also a community that has suffered an awful lot of heartache, pain and trauma as a direct result of the dark and miserable period of unwanted marches being forced through its heart, and the mayhem and murder that accompanied that. Last week, everybody was reminded of the murder of Robert Hamill. That all happened around that time. When people think about Drumcree and the Garvaghy Road, they think about Robert Hamill, the Quinn children and all the deaths that occurred at that time. Today, you see residents of other areas coming forward. Again, John O'Dowd spoke about it earlier. We have a letter from community associations across the North that talk about all the work that has gone into trying to move things forward, uphold citizens' rights and find local accommodations, and the potential for all that to unravel just because the Orange Order wants to get its way at Drumcree. That is a desperate situation. The letter speaks for itself. The people of the Garvaghy Road do not want those wounds to be reopened. No right-minded person out there wants those wounds to be reopened. It begs the question as to why the Orange Order and political unionism want to reopen the issue. I do not think that anybody else wants that.

Ms Ferguson: In relation to begging the question "Why?", does the First Minister agree that this is a cynical stunt designed to drum up support ahead of next year's elections after a summer of DUP scandal?

Ms O'Neill: Yes, I do. That was very evident and on display at the show at the weekend. It is clear that the DUP wants to look backwards. It is very much about blatant electioneering. It is about the DUP covering up for everything else that is going on — the summer of scandal, as you called it. It is all about deflection and distraction from what is happening.

What I heard over the weekend and what I hear in the commentary around Drumcree is about supremacy, triumphalism and railroading over the wishes of a community. That was clearly on show at the DUP's party conference at the weekend. It just stinks of entitlement, and people have made up their mind on it. The wider public do not want this going backwards. They want to see politics delivering for them in the here and now, and they want to see us looking towards the future. We see an attempt to reopen something that was settled 28 years ago — as I said, nobody wants it.

It begs the question "Why?". Why is the DUP being led by the nose by Jamie Bryson? Electoral reasons. People can see through it, but the Garvaghy community deserves better. I will tell you what: even more than that, the Garvaghy community deserves better, and the whole of society deserves better. They want us to build on the progress of the last 28 years. They want us to look towards the future. They want us to build a society that is fair and inclusive. They do not want us to keep our heads in the sand and keep looking backwards. That should be the obligation of every political leader in the Chamber, not what we see today — not looking backwards and trying to reclaim the First Minister's post just for unionism because it owns it; and not trying to look back to the Garvaghy Road just for electoral reasons. People can see through it.

Ms O'Neill: Thank you. I was really delighted to see that it got so much attention at home, because it was such a momentous opportunity and very much builds on the elections and the historic breakthroughs of First Ministers in Scotland and Wales who all have their own journeys and their own political identities. We are all different, and that is OK. The opportunity that we had was for the leaders of Sinn Féin, the SNP and Plaid Cymru to come together in common purpose, because, while we are all different and may have different priorities and have different journeys in terms of where we have come from, how we arrived in 1998 at devolution arrangements for them and at a peace agreement for us, it gave us the opportunity to underline that it will only be the people who get to decide the future. It is for us all to have our rights honoured when it comes to self-determination. We are living through times of enormous change, and I encourage everybody to get involved in that debate. Stake your claim, because this is our future. We own it together. Such opportunities are not to be missed.

Mr McGuigan: It is clear from the summit last week that political debate about the future is now mainstream. You said and I agree that partition has failed this island and that we must be ready for constitutional change when it comes. First Minister, do you agree that it is absolutely essential that people across every city, county and community are properly informed, heard and involved in shaping that future?

Ms O'Neill: Yes, I absolutely do. We have the Good Friday Agreement. My generation's gift was the Good Friday Agreement, and I believe in working it to the nth degree. I believe in it, and I believe in being here every day despite the challenging arrangement that we have. I believe in trying to make politics work despite the challenges that we have. I believe in the fundamental right of the principle of consent. It will be the people here who get to decide the constitutional future, but that means that we should not wait. We need to have the conversations and do the preparation now. We need to do the hard yards and not rinse and repeat the mistakes of Brexit, when people were asked a question but did not have all the information. I do not want that for anybody here. I want us to build a better and more prosperous future in which our young people get to live in a place where they have every opportunity and hope.

That is the thing that everybody needs to get their head around. What could this be for all of us together? What could it be for a kid who lives on the Shankill Road and a kid who lives on the Falls Road? What is the better? There is definitely something better, because, when this state was designed, it was designed in such a way that we would live back to back and in such a way that we would fight one another.

I do not want that, and nor does anyone on our Benches. We want to build for our collective future. This should be about hope. It should be about ensuring that our children grow up in a future where they are nourished and given every opportunity to survive, where we grow the strongest economy, where children have access to first-class education and where we have one national health service. That is the future that I want to build, and I know that it is the future that you want to build.

Mr Butler (The Minister of Health): I thank the Member for his question. A facial palsy regional planning group was established in September 2023. That group developed an action plan, which included the establishment of a local and regional pathway to assist with assessment and treatment. In addition, a new nidirect web page was developed in order to assist patients who experience facial palsy and its symptoms. That web page signposts patients to helpful information whilst waiting for assessment. Through the development of a local pathway, it was determined that specialist facial therapy input provides an essential part of conservative management during recovery. To that end, a small amount of funding was identified through waiting list initiatives funding to address the recurrent list of patients who were waiting to be seen by a facial therapist and to develop a future pathway to a regional facial therapy service, which is part of the multidisciplinary team model.

My Department has now allocated funding to enable specialist facial therapy input to be delivered in the Belfast and South Eastern Health and Social Care Trust areas. By expanding the current service provision, we are now able to deliver a range of benefits, including standardisation of care through the introduction of clear referral and treatment pathways, as well as improved patient outcomes through early intervention and access to specialist therapy. I hope that further recurrent investment can be secured in order to put in place an enhanced regional service for those who require highly specialised services. However, that is not possible at present, given wider service pressures and priorities.

Mr Mathison: I thank the Minister for his answer. As this is the first opportunity to do so, I put on record my congratulations to the Minister on his appointment.

Minister, you will be aware — I hope that you are aware — that as far back as 2018, the then Health and Social Care Board gave clear assurances to patient advocate Janet Robb, who has worked tirelessly on this issue — I was in the room when those assurances were given — that an in-reach service would be put in place in Northern Ireland. There were clear assurances that, while the huge amount of work that is still required to deliver a fit-for-purpose facial palsy service was ongoing, a clinical partner in Great Britain would be brought in to deliver services for those patients in dire need. Can the Minister outline why no such service has ever been put in place, what he will do to rectify that, and whether he will undertake to meet me and Janet Robb to discuss the whole range of issues that are impacting on facial palsy patients in Northern Ireland?

Mr Butler: I will do my best to answer those three questions, if I can remember what the three of them were. I pay tribute to Janet Robb, who is a phenomenal advocate who is passionate about those services. She has contributed marvellously, as can be seen and heard on the nidirect web video.

It is important to understand the context in which we are operating. On average, between three and five patients a year are assessed to be suitable for facial palsy surgery in Northern Ireland. Those referrals are managed by the South Eastern Health and Social Care Trust as part of the network arrangement with a specialist provider in Great Britain. That arrangement was informal, but the strategic planning and performance group (SPPG) has recently secured funding to enable a formal arrangement to be put in place. Discussions have now commenced with clinicians in the South Eastern Health and Social Care Trust and its UK counterparts to determine the best provider for that formal commissioning arrangement. Most facial palsy assessment and treatment is provided locally through local hospital specialities. The SPPG sends most of those patients who require specialist surgery and/or Botox treatment to GB via an extra-contractual referral (ECR) arrangement.

My office has already been in contact with Ms Robb to arrange a meeting. Thank you for raising the matter today.

Mrs Dodds: Minister, I have constituents who come to me with this very perplexing problem. Many of them have to pay for their own injections to relieve their facial palsy symptoms. That is extremely taxing on those individuals. You spoke about funding that had been allocated by the South Eastern Trust for the treatment of facial palsy through the waiting list initiative. Many, however, question whether that is being directed specifically at facial palsy or has been subsumed into the wider specialities in plastic surgery —

Mr Speaker: Get to the point, please.

Mrs Dodds: — in the trust.

Mr Butler: I thank the Member for her question. It is a fair question to ask. When we look at the Budget allocations and the pressures that we are under, it is absolutely right that every penny needs to be accounted for. One could say that much more needs to be done. The work that the SPPG has done with the limited funding that it has been able to allocate from the elective waiting list is useful, but it is not the end picture. For those who await services and have been struggling, we need to do much more. I urge my Executive colleagues to get around the table and agree a Budget to ensure the future development of such services and to ensure that funding for the services that need to be provided is recurrent so that we have that full picture.

Mr McGuigan: Minister, previous estimates suggest that between 576 and 750 people here develop facial palsy each year. As was suggested in the two previous questions, I suggest that sufferers have been left behind here. In the absence of a commissioned service, where are patients currently being referred to for specialist physiotherapy, psychological support, ophthalmology and reconstructive treatment; and how long are the waiting lists?

Mr Butler: I thank the Member for that detailed question. This is a developing service, and the SPPG has entered into wider arrangements with the Belfast Trust and South Eastern Trust to develop those services in a better way. Unfortunately, across the trusts, the people interface service is not done in the same way. It is a priority for me to ensure equitable access across the provision. I will get back to the Member on his question with a detailed, trust-wide picture, because equity is important in the provision of those services.

Mr O'Toole: Minister, you are very welcome to the role. This is the first time that I have asked you a question in your new role, so the best of luck to you.

Specifically on paediatric palsy, I am aware of a case involving a family who have had real issues around pathways for paediatric facial palsy. I have written to you about the subject and the specific issues that arise. Are you willing to meet to discuss those issues? They are connected to adult palsy but slightly specific to paediatric palsy and distinct from the broader adult facial palsy issues. There are specific issues here. If you are willing to meet so that we can clarify some of those points, it would be helpful.

Mr Butler: I thank the Member for welcoming me warmly into the role. Absolutely, you can reach out with those issues. I remember the question that you posed and the pressures that are faced in that paediatric setting. You are quite right: facial palsy has myriad conditions that underpin it right through the age brackets. I absolutely make a commitment to you: if you pick that up with my private office, we will sort something out.

Mr Butler: I thank the Member from East Belfast. I know that the Member is significantly interested in the topic, so I was not surprised to see it pop up. It is also close to my heart.

My Department has secured £2·3 million in recurrent funding to increase neurology capacity and to begin reducing unacceptably long waits. The funding will be directed towards a balanced programme of immediate backlog reduction and sustainable service reform. That includes additional professional staff who can assess, review and support appropriate patients without requiring every contact to be consultant-led. My officials are working with a range of neurology stakeholders to ensure that action is in line with the published regional review of neurology services without prejudice to that work. Investment could support improvements to clinical triage, advice and guidance for GPs, validation of new and review waiting lists and patient-initiated follow-ups for suitable, stable patients. Measures such as those will ensure that specialist appointments are prioritised for patients with the greatest clinical need, while building a safer, more equitable and sustainable service across Northern Ireland.

Neurology waiting times saw a slight improvement in the first six months of 2026, with the regional focus on elective care action. Between January and June, there was a reduction of 1,333 patients waiting for a first consultant appointment, from 28,188 to 26,855. However, the median average wait of 77 weeks remains unacceptable. That is why we need much more investment to support the regional review. The review proposes an ambitious programme to put people with neurological conditions at the centre of their care and to improve services underpinned by workforce growth and new ways of working. My Department is preparing to publish the review's consultation analysis report and to progress the next steps for implementation as soon as possible, despite the significant budget challenges that face the health and social care system.

Mr McReynolds: I thank the Minister for his response. Minister, given the progressive nature of many neurological conditions and the need to act quickly when they are discovered, will you outline what steps are being taken to reduce the risk of a deterioration in people's conditions while they wait for that crucial first neurology appointment or follow-up review?

Mr Butler: It is essential that we reduce waiting times, but we must also improve support for people while they wait, which is what the Member talked about. Services need to ensure that referrals are reviewed according to clinical need and that people whose conditions worsen can be identified and assessed more quickly. Better specialist advice for general practitioners can help some patients to begin appropriate tests or treatment without having to wait for hospital appointments. My Department's regional review also recommends protected urgent appointments for people who are at risk of hospital admission, clearer points of contact and stronger links with nursing services, therapy services and community and voluntary services. Those approaches require careful planning and appropriate staffing, but they are central to a safer service. Patients should not feel forgotten whilst they wait, and those with the most urgent needs should be identified and prioritised consistently across Northern Ireland.

Mr Butler: I thank the Member for North Belfast for his question. Approximately 2,200 patients are currently waiting for a routine primary hip replacement across all trusts. That is an 18% reduction in overall waits compared with March 2025, when 2,700 patients were waiting for that procedure. The vast majority of those patients currently wait less than three years for their hip procedure, with fewer than 100 patients waiting beyond three years. The Belfast Health and Social Care Trust has only 43 patients who have been waiting over three years for a routine primary hip procedure and fewer than 10 patients who have been waiting for four years. There can be patients who come off medical suspension and appear to have been waiting longer than that timescale, but those patients will be prioritised for assessment and listed for surgery.

Funding has recently been confirmed to support the appointment of a new orthopaedic consultants across our local trauma and orthopaedic units. While core capacity is being built, my Department will continue to work with trusts to secure additional activity through the waiting list initiative. That will include using in-house core capacity as well as transferring patients to a number of independent sector providers. Over this financial year, waiting list initiative funding has supported the transfer of approximately 800 patients to independent sector providers for primary hip or knee procedures.

Despite the very real financial pressures that face the health and social care system, progress is being made. There has been a significant reduction in the number of patients who are waiting for hip and knee replacement surgery, and, from March 2026 to August 2026, the number of patients who were projected to wait for more than three and a half years for hip replacement surgery by March 2027 fell by 49%, which is a reduction of 162 patients. The number of patients who are waiting for primary knee replacement was reduced by 39%, which is a reduction of 284 patients. I am committed to achieving the maximum waiting list time target of three and a half years for knees and hips by March 2027.

Mr Kingston: I thank the Minister for that detail. My question quoted information that I received from a Belfast Trust reply, which said that the estimated waiting time is seven to eight years, which alarmed me. I hope that that does not reflect the reality, as the Minister said. The constituent who contacted me has bone-on-bone agony in his hip. He looked into the waiting list reimbursement scheme, but he asked me to get clarity on the eligibility criteria, because — I will write to the Minister about this — the criteria say that the patient has to have been on the waiting list for one year, but the application form says two years. Is the budget for the waiting list reimbursement scheme used each year, and, if not, should the criteria be changed so that more people can get the treatment for which they have waited so long?

Mr Butler: I thank the Member for the question. He is quite right to raise the issue, because anyone in pain and agony on a waiting list may have to navigate what may seem like a complex system. There has been some uptake of the cross-border initiative but maybe not to previous levels. I give credit to my predecessor, who brought in initiatives on elective care waiting lists. That is where we have seen real benefits.

When the Member writes to me, I will look at the criteria and make sure that the information is broken down so that the best advice can be given on what is the best fit for his constituent. It is important to understand that the cross-border initiative is still available. Where that is the best fit, it is clear that the initiative still works.

Mr Speaker: I call Paula Bradshaw.

Ms Bradshaw: Sorry. [Inaudible.]

Mr Speaker: I call Linda Dillon.

Mrs Dillon: Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle.

For clarity, Mr Kingston, the requirement was reduced from two years to one year after we raised the matter at the Health Committee. We raised it because the money for the reimbursement scheme is not being spent, and it is not being spent because of the qualifying period.

Minister, I therefore ask you to give a commitment to the House to remove the one-year waiting period. Many people who work in the NHS are unable to get the surgeries that they require and are having to take long-term sick leave because they cannot avail themselves of the reimbursement scheme. Uptake, because of the one-year waiting period, is not good, so I ask you to give us a commitment that you will remove that stipulation in order to allow people to have surgeries in a much more timely manner.

Mr Butler: I thank the Member for raising that matter. All those things remain under constant review, because we have to ensure that public expenditure on provision lines up with policy. The health service exists to provide care for our people, however.

Since becoming an MLA, I have been inundated with questions from people who work in our health service about how we treat people and keep them from being off sick. The Executive, rather than just me, probably need to look at that, because it would be unfair to look just at people who work in the health service and not at any other public-sector workers. That is a wider discussion to be had. I can, however, give the Member a commitment today that all those things remain under review to ensure that we spend the money that we have on providing the best care that we can for the people who need it most.

Mr Chambers: Minister, I welcome the progress that you have made on tackling some of the longest waits. Will you assure the House that, alongside the immediate measures that are being taken to get patients treated, investment is being made in permanent health and social care (HSC) capacity so that we do not simply recreate those waiting lists in future?

Mr Butler: I thank the Member for his question and for his long-term service on the Health Committee. We absolutely have to deal with patients who have had to wait far too long, but, as Minister, I recognise that we also have to address the underlying capacity problems. That is why funding has been confirmed for additional orthopaedic consultants, beds, theatres and sessions across our health and social care services. In the Belfast Trust alone, an additional £3·3 million is supporting increased trauma capacity at the Royal Victoria Hospital and orthopaedic capacity at Musgrave Park Hospital. I thank the staff at Musgrave Park for the warm welcome that I got and for giving me the chance to look at the facility there, which really is world-class. I make no apology for using available independent-sector capacity where it gets our HSC patients treated sooner, but my objective is also to build stronger and more sustainable capacity in our health service.

Ms McLaughlin: Minister, your predecessor recognised that deprivation and regional inequality have a direct impact on health outcomes. With patients in Altnagelvin Area Hospital facing lengthy waits for hip surgery and everything else, what are you doing to ensure that that inequality is not being compounded by unequal access to treatment?

Mr Butler: I thank the Member for her question. In answer to questions earlier, I said that one of the good things about serving on multiple Committees in this place is that we get to understand the pressures that everyone else faces. It is probably an early commitment of mine to try to ensure that, as far as we can, there is equitable access to all health and social care. Being Chair of the AERA Committee really reinforced for me the idea that we need to understand that 30% of our people live in rural areas and the impact that that has on their proximity to primary and secondary care services.

Some 30,000 people responded to the 2024 consultation on transformation and on reconfiguring the network. That should make us all sit up. I make a commitment that, when it comes to equitable access, everything will be looked at forensically. We have to do that within budget, but we cannot forget those who live further away from our services. They need to be central to all the decision-making on how they access the health and social care system.

Miss McAllister: Minister, in answer to one of the previous supplementary questions, you mentioned use of the independent sector. I completely agree that we must first maximise use of the NHS, but it is right that, should we need to, we use the independent sector. Why can our patients here, especially those who are unable to travel to the Republic of Ireland — this question came from a constituent — not use the reimbursement scheme to access private healthcare in Northern Ireland? Why is that option not available to them?

Mr Butler: I thank the Member for that very good question. Whilst we have to be fiscally responsible and value for money has to apply, the reality is that, even in the private system, there is a limit on capacity, theatre time and access to consultants. The cross-border scheme works for some people who live closer to the border or because of other reasons, such as the services that they need. It is right and proper that both of those schemes exist, but, as I said to Mrs Dillon, all of that needs to be kept under constant review to ensure that our system offers the best service that it can. That will remain under active review to ensure that we utilise public money properly and meet the needs of the people who need that care.

Mr Butler: I thank the Member for her question. The continued expansion of elective overnight stay capacity at the South West Acute Hospital (SWAH) is a priority for my Department. The Western Health and Social Care Trust recently recruited a new gynaecology consultant, who will deliver two additional inpatient sessions and one additional day case session per week at the SWAH site. That consultant will also support a new fertility service at the Omagh Hospital and Primary Care Complex. As well as general surgery, paediatric dental, special needs dental, breast, gynaecology and adult ENT surgery, the trust recently introduced paediatric tonsillectomy services to the SWAH site. The trust has also been commissioned to deliver additional diagnostic capacity in CT endoscopy.

Further expansion of general surgery and gynaecology services at the SWAH is planned. The proposed investment will create at least 12 additional elective general surgery theatre sessions per month over 50 weeks, with a further increase in the number of planned gynaecology theatre sessions. My officials are working through the business cases with the Western Trust, and, subject to the successful recruitment of medical and nursing staff, that increased operating capacity should come online early next year. While that core capacity is being developed, my officials will continue to work with the trust to maximise use of the available theatres. The SWAH is now delivering more elective activity than it ever has done before, with almost 300 core elective theatre sessions and over 70,000 theatre minutes delivered in the first five months of 2026-27, which is approximately 50% higher than it was in the same period in 2024-25. In real terms, that meant 37% more patients in total from April 2026 to August 2026. Almost 700 patients have undergone procedures in the SWAH, with a further 150 NHS patients receiving treatment in the SWAH through the orthopaedic insourcing arrangements.

The SWAH remains an important part of the acute hospital network. Members should be assured of my steadfast commitment in that regard.

Ms D Armstrong: Minister, I welcome the significant increase in activity at the South West Acute Hospital and the planned further expansion that you have outlined. I particularly welcome the increased gynae work and the focus on women's health. Do you agree that that demonstrates the important contribution that the SWAH and its maximisation can make not only for patients in Fermanagh but as part of the overall effort to tackle Northern Ireland's unacceptable waiting lists? Will you continue to support the further development of services at the site?

Mr Butler: I thank the Member for her question. I made an early commitment to visit as many sites as I could, and the SWAH was high up that list. I thank the board and those who showed me what they had during that visit. They were also able to demonstrate some of the pressures, some of which have been well versed in the Chamber. I have already outlined some of the Department's investment in, and commitment to, the SWAH site. The SWAH is a very valued and integral part of our hospital network. It is really important that users be at the centre of any conversation about transformation, reset or reconfiguration.

As part of the regional response to providing the best health and social care that we can in Northern Ireland, I would therefore like to see increased capacity and throughput at the SWAH. It will be interesting to see the report on the vision for the SWAH that is being undertaken.

Ms Murphy: Minister, given that it has been four years since emergency general surgery was suspended at the SWAH, staff and patients have, of course, been left in limbo, as you will know and as your predecessor knew. With that in mind, will you finally bring forward a decision on the future of emergency general surgery at the SWAH?

Mr Butler: That is a live topic, not only at the SWAH, evidently. The SWAH remains an important part of the Northern Ireland hospital network, continuing to provide a type-1 emergency department, intensive care, maternity services and a range of elective services. The elective overnight stay centre provides a range of surgical procedures and remains an important component of elective care delivery.

The trust is working with stakeholders to develop its vision for Fermanagh and west Tyrone. That work is intended to establish a clinically safe and sustainable framework for health and social care services across the area, which includes the SWAH, the Omagh hospital and primary care complex, community services and primary care. Any proposal for a permanent change to emergency general surgery services at the SWAH requires appropriate supporting evidence and would be taken forward through established commissioning governance and assurance processes. My Department continues to engage with the trust on work in that space.

Mrs Erskine: Minister, you cannot use development of elective care overnight centres as an excuse to try to allay the very real concerns that people in Fermanagh have about the removal of emergency general surgery. In your answer, you referred to a figure for elective surgery accounting for 365 days of the year. In my quick calculation, that works out as fewer than one elective procedure a day. I have a real concern about trauma cases, particularly considering staffing levels and ambulance cover in a rural area such as mine.

Mr Speaker: Will you get to the question?

Mrs Erskine: Minister, will you make a decision to restore emergency general surgery at the SWAH, and, if so, when?

Mr Butler: To be fair, I understand the fears. I worked in that sector, providing emergency response at a time when it was important to have the right people in the right place at the right time. With regard to any reconfiguration of services, they are all clinician-led and will be subject to a rigorous process between the strategic planning and performance group, the Department and any of the trusts. I do not disagree with the Member about how robust that needs to be. We have to test to see what the impact will be on, for example, the ambulance fleet and therefore on ambulance availability for those who are acutely in need.

There is a difference between those who present at A&E for emergency surgery and those who are getting elective surgery. There is no doubt that, when specialisms are in place, the outcomes are much better. I agree with the Member, however, that we need to have a rigorous and forensic look at the impact that any permanent changes in any of the facilities across our system will have. That is why I believe that the independent reconfiguration committee will add value to any process and any proposal that is put forward.

Mr Butler: I thank the Member for his question. The Shared Island Fund was established to support specific projects and initiatives rather than to provide the long-term recurrent funding that would be required to sustain and expand hospital services. It is therefore not an available funding route when considering any future development at Daisy Hill Hospital. Let me be clear, however, that I have no ideological opposition to considering anything that would strengthen the sustainability of that or any other hospital.

Daisy Hill plays an important cross-border role, providing services to patients from both jurisdictions. For example, there is an ongoing interface project within the Health Service Executive in Louth and Meath, which sees long-waiting paediatric patients from the South accessing a bespoke weekend dental service in the hospital's paediatric theatres. That has produced overwhelmingly positive feedback.

In May 2020, as part of the all-island congenital heart disease network, the Southern Trust was appointed as one of five regional paediatric centres across Ireland. The centre provides cardiac services for children and families closer to home, avoiding their having to travel to Dublin or Belfast unnecessarily. The staff work closely with colleagues in Belfast and Dublin to assess, review and manage infants and children with potential or confirmed congenital heart disease.

The Southern Trust is committed to exploring opportunities to meet needs in the greater Newry area and beyond. I am supportive of any proposals on cross-border collaboration that can offer sustainable benefit to patients. Daisy Hill is also one of the region's elective overnight stay centres and is seeing increased patient numbers and surgical activity across a number of areas since April 2023. Almost 11,000 elective surgical procedures have been undertaken there. I remain committed to the hospital's future.

Mr Speaker: We move to topical questions.

Mr Butler: I thank the Member for his question. Last Thursday was a good news day for many who are suffering. I have been communicating with a number of women who suffer, and I pay tribute to those who wrote on behalf of those who are suffering. We have to remember that, when you have been diagnosed, as many in this Chamber will know, reaching out for help is sometimes not the easiest thing to do.

Last Thursday's news was good news. However, we have processes here. Thursday's publication of the updated final draft guidance recommending Enhertu as an option for the treatment of HER2-low metastatic and unresectable breast cancer in adults is great news for patients and families. My Department will formally review the final NICE guidelines once they are published, in line with the normal process. I can confirm that, following the publication of the final draft guidance and in advance of final guidance publication, I will be pleased, and am pleased, to say that Enhertu has been accepted for use in Northern Ireland under the extant HSC-managed entry-of-medicines process. Treatment is commissioned on a cost-per-case basis for individuals who meet the NICE eligibility criteria, and I am sure that I speak for all of us in saying that we all remain active and open to helping those individuals to access that drug as quickly as possible.

Mr McGrath: I welcome some of that news, but I want to be careful about some of the language. If it is on a cost-per-case basis and if it means that there are criteria, that means that some people will get access to the drug and that some will not. Where it is available in other places in these islands, there is unrestricted access to it. If you are eligible based on your medical needs, you get it. Are we saying here that it is based on whether you have a particular amount of money? Can we make sure that it is available to everybody whom doctors say need it?

Mr Butler: I thank the Member for his question. We are looking at two phases for the Department. Once the final guidance is published, the Department will review it for legal and policy applicability in Northern Ireland in line with the existing process, which is set out in circular 12/22. In advance of that endorsement, the Department will consider applications through clinicians on behalf of clinically eligible patients, but obviously that will remain under review up to the point where we can act in greater haste.

Mr Butler: I thank the Member for his question. Without even looking at my notes, let me say that any delay for anyone who has had a cancer diagnosis is too long. I do not think that I am speaking out of shop when I say that just about everybody in the Chamber will know someone who has been diagnosed with cancer and has heard those words. There is no doubt that cancer red flags remain a priority for the Department of Health. We will take steps in every regard, whether on breast cancer or anything else. Your colleague who was in the Chamber earlier submitted question 7 on the steps that we are taking on oesophageal cancer, which we did not get to. I make a commitment to the Member that breast cancer is one of the ones that we are looking at forensically to try to ensure that we can give the earliest care possible to those who need it.

Mr McMurray: I appreciate that, but women's health clearly needs targeted action. When will the action plan on that matter be implemented?

Mr Butler: I thank the Member for his question. The women's health action plan was one of the things in the first-day brief that I asked for an urgent update on and early sight of.

Women's health has been relegated to a subsection of our policy for far too long. I hope that the women's action plan will be ready and out before the end of the year. I pay credit to the advocates, the women's health advocates and the all-party group here who have contributed to it. I hope that it makes a considerable difference and gives confidence to women who have felt that their health concerns have been relegated.

Mr Butler: I thank the Member for his question. There is not enough time left in the mandate to do that. I am sure that it has rattled about in the heads of most of us over the years, especially if you have worked on the Health Committee. In my time as Minister, I have not been able to think proactively about that. However, when I am faced with significant challenges, particularly in workforce, my mind goes there. It is something that could be considered in the future. I warn, however, that such a change may not bring the efficiencies that we envisage. It would be a significant step to do such a thing. If we look across the water to GB, we see many examples of single-trust provision in areas with a population similar in size to ours.

Mr Bradley: I thank the Minister for his answer. He has answered another question, which relates to the fact that the centralisation of our health service in Belfast is not a feasible answer either. However, before the end of the mandate, could he look at the saving that could be accrued from reducing the five health trusts to, say, three and how that saving could be ploughed back into front-line services?

Mr Butler: No. If I were Superman and Batman rolled into one, it would be nice to pull something like that off. I know that the Member is coming from a good place. I have spoken to the permanent secretary about this. We have the ambitious cost-cutting exercise for the next couple of years. A lot of people are pushing that and talking about it in the same space as job cuts and so forth. It is not about that; it is about efficiencies. There are efficiencies that could be maximised by closer and better working relationships between trusts. We need to remove the silos. However, it could be hypocritical of us, as politicians, to ask the bodies that we look after to remove their silos, when we sometimes work in that way.

I also look back to an example where I am not sure that we have seen the benefit. We had the review of public administration, but I am not sure that that has wholly paid off with the fiscal efficiencies that it was supposed to achieve. Similarly, I am not sure whether the Education Authority (EA), created through the amalgamation of the education and library boards, has achieved the efficiencies that everybody thought it would. If a Health Minister were to embark on something similar, it would be a step that would take a lot of working out and a lot of detail. You would need to be forensic and make no assumptions. When we interfere in how we provide health and social care, we need, at all costs, to improve it.

Mr Butler: I thank the Member. The Member has been a long-term advocate for the hospices, particularly the Children's Hospice. It remains a priority of mine and of my party. We had our early days meeting at the Children's Hospice, and it was a pleasure to spend time there. It was sombre in some ways, with families navigating difficult life journeys. It is vital that the hospice understand that it very much forms part of our care services. My Department is working at pace on the funding model. The funding model for the Children's Hospice is slightly different from that for the adult hospice. That is actively under consideration, as will be the sustainability of the hospice.

Mr Brett: I appreciate the answer, Minister, but it is the same answer as your predecessor gave a number of years ago, so, on that basis, "working at pace" means that you will not have a new funding model in place in this mandate. The services of the hospice will not be funded by good vibes and slogans. Can you give an assurance today that you will provide the hospice with a date for when you will finish that work, given that it has now been going on for two and a half years?

Mr Butler: I thank the Member for his persistence on the issue, and he is right to be persistent. I welcome that challenge, because there is a myriad of pressures across the system. We all have our local pressures, so the Member is right to press that issue. I cannot give the Member a definitive date; I can say that there will be a response and that engagement is ongoing between the hospice and my officials. I have certainly leaned into my officials, and they have completed some good work.

There are budgetary constraints on all of us. Currently, we spend £2 million more each day than we have in the Health budget. Any decision that I make, I have to make it against that backdrop. We are engaging proactively with the Secretary of State and the Treasury on a Budget settlement, but we still need this year's Budget to be agreed. If the Member for North Belfast can pull any strings in his party, I would appreciate that.

Mr Butler: I thank the Member for his question. There are clear and encouraging signs that the additional investment is delivering for patients. Waiting times remain unacceptable, however, and, even with the progress made, there is still a considerable distance to travel.

Between April and July this year, more than 52,000 additional assessments and treatments were delivered through the £85 million waiting list initiative. Almost 5,500 further primary care elective procedures were delivered between April and August through the separate £80 million funding stream. That activity is producing measurable results. The projected number of people waiting for more than four years for a first outpatient appointment has fallen by 18%, while the projected number waiting for more than four years for inpatient or day-case treatment has fallen by 26%. Since March, the longest tonsillectomy waiting list has fallen by 81%, with reductions of 49% in primary hip procedures and 39% in primary knee procedures.

Those are significant improvements delivered through additional investment and the enormous efforts of Health and Social Care staff. However, progress is not uniform. Pressures remain and are particularly acute in areas such as imaging. My focus is firmly on delivery, increasing activity, treating those who have waited longest and ensuring that every available pound translates into appointments, diagnosis and treatments.

Mr Burrows: I thank the Minister for that update. It is encouraging, and he was appropriately measured in his response. The reduction is indeed encouraging, and it shows what clear focus and targeted additional investment can deliver. Does the Minister agree that, putting the theatrics and distractions of this place aside, that is the kind of delivery that we should be focused on to make life better for the people of Northern Ireland?

Mr Butler: I absolutely do, and I thank the Member for raising that. During my 10 years here, that has certainly been one of the biggest frustrations for me. Delivery is what this place has to be about. Through that initiative, we have seen tangible delivery that really changes people's lives. Targeted investment is delivering meaningful improvements, particularly for some of the patients who have waited longest. It is a clear example of this place and the Executive delivering for patients. I want to see us embed that activity further in the health service by improving theatre utilisation, expanding effective elective and day procedure models, reducing avoidable cancellations and making full use of the facilities and workforce that are available.

My approach will be relentlessly focused on delivery, productivity and better outcomes. The figures are moving in the right direction, but the real test is whether patients are seen and treated sooner. That is the standard by which I expect progress to be judged, but we are on the right track.

Mr Butler: I thank the Member for her question. It was a sad indictment of society when we saw that unrest affect care delivery. I remember listening to the former Health Minister talk about an experience that was relayed to him, and it was one of deep regret.

I know, however, that the Department has been constructively engaging in that space to identify everything that slipped and to work with the trust to ensure that the patients who need care the earliest are given the opportunity to get it. If the Member has details of anybody who has slipped through that net, I will make my private office available, and we will pick up on that.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): That concludes Question Time.

Mr O'Toole: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. On behalf of the Opposition, I would be grateful for guidance from the Speaker's Office on the decision of the Speaker or a Deputy Speaker to interrupt a Member who is asking a question. On several occasions today, official Opposition Members were noticeably curtailed in asking their question. We have recorded the timings of occasions on which different occupants of the Chair stopped our Members asking questions of Ministers. There is a noticeable variation in the Chair's interruption of questions from Opposition Members and those from Members of Executive parties. It is critical, particularly as we approach the end of the mandate, that the official Opposition be given the ability to question Ministers. I ask for official guidance, and I will happily put that request in writing. I am sure that we will hear that it is at the discretion of individual occupants of the Chair, but a pattern is emerging of the official Opposition being curtailed, and that is not acceptable.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Thank you very much indeed. If you pass on the details of the timings and the specific questions directly to the Speaker's Office, we will look at them closely and get back to you.

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

Mr Butler (The Minister of Health): I wish to update the Assembly on an emerging and serious workforce challenge that is affecting inpatient maternity services at Daisy Hill Hospital. By now, Members may have seen the statement that the Southern Health and Social Care Trust issued earlier this afternoon. I will be clear from the outset about the current position: maternity services at Daisy Hill continue to operate, and there is no immediate change to the care arrangements for expectant mothers. Women should continue to attend the unit and all planned appointments unless they are contacted directly by the Southern Trust and advised otherwise.

No final decision has been taken to relocate inpatient maternity services from Daisy Hill. The consultant workforce position, however, has become increasingly fragile, and, unless sufficient additional medical cover can be secured, the Southern Trust may need to introduce a temporary contingency arrangement. I recognise that that news will cause expectant mothers and their families, staff and the wider community understandable concern. That is why I considered it important to be open in informing the Assembly about the position, the steps being taken to address it and the contingency arrangements that are being examined.

Daisy Hill requires a minimum of eight consultant obstetricians to maintain a safe and sustainable rota, including the necessary on-call cover. Prior to the present difficulties, the unit was supported by five substantive consultants and three locum consultants. A combination of consultant retirements and resignations has weakened the workforce position. Most immediately, two substantive consultants have resigned and are serving their notice. At the same time, a number of absences in the consultant team at Craigavon Area Hospital mean that the trust's normal contingency arrangements cannot currently provide the level of support that is required at Daisy Hill.

The immediate issue relates specifically to the consultant obstetric workforce. The trust had made significant progress on strengthening the midwifery workforce at Daisy Hill, reducing the number of full-time vacancies from more than 25 in May 2024 to fewer than three by May of this year. The Southern Trust has repeatedly undertaken recruitment exercises for substantive and locum consultant obstetricians. It has advertised nationally and internationally, engaged specialist agencies and explored enhanced locum rates and alternative recruitment models. Despite those efforts, it has not yet secured the required number of additional consultants.

As Minister, I have asked the wider health and social care (HSC) system to explore what support can be provided in order to help maintain inpatient maternity services at Daisy Hill. Other trusts have been asked whether consultant support can be made available, and discussions have also taken place with health partners in the Republic of Ireland. Those discussions continue. All avenues remain under active consideration, although I must be candid with the Assembly and say that they have not yet produced sufficient additional cover.

I have also approved the development of a national recruitment campaign covering obstetrics, gynaecology and neonatology.

That campaign is at an advanced stage of planning and is intended to promote Northern Ireland’s health service as an attractive place to work for specialist clinicians.

My immediate objective is to maintain safe inpatient maternity services at Daisy Hill. At the same time, it would not be responsible to wait until the consultant rota becomes unsustainable before developing an alternative. The Southern Trust is therefore preparing a temporary contingency plan under which all births and inpatient maternity care may, for a period, need to be consolidated at Craigavon Area Hospital. Whilst no exact dates are yet confirmed, if the current position does not change, the alternative arrangements may be required by early November.

I must stress to Members that this is all an emerging picture, and no plan has yet been finalised or approved by my Department. Before any decision on change, even if only temporary, is taken, proper clinical and operational scrutiny must be undergone. I have made it clear that any contingency plan must demonstrate how women and babies will be cared for safely; how sufficient capacity will be created at Craigavon; how emergency presentations will be managed; how appropriate obstetric support will be maintained for the emergency department at Daisy Hill; what effect there may be on gynaecology, theatre and other services; and what travel and transport implications will arise for women and families. It must also set out precisely which antenatal, postnatal and other maternity services would continue to be provided at Daisy Hill; how women would be supported before and after birth; and the conditions that would have to be met to restore inpatient maternity care and births to the Daisy Hill site. If a temporary contingency becomes unavoidable, it will be subject to formal and continuing oversight by my Department. As Minister, I wish to make it clear that, under those circumstances, I would not expect it to become a permanent change by default.

In the past year, 1,713 babies were born at Daisy Hill and 2,768 were born at Craigavon. Together, those services account for around 23% of births across Northern Ireland. Any temporary change would therefore require careful planning, adequate staffing and clear communication with every woman affected. The trust has begun engagement with expectant mothers, staff, trade unions and elected representatives. Women under the care of the Daisy Hill maternity team will receive information directly and will be able to discuss their individual circumstances with their midwife or clinical team. I expect that communication to be timely, accurate and sensitive. If any colleagues from across the Assembly learn of reports to the contrary, I ask them to bring that to my attention. Women should not have to rely on ongoing media reports or political speculation to understand where and how their care will be provided.

I visited Daisy Hill Hospital shortly after taking up office and saw at first hand the commitment of its amazing staff. I recognise the pressure that this uncertainty will place upon them, and I expect the trust to engage fully with staff and their representatives as its plans develop. I understand why any disruption at Daisy Hill may give rise to concerns about the hospital’s future, but I need to be clear: Daisy Hill is and will remain a vital part of our hospital network. It is deeply valued by the population whom it serves. Recent investment in elective services at the hospital demonstrates its continuing and important role in delivering care both locally and across the region.

My objective is to restore and sustain consultant-led inpatient maternity services at Daisy Hill if a temporary contingency becomes necessary. I have made it clear that I expect no stone to be left unturned on recruitment and efforts to secure additional workforce support. That must continue alongside the development of any contingency plan. This is a serious position, but the necessary clinical and operational assessment must now be completed before any decision is taken. Safety must remain the overriding consideration, but safety must not be used as a substitute for exhausting every reasonable option to sustain the service. I will ensure that Members, staff, the local community and, above all, expectant mothers are kept informed as the position develops. Once the contingency plan has been fully scrutinised, further updates will be provided by both the Southern Health and Social Care Trust and my Department.

My priority is to protect safe care for women and babies and to do everything reasonably possible to secure the future of inpatient maternity services at Daisy Hill.

Mr McGrath: Once again, a vital service is being threatened with removal from a rural community, not as part of an ambitious plan for transformation but after years of warnings about staffing pressures and the Department's failure to address them.

The Executive have had two and a half years to deliver the transformation they promised, yet services continue to disappear. Minister, if this is not the transformation that has been promised, do you accept that the Executive and your Department are presiding over the collapse of services in our community?

Mr Butler: I thank the Member for his question. His tone is understandable, so I will not rebuke him for that. However, we are dealing with a very serious issue, and I have laid out the facts as to why we are in the position. It is not part of a transformation piece or a reconfiguration. Unfortunately, it is a reaction to a local staffing pressure. Unfortunately, as I have learned over the last four weeks, obstetrics is not just under pressure in Northern Ireland; obstetrics across the UK has been under pressure. On 11 August, the Royal Devon and Exeter Hospital had to take temporary measures. However, I must be absolutely unequivocal: maternity in Daisy Hill Hospital is a priority for the Department of Health. We will work at pace every day to find a solution, but safety must be paramount for the pregnant women who have been given notice and may need other information by November. I accept what has been said, but we have to deal with the reality. There is a regional picture that is very difficult to deal with, but it begs questions about how we configure our services to make them sustainable in the long term.

Ms Ennis: The people of Newry, south Down and south Armagh have heard the words "contingency" and "temporary measures" before, and they will be sceptical. Maternity services are vital, and any temporary removal of them will be rigorously challenged. The trust said that it intends to retain inpatient maternity services at Daisy Hill. Minister, what concrete guarantees can you give women, families and staff that there will be no permanent removal of inpatient maternity services at Daisy Hill?

Mr Butler: Thank you for your question. If I could rustle up a consultant obstetrician, I absolutely would. Money has been no object; every step has been taken to recruit, including attractive offers. The conversations have not fully closed down at this point: no stone will be left unturned, and every option will be examined to avoid the temporary measures. I do not disagree with the Member: if we allow a temporary measure to exist, sometimes it is very hard to recover from that. Part of my job is to make working across the hospital network in Northern Ireland attractive to those in Northern Ireland, on this island, across the UK and even further afield. The quality of delivery is the primary concern, but there is an absolute commitment from me that we will leave no stone unturned to ensure that those services remain in place in the longer term.

Mrs Dodds: I thank the Minister. Many of those listening to the statement today, and those who have read the trust's statement earlier, will find that there is not a lot new in it. We have known about the staffing pressures at Daisy Hill for a very long time. Indeed, the document reads like a case for consolidating services in Craigavon, which was backed up by one of the consultants, who said that it was the likely direction of travel. Minister, why have you waited until now to invoke the regional protocols on cooperation across trust boundaries and sharing consultants? Were you told about that during your recent visit to Daisy Hill? What did you promise to do for the people in the area affect, because it also applies to my constituents who live in my part of Upper Bann?

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Minister, you may choose one of those three questions.

Mr Butler: That Dodds sandwich has about six layers. Again, I do not criticise the Member for her questions, because they are all valid. When I have talked to clinicians, I have found that they say different things. The clinicians do not agree on what is best and how things can be configured. However, there was a widespread consultation on the transformation of the network in 2024, which solicited 30,000 responses because it matters to each and every one of us.

I cannot be more unequivocal. Was the Member referring to the statement that I made? If so, I disagree with what she said about the content. The content is absolutely unequivocal. In fact, it talks about some of the difficulties that are being faced in Craigavon. That is why, when the Southern Trust looked at how it might respond to this, it was not off the table for it to consider a move from Craigavon to Daisy Hill, but it found that, because of the space, the births and the consultants —. The Trust is doing this through a risk management process, and I have faith in the process that it is applying.

As for when I became aware of the situation and what conversations I had, my first-day brief said that there was a concern, but about two weeks later there was another resignation. That meant that the commitment that I had made, which was to keep it as an absolute priority —. There was a live conversation going on between the strategic planning and performance group (SPPG), my permanent secretary and the senior team at the Southern Trust, and I got regular updates on that. I had to be satisfied every time that they were taking every step that they could to try to find the resource that they need to keep the services at Daisy Hill.

I confirmed with them on Friday — I spoke to them over the weekend too; we were communicating just about every day on this — that we are not closing the door. We will work fastidiously and hard to find a workable solution. However, we have to be honest with our pregnant women that, come November, if we have not found the right level of clinical cover to provide a safe service, there may be a need for a temporary arrangement.

Ms Mulholland: Minister, your Department and your predecessor welcomed the maternity review completed two years ago by Mary Renfrew. The recommendations in that review would have ensured that maternity care was delivered differently and, potentially, allowed hospitals to have a more community-led approach. When will you implement the recommendations of that review?

Mr Butler: I thank the Member for her question. You can see some of the outworkings of it in regard to —. In my introductory remarks, I mentioned what we have done about our midwifery allocation at Daisy Hill and how we prioritise recruitment in that space. However, we are working in the context of significant pressures. We have the women's health action plan, which will hopefully come out before the end of the year. I will work really hard to get that out, because it is all connected. I have become acutely aware of how we access healthcare. It is u-shaped; you get a lot of it at birth and a lot of it in your elder years. That is where we need to put that priority. Maternity services right across the network deserve to see the implementation of the Renfrew review, and we are working at pace on that.

I cannot give a date, because obviously there are budgetary pressures. We run into these examples now and again that are about budget, but this is not about budget; it is about contracts and trying to ensure that we have the right people working in the right place. There are moving parts, but the commitment is absolutely there.

Mr McGuigan: Minister, in your statement, you said that:

What is the actual consultant capacity available to staff on the Daisy Hill rota today? Precisely how many additional consultants must be secured to prevent the transfer of births to Craigavon?

Mr Butler: I thank the Member for that question. I do not know whether anyone is off sick today, but the standard for safe clinical care is eight obstetricians. That is based on the number of births and the capacity that they have to operate. The tipping point evidently came when there were two resignations and the number went down to six. We have to factor in that three of the consultants who will be left are full-time consultants and three are locums. Everything has to be considered in the mix as to what that provision of care looks like. That comes down to clinical experience to ensure that we have the safest service.

Six is too low. That is not safe. That is when the point of no return could happen. Those resignations do not take place until November, so there is still a window to work at pace to ensure that we get the requisite level of clinical cover into Daisy Hill.

Mr Wilson: Minister, you will be aware that Daisy Hill has suffered continually from temporary withdrawals of services. That has been the case for as long as I can remember and for as long as I have been in public life. People will therefore feel that the playbook is being reached for once again. You will recall that, earlier in the year, we had the temporary diversion of maternity services. I raised that issue directly with your predecessor, Minister Nesbitt, who, at that time, assured me — I have his answer here — that the trust remained committed to sustainable maternity services at Daisy Hill. You will therefore understand the deep concern among families and expectant mothers who see Daisy Hill as their maternity care provider. On that basis — you have mentioned it — will you give a commitment to the House to protect maternity services at Daisy Hill and ensure that the facility remains equipped to deliver the services that the public so dearly need in my constituency?

Mr Butler: I thank the Member for his words. He is absolutely right to pitch his question in such a way. My commitment is that it is my ambition and that of the Department to retain the maternity service at Daisy Hill. What I cannot do is magic up an obstetrician, unfortunately, much as I would like to. I can say, however, that no stone is being left unturned to see how we can recruit into that post, whether that be on a temporary basis or, more important, on a longer-term basis. We really need to engage in that. In fact, there is a piece of work — I think that I mentioned it in the statement — on how we do that and how we pitch our hospitals and our networks in Northern Ireland as the place to work. A lot of things will be included in that, and there are a lot of things that we need to consider. In any transformation or changes, we must ensure that our services are safe and sustainable. That must come first, before we get to any transformation. There is absolutely no question of my commitment or the Department's commitment to anything but a maternity unit at Daisy Hill.

Mr McMurray: Will you increase training places for obstetrics and gynaecology so that we can increase the number of students who will train and work here in the long term?

Mr Butler: Thank you. Whoever holds the role of Health Minister is faced with questions like that annually. I absolutely understand and am acutely interested in workforce planning. As we know — if you have worked on the Health Committee, you will know — clinical practice goes hand in hand with that and is evolving. We now have obstetricians, gynaecologists, general surgeons and emergency general surgeons specialising in routes that will have evidently better outcomes. In the interim, my job and that of the trust is to ensure that we have safe, available services. I remain aware of and acutely invested in workforce planning. I have been looking at that with regard to Daisy Hill. We certainly need to look at it. We cannot have a sustainable system without looking at workforce and what the throughput looks like.

Ms Finnegan: I appreciate your being here, Minister, to give a bit of clarity on the situation. Sinn Féin has been consistent when it comes to Daisy Hill. In particular, after it emerged that the consultants were leaving, my party and constituency colleague Liz Kimmins made it clear to you and the trust that Daisy Hill maternity services must be maintained. That said, will you give a commitment that every effort will be made to ensure that Daisy Hill maternity services are protected and that mothers and babies in my constituency will not be left behind? They need to be prioritised. Have you communicated with the consultants who resigned so that any issues can be addressed before any further consultants come on board and so that we can retain staff in the Southern Trust area?

Mr Butler: I thank the Member for her question. As she has set out well, how expectant mothers receive the news needs to be handled sensitively. Those who are due within the next few weeks will be able to use Daisy Hill Hospital safely. However, for those who are at 26, 28 or 32 weeks, this will cause concern. That is why it is really important that we get the tone of this right. I do not want to overpromise or under-deliver. That is a hard thing to balance.

One of your first questions referred to your party colleague Ms Kimmins, and I say this to you both: I have an absolute commitment to equity of access to health and social care regardless of where you live in Northern Ireland. We have to factor that into our calculations. Sometimes, the rural impact assessment gets overlooked across government. I am not critiquing my Department or anybody else; I just think that, sometimes, it is not looked at in that depth. As a Minister, I absolutely will do that, and that comes down to instances like this.

In regard to the consultants, I have acted appropriately. I have not spoken to them directly, because it would not be appropriate for me to do so, but I was able to engage with the trust that employs them and to ask the trust a series of questions about what has been done, what conversations have happened and what the opportunities are. Those conversations are ongoing, and I do not want to prejudice any of that today. This is a sensitive moment, and I do not want to spoil any opportunities. As Minister, I could not speak to consultants, but the trust has assured me that those conversations have happened and are ongoing.

Ms Forsythe: Minister, you talk about four weeks, but the move to push maternity services out of Daisy Hill Hospital has been going on for years. Rural south Down sees that as a critical service. I had my three children there. It would leave people in my constituency needing over an hour and a half to get to their nearest maternity service. The staff are devastated and have been on to me. It was a lightning bolt to them today. Minister, what can I do to make the strength of feeling about how we cannot do without maternity services at Daisy Hill crystal clear to you? Do I need to have a town hall meeting and bring your party leader down to make a commitment? Do I need to bring protesters up to Stormont? If there is anything that I can do, Minister, just let me know. We need to make sure that you understand what the Daisy Hill maternity service means to people.

Mr Butler: Thank you. I appreciate that. Congratulations on giving birth at Daisy Hill. It is a fantastic hospital, and I absolutely value its place in the community there. The people of that area are passionate about their hospital and rightly so, and I understand the devastation that will be felt by some of the staff members who may be affected.

I have to be absolutely clear: there is only one fix, and that is for us to find two obstetricians who are clinically experienced enough to provide the cover. I ask all Members here to engage proactively in that space, put the word out and use whatever channels you have to promote Daisy Hill as a good place to work. That is the only thing that can ensure the safe delivery of babies come November. Safety has to come first.

I will very much regret it if a temporary closure has to happen, but I have to nail this point and will keep nailing it for you guys: there is no cabal looking to remove maternity services from Daisy Hill. I have certainly not been made aware of that or heard about it. All that I have heard is an absolute commitment to the future provision of maternity services at Daisy Hill.

Mrs Dillon: Minister, this is my first opportunity to welcome you to your new post. I neglected to do so earlier, so apologies for that.

Minister, the Mary Renfrew report was referred to. You said that we need to look at how we resolve the issue and find a solution. The solution is there: the Mary Renfrew report. That is the basis for a new maternity strategy. Working at pace? It has been eight years. The last time that we had a maternity strategy was 2018. If eight years is "at pace", the women and children of the future are in big trouble. I want to know what exactly you will do to ensure that the Mary Renfrew recommendations are implemented and that maternity services at Daisy Hill are secured on the basis of safe and good outcomes for mothers and their children.

How will you prioritise women's health? We are still waiting for the women's health action plan that was promised to us at the beginning of this term. I would like to see that coming forward and see women's health prioritised. Maybe then we will be able to get obstetricians.

Mr Butler: I thank the Member for those multiple questions. You are being lenient today, Mr Deputy Speaker. I thank Mrs Dillon for her kind words in welcoming me to my role.

There is not a lot that I disagree with there, but I remember that we were not here in 2018; in fact, from 2018 until 2023, we lost five years in this place. We all need to take cognisance of the fact that, when this place is not working and there is no ministerial leadership, things suffer and the Departments do the bare minimum. We need to put things in context.

I accept that we have lost years, but that was not down to the Ulster Unionist Party or its Health Ministers. I will commit to providing the Member, through the Health Committee, with a written update on the Renfrew report to see exactly where it is at.

I do not want to mislead the House at any stage, particularly about women's health, pregnancy and maternity. Members will know how important children are to me. They are little miracles. The pregnancy journey is not easy. Some women suffer prenatal or postnatal depression or maternal mental health fatigue, and I do not want to add to that pressure. That will be fed into the women's health action plan. Officials in the Department will be tearing their hair out when they hear me say that I want to publish the action plan before Christmas. I cannot commit to doing that before Christmas, but my ambition is to get it out long before the end of this mandate.

Mrs Erskine: Minister, when it comes to staffing levels and the knock-on effect on other hospitals and trust areas, there are parallels to be drawn with other services, and that concerns me greatly. I asked you earlier about emergency general surgery at the South West Acute Hospital (SWAH), where we have heard the same things about staff leaving the system, retirements and suchlike. This is collapse via stealth. It is what happens when decisions are not made. It is what happens when we have review after review. You yourself have announced that you will carry out reviews. With no decision-making, with collapse as a result, which is what happened at the SWAH, there is no confidence that you will provide the oversight that you talked about or that this will be a temporary contingency measure. We do not have that formal oversight for the SWAH, so what will be different in the case of Daisy Hill?

Mr Butler: I thank the Member for that. I appreciate the question, but I will repeat what I said to the Member on the Benches opposite. It is not just reviews that have led to stagnation but the fact that we did not have Stormont for five years out of the past 10 and the fact that we did not have —.

Mrs Erskine: You have just launched a review.

Mr Butler: There are a lot of factors at play to explain why we are where we are. The political stagnation that resulted from five years of not having Ministers to drive change in any of our Departments has led to a lot of what is now happening. There is a belief, and it is probably a heartfelt belief, predominantly in the Member's party that this is about removing maternity services by stealth, but it absolutely is not.

I absolutely agree with the Member on her first point. There are serious complications when clinicians, of whatever specialty, are removed from a unit. That does have a knock-on effect. I have become acutely aware of that in my early days in post, and it is a question that I keep coming back to. One of the purposes of the independent reconfiguration commission (IRC) will be to examine what happens if we want to do something in one space and in the next space, even if it is a planned move, because we cannot just move problems around the board. We need to get serious, and I believe that we are in a better place as we tackle our waiting lists through initiatives. The problems that have arisen today, however, are not part of anybody's master plan. Rather, they are contractual issues. Staff have the ability to move, to resign or to take another job, and that is what has led to today's announcement. It was not in anybody's plan.

Mrs Guy: Women in Northern Ireland are continually being let down by the Department of Health. There is no women's health action plan, despite one being promised two and a half years ago; breast cancer waiting time targets are consistently failing to be met; and now this. Minister, put simply, has the system collapsed?

Mr Butler: I thank the Member for her question. I am not sure that it has anything to do with Daisy Hill, but I will allow it. No, the system has not collapsed, but there are significant difficulties in our health service.

Her question is a good question, as it gives me an opportunity to make another point. Last week, I saw a report on compliments about and complaints against our health service workers. An awful lot of good work goes on across our health and social care system every single day. Today, it is right that we shine a light on failures, on where things are not working and on where we need to fix things, but we also need to recognise that the system has not collapsed. Today, the health service will deliver thousands of appointments, after which thousands of people will walk out satisfied that they got the appropriate care.

However, today is not a good-news day. Today is a day on which we are dealing with a significant, emerging problem, but it is receiving the appropriate focus.

Mr McNulty: I thank the Minister. There can be no more important duty on any health service than ensuring the safe delivery of babies and protecting their mothers' lives in giving birth. An "emerging" challenge this is not, with issues first arising in October 2024. Does the Minister realise that he and his Department have a duty to use every resource at their disposal to ensure that the rota of paediatricians at Daisy HiIl's maternity unit is reinforced to protect the lives of mothers and babies in Newry, south Armagh and south Down?

Mr Butler: I thank the Member for his question and his persistence in getting it in. I know that it is an issue that is really important to you, Justin. It is an area of health that you are passionate about, and I am similarly passionate about it. I do not take it for granted. I am conscious that I speak as a man, who has never navigated that journey, but I have every respect for those who have, and I supported my wife and daughter through it.

The Member raises a really interesting point — I cannot change it in this mandate — about how care is provided. Sometimes, unfortunately, we are talking about moving hospitals and services when, actually, we should have some more agility in our service. In the longer term, I would like to see, through negotiations with bodies, agility within our service whereby, if someone needs care, that care is moved to where they are. We want to move care closer to the community, and I suggest that Daisy Hill is an excellent example of a hospital at the heart of a community. With over 1,700 births in a year, it is a viable maternity unit. By the metric of the Southern Trust being responsible for 23% of births in Northern Ireland, that could not be clearer. Every one of those is a little life. Pregnancy and birth are critical moments that do not come easy in many cases, and one has to be conscious of that. That is why this is so important.

My Department will work at pace. The Member said that it is not an "emerging" problem. I am happy to give him some benefit of the doubt for that, because he is a constituency MLA and evidently knows what has gone on there better than I do, as I am in post only four and a half weeks. I will not critique that, but I will give him a firm and resolute promise that I am working on both a temporary fix and a long-term fix.

Mr Robinson: I thank the Minister. Given the importance of the matter and the concerns that there will be, what assessments will be made of increased travel times for expectant mums?

Mr Butler: I thank the Member for that question. It is a live question that is under assessment. The quality of our roads, particularly in rural areas, is for another debate, and we debate that many times. Access to transport is also an issue. They are fundamental pressures for anyone in those places who is pregnant. When we look at the reconfiguration of transformation, we need to factor in and consider those pressures before we take a decision to change any service. Unfortunately, in this case, this has been thrust upon us, but I can confirm to the Member that that is a question that has been asked of the Southern Trust. The Department remains resolute in trying to help to resolve that. It is a significant pressure for those who live furthest away, because they could be the most vulnerable.

Mr Buckley: I am the father of one of the babies born in the Southern Trust in the past year. I pay tribute to the incredible professionalism of maternity staff in the Southern Trust. I welcome the fact that the Minister wants to be candid with the Assembly. With that in mind, is there any other area of healthcare provision in the Southern Trust that is in a similarly increasingly fragile situation due to staffing or any other issue?

Mr Butler: I thank the Member for his question. First, I congratulate you. I know that that is late to the game, but your daughter is beautiful: she obviously takes after her mum. [Laughter.]

He is right to pay tribute to Southern Trust staff.

Having experienced childbirth with my wife through the birth of my son and daughter and the birth of my granddaughter to my daughter, I am acutely aware of the fact — I may be uber-sensitive to it — that women need to be able to safely access that service. In answer to the first part of his question, I am absolutely committed to trying to sort it.

The Member asked a really good question, and I can candidly say that I am not aware of any imminent pressures or of anything else that is under threat. However, the workforce remains a significant pressure anyway. We have 6,500 vacancies across the health and social care system. I am not saying that all those vacancies need to be filled, because we are in a process of making sure that efficiencies are maximised and that roles that are filled have good outcomes. That is a space that we are moving into, but there has to be an impact. There is a fiscal impact when we do not have people to fill roles, such as those in obstetrics. There are vacancies right across the gamut. For clarity, in response to the Member's question, I am not aware of anything at the moment that is under pressure, other than the normal, everyday pressures that our fabulous health and social care staff face.

Mr Chambers: Minister, I appreciate that you cannot just pull an experienced consultant out of a hat. If a temporary contingency were to, unfortunately, become unavoidable, will you ensure that the arrangements are regularly reviewed, recruitment continues and an expectation is maintained that maternity care, including birth services, will be urgently restored at Daisy Hill Hospital? Can you confirm that, across all aspects of healthcare, your number-one priority is patient safety?

Mr Butler: I thank the Member for both questions. On the first, two things are very live. There is a potential for the withdrawal of services at Daisy Hill. That is the temporary piece, but we can do things in addition to the contract in that temporary space to try to attract the appropriate obstetrician with the appropriate experience in order to provide safe maternity care there, but that does not fix the problem in the long term, which is slightly more complex. The Department is, however, already quite far down the road towards developing the plan to attract the right people and have them in the right place at the right time. Hopefully, in the future, we will not have such debates again or bring unnecessary stress to the people who use our services.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): That concludes questions on the statement. Thank you, Minister. I ask Members to take their ease for a few moments.

Mr McReynolds: I beg to move

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

Mr McReynolds: I welcome the opportunity to open the Second Stage debate on the Tree Protection Bill. I start by putting on record my sincere gratitude to Barbara Love and Frank Geddis for their advice and support in getting the Bill to this point and for putting up with my phone calls, which, usually, as a party colleague told me recently, could have been an email.

By way of background, Members and colleagues probably know me well enough by now to realise that I tend to just get on with things. I set a goal and put in the work to make it happen, hopefully without too much fuss.

Shortly after my election to the Assembly, I began to engage with key stakeholders and groups as a newly elected MLA, and it became clear to me at that stage that Northern Ireland lagged behind when it came to legislative protections for our oldest and most significant trees and woodland. To put that into context, it is well documented that Northern Ireland has the lowest urban tree coverage in the UK and the lowest woodland cover on these islands, at just 8·6%, which is, unfortunately, one of the lowest figures in Europe.

That is despite the overwhelmingly positive role that trees play in all our lives through tackling climate change, reducing the risk of flooding, improving air quality, offering physical and mental health benefits and creating positive spaces for the public to enjoy. Moreover, the public in Northern Ireland just really like trees.

A Member: Hear, hear.

Mr McReynolds: Thank you to the DUP tree spokesperson. [Laughter.]

That is reflected in YouGov polling and in the outcry when trees are cut down in haste. That is why the purpose of the Bill is to improve the protections for trees and ancient woodland by amending the Planning Act (Northern Ireland) 2011. There are three core elements.

First, the Bill aims to improve and upscale the protections afforded to trees by tree preservation orders or TPOs. I will use that abbreviation a lot today. Secondly, it provides our oldest and most significant trees with a dedicated pathway for legal protection. Lastly, the Bill introduces stronger legal protections for ancient and long-established woodland. I will address each element in turn.

The Bill seeks to enhance tree preservation orders by strengthening protections in primary legislation. At present, TPOs are limited in effectiveness, because primary Northern Irish legislation does not make it an offence to cause or permit the breach of a TPO, as is the case in England and Wales, thereby creating enforcement challenges and loopholes that can be exploited. The inclusion of "permit" in the legislation will ensure that TPOs better reflect the reality of how unlawful works can occur and make it clear that a TPO may prohibit not only the direct carrying out of unauthorised works but also the authorisation, facilitation or permitting of them.

At this stage, I should say that the many local council officers whom I met throughout the consultation on these proposals try to meet that standard. However, should a case reach the courts, judges have to go by the legislation that is in front of them. The problems with that situation were laid bare in a 2023 report by the Northern Ireland Public Services Ombudsman (NIPSO) on tree protection in the planning system. She found that, despite 369 tree protection breaches being reported between 2019 and 2022, with 144 relating specifically to TPOs, none was enforced during that period, and there were no prosecutions. The Tree Protection Bill closes the gap in cases of TPO breaches.

Mrs Erskine: I thank the Member for giving way. I am interested in this, obviously. The Member touched on council staff trying to enact what is there already. Will the Member outline — he may intend to — the enforcement difficulties that they have had? The Bill talks about the need for "qualified" people to look at this. The fact that such people may not be in our council staffing structures at present may add to the difficulties that there are at the minute.

Mr McReynolds: The Member makes a valid point. During the formal consultation period, I met the tree forum, which is a body of directors from across Northern Ireland, at Belfast City Council. That was one of the points that came up with them. It is fair to say that there is frustration on the part of a lot of tree officers. Many of them are formally trained planners and are not given the skills or the expertise to assess trees or carry out the work that they are being asked to do as local council officers. I have engaged proactively with the Woodland Trust, which is more than happy to facilitate training to ensure that officers are best equipped with the skills needed to enact what is in the Bill, and to do it in a more systemic way. We noticed that, across the 11 councils, some are doing well and have lots of officers who can carry out what we seek to achieve in the Bill, while others lag behind. If the Bill is enacted, there is a real opportunity to have good, green jobs and council officers who are supported to carry out the Bill's ambitions.

As well as making it easier to close the gap in enforcement of TPOs, the Bill makes remedial actions for the removal of a TPO tree more robust.

In the circumstances in which a tree with a TPO were removed, those found responsible could be required to ensure the planting of a replacement tree. The Bill would enhance that requirement by requiring replacement trees to be of a minimum heavy standard. That would correct what our constituents will have seen over the years: the felling of many trees and the replacing of older trees with saplings that may or may not survive the elements and fully replace the benefits of what went before. Currently, TPOs are awarded on the basis of expediency and amenity value, but that fails to recognise the broader benefits of trees. The Bill would therefore allow councils to create a TPO not only for amenity but for a broader range of benefits to people and communities. As with amenity, professional judgement would continue to be central in determining whether the contribution was worthy of a TPO.

The Bill seeks to streamline the application of TPOs by automatically confirming provisional TPOs after six months in the case of no objections having been made. That would remove the need for councils to repeatedly revisit and reapply for provisional TPOs and provide a safety net to ensure that bottlenecks in the planning system did not result in provisional applications slipping through the net. Moreover, it would reduce bureaucracy and additional workload on the part of the local council. That came about through the initial consultation that I mentioned to Mrs Erskine.

The second aim of the Bill is to protect our oldest and most significant trees as we protect listed buildings and scheduled monuments, not just how they look but their cultural, historic and heritage value, which are truly irreplaceable. That is important because, under the current TPO framework, ancient trees may be refused due to being diseased or dying. That does not take into consideration the fact that a tree can live for hundreds of years before being considered dead, which is often the case for ancient trees. To acknowledge that, the Bill would also allow for ancient trees to be granted a TPO solely on the basis that they have been confirmed to be ancient by an arboriculturist, that they are not at risk of causing harm and that they are not dead.

Mr Buckley: I thank the Member for giving way. Would that also include trees that are in a serious state of ill health? I think in particular of ash dieback, which, unfortunately, is a recurring problem across Northern Ireland, and how trees become a danger because they have become diseased.

Mr McReynolds: That issue came up during the consultation at director level with the various councils across Northern Ireland. Risk to human life should never come after a tree, so such a decision would be based on the judgement of an educated professional on trees. I absolutely agree with the Member.

Initial draft proposals included creating a separate heritage designation. However, following positive and constructive engagement over the summer with Rosemary Daly and her departmental officials, that was replaced with the proposed pathway now in the Bill. I am grateful for that input from Rosemary and her team, which led to the final proposals in the spirit of constructive engagement and feedback.

The third and final key element that my Bill would introduce is the protection of ancient and long-established woodland. As those ecosystems have been created over hundreds of years, they cannot be simply replaced through replanting. While I support development, it must not be at the expense of the fragments of remaining ancient woodland that we have, and I am confident that, when future generations look back, they will see that the Bill played some role in preserving and safeguarding ancient woodland in Northern Ireland. It would introduce the creation of a 15-metre buffer zone around ancient and long-established woodland to protect it from development that would cause loss, harm or degradation. In cases in which it is deemed necessary for development to take place, for whatever reason, on long-established or ancient woodland, there is a pragmatic provision for that to be overridden in the case of wholly exceptional circumstances.

The importance of protecting the trees that we already have must not be understated. We will all be aware of the numerous planting and replanting schemes across Northern Ireland, but those are not doing enough to retain the tree coverage needed across the country. That is why the Bill would also bring in practical measures, such as a new online map to show all TPOs across Northern Ireland. While I appreciate that some councils already have a map, there are various inconsistencies, with some still not having the relevant map in place. The 2023 NIPSO report recommended the creation of a single map of TPOs to be managed by the Department for Infrastructure. That map would have the benefit of allowing people to know which trees in their area were protected in an accessible manner.

In written guidance issued by the Speaker to Members about Members' Bills, he advised that he was seeking focused and clear legislative proposals. I am confident that that is what is in front of Members today. Throughout the development of the Bill, I have engaged with environmental organisations, developers, councils, planning bodies, departmental officials — on two separate occasions — and, crucially, the public, who are supportive of the measures in the Tree Protection Bill. That means that the Bill is not only ambitious but pragmatic and well informed and suitably stress-tested before coming to the House today. I am grateful to everyone who engaged with me during the consultation, and I look forward to working with Members from across the Chamber to ensure that it is effective and positive legislation for protecting our trees and woodland for generations to come.

Mr Martin: Will the Member give way?

Mr McReynolds: Just before I finish, I will. [Laughter.]

Do not make me regret it.

Mr Martin: The Member is doing an incredible job of getting through the Bill. I intend to speak on it, but I want to ask him one question before he finishes. I take him to clause 11 for what, I suppose, is a techie question. He referred to some of the definitions. Clause 11(1) gives the definition of "ancient tree", which he mentioned. The criteria for an ancient tree are to be those that are:

I admit to the Member that I did not know that that existed, although I do now —

I want to ask the Member about the next bit, which is:

I want his opinion on the way in which that is drafted. Does that mean that the Department can essentially override criteria previously published by the Ancient Tree Forum and the Woodland Trust if it determines that it is in its best interests to do so? Can that go both ways? For example, could the Department say, "We are not happy with those criteria; we want this to be in there" and put in place regs to either increase or lessen the standard of the definition provided by those two bodies?

Mr McReynolds: The former Chair of the Infrastructure Committee has a keen eagle eye for that point. It is one that I raised with the Woodland Trust directly. The Woodland Trust is not fully satisfied with that; it finds that to be a very prescriptive set of definitions. We could absolutely work on that in the Committee Stage. I thank the Member for bringing that to my attention.

During the past four years of developing the Bill, a wise person once reminded me that the most important tree to plant is the one that was planted yesterday. That is exactly what the Bill seeks to achieve, and it seeks to do so in a pragmatic and collegial fashion. I commend the Bill to the House.

Mr Buckley (The Chairperson of the Committee for Infrastructure): Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. As the Chairperson of the Committee for Infrastructure, I welcome the opportunity to speak in the Second Stage debate on the Tree Protection Bill, a private Member's Bill sponsored by Peter McReynolds MLA. The Bill was introduced to the Assembly on 29 June 2026, and the Committee received a briefing from the Bill sponsor on 1 July 2026 during which he outlined the purposes and policy objectives of the Bill.

The Bill seeks to amend the law relating to the protection of trees and woodlands. Its stated aim is:

The Bill contains 15 clauses and proposes a number of changes to the existing legislative framework, including changes to the operation of tree preservation orders that would broaden the grounds on which a council may make a tree preservation order to include ecosystem services. It would allow councils to make a tree preservation order in respect of an ancient tree without having to satisfy the existing amenity or ecosystem service test. The Bill would make changes to the enforcement of tree preservation orders, including in relation to knowingly causing or permitting certain breaches. There are provisions relating to the replacement of trees where protected trees are removed or destroyed. Those provisions will provide for the planting of:

and will give councils additional powers to enforce replacement planting requirements and, in certain circumstances, to recover the costs of doing so.

Another significant proposal is the establishment of a tree protection map: a publicly available online map showing tree preservation orders in effect in Northern Ireland, conservation area boundaries and information on tree preservation order applications that have been made to councils. The Bill contains provisions relating to long-established and ancient woodland, including changes to the consideration of planning applications and permitted development. Finally, the Bill contains provisions relating to ecosystem services and interpretation in the existing planning legislation.

The Committee has therefore been mindful from the outset that the Bill covers a number of areas to do with planning, environmental protection and local government functions.

Given the timing of the Bill's introduction and the limited time remaining in the current mandate, the Committee has also been conscious of the timescale available for scrutiny, should the Bill proceed beyond Second Stage. The Committee therefore agreed to launch a call for evidence during the summer in advance of the Bill's formally standing referred to the Committee following Second Stage. The purpose of our doing that was to maximise the time available for scrutiny during the remainder of the mandate and to allow evidence to be gathered at an early stage, should the Bill pass Second Stage. The Committee's call for evidence opened on 9 July and will remain open until 16 September. The Committee is seeking views from stakeholders, experts and members of the public on the provisions in the Bill, including on its potential environmental, planning and community impacts. Taking that approach means that, subject to the Bill's passing Second Stage today, the Committee will have already begun gathering evidence that can inform its consideration of the Bill at Committee Stage.

It is important to stress, however, that the Committee has not yet undertaken detailed scrutiny of the Bill and has therefore not formed a view on whether its individual provisions should be supported. The purpose of the Committee's work will be to examine the Bill, consider the evidence presented to it and assess whether the legislation, if enacted, will achieve its intended objectives and be workable in practice. In particular, the Committee will want to hear from those with expertise in tree protection, planning, arboriculture, woodland management and local government, as well from as anybody else who has been affected by the proposed changes. The evidence received will be important in helping members understand the potential benefits of the proposals and any practical or unintended consequences that may arise from them. The Committee will also need to consider the interaction between the provisions and the existing planning and tree protection framework, including the responsibilities of councils and the Department. As with any primary legislation, the Committee will need to consider whether the provisions are sufficiently clear, proportionate and enforceable and whether the duties and powers that are proposed can operate effectively in practice.

I thank Mr Peter McReynolds for engaging with the Committee at an early stage and for providing it with an initial briefing on the Bill. I encourage anybody with an interest in the proposals to respond to the Committee's call for evidence before it closes on 16 September. Trees and woodlands are matters of significant environmental, community and public interest. Should the Bill pass Second Stage, it will be the Committee's responsibility to examine the evidence carefully, assess the practical implications of the proposals and undertake robust scrutiny of the legislation. I know that the Committee looks forward to undertaking that work, subject, of course, to the Bill's passing Second Stage today.

That concludes my remarks as Committee Chair. I will now make some remarks in my capacity as a DUP Member. Let me begin by stating that I support the principle of protecting Northern Ireland's oldest and most significant woodlands. Trees are important to our environment, our communities, our health and our landscape, but supporting that principle does not mean that we should automatically support every proposal in the Bill. My concern is that its sponsor has identified a legitimate objective but has not yet demonstrated — I stress that there will be time at Committee Stage for him to do so — that the measures are necessary, proportionate and properly costed. Northern Ireland already has statutory provision through the tree preservation order regime, so the most fundamental question to begin with is this: what evidence is there that the existing legislation is fundamentally inadequate? If the problem is enforcement, it begs the question of whether we can improve enforcement. If councils need more expertise, can we provide them with more expertise? If guidance needs to be updated, can we update the current guidance?

Before adding further statutory responsibilities, we need evidence that this additional layer of legislation is required. I am often on record in this place as saying that we should not legislate just for legislation's sake. Fundamentally, we should look at what is in place and decide whether further legislation is needed or whether it can be improved.

Mrs Erskine: I thank the Member for giving way and for making that point. It is an important point to make when we are making legislation that affects people beyond these doors. I feel that I say that quite a bit in the Chamber. It is particularly true when you look at this legislation and how it would affect landowners. I represent a rural constituency, as does my colleague. He will know that farmers are under pressure as it is. Whilst I understand the importance of protecting the environment — farmers in my constituency care for the land day in, day out — there are concerns about the obligations that the Bill would place upon landowners and, for my part, farmers in particular.

Mr Buckley: I thank the Member for her intervention. It is an important point, which I will come on to in my contribution. This is about the management of stakeholders and dealing with realities. I do not know of anybody who, where it could be facilitated, would not be in favour of protecting ancient, historic trees in our landscape. That is particularly the case for farmers who are custodians of the land and often go out of their way to ensure the protection of said trees. I will come on to that point.

That brings me to the financial implications. The Bill's explanatory and financial memorandum (EFM) acknowledges that additional costs would arise from new regulatory processes, staff training, applications and appeals, monitoring and enforcement. It acknowledges that some councils may require additional staff or external expertise. That is a critical point when discussing draft legislation on this matter. I know Members who represent council areas. Dealing with staff costs and staff time is a significant issue. Our councils are already under significant financial pressure, so I want to know — I do not believe it can be stated today — how much the Bill would cost.

Mr Martin: I thank the Member for giving way. I will have no speech by the time the Member has finished, because I am putting lines through mine; in fact, he nearly read a line that I wrote down earlier. In the EFM, the Bill sponsor uses the word "modest" to describe the expenditure that the legislation would require. Does the Member agree with me that, if the Bill makes it past Second Stage, the Bill sponsor will have to tie down the expenditure and that we cannot go with "modest"?

Mr Buckley: I am tempted to say to the Member, "Great minds think alike". I am sitting in the company of two former Infrastructure Committee Chairs who know well some of the issues that I intend to raise. It is not because we are anti-tree — certainly not; I want to make that clear — but because we have to be practical and considerate about what legislative change means for the operational capacity of local government, which already faces significant challenges. The Member is right.

Mr McReynolds: I thank the Member for giving way and the previous Infrastructure Chair for pointing out that the EFM states that the cost attributable will be "modest". Woodland Trust polling showed that 75% of respondees are supportive, regardless of the cost. The principle of the Bill establishes the increased protections that the public want to see. You need to crack a few eggs to make an omelette. Furthermore, the officers want to be enabled to do more. The will is there to find the resource that would be required.

Mr Buckley: I thank the Bill sponsor. I get the sense that there could be quite a number of puns throughout the debates on this Bill.

When I looked extensively at some private Members' Bills, and I will not get into those because they are not for debate today, I was always concerned about their subjective language. Whilst "modest" can mean one thing to one person, it might mean a very different thing to somebody else. I am not surprised that the consultation suggested such high support, even beyond modest costs, but that is probably people asking theoretically, "What is 'modest'?". I can guarantee you that that will not be the case if councils are inundated with a huge financial burden, which, ultimately, will affect rates bills that are printed on paper that was probably harvested from trees somewhere else. It is important to bear in mind, however, that although people may want to see protection in what they deem to be a modest way, that cannot leave councils unable to operate the provisions. Whatever form of Bill we end up with, it must be enforceable and costed.

How many additional staff will be required? How much specialist expertise will councils need? Most importantly, where will that money come from? The Bill sponsor spoke to the Committee about using fines from TPO breaches to offset some of those costs, but how much revenue is generated from TPO breaches each year? I would guess that it is not a huge amount. The Member might have that data. I will give way to the Member.

Mr McReynolds: That is precisely why we are trying to change the law regarding "cause or permit". Between 2019 and 2022, there were 144 TPO breaches. In those cases, the TPOs were not enforced, and none of the breaches led to prosecution. If we tighten up the law and enforcement, we can resource our council officials and make sure that they are trained adequately. There is already provision in the 2011 Act. I think that the maximum fine is around £100,000. Having met with departmental officials, however, I understand that it never really goes beyond £2,500 via the courts. Therefore, by tightening the legislation, we could, hopefully, accrue some money that could, perhaps, go to councils as well. I think that that was mentioned by the Woodland Trust in the call for evidence, so there are, I hope, ways and means to address the issues that the Member mentioned.

Mr Buckley: I thank the Bill sponsor for that intervention. What that says to me is that, in a nutshell, fines will fall far short of funding the issues and implementation of the Bill. It will not be remotely sufficient to fund the additional responsibilities that will be placed on councils, so the Committee will clearly need those answers. Perhaps that is something that we can scrutinise further.

I am concerned about the Bill's impact on the planning system. Northern Ireland has some of the worst planning outcomes on these islands. We have had repeated Audit Office reports, Committee investigations and ministerial statements about how ineffective our planning system is in the delivery of targets that the Assembly would expect. Northern Ireland needs housing, and we have not talked about that just yet. We need infrastructure, economic development and investment, yet the Bill potentially creates additional considerations that could introduce uncertainty and delay in the planning system. The proposals to introduce ecosystem services as a criterion for TPOs are a good example of that. The benefits of trees are real, but how will those benefits be assessed in individual cases? Who determines the eco-value of a tree? What methodology will be used, and how will disagreements be resolved? We risk replacing a relatively clear test with something that is considerably more subjective. I have a concern about that.

Mr McReynolds: I thank the Member for giving way. At present, it is based on expediency, as in if a tree is going to be damaged or felled for works taking place nearby or for whatever reason. The next test is amenity. What does "amenity" mean? It is not defined in the 2011 Act. Ecosystem services were endorsed recently by DAERA and by DFI as well, I learned just today, in its SPPS document. The Bill introduces components that can be used in an application for a TPO, but the expediency test will still need to be met. There must be a risk that the tree might need to be felled for whatever reason. It is not as though somebody will suddenly try to TPO every tree. The expediency point is incredibly important, because there is a fear that a legal mechanism needs to be used in the case of a breach and the felling of the tree; that is the primary thing here.

Mr Buckley: I thank the Member for his intervention.

I look to the tree protection map and ask how many trees will ultimately qualify and who will decide that. What will happen if a landowner disagrees? That goes to the point raised by my colleague for Fermanagh and South Tyrone. What will be the appeals mechanism, and what happens if a designation restricts the future use and development potential of privately owned land? Those questions are particularly important to farmers in Northern Ireland. We must ensure that environmental legislation does not inadvertently make ordinary agricultural activity unnecessarily difficult. I say that clearly because I do not believe that, as has been mentioned, there is a desire to do away with significant trees or ancient woodland. In fact, I was interested to note that, on a constituent's land in Portadown, a significant business, the Turkington Group, has planted 36,000 trees in the past 10 years. I do not know of a larger mass planting of trees in Northern Ireland. When it comes to planting trees, responsible businesses and responsible landowners are certainly willing to play their part.

Mr Boggs: Will the Member give way?

Mr Buckley: I will indeed.

Mr Boggs: As you are on that point, this will save me covering it. Do you agree that, although the Bill looks at protecting trees that are already there, and rightly so — I will come to that in my remarks — businesses are taking the opportunity to plant more trees, while the Forest Service, the Woodland Trust and others have reported on DAERA's lack of planting and how little we have planted so far, despite the strategy that it brought forward in 2020? We need to take better action to plant more trees rather than spend so much time on protecting what we have.

Mr Buckley: The Member makes an interesting point. Industry and landowners are often ahead of Departments. That is evident in the example that I gave. While Departments such as DAERA have fallen well behind in this field, many of our constituents are ahead of the game and up for proactive conversation about how they can be better custodians of the environment and the land. Farmers need to maintain drainage, fencing and hedges. They need to manage disease and carry out essential maintenance on their land. We should never create a system whereby routine agricultural activity becomes subject to unnecessary regulatory hurdles simply because a designated tree happens to be nearby. We need to find a balance on that, and the issue will be ensuring that this Bill can.

Clauses 8 and 9, which propose restrictions on:

require particular scrutiny, particularly given the significant challenges that we have in building housing.

Mr McReynolds: Will the Member give way?

Mr Buckley: Yes, of course.

Mr McReynolds: The Member makes a valid point. It is one that I discussed with DFI officials, who are in the Chamber today. I initially tried to go along with what is done in England, where the buffer zone is 50 metres, but we realised that there were issues with that, so we scaled it back to 15 metres. We need to remember that less than 1% of woodland across Northern Ireland is ancient woodland, so I genuinely cannot imagine ancient woodland or ancient trees getting in the way of the development of housing, which, as we all know, is so important for our constituents across Northern Ireland.

Mr Buckley: I thank the Member for that intervention. Something that we can perhaps flesh out is how much housing development would fall foul of that clause and whether that would have an impact on delivering against housing need. That is an important point that we could develop throughout the debate and at Committee Stage.

Mrs Erskine: I thank the Member for giving way. It is not for me to tell the Committee what to do in fleshing that out, but, when it comes to housebuilding, it is also important to look at local development plans. I have been asking questions about the delays in some councils, because those can have a knock-on impact on housing and on meeting the needs of the local economy in certain council areas.

Mr Buckley: That is another fundamental point. We have all been significantly disappointed by the lack of progress on area development plans in our respective council areas. That should definitely be taken into consideration. We should perhaps also reflect to our local authorities the question of whether the proposed legislation would hinder their ability to produce good, front-facing area plans for the betterment and growth of each area. That is something that we can —.

Mr McReynolds: Will the Committee Chair give way on that point?

Mr Buckley: I will make progress on this point and then come back to the Bill sponsor.

There must be clear, straightforward exemptions and an appeals process — that gets to the point that I have made — otherwise, we risk creating blanket restrictions that could have unintended consequences for farmers, landowners and development. I want to make it clear that this is not an argument against protecting trees — I have given examples of where that is already happening, and, indeed, we can do a lot better — but an argument for proportionate legislation.

I will give way to the Bill sponsor.

Mr McReynolds: I thank the Member for giving way. I have just realised that, given the line of Infrastructure Committee Chairs, past and present, it is like having the ghosts of Christmas past and present in front of me [Laughter.]

That thought just came to me.

Mr Martin: You had better be a good boy, Peter. [Laughter.]

Mr McReynolds: TPOs do not get in the way of development. I have just made that point. They are about being mindful of the presence of trees. More than that, ancient woodland is irreplaceable. My colleague behind me was looking to come in on a point about, I am sure, Tullynagardy Wood. Once ancient woodland is gone, it is gone.

Mr Buckley: I will give way to the Member if he wants to come in on that point.

Mr Mathison: I thank the Committee Chair for giving way. I do not expect him to be an avid reader of the 'Newtownards Chronicle', but, if he were, he would know that I worked for many years on a campaign to protect a piece of ancient woodland, Tullynagardy Wood, in my constituency. When there was a proposal for five detached homes that would abut that piece of ancient woodland, the local residents said unanimously that they did not want it. Yes, we need housing, but do we need it within 15 metres of our most precious ancient trees? I do not think that we do.

Mr Buckley: I thank the Member for the intervention. I hope that the 'Newtownards Chronicle' is avidly read in his home; it certainly is not in mine. I mean no offence to the 'Newtownards Chronicle' [Laughter.]

It is just that there are plenty of variations.

It is not a case of one size fits all. Absolutely, at the heart of any such legislation is engagement with members of the local community, because they are custodians of the woodland that the Member referenced. However, there are plenty of other examples of where developers have worked imaginatively with the environment to produce some wonderful housing schemes in close proximity to and in sympathy with some of our ancient woodlands. I know many constituents in those areas who have benefited greatly from such schemes; in fact, they have encouraged them, and some have won awards. There could be much more conversation about that. I accept fully what the Member said about his constituency example, but we need to ensure that whatever legislation we pass now or in the future is fit for purpose.

As I say, it is an argument about the need for proportionate legislation. We need to balance environmental protection with the need to build new homes, deliver infrastructure, support farmers and grow our economy. Before introducing new designations and new statutory duties, we should establish whether the existing system is failing, what the proposed system will cost and what impact it will have on planning and landowners. Until those questions have been properly answered, the DUP will reserve judgement on the Bill.

We should protect Northern Ireland's trees — I am conscious of the old proverb that from little acorns grow mighty oaks — but we should do so through legislation that is evidence based, proportionate, properly funded and workable.

Mr Boggs: I speak today as a Sinn Féin member of the Infrastructure Committee to briefly outline our position on the Bill at Second Stage. I thank the Bill sponsor for engaging so early with our team. When we engaged, I did not realise that I would be in the Chamber scrutinising the Bill. I thought that I would still be working upstairs for Cathal Boylan, but here we are.

There is no doubt that our ancient woodlands and trees are an important part of the cultural fabric of this island as a whole. As well as that, we recognise and support the need to improve tree cover across the North, while understanding that it is an important issue that needs to be addressed right across the island of Ireland.

The Bill sponsor is not in any way suggesting that the Bill will cover all the issues, but it will go some way to ensuring that we improve woodland and tree cover. I have already talked about our position on the fact that DAERA, the Forest Service and others need to do more in relation to the commitments that they have made previously, and I will not rehash that. I want to explore further with the Bill sponsor how the all-Ireland approach will work, because our ancient woodlands and tree cover do not stop at the border. Therefore, if we work on protections for those trees, we need to see it done on an equitable basis right across the island. Furthermore, trees have an important role in biodiversity, climate resilience, landscape quality and people's well-being; some Members have touched on that. The Infrastructure Minister is doing some work on how we can use trees more to tackle the impacts of climate change and adverse weather, and that ties into protecting trees as well as ensuring that we plant more down the line.

While Sinn Féin will support the Bill at Second Stage, we are, however, mindful of potential issues that are mainly to do with the deliverability of the proposals and unintended consequences that may arise. One thing that MLAs raise, again and again, is the need to see a more efficient and effective planning system. Therefore, there is a need to ensure that the Bill strikes a balance between efficiency in planning and protecting ancient woodlands and improving tree cover. Similarly, right across the North, people want to see roads developed, more housing built and new schools and hospitals, and we need to be prudent when we scrutinise the Bill to ensure that we avoid further bureaucracy. Again, it is about striking a balance on those important issues.

I have just come from a council. With the Dilapidation Bill that passed through the House some weeks ago, we and others raised concerns about handing more powers to councils while giving them less to fully deal with those powers. The Bill could be another example of that, and we need to be careful.

Mr Buckley: Will the Member give way?

Mr Boggs: I will finish my point, and then I will give way.

We say that we will provide training and that more officers will be employed. However, at the end of the day, anyone who engages with their local planning offices, whether through environmental health or something else, will know that a small issue can take a lot of time to deal with. We should be mindful that, while enforcing a TPO may seem like a simple thing, what it means on the ground may be different.

I will give way to the Chair of the Committee.

Mr Buckley: I thank the Member for giving way. I will not diverge from the Bill, but a perfect example of that is the animal welfare legislation. It devolved more powers to councils, but they did not get the subsequent cash to follow it up, which means that we have seen worse outcomes in particular council areas in some cases.

Mr Boggs: I cannot disagree with the Chair of the Committee. I tried to deal with those issues when I was a councillor and got absolutely nowhere, simply because the resource was not there nor, most importantly — I know that the particular officers who deal with the matter in Derry City and Strabane District Council will not mind me saying this — was, at times, the expertise to deal with the cases. When they have not had enough caseload to build up the expertise, they cannot make progress.

As I said, Sinn Féin is content to support the Bill at Second Stage. We look forward to scrutinising it at Committee. I thank the Bill sponsor for his early engagement, and we look forward to working with him. I will "leaf" it at that. [Laughter.]

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Thank you. That is how it should be done. I say that to the remaining Members who plan to speak at length.

Mr Stewart: I was not expecting to get in at this stage. First, I commend the Member for introducing the Bill. Thank you, Peter, for your engagement with the Committee and with me, and we look forward to working with you.

I will be brief today. There is little dispute about the importance of protecting our most significant trees and woodlands. As the Member said, Northern Ireland has comparatively low levels of woodland cover, and ancient and long-established woodland represents a particularly valuable, important and irreplaceable part of our natural heritage. Trees contribute not only to biodiversity but to flood management, air and water quality, carbon storage, shade and the character of the landscape and places where we live. Therefore, the Bill raises important issues that deserve to be considered. I will go into those clause by clause, if the Member is happy with that.

Clause 1 would broaden the basis for tree protection orders beyond "amenity" to include "ecosystem services" and makes specific provision for ancient trees. Clause 3 seeks to strengthen enforcement by ensuring that somebody who "knowingly causes or permits" the destruction of or serious damage to a protected tree can be held responsible, rather than liability necessarily stopping with the person physically carrying out the work.

Likewise, clauses 4 to 6 would strengthen the replacement regime. Where a protected tree has been unlawfully lost, replacement should mean something in practice. The Bill requires a "heavy standard tree" by way of replacement and provides for monitoring over five years to help ensure that the replacement tree becomes established.

I see practical value in clause 7 and its proposed tree protection map, which would be a single, freely accessible source. Having TPOs and conservation areas could therefore give greater clarity to residents, landowners, planners and developers.

The Bill sponsor talked about engagement with councils and the fact that some are doing it. Does he know how many? I would be interested to know how far advanced that work is and how much more it might take to get to the point to which we want to get.

Mr McReynolds: Out of the 11 councils, nine have maps. Some use electronic maps, while some use paper maps, but they are still maps. It is just Mid Ulster District Council and Newry, Mourne and Down District Council that are falling behind a little bit. The two officers there are doing a stellar job, but those are the councils without maps at present.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Peter, we are having difficulty hearing you. Can you elevate your voice and use the mic?

Mr McReynolds: Do you want me to respond again?

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: No. We are just having real difficulty hearing you at the top of the Chamber.

Mr Stewart: I thank the Member for his intervention. It would be interesting to see the level of work being done and cost required in order to do it. As the Member said, many councils are at a well advanced stage. Some are behind, but that clause will bring them up to speed.

I have few concerns about the Bill. The first is with clauses 8 and 9. The Chair of the Committee has already made this point, but clause 8 provides that planning permission must normally be refused where development would result in:

or where development would take place within 15 minutes — sorry, 15 metres — of such woodland:

Fifteen minutes might be slightly further away. I would be interested to hear the Member's understanding of what that might involve. He may want to return to that in his closing remarks.

Clause 9 would also remove permitted development rights for development within the 15-metre area. I entirely understand the objective behind that protection, but we need to scrutinise whether a fixed 15-metre distance is appropriate in every circumstance, what constitutes "wholly exceptional circumstances" and how the provision interacts with necessary infrastructure or other legitimate development. Whether sufficient guidance will be available to ensure consistent decisions across all council areas will be integral to that.

My second concern is around resourcing, about which we have already had a discussion. The Bill would create an additional responsibility for councils assessing potential ancient trees, monitoring replacement trees annually for five years, maintaining the information for the tree protection map and taking additional enforcement action. Indeed, the Bill's explanatory and financial memorandum accepts that councils and DFI will face:

and that councils with "limited specialist expertise" may require additional staff.

As the Chair and others have said, councils are already hard-pressed. We have heard about the animal welfare powers that were handed across without money. The Dilapidation Bill responsibilities are now coming down the track, for which the money is not going to be there. I would be interested to hear from the Bill sponsor about whether any assessment has been done with the councils of what they feel would be a modest amount, because every pound is currently a prisoner for our councils and at every level of government.

Mr Martin: I thank the Deputy Chair of the Committee for giving way. He makes a very relevant point, as he often does in the Chamber. Does he agree that, if the Bill passes Second Stage today and is referred to the Infrastructure Committee, it will be mission-critical to scope out exactly what he is talking about, which is the additional resources that councils will require in order to do this, and the quantum required, before the Bill comes back to the House at Consideration Stage? That is mission-critical.

As some Members have said, we cannot ask councils to do additional things, which they probably should be doing, such as on animal welfare, which is a good example that the Member cited, and then not provide them with the resources that they need to carry out what we have legislated for them to do.

Mr Stewart: I thank the Member for his valid intervention. I absolutely agree: questions need to be asked of all the councils. I imagine that the Society of Local Authority Chief Executives (SOLACE) or the planning officers for the 11 councils will come to us, however we want to investigate that. We need to dive in not only on the cost but the logistics of getting the expertise of the people required. Again, I am not an expert in the field. I know that the Bill sponsor is tree-mad and has done a lot of research. I am interested to know whether all the people with the required expertise who are to be appointed to councils are currently in Northern Ireland. Are they trained up? Is that expertise readily available? If it is not, is there a cost to training and where would it be acquired? There are questions around that. I do not know whether the Member has any information to give us about that expertise.

Mr McReynolds: Will the Member give way?

Mr Stewart: I am happy to give way.

Mr McReynolds: As I said, I have engaged widely, working alongside the Woodland Trust. I have met contacts across the UK. I spoke in London about the merits of the Bill. It was warmly received by everybody around the room. There is expertise in the UK. There is certainly expertise in Northern Ireland through the Woodland Trust. As I mentioned, it is more than happy to help planners who suddenly have to operate as de facto tree officers. It is keen to upskill them. There is plenty of expertise. The skill sets that are required to ensure that we can do this are there. The Woodland Trust is readily available to work alongside councils.

Mr Stewart: I thank the Member for that point. My point is valid because good legislation and great intention can often be undermined by the lack of resources, logistics or not having the right people in the right place. The Committee will want to tease that out.

I want to make a point about planning. We are well aware that our planning system is clogged up and of the issues around that. I do not want the Bill to have an impact on planning. I am not negating or taking away from what the Bill tries to achieve, but there are fundamental problems in our planning system. There are already logjams. I fear that the Bill will put additional pressure on councils with the absence of planners. We know how difficult councils are finding it to employ planners because many of them want to head to the private sector. I am concerned about the potential impact of that. Again, we will want to tease that out in Committee.

There is also an issue in clause 1 that deserves examination. Once a suitably qualified expert determines that a tree is ancient, the Bill provides that the council must make a TPO unless the tree is dead and specifies that its condition, health or structural integrity cannot itself be a reason for refusing that order. Existing planning law contains protections allowing necessary work where a protected tree has become more dangerous, so that should not be presented as preventing essential safety work. Nevertheless, I want to be absolutely clear that new arrangements cannot create an unnecessary delay or confusion where an ancient tree presents a genuine risk to a home, a road or the public. I know that the Member has said that the right to life and protection of people and property would come first. Again, we will want to tease that out in Committee. Those are important questions.

Under clauses 4 and 6, where the person responsible for a breach fails to act or cannot be identified, the responsibility and potential costs ultimately fall on the landowner, even where the landowner did not commit the original breach. The Bill gives the owner the right to recover reasonable costs from the person responsible. However, that may be of limited practical value when the person cannot be found or is insolvent. Again, I am interested to hear the Member's thoughts around that and the difficulty that it might create. The Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone previously raised the point about landowners and the pressures that they already face. There are questions there. I will want to examine carefully in Committee the balance between effective enforcement and fairness to an innocent landowner.

There is also a need for clear guidance around the Bill's new concept of "ecosystem services". The definition is deliberately broad, and I understand why. It includes matters such as flood regulation, air and water quality, health benefits, sense of place and noise regulation. Those are legitimate considerations, but, if councils are to apply them consistently when deciding on TPOs, the evidential base and guidance need to be clear. I assume that we will go into detail on that in Committee.

None of those questions detracts from the importance of the subject. We will support the Bill at this stage. To demonstrate why detailed scrutiny matters, we should be able to protect genuinely ancient and important trees and woodland while ensuring that the law is clear, proportionate, properly resourced and workable for councils, landowners and the planning system. I thank the Bill sponsor for bringing the Bill forward. I know the amount of work that goes into that. It is obviously a big day for you, so congratulations on that. I look forward to working with you in Committee, where we will give the Bill the scrutiny that it deserves. I look forward to seeing it at the next stage.

Mr McGrath: I thank the Bill sponsor for bringing the Bill to Second Stage. Of course, the debate is just on the general principles of the Bill; we do not need to get down into the roots of all the matters that are in it.

I want my speech to be a bit different. Rather than talking about the specifics of the Bill, I will give a couple of examples from my constituency of why we need the legislation and to try to illustrate its importance. The first example stands at the entrance to Rostrevor Oakwood. There is a magnificent oak tree that is around 200 years old, and generations of people have passed it on their way into one of the last remaining ancient oak woods on the island. People know it by a rather unique name: the "Invisible Tree". It got that name because, during a long-running planning controversy in Rostrevor, that very visible and substantial oak tree was omitted from a tree survey and from the report submitted in support of the planning application. There was something almost symbolic about what happened. A tree that had stood there for generations and was visible to everyone who walked past somehow became invisible when decisions were being made about the land around it. However, the community made it visible again. Local people organised and campaigned, and Rostrevor Action Respecting the Environment (RARE) championed the tree and the wider oak wood. In 2019, the tree, which had once been left out of a survey, was voted the Woodland Trust's Tree of the Year. That is an extraordinary turnaround for it. However, despite that, the invisible tree still does not have a tree preservation order, and that is why the Bill potentially matters so much.

Clause 1 provides a new route for ancient trees. Where there is reason to believe that a tree may qualify as ancient, the council could have that assessed by a suitably qualified tree specialist. If that assessment determines that it is an ancient tree, the Bill says that the council must make a tree preservation order unless the tree is dead. Therefore, I would like to know whether the legislation could finally provide the route through which the "Invisible Tree" becomes not just cherished by the community but protected by law.

Another tree in South Down tells a different but equally important story: on Newcastle promenade stands our famous "Bendy Tree". It is a wych elm that is more than 150 years old, and it has been bent almost horizontal by generations of wind coming in from the Irish Sea. It survived when other trees on the original promenade were cut down. It has also survived Dutch elm disease and more than a century of storms. Today, it is the last surviving tree from that original row, and it is shortlisted for the Woodland Trust's UK Tree of the Year 2026.

I welcome the fact that the Bill specifically recognises a sense of place as one of the ecosystem services that trees provide, because anyone from Newcastle or Rostrevor understands exactly what that means. That "Bendy Tree" is part of the promenade and is part of people's memories of growing up there and walking beside the sea, meeting friends and bringing their children and grandchildren back to that same place. The "invisible" oak tree is now one of the features that people seek out when they visit Rostrevor, and the stories that are shared about the trees are ones that many locals or those who have visited remember. Some trees grow in a community, and others become part of the community. The "Invisible Tree" and the "Bendy Tree" have done exactly the latter. The Bill gives us an opportunity to ensure that our law finally recognises what the people of Rostrevor and Newcastle have understood for generations: that trees are not obstacles to development but are part of our heritage, our story and the places that we call "home".

Mr Martin: I thank the Member for giving way. The Member's party does not always give me interventions, but Mr McGrath is always gracious with his time. I point out to the Member opposite that my colleague behind me has just shown me a picture of the "Bendy Tree", and it is indeed very bendy and very impressive. I commend the Member opposite for mentioning it today.

Mr McGrath: I thank the Member for his intervention. I am on the last sentence of my speech, but the Member's intervention gives me another opportunity to highlight something absolutely fantastic on Main Street in Newcastle and to encourage people to visit. It is an absolutely beautiful and unique tree, and it underscores the importance of the Bill in providing the protections that such trees need.

We are happy to support the Bill at Second Stage. I am sure that there will be discussions at Committee Stage about the finer details, which my colleague Justin McNulty will take us through, but we are delighted to support the Bill.

Mrs Erskine: It is hard to follow that bendy tree. I am quite disappointed that I spent some time in Newcastle on my summer holidays but never saw the bendy tree. I will have to go back to Newcastle and make a point of seeing it. [Laughter.]

In all seriousness, however, I welcome the opportunity to contribute to this Second Stage debate on the Tree Protection Bill. I thank the Bill sponsor for outlining the legislation. I miss our interactions on the Infrastructure Committee; I know that the Bill is very important to him and that he is very passionate about it. I appreciate the time, effort and work that goes into creating a piece of legislation, so I appreciate his time and effort with the Bill.

Northern Ireland's ancient trees and long-established woodlands form an important part of our natural and cultural heritage, and they contribute to biodiversity, the character of our countryside, flood management — very important in constituencies such as mine — and the quality of the places in which people live. Nowhere do I see that more than in the countryside of my constituency of Fermanagh and South Tyrone. Therefore, there is merit in examining the existing system of tree preservation orders and how the legislation seeks to support our countryside. However, as my colleague the Chair of the Infrastructure Committee said, supporting the objective of protecting important trees does not mean that we should accept every provision without scrutiny. There must be a balance between the environmental and the practical outworkings of the legislation.

The Bill introduces substantial new duties for councils, restrictions in the planning system and potential financial liabilities for landowners. As I have outlined, I am concerned about some of those liabilities for our farming community. We must ensure that those provisions are workable, proportionate and sufficiently clear. Clause 1 significantly widens the basis on which a council may make a tree preservation order. Clause 1(4) states the need for a council to employ "a suitably qualified arboriculturist". I hope that I got that right. Do we know how many there are in Northern Ireland? What does "suitably qualified" mean? I ask that because I doubt that there are many in-house in our councils, and therefore this will come at a cost to councils across Northern Ireland. We all know that if there is a limited pool, they can charge councils a premium. We have to guard against that. When I asked the Bill sponsor about that in an earlier intervention, his answer was that the Woodland Trust would provide training to council staff and officers. Would that suffice, rather than requiring the services of an arboriculturist? With regard to clause 5(3), would the Woodland Trust also train landowners? I am happy to give way to the Member if he can deal with that now.

Mr McReynolds: I thank the Member for her contribution so far. On her point, we need to constantly remember the expediency test — the risk that could be there for the felling of a tree. I am not aware that there are many TPOs across Northern Ireland. One thing that I have noticed in my consultations over the course of the past four years is the number of people — arboriculturists and tree officers — who have reached out to me for meetings in my constituency office, so I do not think that it will be an onerous duty. The RaISe research paper referred to a "modest" sum of money that would be required to enact this in the Bill. I absolutely do not think that it is going to be a huge sum of money. As I have referenced before, the skills exist, and, having met those people multiple times, I do not think that there are so few of them that the costs would be at such a premium as to financially ruin local councils.

Mrs Erskine: I thank the Member for his answer. He touched on expediency. As I have outlined, I am not sure how many skilled and qualified people we have across Northern Ireland for our 11 councils, so I am not sure that that point about expediency has actually been answered, given that we may see an influx of tree preservation orders.

Mr McReynolds: Will the Member give way?

Mrs Erskine: Again, I am happy to give way.

Mr McReynolds: The expediency point is this: is the tree at risk of being felled? Say, for example, that construction work is taking place nearby or that the community is concerned that the tree is at risk. That decision is up to the local council officer who would call out to inspect it. Just because a TPO has been requested does not mean that it will be deemed expedient by the local council. Therefore, the TPO would not necessarily be applied.

Mrs Erskine: OK.

Moving on, I noticed that this has sometimes been an issue with legislation that the Infrastructure Committee looked at when I sat on it in the past. When we looked at the Reservoirs Bill, there was an issue with the number of reservoir engineers who were able to carry out the work there. We need to make sure that we have sufficiently qualified people to do what the Bill says.

For councils to make consistent decisions, they will require clear and practical guidance. Otherwise, the same circumstances could produce different decisions in different council areas. Clause 1 also provides that, once a suitably qualified expert determines that a tree is ancient:

That wording requires careful consideration. An "ancient tree" may be of considerable heritage value while also being diseased, unstable or situated close to a home, farm building, road or other public place. The Bill sponsor has said that public safety is paramount. I agree with him, but I am not sure that that is sufficiently stated in the legislation. There is a loophole that people can use. A tree preservation order does not necessarily mean that no work can ever be undertaken, but the Bill must make it absolutely clear that necessary and proportionate work can still be carried out where a tree presents genuine risk. For my part, I think that councils, landowners and householders need certainty on that point.

The clause also permits a council to:

We need clarity on who will pay for those assessments, what qualifications will be required and what timescales will apply.

Clause 2 provides for a provisional tree preservation order to be deemed confirmed after six months:

There is logic in preventing an order from simply lapsing because of administrative delay. However, deemed approval must not become a substitute for proper decision-making. Councils should still be expected to maintain accurate records, notify affected landowners and conclude cases promptly. Again, that concerns me, as it brings me back to my previous question on the availability of experts across Northern Ireland. There is a real possibility that no action could be taken on trees that are protected purely because of administrative backlogs, which is a potential environmental concern, particularly if a tree is dead. Therefore, the process to be followed if DFI needs to top or lop a tree for safety reasons needs to be worked through as well.

Clause 3 extends criminal liability to a person who "knowingly causes or permits" a breach of a tree preservation order. That appears to address a gap in the existing legislation and bring Northern Ireland closer to the position elsewhere in the United Kingdom. The word "knowingly" is important. The provision should pursue those who deliberately instruct, facilitate or allow unlawful works without unfairly criminalising someone who could not reasonably have known that a tree preservation order existed. That reinforces the importance of having in the public domain the accessible map that is proposed later in the Bill and ensuring that it is updated and used by Departments, such as the Department for Infrastructure, from which staff may have to go into areas to manage trees from time to time, including for safety reasons.

Clauses 4, 5 and 6 deal with the replacement of trees and enforcement of those duties. Clause 4 requires a replacement to be:

It also establishes an ongoing replacement duty if that tree:

I support the principle that somebody should not benefit from the unlawful destruction of a protected tree. A replacement should be meaningful and capable of becoming established. As somebody who comes from a farming background, however, I think that we have to look at that carefully. Newly planted trees can fail for many reasons that are outside a landowner's control, including disease, extreme weather, flooding or, of course, vandalism. The Bill should distinguish between neglect and circumstances that could not reasonably have been prevented.

The clause attempts to place responsibility on the person who committed the original breach in situations where that person is not the landowner. That is welcome, but, in my opinion, the protection that is offered to an innocent landowner is incomplete. If the offender does not act within 18 months, responsibility ultimately returns to the landowner. Although the landowner may seek to recover costs, taking civil action can be expensive, stressful and unsuccessful, particularly if the offender has disappeared or has no means to pay. I am not sure that sufficient support is in place for a landowner in those circumstances.

Mr Martin: I thank my colleague the Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone for taking this intervention. What is her understanding of new subsection (3B), as inserted by clause 4(4)? It says:

My understanding of those legal terms is that, if a tree were to be cut down not by a farmer but by somebody else, the council could go after the farmer and say, "Look, it has been 18 months, you need to put that tree back", and the farmer would cover the cost of putting the tree back. In the course of looking at the Bill, I have learned that trees can be really expensive. It then falls to the farmer to recover that cost from whoever took down the tree, but, if they do not do that, they could be out of pocket for something that they did not do, were not responsible for or did not commit. Is that the Member's understanding?

Mrs Erskine: That is my understanding of it. Those are some of my concerns about the aspects that I raised with my colleague Jonathan Buckley about the costs that could be incurred by farmers and landowners, who are already incurring an awful lot of costs in an awful lot of different areas.

Mr McReynolds: I thank the Member for giving way. Currently, in the 2011 Act, the responsibility lies with the landowner. That is already in place under the Act and has been since 2011.

Mrs Erskine: I thank the Member for that intervention. However, given that we will be looking at the Bill, that area could also be incorporated in that process.

The fact that it was the case then does not make it right. There is still an issue for landowners. If the Bill reaches Committee Stage, stakeholders may raise that issue, so it may be worth considering.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: I am enjoying the debate and finding out a lot, but it is a Second Stage debate, which means that it should be a general discussion. We do not need to go through each clause. We are not at that stage yet. I understand that it is good manners to refer to the Bill, but we are getting into a level of detail that is normally reserved for Consideration Stage. I am just pointing that out.

Mrs Erskine: OK. Thank you. We are obviously passionate about this, so we want to talk about the Bill and tease out the issues that will be raised at Committee Stage for the Committee to look at. What I have spoken about are issues that the Committee could consider at the next legislative stage. I touched on the Woodland Trust providing training as well, but I will move on.

Clause 5 states:

Again, that could create differences among councils. The requirement should be unified, taking account of staffing levels to handle the legislative needs appropriately.

I have another question about clause 5, where it states:

It is not clear when remedial action could occur. The Bill sponsor may unwittingly have opened a loophole, particularly given what clause 6 states. We should therefore be cautious about imposing the consequences of someone else's wrongdoing on an innocent landowner. A right to pursue the offender is of limited practical value if the offender is insolvent or cannot be found, and those are the very circumstances in which, under clause 6, the cost would be transferred to the landowner. The Committee should examine whether a clear defence, exemption or appeal mechanism is needed, because the Bill would create a system in which the landowner is more likely to try to get rid of a tree than keep it, for fear of falling victim to some of the provisions.

Clause 7, which refers to an online tree protection map of the tree preservation orders, is one of the most practical elements of the Bill, but there is uncertainty over whether a protected tree could create difficulties for householders, landowners, contractors and developers. Having a free, accurate and easily searchable map could increase transparency and help prevent accidental breaches, but it would be useful only if the underlying information were complete and current. Councils would have to upload historical records and provide updates at least every three months. It would therefore be hard to strike a balance between ensuring that real-time information was provided and having the staffing levels to do so. I am concerned that, if information were uploaded, for example, only every three months — it could be longer, because of the administrative burden — someone could unwittingly be subject to sanction under the Bill, as they might not have been aware of a particular tree's being under a preservation order.

The Department would have to establish the cost of such a map, and I would be interested to hear from the Minister about that. The cost was discussed earlier in the debate, and knowing that is crucial. We understand that councils and the Department have huge and significant budget problems at the minute, so I would welcome her comments on that issue.

Clauses 8 and 9 contain some of the most far-reaching provisions, covering planning permission for development within 15 metres of woodland and the deterioration of protected ancient trees.

Permission would be granted only where "wholly exceptional circumstances" are demonstrated. I am interested in what "wholly exceptional circumstances" means.

Mr McReynolds: Will the Member give way?

Mrs Erskine: Yes.

Mr McReynolds: I welcomed the opportunity to interact with the Committee before the call for evidence went out in the summer. That topic came up during the course of that Committee session, and I flagged it with the drafters when the Bill was being drafted. The phrase "wholly exceptional circumstances" is difficult to define, because you can work only with what is in front of you. What will things be like in 50 years' time, for instance? It is difficult in 2026 to provide a prescriptive list of the reasons why you would object because, in 2056, aliens could appear and want to take away trees. It is difficult to define "wholly exceptional circumstances" by its very nature. It is a legal term, which is why it is included in the Bill.

Mrs Erskine: I thank the Bill sponsor for that, but it does not include the likes of public safety, essential infrastructure, flood alleviation or the viability of a working farm.

Mr McReynolds: Will the Member give way?

Mrs Erskine: Yes.

Mr McReynolds: You can already object to an ancient tree if it is dying, dead or a risk to public safety. You can already remove that and address the issue. Those mechanisms are already in place for public safety, for example.

Mrs Erskine: The Member beside me now wishes to intervene.

Mr Martin: I thank the Member for giving way. I also thank the Bill sponsor for being so open. He highlighted a point about drafting that has raised a question in my head, which means that I can put another big line through part of my speech. He mentioned the drafting and the definitions. I accept his explanation about aliens taking all our trees in 30 years' time. The Bill sponsor has managed to define "ancient woodland" and "long-established woodland". The same point could be made about his defence of "wholly exceptional circumstances": "ancient woodland" and "long-established woodland" could also both change, even though he has managed to define both. Does the Member agree with me that defining "wholly exceptional circumstances" is critical, and that, as we have managed to define "ancient woodland" and "long-established woodland", we also need to define "wholly exceptional circumstances"?

Mrs Erskine: I absolutely agree. That lack of greater clarity risks delay. The interpretation could be inconsistent, and it could be open to legal challenge. It is really important that that be appropriately defined.

That brings me on nicely to clause 11 and the principal definitions therein. My colleague talked about the Woodland Trust and the Ancient Tree Forum. Obviously, there is value in drawing on expert knowledge, but the Assembly should carefully consider whether the legal obligations should change automatically if an external organisation alters its criteria. The Department is democratically accountable to the Assembly; external organisations are not. Core statutory definitions should be acceptable and subject to appropriate oversight. People could unwittingly get themselves into difficulty when it comes to tree preservation orders and such things.

Clause 12 concerns permitted development legislation. Those definitions must operate consistently across both legislative frameworks. Clause 14 states that the Act would come into operation 12 months after it receives Royal Assent. That is important because of the staffing levels in councils, which we have talked about. We need to ensure that staffing, the digital map and the examination of the historical records match that timescale. It will be important to eke that out.

Describing the financial implications as "modest" is not a substitute for properly costing the Bill. That has been exposed by some in their contributions today. I support the principle of protecting Northern Ireland's most significant and ancient trees and woodlands. I also recognise the need to close genuine enforcement loopholes and improve the public's access to information on trees that fall under preservation orders. However, the good intentions of the Bill — I believe that the Bill sponsor has good intentions and is passionate about the issue — must be matched by clear definitions, proportionate enforcement and practical implementation on the ground.

If the Bill proceeds today, particular attention must be given to public safety, the treatment of innocent landowners, the rigid 15-metre restriction, the meaning of "wholly exceptional circumstances", consistency between councils and the full financial implications for local government and the Department. Indeed, as Members have heard, I raised the need for farmers to be at the table for the conversation — an issue that was well covered by my colleague Jonathan Buckley, the Chair of the Infrastructure Committee. Those matters will require detailed evidence and careful scrutiny in Committee. We should seek to enact legislation that protects our natural heritage while respecting property rights, supporting rural communities and allowing necessary and responsible development to proceed. Thank you.

Mr Mathison: I will speak in support of the Tree Protection Bill. I pay tribute to my colleague and friend Peter McReynolds for bringing it forward. It is positive to see a scenario in which we do not just articulate a problem — that problem being that we need more trees and to better protect the trees that we have — but have proposed legislation that offers practical solutions to the issues that we all encounter in our constituencies.

Peter set out the provisions of the Bill in detail, and there has been a lot of detailed discussion of them, so I do not intend to go into clause-by-clause detail. It is clear that issues have been raised by Members from across the Assembly, which is absolutely appropriate. It seems to me that there is an open-book approach from the Bill sponsor, who seems very willing to engage with the Committee. I have no doubt that the Committee will get on with the detailed work of addressing those areas of concern at Committee Stage, if the Bill passes its Second Stage.

I have been keen to speak in the Second Stage debate, specifically on the provisions in clauses 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12. I have already mentioned, during an intervention in the Committee Chair's speech, the campaign that I worked on in my constituency, and I know that the Bill sponsor will be familiar with that campaign through his engagement with the Woodland Trust. The Bill's provisions are relevant to the scenario that I saw play out in my constituency. I am clear that, had the Bill been in place at that time, the whole journey that we went on to try to protect that patch of local woodland would have been very different. From 2019 onwards, I worked with residents in Newtownards — as a councillor and then, following my election, as an MLA — to oppose the development of housing in Tullynagardy Wood.

There was a vexed discussion on whether that was an ancient or a long-established woodland. I do not claim to be an expert on those definitions, but it was certainly an area of woodland that was very much valued in the local community, with residents having campaigned for years in opposition to a housing development being built there in a manner that would undoubtedly have altered and damaged its ecosystem. The campaign to oppose the development, which would have gone right up against that area of woodland, was hard-fought. At times, it felt as though the odds were stacked against the local residents, who did not want to see the development go ahead. That is why the provisions in the Bill are so important: they tip the balance in a different direction, with a presumption in favour of protection of ancient and long-established woodland, rather than development. That is why it is so important. When the specific case that I worked on ultimately ended up at the Planning Appeals Commission (PAC), there was a real issue in that residents felt that they were in a scenario in which there was not equality of arms. They were going up against an incredibly well-resourced property developer and their legal team. Again, I think that the provisions of the Bill would shift that balance in a really positive way.

On that local issue, I was delighted that the PAC ruled to uphold the appeal and confirmed that the site could not be developed, principally based on planning policies around open space. The Bill would ensure that, in that local context and in other areas where there is ancient or long-established woodland, that fight would not need to happen again, that development would not be able to go ahead in that 15-metre buffer zone and that planning permission would need to be refused in those scenarios. That would be a substantially enhanced protection of our long-established woodlands, and I hope that, if this Bill passes and goes into law, it will go a very long way towards ensuring the long-term protection of those sites. The Committee Chair said that there need to be local considerations and that every scenario is different, but I think that every site of long-established or ancient woodland in Northern Ireland deserves protection.

I really do welcome the protections that the Bill is proposing, because they would mean that local objectors should not have to navigate the complex and bureaucratic planning process, making representations to council committees and placing themselves in the highly technical and challenging environment of a Planning Appeals Commission hearing. Rather, I think that the Bill will give us the opportunity to move to a space where there is simply a clear presumption in favour of protection of these crucial sites, something that is long overdue in a planning system that seems, in many cases, to invariably favour the developer over the natural environment.

Mr McReynolds: I thank the Member for giving way and for his detailed memory on what happened at Tullynagardy. I think that I was one of a handful of people watching that live that night. Resource has come up today as a potential issue. Does the Member agree that a lot of time and resource was wasted by having to go to the PAC on something that brought together wide political consensus in the room that night?

Mr Mathison: Yes, I absolutely agree. With that particular planning application, the detailed scrutiny was undertaken through the planning process of the environmental impacts and of the ecosystem of that woodland, and the multiple reports that came from that, was in itself a very long process. We then had to go through the process that led to a planning committee decision being taken before going to the Planning Appeals Commission. Undoubtedly, a huge amount of resource was expended on that application when, in fact, every single political representative on the council was clear that they did not support development of the site. I think that this Bill would enable those processes to be short-circuited, working on the presumption in favour of preservation rather than development of the woodland.

I do not disagree with the points that have been made that we desperately need housing and investment in our infrastructure in Northern Ireland; nobody in this Chamber will disagree with that. However, my question is whether we need it within 15 metres of ancient woodland. I think that most of us could live without development in that context. Once we lose trees in the woodland or once the ecosystem is disrupted because development is going in next to it, they do not come back. It is lost forever at the short-term gain of getting housing in a very particular small area around a patch of woodland. There is a risk that you could lose such a vital and precious natural resource, and I think that the benefits that the Bill brings far outweigh the benefits of what would inevitably — the Bill sponsor has highlighted this — be relatively small areas where development could go ahead, and it frees up planners to make decisions that support our natural environment rather than harm it.

Protecting sites of ancient and long-established woodland is crucial. As highlighted by the Bill sponsor, we have some of the poorest tree cover of any region in these islands. Short-term thinking that prioritises housing development going into those woodland sites is short-sighted because, when they are lost or the areas and the ecosystems around their boundaries are damaged, they really are damaged permanently. You cannot go back and repair that damage.

It is critical to recognise this: when we think about the context that we are in — climate change and the ongoing challenges around the loss of biodiversity and habitat — kicking decisions down the road and deferring action to another time is not good enough. The Bill affords us the opportunity now to take practical and pragmatic steps to ensure that the sites are protected. I have no doubt that Members across all the parties and constituencies represented in the Chamber will know of such sites in their constituencies. They will know those areas of ancient woodland. Regrettably, there are not as many of them as there should be, because they have not been well protected over the years. Members will know those sites of long-established woodland in their constituencies. I hope that a point that everyone can unite around is that those sites absolutely deserve protection.

I know from my engagement with the Woodland Trust that the case study of Tullynagardy Wood featured strongly in its thinking and in that of the Bill sponsor when developing the Bill. We all know about the planning process in our council areas. The arguments with the planners became incredibly vexed. They became technical and came down to very subjective interpretations of planning policy around an issue on which the public's perspective and view were clear, as were those of the elected council members. I hope that a Bill that could give effect to those objections where the presumption is in favour of the protection rather than the development would be a welcome development.

I hope that Members will agree that protecting our woodlands would be a fitting legacy of this Assembly mandate. It seems like a fitting issue for all parties to unite around and support. I hope that the Bill can progress through Second Stage. I have no doubt that the technicalities and some of the more detailed queries and concerns will be dealt with in Committee. Committee Stage is the appropriate stage for that. I urge Members to support the principles of a Bill that will, hopefully, preserve and protect our ancient and long-established woodland.

Mr Martin: We have covered quite a bit. I am sure that the Bill sponsor will be thankful that I have put lots of lines through most of what I was going to talk about, because my colleagues have already covered a lot of it. I see the Member opposite agreeing with the sponsor. We have consensus across the House, which is unusual.

The Chair of the Education Committee has just reflected on this, but most of us will agree that trees matter. They certainly matter to the sponsor of the Bill. This weekend, I will try my best to get my kids out to get some conkers. We have done that for a number of years. They will probably agree to it, but, considering their age, that will most likely be out of sympathy rather than a desire to follow me in trying to find some. We will end up in Castle Park in Bangor. The Bill sponsor may or may not be aware that a tree located there is one that the Duke of Schomberg tied his horse to during the Williamite wars. That tree, whilst being significant, is not in the best order, but it is an important aspect of how we remember and value our culture. As the sponsor has mentioned, trees play an important part in our landscape. They provide environmental benefits that go beyond simple aesthetics — a point that has already been made.

I did not get a chance to meet the Woodland Trust at our party conference at the weekend. Had I done so — it was there, I believe — it may have told me that this was the Waterloo for those who wished to remove trees that already have TPOs. The much talked-about clause 1(3) talks about "prohibiting the causing or permitting". That is the operative phrase in that subsection. If we are to continue the Waterloo metaphor, that is probably the arrival of the Prussians.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Is that an Abba reference?

Mr Martin: Some of that is an Abba reference, and some of it is taking Waterloo and moving it to the arrival of the Prussians, which meant that the good guys eventually won the battle of Waterloo. The Deputy Speaker would have loved it; I simply apologise to you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker.

Members will remember the national outcry over the illegal cutting down — I cannot believe that we have managed to get to this point and it has not, I think, been mentioned — of the iconic Sycamore Gap tree in England and understand how much some people really care about trees. When I saw that, I was simply gutted that that had happened. That tree had stood at Hadrian's Wall for about 150 years. Its felling shocked many people across the United Kingdom and internationally. The National Trust described it as an iconic feature of the landscape that meant a great deal to the local community and visitors. It stood there for over a century but was cut down in a matter of minutes. It was born when Queen Victoria was on the throne; absolutely remarkable.

The Bill would not have saved that tree. It probably will not save trees from people who are intent on taking chainsaws to them and cutting them down. It is a really good Bill, however, and I commend the Member for bringing it forward. As my colleague the Chair of the Justice Committee will say, anyone who brings a private Member's Bill to this stage deserves credit. My two colleagues have taken us through where, we feel, we are on the Bill, and I do not plan to rehearse those arguments. I fully understand the thinking behind TPOs and heritage tree designations, and I fully support the principle of protecting trees. As we have indicated today, however, what is important is how we do that and how that works in practice. That will be the job of the Committee as it turns to the Bill.

We have thrashed out the financial aspects, and I will not come back to those. I will pick up on one point and will give the Floor to the Bill sponsor should he wish it. We talked about the word "modest", and I am sure that the Committee will look at that. He said that 75% of respondents agreed with that definition and that, at that level of cost, the Bill should continue. I looked for the Bill's consultation document but could not find it. I just found reference to some of the consultation material in the EFM.

I am happy to give the Floor to the Bill sponsor. Is his consultation in the public domain, or is there a reason that it is not in the public domain?

Mr McReynolds: The 75% alluded to was from a YouGov document. Is the Member referring to the consultation that I conducted or the YouGov survey?

Mr Martin: It was yours.

Mr McReynolds: It was from the YouGov document. YouGov did polling on behalf of the Woodland Trust and published it.

Mr Martin: Thank you. Just to clarify, did the Bill sponsor conduct any consultation of his own, or is he basing the consultation on the Woodland Trust document?

Mr McReynolds: I did a public consultation in, I believe, the summer of 2024. Apologies if I misspeak; it feels so long ago. From memory, I think that it was launched in December, and the public were widely engaged. I think that we had around 800 responses. I had to chase the Construction Employers Federation a little because I was keen to get its views. The public were consulted, as were wider stakeholders. That was the point, and I hope that that has come across for everybody today. I have been keen to stress-test the Bill. I see DFI officials in the Officials' Box; I was happy to meet them as well. The term "unintended consequences" has come up several times during the debate: that is not what the Bill seeks to achieve, and that is why I wanted to consult as widely as possible.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Peter, for information, paragraph 17 of the EFM states that a public consultation was carried out by the Bill sponsor between November 2024 and March 2025.

Mr Martin: Thank you very much, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. That is exactly what I was talking about. My point, which may have been badly drafted in my question, was that I could not find that consultation anywhere online. That might be an oversight, or it might be that I just could not find it, but that is what I was looking for. As far as I understand it, bits of it were put in the EFM.

I am happy to give way to the Bill sponsor.

Mr McReynolds: I am having to hark back. I thank Mr Martin for raising that today. When a consultation is completed, a document is prepared and published that contains a summary of what has gone on. That document should be on the Assembly website — I look to the Clerks for their agreement — and it definitely is.

Mr Martin: I thank the Bill sponsor. I will have a look for it. I just could not find it before now.

I will cover a few bits and pieces that have not been touched on. I take the Bill sponsor to clause 5, which provides for a council to inspect replacement trees. We have talked about that in general terms. I find the clause to be generic. Again, I am happy to give way to the Bill sponsor to provide clarification. We may have one piece of legislation before us, but there are 11 councils. There would not be a body to take this on — the power would be devolved to councils — and, as with the Water, Sustainable Drainage and Flood Management Bill in particular, my fear is of there being a range of interpretations that would confuse people who operate across council boundaries. Does the Member foresee a situation in which the 11 councils could employ slightly different inspection regimes, give different advice or put in place slightly different procedures or policies as they applied the Bill's provisions?

Mr McReynolds: I thank the Member for his point. It is clear that he has thought about and forensically engaged with the Bill. I do not foresee that happening. I view the Bill as giving councils clarity. A number of points that have come up today, such as about the term "causes or permits", are about giving councils clarity and removing any potential ambiguity. We have to remember that, if a tree that were subject to a TPO were to be felled, the Bill provides for what should happen next with its replacement. Ongoing inspections should not be onerous. I have conversed with council officers about that. All that they should entail is uploading a quick photograph from a mobile phone. It is not meant to be an onerous, arduous task. That is certainly not the intent of the clause. I am happy to look at the issue in Committee in more detail, but my instinct is that, hopefully, that would not be the case.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Just for reference, Peter, the consultation is published on the legislation section of the website under "Non-Executive Bills". That is from doing a quick Google search.

Mr Martin: Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. I can always rely on your research capability —

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: I can multitask.

Mr Martin: — while I am on my feet.

I should thank the Bill sponsor for meeting me before the summer recess to chat about the Bill. I really appreciated having that time, and it was useful.

I will now tie off the planning system aspect. I am clear — the Chair of the Infrastructure Committee could not have outlined this better — that we absolutely need to protect trees. Our environment is incredibly important to us, and trees are an important element of that environment. There is, however, a balance to be struck — the Committee will get into the nuts and bolts of this — and it concerns how we strike the balance between tree protection and building houses, delivering infrastructure and providing economic growth in Northern Ireland. That is not a question for today, but it is legitimate to pose such questions at Second Stage.

From previous experience, I will further say that our planning system is under real pressure, as the Bill sponsor will know. That is not just because of the 11-council model, under which it is incredibly tough to get enough planners into planning departments to process the applications.

I firmly believe that we need planning reform in Northern Ireland. In fact, I firmly believe that we need new planning legislation in Northern Ireland. The Minister, who is sitting opposite me, may or may not agree, but that is clearly needed to try to streamline the system. As the Member knows, we also have extreme problems with waste water infrastructure connectivity. DFI is grappling with that.

None of those points is an argument against protecting trees. What they are, however, are legitimate questions to ensure that, if the Bill passes Second Stage today, goes to the Committee and then comes back to the House, we can have good and effective legislation that not only is fit for purpose but does what it says on the tin, which is what legislation coming out of this place should do.

I will not dwell on this issue. I put lines through this bit, because I know that my colleague has already said it. I will mention in passing, however, the reference to "wholly exceptional circumstances" in the draft legislation. I know that my colleague will pick up on the definition of that. If we can define "ancient woodland" and "long-established woodland", we absolutely need to define "wholly exceptional circumstances", because that is the drafting of an operative clause that will have a real impact on judgements should such things come before a court.

I want to touch a wee bit on the issue of farms. My colleague the Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone mentioned it. I am thinking of a situation where a tree in the middle of a farmer's land gets a TPO, causing real difficulty for said farmer in how they manage their land and crops. Those crops are really important, given that they feed us all. It is about being able to get the crops in and make farms as viable as possible. There is something in that.

I am happy to give the Floor to the Bill sponsor on this point. A heritage tree designation might impact on what a farmer can do on their land. It is not clear from the Bill or the EFM whether there is a mechanism if a farmer or a landowner disagrees with a tree being designated as a heritage tree? What would happen next? Could he appeal, for example?

Mr McReynolds: Is "heritage tree" referenced in the EFM?

Mr Martin: Sorry, I meant "ancient tree".

Mr McReynolds: OK, because we initially kicked around the term "heritage tree" and ultimately removed it. I am relieved to hear that. I am sure that Madam Principal Deputy Speaker would have clarified that for me using her excellent research skills.

On your point about what would happen if a tree on a farmer's land suddenly got a TPO, we need to remind ourselves constantly of the expediency point: is the tree in danger? If someone called out to inspect the tree in order to see whether it required a TPO, there would be engagement on whether the tree was at risk of being felled or damaged by the farmer.

I was going to come to this in my winding-up speech, but I will say it now. You will know, from when you were Chair of the Infrastructure Committee, that, at various points, I mentioned how active travel enthusiasts were reaching out to me in real time. There are a lot of tree enthusiasts as well. I am aware that there are 950 trees with TPOs across the 11 council areas in Northern Ireland. I am not a mathematician, but I know that that is not a huge sum. We need to bear in mind that, although the Bill is ambitious — the word "modest" is attributed to the resource implications for local councils — it is also modest and practical. It will not lead to a swathe of TPOs, nor is there already a massive number of TPOs.

Mr Martin: I thank the Bill sponsor for that. That is really useful information. It is very useful to have those figures. There is a job of work to do. Most Members of the House will agree on the principles of the Bill. It is hard not to do so. It would be hard for any party here to say, "This could not pass Second Stage and move forward" — we have had that in debates recently. The key is ironing out these things at Committee Stage. I know that the Bill sponsor and the Infrastructure Committee will work really hard to do exactly that. Some of the financial issues, numbers, the proportion of ancient woodlands and the spaces between all those things will, no doubt, be worked out.

I fully support the protection of trees, and I want them to be there in the future for my grandkids. How amazing will that be if I am blessed to have some? We want sound, workable legislation that can effectively strike the balance between protecting our natural environment and allowing councils to administer the system without overloading their finances or resources, and that also allows farmers to continue to farm and feed us all, as they do so effectively in Northern Ireland. The landowners must also be treated fairly if the Bill becomes law, and they should not be locked out of the system or feel unfairly treated.

I conclude by thanking the Member for introducing the Bill. It is interesting, and I enjoyed going through it and having a good look at it. It is not for me any more, but I will keep a watching brief on it if it passes today.

Mr Harvey: The issue is very close to the heart of the Bill sponsor, and I congratulate him on securing passage for his Member's Bill.

My party colleagues and I will always support efforts to protect our heritage across Northern Ireland, be that our built heritage or our natural heritage. Our ancient trees and woodlands are a fundamental aspect of our collective story, and it is right that they are valued, maintained and protected, and that legislation underpins that position. That said, it is equally important to ensure that proportionality is central to any legislation and that it is cognisant of the real-world implications for the communities living in and around our woodland areas, particularly those who have protected and tended to them for generations, long before the advent of any legislative protection. It is therefore important that the House works to ensure that the Bill enhances provision in a proportionate fashion, and we will engage with the Bill sponsor on that basis.

The principal area of concern is the Bill's impact on development, as outlined in clauses 8 and 9, with the proposed changes to the Planning (General Permitted Development) Order (Northern Ireland) 2015. The enhanced prohibition at clause 9 has the potential to significantly impact on rural settlements and farms that are located in or close to areas of woodland. It is unclear at present as to how extensive the scope of clause 12 would be in real terms and how many settlements and dwellings will fall within its boundaries. I would like clarity on that from the Bill sponsor should the Bill pass its Second Reading. Similarly, I am unclear as to how the Bill will engage practically with landowners, who will be required to replace damaged or dead ancient trees. Will the Bill place the financial burden completely on the landowner, or will there be some form of support? Some landowners and farmers may have considerable numbers of ancient trees on their property, and ongoing maintenance could prove to be an unreasonable burden to place on a small farm holding.

Fundamentally, there is little appetite for the destruction or erosion of woodlands, a fact that should be welcomed. However, the development of a small farm building on an established holding that is within 15 metres of a designated zone or in a woodland area, appears to be caught by the Bill in the same way as a larger-impact development. We need to grapple with the concept of proportionality, and whether the House feels that it is reasonable for small rural development to be totally prohibited.

If there are to be exemptions, they must be clearly provided for in the text, as should any appeal process for decisions made by a local authority. In addition, I highlight the inclusion of ecosystem services in the expanded scope of tree preservation orders outlined at clause. New schedule 1A provides a list of defined ecosystem services that appears to provide a very broad scope and could result in a proliferation of TPOs across the country.

The outworkings of that element of clause 1 will require careful consideration by the House. Those elements of the Bill will undoubtedly place an additional financial and administrative burden on local government. It is unclear whether any assessment has been made of that impact, particularly on a planning system that is already hindering economic growth through delayed applications. What will it cost local government to enact the Bill? Will additional burdens be placed on planning applications where applications are in proximity to protected woodland sites and heritage tree designations? What "wholly exceptional circumstances" justifying development, as provided for in clause 8, does the sponsor envisage to be facilitated with that exception? Those are all questions that need to be addressed as the Bill progresses.

Mr McMurray: I thank the Bill sponsor. I will stick to the generalities of the Bill, and I will not delve into any Abba quotations.

A long time ago, the island of Ireland was covered in trees; in fact, it was said that a squirrel could walk the length and breadth of Ireland without setting foot on the ground. Unfortunately, today, Northern Ireland is one of the least wooded regions in Europe. Compared with Ireland and the UK, we are right at the bottom in tree and woodland cover. Turning that round will take a concerted effort, and I commend Minister Muir for bringing forward his tree planting action plan earlier this year to increase forest cover from 8·6% to 12% by 2050. We also need to do better at looking after the trees that we have.

It is often said that the best time to plant a tree was 20 years ago, but the next best time is today. Ancient trees and woodlands are much older than that. They are an irreplaceable living heritage, but they are often threatened by inconsiderate development.

Mr Martin: I thank the Member for taking an intervention. He mentioned the AERA Minister. I had a look at DAERA's natural environment map viewer — this will perhaps concern the Bill sponsor — and would Mr McMurray be surprised if I told him that it contains no ancient woodland? Would he like to have seen ancient woodland on that map? It would seem that that would be important to DAERA.

Mr McReynolds: Will the Member give way?

Mr McMurray: Yes.

Mr McReynolds: I am not aware of the map that you refer to, but I referred to ancient woodland in my speech as "fragments". We have fragments of it left. I think that it is 0·04%, and it is around 2% or 3% in England. I am happy to look at the map that you refer to regarding ancient woodland, but there is so little of it left.

Mr McMurray: I thank the Members for their interventions. The cartography interests me, and, if it is not on an interactive map, that should be addressed.

Over the past seven decades, ancient woodlands have been destroyed at a frightening rate. Ancient trees and woodlands support rich ecosystems that have developed over centuries. Once an ancient tree is felled or an ancient woodland is destroyed, centuries of natural history are lost for ever. That matters because ancient trees and woodland provide unique ecosystem services that newer plantings cannot replicate. Many species depend on those special habitats and cannot easily colonise newer woods. Ancient trees and woodlands also play an important role in carbon storage, and they can preserve archaeological features such as ancient boundaries. There is so much more to ancient trees and woodlands than meets the eye, and it is important that we work harder to protect them.

I commend my colleague Peter McReynolds for bringing forward this important Bill, which will strengthen legal protections for our oldest and most significant trees. I will leave it to Peter to go through the Bill in detail — I could not do it justice — but the tree preservation orders, the replacement of trees, the council inspections of replacement trees, the tree protection map, the long-established and ancient woodland provisions and the ecosystem services are all commendable aspects of it. Certainly, the Woodland Trust, which has been involved, is doing a great job throughout Northern Ireland. I am happy to support the Bill.

Mr McNulty: I speak in favour of the Bill's Second Stage. It seeks to strengthen protections for trees in the North. The Bill's three main facets aim to bolster the protections offered by tree preservation orders, create a heritage tree designation to protect old and significant trees and legally protect ancient woodland. I acknowledge the Alliance Member for bringing the Bill to the House, but I must point out that there is no mention of fairy trees in it. I hope that that can be addressed as the legislation progresses; otherwise, the little folk might be offended.

Fairy trees are deeply rooted in Irish mythology and folklore. The Aos sí

, the fairy people and descendants of the Tuath Dé Danann

were said to retreat underground and inhabit fairy forts, burial mounds and the bases of fairy trees. Those trees were believed to protect the land, and disturbing them could bring bad luck, misfortune or even death. The hawthorn, in particular, is associated with Bealtaine

, the Celtic festival marking the start of summer, when the boundary between the worlds is thought to thin. The tradition is to avoid cutting or damaging fairy trees, often by ploughing around them in fields or rerouting roads to preserve them. Planning has even been refused in order to protect fairy trees. Offerings such as ribbons, coins or small trinkets are sometimes left at the base of fairy trees to honour the fairies and seek blessings. If you are passing by a fairy tree, be sure to leave an offering in honour of the little folk.

Mr Martin: I thank the Member for giving way. As I said, I have leant a lot in the debate so far. Now, I am really learning. I cannot think how to phrase the question: is there a statutory definition of a "fairy tree"? That is an honest question.

Mr McNulty: If there is not, there should be.

As I said to the Bill sponsor when he was bringing the draft legislation through the consultation phase, I am a bit of a tree lover. That might be a surprise to you all. Trees offer beauty, serenity and vast ecological benefits. Trees absorb and store carbon dioxide from the air, with older trees absorbing much more carbon than younger trees, helping to mitigate the impacts of climate change. One tree alone can provide a home for hundreds of creatures, from birds and butterflies to fungi and mice. With biodiversity plummeting, it is vital to promote trees as a safe haven for those creatures to thrive. Trees also provide immense health benefits, providing us with shade, cleaning our air and giving us beautiful nature and a peaceful and calming environment in which to escape the hustle and bustle of the world and take a break from our worries.

Only 17% of adults in the North say that they have green space within a five-minute walk from home: that must change. The Bill is a positive step towards increasing access to green space, protecting wildlife and biodiversity, mitigating climate change and protecting old and ancient trees and forests from being cut down. It is important to ensure that the Bill does not impose an undue burden on badly needed development and has a reasonableness clause. There must be avenues for common-sense discussions on how those needs can co-exist, which, I trust, will be further discussed as the Bill progresses through the Assembly. The SDLP supports the passing of the Bill at Second Stage and on to further debate and scrutiny.

On the subject of trees, I must mention that, in 2020, I planted two oak saplings to commemorate the year of the passing of John Hume and Séamus Mallon. Yesterday, I stood between those two native Irish trees. They are becoming giant oaks like the men whom they were planted to commemorate.

Ms Kimmins (The Minister for Infrastructure): I welcome the opportunity to speak to today's debate. I apologise for not being here at the start. I thank my colleague Aisling Reilly for covering when I was not here.

I thank Peter McReynolds for bringing the Bill forward and acknowledge the work that has gone into the proposals. He mentioned his consultation, which was two years ago, so I know that the issue is important to him. It is an important Bill.

Before I turn to the substance of the Bill, it is important to note that the Executive's consideration of my Department's recommended position has not yet concluded, so, accordingly, my remarks will reflect my Department's assessment of the Bill and should not be taken as representing an agreed Executive position at this stage. My Department has, nevertheless, undertaken a detailed assessment of the Bill. The Bill sponsor mentioned the engagement that we have had with him on that, and I will set out the principal findings of that assessment.

As many Members have said today, trees, ancient trees and woodland make an important contribution to biodiversity, environmental quality, landscape character, climate resilience and public amenity. I recognise the importance of protecting those valuable assets and support the objective of strengthening tree protection. I recently had the privilege of joining the Woodland Trust in Mourne Park in Kilkeel. I know that the trust looks after the nursery in Newry in my constituency, and even hearing about its work in protecting ancient woodland brought home to me how important that is.

As part of the detailed assessment that the Department has undertaken, we found a number of positive measures that could strengthen the existing framework, particularly in relation to replacement planting, monitoring, enforcement and improving access to information on tree protection. Any elected representative who has had issues over the years and has been trying to get to grips with it will know that it can be challenging, so I really welcome any opportunity to improve and strengthen those mechanisms.

We also identified significant concerns, some of which have been alluded to in other Members' contributions, including the potential impact of some provisions on my Department and on councils, landowners and infrastructure providers, as well as the wider implications for the operation of the planning system. There are also questions about the practical implementation and the cost of certain proposals. My Department has not identified any clear incompatibility with convention rights at this stage, nor has it identified evidence of significant adverse impacts on equality of opportunity or good relations. However, some provisions engage property rights and would benefit from further detailed scrutiny as the Bill progresses. My Department's assessment also identifies potential financial and regulatory implications for my Department, councils, public authorities, landowners, developers and infrastructure providers, but the full extent of those impacts has yet to be quantified, and further scrutiny would assist the Assembly in understanding the practical consequences of those proposals.

The challenge before us is not whether important trees and woodlands should be protected: they absolutely should be, and I do not think that anyone here will disagree with that. The challenge is ensuring that any new legislative framework is proportionate, evidence-based, deliverable and capable of balancing environmental protection with the effective operation of the planning system and the delivery of essential infrastructure. The issues addressed by the Bill are important and deserving of careful consideration. None of that is insurmountable. I am keen to continue the constructive engagement with the Bill sponsor and others, and I hope that, at Committee Stage, we can get into the — pardon the pun — root and branch of the issue. It is not just you who makes the jokes in here, Peter. [Laughter.]

I do not want to take away from the Bill's importance. It is about trying to get those things right so that, in practice, it is achievable and we can deliver on the principles of the Bill.

As I said, a number of the provisions will strengthen the existing framework for tree protection, but there are provisions that concern me when it comes to policy implementation and operational issues. However, with further engagement, hopefully we can address those. Those issues will, no doubt, be explored further at different stages in the Assembly and during the Committee scrutiny, but I am keen that my Department continue to engage with the Bill sponsor, the Committee and Members as consideration of the Bill develops.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: I call Peter McReynolds to conclude and make a winding-up speech on the Second Stage of the Tree Protection Bill.

Mr McReynolds: Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. I begin by thanking Members for their contributions today. It is fair to say that things have been pretty dicey for a number of Members' Bills at Second Stage, but I genuinely appreciate the tone that has been taken and the constructive feedback that I have received. That is what I have always sought throughout the entire process, and that has been achieved today.

I believe that I have put forward pragmatic proposals, to which the Minister alluded, that seek to protect trees and woodlands across Northern Ireland. I look forward to the Bill's hopefully progressing to Committee Stage, where we will continue to do that and also iron out potential issues. I thank the Minister and her officials for their input to get the Bill to this stage, and I look forward to their ongoing commitment and to further engagement with them.

I have been scribbling notes furiously, so I will now turn to the broad themes that came up today. I acknowledge the pressures on councils. I mentioned the frustrations of tree officers and am keen to make sure that they are supported. I will be more than happy if we can iron out those issues. The Chair of the Infrastructure Committee asked at one point whether the system is failing. I believe that it is failing, and the lack of enforcement that we saw during that three-year period references that. [Inaudible.]

Mr McReynolds: Thank you, Chair. That is why it is so important that we have the Bill that is in front of us today.

Mr Boggs mentioned the all-island nature. I mentioned that my tree enthusiasts, who are regularly in contact with me, let me know that Maynooth University is working alongside the Woodland Trust to create the all-Ireland map to which he referred, so work is ongoing to achieve that.

Mr McGrath is not here at the moment, but I greatly enjoyed his input and his stories about trees. I have already started receiving photos of the bendy tree and the invisible tree on my mobile phone. His contribution reminded me of the number of stories that I heard during the consultation process and had forgotten about. At one point, Belfast City Council was highlighting the importance of trees by asking a number of local celebrities to plant trees in the city. The first story that I heard was about May McFettridge, who planted a tree out the front of Belfast City Hall. I heard a story about Alex Higgins, who was famously photographed planting trees on Sandy Row. The one that I always remember, however, given the religious connotations, was the story of how the Dalai Lama planted not just one but two trees in Belfast. That is what it comes back to: we need to hear a lot more stories about trees.

Mrs Erskine said that she misses our time together on the Infrastructure Committee. I miss our time together, too, Deborah, but we probably did not talk about trees very much. Rather, we talked about babies. She will probably show me some photographs after the debate.

Mr Mathison mentioned legacy, and that is what the Bill is trying to achieve. I am reminded of a breakdown moment with my former policy officer, Caitlin Sullivan, when I was wondering what a particular strand of the Bill was seeking to achieve. She told me that that strand was not going to do anything now but that, when people look back in 100 years' time and consider ancient woodland, it will have achieved something. The important thing is that we are looking at leaving a legacy.

Mr Martin talked about so much, but the word that I wrote down the second that he said it was "consensus". It was mentioned when we were talking about Tullynagardy Wood, and we have seen that consensus today in our recognition of the broad principles of the Bill.

Mr Harvey asked lots of questions, and I look forward to working with Harry to answer them in the Committee over the coming months.

Mr McNulty made a very good case for the Committee to go to see some fairy trees. I am sure that they will be protected under the Bill. His was a very enlightening contribution, and we can hopefully head down to see some fairy trees.

I apologise if I have missed out anyone. There are a lot of papers on my desk. I thank everyone for their contributions today, and I look forward to working with everyone should the Bill pass to its next stage.

Some Members: Aye.

A Member: No.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): What was that? Did I hear someone muttering over there?

Mr Baker: He said no, there are no contrary voices.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): I will put the Question again.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): That concludes the Second Stage of the Tree Protection Bill. The Bill stands referred to the Committee for Infrastructure. I invite Members to take their ease for a moment.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): I call Mr Danny Baker to move the Consideration Stage of the Education (Holiday Meal Payments) Bill.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Members will have a copy of the Marshalled List of amendments detailing the order for consideration. The amendments have been grouped for debate in the provisional grouping of amendments selected list. There is a single group of amendments. The debate will be on amendment Nos 1 to 13, which seek to add clarity, give effect to the principal aim of the Bill and ensure that the appropriate Assembly controls are in place.

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

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): We now come to the single group of amendments for debate. Members should note that amendment Nos 5, 7 and 9 are consequential to amendment No 1, and that amendment No 10 is consequential to amendment No 8. I call the Chairperson of the Committee for Education to move amendment No 1 and address the other amendments in the group.

Mr Mathison (The Chairperson of the Committee for Education): I beg to move amendment No 1:

Mr Mathison: Deputy Speaker, on behalf of the Committee for Education, I welcome the opportunity to speak at Consideration Stage of the Education (Holiday Meal Payments) Bill, which was introduced on 3 March. Before I address the Committee's findings from Committee Stage and move to look at the amendments, I thank the Bill sponsor, Danny Baker, for his engagement with the Committee throughout our consideration of the Bill. I also record my thanks to all those who contributed written and oral evidence, including the Department of Education, Children in Northern Ireland (CiNI), the Northern Ireland Commissioner for Children and Young People (NICCY), Advice NI, the Youth Assembly, community and voluntary organisations, academics, representative bodies and individual respondents. I hope that that covers everybody.

With your permission, Mr Deputy Speaker, I will briefly cover the Committee Stage and the scrutiny that we undertook before I move on to look at the amendments. The Committee undertook extensive scrutiny of the Bill over 10 meetings. We issued a public call for evidence, received a substantial volume of submissions and considered detailed legal, policy and financial advice. The Committee heard evidence that children from low-income households continue to experience disproportionate levels of poverty and food insecurity. Witnesses described to members the additional pressures that families face during school holidays, when free school meal provision is unavailable and while other household costs, including childcare, activities and preparations for the new school year, often increase. A consistent theme from stakeholders was that inadequate access to food can have consequences not only for physical health and well-being but for educational outcomes. The Committee heard evidence that hunger can affect concentration, engagement with learning and readiness to return to school following extended holiday periods. The Committee also heard strong support for the Bill's policy objective from organisations that represent children and young people. The Youth Assembly in particular demonstrated a clear awareness of the realities of holiday hunger and expressed substantial support for the measures in the Bill that are designed to address it.

At the same time, Committee scrutiny identified a number of important issues that required careful consideration. A significant area of discussion concerned eligibility. While the Bill uses existing free school meal entitlement as the basis of support, evidence highlighted concerns that many children who live in poverty do not currently qualify for free school meals, and a number of stakeholders argued that that wider policy issue should be considered by the Department through future reviews of the free school meal eligibility criteria. While members acknowledged those concerns, the Committee recognised that such matters extended beyond the immediate scope of the Bill.

The proposed delivery mechanism also received considerable attention. Stakeholders generally favoured direct payments over vouchers or food parcels. The evidence suggested that direct payments can provide greater dignity, flexibility and choice for families, while allowing support to be delivered using the existing administrative systems available to the Department.

In its evidence, the Department identified a number of drafting and operational issues in the Bill, and many of those gave rise to the amendments that we are debating. They included what the Department set out as perceived ambiguity around eligibility provisions, concerns regarding payment methods, the absence of a clear and consistent method for calculating payment amounts and practical difficulties relating to the timing of school holiday periods. The Committee considered in detail each of those concerns and concluded that amendments were required to improve the clarity and workability of the Bill. Those amendments are primarily technical in nature and are designed to ensure that, if enacted, the legislation can operate as effectively as intended.

Before I come to the amendments in detail, I acknowledge the input of the Bill sponsor in relation to that. From the outset, he was very open to liaising with the Committee team and working closely with the Bill Office in developing the amendments.

Mr O'Toole: I appreciate the Chair's giving way. He mentioned some of the implementation difficulties, so I wanted to ask something at this stage. I chair the Finance Committee. That Committee has established that the Bill will cost about £20 million to £25 million per year. My party strongly supports the principles of the Bill, and we will support it, but there is an open question about how it will be paid for. We do not want to give the impression, particularly not to families who are in need, that we are passing a Bill without any clarity on how it will be paid for and delivered. That is what happened with the Hospital Parking Charges Act (Northern Ireland) 2022, and it did not cover this institution with glory. Has your Committee heard anything certain from the Department of Education or the Finance Minister about providing a budget for the provisions in the Bill?

Mr Mathison: I thank the Member for his intervention. No, we have not. Notably, the Minister is not in the Chamber, which is unusual, and I am not sure of the reasons for that.

Mr Brooks: Will the Member give way?

Mr Mathison: Yes.

Mr Brooks: If my recollection is correct, we wrote to the Executive Office, as I proposed, to ask whether the Executive were prepared to look at the issue in a cross-departmental way. The response was, essentially, that they were not.

Mr Mathison: I thank the Member for his intervention. I will try to deal with both of those points together, as they are connected. I cannot recall the exact text of the response, but I have to say that there was not a very direct response to suggest that other Departments were queueing up to pick up the issue. It would have been helpful for the Education Minister to be here to provide clarity from his Department's perspective. In short, however, the answer to that question is no. We have not had detailed engagement with the Finance Minister on how the Bill would be budgeted for in the future.

Mr Baker: Will the Member give way?

Mr Mathison: I will give way to the Bill sponsor in one moment.

As we progress through the process and the further stages, it will be important to get clarity on how the financial cost will be borne.

I will give way to the Bill sponsor.

Mr Baker: The Education Minister is not here. He has not been supportive from the get-go. I say this to Members, however: every Minister has a budget, but you do not sit here and ask that question when it comes to —. [Inaudible.]

Mr Baker: You could ask that question about TransformEd, mobile phone pouches or football pitches. To compare this legislation to parking a car is wrong; they are completely different. We are talking about feeding children, not being facetious and trying to put a political point-score on it. Your party's Committee member never once raised that issue, to be fair.

Mr Mathison: I thank the Bill sponsor for that intervention. I put on record my thanks to Jonathan Redpath and the rest of the team in the Bill Office for their assistance and support in developing the amendments and throughout the process.

It is important to note that not all Committee members supported the Bill in principle. In the closing stages of Committee Stage, David Brooks, Jon Burrows and Julie Middleton asked for their opposition to the Bill's underlying policy be recorded. However, it was decided not to divide the Committee on the individual decisions taken during the clause-by-clause scrutiny.

The Committee recognises that Members may take different views on the Bill's broader policy merits, but the Committee's role at Committee Stage was to examine the Bill, identify concerns and improve the Bill where necessary. The Committee is satisfied that it undertook a thorough scrutiny process and that the amendments before the Assembly today address significant operational, drafting and scrutiny issues that were identified during Committee Stage.

I will now speak directly to —.

Mr Allen: Will the Member give way?

Mr Mathison: Yes, I will.

Mr Allen: Before the Member addresses the amendments, I note that there was a bit of an exchange about affordability. Of course, that is important, because we need to provide certainty to those who may receive the payments if the Bill becomes law, but does the Committee Chair also recognise the cost to this place and the impact on those affected of doing nothing and not shifting prevention downstream rather than upstream?

Mr Mathison: I thank the Member for his helpful intervention. It was right to take a preventative approach and a public health-informed approach to this. As the Bill sponsor highlighted, we hope that, if the Bill passes into law, the Minister will be able to work with his Executive colleagues to secure the necessary finance. The Minister is good at coming to the Chamber and putting in big bids for money that he is seeking, and I hope that he will make the same robust and rigorous case in relation to this Bill.

Ms Ennis: Will the Member give way?

Mr Mathison: Yes, I will.

Ms Ennis: It is just to have a point of clarity, if you do not mind, because it is a wee bit hard to hear. Will the Member clarify whether he said that Jon Burrows and the DUP members of the Education Committee disagreed with the underlying principles of the Bill but did not vote against it? The underlying principles of the Bill are to make sure that children in poverty receive a hot meal when they are in school, and when they are outside school as well.

Mr Mathison: Perhaps members will come in to clarify their positions. I certainly do not want to speak for them. There was no disagreement among Committee members that we want to ensure that children are well fed. There was disagreement from the members whom I mentioned about the appropriate mechanism to deliver that. They did not support the mechanism being put forward here. Again, I do not want to speak for those members, but the disagreement was largely on the basis of the financial cost. I am happy to give way to any members who wish to clarify their position.

Mr Brooks: I confirm that the Chair is correct, and I thank him for articulating the point for us. I will come to it when I speak later, but we all agree that nobody wants any child to go hungry. It would be silly to try to make out that that was the position of any party or Member in the Chamber. It is, however, proper and right that we give scrutiny to whether this is the correct mechanism.

Mr Mathison: I thank both Members for their intervention. Far be it from me to speak for any other party here on the issue.

I come to the single group of amendments, and I will ask for Members' indulgence, because they are very much in the technical sphere, so it may not be the most riveting debate. Certainly, when we debated this at Second Stage, there was a lot of back and forth in the Chamber around the Bill's principles. I hope that today's amendments are taken in the spirit that they are technical in nature.

Amendment No 1 to clause 1 leaves out "a financial payment" and inserts "financial payments". Most of the reason for that came from feedback that the Department brought to the Committee. The amendment serves to change that to a plural — "financial payments" — because the Department was clear that that would provide it with greater flexibility by enabling multiple payments to be made over a holiday period, rather than a single lump sum, which it did not feel would be the most appropriate delivery mechanism. Amendment Nos 5, 7 and 9 would make that same change to the terminology, making that a plural — "financial payments" — for the same reason: so that there would not have to be a single, one-off payment.

Amendment No 2 to clause 1 leaves out everything from "who" through to the end. It attempts to remove potentially ambiguous language, which was flagged by the Department, about pupils who normally attend school. It would ensure that families were not disadvantaged where pupils attended school during a relevant holiday period. Schools tend to have varying opening dates, with some opening earlier at the end of the summer period in particular. The amendment attempts to build in flexibility for that.

Amendment No 3 to clause 1 leaves out everything from the beginning of line 8 to the word "children" and inserts:

That amendment serves to make the language of the Bill consistent; it would refer to "parents" instead of "people" and "pupils" instead of "children". Again, the Department was keen for the language to be consistent in the article that would be amended.

I will not read out amendment No 4. Some of the amendments are quite long, but Members have all the amendments in front of them on the Marshalled List. The amendment sets out to ensure that pupils will receive a free school meal if they should return to school on a date for which a holiday meal payment has been made. That is to try to ensure that, if there are variabilities in school opening periods and dates, a child will not be declined access to a physical meal in the school by virtue of the fact that they had received a payment for the same date.

Amendment No 5 to clause 1 leaves out "payment" and inserts "payments". I referenced the change to the plural — "payments" — earlier in my remarks, so I will not cover it again.

Amendment No 6 to clause 1 inserts at the end:

The Department was quite clear, drawing on its experience of operating its previous scheme for making holiday meal payments, that it was important that alternative payment methods be available for parents who do not have access to a bank account. The number of people in that scenario is diminishing, but the Committee felt it important to build that in.

Amendment No 7 concerns another leaving out of "payment" and insertion of the word "payments", which is consequential to amendment No 1.

Amendment No 8 to clause 1 is about how payments would be defined and how the amount of the payment would be arrived at. It leaves out from the second "the" to the end of line 18 and inserts the phrase:

Amendment No 8 is based on feedback from the Department and attempts to establish a clearer basis for setting the payment amount by linking it to the daily allowance specified by the Education Authority, in accordance with arrangements approved by the Department. That is the language of the Education Order, which the Bill seeks to amend. The Department was clear that it felt that that was a cleaner and clearer way in which to define it.

Concerns were raised about variability in school meal charges, particularly in post-primary settings where pupils have more choice when it comes to what they can or choose not to spend when selecting a meal. Again, the Department was keen to emphasise that a similar approach — this is not the Department's precise wording — would provide a practical framework for administration. I draw Members' attention to the fact that amendment No 10 is consequential to amendment No 8.

I will highlight something at this stage, because concerns have been raised about this issue, and the Committee may need to return to it. With regard to how the payments will be arrived at, it is important to note that the Bill as originally drafted and the amendment contain the phrase:

when referring to the amount of the holiday meal payment. That creates a theoretical possibility that the Department could set the allowance for a holiday meal payment at a rate lower than that which is made available to a pupil for free school meals during term time. I am crystal clear that that is fundamentally not the policy intention of the Committee amendment, and I am clear that it was not the policy intention of the Bill sponsor in his original draft. What we have in the amendment today is an attempt to respond to concerns that were raised by the Department that the original draft was not clear on how that would be dealt with, particularly in post-primary settings where pupils have choice about how much they spend. The Department seemed to be reasonably content with it in a primary setting but not in a post-primary setting. I want to be clear, therefore —.

Mr Baker: Will the Member give way?

Mr Mathison: I will give way.

Mr Baker: I want to take the opportunity to say that I will work with you and the Committee to tidy that up at Further Consideration Stage, if needs be. That is not an issue. That goes for anything that comes out of this stage. Thank you.

Mr Mathison: I thank the Bill sponsor for giving that commitment, and I re-emphasise that it is the Committee's intention that there should be no scenario in which the holiday meal payment would ever be set at a monetary value that is less than that which eligible pupils or parents have access to via the free school meals scheme during term time. It is important to get that on the record. It is my intention that, as the Bill sponsor mentioned, the Committee would re-engage with the Bill sponsor and the Bill Office to see whether further clarity could be brought at Further Consideration Stage to ensure that there is no wriggle room to create the possibility that we could be looking at a lower payment for the holiday meal payment than a pupil would be eligible for via free school meals in term time.

Amendment No 9 is to clause 1 at page 2. It is another removal of "payment" and insertion of "payments" and is consequential to amendment No 1.

Amendment No 10 is to clause 1, page 2, line 10 and is to:

It is consequential to amendment No 8, which I just covered.

Moving on to clause 2, amendment No 11 is to clause 2 at page 2, line 16. I will not read all of the amendment, as Members have the Marshalled List. It sets out a little more specificity on what the "holiday periods" are. The original drafting was a little open-ended, and the amendment provides a bit of clarity. There would still be some flexibility around schools. Article 58(1A) of the Education and Libraries (Northern Ireland) Order 1986, which would be amended by the Bill, provides that flexibility, but the amendment would serve to ensure the standardisation of holiday payment periods and avoid payments being made for different holiday durations in different school settings, which was deemed to be potentially inequitable and administratively complex; that is how the Department set it out. Amendment No 11 tries to bring a bit of clarity as to what "holiday periods" actually refers to.

Amendment No 12 to clause 3, page 2, line 24 came through evidence that the Committee heard from the Examiner of Statutory Rules. It is proposed that "relevant period" be inserted at the end of that section and that it:

The Examiner of Statutory Rules gave evidence that an amendment that had that effect would ensure that the relevant definition is included in the 1986 Order as opposed to being defined only in the Bill. She was clear that it needed to be included in the 1986 Order for legal clarity.

Finally, amendment No 13 is to clause 4, page 2, line 35. It would insert a section at the end of the clause. Again, I will not read the amendment word for word, as it is available to Members. In that amendment, the Committee has brought forward a proposal to strengthen the Assembly's scrutiny of any subordinate legislation made under clause 4(4). The amendment will ensure that, in future, where powers are used to amend primary legislation, the affirmative resolution procedure would apply, whereas other provisions would remain subject to negative resolution. The Committee considered that to be an important safeguard and an appropriate enhancement of Assembly oversight.

Those are the amendments.

With your permission, Mr Deputy Speaker, I will make some very brief remarks in my capacity as an Alliance MLA. To be clear, Alliance will be supporting all the amendments, as they are technical in nature and were produced collaboratively by the Bill sponsor and the Bill Office to respond to the drafting issues that the Department raised. Although the Department highlighted those concerns in its evidence, it might have been helpful if there had been further proactive engagement beyond that to help with the production of the revised text and of any amendments to give the legal clarity that it said was lacking and to address its concerns. If there is an attempt to look at any of those amendments in more detail in advance of Further Consideration Stage, I hope that we can get departmental engagement in that process.

I fully appreciate that there are diverging views across the parties on support for the Bill, and there are legitimate concerns about the costs. We are not in a scenario in which we are awash with money. I hope that, in the debate, Members will identify the amendments as being technical in nature and will not feel the need to divide on every single one. I will finish by saying that it would have been good to have had the Minister in the Chamber to engage on the amendments. He has made his views very clear that he does not support the Bill in principle, but it would have been good to have had him here, even to bring a ministerial perspective to the question of whether the Committee amendments satisfactorily address the concerns that the Department has raised. I hope that, as the Bill progresses, we will perhaps see improvement in that engagement so that we can end up with a final text that delivers on the policy intent and provides the clear legal certainty that the Department is keen to see delivered.

Mr Brooks: Our position on the Bill is as it was previously. I spoke to the Chair about this earlier, and I can tell the House that we do not intend to divide on the amendments, but I will give voice to our concerns about the Bill in general. As I said earlier, nobody stands for office to see anyone, much less children, go hungry: quite the opposite. That is why we have the welfare system that we have in this country. It is part of my party's manifesto to support families who are struggling with the cost of living, and that is why we have had a focus on key issues such as childcare. No one in the Chamber should be indifferent to the circumstances of children from low-income households. I, like many others, serve and support people from working-class communities every day through the work of my constituency office.

Good intentions, as we are seeing very often in the Chamber of late, do not on their own make for good legislation, however. I believe that this Bill gets the process fundamentally wrong. We know that it would create a statutory requirement —.

Mr Baker: Will the Member give way?

Mr Brooks: Yes.

Mr Baker: You are not going to speak to the amendments because you are not going to divide on them, but you do not support the Bill in principle, is that right?

Mr Brooks: The Member is well rehearsed on my position, following discussions at Committee. We do not support the use of the Department of Education to supply what we believe to be essentially a welfare payment. That is the gist of our position, and the Member is well aware of that. There is not opposition to the idea that families should have welfare payments where they are required in order to support them.

Mr Baker: Will the Member give way?

Mr Brooks: Yes, no problem.

Mr Baker: This is the Bill's Consideration Stage, not its Second Stage, which was to debate its principles. Are you going to talk about the principles of the Bill again or about the proposed amendments to it? What is the DUP's position? Are you going to vote against the Bill at the end of the legislative process? I do not understand where you are at with the Bill.

Mr Brooks: I have only started my speech. I have said that we will not divide the House today on the amendments before us, and we will give due consideration to what may be tabled at Further Consideration Stage. I am outlining my party's position on the Bill, as you would expect me to. I understand that the general principles of the Bill are discussed at an earlier stage. I do not intend to speak for long, but I am putting on the record again my party's position on the Bill. I think that that is reasonable.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Members, I will allow you a degree of latitude in the discussion for that position to be outlined, but, if you stray too far, I shall drag you straight back, do not worry.

Mr Brooks: That is no problem.

It goes to the point that Mr O'Toole made in his intervention. We have an Education Department that already faces pressures in the hundreds of millions of pounds. The Members opposite will be asking the Minister to meet demands on teachers' pay and workload; improving quality and capacity within SEN services; bringing a crumbling school estate back up to standard; and many more issues for which huge and expensive commitments are required. We all know — perhaps no one more than the party that holds the Finance portfolio — of the financial pressures that face public services. The Finance Minister has described the public finances as "extremely constrained". The Executive have been dealing with significant pressures on departmental budgets. Last week, we heard that only a fraction of the Barnett consequential for uplifts for SEN education on the mainland had been distributed to the Department of Education. There are significant pressures on the Department. I am not going to go through my whole speech, but —.

Mr Baker: Will the Member give way?

Mr Brooks: Yes.

Mr Baker: Again, it goes back to talking about the Education budget. We could play this game, and I could knock it back and forward with you all day. He is spending multi millions of pounds on TransformEd; he is spending multi millions of pounds on football pitches that schools do not ask for; and he is spending money from the schools' budgets on mobile phone pouches. We could do this all day long.

Mr Brooks: All those things have one thing in common: they are directly relevant to the education of the children in our education system. This is not; this is a holiday payment.

Mr Baker: Will the Member give way?

Mr Brooks: Yes, I am happy to.

Mr Baker: You are on the Education Committee with me. You heard the evidence: you know that some children are returning to school four and a half months behind their peers who are not on free school meals; you know that children on free school meals are five times more likely to leave school without five GCSEs. The evidence is there that poverty and educational underachievement are inextricably linked. Children are coming back from their holidays — particularly the summer holidays — malnourished. If they are hungry, they cannot learn. We are able to support children during school. If you want to save money down the line, you have to make this type of early intervention. I have always said that this is only one piece of a wider puzzle. It does not go far enough. We need much more from not just the Education Minister but the DUP Communities Minister, who has not brought forward the anti-poverty strategy. We could sit here all day long and try to blame John O'Dowd, but your Minister has a budget. Where does he want to prioritise it?

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Mr Baker, the latitude has been well and truly reached. Back to the amendments. Let us concentrate —. [Inaudible.]

Mr Baker, I know that you are just saying, but not in front of me.

Mr Brooks: I will take the opportunity to respond to some of the things that have been said. The issues that he mentioned previously have direct relevance to children in schools. This is a holiday hunger payment, essentially. The issues in the evidence that he is talking about are addressed, and can be addressed, through a welfare payment. They are to do with welfare. Welfare is there to support families who do not have enough money and resource to meet their need, regardless of whether they are working. That is what welfare is there for: it is a safety net. All of the evidence that he talks about would be relevant to those families if they did not have welfare. What we are talking about in relation to this payment is whether parties around the Chamber feel that welfare is of a sufficient level to meet need. That is why, when we talk to charities like Barnardo's or the Trussell Trust, they come forward with a number of —.

Mr Sheehan: Will the Member give way?

Mr Brooks: Just a moment, Pat. I want to make some progress.

Those charities will talk about numerous interventions, which, largely, are repackaged versions of an uplift in various welfare payments to facilitate families to have enough to get their daily essentials, such as food. That is what you are trying to achieve, Danny. I do not doubt that you are genuine in what you are trying to achieve. My disagreement with you is around what the mechanism should be.

Mr Frew: I thank the Member for giving way. He is absolutely right to be cautious and nervous, because we have Sinn Féin trying to dictate to an Education Minister on a welfare payment in summer months when schools are off, but we know rightly that a Sinn Féin Finance Minister will not finance the Education Minister adequately to support those young people.

Mr Brooks: I thank the Member. That goes directly to the point that Mr O'Toole made. Without having the finance in place, we would be giving false hope to parents that the resource is there to meet the needs. From what Mr Baker, the proposer of the legislation, is saying, I gather that, basically, he wants us to set aside numerous significant educational interventions that the Minister has brought forward. Those interventions are directly relevant to the Department.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Mr Brooks, I have given a lot of latitude. We are here to discuss the amendments. The wider debate about finance is for another place and time. Have I made my point clear? Let us continue.

Ms Mulholland: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Would it be possible for all members to not face behind them as they speak? It means that they do not speak into the microphone, and it is really difficult to hear. That would be really appreciated.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): You know what? You anticipated what I was going to say next. People, please speak into the microphones because not only is it very difficult for Members to hear, it is also very difficult for Hansard to record our sterling words. So, please, speak into the microphones and keep to the amendments.

Mr Brooks: That is fair enough, Mr Deputy Speaker. I appreciate that. It was a natural instinct to talk over my shoulder to my colleague who had intervened. Apologies for that.

Our position is on the record. It was important that we outlined the position that we are taking. The Bill sponsor's colleague asked for that clarity, and I have sought to give it. As the Chair said, these are largely technical amendments, and on that basis, we do not seek to divide the House on them. We have, however, at least outlined our position on the Bill in general, and we will look at any amendments that are tabled at later stages on their own merits.

Mr Burrows: Mr Deputy Speaker, I will be brief. I ask that you give me some latitude on the overall principle of the Bill. I do not think that there is anyone in the House who believes that any child should go hungry in this country. As a food bank volunteer myself, I have given food bank parcels to children, and it was a heartbreaking but humbling experience. There has been discussion of the Bill at Committee, and it is appropriate that we examine things such as whether a worthy aspiration can become something that we can deliver. It would be ideal if this were a cross-departmental Bill with Health, Education and Finance support. On the broad principle, of course we do not want any children going hungry. Of course, we have to worry about those who are just above thresholds: those who are working and unable to access such support. Also, we need to have reviews to make sure that, if the Bill does pass, direct payments do end up as nutritious meals in children's stomachs, and work still needs to be done on that. There are a lot of issues, but nobody is going to deny that giving children a nutritious meal will not only be good for them and their families but, in the long term, will lead to cost savings in dealing with mental and physical health and health inequalities.

I have no problem with the amendments. They largely support and tidy up things, so we are not going to divide on that. The Committee should do more work on the Bill to look at the modalities and review mechanisms and to make sure that there is cross-departmental funding support. There is work that we can do to make the Bill better.

Ms Hunter: I find it very disappointing that the Minister is not here. That is similar to the debate that we had before the summer recess, on girls wearing trousers in schools, for which he was not here. That is insulting to all of us as Members but particularly to Danny Baker, who drafted this private Member's Bill. I do not know if that is a point of order, but if we could get some clarity as to why he is not here today, I would be most grateful.

I thank Danny and his team for their work and engagement on the Bill. We have had really interesting conversations in Committee about the impact of children being hungry in school and unable to focus, so I welcome the fact that we are discussing the Bill at this stage. I do not want to reiterate what others have said, but, as we all know, every child should have access to healthy and nutritious food throughout the year. Hunger certainly does not stop at the school gates, and it does not stop over Christmas, Easter or summer, nor do the pressures facing families across the North. For many children, access to that free school meal provides an important source of nutritious food throughout the school week. Therefore, the conversation that we are having today, and have been having over the past few months, is entirely understandable.

We acknowledge the impact that having no food over the summer months can have on a child's academic success. The evidence heard by the Committee demonstrated the true scale of the challenge. We heard about the additional pressures that school holidays put on family budgets and the true impact of food insecurity, particularly in the most deprived wards across the North. We definitely support the intention behind the Bill: to tackle holiday hunger and provide greater support for children and families who rely on free school meals throughout the school year.

We support the amendments, which reflect the level of detail of the Committee's scrutiny in the past months. Amendment Nos 1, 5, 7 and 9 deal with the distinction between a single payment and multiple payments. While that might appear technical, the Department made it clear that the original wording could have restricted the EA to making one lump sum payment during a holiday period. The amendments provide greater flexibility in how support can be delivered.

The SDLP will also support amendment Nos 2, 3 and 4. The Committee heard concerns about the potential consequences of describing the payments as being "in lieu" of free school meals. There was a risk that a child who had received a holiday payment but was already attending school on a particular day could inadvertently lose their entitlement to a meal. These amendments provide useful clarity and ensure that children will not be disadvantaged by the operation of the scheme.

Amendment No 6 represents a sensible change, given that not every eligible family can access a bank account. The Committee heard that the previous scheme allowed alternative methods of payment and that it was important to retain that flexibility. A scheme designed to support families who are experiencing financial pressure should not inadvertently exclude them.

Amendment Nos 8 and 10 address another small but practical difficulty that was identified during scrutiny: there is no single, standard price of a post-primary school meal, because pupils are able to purchase different combinations of items. Moving toward a daily allowance specified by the Education Authority under arrangements approved by the Department would provide a clearer and more workable basis for calculating payments. We also support amendment No 11, which provides greater clarity on relevant holiday periods, and amendment No 13, which strengthens Assembly scrutiny where powers are used to modify primary legislation.

As my colleague mentioned, it is important that we recognise what the amendments do not resolve. The Committee heard significant evidence about the limitations of existing free school meal eligibility, and a significant gap remains that impacts on our young people and children who live in poverty every day in the North and on those who qualify for free school meals. There are particular concerns about working families who may be experiencing poverty but, as Mr Burrows rightly said, fall outside the existing criteria. There were legitimate questions about the appropriate level of payment and whether it would adequately reflect the real cost to families of providing healthy and nutritious food at home.

As mentioned earlier, the cost of this seems to come up again and again, but I do not care who covers that, be it the Education Minister or the Communities Minister. Ultimately, the core value that we hold across the House is that we do not want to see children starve. All we need is clarity on the financial details. The vehicle does not really matter. This is the vehicle that we have before us today — a Member's Bill — and the SDLP supports it.

Mr Brooks: Will the Member give way?

Ms Hunter: Yes. Go on ahead.

Mr Brooks: The Member said that the vehicle does not matter. Does the Member agree that it is important that we identify which Department is responsible for a particular area and that that Department is seen to fund it and deal with it? We could otherwise have a situation in which Education, which is already under £600 million of pressures for next year, has to deal with things that are really the responsibilities of Health or Communities. There is a range of these things. Yes, we want to see Departments working together, but in applying scrutiny, it is important to identify the right Department for a particular action.

Ms Hunter: Thank you very much.

The impact that we saw during COVID, when this scheme was brought in, and the positive impact that it had on our children speaks to the importance of bringing it in yet again. With regard to the mechanism, if it is for Communities, I would ask why the Communities Minister has not done this, and why is there such profound delay when it comes to the anti-poverty strategy?

Mrs Dillon: I thank the Member for taking an intervention. Does that not speak to exactly why the Minister should be here today — to be part of the conversation, to listen, to engage and to have a two-way conversation with all the parties, particularly the one whose Member introduced the Bill? That is one reason why he absolutely should be here.

Ms Hunter: Thank you.

Mr Brooks: Will the Member give way?

Ms Hunter: Yes. Go ahead.

Mr Brooks: The Minister's position on this is on the record, and it is the same position as I have expressed.

The only thing that I will say in response to the Member's comments about COVID is that that was an emergency response. Many things were done during COVID without scrutiny and without proper consideration, as happens during crisis times, to expedite getting something out to help those in need. We needed to get that out at pace because it was a public health intervention at a time of crisis. That is not necessarily the model for how we should do policy in general.

Ms Hunter: I thank the Member for his intervention, but I view one in five children in Northern Ireland experiencing poverty as an emergency and a crisis. If we cannot feed children, meaning that they do not have the attention span to focus in class, ultimately, we fail them. Yes, there are broader conversations to be had about welfare, because it does not stretch far enough. I understand and respect the fact that the Minister has a strict budget and has to work within it. However, if you strip it all back, you see that, if a child has an empty stomach, they cannot learn. The core issue of holiday hunger speaks to their academic success and their ability to learn and focus. That particularly applies to children who come from deprived communities and communities that have so many issues with poverty.

I respect your position and your point, and I feel sorry that you have to contribute to the debate when the Minister should be doing so, because this is about scrutiny. That is why we stand here in the Assembly: part of our function is to scrutinise Ministers. I take Mr Brooks's points. We shall agree to disagree.

Today, the SDLP will support the Bill.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Ms Hunter, would you care to make your point of order again?

Ms Hunter: Yes. On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker — I am entirely unsure under which Standing Order this falls — I would like clarification from the Speaker's Office on why the Minister of Education is absent today.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): I have an answer here for you.

Ms Hunter: You do?

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Yes, I do. It states:

no matter how regrettable it is —

Mrs Guy: The Bill comes to us at Consideration Stage after scrutiny at the Education Committee. I state from the outset that I remain supportive of the principles of the Bill and its central proposition that children entitled to free school meals during term time should receive support during school holidays. In my role, I often think about where is the right place to put our energy: looking at the shameful child poverty figures in Northern Ireland, I think that this is a good place to put our energy. It is a shame, therefore, that the Minister decided that it was not worth his energy today.

I thank those who engaged with the Committee, including the departmental officials who provided specific legislative issues that needed to be addressed. Evidence to the Committee addressed a number of the issues highlighted at Second Stage.

Clause 1 amends article 58 of the Education and Libraries (Northern Ireland) Order 1986. It will put into legislation the need for the Department to make financial payments during relevant periods to the parents of those eligible for free school meals. The arrangements in the Bill, as noted in the original 1986 Order, remain with the Department. Therefore, the Bill, even if amended, will not dictate the amount of money that the Department will provide to families. That remains in the power of the Department. Amendment No 8 is being made on advice from the Department that meal costs vary and there are no fixed costs to be used as an equivalent. Therefore, the Department holds the power to set that figure.

We, of course, have implemented a holiday food payment before. The summer food payment grant ran from July 2020 to March 2023. Advice NI referenced the fact that we therefore have first-hand evidence of the impact that such a payment can have on families. In evidence to the Committee, Advice NI referenced the fact that, while the grant was operational, its advisers made fewer referrals to food banks during the summer months; when the payment was removed, it saw referrals to food banks increase significantly again.

While do not want to rerun the Second Stage debate, it is worth highlighting the question of whether such a payment should sit with the Department of Education. Again, Advice NI provided specific advice to the Committee on that. It noted that, given that the Department of Education had delivered the summer food payment scheme, there was a legislative precedent. That approach has not been challenged. It was endorsed by two previous DUP Education Ministers, and it has been endorsed by the Assembly and the Executive. It therefore noted:

The legislation, of course, does not limit or stop Executive funding from being provided to the Department to implement the payment. Many of those who provided evidence to the Committee outlined it as a children's health issue and an anti-poverty intervention. However, there is no doubt that it is about education as well. The evidence on the relationship between hunger and educational attainment is clear: children who are food insecure during holiday periods return to school in September less ready to learn. Their concentration, behaviour and ability to engage are all affected by inadequate nutrition. Children in Northern Ireland emphasised that addressing holiday hunger should be viewed as a preventative investment with potential to save in the long term.

The other issue that has been raised before is that there is no guarantee that the payment will be spent directly on food for children. A number of front-line organisations were asked that question directly. The Northern Ireland Women's Budget Group cited expert evidence from Independent Food Aid Network that cash-first crisis payments promote dignity and autonomy, enabling parents and families to meet their needs efficiently and flexibly. Children in Northern Ireland made the important point about scale. A cash-first approach enables us to scale support in a cost-efficient way. I do not think that anyone doubts, especially after hearing evidence from Advice NI, the clear impact that the previous scheme had and that the payments would make a significant difference; therefore, we should focus on scale.

As the Committee was told and as we all know, many households, including working households, are in poverty not because they spend their money recklessly but because they simply have insufficient income in a world that has become more expensive to live in. At clause 1, if amended, the new paragraph (1B) notes that:

That is another issue that was raised at previous stages of the Bill. There is no doubt that many families are struggling and would benefit from the payments, but they do not qualify for free school meals under the current arrangements made by the Department of Education. That should be recognised and acknowledged.

Ultimately, when we consider the legislation, we are considering something that would do a lot of good. It would support families that are struggling during a time when the cost of living is especially acute. In short, it is a good place to put our energy. I endorse the Bill's moving to the next stage of the legislative process.

Mr Baker: I start by thanking everyone who helped me to get the Bill to Consideration Stage, particularly Jonathan and Stephen. We have worked back and forth on the amendments with the Committee. It was a very good Committee Stage, and that is what has made for quite a comfortable Consideration Stage, if I am brutally honest, and that is a good thing.

In my winding-up speech at the Second Stage, I said that the Bill was no longer my legislation; it was the House's Bill, and it was for Members to bring forward amendments should they want to strengthen it. I suppose, working with the progressive parties — that is how I will describe it — made the amendments possible, because, a bit like at the start of today's debate, the Committee Stage got into the principles of the Bill, and that ship has sailed. I have not hidden behind anything throughout the process; I am putting it at the door of Education. I have said that other Departments should also do more, but there is no hiding, and the Minister should be here to hear that. He knows that. I have told him that, and I have also offered to work with him and his officials. At any stage, I am here to listen and to make it the best piece of legislation possible. At the end of the day, it is for the House to decide. Members may be worried about the funding; and that is why I got into the back and forth on the issue. We could talk all day about what the Ministers spend money on. However, at the end of the day, it is legislation that I brought forward, and, if the House agrees it, the reality is that it will happen. Members have to accept that; they cannot dance on the head of a pin, and that is what I heard in the remarks that were made earlier.

Miss McIlveen: Will the Member give way?

Mr Baker: Yes.

Miss McIlveen: The Member talks about "progressive parties" and so on. However, he will note that — Michelle Guy referred to it — successive DUP Ministers brought forward this particular payment. I was the Minister at that time, and I was more than happy to do so, because I felt that it was necessary at that time.

However, that was in the context of a challenging budget.

I also questioned whether responsibility for the payment should remain with the Department of Education. At the time, Miss Hargey was the Minister for Communities. I sought several meetings with her. In the end, I got one meeting and had a discussion about that issue, but she and her officials refused to take responsibility for it as a priority in that Department.

Miss Hargey: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Do I have the right to respond after being named?

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): You may respond.

Miss Hargey: I remember the meeting, and you said that you did not want to take responsibility for the payment. You said that it was nothing to do with you, to which I replied that the Department of Education held all the payment data and that the Department for Communities would continue to work closely with you to deliver it. That is what Communities did when you were Minister and when Peter Weir was Minister. It is a pity now that the Department for Communities, which is under the DUP, and the DUP Education Minister are now refusing children the payment.

The DUP is doing what it has always done, which is to attack low-income, working-class families. Keep doing what you normally do.

Mr Baker: That is why I introduced legislation: so that it will be set out in law that the Education Minister will be responsible for making it.

It almost sounded as though your colleague was having a bit of a go at you when he said that everything was rushed during COVID and not done properly, when you were sitting there as the Education Minister. You may need to have a conversation after with him about that.

It is important that we do not get into a ding-dong, because the legislation is for all of us, and I mean that. Another stage needs to happen, and I am really disappointed that the Minister is not here. I know what will happen, because he said it at Second Stage. He did not show up today, but he will get up and say that the amendments are poorly drafted and all that. I would be annoyed if this were an Adjournment debate or a debate on a non-binding motion and the Minister did not show up, but this is legislation. I am seeking to amend the Education and Libraries Order 1986, yet the Minister is not here. When his officials came to the Committee, I was grateful that they provided some feedback on the Bill, but they did not submit any amendments either. The first line that came out of officials' mouths in Committee was that my legislation would be harmful. They quickly backtracked when they were scrutinised, because what they had said did not stand up to the evidence. That is probably why the Minister is not here now: he is ducking. He has probably thrown his toys out of the pram, as he is not getting his own way with all his other legislation.

I am here trying to make a difference for children. I am trying to bridge the gap between educational underachievement and poverty. That is what I am trying to do. So far, the Minister has failed to do that. If he were here, we could have a proper debate about the Bill, but he is not. I will say this to his colleagues: I am here to work on the Bill's next stage, but I will not listen to an Education Minister who comes to the House to berate me about the drafting of the Bill or the amendments, when he did not bother to show up today.

I will finish by thanking the Committee members for working with me. I will work alongside Nick. He is the only Member who raised another possible concern. It may not even be a concern, but we need to get into the detail of it. That shows a commitment to the legislation, and it is about trying to make it better. That is what we are meant to be doing. We are legislators.

Members are criticising the principles of the Bill: get over yourselves. Go and do a bit of work on it. Stop dancing on the head of a pin. The public are out there watching. They are scrutinising us, and we are not delivering for them when you behave like that. We have seen you try to run down the clock with other private Members' Bills over the past two weeks. It is disgraceful.

Mr Brooks: Will the Member give way?

Mr Baker: I will give way, because you gave way to me a lot.

Mr Brooks: The Member seems to have a problem with the fact that we are not opposing any of the amendments, but the clarity that I was giving him on our position is clarity that was sought by his colleague in front of him when she questioned the Chair. I was giving the position that Members on the Sinn Féin Benches were asking about. They were asking whether we were against the Bill in principle, and, in that instance, I was outlining why we opposed the Bill. You seem to be complaining now that we are not opposing the amendments. I made it clear that we are not going to divide the House on the amendments. That is our position on the amendments.

Mr Baker: They are very technical amendments, so any Members who were to divide on them would be dancing on the head of a pin. You were trying to return to the principles of the Bill. Your Minister — [Interruption.]

You can laugh, but not a single amendment has come from the DUP Benches. You did not even engage at Committee Stage. You kept saying that you reserve the right to decide at the end. You did nothing but talk about the principles of the Bill during Committee Stage.

Your Minister did not even show up today. He did not show up. I do not know what you want me to say about that. I do not care whether you vote for the amendments. That is the reality. It does not matter, because you do not support the Bill. These are technical amendments. [Inaudible.]

Mr Baker: I know, but you got up to say that you would support the payment but only if it were paid through the welfare system. The DUP holds the Department that deals with welfare as well. Again, you are dancing on the head of a pin.

I am getting off the subject. I will bring my remarks back to the Bill. We will work at the next stage. If we need to table that wee amendment, we will — we may not need to — and we will move on from there. I look forward to the Bill becoming legislation.

Mr Mathison: That was a very feisty debate. I started off with dry and procedural, but everybody else just kicked off and rehearsed the Second Stage debate. I will try to just give you dry and procedural, and maybe we will get the Bill over the line.

I do not think that there is any value in going through everybody's contributions in my winding-up speech. Aside from the contributions of Cara Hunter and Michelle Guy, there was precious little discussion of the amendments. The message from those two Members is that they support the amendments and can see the practical and pragmatic benefit that they would bring to the operation of the Bill, should it become an Act. The rest of the debate was clearly centred around the principles of the Bill. To say that there is no meeting of minds in the Chamber on that would be an understatement.

We will see what happens in Committee if the Bill moves to the next stage. As I said in my opening remarks, I am very happy to engage with the Bill sponsor if there is anything that needs to be done to tighten up any of those provisions. I want to be really clear: I am very happy to engage with the Department and Minister if concerns remain around any of the technical aspects of the Bill, the drafting or the legal clarity of any of the clauses. I am very happy to engage and continue that work. It would be good to have clear and specific proposals coming through. We want the legislation that ends up on the statute book to be clear and to give clear effect to the policy intent. I hope that, at the next stage, we will be able to nail that down and ensure that that is what happens.

I will not go into any further detail at this stage. The Committee will be happy to pick it up in further discussions. We will see what emerges in the form of amendments at Further Consideration Stage, should we get there.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): That concludes the Consideration Stage of the Education (Holiday Meal Payments) Bill. The Bill stands referred to the Speaker. Thank you very much indeed, ladies and gentlemen. Take your ease for a moment.

Mr Gildernew: I beg to move

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): In accordance with convention, the Business Committee has not allocated a time limit to the debate. I call Colm Gildernew to open the debate on the Bill. Colm, over to you.

Mr Gildernew: Go raibh maith agat.

There is no denying the fact that the North is experiencing a chronic housing and homelessness crisis. We know that because the publicly available data released by the Department for Communities tells us as much. New figures released in the past number of weeks show that the number of households on the social housing waiting list now sits at over 50,000, which is the highest that it has ever been. The same figures also show that the number of statutorily homeless people in the North is now over 64,000, which is, again, the highest that it has ever been. That figure represents roughly one in 32 people currently living in the North and is a significant increase of 136% over the past decade. In that context, I have introduced this Bill to provide additional support to those who are at risk of homelessness.

For clarity, I should remind Members whom we are referring to when we speak about homelessness. It means the family living in a hotel or a bed and breakfast. It means the child with not only no front door but not even a desk to do their homework. It means the mother and three children who are trying to escape domestic violence, and it means the young man who is sofa-surfing around several friends' houses, as well as those who are sleeping in hostels or on our streets. My Bill aims to better support those families and individuals. The Bill will amend the definition of "threatened with homelessness" as set out in the Housing Order 1988. This is probably unusual, but I will read the entirety of the Bill:

That is the entirety of the Bill.

The Bill is even more crucial since the passage of the Private Tenancies Act 2022, which was brought forward by my Sinn Féin colleague and previous Communities Minister, Deirdre Hargey, which increased the notice-to-quit period from 28 days to 56 days. In practice, that means that a family who potentially received a notice-to-quit letter this morning stating that they have 56 days to vacate their home are not entitled to any support from the Housing Executive for 28 precious days, and not until just 28 days remain until the day they lose their home. That makes no sense.

We have all assisted people who are suffering from homelessness through our constituency offices. Members will fully understand the human impact that the homelessness crisis is having on families across our community. Falling into homelessness is a profoundly traumatic experience. Homelessness leads to poorer outcomes for the individuals who are affected across a host of different measures, including poorer physical and mental health, as well as a greater risk of addiction and social isolation. It also creates barriers to finding employment and maintaining relationships, as well as significantly reducing life expectancy. It can severely impact on children's educational attainment and personal development, the effects of which are often felt for the rest of that child's life.

It is also an extremely difficult cycle to break once it occurs, and it often requires a significant amount of administrative and financial resources to address. That is why prevention is key in this debate. Preventing homelessness from occurring in the first place will always be the best possible outcome for the individual who is affected, for the organisations that provide such professional support and, indeed, for wider society. So far, we have utterly failed to prioritise prevention as a response to homelessness, with a recent Audit Office report highlighting that less than 10% of the homelessness budget currently goes towards prevention. It is clear that we need to start moving the dial towards greater prevention. It is my firm belief that the Bill will assist in achieving that.

Under the current law, the Housing Executive has a duty to provide support to people who are threatened with homelessness, which includes providing temporary accommodation. However, importantly, it can also provide a range of other forms of support such as debt advice, community mediation should conflict be a factor, legal advice, signposting to other agencies, helping to secure a tenancy from the private rental market, or mediation between landlords and tenants. Extending the time period from 28 days to 60 days will allow the Housing Executive more time to develop a solution using some of those interventions and will prevent more people from falling into homelessness. Surely that makes sense to us all.

It has long been considered that the 28-day window was too short to provide an effective level of support, with many organisations having long called for it to be extended. For example, the Simon Community strongly supports the change. It stated that the current 28-day window:

Extending the definition of "threatened with homelessness" to 60 days would give the Housing Executive and partner organisations more time to meaningfully step in and provide support to sustain tenancies and prevent homelessness.

Another significant local organisation, Homeless Connect, stated:

A chairde,

the current, ongoing homelessness crisis is a testament to the ineffectiveness of our current laws. The most recent statistics, to which I referred earlier, are evidence enough that we badly need change. That is in stark contrast to other jurisdictions, notably England, Scotland and Wales, which have all introduced sweeping changes to their homelessness legislation in recent years, with much more focus on prevention.

Having clearly understood the need for change, I wrote to the Minister for Communities in 2024 asking whether he planned to introduce any legislative reforms in the area in this mandate. His response confirmed to me that he had no plans to change the law within the mandate, so I decided to begin the process of developing a private Member's Bill. I carried out extensive consultation throughout 2025 with the general public through an online survey; with key stakeholders and experts; and with the Department and the Housing Executive. The response from the public and the experts was overwhelmingly positive, with many people highlighting the shortcomings of the current system and the obvious need for change. I also met the Human Rights Commissioner and equality commissioner, neither of whom flagged any concerns about my Bill.

The Minister for Communities, his Department and the Housing Executive have raised some concerns, mainly regarding the potential of the Bill to create more demand for temporary accommodation. Let me be clear: the Bill is, in part, about ensuring that temporary accommodation can be offered to people at an earlier stage, but that does not necessarily, in itself, create significant additional demand. Many people who are faced with a housing crisis will want to avoid accepting an offer of temporary accommodation until such time as it becomes the only option left, with all other avenues having been exhausted. The new law will mean that they can avail themselves of those other forms of support earlier, such as mediation, housing advice, debt advice or other supports, potentially staving off the need for them to be forced to accept an offer of temporary accommodation. While some extra demand for temporary accommodation may arise from the Bill, I do not believe that that will be significant for reasons that I have just set out. Furthermore, we need to measure that against the cost of increasing the homelessness supports that the Bill would provide.

I wholeheartedly welcomed the Minister's announcement last year that he intends to purchase 600 homes that will be used as temporary accommodation. That scheme has the potential to make a real difference in enabling us to meet current and future demand and ensure that fewer offers of non-standard temporary accommodation, such as hotels and B&Bs, become necessary, thereby potentially reducing the overall cost of temporary accommodation. To my knowledge, as of today, none of those homes has been purchased. That is not good enough if we are serious about supporting those at risk of losing their home. The delays to the roll-out of the scheme have been disappointing, and I urge the Minister to progress it as a priority.

Mr Lyons (The Minister for Communities): I am grateful that the Member gave way on that point. I have been working with urgency to resolve that as soon as possible. It has proven to be complex, but we are now in a position where we expect the solution imminently. That will mean that we can start acquisitions without further delay, even if there are improvements to any proposal that may follow that. I expect acquisitions to begin immediately, once approval is secured, which should be within the next month. However, those 600 homes were meant to deal with the pressures that we face now, not the additional ones that will come from the increased need for temporary accommodations as a result of the Bill. I am glad that the Member now supports that.

Mr Gildernew: Go raibh maith agat.

I thank the Minister for his update to that effect.

Recently, the Minister announced a long-overdue, full-scale review of current homelessness legislation to include the examination of a statutory duty to prevent homelessness as exists in England, Scotland and Wales. I have always said that a more widespread review was needed and that the provisions in the Bill would work more effectively alongside other new provisions, such as a statutory prevention duty and duties for state bodies to cooperate, such as "Ask and Act" etc. Under the Speaker's guidance on Members' Bills, it was not possible for me, as a private Member, to launch a wholesale review of the homelessness legislation. While I welcome the announcement from the Minister, I am sure that he will not be surprised that I remain a little sceptical about the lack of urgency and priority that has been given to tackling homelessness to date. That said, I will gladly work with the Minister, the Department, the sector and anyone else who is willing to engage in the endeavour to expedite further much-needed reforms.

The current time frame for the Minister's review suggested that any further potential legislation would not be ready until well into the next mandate. However, with this Bill, we have an opportunity to make a solid start on badly needed legislative reforms for those at risk of homelessness. Members, let us act together today to make a real difference. Vote in favour of the Bill to extend the period during which families and individuals at risk of homelessness can access support. Our people deserve no less.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Welcome back, Nicola. Good to see you. I call Nicola Brogan.

Miss Brogan (The Deputy Chairperson of the Committee for Communities): Go raibh maith agat, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle.

I appreciate that.

As Deputy Chairperson of the Committee for Communities, I welcome the opportunity to make some initial remarks on behalf of the Committee on the Housing (Amendment) Bill.

The Committee is acutely aware of the significant challenges associated with homelessness in the North and the profound impact that housing insecurity can have on individuals, families and communities. Throughout the mandate, the Committee has maintained a strong focus on housing need, temporary accommodation, homelessness prevention and the services that support people who are homeless or at risk of becoming homeless. Indeed, such is the importance of the issue to the Committee that, in April, it published its 'Report on Homelessness and the Supporting People Programme'. That report concluded that the homelessness sector was facing what the Committee described as a perfect storm of rising demand, increasingly complex need and falling resources in real terms. Importantly, however, the Committee also heard that solutions existed and that greater emphasis needed to be placed on prevention and early intervention rather than relying predominantly on costly responses once a person or family has already reached crisis point. It is against that wider background that the Committee will approach the Bill.

I should be clear from the outset that the Committee has not yet reached a position on the Bill or its individual provisions. The Committee has, however, already undertaken some preparatory work. On 2 July, the Committee received an initial briefing from the Bill sponsor, Mr Colm Gildernew, during which members had an opportunity to explore the policy intention underlying the legislation and some of the issues that may arise from it.

The principal proposal in the Bill is relatively concise. It would amend the statutory definition of a person who is threatened with homelessness by extending the relevant period from 28 days to 60 days. The policy intention, as the Bill sponsor explained to the Committee, is to enable intervention at an earlier stage and thereby provide more time during which a sustainable solution might be found before an individual or a household becomes homeless. The Bill sponsor also drew attention to approaches taken in other jurisdictions and argued that an earlier statutory intervention point could strengthen the emphasis on prevention. The Committee will want to examine those propositions carefully against the evidence.

During the initial briefing, members explored issues that are likely to require further consideration, including whether the proposed 60-day period represents the appropriate point for statutory intervention; the likely operational implications for the Housing Executive; the potential financial consequences; the interaction between earlier intervention and pressures on temporary accommodation and the existing housing supply; and whether provision should be made for the operation of the legislation to be reviewed after implementation. The Committee will be interested in the scrutiny of all those areas, should the Bill proceed to Committee Stage.

The Committee has already established an interest in preventing homelessness and ensuring that support reaches people as early as is practicable. However, it will still be necessary to determine whether the legislative mechanism contained in the Bill is effective, proportionate, workable and adequately resourced. The Bill sponsor's consultation attracted 174 responses, and, on 2 July, the Committee heard that there was significant support among the respondents for extending the existing statutory period. We are also aware, however, that concerns have been raised about possible additional pressures on the Housing Executive, including increased caseloads, temporary accommodation requirements and financial implications.

Given the timing of the Bill's introduction, its proximity to the summer recess and the considerable legislative workload facing the Committee, members agreed on 2 July to begin preparatory work in advance of Second Stage. Therefore, a public call for evidence was launched over the summer so that interested individuals and organisations could begin to submit their views.

The Committee has also requested research from the Assembly's Research and Information Service (RaISe), including an examination of the Bill and its potential costs, to help inform our scrutiny. Should the Bill proceed today, we will examine that evidence in detail. We will want to hear from people with lived experience of homelessness, organisations providing homelessness and housing support services, the Housing Executive, relevant professional and representative organisations and other stakeholders with expertise in the area.

Among the questions that the Committee will need to consider are whether extending the statutory period is likely to improve homelessness prevention in practice; what additional responsibilities or pressures may arise for the Housing Executive; what resources would be required to implement the change effectively; whether there could be unintended consequences; and how the impact of the legislation should subsequently be assessed. The Committee will also want to consider the relationship between this relatively focused legislative change and the wider structural challenges facing housing and homelessness services. Earlier intervention cannot by itself resolve shortages in housing supply, pressures on temporary accommodation or the complex support needs of many people presenting as homeless. Equally, evidence that earlier intervention can prevent individuals and families reaching crisis point will be important to the Committee's consideration. Our task will therefore be to examine the intended benefits and the practical implications of the proposal before reaching any conclusions.

In summary, the Committee has not yet taken a position on the Housing (Amendment) Bill. What we can say is that homelessness prevention is an issue to which the Committee has attached considerable importance throughout the mandate and that the principle of intervening earlier to prevent homelessness raises important questions that merit full examination. Should the Bill be referred to it following Second Stage, the Committee looks forward to having rigorous and evidence-based engagement with the Bill sponsor, people with lived experience, housing and homelessness organisations and other relevant stakeholders. We will consider the evidence objectively and report our conclusions and recommendations to the Assembly in due course.

Mrs Cameron: I welcome the opportunity to speak at the Second Stage of the Housing (Amendment) Bill. At the outset, I say that I do not question Mr Gildernew's intention behind the Bill. We all want the same good things. We all want people who are at risk of losing their home to receive help as early as possible. Preventing homelessness is clearly better than responding after someone has reached crisis point. Extending a statutory period is not the same as extending meaningful support, however, and the Bill would change the definition of "threatened with homelessness" from:

to:

The difficulty is that that does not create a new duty to prevent homelessness, provide additional homes or give the Housing Executive the resources required to resolve a person's housing situation. That brings me on to the central question: what will be different for the person who asks for help on day 60?

The Housing Executive can already engage with someone who has received a longer notice to quit. It can assess their housing circumstances, provide advice and connect them with other support services. That assistance is not confined to the final 28 days. More difficult issues arise when advice is not enough. If no suitable accommodation is available, changing the date on which someone enters the statutory system does not solve the problem. It may simply mean that they enter the system earlier and remain in temporary accommodation longer. Unfortunately, that is not prevention but earlier management of the same crisis.

There are also real financial consequences. Non-standard temporary accommodation, including hotels and bed-and-breakfast accommodation, costs around £600 per household each week. Around 1,454 households were accepted as being homeless last year because they had lost private rented accommodation. If only half those households were to require non-standard accommodation for one additional month, the estimated additional cost would be around £1·75 million each year. When the wider pressures are included —.

Mr Gildernew: Will the Member give way?

Mrs Cameron: I will indeed.

Mr Gildernew: I have asked the Department and the Housing Executive repeatedly to advise on the additional cost. I have not heard that figure mentioned. I recognise what the Member said at the start of her remarks about the other measures, and I fully agree that those are needed. They remain needed and should have been introduced during the mandate. The provision in the Bill will, however, clearly provide additional time for some of those measures.

Mr Lyons: I appreciate the Member's giving way. Perhaps I can provide some clarity on the Housing Executive's estimates of the cost of the measure.

They are estimates, but it is useful to know that it would cost £2·5 million. I concur with Mrs Cameron's comments: it should not be done in a piecemeal fashion. The measures are all interlocking, and they should be done together.

Ms Ferguson: Will the Member take an intervention? I would really like to hear —.

Mrs Cameron: I have not agreed to take your intervention.

Ms Ferguson: Sorry.

Mrs Cameron: If you do not mind, I would like to make some progress.

When the wider pressures are included, it is estimated that the Bill would cost in the region of £2·5 million annually. The Department has a constrained budget, as we all know. That money could otherwise be used to support genuine prevention work, which is really important, and help people to remain in their homes.

There is also a danger that the Bill would create an expectation that the Housing Executive could provide additional help from day 60, even though no additional prevention duty, staffing or accommodation would have been provided. If legislation raises expectations without giving the responsible body the means to meet them, the result will be greater frustration for applicants and further pressure on front-line staff. Other parts of the United Kingdom have extended their "threatened with homelessness" periods, but those changes sit within wider prevention frameworks. We cannot take one part of another system, put it in Northern Ireland's legislation and assume that it will produce the same result. The Housing Executive supports the principle of earlier intervention, but it has made it clear that that should be introduced alongside a proper prevention duty and a wider package of reform. That is the right approach. We should examine what assistance a person is entitled to receive, who is responsible for providing it, how it will be delivered and what resources will be available. Those questions must be answered together.

The proposed commencement period is inadequate. The Bill would bring the change into effect six months after Royal Assent, but the Housing Executive has stated that it would need at least 12 months to prepare properly. That time would be needed to secure the necessary resources, increase staffing, train those staff and put the required operational arrangements in place. Introducing the change before the Housing Executive is ready would only add further pressure to an already stretched service.

I support earlier intervention and stronger homelessness prevention, but the Bill would change the point at which the system responds without strengthening what the system could do. We need reform that prevents people from losing their home, not legislation that would move them into an overstretched homelessness system sooner. For those reasons, I cannot support the Bill in its present form.

Ms K Armstrong: I thank the Bill sponsor for bringing the Bill forward. I know what it is like to go through the process of a private Member's Bill, so, Colm, I wish you well. Your Bill is short, but it could make a significant difference to people's lives.

Second Stage is important, as it helps the Assembly to fully understand what the Bill intends to achieve and its practical impact on those who are most vulnerable, particularly individuals and families experiencing homelessness. I welcome any effort to strengthen housing policy and improve outcomes for those in housing need. However, legislation must be judged not only on its intentions but on the real difference that it would make to people's lives. In the previous mandate, I asked why we did not align the threatened-with-homelessness period with the notice to quit period. It made no sense to me that we retained a 28-day period when notices to quit were longer.

I ask for some clarification from the Bill sponsor. He addressed in his introduction some of the things that I wanted to ask him about, and I thank him for that. What specific gaps in the current legislation has the Bill sponsor identified, and what evidence demonstrates that those changes are necessary? You sort of answered that. How would the proposed measures differ from existing statutory duties? Would they create new protections or simply amend current processes? I know that you talked about the additional supports that people can receive.

I am keen to understand what the Bill would mean in practice for people who face homelessness. Would increasing the number of days from 28 to 60 result in earlier intervention for those at risk of losing their home? Would it improve access to temporary accommodation and, more important, permanent housing solutions? Most important, would it reduce the time that individuals and families spend in housing uncertainty?

I would welcome clarification on resources. The Bill would extend the definition of "threatened with homelessness" to 60 days. I have heard claims that more funding and staffing may be needed to deliver those responsibilities effectively, but, in my experience, while the Housing Executive may well be told that a person is facing homelessness in 28 days, it will often ask the person to come back when there are, maybe, 10 or fewer days of that period left. Does the Member believe that that change will have any impact on how public bodies —

Mr Brett: Will the Member give way on that point?

Ms K Armstrong: No, I will not, thanks.

Does the Member believe that that change will have any impact on how public bodies provide support for people who have been given notice to quit?

Temporary accommodation is not provided during the period when someone is told that they are threatened with homelessness. Usually, they have to complete their tenancy, and they get accommodation on day 29 — if the Bill were to pass, it would be day 61. I do not know how the temporary accommodation costs are being increased. Maybe we will hear about that later. I look forward to the Committee Stage, when we can investigate that better, because I think that somebody does not quite understand what the "threatened with homelessness" period means: people do not get temporary accommodation while they have a home.

Good legislation must, of course, be supported by adequate resources if it is to make a meaningful difference on the ground. Would the Bill sponsor like to see more action taken during the proposed 60-day period to prevent people from becoming homeless?

At the Housing Rights conference that was held recently in the Long Gallery in Parliament Buildings, there was a clear message that preventing homelessness requires transformation through legislative change. That reiterates the Public Accounts Committee's (PAC) recommendation that the Minister and the Department for Communities should bring forward a duty to prevent homelessness. I ask the Bill sponsor whether he was not allowed to include something such as a duty to prevent homelessness in the Bill.

I would also like the sponsor to confirm what consideration he gave to particular groups that can be disproportionately affected by homelessness, including young people leaving care, victims of domestic abuse, people with disabilities, those experiencing poor mental health and families with children. Does he believe that the proposed changes improve the outcomes for those groups? How does he think that success could be monitored?

I ask the Bill sponsor — Miss Brogan brought this up — whether he came across any unintended consequences when planning the Bill. For example, could the changes create additional administrative barriers, lengthen decision-making processes or place further pressure on the housing system? I do not know how that would happen, because being threatened with homelessness does not get someone another place of accommodation until that period is over. Those are important questions that deserve careful consideration.

Finally, I would be grateful for clarification of how the effectiveness of the legislation will be measured. What benchmarks or performance indicators could be used to determine whether the Bill is achieving its objectives and improving outcomes for those most risk of homelessness? What will happen if the relevant bodies do not achieve those objectives? We know the answer to that, as we are already living through a housing crisis, but I would like to find out what the Bill sponsor thinks.

I believe that everyone in the Chamber agrees that people should have access to safe, secure and suitable housing. As we consider the Bill, it is vital that we understand clearly how the proposed amendments will help those who are being made homeless and whether they will deliver meaningful and lasting improvements. I look forward to hearing further detail during the debate and to receiving reassurance that the legislation will provide tangible benefits to those who most need support. I confirm that Alliance supports the Bill's move to Committee Stage.

Mr Allen: From the outset, I confirm that the Ulster Unionist Party will support the Bill at Second Stage. It is narrow in scope and seeks to make what we see as a modest change, extending the period in which someone is considered "threatened with homelessness" from 28 days to 60 days, as we have heard from other Members.

In most cases, people know well in advance that they are at risk of homelessness. Advice can be provided and information gathered earlier, but, under the current statutory framework, being "threatened with homelessness" does not engage until a person is within 28 days of becoming homeless. The question, therefore, is whether that statutory definition should recognise the risk earlier: we believe that it should. However, changing the time frame can only ever be one part of a much wider approach to homelessness prevention.

In my experience of constituency casework, the difficulty is often in getting decisions and practical arrangements resolved before someone has to vacate. Recognising that someone is threatened with homelessness earlier should allow more time to provide them with advice, gather information and explore their options. It may also give them more time to challenge a negative homelessness decision before becoming homeless. However, we must be clear that earlier recognition alone will not prevent homelessness or guarantee that people secure suitable accommodation, given the pressures on both permanent and temporary housing.

I want to address two core issues: cost and the wider need for homelessness reform. The Housing Executive's concerns about resources deserve to be taken seriously, and I have no doubt that they will be. If that means more casework and a need for additional staff, that must be properly assessed and considered. However, we should be careful about assuming that extending the period by 32 days automatically means another 32 days in temporary accommodation. In the cases that I have dealt with, as I have already alluded to, temporary accommodation has generally been provided when the person actually has to leave their home, which, more often than not, has been on the final day before they would otherwise become homeless. That is my experience, and I accept that it may not cover every situation or the experience of others. It is a fair reason to ask the Housing Executive to explain what additional accommodation costs it expects — I know that Members have already outlined that — and why. That is what Committee Stage is about. It is about interrogating the information that is provided. We debate the general principles here, and then we look at the more detailed information through the Committee Stage.

If the extra time allows issues to be addressed or another home to be found, there may be savings. The potential savings need to be properly evidenced, just as any additional costs identified by the Department or the Housing Executive need to be evidenced. The Committee should test both. We should also ask what help people will receive during the extra time. Bringing someone into the statutory framework earlier will achieve little if they are then left waiting without practical support.

On wider reform, I agree that we need to do more than change a number in the legislation. That wider work should continue alongside the Bill. We need to look at what meaningful prevention should involve; how early intervention can work in practice; and how housing services work with Health, Justice and social services, particularly where someone is leaving care, leaving prison or being discharged from hospital. The Bill does not attempt to answer all of those questions, nor should we pretend that it does. It makes a limited change to the existing framework. The wider issue around prevention, resource and how different public services work together will require further work. Supporting the Bill at Second Stage allows the detail and the practical implications of the change to be properly examined by the Committee, but, equally, I am mindful that limited time is left in the mandate to do so.

There is also the question of housing supply. I recognise the Minister's efforts to deliver more homes, but earlier intervention is much harder when there is nowhere suitable for someone to move to. We cannot prevent our way out of a shortage of housing. We need more social and affordable homes, alongside better support for people who are at risk of losing their home.

This is a limited change but one that could support applicants and the Housing Executive in dealing with the wider problems earlier. There are questions about staffing costs and implementation that need answers as the Bill progresses through Committee Stage, but we support the principle. Where the risk of someone losing their home is clear, it makes sense for the statutory framework to recognise it earlier. For that reason, the Ulster Unionist Party will support the Bill's progression to Committee Stage.

Mr Durkan: At its heart, this is a small but important proposal. For a parent trying to keep a roof over their children's heads or an individual who has finally reached the point of having to ask for help, the additional 32 days could make a monumental difference. It allows time for people to make alternative arrangements and get necessary arrangements in place. However, I make it clear that while the legislation is, in our view, necessary, it is just one small piece of the required wider response to the housing emergency across the North. It is a small piece of a jigsaw puzzle. Of course, we do need all the pieces to see the whole picture, but we cannot afford to do nothing while we wait for the Minister or a Minister to do everything.

A secure, affordable and suitable home is the foundation upon which people build their lives. It is where children grow up and families find stability. It is a safe space — somewhere older people should be able to live with dignity and security. When people are denied that security, the consequences of homelessness literally spill out on to the streets and across public services, be that through additional pressures on the health budget or our justice system.

Housing is the greatest issue of our time and should be treated with the attention that it deserves. We should not be reliant on a private Member's Bill to address elements of housing. That is no disrespect to the legislation, and certainly not to its proposer, whom I commend for his action on it.

The Executive have sleepwalked our communities into a housing crisis. They have not heeded the warning signs, and, under the DUP and Sinn Féin, homelessness across the region has increased by 114% in a decade. Now, the DUP will not even cooperate with Sinn Féin — I am not blaming Sinn Féin for that — to stop, or at least slow down, those figures and lives spiralling out of control. Right now, more than 64,000 people are experiencing homelessness across the North, including 19,500 children and young people. Those are lives on hold: thousands of children stuck are in temporary accommodation, with nowhere to do their homework and no facilities for their parents to cook a healthy meal. The lives of others are thrown into complete turmoil as they sink deeper into poor mental health and addiction while unable to access the wrap-around support that they need.

The crisis did not happen overnight. It is a result of years of inadequate housing supply, insufficient investment, political delay and a failure to take preventative action when the writing was on the wall. Historically, the response from the Executive has been reactive rather than preventative — waiting until people are homeless before we intervene; and waiting until families are in temporary accommodation before we ask how they got there in the first place. Homelessness prevention service funding was slashed year-on-year. To be fair, the Minister allocated additional resources to prevention. I am sure that he will tell us more about that, but I would like to hear not just how much he allocated but how effective it has been. The same Executive who fail to meet their own targets on social housing development, claiming not to have the funding to do so, manage to pour ever-increasing funds into the sticking plaster that is temporary and emergency accommodation. I understand the concerns that have been raised. We do not want to be in a situation where we are pouring more money into that black hole. It is a black hole: there is a complete lack of transparency and accountability about where all the money goes and how much of it goes where. Last year, £76,500 a day was spent on temporary accommodation. When we take housing benefit spending into consideration, that rises to £109,000 a day. We are talking about a colossal spend with very little oversight, no procurement process in place and very little assessment of value for money.

I hope that the Bill will help, in part, to buy more time for those who are threatened with homelessness, but, as they say, prevention is better than cure, and we should be focusing on those at risk long before they reach that point. Certainly, I understand the reservations that the Minister's party has expressed around potential unforeseen circumstances, but, surely, allowing the legislation to progress to Committee Stage, where the issues could be thrashed out and delved into more deeply, would be beneficial.

Mr Brett: I appreciate the Member's giving way. As I am not on the Committee for Communities, I will not have the opportunity to raise this point. Representing North Belfast, as I do, I deal with homelessness quite regularly, as you can imagine. An unintended consequence came to my mind when Mr Allen raised the point about the ability of applicants to challenge a negative homeless decision by the Housing Executive.

Under current legislation, it has up to 56 days to look at that review. Will the Committee give consideration to the impact that a change to the legislation may have? My experience is that it always takes the 56 days. If there are, as Mr Allen said, more opportunities for more people to appeal that decision, will that then create an additional workload, meaning that those 56 days will not be met, which is already an issue? I flag that up to the members of the Communities Committee for when they have the opportunity to discuss that with the Housing Executive. I have a concern that it will create bigger bureaucracy for the Housing Executive, particularly when it comes to challenging a negative homeless decision.

Mr Durkan: There is a possibility that it might, but that is why it is important —.

Mr Allen: Will the Member give way?

Mr Durkan: Yes, Mr Allen.

Mr Allen: To come back on the point that the Member for North Belfast made, perhaps he misunderstood the point that I made, which was that, if we were to move to 60 days and a negative homeless decision was made, the individual would be able to challenge that within that period rather than beyond the 28-day period, which is often the case and, I think, the 56 days to which he refers.

Mr Durkan: There was a wee bit of merit in what the Member said, even though he picked up wrongly what Mr Allen had said. Surely, therefore, having wider debate and discussion on the proposals in the Bill, their impact and unintended consequences that we are able to foresee — even with all our brilliant brains put together, we might not be able to foresee all of them — is why Committee Stage is so important. That is why I cannot understand the DUP's reluctance to allow the Bill's progression to that stage.

Mr Brett: I appreciate the Member giving way. Given what he said about the importance of Committee Stage, has the Member settled on how long the Committee Stage for the Bill will be, given that he has just articulated to the House that even the great brains of the Communities Committee might not be able to see straight away some of the unintended consequences? Have you, as the Opposition, settled on a position on how long, you think, the Committee Stage will be? I fear that the Committee may set a short Committee Stage with an artificial deadline to try to get the Bill through by the end of the mandate.

Mr Durkan: I meant the brilliant collective brains of the Assembly, because there is certainly no brain on the Committee as brilliant as yours, Mr Brett. The Bill deserves thorough scrutiny.

Mr Brett: How long?

Mr Durkan: However long that it takes.

The SDLP believes that the current "threatened with homelessness" window of 28 days is simply too narrow, and I do not think that anyone can or would dispute that, although they can oppose attempts to widen it, particularly when we consider that, under the Private Tenancies Act 2022, as we have heard, a tenant whose tenancy has lasted more than a year must receive at least eight weeks' or the 56 days' notice. Therefore, we have a situation where someone can receive notice telling them that they are going to lose their home but may still be unable to access the full range of Housing Executive support until they are much closer to the point of homelessness.

Mr Brett, you said that you deal with a lot of housing and homelessness issues, and I know that levels of need in North Belfast are up there with those in my constituency, but temporary accommodation is a last — last — resort. People are not going into that when they get a notice to quit. They are having to wait and wait and wait. They do not even have the ability to get practical issues such as storage or schooling — wee things such as those — sorted out until the day that the guillotine falls on their tenancy. That is not a sensible or compassionate system.

The Bill would bring the statutory definition into line with the reality faced by tenants. It would also give the Housing Executive more time to help tenants to address rent arrears, explore alternative accommodation options, provide financial advice and support people. In some cases, and this is what the Bill is meant to do, it will help to prevent homelessness. We know that prevention is better than crisis management both for people and for the public purse, and that is where the focus of the Minister and the Executive should be.

Nobody should have to lose their home before the system decides that they are worthy of help.

We cannot discuss homelessness and homelessness prevention without discussing the wider housing situation. We are in the midst of a cost-of-living crisis. People face increased costs for food, energy, transport and basic household necessities. At the same time, housing costs continue to rise. We have seen a 56·4% increase in average rents over the past decade, alongside house prices reaching a 17-year high. Wages have not kept pace. For those in the private rented sector, a rent increase can mean the difference between keeping a roof over their head and losing their home. For young people, the dream of owning a home is increasingly out of reach. For families on low incomes — not just those on low incomes — the private rented sector is becoming less secure and less affordable. For those who are already struggling, the smallest financial shock can push them into homelessness. I alluded earlier to the fact that little action has been taken to prevent that spiral. I appreciate the Minister's introduction of the intermediate rent scheme, which is welcome, but we need greater protections for those in the private rented sector, including — I have made the point in the Chamber a few times before — third-generation rent controls and a ban on no-fault evictions.

Of course, the most important long-term answer is housing supply. There is no route out of the crisis that does not involve building more homes and plenty of them. I think that it is unlikely, although the Minister may be more optimistic, that the Executive will achieve their ambition, set out in the housing supply strategy, to deliver more than 100,000 new homes over 15 years. Allocations are not keeping pace with demand.

The cut — yes, Minister, I will describe it as "a cut" — to the housing association grant has, we hear from associations, hindered social housing builds. It is costing the sector more to build less. I know that you will analyse the figures when a year has passed since your decision, and we look forward to interrogating your analysis.

We need to make better use of public land through the creation of a public land agency. Perhaps the Minister will update us on his efforts to get Departments to come up with what is required on that front. We need to bring the 22,000 vacant properties across the North back into use, and we need the Executive to bring forward a proper plan on waste water infrastructure. Frankly, I was astonished by the Minister's assertion the other week that water infrastructure continues not to be a hindrance to social housing builds. That is not consistent with what we hear from those who work in the sector. The weekend before last, I was involved in a panel discussion with the Federation of Housing Associations and others, and it was clear that water infrastructure remains one of the biggest impediments to housing development.

Mr Lyons: On a point of order, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. For clarity, that is not what I said, or, if I did say that, it is not what I meant to say. I said that it was not the primary drag on us. Right now, the primary drag is the funding. If the funding were in place, we would still be able to meet our targets. If I were to be given the money, it is not the case that I would not be able to spend it; I could spend it. Give me the money, and we will get the homes built. It is not the primary drag on building social homes.

Mr Durkan: That is the funding for approved schemes. This is about the schemes that cannot or will not be approved because of water infrastructure issues.

Extending the statutory window would mean that more people could access more support earlier, and that can only be a good thing. The Housing Executive must, however, be adequately and properly resourced to deliver that support. We cannot extend that duty without providing the staff and the funding necessary to make it meaningful.

The Bill must be accompanied by a wider homelessness prevention framework and a statutory prevention duty that see homelessness as the cross-cutting issue that it is, placing into legislation cooperation on housing across Communities, Health, Justice and other Departments. We need sustained funding for the community and voluntary sector, which does such fantastic work in the field of homelessness prevention, and we need our housing system to be genuinely preventative. Preventing homelessness is not just about responding earlier; it is also about ensuring that people are secure in their homes to begin with. I support the Bill.

Mr Bradley: I also acknowledge the well-meaning intent of the sponsor of the Housing (Amendment) Bill. The Bill is short and straightforward. It seeks to extend the period during which a person can be considered to be "threatened with homelessness" from 28 days to 60 days. Those additional 32 days would be extremely valuable when people face homelessness and are struggling to find accommodation. Prevention is better for the household and potentially less expensive than placing people in hotels, bed and breakfast accommodation or other emergency provision. That is particularly relevant in East Londonderry — Coleraine, Limavady, Ballymoney and our rural and coastal communities — where the shortage of suitable and affordable accommodation means that four weeks is often simply not enough time to find another home. The added pressure of second homes, high prices, Airbnbs, private rentals — which has caused prices to soar by over 56%, as Mr Durkan mentioned — also impacts on homelessness in my area. I have asked for a joint Infrastructure and Housing Executive map to help identify the crisis throughout every constituency in Northern Ireland. So far, we have not been able to get that. Such a map would be valuable, because it would identify where there are infrastructure shortages and where building cannot take place because of a lack of infrastructure.

However, we must recognise the Bill's limitations. Changing the law from 28 days to 60 days would not create another social home. It would not recruit additional housing officers, provide deposits, clear rent arrears or increase the supply of affordable private tenancies. Indeed, earlier eligibility could increase the number of cases that an already overstretched Housing Executive has to manage. Without additional staff and preventative funding, we risk moving people from a 28-day waiting room to a 60-day waiting room. The Committee must, therefore, establish how many additional cases will be created and the annual cost — we have already heard a figure of £2·5 million. Does the Housing Executive have sufficient staff? What practical assistance would be available during the additional 32 days? How would it be ensured that rural applicants receive the same level of support as those in our cities and densely populated areas? Would the legislation be reviewed to determine how many cases of homelessness it has actually prevented?

The six-month commencement period should be used to train staff, update systems and establish clear arrangements with advice organisations, landlords and other public services. Most importantly, the Bill must be properly funded. The Communities Minister cannot deliver effective homelessness prevention without adequate resources. The Minister needs the funding that would be required for Housing Executive staff, prevention services, temporary accommodation and new social housing. Money invested in prevention can avoid greater expenditure later on. However, even the best prevention services cannot find a suitable home where no home exists.

I look forward to scrutinising the Bill if it progresses to Committee Stage, where its financial and operational consequences must be carefully examined. The principle of the Bill is sound: intervene earlier and prevent homelessness wherever possible. However, legislation without resources will raise expectations and not change outcomes. The Assembly can extend the period from 28 days to 60 days, but only the Executive, and particularly the Minister of Finance, can provide the resources necessary to make those additional days count.

Miss Hargey: Housing is a basic human right; for too many people across the North, that right is under enormous pressure. Families face rising rents, insecure tenancies, overcrowding and a constant fear of losing their home. That is compounded by a cost-of-living crisis where profits, concentrated wealth and wars are prioritised over people and our public services. For someone who is already struggling to make ends meet, 28 days can pass incredibly quickly. By the time help becomes available, a family can already be at crisis point. That is why the Housing (Amendment) Bill is so important.

The PMB brought forward by my colleague Colm Gildernew would extend the period in which a person is considered to be threatened with homelessness from 28 days to 60. That means giving people more time to access advice, support and practical assistance before they lose their home. We have heard from families directly that 28 days is too short a period. The principle behind it is straightforward. Prevention is better than crisis intervention. We should not wait until a family is standing at the door of a homeless hostel or at the Housing Executive's housing centre on Adelaide Street before the system acts. We should intervene earlier, identify the problem and work with families to prevent homelessness from happening in the first place. That is why the key is prevention, prevention, prevention.

This is part of a much wider housing approach — of course it is. We need to increase the supply of social homes and affordable homes. We need to protect tenants who are living in the private rented sector and ensure that people are not being pushed into homelessness because their income simply cannot keep pace with rising housing costs. The Assembly has already recognised the need for action on housing affordability by prioritising social housing delivery and exploring stronger regulation of the private rented sector. Conversations on the Budget with the British Government include necessary work around the revitalisation of the Housing Executive.

Legislation only matters if it makes a real difference to people's lives, especially at one of the most vulnerable points of their lives. Extending the homelessness prevention window to 60 days gives families more time, gives support services more opportunities to intervene and gives the Housing Executive a better chance to prevent homelessness, rather than simply responding to it. We have heard that directly from families who have faced the unimaginable situation of being made homeless. Nobody should have to live with the fear of losing their tenancy because losing their tenancy means losing their home.

The Bill is about acting earlier, supporting people before they reach that crisis point and building a housing system that is based on security, dignity and fairness. I thank Colm for bringing forward the legislation. We support it and look forward to it progressing to the next stage.

Mr Kingston: As we have heard, the Bill proposes one amendment to the Housing (Northern Ireland) Order 1988, which is that the Housing Executive can designate someone as "threatened with homelessness" 60 days in advance of their losing their home, rather than 28 days, as it is currently.

The Bill proposer tells us that, in other jurisdictions of the UK — in England, Scotland and Wales — the notice period is around 56 to 60 days. However, it is important to recognise that the Housing Executive's statutory duty to prevent homelessness is different from that of housing authorities in the other jurisdictions. In England and Wales, the period in which a person is threatened with homelessness gives the housing authority a prevention duty, requiring an authority to take reasonable steps to help the applicant to secure accommodation so that accommodation does not cease to be available. Helping to secure accommodation does not mean that the authority has a duty to directly source and provide accommodation for the applicant. Instead, authorities provide support and advice to applicants, who must take some responsibility for securing their own accommodation.

In Northern Ireland, however, the statutory duty associated with threatened-homelessness status is that the Housing Executive shall take reasonable steps to secure that accommodation does not cease to be available for the person's occupation. The action must be taken by the Housing Executive. In effect, that often means bringing the household into the homelessness system, including providing temporary accommodation if necessary, and having them join the social housing waiting list.

As MLAs, we will all be aware that people who are suddenly made homeless will generally be offered somewhere to stay in the short term, although it might be far away, which is often not suitable. Furthermore, article 6 of the Housing Order 1988 gives the Housing Executive a duty to ensure that advice about homelessness and the prevention of homelessness is available free of charge to any person in Northern Ireland at any stage. That duty is not restricted to offering support only within the 28 days when they are threatened with homelessness.

Passing this Bill would increase the cost of providing temporary accommodation for a longer period and would probably mean that fewer people could be helped from the available funding. The Housing Executive has said that it would likely result in more people being placed in temporary accommodation, such as hotels and bed and breakfasts, and remaining there for longer. Earlier, we heard from my colleague Pam Cameron that accommodation costs for the number of families who were accepted as homeless last year were £1·75 million and that the overall costs of the Bill could be in the region of £2·5 million. Therefore, the consequence could be that fewer people are able to be helped at that time of crisis. Therefore, as my colleague said, we will not support the Bill due to the consequences that would result from it.

Ms Ferguson: I welcome the opportunity to speak at the Second Stage of the Housing (Amendment) Bill. I start by thanking my Sinn Féin colleague Colm Gildernew for progressing this legislative change.

As was highlighted at last year's homeless conference, it is about seeing the person and seeing the family. In our offices, each and every one of us sees families who are threatened with homelessness — many of us on a daily basis. Let us put ourselves in their shoes. They are in crisis, they are in desperation and they just cannot see what sort of future they can have in front of them. It is incredibly important that we recognise, as many Members have, that we have over 92,000 people on our social housing waiting list, 70% of whom have full applicant status. As the Minister and many Members have mentioned, that is a 115% increase over the past 10 years. That equates to one in 20 people across the North, and the figures are increasing across 10 of our 11 council areas. We have to start doing more. No matter what scale or size it is, any action is better than none to support our most vulnerable people.

Obviously, the principle of the Bill is to extend the period in which a person who is at risk of homelessness can access support for the purposes of preventing homelessness. It is a welcome and sensible proposal. Most of the families whom I deal with in my office are sitting with all their belongings in boxes on the morning of the final day of their 28 days, waiting for a phone call from the Housing Executive to hear where it may be able to place them. Those are families whom I deal with in Derry. They get a phone call to say, "You have to pack up, take whatever you can and head to Ballymena or Belfast". They do not know where their kids are going to go. It is crisis. That happens in the majority of cases that I deal with in Derry, which has the second-highest level of need. It is a crisis situation. Vulnerable families in crisis are crying on the final day about where they are going to go. We constantly have to intervene. We are constantly begging the Housing Executive to try to keep those families together. We have to see the person and the family. We need to do everything that we can.

As Members well know, Homeless Connect is an amazing organisation that leads and supports a range of our homeless support organisations that are at the forefront and on the ground representing the homeless sector. Others — the likes of the Simon Community, which does an amazing job in my own city — have welcomed the intention of the Bill. The current 28-day period does not provide sufficient time for any meaningful activity and is equally difficult to align with current private tenancy notices.

As you say, there are a lot of cases related to private tenancies. I have heard from families whose private landlords have said, "Right, I will give you another month". An extra month there is no good, in that the Housing Executive will not even consider them until the 28-day rule kicks in, so they are left with us trying to support them as best we can. That difference is just ridiculous. That is important in the context of the fact that presentations categorised as being due to the loss of private rented accommodation are on the rise. Earlier intervention is one measure in trying to assist people during one of the most difficult things that a person could ever experience, and it can enable us to avoid crisis responses, insofar as it is possible to do so.

I would like to ask the Minister a question, because many of his colleagues have mentioned a £2·5 million cost. I know that a lot of the homeless organisations have asked the same question. An assessment of cost should also consider potential savings. Any assessment should consider both the implementation cost and the anticipated savings arising from successful prevention activity. I would like a balanced approach. You might be able to answer this question: has a detailed assessment been done yet?

Mr Lyons: I can provide the Member with some information. I have received preliminary figures from the Housing Executive, but I hope that during — I accept that the Bill will pass Second Stage tonight — the Committee Stage, the Committee will bring the Housing Executive in so that it can give that information. There has been a bit of confusion tonight about what the Housing Executive's responsibilities are. Some seem to have completely dismissed the idea that there could be any more temporary accommodation costs. The Bill sponsor said that there will be additional costs, and the Housing Executive has said that as well. I encourage the Member to get that information, including the potential savings as well, if those materialise. We will get savings if we follow my approach, which I will talk about later.

Ms Ferguson: We know that the Bill alone will not solve homelessness. We in Sinn Féin have been clear that what is required is significant investment in social and affordable housing; preventing the unnecessary loss of vital public housing stock; ending unfair fees and practices, including banning no-fault evictions; preventing unjustifiable rent increases; and expanding schemes that support security of tenancy. I do not want to spend time rehearsing what we all already know about the impact of safe, affordable, warm homes on the lives of people and communities. That is what we all strive for here, and that is what we want for every person and family in our communities. Like many in the Chamber and across our communities, I think that we need a more strategic direction and an announcement of shorter-term actions, such as the one that Colm has suggested, to ease the pressure, alongside the longer-term solutions in regard to the sustainability of the Housing Executive as our largest public housing provider. It would be useful to hear about the progress on the transformation of the Housing Executive that we all want to see.

Years of rising need and underinvestment in social housing have meant a system stretched beyond capacity, resulting in huge amounts of money being pumped into temporary, unstable and unsuitable accommodation as a crisis response. Let us start to move away from crisis responses. We need to support people to understand their rights and to navigate increasing waiting lists for prolonged periods. They are living in precarity right now. I recently spoke to a mother and a son who will lose their home in 28 days. To be honest, the mother thought that she had no future. She works full-time, and her son works part-time. I explored with her co-ownership and intermediate rent, which are the options. She went out of the office feeling lighter, still knowing that she has to wait 28 days to go to the Housing Executive, which then needs to do her points and scoring and review her scoring, but it should also look at all the options. That is what the Housing Executive needs to do: give those people some solace, give them the range of options on offer to them and give them more time. That is all that the Bill asks for: more time.

I acknowledge all our homelessness prevention and housing support charities and their front-line workers, alongside major campaign groups and projects such as Community Action Tenants Union, Participation and the Practice of Rights, Housing Rights, Renters' Voice and others. I also recognise those who play regulatory and enforcement roles in protecting ordinary people, workers and families from the hidden fees and unfair practices, including those in the housing system.

The Bill should be welcomed by all in the Chamber. Any proposal that helps to prevent homelessness and extends the time available for people to access specialist housing advice represents, ultimately, a more humane approach. We know about the ever-increasing pressure, but we know that the Bill will contribute to crisis reduction. We need that to be urgently strengthened further through sustained investment in social homes, the protection of our public housing providers, eviction prevention, including targeted prevention that is focused on at-risk demographics, investment in Housing First, and coordinated plans in respect of our housing supply strategy.

Mr Lyons: I will begin by mentioning the Bill sponsor, who is the Chair of the Committee for Communities. I recognise that it is no easy thing to bring forward a piece of legislation, even one that is very short, and I understand that a lot of work goes into that. I also want to acknowledge that I believe that the Bill sponsor is genuine when it comes to this issue. I do perhaps question his sincerity on some of the other things that he talks to me about in this place, but I believe that he is sincere on this issue. I hope that he and others in the House recognise that, although we will go through separate Lobbies this evening, we can all see that there is sincerity in the Chamber in our desire to make sure that we deal with the issue effectively.

If I may say so, it was highlighted so well by Ciara Ferguson that these are people whom we all deal with daily. We see up front people who are affected. I have had the same experiences as Ciara Ferguson and others in the Chamber. We all have a desire to get this right. This is one of the issues that I am most concerned about in the Department, as I understand the real-term impacts that it has on people's lives. I see how it hampers and holds back opportunity and potential as well. I hope that we can all agree that, although we may have a different way in which we think we need to go in order to sort out the issue, we are all united in wanting to make sure that we deal with the scourge of homelessness.

I also want to say to the House that I am fully committed to reforming our homelessness legislation. I want to strengthen prevention and improve outcomes for those who are at risk of homelessness. I believe that, during my time as Minister, I have demonstrated that I am prepared to look at new avenues to make sure that we can deal with the issue. We all know the funding constraints that we are under, and that is why we have had to do things differently. However, my concern is that the Bill that is in front of us tonight will not deliver the better outcomes that some in the Chamber think that it will. For that reason, and as the Minister with responsibility for homelessness policy and for funding appropriate and effective homelessness services, I will not be able to support the Bill. I have been working with urgency to do better. People who are experiencing homelessness urgently need a system change that needs to be comprehensive and meaningful and to have a far greater impact, and I intend to take that forward.

Our legislative framework for addressing homelessness has remained largely untouched for the past 40 years, and it no longer reflects the reality of homelessness or the challenges that are faced by individuals and service providers today. Taking forward legislative reform in what I believe, as others in the Chamber have said, to be a piecemeal fashion will not work. I have listened to the homelessness sector, housing professionals and Members in the House, and that is why I have commenced a comprehensive and systematic review of our homelessness legislation and the work that it supports. My approach aligns directly with the recommendations of the Public Accounts Committee and the Committee for Communities, which called for a comprehensive review of homelessness legislation to strengthen provision and improve outcomes for people at risk of homelessness. That is what I am working to deliver.

The legislative review will be conducted by an independent expert panel under a fully independent chair, and its job will be to provide expert challenge and to make recommendations to my Department on all parts of our homelessness legislative framework. It will be similar to the approach that was taken recently in England, Scotland and Wales. Its initial focus will be on the development of options for strengthening prevention, which will fulfil the commitment that I made when I accepted the recommendation from the PAC.

As I highlighted recently and have repeatedly done so, homelessness is not just a housing issue. Addressing the underlying causes of homelessness takes a joined-up, whole-of-government approach. For that reason, the panel will consider the introduction in Northern Ireland of a duty to prevent homelessness. It will also consider whether that duty should be supported by the extension to a range of authorities of a duty to cooperate in the prevention of homelessness. In other words, the panel will consider the wider context in which it may be useful to propose changes to the period during which the threat of homelessness triggers support and response. The provision in the Bill may be workable within a package of interventions, and the steps that I propose will bring forward that package, but, on its own, this one-line Bill would be unaffordable and counterproductive and not deliver on its laudable intent to prevent homelessness.

Alongside the expert panel on legislative change, a separate implementation panel will be established to progress a wider review of the homelessness system. It will identify the practical, operational and institutional changes that are required to support legislative reform.

Mr Allen: Will the Minister give way?

Mr Lyons: I will give way.

Mr Allen: Will the Minister advise the House of the stage in the next mandate when he believes that those necessary reforms will come forward?

Mr Lyons: I will come on to that in just a second. I will first go through what we will do, after which I will talk about the timeline.

The panel will identify the necessary changes and make recommendations that can bring about change and improvement quickly where we already have the appropriate powers. Collectively, the work of the two panels will comprise a homelessness commission for Northern Ireland. That is the first attempt in 40 years to reconsider comprehensively how we prevent, respond to and end homelessness. It is in the best interests of people who experience homelessness that cross-party support for change be achieved.

In light of the fact that actions by the Department of Health and the Department of Justice are crucial in preventing homelessness, I will imminently circulate a paper to the Executive seeking their support for the work of the homelessness commission. My officials will brief the Committee on the proposals as soon as possible thereafter. Indeed, with my permission, my officials have already shared as much information as possible about the proposed homelessness commission with the Bill sponsor. It is unusual for a Minister to do that with a proposal still in development, but I offer more engagement of that kind if the Bill sponsor is interested. I hope that that expresses the sincerity of my desire for cross-party and Executive support for the right action on homelessness. I believe that cross-party consensus is possible.

I know that the Bill sponsor may wish that I had progressed that commission sooner. My officials have been working on it since February, following the launch of the Public Accounts Committee report. I had anticipated having until February 2027, which is the timescale that the PAC set out, to bring forward options. We have therefore accelerated that timeline. The time that has already been spent on that work is evidenced by the highly developed nature of the proposals for the commission, particularly that they feature two expert and renewed independent chairs and dedicated roles for those with expertise in our homelessness sector to shape the recommendations. There will be input from those who are experienced in public-sector transformation, and there are plans to draw on the experience of those who have lived through homelessness.

I have made a commitment to Executive colleagues to present proposals for a homelessness commission to them before the end of this month. To deliver better outcomes for anyone who, for whatever reason, finds themselves in a position in which they do not have a home, the commission will ensure that legislative proposals are practical, achievable and affordable. It is a major piece of work, and it will take time. I want to get on with it. I do not want to delay while we put into operation the change outlined in the Bill, which is a change that, without wider reform, would make preventing homelessness more difficult in the short term.

Frankly, it is almost inevitable that the article that the Bill seeks to amend will be entirely replaced in a few years' time if we are to refocus on preventing homelessness. In the meantime, I am concerned that the Bill would not help prevent homelessness. In fact, it might do the opposite. The Bill seeks to amend the definition of "threatened with homelessness", specifically the length of that period, in isolation and without adequate consideration of either what the legislation states should happen in that period or the operational capacity and system-readiness to cope with the change. Unfortunately, that means that, rather than supporting homelessness prevention, the Bill would have the adverse and unintended consequence of making the current pressures in the system worse.

The Bill will increase our spend on homelessness, but that money will be spent on how the statutory duty is currently met. It will be spent on accommodation in hotels and B&Bs, not on preventing homelessness from occurring in the first place. Instead of increasing the support that is available to people, the Bill will directly undermine the efforts of the Housing Executive to reduce the use of high-cost, non-standard temporary accommodation. It will do that by bringing people into the homelessness system earlier and causing them to remain there for longer. Such a result will only ensure poorer outcomes for the people whom we seek to help. Our focus and resources must go towards prevention and support, not temporary accommodation.

The Bill's explanatory and financial memorandum states that the proposal:

where the "threatened with homelessness" period is already 56 days. That is a flawed and incomplete representation of the position in other jurisdictions. First, the legislation elsewhere includes a complementary prevention duty, which is not replicated in our legislation. Secondly, local authorities in England and Wales do not have a statutory duty to provide temporary accommodation during the "threatened with homelessness" period. Here, when someone is within 28 days of the "threatened with homelessness" period, the Housing Executive must take action to secure accommodation for the individual. Extending that period to 60 days will bring that household into the homelessness system earlier and is likely to increase the demand for temporary accommodation, bringing with it the additional costs that I mentioned and inevitably leading to worse outcomes for those who enter the system.

The Bill is based on the mistaken assumption that the "threatened with homelessness" period is a prevention period; it is not. The Bill also does not recognise that the legislation places other homelessness duties on the Housing Executive. For example, article 6D requires the Housing Executive to ensure:

That duty is not restricted to offering support only within the 28-day "threatened with homelessness" period. Effectively, the Housing Executive already has the powers to carry out the type of prevention activity that is set out in the Bill's explanatory and financial memorandum. For example, if an individual presents themselves to the Housing Executive after receiving a notice to quit of eight weeks or longer, they are offered support. A housing assessment is completed, and the housing adviser provides advice including, if required, referrals to floating support agencies or signposting to advocacy agencies such as Housing Rights. The provision of advice and support broadly aligns with the initial prevention duty that is in place elsewhere.

The proposals for reform that I will bring forward through the homelessness commission represent a huge opportunity. We can work together to take forward the single biggest reform of our homelessness framework in decades, and we can place prevention at the centre. There is a real opportunity to transform and improve the system for those who find themselves in the desperate position of being homeless. The commission, born of a recommendation by the Public Accounts Committee, will have meaningful and lasting consequences for how we work together to prevent and respond to homelessness. I ask the Chamber to focus on that opportunity. As I have said, I appreciate the Member's intentions in bringing forward his proposal, but the Bill's single ask is not of the scale that is required to address the problems that we face. Progressing the Bill would cause us to incur costs, and that money would be better spent on genuine preventative activity. It could have a detrimental impact on those who enter the homelessness system; increase the burden on the Housing Executive; and risk undermining the broader and more ambitious work of the commission.

To be clear, plans are already in place to deliver that programme, and we should get on with the comprehensive and detailed work rather than this single-issue Bill. I believe that the progression of the Bill will delay and damage the fast progress that the commission can make. We should not allow that to happen. We must see the current problems in their entirety and take the decision to deliver transformative change. The Bill is not a small step that will take us forward; it is a misstep that will distract us from tackling the larger systemic problems and from the need to work together for more effective and meaningful outcomes. There is a solution within our reach, but the Bill is not it. I hope that Members can see that genuine change is needed and that we need to work together to bring it about.

I wish to mention a couple of things before I finish my remarks. I turn to Kellie Armstrong's comments. I am keen to hear more from Kellie about the accusations that she made about the Housing Executive. In essence, she said that it was breaking the law by not fulfilling its duty. She said that she has numerous examples of people being told to go away. That is completely wrong, so if she wants to furnish us with that information, I will be happy to look at it. If she wants to say more, I am happy for her to do so.

Ms K Armstrong: I have already furnished the Housing Executive with that information. It came back to me to say, "Come back when the person is homeless".

Mr Lyons: Sorry. The Member may not have heard what I said. I said that, if she could furnish me with that information, I would be happy to look into it for her. She said that she gave it to the Housing Executive: perhaps she could provide that information directly to me so that I can take it forward.

Ms K Armstrong: It is a matter of data protection. I will give you the case, but I will not give you names.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: If we could just not talk — [Inaudible.]

Mr Lyons: I am trying to be helpful.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: I know.

Mr Lyons: OK. I will move on to a point that Mr Durkan made. I will be more than happy to share our information about the Housing Executive grant when it becomes available. I will have no hesitation in doing that, because there needs to be shared responsibility here. Housing associations are willing to work with us. I said that we are requesting that the housing association grant be stretched so that we can build more homes. In return, extensive work is being done on a design guide. Time and again, housing associations come to me to say, "This is unnecessary and expensive. It is not really needed for us to do what we need to do. Social homes are becoming more expensive to build than the similar, private homes that we are building, and it provides no additional benefit to the people who get those homes". We want to do both. We want to make the process easier and more straightforward, but, at the same time, we are asking them to stretch the grant a bit further.

I am committed to dealing with the issue. We are looking at new and innovative ways in which to do that. I hope that Mr Nesbitt will not mind if I mention him, but I thank him and the officials in the Department of Health for the excellent work that we did together on the New Foundations programme when he was Minister. I am really proud of the work that we did as Departments in working together and identifying the problem of young people leaving care and going straight into the homelessness system. We were able to prevent that through the innovative way in which we worked together. I thank Mr Nesbitt for the way that he cooperated with us on that. I want to see more working together, because, having been out on the streets, I know that homelessness is not just a housing issue. It is a Justice issue and a Health issue. It has implications for other Departments as well.

I stand ready to do the work. The Bill is not the right way to go, but I have understood the sense from the House this evening. One issue that we need to touch on is the capacity of the Housing Executive to deliver the Bill's provision. Although the Bill will not be helpful in the wider work of reform that we are doing, the implementation will not be possible within six months, so I wonder whether the Bill sponsor, in his summing up, could let me know whether he could work with the Housing Executive to make sure that the commencement date can be achieved, be practical and not distract from the other work. I would appreciate his response on that, and I hope that I have made clear to the House the reasons why I cannot support the Bill at this stage.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: I call Colm Gildernew to conclude and make a winding-up speech on the motion.

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

First, I thank Members for taking part in what has been a fairly extensive, interesting and good-natured debate. I accept everyone's bona fides in raising their concerns and engaging with the Bill, and I look forward to continuing to do that.

I will touch briefly on some of the issues that Members raised. There was a fair amount of overlap, so if I address an issue in one Member's remarks, hopefully, the other Member who raised it will pick that up.

I thank the Deputy Chair of the Committee for Communities. She identified a number of issues that the Committee will want to look at. She said that the Committee would look forward to scrutinising the Bill and identified a number of issues that the Committee would want to look at in more detail. I look forward to working with the Committee in that respect.

Pam Cameron raised concerns about the need for other measures, and I fully agree. I have never said that my Bill would solve homelessness; to do that would absolutely need other measures. However, I know that the Bill will help and will play a part in that regard. I note the Minister's position, and I will come to his remarks in due course.

Kellie Armstrong raised a number of issues about the legislative gap. For me, that is around the fact that you can now have a notice to quit at 56 days. A family could be sitting there for four weeks, unable to engage. I have heard anecdotally through our office that the Housing Executive has said, "Come back in 28 days". No legislation will cater for the breaking of the law. My Bill cannot account for a body not doing what it is statutorily required to do. However, the Minister touched on what the Housing Executive must do. I will read from the explanatory and financial memorandum:

There is almost a sense that the only response to being threatened with homelessness is temporary accommodation. My Bill is fundamentally designed to challenge that. I genuinely wonder whether that has become the only response because 28 days is an almost impossibly short time in which to do something more meaningful. Would Members rather that someone threatened with homelessness came to their office at 28 days or 60 days? That is a very simple concept. This would not double homelessness or create the need for temporary accommodation. I believe that, over a period of time, it would reduce that need. That is where I hope that my Bill will help.

Mr Kingston: Will the Member take a point?

Mr Gildernew: Briefly, Brian. Go ahead.

Mr Kingston: Does the Member recognise that the Housing Executive's role is to support people who have difficulty with their accommodation at any stage? It is not as though it waits and says, "We can't help you until you've only 28 days left of your tenancy". If people say, "I need accommodation", or, "I'm going to lose my accommodation", it is obliged to help at any stage by giving advice. The issue is that the Housing Executive's responsibility to provide that accommodation is a much more stringent obligation than elsewhere in the UK.

Mr Gildernew: I thank the Member. It is also about all the other things that I have just read into the record. The reality is, Brian, that I have examples in my office of the Housing Executive saying, "We can't do anything until 28 days". That may be a resource thing. I am going to come on to resource, because I want to be very upfront. I am not hiding away; I am making a positive of this. I do want to see more resource going into prevention.

Mr Lyons: I really appreciate and welcome the Member's giving way, which is necessary in such debates. Does he accept and understand that, regardless of whether he thinks that a lot of good support is provided outside of the 28 days, changing the period would not actually change the duty?

Mr Gildernew: It would provide more time for effective action, which is what I am seeking to achieve.

Kellie talked about some very important cohorts, including young people leaving care and rural dwellers. I believe that the same principle applies to all those people: extra time would provide an extra chance for that to happen. In fact, the Housing Executive's own homelessness advice emphasises that point right from the start. It says, "Please contact us as early as possible" and, "The earlier you contact us, the better chance we have". I think that that is widely recognised.

Andy indicated that the UUP was supportive of the Bill. He raised the fact that cost needs to be scrutinised, which I accept. The Committee Stage is where that can be done. Andy also mentioned the need for greater reform and housing supply, which is, of course, a fundamental factor.

Mark Durkan said that it is not an overall solution and mentioned the family aspects. He said, rightly, that we should not have to rely on a Member's Bill. Having written to the Minister and getting the indication that I did, however, I felt that I needed to do something.

On wider prevention, which I fully support, and the many other things that we need to see, including "ask and act" duties and a duty to prevent, I have committed to and look forward to working with the Minister, the Housing Executive and anyone else who will do that. However, this is a Member's Bill, and the first principles of a Member's Bill are:

I had a choice of doing nothing or doing something, and I decided to do what I considered to be the most effective thing. Having been a social worker in my previous career, I am acutely conscious of the benefits of being able to get in that bit earlier.

Maurice talked about the value of having an extra 32 days, and he raised some concerns. Deirdre Hargey spoke about people struggling and the fact that the period of 28 days simply flies past, which is absolutely indisputable. Brian Kingston raised the issue of how prevention duties work in other jurisdictions. There is a need for us to see further legislation on that, but my Bill does not create extra duties for the Housing Executive; it gives it more time and ensures that there is more time.

It has to be said that the cost of temporary accommodation has been skyrocketing for years. The Minister mentioned a figure of £2·5 million, Pam mentioned a figure of £1·75 million, and the Assembly's Research and Information Service (RaISe) paper, extrapolating from Scotland, refers to a potential £1 million. Those figures all need to be explored. In the context of the current £40 million spend on temporary accommodation, however, we need to look at whether £2 million to prevent homelessness would be money well spent.

Ciara mentioned the value of earlier intervention and spoke about a real case in her constituency. She queried the Minister's figures but gave a clear example of how it can work in real life.

The Minister indicated that he is working on this with urgency. I accept that that is the case, Minister, but I have to say that it is a bit rich to say that my Bill is narrow in focus when you have been the Minister for two and a half years and only last week announced that you would bring forward the commission. I welcome the fact that the commission is now in place, and I think that my work can play a part in preparing some of the groundwork for that. However, you said that a single ask is not of the scale required. You are 100% right that it is not, Minister, but it was your job to do the other things. I am doing the bit that I can as a Member. It is limited enough, but it is a start, and that is where I want to go.

The Minister asked whether I was prepared to work. I have already indicated to him that I am. I remain committed to the principle of my Bill, which is to get earlier intervention, and I am absolutely ready to work with all Members, the Committee, the Minister, the Department, the Housing Executive and the housing and homelessness sector to ensure that we get some improvement on the issue in this mandate.

Mr Lyons: On a point of order, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. During the debate, Mr Allen asked me about the time frame for this. I omitted to respond to that and want to place it on the record. Is it in order for me to inform the House that the legislative proposals that I anticipate will be brought forward will be published in January 2028?

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: It is a matter of record now, Minister.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: That concludes the Second Stage of the Housing (Amendment) Bill. The Bill stands referred to the Committee for Communities.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: I call Mr Pat Sheehan to move the Consideration Stage of the Irish-medium Education (Workforce Plan) Bill.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Members will have a copy of the Marshalled List of amendments detailing the order for consideration. The amendments have been grouped for debate in the provisional grouping of amendments selected list. By way of a quick explanation, there is a single group that contains three amendments.

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

I also remind Members that we will stop the business in the Chamber at 10.30 pm.

Mr Sheehan: I beg to move amendment No 1:

Mr Sheehan: At the outset, I thank the Bill Office for its support throughout the process. In particular, I thank Stephen Orme — I hope that I have not embarrassed you, Stephen — for his support and expertise in getting us to this stage. I also thank the Chair and members of the Education Committee for their scrutiny of the Bill. Most importantly, I thank all those from across the Irish-medium sector who gave evidence to the Committee. School leaders, teachers, sectoral organisations, early years representatives and young people gave up their time to provide Members with valuable insight into the reality of the workforce challenges facing Irish-medium education in the short, medium and long term.

The Committee report reflects much of what we heard. It records consistent evidence of significant workforce shortages across the sector, including difficulties with recruiting teachers, school leaders, classroom assistants, early years practitioners and staff who support children with special educational needs.

I do not intend to rehearse all the arguments that we heard at Second Stage. Today's debate is primarily about the amendments before us, so I will deal with those directly. Amendment No 1 is in my name. At first glance, it looks like a substantial amendment, because it replaces clause 1 in its entirety. In reality, much of it is technical. It tightens the language, improves the structure and incorporates a number of helpful drafting suggestions that emerged during scrutiny.

I thank Department of Education officials for their constructive engagement with me ahead of today's debate. We have taken on board a number of their suggestions where we believe that they improve the clarity and the operation of the Bill. There were, however, areas where we were not prepared to dilute the policy intent of the legislation, the first of which relates to consultation. I remain firmly of the view that Comhairle na Gaelscolaíochta should be explicitly named as a statutory consultee. It has a unique role in advising and supporting the Irish-medium sector and should be guaranteed a place in the preparation and review of the workforce plan. I have also retained the requirement for direct consultation with representatives of schools, teachers, pupils and parents.

The second area is time frames. The Department proposed the removal of specific deadlines from the Bill; I have deliberately retained them. The first workforce plan must be issued within 12 months and be revised and reissued at least once every five years, and the Department must report on its implementation and effectiveness within 18 months of the plan being laid. Those deadlines are important for accountability and to prevent unnecessary delay. The purpose of the Bill is to move from discretion to duty and from short-term firefighting to long-term planning. If we simply hand that discretion back to the Department, we risk undermining the reason for legislating in the first place.

Amendment No 2 is also in my name. It concerns informal learning opportunities in the Irish-medium youth sector. Through our engagement, it became clear that the workforce pressures associated with Irish-medium education go beyond the formal school environment. I recognise that the Bill has a deliberately narrow scope. However, the Irish-medium youth sector plays an important role in providing informal learning opportunities and supporting young people's continued use and development of the Irish language. Amendment No 2 therefore ensures that those who provide informal learning opportunities in the Irish-medium youth sector are among those whom the Department must consult when preparing or revising the workforce plan. It is a modest but important amendment and gives that sector a voice in the process without seeking to unnecessarily broaden the scope of the Bill.

Amendment No 3 has been brought by the Chair on behalf of the Education Committee and would add the Education Authority (EA) as a named statutory consultee. I make it clear that I fully support the substance of that amendment. There is, however, a sequencing issue, because, as amendment No 1 replaces clause 1 in its entirety, I have been advised that amendment No 3 cannot be taken forward in its current form if amendment No 1 is made. That is purely a technical issue and not a disagreement with the Committee. I support the amendment and hope that its substance can be brought forward and agreed at Further Consideration Stage. There is good reason for explicitly including the Education Authority. The Committee heard evidence that effective delivery of Irish-medium education depends on specialist capacity in the EA, yet the number of EA staff dedicated to supporting the sector has been reduced despite continued growth. The EA has a significant role in the delivery of education and in supporting our schools. There should be no ambiguity about its involvement in planning for the future workforce needs of Irish-medium education.

Before I finish, I will make one wider point. The Committee process gave all of us an opportunity to listen to the evidence and test the arguments for and against the Bill. I was disappointed that some members appeared to reach their position before that process had concluded and, on occasions, chose not to engage with or question witnesses who came before us. I genuinely ask those members to reflect on the evidence before voting today. The Bill is not about elevating Irish-medium education above any other sector; it is about levelling the playing field.

The Committee report itself states:

for Irish-medium education. That is the issue that we are trying to address. We heard about shortages of teachers and classroom assistants. We heard about the difficulties in recruiting subject specialists. We heard about the pressures on SEN provision and the additional workload created when teachers have to create and translate resources themselves. Professor Noel Purdy's research put that additional burden in stark terms. It found that Irish-medium teachers work an average of more than 47 hours a week — almost 15 hours beyond their directed time. Those are not theoretical problems; they are affecting teachers, schools and pupils now. Members do not have to agree with me on every aspect of Irish-medium education to recognise that, where there is clear evidence of a workforce problem, the Department should have a proper long-term plan to address it. That is ultimately what the Bill seeks to achieve.

Amendment Nos 1 and 2 strengthen the legislation while retaining its central purpose: a clear statutory duty, meaningful consultation, measurable targets, firm deadlines and accountability to the Assembly. I therefore commend amendment Nos 1 and 2 to the Assembly. I also support the clear intention behind amendment No 3 and look forward to ensuring that it is given effect at Further Consideration Stage.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Pat. I remind Members that a number of the tabled amendments are linked. Specifically, amendment No 2 is an amendment to amendment No 1. We will therefore dispose of amendment No 2 before we formally consider amendment No 1. Amendment No 3 is mutually exclusive to amendment No1, so if amendment No 1 is made, amendment No 3 will not be called. If that is clear, I call Nick Mathison.

Mr Mathison (The Chairperson of the Committee for Education): Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker, for that advice to keep us right, as some of the sequencing is a wee bit complicated today.

On behalf of the Committee for Education, I welcome the opportunity to speak at the Consideration Stage of the Irish-medium Education (Workforce Plan) Bill that was introduced by Pat Sheehan on 3 March 2026. The Bill was referred to the Committee for Education for consideration after Second Stage on 14 April, with the Committee Stage commencing immediately after that. A motion was agreed to extend the Committee Stage to 30 August.

At the outset, I extend my sincere thanks to the Bill sponsor who is the Deputy Chair of the Committee, the departmental officials who engaged with the Committee throughout its scrutiny, the Youth Assembly for its valuable contribution and all the other stakeholders, educators and organisations who provided evidence. Their insights into the daily realities and systemic pressures that the Irish-medium sector faces were invaluable in guiding the Committee's work.

The Committee, to inform its consideration of the legislation, launched a call for evidence on 20 April via Citizen Space, which closed on 15 June 2026. The Committee undertook its formal clause-by-clause scrutiny of the Bill on 24 June 2026. At the meeting on 1 July, the Committee considered a draft of its report and ordered that the report be published. The evidence presented to the Committee was clear: Irish-medium education has experienced sustained growth, expanding from around 1,600 pupils in 2002 to nearly 8,000 pupils across 90 settings today, which represents an almost five-fold increase. However, it is clear that the growth is placing a considerable strain and pressure on schools, particularly at post-primary level, where the supply of suitably qualified Irish-speaking teachers is not keeping pace with pupil numbers. The Committee was told in very clear terms of a risk unless the workforce pressures are addressed. We are already seeing that, and it is not necessarily even in the territory of the risk that young people may be unable, in some cases, to continue their educational journey in their sector of choice.

A recurring theme throughout the evidence was the severe shortage of Irish-speaking teachers and specialist staff. Schools are struggling to recruit qualified Irish-speaking teachers, particularly in specialist subjects such as STEM and special educational needs provision, which continue to apply significant pressure in the sector, and in a range of other post-primary specialist subject areas. The result is that many teachers are teaching subjects outside of their subject expertise, vacancy levels remain high, and schools are increasingly reliant on temporary and substitute staff. Those shortages are beginning to affect the breadth of the curriculum available to pupils, with many witnesses to the Committee reporting that, while GCSE provision has largely been maintained, A-level subject choice has become increasingly restricted and constrained for pupils in the sector. The Committee also heard that workforce pressures are having a direct impact on staff well-being and educational quality. Teachers in the Irish-medium sector, as the Bill sponsor has set out, often face additional challenges, including teaching language and subject content simultaneously and developing or translating their own learning materials when no suitable resources are provided. Those responsibilities add significantly to their workload and place a significant strain on recruitment and retention. At the same time, shortages of substitute teachers and limited opportunities for professional development create a cycle that undermines workforce sustainability.

Ultimately, the challenge facing Irish-medium education is not a lack of demand but a lack of capacity. The sector has clearly demonstrated that it is a growing sector and that it is capable of delivering high-quality educational outcomes, but its long-term sustainability depends on having enough teachers, early years practitioners, school leaders and support staff to meet the increasing demand. Strategic workforce planning, investment in recruitment and retention and stronger system-wide support are essential if Irish-medium education is to continue to expand. As already referenced, it is important to note from the Committee process that not all parties supported the passage of the Bill through Second Stage, and that was reiterated at the Committee Stage. Members can speak for themselves, but it reflects the position of the DUP members and the Ulster Unionist member of the Committee. However, while there was disagreement with the fundamental principles of the Bill, members did not divide on the clause-by-clause scrutiny.

There is a single group of amendments. I will briefly address amendment No 2 first because it amends amendment No 1. The Committee recognised that the Irish-medium youth sector makes an important contribution to the development of the sector, particularly through the provision of informal learning opportunities. Comhairle na Gaelscolaíochta proposed that the Irish-language youth sector be included as a statutory consultee to ensure that its role in supporting language and social development was reflected in the planning arrangements. Although the Committee accepted that there may be technical and legislative constraints preventing the Bill's scope from being extended beyond Irish-medium education in the form of a workforce plan for the youth sector, the Committee was clear that it would be entirely appropriate for the youth sector to be included as a consultee and did not see any barrier to prevent the Department from doing that. The Committee expects the Department to make full and effective use of the consultation powers and to engage meaningfully with the Irish-medium youth sector.

In amendment No 1, the Bill sponsor has adopted the amendments proposed by the Department following engagement with the Office of the Legislative Counsel. The amendment reflects changes that were developed in response to issues identified during the Committee's scrutiny and subsequent discussions. The Bill sponsor has set that out. I echo the comments made already. Before I substantively address amendment No 1, I say that it is understood that amendment No 3 will not be called today because its insertion point in the Bill will have changed. For that reason, the Committee may need to revisit that and look at an appropriate mechanism to bring it forward at Further Consideration Stage. Amendment No 1 gives greater clarity by placing responsibility for preparing, maintaining and publishing the workforce plan squarely with the Department. It removes any ambiguity around accountability and aligns with the standard legislative drafting practice.

In relation to consultation, the Department suggested a more flexible approach. It wanted to limit the number of consultees and did not like the notion of prescribing an extensive list of consultees in the Bill. However, as the Bill sponsor has set out, he was very clear in his contributions to Committee that he felt that there were consultees that had to be locked into the Bill, and, ultimately, that is the position that the Committee landed on.

Amendment No 1 also recognises the breadth of the Irish-medium education workforce by requiring consideration of all those who contribute to the sector, not just teaching staff. That responds to very clear evidence that we heard during Committee Stage about the breadth of inputs that go into the sector from a range of staffing roles, and it better reflects the realities of workforce planning. I also welcome the broader and more forward-looking factors that must be considered in preparing the plan, including demand, workforce efficiency, recruitment, retention and professional development. That, to my mind, will provide a stronger basis for long-term planning.

Members will be pleased to know that I will not go into detail on amendment No 3. That is likely to be something that we will discuss at future Committee meetings and, hopefully, at Further Consideration Stage.

I will make very brief final comments as an Alliance representative. Alliance supported the Bill's passage through Second Stage and Committee Stage and continues to be fully supportive of its aims. Irish-medium education is growing rapidly but does not have the capacity to grow as it needs to due to a combination of physical and estate-related constraints and workforce pressures that the Bill seeks to address. For that reason, I support the amendments as set out and both clauses.

Mr Brooks: I do not plan to speak for long, but I reiterate our position, which has been articulated by the Chair in brief. I recognise the pressures that have been outlined by the Chair, but our view has been clear and was expressed during Committee. Whilst we understand and recognise the pressures faced by the Irish language sector, we feel that many of those are not unique to the sector. They are recognisable throughout other sectors, particularly in specialist subjects. We also believe that the Minister is bringing forward measures that will respect and give a level playing field to all sectors, including improvements, some of which are in line with what is proposed here to the Irish-medium sector.

With regard to the amendments, in line with the concerns raised by the Department and outlined by the Chair in his speech, we believe that the list of consultees is unnecessary. We will be voting against amendment Nos 1 and 2 and will be happy to sit for amendment No 3.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: You were true to your word, David. Thank you.

Mr Burrows: The Irish language is a wonderful language, and I respect the right of anyone to speak it. The Irish-medium sector is valued. I have said on the record that I do not think that the Bill is necessary. There are many laws that we should pass in this place, with finite time to pass them, to deal with really important issues facing the people of Northern Ireland. I do not always agree with everything that the Minister of Education does on education, but, on this issue, I agree. He gave a fairly comprehensive reason to the Assembly, stating why it is not necessary and that the work is already in hand. I also agree that there are pressures across every sector in the education system. The Irish-medium sector is just one of those sectors, and the Bill is not necessary.

I will keep this brief. We will vote against amendment Nos 1 and 2. That is our position.

Ms Hunter: My goodness, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. Like my unionist colleagues, I will also be brief. I really want to thank Pat and his team for the work that they have put into the Bill. We had extensive engagement on the Committee. The level of detail in that engagement was really helpful in shaping the story of Irish-medium education and to our understanding the challenges that the sector has faced for decades. It was really helpful to get an understanding of the significant workload and challenges involved in serving children with special educational needs properly, in making the Irish-medium education workforce feel valued and seen and in helping that workforce with its future professional development.

My party will be supporting the Bill at Consideration Stage. Amendment No 1 largely tidies up and clarifies clause 1, while retaining the Bill's central purpose and requirements. It provides greater clarity on the preparation, publication, review and reporting of the workforce plan. It is important that the workforce plan do not become simply another strategy that sits on a shelf. The requirement for measurable targets and reporting provides that important degree of accountability. My party welcomes and supports the addition of the Education Authority as a statutory consultee. As we all know, the EA plays an important role in supporting schools and delivering services, including professional learning, curriculum support and support for children with special educational needs. Given that role, we feel that it is sensible that the EA should be formally consulted when the workforce plan is being developed or revised.

We also support the inclusion of those who provide informal learning opportunities in the Irish-medium youth sector. Irish-medium provision extends beyond formal education, and those who work with children and young people outside the classroom can provide a valuable perspective on workforce pressures and future needs. Again, that is why it is so important to have deadlines and reporting. It is vital for accountability.

The amendments are sensible and proportionate. They strengthen the consultation process without changing the Bill's fundamental purpose. Thankfully, the Irish-medium sector has experienced significant growth. Workforce capacity has not always kept pace with that growth, however. Better long-term planning is therefore essential. We feel strongly that, if we want Irish-medium education to continue to grow sustainably, we need to ensure that the workforce that is required is well supported in order for that growth to continue and develop and that it feels developed and is retained. It is therefore with great pleasure that my party will support the amendments. Irish is a living, breathing language in so many of our communities right across the North. With a Bill in place to retain our workforce, I am so excited for the next generation.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: I call Julie Middleton.

Mrs Middleton: I am not down to speak, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: You are not down to speak. Excellent, Julie.

Mr Gaston: At Second Stage, I opposed the principles of the Bill because it singles out one part of our education system for a statutory workforce planning regime that is not provided for any other sector. None of the amendments addresses that fundamental inequality.

Amendment No 1 replaces in its entirety clause 1, which is the only substantive clause in the Bill. Although much of the amendment is presented as a technical redrafting, the substance of the clause remains exactly the same. The Department "must" produce a workforce plan specifically for Irish-medium education, which is to "set out measurable targets". It "must":

It "must" consult specified Irish-medium bodies and report on the plan's "implementation and effectiveness".

Controlled schools, maintained schools and integrated schools are not to receive such a statutory plan. There will be no equivalent statutory workforce plan for special schools or for the education system as a whole. I said that at Second Stage and still believe it to be a fundamental flaw in the Bill.

Only Irish-medium education would have its workforce requirements elevated to that special statutory status.

The argument at Second Stage was that Irish-medium education faces particular challenges. I have sat in the Chamber for the past two years, and I can assure the House that it is not just Irish-medium education that faces challenges. Every part of our education system faces challenges. Special schools face an acute shortage of space, and some of them are already beyond capacity. Does the Bill do anything about that? Absolutely not. Special schools often have to take more pupils than they have space for simply because there is nowhere else for those pupils to go.

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

In the amendments to the Bill, there is no mention of special schools. The Member is drifting off the subject.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: OK. Thank you for that, Pat. He is correct, Timothy: will you address the amendments that have been tabled for this stage of the Bill? Thank you.

Mr Gaston: Thank you very much, Principal Deputy Speaker. Indeed, the redraft of clause 1 through amendment No 1 deals with the issue that there is no mention of special schools. There is absolutely none, Pat. It is about only one sector, namely the Irish-medium sector, and that is Pat's intention. Amendment No 1 is about that most favoured sector: the pet project of Irish-medium schools. However, all schools across Northern Ireland in all sectors struggle to recruit teachers and get the facilities that each of our pupils needs, but, again, we have a redraft of clause 1 that elevates Irish-medium education above the rest of the sectors. Pat Sheehan's answer to all those problems is to push forward his favoured sector.

The Committee report makes it clear that the Department is already developing an Irish-medium education strategy that includes workforce planning and is expected in 2027. Departmental officials warned that imposing this additional statutory process could divert the small team responsible for that strategy and slow down delivery. Amendment No 1 does nothing to address that warning, nor does it address the serious problem with the 12-month deadline that clause 1 would set.

The Committee was told that there is no comprehensive dataset covering the Irish-medium workforce. The Assembly Research and Information Service warned that robust workforce data would be a requirement for setting meaningful and measurable targets. The Department even advised that producing a proper plan would require 18 to 24 months. Despite all that evidence, the clause stays basically the same and retains the requirement that the first plan has to come within 12 months.

What is the purpose of consulting experts if their practical warnings are then ignored? The Assembly is being asked to impose a statutory deadline that, the Department has said, may result in a document being produced for the sake of complying with this law rather than having a robust workforce plan based on reliable evidence. That would not be good legislation, and it shows the folly of the private Member's Bill.

Amendment No 1 would replace clause 1 in its entirety without including the Education Authority among the statutory consultees: why is that? That tells us something about the priorities underlying the Bill.

Amendment No 2 would create further difficulties. It would require consultation with:

Neither "informal learning opportunities" nor "the Irish-medium youth sector" is defined. How informal must learning be before it qualifies? What constitutes the "youth sector"? We do not know, because those definitions are not in the Bill. Which organisations would acquire a statutory expectation of consultation?

I also remain concerned about the cost. The estimated annual cost is between £26,200 and £43,700, and that relates only to administration, consultation, data collection and monitoring. It does not include the cost of delivering whatever recruitment schemes, training places, bursaries, specialist services or other interventions emerge from the plan. The Department described the present Education budget as "undeliverable", and I agree. We hear time and time again from the Education Minister that he cannot fund all of his priorities. Yet, here we have Sinn Féin prioritising Irish-medium education above all other sectors.

I will certainly oppose amendment Nos 1 and 2. The Bill is not the answer. If Mr Sheehan wanted to make a difference to the whole education sector, he would not simply have picked out his Irish-medium pet project. I will be sure to go through the Lobby to vote against amendment Nos 1 and 2.

Mr Carroll: Ba mhaith liom labhairt i leith an Bhille seo, ní hamháin mar ionadaí d'Iarthar Bhéal Feirste, ach mar thuismitheoir, agus páistí agam féin atá ag gabháil don Ghaeloideachas. Chím tionchar cruálach Stormont ar an phleanáil, ar acmhainní agus ar thacaíocht a chur ar fáil d’earnáil na Gaelscolaíochta, chím sin achan lá i bpobail lucht oibre cosúil le mo phobal féin. Agus mar athair, cím an costas daonna. Cím an traochadh dearg ar oibrithe oideachais atá spíonta, iad ag iarraidh cuid a chur le costas chun earnáil atá ag fás go rábach a choinneáil ar snámh.

Amharc ar Choláiste Feirste, mar shampla. Tógadh an scoil do 600 dalta; tá sí anois ag cur thar maoil le breis agus 1,000 duine óg. Ní timpiste é sin. Ní fadhb spáis amháin atá ann ach oiread. Sin a tharlaíonn nuair a thugtar ar phobal a bheith ag fás in ainneoin Stormont, an fás sin á thiomáint go hiomlán ag paisean na n-oibrithe, na dtuismitheoirí agus ghníomhaithe an phobail ar an talamh.

Tá sé de dhualgas ar an Roinn le 28 mbliana anuas oideachas trí mheán na Gaeilge a "spreagadh agus a éascú". Ach le beagnach trí scór bliain, níl oiread is plean amháin curtha le chéile don lucht oibre. Mar atá léirithe ag pobal na Gaeilge arís agus arís eile sna cúirteanna, dhiúltaigh an Coiste Feidhmiúcháin ar bhonn córasach straitéis don Ghaeilge a ghlacadh, rud a fhágann teaghlaigh lucht oibre ag brath ar dhea-mhéin an phobail in áit soláthar ón stát.

Let us be honest about the reason for that: it stems largely from the DUP's entrenched and reactionary politics. We have heard the arguments in the debate briefly today and before that the Bill creates a structural inequality and affords preferential treatment to Irish-medium schools. That position is just sectarian nonsense and must be rejected outright. Equal rights do not constitute preferential treatment, and the DUP's persistent hostility towards the Irish language is part of an anti-democratic pattern. This is a party that does its utmost to obstruct the rights of Irish speakers, just as it attempts to hold back progress for women, the LGBTQ+ community, ethnic minorities and the working class in general. It has shown time and time again —

Mr Brett: On a point of order, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. In your earlier ruling on a point of order from Mr Sheehan, you ruled that Mr Gaston was out of order because he talked about special schools, which are not mentioned in the amendments. I cannot see that there are any issues in the Bill around LGBT rights, so I would welcome a ruling as to whether Mr Carroll's remarks are in a similar vein to Mr Gaston's and are therefore outside the scope of the amendments that are before us.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: The Member was talking about inequality, but LGBTQIA+ is not in the Bill. With that in mind, Gerry, can you just proceed? Maith thú.

Mr Carroll: That politics is, unfortunately, foisted upon us.

Ach, níl i seicteachas aontachtach ach leath an scéil. Tá an chuid eile den Choiste Feidhmiúcháin — lena n-áirítear páirtithe náisiúnacha a mhaíonn go dtacaíonn siad leis an Ghaeilge — tá sin fíorchiontach fosta. Nuair a thagann an crú ar an tairne, tugann siad tús áite do loighic bhrúidiúil eacnamaíochta dhéine an Rialtais i Londain seachas d'infheistíocht phoiblí. Tá siad sásta labhairt ar son na Gaeilge, le linn dóibh na ciorruithe cruálacha a bhrú ar na scoileanna: ciorruithe a chuireann brú ar oibrithe agus ar mhúinteoirí go háirithe dul thar lear chun slí bheatha a bhaint amach in áit éigin eile.

Ní dhéanfaidh grá don Ghaeilge agus pleananna cliste reachtúla, ní dhéanfaidh sin amháin an Ghaelscolaíocht a shábháil. Níl i bplean don lucht oibre gan maoiniú cinnte ach píosa páipéir a bheidh ina luí ar sheilf. Agus i rith an ama, admhaíonn an tAire é féin go bhfuil a bhuiséad féin dofheidhmithe.

The Executive treat school staff across the entire education sector with disrespect. Teachers in Irish-medium schools work 47 hours a week on average. They are utterly exhausted and worn out. That is why so many of them cross the border in search of a viable wage, which is why the Bill and its amendments are essential and important.

Mr Brooks: Will the Member give way?

Mr Carroll: I will move on for a second.

Stormont refuses to increase or fund teacher-training places that are urgently needed to cater for the growing number of pupils. Classroom assistants and early years workers are the backbone of our schools. They have been left short-changed on insecure contracts and low pay. Over 30% of post-primary pupils in the Irish-medium education sector have been identified as having SEN, so the two issues are connected, and the Bill deals with a fundamental aspect of special educational needs but in the Irish-medium education sector, obviously. Unfortunately, parents are still told to remove their children from Irish-medium settings if they wish to access basic speech therapy or support, because the Bill and the situation cannot address the underfunding of the health service, which also employs those specialists.

Cé go dtacaím leis an Bhille seo, ní chinnteoidh Stormont go gcuirfear i bhfeidhm ina iomláine é. Ní thiocfaidh an t-athrú atá de dhíth ón bharr anuas le margaí polaitíochta a impí i seomraí coiste in Stormont. Tiocfaidh sé ón fhrithbheartaíocht ar an talamh. Tá múinteoirí ar fud an Tuaiscirt —.

Mr Brooks: I thank the Member for giving way. Clearly, he comes from a different political ideology from mine. The one thing that strikes me is that he is fairly vociferous in putting a lot of the things that he has said here tonight at many points throughout his time in the Chamber when I have been here for teachers across the spectrum. Does he agree that many of the pressures that he is listing that affect the Irish-medium sector are pressures that he also talks about affecting every other sector in our education system?

Mr Carroll: In a sense, yes. However, what the Member fails to understand is that there are extra barriers and difficulties with training in Irish and working in the Irish-medium sector. There is a lack of teachers; there is a lack of classroom assistants; teachers are forced to do translation themselves, so, in some ways, the pain is across the board but there are extra barriers that exist in the Irish-medium sector. Either your party is unwilling to take that on board, or you are willfully misrepresenting the situation. I do not know which one it is; probably the former.

Tiocfaidh sé ón fhrithbheartaíocht ar an talamh. Tá múinteoirí ar fud an Tuaiscirt tar éis vótáil cheana féin ar son gníomhaíocht thionsclaíoch. Taispeánann an sainordú stailce sin cá bhfuil an fhíorchumhacht.

Is é an teachtaireacht atá agam inniu do phobal na Gaeilge, do ghluaiseacht na gceardchumann, d'oibrithe oideachais, do chúntóirí ranga, agus do thuismitheoirí: ná fanaigí le Stormont chun an beart a dhéanamh daoibh. Tógaigí an brú ón bhun aníos. Bígí ar na línte picéid, eagraígí sna hionaid oibre, agus nascaigí an troid ar son cearta teanga leis an streachailt aicmeach leathan i gcoinne dhéine an Choiste Feidhmiúcháin. Is é an t-aon bhealach leis an tsáinn sheicteach a bhriseadh ná daoine den lucht oibre seasamh le chéile. Sin é. Go raibh maith agat.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Maith thú.

As amendment No 2 is an amendment to amendment No 1, we need to dispose of amendment No 2 before we return to amendment No 1.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: It is now after 10.30 pm. In accordance with Standing Orders, the consideration of business not yet concluded will be postponed until a time determined by the Business Committee. Voting on amendment No 1 onwards will probably be scheduled for next week.