Northern Ireland Assembly, 1 February 2022

519 contributions from 57 members. The official report.

Ministerial Statements

Alex Maskey (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

I have received notice from the Minister of Justice that she wishes to make a statement. Before I call the Minister, I remind Members that, in the light of social distancing being observed by parties, the Speaker's ruling that Members must be in the Chamber to hear a statement if they wish to ask a question has been relaxed. Members participating remotely must make sure that their name is on the speaking list if they wish to be called. Members in the Chamber must also do so, by rising in their place as well as notifying the Business Office or Speaker's Table directly. I remind Members to be concise in asking their question. This is not an opportunity for debate, and long introductions should not be entered into. I also remind Members that, in accordance with long-established procedures, points of order are not normally taken during the statement or the question period thereafter.

Naomi Long (Alliance, Belfast East)

At the outset, in welcoming the review, I thank the Chief Inspector for her work. The report, like the recently published Regulation and Quality Improvement Authority (RQIA) 'Review of Services for Vulnerable People Detained in Northern Ireland Prisons', is a significant piece of work, and I encourage Members to read all of it. Indeed, it is necessary to read the whole report to gain a full understanding of the challenges faced by the Prison Service and its staff as they seek to manage and to rehabilitate some of the most challenging and complex people in our society.

It is right that the Prison Service is scrutinised for the work that it undertakes and that we recognise the significant transformation that has taken place since 2011, when the service was described as "demoralised", "disengaged" and "dysfunctional". No one is saying that now: indeed, successive inspection reports highlight the depth and scale of the transformation that has taken place and the progress that continues to be made.

It is important to set out why, in November 2020, I commissioned the review. The House will recall that concerns were raised with me about the operation of our care and supervision units, known as CSUs, in the context of the minimum standards expected for the segregation of prisoners. The minimum standards required are outlined at appendix 3 of the review, which has been published today.

In response to those concerns, the director general and I reviewed the most recent inspection reports for each of our prisons, which were published for Magilligan in December 2017, Maghaberry in November 2018 and Hydebank Wood in June 2020. It is important to note that none of those reports indicated or in any way suggested that the expectations or minimum standards were not being met. It would have been understandable if, in the middle of what has been an extremely challenging pandemic for the Prison Service, we had simply relied on those reports and waited for the next one. This issue is of such importance, however, that the director general and I concluded that the more appropriate course of action was to ask the Criminal Justice Inspection Northern Ireland (CJINI) to undertake an immediate review.

We now have the outcome of that review, and I will turn to what it tells us. It clearly recognises the commitment and hard work of prison staff and their healthcare partners who work in those units. It tells us that significant improvements have been made in each of our care and supervision units in recent years — a fact that is underpinned in each of the three prison inspection reports that I have just referenced. It tells us, however, that we are failing in a small number of key areas. While focusing on those key areas, I want to reassure Members that the director general and I not only accept the recommendations in the review but have already implemented some of them and are implementing others.

Before I set out that work and our future implementation plans, it is important that we all understand why we have CSUs, whom we accommodate in them and the context in which they operate. CSUs are necessary because there are times when some prisoners cannot be managed safely elsewhere in the prison estate. Those in our CSUs broadly fall into three categories: those who are dangerous because they have assaulted staff or other prisoners; those who we believe are seeking to traffic drugs or other contraband; and those whose behaviours are so extreme that they have to be separated from other prisoners. By their very nature, our prisons contain some dangerous individuals who have harmed others in the community and who seek to harm others, including staff, in the prisons. We have a duty to keep our staff and those in our care safe.

Our prisons have been assessed by inspectors as being safe. That is at least in part because we have CSUs. Much of the progress towards making prisons safer has been made possible by relying on the careful use of CSUs as areas for individuals who, because of their violent actions, need to be accommodated safely before attempts are made to reintegrate them into the general population.

Prisons also contain drug dealers and traffickers who seek to profit from the misery of others. They use any means that they can to get drugs and other illicit items into our prisons and care little about the harm that they do to their peers. Successive inspection reports have highlighted the need for the Prison Service to take action to stop drugs entering our prisons, and the use of CSUs has rightly been a central and successful element of the strategy that has been deployed.

No one who understands the challenges of operating prisons would suggest that CSUs are not essential, but this review highlights the fact that we must do better in administering them.

When looking at those exhibiting extreme behaviours, it is important to remember that people in our prisons with mental health and severe behavioural issues did not develop those issues at the gates of the prison. It is important that we all acknowledge the reality that the Prison Service is often left to deal with those who have been failed by the system — often multiple times — when it comes to education, employment, housing and healthcare. Of those coming into our prisons, 32% have mental health issues. In real terms, that is just over 500 of those individuals in our care today.

Strategic recommendation 2 deals with one such group:

"prisoners suffering from severe mental disorders".

I have consistently argued that prisoners with severe mental health issues, albeit small in number, should have equal access to care and treatment in a secure inpatient mental health or learning disability hospital. Until they do, however, the Prison Service is required to accommodate them, as well as those who may not fully meet the high threshold for admission, and to try to pick up the pieces. It is clear from this report that such individuals cannot always be accommodated in the general population and that, for many prisons across the UK that do not have inpatient facilities, care and supervision units are the only available alternative. I take little comfort in the fact that the average waiting time for prisoners to transfer to an outside facility under a transfer direction order (TDO) is significantly shorter in Northern Ireland than it is in England and Wales. Such individuals should be accommodated in a closed hospital environment that is suitably equipped and staffed, and we must ensure that that happens more quickly and efficiently.

Let me be very clear: although the Prison Service will work with Health colleagues to implement the Chief Inspector's recommendation, the creation of the equivalent of a Broadmoor facility for a population as small as Northern Ireland's is not sustainable. That is not an issue that the Prison Service or the Department of Justice can resolve. Therefore, I have written to the Health Minister to ask him to prioritise the provision of agreed pathways for timely access to appropriate secure hospital beds for those with a clinical requirement, including on a long-term basis or when experiencing a mental health crisis in a prison setting.

I assure Members that we have no one in our CSUs today awaiting transfer to an outside mental health facility. I have asked the director general to ensure, with immediate effect, rather than the six months recommended in the review, that Health colleagues are able to undertake mental health and primary health care assessments of all prisoners immediately following their placement in a CSU. The achievement of that goal will inevitably depend on the availability of the appropriate health professionals.

Another theme of the review is the area of governance and the importance of having a vision, strategy and action plan for the effective operation of CSUs. We are committed to delivering the recommendation that was made within the set timescale. In many ways, however, putting a strategy in place, as challenging as that will be, is the easy part. Implementing the strategy will have resource implications. That will be difficult for the Prison Service to manage at a time when its budget is likely to be significantly reduced. The Prison Service has had oversight mechanisms in place for our CSUs for many years. Indeed, the CJINI and Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Prisons (HMIP) Maghaberry inspection report of 2018 highlighted as good practice the monthly oversight meeting, which:

"ensured that segregated prisoners were reviewed in-depth by appropriate departments and the right support offered to meet their individual needs."

This report, however, has highlighted the need for change, and we are taking that forward as a matter of urgency. As the report highlights, there is a desire and willingness in the Prison Service to make positive change. The improvements in the accommodation at Hydebank and Magilligan are evidenced in the report, but we face constraints. Although we will take remedial action at Maghaberry, as set out in the recommendation, we are constrained in what can be done unless significant capital funding is provided. I have asked the director general to urgently assess what action is needed, and I will engage with the Department of Finance in due course.

I now turn to the important issue of prisoner engagement, as highlighted in the report. The Chief Inspector has indicated that, without appropriate evidence, it is not possible to provide satisfactory assurance to me, prisoners and their families, the Assembly or the wider community that some prisoners in our CSUs experienced a regime that met the required minimum standards. On that basis, she concludes that some prisoners had experienced conditions that amounted to solitary confinement. Although no one is going without human contact or healthcare, the report highlights that the level of engagement is not considered to be sufficient. Time out of cells was not meeting minimum standards; and the records that the Prison Service has been keeping on engagement, efforts to engage unwilling prisoners and time out of cells are insufficient. The director general and I take the concerns that have been raised very seriously, and, on receipt of the draft report for factual accuracy checking on 14 October 2021, we took, within three days, actions to begin to address that serious issue. The governor of each prison establishment personally oversaw a review of each individual who was being held in its CSU at that time. A new regime was introduced for the CSUs at all three prison establishments, with a minimum of two hours' time out of cell offered to all prisoners held in those locations. Reinforced local governance arrangements were implemented to ensure that all the work that staff do and all their interactions with people in the CSU are fully recorded.

No one should be under any illusion: the levels of engagement that are required by the review are and will remain resource-intensive. We must also be mindful that many prisoners in CSUs refuse to engage. Indeed, the review highlights that there are those in our CSUs who actively resist opportunities to engage and to reintegrate them into the general population. However, notwithstanding the extreme staffing pressures that we faced as a result of COVID during the period of the review — indeed, we still face those pressures — significant change has been implemented to ensure that appropriate levels of engagement, purposeful activity opportunities and out-of-cell time are being provided for those willing to avail themselves of them, and they are being actively encouraged to do so.

The comments in the report that relate to solitary confinement were, as the Chief Inspector indicated, a difficult read for me and the Prison Service, not least because they come at a time when, because of COVID, many prison services across the world are locking prisoners in their cells for up to 23 hours a day, often in crowded and cramped conditions. We have not taken that approach, and I have previously set out for Members the work that we have done to try to maintain family contact, free association and purposeful activity for all those who are in our care. It is, therefore, regrettable and disturbing that some of the small number of prisoners in our CSUs experience such isolation. Whilst prisoners in CSUs represent just 1% of the prisoner population across our three prisons, that does not lessen the seriousness of the issue or our absolute commitment to addressing their needs and particular vulnerabilities.

I will turn to the issue that was highlighted about women in our care. Some Members may recall that the Prison Service was consistently criticised when the female CSU was in Ash House, which is the main female accommodation block at Hydebank Wood. A new CSU was created, and we moved our female CSU to that building in early 2020. Women and men were accommodated in the same building but on separate landings. That decision significantly improved the experience for the women in Ash House, who no longer had to endure the disruption that was highlighted in numerous previous inspection reports, and it was implemented without the need for additional resources. The new CSU facility, as the Chief Inspector acknowledges, was of a much better standard, but she concluded that having male and female prisoners in a shared facility or building contravened the Mandela rules. As a result, we immediately, on receipt of the draft review, moved the CSU back to Ash House on 17 October 2021. A new CSU facility, which will have to be resourced from within our current allocation, will open shortly for the small number of women who have to be accommodated there.

The report and its findings have significance for the operation of care and supervision units beyond Northern Ireland. I do not believe that such an in-depth review has previously been carried out anywhere across these islands. I have asked the director general to ensure that the recommendations are shared with our sister services and to continue to provide me with regular updates over the coming weeks as he chairs a steering group to implement the remaining recommendations in the report, all of which I have accepted. I have also asked the director general to ensure that the Justice Committee is given regular updates detailing the progress that has been made.

Like every organisation, much is expected from the Prison Service, and rightly so. The service does not shy away from that — in fact, it does quite the opposite — nor does it shy away from apologising when it fails to provide the level of service that we have come to expect from it. Therefore, I have no hesitation in apologising to those prisoners who did not receive the level of engagement that the report identifies as the minimum standard expected. In reading the entire report and numerous others that have been published in recent years, Members will see that the Prison Service has a willingness to learn and a determination to drive continuous improvement. The report sets out some significant challenges. However, in delivering its recommendations, the Prison Service will be better, as will be the experience of the people who are committed to our care.

Mervyn Storey (DUP, North Antrim)

I thank the Minister and the director general for the time that they took to discuss the report this morning and for the reassurances that were given. I also thank the Chief Inspector for the time that she took yesterday to brief the Committee on the report. I welcome the Minister's comments that recognise the significant transformation that has taken place in our prisons since 2011. I place on record the Committee's thanks and appreciation to prison staff, who continue to undertake an extremely difficult and challenging occupation day and daily.

Will the Minister set out why the Northern Ireland Prison Service did not have a strategy or policy in place for the operation of CSUs in order to ensure that minimum standards were met and records were maintained across the system? As importantly, will she set out why the service did not provide the staff who undertake that difficult and challenging work with the support and guidance that they are entitled to receive when they carry out their particular jobs?

Naomi Long (Alliance, Belfast East)

I thank the Chair of the Committee for his question and for his reflective remarks on the work that has been done by prison officers in what are incredibly complex cases.

The issue in the report, as identified by the inspector, was more that we did not have an overall prison-wide strategy for CSUs that met the requirements that she would have set. However, there is a strategy on how we operate CSUs. I have mentioned, for example, the three categories of prisoners that would be placed in CSUs and the facilities that are available to each prisoner in CSUs, which are standardised across all three facilities.

The record-keeping issue is one that I witnessed when I visited a CSU and spoke with officers. It is a difficult and dynamic environment, and there is a balance to be struck between the time spent keeping records and the time spent on prisoner engagement and support. There will be challenges in the intensification of record-keeping that is required, but, given that the inspector has said that we need to keep better records of that engagement, it is important that we act to do that. Action is already being taken to support prison officers in that regard.

The Member will be fully aware of the work that I have done as Justice Minister to provide better support for former and current prison officers. That will continue to be rolled out over the coming months. However, it is a challenging environment for officers, particularly for those in CSUs, who are often dealing with people exhibiting extreme behaviours, including violent behaviours. In order to ensure that we have the right support in place, we have redeployed people from other parts of the service to increase the number of people working in CSUs, which, we believe, will facilitate enhanced prisoner engagement and the enhanced record-keeping that has been requested.

The Member will be more aware than most of the resource challenges that we face in the Prison Service. The proposed Budget would see a reduction in the facilities that we are able to offer and in the number of prison officers who are there to provide it. As we look at the draft Budget, we need to look carefully at the impact that that would be likely to have on our ability to deliver as we would wish to and, as the inspector has indicated, as we ought to.

Sinéad Ennis (Sinn Féin, South Down)

Minister, before you commissioned the CJINI report on the use of CSUs, you did not accept that the use of the units constituted solitary confinement. The report makes it clear that, for many prisoners, that is exactly what it was. The UN regards a period of 15 or more days in solitary confinement as a form of psychological torture. How many prisoners have spent over 15 days in solitary confinement in those units? Would you describe that as torture?

Naomi Long (Alliance, Belfast East)

First, my confidence that we were not contravening the rules was based on three previous CJINI reports, which said that we were not and raised no red flag on how CSUs were operated. It is also the case that, for example, the International Committee of the Red Cross visited the CSUs in the prisons and raised no red flag.

Contrary to what the Member has said, the report does not say that "many prisoners" faced solitary confinement; it says that "some prisoners" may have faced conditions amounting to solitary confinement. I certainly do not dismiss that in the case of the prisoners who did, but there was no evidence to suggest that any prisoner was submitted to such conditions for periods in excess of 15 days or close to 15 days. They were intermittent lapses. There is no evidence that people were essentially being locked in their cells without contact.

It is also important that we look at what solitary confinement means in the context of a prison in Northern Ireland. Even during this period, every prisoner was offered time out of cell. Every prisoner was offered access to showers and telephones. They had radio or television in their cell and were spoken to by prison officers every day as they delivered their meals. Some refused that contact, and we need to look at how we can better engage with prisoners who refuse contact. However, we need to look at it in the context of what is available to those prisoners, even where our standards have fallen below those that are required.

We are not content with that. The reason why I commissioned the report was to ensure that we were meeting minimum standards. The purpose of the report is to set out what those standards are. It has done so with more clarity than has been available previously. My job now is to make sure that we meet those standards.

Sinéad Bradley (Social Democratic and Labour Party, South Down)

Minister, thank you for your statement. As chairperson of the all-party group (APG) on preventing loneliness, it pains me to read the report. Loneliness can have a crippling effect on any of us. It has the ability to break us.

My question concerns the report's case review of a male prisoner, aged 20 years, who had a period of segregation and COVID-19 isolation in a CSU totalling 116 days. I recognise your apology today, but you back-pedalled on it somewhat in your previous answer. In my mind, that length of time is inhumane and torturous. I argue that those who are not engaging may be those who are not receiving the medical care that they need. We are aware that there are people in CSUs who have undiagnosed personality disorders.

Does the Minister anticipate that a maximum period of isolation will be adhered to? Will safe methods of interaction with other humans for those in CSUs be utilised? If full mental health screening is introduced, as it should be, will there be a minimum number of days when TDOs must be exercised and the person in care transferred to a clinical setting?

Naomi Long (Alliance, Belfast East)

There are a number of parts to the Member's question. To be clear, at no stage did I row back from my apology to those who were held in conditions that did not meet the minimum standards. It is important that we place this in context and do not exaggerate the extent of the problem. We must base it on the report itself and not on conjecture that extends beyond it, because facts matter in these cases.

Of course it is of concern that prisoners have been held for prolonged periods in isolation on committal to prison, but the Member will acknowledge that it is because of the isolation periods that we introduced as a result of COVID that we have been able to ensure that there have been no major outbreaks of COVID in the prison system. If we contrast that with some of the outbreaks in comparable residential environments, the decision was warranted, albeit not one that we wished to take.

There are a small number of people in CSUs who do not meet the threshold for a mental health order assessed by mental health practitioners. They cannot be moved out of the prison, because they have been sentenced by the court, yet they can be some of the most challenging people that we have to deal with. Their behaviours mean that there is nowhere else for them to be accommodated.

We have one particular individual who has been in a CSU for some time owing to his continued extreme behaviour. He has been the subject of ongoing multidisciplinary serious case reviews by the prisoner safety and support team, and our health partners have been included in those. He continues to threaten staff daily. He threatens nurses who engage with him. He is also moved cells daily yet often refuses to shower. He spreads his faeces on the cell door and walls, and, when challenged, he is verbally threatening and threatens the use of violence. His behaviour means that he cannot be located in the general population. He has been assessed as not meeting the threshold for a transfer direction order. He falls through the gap, and that gap, as often is the case, is a prison. We pick up the pieces that no one else wants to deal with.

As I said in my statement, I have written to the Health Minister to look at whether there are options, short of a closed mental health facility in prisons, that would allow secure accommodation to be provided for those individuals. It has to be recognised, however, that many of those individuals, even with the full diagnosis, will not meet the threshold for a transfer direction order, and that is not within the gift of prison: it is a health assessment that has to be made.

It is important, of course, that we guard against loneliness. That is why, for example, we continue to maintain a landing-based regime throughout the prison in order that people can have free association, even during COVID. It is why we allowed people extra time with family via virtual calls and additional phone contact. Additional phone contact is available to those in CSUs at all times, however.

It also has to be considered that not everyone in our CSUs has a mental health disorder. It is important to recognise that. Currently, there are 14 people in our CSUs. Nine are there for violent conduct, four for suspected drug trafficking and one for extreme behavioural issues. No one is currently awaiting a transfer direction order.

Doug Beattie (UUP, Upper Bann)

I thank the Minister for her statement. I also welcome the report. It is an important and challenging piece of work.

I absolutely get what the Minister said about the people who are being held in CSUs. According to the report, one guy has been in a CSU for 366 days. That might be the individual that the Minister referred to.

My concern and my question to the Minister are based on her statement, in which she clearly stated:

"the levels of engagement required by this review are and will remain resource-intensive".

Minister, I have raised the issue of staffing levels many times, and I honestly believe that there is a real concern about the staffing levels in our prisons. Will the Minister outline how we can try to increase those staffing levels to deal with the issues that are raised in the report?

Naomi Long (Alliance, Belfast East)

I thank the Member for his continued interest. Staff have been redeployed from other parts of prisons in order to enhance the staffing cover in CSUs. Of course, from his time on the Justice Committee, the Member will be aware that we routinely recruit new staff to deal with people who pass out of the Prison Service over time. However, there is no realistic opportunity for us to significantly increase the overall number of prison staff that are available, particularly in light of the budget cuts that will come down the tracks if we proceed along the lines suggested in the draft Budget. In fact, we would be looking at a reduction in the number of staff.

Staff have been put under pressure during COVID. One of the things that we tried to do was to remove doubling up, so that each prisoner had their own cell. That meant opening up new landings and areas of prisons and required additional staffing to ensure that that was done safely. As the Member will appreciate, we also had to deal with incoming prisoners who were going into COVID isolation units. Again, that put staff under pressure. Also, like the rest of the population, our prison staff have been affected by COVID. Therefore, we have had to constantly monitor the number of people who have been absent on long-term sick leave or with COVID-related isolation and illness. As I recounted on many occasions when I came before the Assembly to answer questions, it has been a difficult period for the Prison Service. However, we do not use COVID to excuse, in any way, the findings of the inspector's report. Many of the issues needed to be resolved anyway, irrespective of COVID.

As to making any promises about increased numbers, all of that will depend entirely on budget outcomes. We need to be realistic about what we can achieve given the restricted resources within which we have to operate.

Stewart Dickson (Alliance, East Antrim)

Thank you, Minister. I commend you, not only for commissioning the report but for the very swift action that you and the prison staff took to alleviate the problems that were set out in the report.

Will you set out for the House some of the opportunities that are available for those who are held in CSUs? What activities and time out of cell are available to them?

Naomi Long (Alliance, Belfast East)

First, I thank my colleague for his remarks. It is important that we take the report seriously. I commissioned it specifically to get reassurance, not just for myself but those in our prisons, their families and, indeed, Members, that we were meeting minimum standards. Where we have fallen short of those minimum standards, it is right that we should apologise. More than that, it is right that we should take immediate and swift action to address those issues.

All prisoners who are held in CSUs have access to phone calls, showers, yard time, virtual visits, ordinary visits — subject to COVID-19 pandemic restrictions — and learning activities. Depending on why a person is in CSU, where their behaviour permits, they will have a radio or television in their cell.

Not all prisoners choose to engage in or take up activities, out of cell time or input from others, and the Northern Ireland Prison Service (NIPS) does not routinely record those refusals. The development of the new IT solution will enable NIPS to provide better data to evidence time out of cell, meaningful contact and, where appropriate, where refusals take place.

It is important that we record all those things, because that will provide us and the Prison Service with the reassurance that we need that we are meeting the minimum standards and that we are doing all in our power to do so.

Jemma Dolan (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

Minister, the Department of Justice is required by prison rules to review and provide agreement on applications to extend a prisoner's segregation in a CSU beyond 72 hours. However, the report demonstrates that, in practice, the Prison Service approves the applications without monitoring or oversight. Do you accept that that essentially allowed the Prison Service, which clearly was not meeting the required standards, to mark its own homework? How has that been allowed to go unchecked for so long?

Naomi Long (Alliance, Belfast East)

With respect, that is not what the report finds. Of course, it raises the issue of whether adequate records were kept in a format that satisfied the inspector, and we have accepted that that needs to be improved. The administration certainly needs to be improved, but you have to look at that in the context of previous reports. For example, the 2018 Maghaberry report said:

"Staff managed prisoners confidently and were aware of the individual needs of men in their care. Prisoners we spoke to were complimentary about staff and appreciated the help they received"

and

"The regime for men staying for longer periods on the unit was good as it reflected plans to reintegrate them to general location."

Segregation staff were dedicated and professional. We realise that there are shortfalls in record-keeping, but it is unfair to suggest that the reviews that take place are less than adequate. There was no finding that that was the case in either this report or the 2018 report.

Peter Weir (DUP, Strangford)

I thank the Minister for her statement. Despite the problems that have been highlighted by the report, it is important to place on record the good work that happens in the Prison Service and the hard work of the prison staff. Everyone in the House will want to see the full adoption of the report, which is what the Minister indicated will happen, and support given to the prison staff on the ground. As the Minister has highlighted, the key challenge will be not so much strategy as implementation. What assessment of the resources that will be required to ensure the full implementation of the report has been done? Is that achievable without additional financial support for the Department beyond what is on offer in the budgetary settlement?

Naomi Long (Alliance, Belfast East)

First, the director general of prisons has set up an implementation group and is working with it to identify the recommendations and how they will be implemented. That work is ongoing. As I said in my statement, when it comes to capital expenditure, I have asked the director general to review, in particular, the CSU at Maghaberry prison and its exercise yard to see what improvements may be necessary, how it could be reconfigured and improved in the interim, what long-term propositions may be brought forward and the resource that that will require. When we have that assessment, we will engage with the Department of Finance about additional resources, because, unlike the improvement of the CSU at Hydebank, for example, we would not be able to resource that work from our own resources in the Department of Justice.

When it comes to the facilities for mental health and the small cohort of prisoners who have serious mental health issues, I have written to the Health Minister to discuss with him in more detail how that can be better managed in, if you like, the civilian mental health service outside prisons and whether dedicated pathways and secure facilities can be provided for those suffering mental health crises whilst in prison, because that would go some way towards meeting our requirements. That will, of course, have implications for our resources and those of the health service.

The other resource implications are those that I described in response to Doug Beattie's question. That is the issue of human resources, because, at the end of the day, the security of our prisons and the safety of our prisoners and staff are entirely reliant on human resources and the degree to which we can deploy those appropriately. It is a continual challenge to meet that with a growing prison population and remand population. We need to look carefully at the impact of any forthcoming cuts to the Prison Service and the impact that that would have on not only the safety of our prisons more generally but the quality of the rehabilitative effort that prison staff can make as part of their daily duties. It is not simply a matter of locking prisoners away; it is a matter of working with them, whether in CSUs to reintegrate them into the general prison population or in the general population to ultimately reintegrate them into society.

Liz Kimmins (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

I thank the Minister for her answers. Minister, this is not a one-off report. Following the RQIA report last October on healthcare for vulnerable people in prisons, this report identifies failings in planning and delivering basic and specialist healthcare. Minister, do you accept that immediate action is needed cross-departmentally between Justice and Health and between the South Eastern Trust and the Prison Service to address those issues urgently?

Naomi Long (Alliance, Belfast East)

Most of the recommendations in the RQIA report fall to Health. In order to ensure that prisoners' privacy is protected, the information that the healthcare teams have would not be routinely shared with the Prison Service. However, we indicated at that time that we would work with our colleagues in the Department of Health to provide better standards. I am on record as saying that I am concerned that there are people in our prisons who would be better dealt with through mental health alternatives. That is one of the reasons why we are developing, for example, problem-solving justice to deal with those who may have, for example, addiction problems, substance abuse issues and, indeed, mental health issues, in order to avoid incarceration in the first place. However, it is not as simple as saying that this is a series of reports that are condemning the same issue.

Not everyone in our CSUs has mental health issues. Many people who have mental health issues are housed in the general population of the prison and managed well there. That is a tribute to the care that the South Eastern Trust and the Prison Service provide. This is a dedicated and a small but vulnerable number of people who have extreme behaviours. As I have said, it often confuses me, frankly, how such individuals do not qualify for transfer direction orders. The assessment is a medical one, not a Prison Service one, and the medical assessment is that they do not meet those thresholds, yet they are clearly people who could not be easily accommodated in the general population. While we try to manage that, as well as violent conduct and drug trafficking, in CSUs, we need to make sure that those minimum standards are met. I am absolutely committed to doing so.

With respect to the speed with which we do it, I have indicated that a number of the recommendations have already been implemented and were implemented immediately on receipt of the draft report, before it was finalised. I have already written to the Health Minister to ask to engage with him about the mental health and more complex issues. We will continue to maintain that engagement, because it is vital that people who are committed to our care in the Prison Service are able to access the same healthcare, treatment and support as anyone else in the community. It is important that Departments work together to ensure that that is delivered in a timely and appropriate way.

Pam Cameron (DUP, South Antrim)

I thank the Minister of Justice for her statement. Will she give us more clarity on paragraph 2.10 of the report around the fitness for adjudication and the point that South Eastern Health and Social Care Trust staff would no longer fit prisoners for adjudication?

Naomi Long (Alliance, Belfast East)

I thank the Member for her question. It was the South Eastern Health and Social Care Trust that made it clear that it would no longer fit prisoners for adjudication. The reason for that is simple: for it to do so would breach the Mandela rules. Therefore, when that became apparent, that no longer happened.

The inspector's report suggested that that may need to be considered. Unfortunately, it is not possible for us to do what was suggested by the inspector on that occasion as a remedial action because the South Eastern Health and Social Care Trust was clear that it was not willing to share that kind of personal information about prisoners with the Prison Service. It is a complex area, but we could not go back to how things used to be because that in itself would have breached the Mandela rules.

Justin McNulty (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Newry and Armagh)

Minister, you have just described very worrying human rights failures in the Department of Justice. You presented barriers to implementing the strategy, including resource implications. What conversations have you had with your Southern counterpart, Minister McEntee, about pooling resources, both infrastructural and in terms of personnel and expertise, to ensure the best outcomes for all prisoners on this island who have mental health challenges?

Naomi Long (Alliance, Belfast East)

I have had no conversations with Minister McEntee about the pooling of resources, because that would not be appropriate given the different sentencing and legal regimes in each jurisdiction. However, as I indicated, there is a conversation to be had about the findings of this report and the clarity that it provides on the operation of CSUs, which is, of course, an issue that exists in the South and right across these islands. Therefore, I have directed the director general to have those conversations with his counterparts to ensure that they are aware of the standard set by this report for meaningful contact and productive activity and so that they are fully aware of how that is now being interpreted and how it should be recorded. This will require change right across these islands; as always, we will pass on what we believe is evidence of good practice and recommendations that indicate how practice can be improved. We will share that with our counterparts so that they are able, on that basis, to improve conditions for prisoners right across these islands.

Robbie Butler (UUP, Lagan Valley)

I thank the Minister for her response to the report and to what is a very challenging situation. The Minister has rightly recognised the difficulty for staff working in prisons, especially in areas like the CSU, which was formerly called the PSU. My party leader asked a question about staff retention and turnover. Staff will be the answer, but it will not just be about numbers, Minister. Is any work being done to ensure that the staff who work in the CSU, which is a more challenging environment in an already hostile environment, will be trained appropriately to meet the need? Is work being done to ensure that there is rotation of staff who work in those areas, because they will be impacted by the challenging people with whom they sometimes work?

Naomi Long (Alliance, Belfast East)

On the latter point, there is rotation of officers. They serve time in the CSU, but they can rotate out of it. I met the officers who work in the CSU, and I found them to be incredibly motivated and very dedicated. They understand the complexities of the prisoners with whom they work, and, as I referenced, that was reflected in the inspector's comments in previous inspection reports. The issue has been about time out of cell, encouraging people who do not wish to leave their cells to do so and the conversations that are had when people are receiving their food and so on. That is not being recorded and has never been recorded. Things like prisoners refusing to take up time in the exercise yard has not previously been recorded. It is absolutely crucial that that is recorded, because, if we do not record it, it is very hard to measure whether or not there is more that we can do in any area to improve that engagement. We are already working on an IT solution that will allow that to be recorded.

The Member asked about support for prison officers. He will be aware of the roll-out of physical and mental health support for prison officers. These are challenging environments — there is no question about that — and nowhere in the prison is more challenging than the CSU. As I said, as of today, nine of the 14 prisoners in the CSU are there because of violent behaviour. Those of you who were listening to the director general this morning will have heard that three prison officers were assaulted by a prisoner in the CSU whom they tried to encourage to leave the cell to spend time in the yard. The prisoner emerged from the cell and attacked the three prison officers, so it is not without risk. We need to find ways to encourage people to use that time and to engage, but we need to do so in a way that does not escalate tension in the CSU or provoke reactions that could put our prison staff or, indeed, health staff in danger. That is not an easy balance to strike. I am not being glib when I say that it will be difficult and resource-intensive — it will.

As for training, all our prison officers are trained in how to deal with difficult people, because prisoners do not arrive in the CSU and stay there. People arrive into the general population exhibiting some of these behaviours, and they are then transferred to the CSU for closer management. However, there is obviously particular training for those in the CSU because there are particular standards that need to be met, and that will become more acute given that particular recording mechanisms will be required in the CSU to ensure that we do not, at any time in future, fall below the minimum standards, as happened during this inspection.

Aisling Reilly (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

Nils Melzer, the UN commentator on torture — he succeeded Juan Méndez — said about the prolonged use of solitary confinement:

"These practices trigger and exacerbate psychological suffering, in particular in inmates who may have experienced previous trauma or have mental health conditions"

and that the "psychological and physical consequences" are "severe and often irreparable". I note that the Minister said that she has engaged with the Department and Minister of Health. Is it appropriate for prisoners with severe mental health disorders to be in prisons in the first place, or should they be in healthcare settings?

Naomi Long (Alliance, Belfast East)

I have already addressed that question. I believe that people whose mental health issues are the primary cause of their offending are better off not in a custodial setting. Sadly, however, we often find that people arrive in our prisons because of failures of the system, be they in education, housing, health or another part of our system. Notwithstanding their mental health issues, they are in our prisons because they have offended, often seriously, and we cannot simply ignore the fact that we are tasked with housing and rehabilitating them. Not all will meet the threshold for a transfer direction order to a mental health facility, so we are left with people who are between two places. Some would be better served by secure mental health facilities, but they might not necessarily meet the current threshold. That is why I want to meet the Health Minister to discuss the importance of that.

I assure Members that I do not make light of any period of solitary confinement, because it is something that we should be concerned about. Our minimum standards are designed to avoid it happening, and where we have fallen short of those minimum standards, we will improve, and it is important that we do so. There is, however, no suggestion in the CJINI report that people were being held for long periods in solitary confinement. People were being held for long periods in CSUs, and I have set out the good reasons why some of their behaviours may never be able to be managed in the main prison population. There are also people who, by choice, resist being reintegrated into the prison population. They prefer to be in a CSU and away from the main prison population. That is another challenge that we have to step up and meet. There is no suggestion that all those who were in the prison for a long period were being held in solitary confinement, or that a CSU, in and of itself, amounts to solitary confinement. The report states clearly that some prisoners were held in conditions that "amounted to solitary confinement", but that will not have been the case at all times during their stay in the CSU, nor will it have been the case for prolonged periods. That is why it is so important that Members read the entire report and use language carefully when discussing what is a very serious issue, but an issue that we are addressing.

Christopher Stalford (DUP, Belfast South)

The Minister knows that, for more than 50 years, to be employed in the Prison Service in Northern Ireland has carried with it a much more significant risk than being employed in a prison service in other parts of the United Kingdom. It is important that we place on record our appreciation for the staff and the work that they are undertaking. The Minister has detailed some of the extremely difficult situations that the staff have been facing at their place of work. I guide the Minister to paragraph 4.65 of the report:

"The pandemic had forced some restrictions on wider engagement, but evidence from before COVID-19 restrictions strongly reinforced the fact that it was the environment and perceptions of the CSU at Maghaberry and its staff that were long-term hurdles to improving the quality and level of engagement with prisoners."

Will the Minister speak to that line? Does she agree that it will be extremely demoralising for the motivated and dedicated people working in the Prison Service to read that today?

Naomi Long (Alliance, Belfast East)

Of course, it will be difficult for the Prison Service staff. It is a difficult read for me as Minister, as it is for the director general. When we set standards in the Prison Service, we set high standards. As I said earlier, no one is referring to the Prison Service in the terms that they were in 2010 and 2011, and no one is referring to our prisons in the terms that they were during that period. They are now regarded as safe, and our staff are regarded as motivated, capable and engaged in the work that they do. The comment that the Member refers to is not underpinned by evidence. Indeed, elsewhere in the report, the Chief Inspector praises staff:

"During this Review, I met impressive and committed Prison Officers and health care staff in Care and Supervision Units who face complex challenges every day".

I would not wish people to hang on one phrase. If anyone is suggesting that the inspector is being particularly critical of prison officers or that officers are not willing to change, the history of the last 10 years has shown that they are willing to change and to improve. The future will show, through the response to this report, that that continues to be the case in our Prison Service, and I would not accept anything less.

Andrew Muir (Alliance, North Down)

I thank the Minister for her statement. At the outset, I declare that I was a member of the Independent Monitoring Board (IMB) at Hydebank Wood a number of years ago, so I am conscious and aware of the extremely challenging circumstances that are being referenced here. I saw them at first hand, and some will remain with me for the rest of my life.

Minister, you commissioned the report in November 2020, and it is being published only now, which is 14 months later. How has that affected your response to the findings of the report and to the recommendations that have been placed upon the Department?

Naomi Long (Alliance, Belfast East)

I thank the Member for his question and for his time as a member of the Independent Monitoring Board. I encourage other people to consider volunteering to the board because I think that it plays a hugely important and undervalued role in the oversight of what happens in prisons. Its ability to engage with me directly and with the director general about concerns is crucial.

As you know, I commissioned the review on 9 November 2020. The fieldwork was done between February and May 2021. A draft report was received for factual accuracy checks by NIPS on 14 October, and the response was returned to CJINI on 19 November 2021. It was on 14 October that we were first made aware of the potential findings, and it was at that point that we acted immediately on those findings to deal with the most serious failures that were identified. The Chief Inspector wrote to me on 4 January to request permission to publish, and I was content for her to do so. However, two further letters were received on 14 January and 20 January notifying changes to strategic recommendation 2 and operational recommendation 1. Both had been amended following consultation with the RQIA, and I responded the following day giving my approval to publish.

The fieldwork that was done did not raise any concerns with me or with the director general until we saw the draft report eight months after the fieldwork was done and five months after the Magilligan inspection. As I mentioned in my statement, the women's CSU was moved back to Ash House immediately, and we acted immediately to accept and implement the recommendations in the report. Given that the concerns that were raised in the report were not raised in the most recent prison reports, nor, as I understand it, are they raised in the Magilligan inspection, which was completed in May 2021 and which will be published later this month, it is fair to say that there were findings in this report that took us by surprise and that made very uncomfortable reading. However, continuous improvement is what we are about in prisons, both for those in our care and for our staff. I am confident that, by accepting the recommendations and implementing them as swiftly as we have done, we will meet the high standards that CJINI quite rightly expects of us in the operation of our CSUs. I look forward to continuing to work with the Chief Inspector in order to ensure that we do that.

Paula Bradshaw (Alliance, Belfast South)

Thank you, Minister, for your statement this morning. The report touches on the appropriateness of housing men and women in close proximity to one another in a prison setting. Can you provide any more details on the progress of the new female facility at Hydebank?

Naomi Long (Alliance, Belfast East)

Thank you for the question. By way of context, in June 2021, CJINI and HMIP, in reporting on Ash House, noted that there was no CSU for women; they were simply kept in their cells in Ash House. That arrangement had an adverse impact on the other women in Ash House, so the Prison Service put considerable effort into developing and implementing an architect-designed CSU in Hydebank Wood, which was initially used to house young men. We took the decision in October 2020 to move to the new facility women who needed to be held in a CSU environment. Women were held on a separate landing in CSU, and shared facilities were used by men and women at different times. However, on receipt of the draft report, the Prison Service took the decision to relocate those women back to Ash House in October 2021. We have plans to open by February 2022 a refreshed CSU for women who need to be held there.

Approval for the associated expenditure and the outline business case (OBC) for the new female facility on the Hydebank Wood site was granted by the Department of Finance on 25 May 2021. The Prison Service is now progressing delivery of outline business case 2.

The OBC2 will provide detail of the full design and specification for the preferred option. It provides the basis for Department of Finance approval to initiate the formal procurement process. The OBC2 will be completed by this spring.

A distinct new female facility will be designed with the purpose of creating a therapeutic building that assists with rehabilitation, based on the principle that female offenders, in general, have lower levels of risk but higher levels of vulnerability than adult males. In recognition of females being relationship-driven, the existing Ash and Beech accommodation will be reconfigured into an intimate, distinct village-like environment, including a gym, healthcare unit, independent-living unit and accommodation providing a total of 82 units, including six observation cells with in-cell sanitation facilities, to accommodate 76 females. Delivery of the new facility is dependent on the provision of capital funding and will be considered as part of the process of setting the next Budget.

Rachel Woods (Green, North Down)

I thank the Minister for her statement and CJINI for the review. The report is, clearly, not what was expected, and, indeed, some parts are distressing and disturbing to read. In November 2020, we were told that the Minister was confident that the allegations of people being held in solitary confinement would be found to be inaccurate and that she would not tolerate people being held for long periods in solitary confinement. What assurances can the Minister give that the recommendations will be implemented in the times outlined in the report? Can she provide an update on the possible use of body scanners in the Prison Service? What role is the Independent Monitoring Board taking as part of the issue?

Naomi Long (Alliance, Belfast East)

I thank the Member for her question. I also thank her for raising that in the Chamber at the time, because it gave us the opportunity to commission and receive the report, which, as she rightly says, does not make comfortable reading. It is nevertheless incredibly important reading for all those engaged in our prisons.

My confidence was based solely on the three previous reports by the Criminal Justice Inspection. I read those reports, and none of them raised any red flags about the operations of CSUs. Indeed, in some cases, they praised the operations of CSUs. Therefore, I was confident that what was happening in prisons was in order. As I have said, the inspection took place during COVID. We do not use that as an excuse, because, whatever challenges we face during COVID, we need to make sure that minimum standards do not fall. It is, therefore, important that we implement the recommendations.

I take assurance from the fact that those items that were listed to be done within six months but which we felt were more urgent were implemented not on receipt of the final report but immediately on receipt of the draft report; so, those have already been addressed. We have also seen progress on implementing the report's remaining recommendations: for example, the new female CSU will be in operation at the end of next month. All of that indicates that the Prison Service is taking the report seriously and is acting to try to drive it forward. I recently met the IMB. As I said earlier in response to a question from my colleague Andrew Muir, it is incredibly important that the IMB continues to play an active role in feeding back to me and, indeed, the director general any concerns that it has about how people are being held in prison and the standards there.

Full body searching is in place in most jurisdictions in order to prevent illicit and unauthorised articles being smuggled into prison. We recognise the associated sensitivities, so it is conducted with sensitivity and, with the cooperation of the prisoner, can be completed in a few minutes. We have a proportionate approach to full searching, based on focused intelligence and risk. However, as the Member will know, I am keen to see increased use of body scanners to detect traffickers. We have submitted an application to the justification application centre in the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy under 'The Justification of Practices involving Ionising Radiation Regulations 2004'. The purpose is to secure the necessary statutory approval to procure, install, deploy and operate X-ray body scanners in NIPS establishments in order to ensure and enhance existing search arrangements for prisons. It will not lead to the complete end of full body searching, but we believe that it will make a significant difference in identifying with confidence individuals who are attempting to traffic drugs to prisons. If a scan shows that a prisoner is not concealing drugs, that obviously reduces the need for them to be segregated.

Alex Maskey (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

I thank the Minister and all Members. That concludes questions on the ministerial statement. I ask Members to take their ease for a moment as we move to the next item in the Order Paper.

(Mr Deputy Speaker [Mr Beggs] in the Chair)

Roy Beggs (UUP, East Antrim)

The Speaker has received notice from the Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs that he wishes to make a statement.

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for the opportunity to make a statement on the support scheme for Northern Ireland search and rescue (SAR) services.

To begin, I acknowledge the fantastic work that community search and rescue services provide to the people of Northern Ireland, alongside their statutory partners in the Fire and Rescue Service (FRS), the Ambulance Service, the PSNI and the coastguard. Those community organisations rely wholly on the commitment and dedication of selfless volunteers, who often risk their own life for the protection of others.

I recently visited Lough Neagh Rescue and Foyle Search and Rescue, where I was struck by the incredible dedication and professionalism of the volunteers. I thank all those who volunteer in our search and rescue services and work tirelessly to provide assistance to those who get into difficulty when accessing our outstanding green and blue spaces.

To say that their work is challenging and diverse is an understatement. It can range from helping someone who has taken ill or sustained an injury while out walking, to helping someone in difficulty in the water or to recovering the body of a loved one. Those vital services contribute to creating a safe and attractive rural environment that supports and encourages rural development, and it is imperative that they continue to meet the needs of the people of Northern Ireland.

Throughout the pandemic, we have witnessed an unprecedented rise in the number of visitors to our rural areas, and I fully expect that, as my Department continues to invest in rural tourism, that number will continue on an upward trajectory. If we are to work together to grow rural tourism, it is absolutely vital that we take steps to ensure that people feel safe when they access all that Northern Ireland has to offer.

We also need to be mindful that growth in the sector needs to be complemented by growth in the services that support it: in this case, search and rescue services. It is our expectation that rural tourism will continue to grow, and, with it, the number of people visiting our countryside, which will potentially increase the number of incidents and call-outs that the organisations have to deal with. It would therefore be highly irresponsible of us to acknowledge that but not provide any form of support.

In considering the challenges faced by Northern Ireland search and rescue services and their importance to rural tourism and the safety of people who live in and visit our countryside, I have directed my officials to develop a support scheme that will provide £1·9 million in capital funding not only to help address the immediate challenges of COVID but to build resilience for the longer term. I am delighted to be able to provide that necessary support to community search and rescue services to ensure that our rural open spaces and waterways are safe for and attractive to the increasing number of visitors to our countryside.

The range of activities that search and rescue services may be involved in is wide, from firefighting to mountain rescue and flooding incidents — to name but a few — and includes, as I mentioned, helping those who experience difficulties. Timing and the availability of specialist equipment are often critical to achieving a successful outcome. Last year, I was on the front line of the gorse fires in the Mournes, where I observed Sky Watch using high-tech drones to guide the Fire and Rescue Service to tackle hotspots in the fire.

Funding for the support scheme, which has been approved by the Department of Finance, will help offset a decrease in donations and support much-needed investment to allow the organisations to upgrade and replace essential equipment. The capital funding scheme will support the procurement of replacement capital items, including vehicles, PPE and specialist and other equipment that is essential to the continued provision of vital services. The investment will help to ensure that volunteer responders are fully equipped to provide their services as effectively, efficiently and, most importantly, as safely as possible.

The purpose of this statement is to outline the support scheme that my Department is delivering in support of Northern Ireland’s search and rescue services. The funding will help those organisations to recover from the economic impact of the pandemic and provide a strong platform for future resilience in delivering services in a post-COVID world. It is my view that the services that are provided by those organisations are absolutely vital in the support of sustainable rural tourism and rural communities. I sincerely hope that the funding will go some way towards ensuring the safety of those who put their lives on the line in order to protect ours.

Declan McAleer (Sinn Féin, West Tyrone)

I thank the Minister for his statement and I very much welcome his announcement. At the height of the pandemic in my locality of the Murrins outside Omagh, I saw at first hand the vital work that those services carried out to protect rural people when, in that instance, a gorse fire happened.

Can the Minister provide a little bit more information as to which areas, such as the Mournes or any other parts of the North, will benefit from this very worthwhile capital investment?

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

The organisations cover a wide area of Northern Ireland. They include the Community Rescue Service, Foyle Search and Rescue, the Irish Cave Rescue Organisation, Lagan Search and Rescue, Lough Neagh Rescue, the Mourne Mountain Rescue Team, the North West Mountain Rescue Team, the Royal National Lifeboat Institution (RNLI), the National Search and Rescue Dog Association in Northern Ireland and Sky Watch NI. It is clear that the funding will provide a significant boost to all those organisations, which cover most of rural Northern Ireland and, indeed, our seas.

William Irwin (DUP, Newry and Armagh)

I thank the Minister for his statement. He named a number of organisations; have they received moneys from the fund?

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

Yes. Different organisations have applied for funding in order to meet their particular needs. As we know, all the people in those organisations are volunteers, so none of the money is being spent on administration or on providing jobs. It is to buy capital equipment to ensure that they can continue to do their jobs safely. When I was out on Lough Neagh and on the Foyle, I could see the costs that are involved. A lot of the equipment that is needed is very high-tech. When it comes to distress situations and, indeed, the recovery of bodies, which is very important for families, it is essential that those organisations have the appropriate equipment to do the job. The funding will help to ensure that that is the case.

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

I thank the Minister for this extremely positive statement. I am particularly delighted to hear that Foyle Search and Rescue is eligible for this support, given that, although it is based in an urban setting in Derry City, its work along and around the Foyle encompasses rural areas as well. It is a fantastic organisation. Is the Minister in a position to confirm how much funding each organisation will receive and what that might be spent on, particularly with regard to Foyle Search and Rescue?

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

In the case of Foyle Search and Rescue, it is over £150,000: it may be £159,000. The organisation needed to acquire particular equipment, and the money will go a long way towards helping Foyle Search and Rescue in that regard. The Member mentioned the importance of the organisation. That service is out, on average, every day of the year and does remarkable work. He, quite rightly, points out that it does not solely provide a service for the urban part but carries out searches further upstream and downstream from the city. That is how I managed to squeeze a rural element into its funding.

Rosemary Barton (UUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I thank the Minister for his statement. As he knows, I live in very beautiful part of the world.

We are very grateful to the volunteers in the land and water search and rescue services, particularly in relation to our waterways, mountains and walkways, such as Cuilcagh. Indeed, there was a rescue only last week. Minister, you spoke of "future resilience". How do you hope to sustain that future resilience by encouraging recruitment to the volunteer services?

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

When visiting organisations, one finds it amazing how many people step up to the plate and want to do something to help others. That is tremendous, and we want to encourage it. I expect that, if we sent out volunteers with second-rate equipment which could put their own lives in jeopardy, it would not encourage people to volunteer. If they have the best-quality equipment, so that they know they have the capacity to do the job and do it safely, that will encourage others to volunteer.

A lot of people find real enjoyment in going out to do the job; they get real value from doing it. It is absolutely amazing how many people we have in the voluntary sector in Northern Ireland, not just in search and rescue, but right across that sector. The House, the Assembly and the Executive need to acknowledge the work that volunteers do and say a big thank-you for all that they do to make the community better.

John Blair (Alliance, South Antrim)

I thank the Minister for his statement and DAERA for this commitment to capital funding, which will help rescue services across Northern Ireland, including, I imagine, Lough Neagh Rescue at Antrim in my constituency. What actions can be taken, on an inter-agency basis if necessary, to ensure consistency in provision and service across Northern Ireland, so that, in turn, consistency in safety improvements is ensured in forests, lakes and rivers across the jurisdiction?

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

That is a very good question, and I am not sure which Department would lead on it, for example Justice, Communities or my Department. I do not know, for I have not given considerable thought to it. However, the Member raises a valid point, and it is worth further thought as to how we ensure that groups are more coordinated and, if need be, can call on support from others and so forth. It might be a conversation and, if the Member puts that question to a number of Ministers, we might respond to it. I can see that supporting groups in such a way as to improve connectivity is a very positive thing.

Philip McGuigan (Sinn Féin, North Antrim)

I thank and praise those involved in community search and rescue. I have taken part in a few of their fundraising events locally. I welcome this funding, know that it will be used well and thank the Minister for his statement.

In the context of the challenges presented by COVID-19 and in ensuring that rural tourism is a sustainable priority intervention, as you mentioned in your statement, what is your Department doing to ensure that there is a focus on the all-island domestic tourism market and the cross-border partnership that is required for us to benefit from it?

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

In terms of the issue at hand today, we have arrangements whereby, if there is a big problem on either side of the border, mutual aid is available. That was evidenced previously, for example, by the fact that a helicopter has come to help us, and that we have sent people to help in the Irish Republic. Cooperating with neighbours in their time of need comes naturally to us all, including the Department that I represent.

Harry Harvey (DUP, Strangford)

I thank the Minister for his statement. With COVID, many people have wanted to explore and engage more with nature and the landscape. For example, they have been hillwalking and open-sea fishing, to name but two. Do you agree, Minister, that this support will enable these organisations to better protect our citizens?

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

Over the COVID period, we certainly saw a huge increase in the numbers of people out and about in the countryside. It was almost too successful on occasions, and some of our beauty spots were absolutely packed. That has eased off somewhat, but the uplift is still there. There are still more people than was the case previously. Now that people have realised the beauty that is on their doorstep, they want to enjoy it. We live in a very beautiful place; we are privileged that way. They want to enjoy the fresh air. Therefore, people will go hillwalking and, on occasions, fall and break limbs and so forth and need rescue services. It is critical to have those support services, whether it be for the sea, hills, caves or elsewhere. It would not be my thing to go down a cave, but, if that is what people want to do, we want to ensure that, if they encounter problems, we have the capacity to help to get them out of that situation.

Cathal Boylan (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

I welcome the Minister's statement. Paragraph 13 mentions the challenges that our search and rescue services face. Minister, can you elaborate on those challenges and what you have found out from your visits?

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

During COVID, the ability to do the normal fundraising, such as through social events, dinner parties and even fundraising on the streets, was challenged. As a result, most charitable organisations found themselves in a more difficult position. I visited Lough Neagh first, and then Mr Middleton invited me to Foyle Search and Rescue. I was struck by the issues and problems that they had and their inability to deal with some of those problems. Finding a means to resource them was tricky enough, but it was something that I was fully committed to doing, having seen the need that exists. If it saves one life, the £1·9 million will be money well spent, but I expect that it will save many lives. Therefore, it will be one of the better things that I do during my period in office.

Tom Buchanan (DUP, West Tyrone)

Minister, I am sure that we will all agree that these organisations do invaluable work in very difficult circumstances and have some real challenges to meet. Can you give some indication of what engagement you have had with the search and rescue organisations on the work that they do and the challenges that they face?

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

I have been out on the boats with them on Lough Neagh and Foyle. I was also up in the Mournes during the fires and witnessed the work that people do there. It is a beautiful and splendid location, and we saw the destruction that was happening. Many volunteers stepped in to help to ensure that there was less harm to the mountains and that animals and so forth were kept safe. There is a wonderful reservoir of human beings in Northern Ireland who are prepared to go out and give up their time for nothing to help others. We need to encourage people in that. Therefore, providing the appropriate funding to ensure that they have the appropriate equipment strikes me as a no-brainer.

Colin McGrath (Social Democratic and Labour Party, South Down)

I thank the Minister for the announcement today. This money will be very welcome on the ground for a whole range of organisations, many of which are in my constituency, with the Mourne Mountains. For example, the Mourne Mountain Rescue Team, the lifeboat and other groups help to encourage people to come to our area and feel safe using those resources. Whilst the pandemic has caused a problem for groups being able to attract money as they normally do, it has also encouraged many more people to go outdoors, which will continue into the future. Is there any intention to provide sustained funding in the future? All those groups will have more work to do as a result of the pandemic and will need more money to operate safely.

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

There are so many volunteers, and, therefore, such a small amount of money is spent on people's employment, that those groups provide excellent value for money. We get the full benefit of that by providing capital equipment. A lot of money will not be lost in administration. The funding will put material on the ground to help people to do their work.

The Member rightly points out the work that goes on in his constituency, be it the lifeboat in Newcastle harbour or the men and women who go up into the mountains to bring down people who have injuries, often going out in fairly appalling weather. On a good day, the Mournes are spectacular, but on a bad day they can be spectacularly harsh, and those people do not have a choice of which day they go up. They cannot say, "I will rescue someone on a nice sunny June day". It could be a November day, when the rain is coming sideways at them and they have no protection.

In future, it will be for Departments to look at how they can continue the funding to ensure that Northern Ireland people who are going out to enjoy the countryside, seas, loughs and rivers will have support if they get themselves into trouble. I hope that, on occasions, people will listen to the rescue services even before they go out, because the services not only rescue people but give qualitative advice on how people can avoid getting themselves into bad situations.

Linda Dillon (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

I thank the Minister for his announcement. It is certainly welcome news for Lough Neagh Rescue. As somebody who is lucky enough to live on the edge of Lough Neagh, I understand not only the beauty but the danger of it.

We have an issue in the Blackwater river, where a volunteer group performs rescues at the top end. The group works with the PSNI and does cross-border work, and it does not get funding from any source. It is Dungannon Sub Aqua Club. Can the Minister advise whether there is anywhere for it to access funding? He is right that such groups are run entirely by volunteers; they fund themselves and have to provide all their own equipment. The Minister is also 100% right that they risk their own lives when they go out, sometimes only to bring back somebody who is already dead. To the family waiting for that person, however, that is as important as bringing back somebody who has been saved. If there are any avenues open to those organisations, I would like to hear about them.

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

I thank the Member for drawing the Sub Aqua Club's work in Blackwatertown to the House's attention. I have absolutely no doubt that it, like other groups, does fantastic work.

I saw the need; I recognised that funding was available this year because there was the potential for funding to be handed back to Westminster. I pressed very hard to ensure that that funding came over the line this year. It would be good if a similar thing could happen next year so that other organisations could be drawn into the net and be assisted as well.

Maurice Bradley (DUP, East Londonderry)

I thank the Minister for his very welcome announcement. I hold Foyle Search and Rescue very dear. In my constituency, it, along with the Royal National Lifeboat Institution (RNLI), provides a valuable service in the River Bann and along the north coastline. I am well aware of the work that both organisations and others do.

Minister, do you agree that the funding will help to reduce some of the pressure on those organisations? As was mentioned, many of them are run by dedicated volunteers with no aim but to save lives. The funding will provide fantastic equipment, such as thermal imaging cameras, that can be used to save lives.

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

Absolutely. When the bottom line is going down for those organisations because the fundraising has slowed down, it is critical that they get that help. They will then be able to continue to provide the service that they have been providing.

We do not want those groups to be in a situation where, when call-outs come in, they feel that, because of the equipment that they have, they are not capable of providing the service that is needed. Ensuring that they have the right and appropriate equipment will immensely increase their sustainability.

Keith Buchanan (DUP, Mid Ulster)

I thank the Minister for his statement. Minister, there is a bizarre issue where the River Blackwater meets Lough Neagh. Lough Neagh Rescue does an amazing job, but, as you well know, a boat needs water to operate. The difficulty is that there is only 450 mm of water where the River Blackwater meets Lough Neagh, so Lough Neagh Rescue cannot get up the Blackwater. I have been working with DFI on this. What pressure can your Department put on DFI to solve the problem whereby pleasure crafts and, more importantly, the rescue boats that you support cannot get up the Blackwater from Lough Neagh? If anybody is in difficulty or trouble, those crafts cannot get to them, never mind the number of vehicles — boats, I should say — that run aground every year. Time after time, they go out to solve a problem that should not be there.

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

Translating that back into old language, I think that that is a foot and a half. Anyway, it is a fairly marginal amount of water, so I understand the issue that the Member talks about. The last thing that you want is for one of those vessels to run aground in waters like that. That is certainly an issue. I am aware of the issues in relation to managing the height of the water in Lough Neagh and so forth and of the flooding that can happen as a consequence. I know, for example, that some people are against dredging, but it is certainly well worth having that conversation with DFI. If, in my position as Minister of Agriculture, I can support the Member in taking that case, I will be happy to do that.

Robbie Butler (UUP, Lagan Valley)

I thank the Minister for his announcement. Anyone who is involved in rescue services is right at the top of my totem pole of respect.

Having worked in a paid search and rescue role with the Fire and Rescue Service, I am aware that the pressures on our voluntary groups are not related just to equipment resources; one pressure relates to training and interoperability. I had the privilege of training with Lough Neagh Rescue when I worked with the Fire and Rescue Service. Might the money extend to paying those volunteers for training days, as well as to identifying other opportunities for the interoperability that is so important for successful outcomes?

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

Not at this point, as I understand it. I know that the Member, having been in the Fire and Rescue Service for many years and mixing with those groups when he went to circumstances and situations, has an excellent knowledge of this.

Obviously, training is key to ensuring that the skill base is good in any organisation. That could be looked at in the future, but, at this time, it is about providing equipment. Let us ensure, however, that whichever Department or Departments are responsible for this going forward — it will not necessarily be this Department — continue to support those voluntary groups.

Roy Beggs (UUP, East Antrim)

That concludes questions to the Minister on his statement. I ask Members to take their ease for a few moments.

Executive Committee Business

Roy Beggs (UUP, East Antrim)

I call the Minister of Finance, Conor Murphy, to move the Further Consideration Stage of the Non-domestic Rates Valuations (Coronavirus) Bill.

Moved. — [Mr C Murphy (The Minister of Finance).]

Roy Beggs (UUP, East Antrim)

As no amendments have been tabled, there is no opportunity to discuss the Bill today. Members will, of course, be able to have a full debate at Final Stage. The Further Consideration Stage of the Non-domestic Rates Valuations (Coronavirus) Bill is, therefore, concluded. The Bill stands referred to the Speaker.

Conor Murphy (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

I beg to move

That Standing Order 42(1) be suspended for 7 February 2022 in respect of the Final Stage of the Non-domestic Rates Valuations (Coronavirus) Bill.

Roy Beggs (UUP, East Antrim)

The Business Committee has agreed that there will be no time limit on the debate.

Conor Murphy (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

Standing Order 42(1) provides that there should be a minimum of five working days between each stage of any Bill. I fully recognise that providing that time between stages serves to ensure detailed legislative scrutiny by the Assembly by providing Members with the opportunity to consider in detail the legislation that is being proposed.

As the Bill is being progressed in line with the requirement to provide certainty on the tax base for district councils when setting rates and given that the Finance Committee has faithfully worked on an expedited basis before, during and after Christmas in order to facilitate the Bill's completing its passage for councils striking the rates, I move the motion to suspend Standing Order 42(1) in an effort to ensure that the Final Stage can take place in advance of the date by which councils will set their rates, which is 15 February. Not moving the motion would mean that the Final Stage would not take place until 14 February at the earliest, which is just one day ahead of the final date for council rate setting. The Committee has worked in a committed and dedicated fashion over recent weeks to allow the Bill to be considered on an expedited basis. While I will, obviously, reflect on the sterling work of the Committee during the Final Stage debate, I take this opportunity to commend the Committee Chair, Deputy Chair, members and staff for their work following the decision of the Assembly not to proceed on the basis of accelerated passage for the Bill.

That said, as no amendments were tabled for Consideration Stage last Monday or for Further Consideration Stage today, it would be prudent at this point to make the case for suspending Standing Order 42(1) so as to bring the Final Stage forward slightly, thus allowing for a greater period of notice for the councils that wish to see the outcome following the Assembly's vote at Final Stage. It is for that sole reason that I move the motion. I do so on the basis of consolidating and complementing the work of the Executive and the Committee in helping me to bring the Bill to this point on an expedited basis. I trust that I will get the support of the Chamber on that basis.

Steve Aiken (UUP, South Antrim)

I thank the Minister for his opening remarks. I intend to make further remarks on behalf of the Committee at Final Stage, when I hope that I will be able to comment more generally on the Non-domestic Rates Valuations (Coronavirus) Bill. For now, I will address the motion.

The Assembly denied accelerated passage to the Bill. However, members of the Finance Committee indicated in plenary that we would facilitate its expedited passage. To that end, the Committee took evidence quickly in December and reported promptly on the Committee Stage in early January. We learned during our abbreviated considerations that there had been a number of related valuation appeals. The Department indicated that those had been stayed. The Department also advised that, even if they had been progressed, the period for resolution would necessarily be quite prolonged. It seemed clear that hard-pressed businesses would not secure relief from that source on any useful timescale. It is, therefore, understood that it would be far better for the Executive to provide targeted and well-thought-out COVID relief measures in order to address those important COVID business problems.

The Committee has not taken a formal view on the suspension of the Standing Order. However, given the foregoing, we might conclude that there is little point delaying the progress of the Bill. It is regrettable, however, that the Department failed to warn the Committee that it was to follow that course of action, thus saving the Minister from yet another debate.

Maolíosa McHugh (Sinn Féin, West Tyrone)

Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire fosta. I thank the Minister. I will keep my remarks brief, as we will return to the issue at Final Stage in a short time.

There is no doubt that the Bill is needed to deal with the consequences of the pandemic for the rating system. The legal advice is clear: restrictions on businesses that have been in place since March 2020 and were designed to mitigate the spread of COVID-19 would constitute grounds for appeal of NAVs under article 39A of the Rates Order 1977. As nearly all businesses have been subject to some restrictions since the onset of the pandemic, most would be within their rights to appeal the NAV that came into force on 1 April 2020. That could have serious consequences for the tax base, as it is predicted that up to £250 million of rates revenue would be lost to the Executive and the councils over a three-year period.

I have sympathy with the many businesses in our community that have faced huge difficulties as a result of the pandemic and feel that the rates that they are being asked to pay do not adequately reflect the struggles that they are experiencing. However, we must seek to provide the appropriate support without risking our public finances. The Executive have provided much financial support to struggling businesses and continue to support those that have not recovered from the pandemic. Businesses have benefited from a freeze in the regional rate; generous rates holidays, support schemes that have been available from March 2020 and, most recently, the omicron hospitality payment. The draft Budget contains a rate relief package that is worth £50 million and will provide a one-month rates holiday to all sectors and a three-month holiday to the hardest-hit sectors. In addition, the Department of Finance has ordered a new revaluation exercise that will take into account the economic consequences of the pandemic in the next NAV list, which is due in 2023.

Councils are particularly anxious about the threat to the tax base. Many of us, as ex-councillors, will totally understand the fear that exists among councils. They rely heavily on the revenue collected via district rates. Councils need certainty in the coming weeks as they prepare to set their business rates for the incoming financial year. Given the short time frame that we face with the end of the mandate approaching and the Assembly's heavy legislative workload, any move to hasten the Bill's passage is welcome. I look forward to it returning to the Assembly shortly for its Final Stage.

Conor Murphy (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

I will be brief. I thank the Committee Chair and Mr McHugh for their contributions. As I said in my opening remarks, the motion is not about trying to curtail or reduce the scrutiny of legislation. Given the process that has been gone through, the fact that there are no amendments to deal with at Further Consideration Stage and that councils are in the process of striking their rates and the information that would become available as a consequence of the Bill's passing is hugely important to them in that exercise, we are simply trying to expedite the end point and get to a position where we can advise councils in good time. I thank the Members for their contributions and the Committee again for its work on the Bill. I urge Members to support the motion.

Roy Beggs (UUP, East Antrim)

Before I put the Question, I remind Members that the motion requires cross-community support.

Question put and agreed to. Resolved (with cross-community support):

That Standing Order 42(1) be suspended for 7 February 2022 in respect of the Final Stage of the Non-domestic Rates Valuations (Coronavirus) Bill.

Roy Beggs (UUP, East Antrim)

I ask Members to take their ease before the next item of business.

Roy Beggs (UUP, East Antrim)

No amendments have been tabled, so there is no opportunity to discuss the Organ and Tissue Donation (Deemed Consent) Bill today. Members will be able to have a full debate at Final Stage. The Further Consideration Stage of the Organ and Tissue Donation (Deemed Consent) Bill is therefore concluded. The Bill stands referred to the Speaker.

I again ask Members to take their ease.

(Mr Principal Deputy Speaker [Mr Stalford] in the Chair)

Christopher Stalford (DUP, Belfast South)

I call the Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs to move the Bill.

Moved. — [Mr Poots (The Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs).]

Christopher Stalford (DUP, Belfast South)

Members will have a copy of the Marshalled List of amendments detailing the order for consideration. The amendments have been grouped for debate in the provisional grouping of amendments selected list. There are four groups of amendments, and we will debate the amendments in each group in turn.

The first debate will be on amendment Nos 1 to 17, 20, 29 to 32, 34, 35, 55 to 59, 64 to 66 and 75, which deal with targets, carbon budgets and nitrogen balance sheets. The second debate will be on amendment Nos 18, 19, 21 to 28, 36 to 42, 45 to 49, 51, 76, 77, 79 and 80, which deal with proposals and policies. The third debate will be on amendment Nos 33, 60 to 63, 67 to 74 and 78, which deal with oversight, governance and accountability. The fourth debate will be on amendment Nos 43, 44, 50 and 52 to 54, which deal with the just transition principles and fund.

I remind Members intending to speak that, during the debates on the four groups of amendments, they should address all of the amendments in each group on which they wish to comment. Once the debate on each group is completed, any further amendments in the group will be 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. Clear as mud.

Clause 1 (The emissions target for 2050)

Christopher Stalford (DUP, Belfast South)

We now come to the first group of amendments for debate. With amendment No 1, it will be convenient to debate amendment Nos 2 to 17, 20, 29 to 32, 34, 35, 55 to 59, 64 to 66 and 75. In this group, amendment No 3 is mutually exclusive to amendment No 2; amendment No 5 is mutually exclusive to amendment No 4; amendment No 10 is mutually exclusive to amendment No 9; amendment No 12 is consequential to amendment Nos 4 or 5; amendment No 13 is consequential to amendment No 12; and amendment Nos 14, 17, 55 and 75 are consequential to amendment Nos 4 or 5. Amendment No 29 is a paving amendment to a number of other amendments.

The following amendments stood on the Marshalled List:

No 1: In page 1, line 6, leave out “2050” and insert “2045”. — [Ms Bailey.]

No 2: In page 1, line 6, leave out “82%” and insert “100%”. — [Ms Bailey.]

No 3: In page 1, line 6, leave out “82% lower than the baseline” and insert “net zero”. — [Mr Blair.]

No 4: In page 1, line 6, at end insert—

“(1A) The Northern Ireland departments must ensure that the net Northern Ireland emissions account for carbon dioxide for the year 2050 is at least 100% lower than the baseline for carbon dioxide.” — [Mr Poots (The Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs).]

No 5: In page 1, line 6, at end insert—

“(1B) The Northern Ireland departments must ensure that the net Northern Ireland emissions account for carbon dioxide for the year 2045 is at least 100% lower than the baseline for carbon dioxide.” — [Mr Blair.]

No 6: After clause 1 insert—

“Emissions targets for 2030 and 2040

1A.—(1) The Department must set targets for the years 2030 and 2040 that are in line with the overall target for the year 2050.

(2) Proposed targets for the years 2030 and 2040 must be laid before the Assembly within 24 months of this Act receiving Royal Assent and be approved by draft affirmative resolution.” — [Mr McGuigan.]

No 7: In clause 2, page 1, line 9, leave out “69%” and insert “75%”. — [Ms Bailey.]

No 8: In clause 3, page 1, line 12, leave out “48%” and insert “50%”. — [Ms Bailey.]

No 9: In clause 4, page 2, line 1, leave out paragraphs (a) and (b) and insert—

“specify—

(a) for a particular emissions target, an earlier year than that for the time being specified,

(b) for a particular year, a higher percentage than that for the time being specified.” — [Mr Poots (The Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs).]

No 10: In clause 4, page 2, line 1, leave out paragraphs (a) and (b) and insert—

“specify—

(a) for a particular emissions target, only an earlier year than that for the time being specified,

(b) for a particular year, only a higher percentage than that for the time being specified.” — [Ms Bailey.]

No 11: Before clause 5 insert—

“Meaning of ‘net zero'

4A. In this Act, ‘net zero’ means 100% lower than the baseline.” — [Mr Blair.]

No 12: In clause 5, page 2, line 21, at end insert—

“(1A) The baseline for carbon dioxide is the amount of net Northern Ireland emissions of carbon dioxide in 1990.” — [Mr Poots (The Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs).]

No 13: In clause 5, page 2, line 23, at end insert—

“or

(b) subsection (1A) so as to specify a different year in relation to carbon dioxide.” — [Mr Poots (The Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs).]

No 14: In clause 6, page 2, line 36, at end insert—

“(2) Subsection (1) does not apply in relation to the net Northern Ireland emissions account for carbon dioxide for 2050 (see subsection (3)).

(3) The net Northern Ireland emissions account for carbon dioxide for 2050 is determined as follows—

(a) take the amount of net Northern Ireland emissions of carbon dioxide for 2050 (which is to be determined in accordance with sections 7 and 8),

(b) deduct the amount of carbon units that are to be credited to the net Northern Ireland emissions account for carbon dioxide for 2050 (in accordance with regulations under section 9), and

(c) add the amount of carbon units that are to be debited from the net Northern Ireland emissions account for carbon dioxide for 2050 (also in accordance with regulations under section 9).” — [Mr Poots (The Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs).]

No 15: In clause 7, page 3, line 19, at end insert—

“(d) carbon capture use and storage technology.” — [Mr McGuigan.]

No 16: In clause 9, page 4, line 12, leave out from “may” to end of line 14 and insert—

“must not specify a reduction in the net Northern Ireland emissions account for a period which is greater than 25% of emissions for that period.” — [Ms Bailey.]

No 17: In clause 9, page 4, line 16, at end insert—

“(5) The regulations may make provision about the crediting of carbon units to, and the debiting of carbon units from, the net Northern Ireland emissions account for carbon dioxide for 2050.

(6) The amount of carbon units that are to be credited to the net Northern Ireland emissions account for carbon dioxide for 2050 must not be greater than—

Total credits

x

CO2 emissions

Total emissions

(7) If—

(a) carbon units are credited to the net Northern Ireland emissions account for carbon dioxide for 2050, and

(b) carbon units are debited from the net Northern Ireland emissions account for 2050, carbon units must be debited from the net Northern Ireland emissions account for carbon dioxide for 2050; and the amount of carbon units so debited must not be less than—

Total credits

x

CO2 emissions

Total emissions

(8) In subsections (6) and (7)—

‘Total credits’ is the amount of carbon units that are credited to the net Northern Ireland emissions account for 2050;

‘Total debits’ is the amount of carbon units that are debited from the net Northern Ireland emissions account for 2050;

‘CO2 emissions’ is the amount of net Northern Ireland emissions of carbon dioxide for 2050;

‘Total emissions’ is the aggregate amount of net Northern Ireland emissions of each greenhouse gas for 2050.” — [Mr Poots (The Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs).]

No 20: After clause 10 insert—

“Renewable electricity consumption

10C.—(1) The Department for the Economy must ensure that at least 80% of electricity consumption from renewable sources by 2030.” — [Mr Dickson.]

No 29: In clause 11, page 5, line 6, at end insert—

“(1A) The Department must—

(a) carry out a public consultation lasting at least 16 weeks on proposed carbon budgets,

(b) also consult with the Climate Change Commissioner (as outlined in Section 28A), the other Departments and the Just Transition Commission (as outlined in Section 16B) and lay the proposals with the Assembly.

(1B) Proposed carbon budgets must be approved by the Assembly by draft affirmative resolution.” — [Mr McGuigan.]

No 30: In clause 11, page 5, line 6, at end insert—

“(1C) When seeking advice on setting the carbon budget, or on other environmental issues, the Department is to give due regard to the expertise and advice of any of the following bodies—

(a) The United Kingdom Committee on Climate Change;

(b) The Republic of Ireland Climate Advisory Council;

(c) The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.” — [Mr McGuigan.]

No 31: In clause 13, page 5, line 24, leave out “target” and insert “targets”. — [Mr Poots (The Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs).]

No 32: After clause 13 insert—

“Setting of carbon budgets: Social, environmental and economic factors

13A.—(1) In this Act, when setting targets the Department must take account of;—

(a) the objective of not exceeding a fair and safe emissions budget,

(b) European and international law and policy relating to climate change (including the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and protocols to that Convention),

(c) scientific knowledge about climate change,

(d) technology relevant to climate change,

(e) economic circumstances, in particular the likely impact of the target on—

(i) the economy,

(ii) the competitiveness of particular sectors of the economy,

(iii) small and medium-sized enterprises,

(iv) jobs and employment opportunities,

(f) fiscal circumstances, in particular the likely impact of the target on taxation, public spending and public borrowing,

(g) social circumstances, in particular the likely impact of the target on those living in poorer or deprived communities,

(h) the likely impact of the target on public health,

(i) the likely impact of the target on those living in remote rural communities and island communities,

(j) energy policy, in particular the likely impact of the target on energy supplies, the renewable energy sector and the carbon and energy intensity of the economy,

(k) environmental considerations and, in particular, the likely impact of the target on biodiversity,

(l) the likely impact of the target on the achievement of sustainable development, including the achievement of the United Nations sustainable development goals,

(m) current international carbon reporting practice,

(n) the special economic and social role of agriculture, including with regard to the distinct characteristics of biogenic methane,

(o) the risk of substantial and unreasonable carbon leakage,

(2) In this section, ‘carbon leakage’ means the transfer, due to climate policies, of production to other countries with less restrictive policies with regard to greenhouse gas emissions.” — [Mr McGuigan.]

No 34: After clause 15 insert—

“Nitrogen balance sheets

15A.—(1) The Department must, no later than 18 months after this act receives Royal Assent, create a balance sheet to quantify all major nitrogen flows across all sectors in Northern Ireland, including its coastal waters, the atmosphere and soil and flows across these boundaries, to be known as a ‘nitrogen balance sheet’ for the purpose mentioned in subsection (2).

(2) The purpose of a nitrogen balance sheet is to record how nitrogen use efficiency contributes to achieving the targets in this Act.

(3) In this Act, ‘nitrogen use efficiency’ is the ratio of nitrogen removed from the environment compared to the total nitrogen added to the environment and is calculated having regard to sources of nitrogen pollution including—

(a) agriculture, food production and waste;

(b) transport; and

(c) energy.

(4) The Department must by regulations make provision for;

(a) a baseline figure for nitrogen use efficiency,

(b) how nitrogen use efficiency is to be calculated,

(c) the timescale in which the nitrogen balance sheet is to be reviewed,

(d) monitoring and reporting upon the nitrogen balance sheet,

(e) such other matters as they consider appropriate.

(5) Before laying the draft regulations under subsection (4), the department must—

(a) Take into account the transboundary nature of nitrogen flows;

(b) Consult with such other persons as the Department considers appropriate.” — [Ms Bailey.]

No 35: In clause 16, page 6, line 37, at end insert—

“(2A) When developing policies each Department must ensure they are consistent with the targets set out in the carbon budget.” — [Mr McGuigan.]

No 55: In clause 20, page 9, line 19, at end insert—

“(4A) The statement for 2050 must also state—

(a) the total amount of carbon units (if any) that have been credited to or debited from the net Northern Ireland emissions account for carbon dioxide for that year, and

(b) the amount of the net Northern Ireland emissions account for carbon dioxide for that year.” — [Mr Poots (The Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs).]

No 56: In clause 20, page 9, line 20, after “target” insert “(or targets)”. — [Mr Poots (The Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs).]

No 57: In clause 20, page 9, line 20, after “has” insert “(or have)”. — [Mr Poots (The Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs).]

No 58: In clause 20, page 9, line 22, after “target” insert “(or each of the targets) for the year”. — [Mr Poots (The Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs).]

No 59: In clause 20, page 9, line 24, after “target” insert “(or each of the targets)”. — [Mr Poots (The Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs).]

No 64: In clause 24, page 11, line 27, leave out “either” and insert “any”. — [Mr Poots (The Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs).]

No 65: In clause 25, page 11, line 36, leave out “target for 2050 is the highest achievable target” and insert—

“targets for 2050 are the highest achievable targets”. — [Mr Poots (The Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs).]

No 66: In clause 25, page 11, line 37, leave out “not” and insert—

“either of them is not the highest achievable target”. — [Mr Poots (The Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs).]

No 75: In clause 29, page 12, line 33, after “amount” insert—

“and that the net Northern Ireland emissions account for carbon dioxide for 2050 is below a certain amount”. — [Mr Poots (The Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs).]

Christopher Stalford (DUP, Belfast South)

I was to call Ms Bailey to move the amendment.

Ms Bailey is not in her place. I move on to call Mr Philip McGuigan to move amendment No 6.

Philip McGuigan (Sinn Féin, North Antrim)

I beg to move amendment No 6:

After clause 1 insert—

“Emissions targets for 2030 and 2040

1A.—(1) The Department must set targets for the years 2030 and 2040 that are in line with the overall target for the year 2050.

(2) Proposed targets for the years 2030 and 2040 must be laid before the Assembly within 24 months of this Act receiving Royal Assent and be approved by draft affirmative resolution.”

Jim Allister (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

Why would amendment No 4 not be called before amendment No 6?

Christopher Stalford (DUP, Belfast South)

Mr Allister is right: amendment No 4 should be called before amendment No 6. I call the Minister.

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

I beg to move amendment No 4:

In page 1, line 6, at end insert—

“(1A) The Northern Ireland departments must ensure that the net Northern Ireland emissions account for carbon dioxide for the year 2050 is at least 100% lower than the baseline for carbon dioxide.” — [Mr Poots (The Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs).]

Christopher Stalford (DUP, Belfast South)

We now commence the debate on amendment No 4. Minister.

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

Thank you. Give me a moment to get to the appropriate point, Mr Principal Deputy Speaker.

I thank the Chair and members of the AERA Committee for their scrutiny of the Bill. That was hugely beneficial over the last number of weeks. I am pleased that we are now at a stage when this Bill — a science-based Bill — is ready to move forward. That is hugely positive. This Bill is the right Bill for the House. On one hand, it will ensure that we can tackle the important issues around climate, while, on the other, it will ensure that we can deal with all of the issues that involve our economy, our agri-food sector and all of that.

I begin by outlining the amendments that I have tabled. They were all tabled following in-depth discussions and agreement with the AERA Committee during the Committee Stage of my Bill. I have tabled amendment Nos 61, 62, 63 and 67 to strengthen my Bill on oversight, governance and accountability. They include, but are not limited to, amendments to clause 21 of the Bill. I fully recognise —.

Christopher Stalford (DUP, Belfast South)

Will the Minister resume his seat briefly?

Given the sheer scale of what we are about to go through, it is important that we get it procedurally correct. I have been advised by the Clerk that, although Ms Bailey was not in her place to move amendment No 1, any Member would have had the right so to do. I make the House aware of that before the Minister proceeds. Does anyone wish to move amendment No 1?

Philip McGuigan (Sinn Féin, North Antrim)

On a point of order, Mr Principal Deputy Speaker. In that case, why would any Member not be able to move amendment No 2?

Christopher Stalford (DUP, Belfast South)

We have always moved the first amendment in the group. Ms Bailey was not in her place, and I have now offered the House the opportunity to move amendment No 1. I am sorry; there have been two opportunities now. As it is a serious issue, I need to take advice from the Clerks. Members should take their ease for a few moments.

Thank you, Members. I have been advised that, as an opportunity was given to the Member and other Members in the House to move amendment No 1, it will not be called.

We will move on to amendment No 2. I call Ms Clare Bailey to move amendment No 2.

Clare Bailey (Green, Belfast South)

I beg to move amendment No 2:

In page 1, line 6, leave out “82%” and insert “100%”.

Christopher Stalford (DUP, Belfast South)

We can start the debate.

Clare Bailey (Green, Belfast South)

I will take the opportunity to apologise to the House. I was not in my seat, and I was not here on time. I am very sorry. Business has moved much quicker than scheduled today. I can only apologise. Thank you for allowing me to speak.

If it is OK, I will speak to the group as a whole. The amendments in group 1 relate to the targets and the interim target years. A strong and certain target will be absolutely key to providing and underpinning the emissions reductions that will follow in the legislation.

The Green Party's amendments propose 2045 as the deadline year for the emissions target. Almost every party present —

Jim Allister (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

On a point of order, Mr Principal Deputy Speaker.

Christopher Stalford (DUP, Belfast South)

It is going to be one of those afternoons.

Jim Allister (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

The mover of the amendment has just said that the start year should be 2045. Mr Principal Deputy Speaker, have you not just ruled that the amendment that would make it 2045, namely amendment No 1, has not been and cannot be moved?

Christopher Stalford (DUP, Belfast South)

That is correct. I understand that Ms Bailey said in her introductory remarks that she was speaking to the group, but the point that the Member has made about the 2045 start date is accurate.

Clare Bailey (Green, Belfast South)

I referenced 2045 because it is in the context of what the Green Party proposes. Of course, I am not moving amendment No 1, but the other amendments that we proposed to the Bill are all linked. I am speaking to the general debate rather than the amendment. I hope that the Member will allow me to do that, because almost every party present in the Chamber signed up to that commitment in the Climate Change Bill. Since that Bill was published, COP26 in Glasgow has underscored how urgently we have to act. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report was declared a "code red for humanity". If the parties were signed up to it before then, we certainly must be signed up to it now. If that is no longer the case, the onus is on parties to explain that change. That is for them to do.

We still believe that Northern Ireland needs strong and ambitious climate targets. We can no longer afford to be the climate laggard of the UK. Every indication is that we are heading down the wrong path. Right now, we are failing to contribute to an overall UK target. Climate legislation with an 82% overall target means that we will just about be contributing, but we will still be a drag on progress, relying on other UK jurisdictions to pick up the slack for us. Any change in context at a UK level will mean that we will be in a disastrous position. If — and, as I believe, when — the UK decides to accelerate its targets and ambition, we will not be in the best place to adapt to that.

We should not want a net zero target simply because we are afraid of being left behind. We should also want it because of the opportunity that it will bring. Net zero is possible for Northern Ireland, and it brings certainty and investment from a global market that is getting ever more focused on climate credentials for investment. What happens to our economy when GB and the Republic move ahead with net zero targets and we are left behind?

It is important to address the elephant in the room and the tractors at the door. I am sure that agriculture will be the focus of much of today's debate. First, the Green Party is pro-farmer. We want to see farmers and farming communities survive and thrive well into the future, but, in order to do that, the agricultural industry needs to be sustainable for future generations. Net zero targets will not be the ruination of agriculture in Northern Ireland.

Jim Allister (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

Will the Member give way?

Clare Bailey (Green, Belfast South)

Yes.

Jim Allister (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

The Member, in bringing her Bill, did not trouble with an economic assessment, and, therefore, the KPMG economic assessment was provided. It is very clear that the 100% proposal in her Bill requires an 86% cut in livestock, with 13,000 jobs on-farm to be lost and several thousand thereafter in the process. How, then, can she say that she is on the side of farming and that this is good for the economy, when that primary industry would be devastated by her proposal, or is she going to tell us that KPMG does not know what it is talking about?

Clare Bailey (Green, Belfast South)

I thank the Member for his intervention. Of course, that is the same KPMG that was found last week to be falsifying minutes and records in order to produce a report for the fossil fuel industry. Yesterday, we heard from KPMG that the figures that it gave in that report removed the public subsidies to the sector, which are up to 86%, when doing that assessment. It removed the public subsidy funding and did its economic assessment based on removing that because it said that it did not know what future public investment in the sector would be. Therefore, it did not put any of that in its report. The chair of the Climate Change Committee (CCC) has removed himself from the claims in the report of job losses, so it is a bit of a debatable report.

The net zero target will not be the ruination of Northern Ireland agriculture. The farming media and the Minister should really have a look at how they have left the agri-food corporates to dominate and frame the conversation on these Bills as a debate on farmers versus the environment. Farmers are custodians of the land, and they know nature better than anyone. Any farmer to whom you speak will tell you exactly that. The level of misinformation and scaremongering that has taken place, fuelled by some on these Benches and the agri-food lobby, is shameful.

Many countries that rely heavily on agriculture have set net zero targets, including the Netherlands and the Republic of Ireland, whose targets have not signalled the end of farming in their countries. Instead, they have paved the way for funding and support to flow into the sector.

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

Will the Member give way?

Clare Bailey (Green, Belfast South)

Yes.

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

I am not sure whether the Member has information that the rest of us do not have that the Irish Farmers' Association is supporting proposals in the Republic of Ireland. It supported this morning's protest, so the Member should not purport to articulate the idea that farmers in the Republic of Ireland are happy with the proposals — proposals that are not science-based either — and it has not been defined in the Republic of Ireland how what has been set out to be achieved will be achieved. I imagine that, when people see what is required, they will be horrified.

Clare Bailey (Green, Belfast South)

I thank the Minister for his intervention. Of course, had he listened to my words, I said that many countries that rely heavily on agriculture have set net zero targets, not that farmers in those countries were very happy with that. What he refers to in the Act that has been enacted in the South is that it needs the plans to go with it, and that is in motion at the minute.

The South will set its targets and its ambition, despite being even more reliant on agriculture than we are in the North. The Netherlands has set aside £21 billion of funding for its agriculture sector to help it to contribute to meeting the target. With the right supports, agriculture can lead from the front with the transition.

Last week, Sir Peter Kendall released his independent strategic review of the Northern Ireland agri-food sector. The Minister will be familiar with the report as he commissioned it, and it makes for startling reading. It states:

"The gap between perception and reality in terms of Northern Ireland’s environmental credentials is stark."

The report states that Northern Ireland's environment scorecard "makes for grim reading". The environment had "paid the price" for the success of Northern Ireland's agri-food sector. The report continues:

"The ambition to sell Northern Ireland produce on the back of its sustainability depends on plans being put in place, and quickly, to turn things round."

The report also touches on the threats posed to Northern Ireland farming post Brexit. I have spent the past weeks scrutinising how New Zealand and Australian trade deals are set to hugely displace Northern Ireland produce. It is naive of anyone to think that climate action is the threat here. Sir Peter Kendall's review is unequivocal: Northern Ireland must look beyond traditional markets for its agri-food produce, as the GB market is set to be flooded with imports from across the world as a result of those trade deals. Europe is the obvious choice as a market for Northern Ireland produce. That all points to post-Brexit trade deals, not climate mitigation and not climate ambition. Minister, when New Zealand and Australian agri-food products start to flood the GB market and when we start to look at Europe as a market for our produce, what happens when we cannot access that market because the EU has a net zero target and we do not? What happens to the Northern Ireland agriculture sector then? Citing climate change as the existential threat to agriculture is a red herring, and I urge the farming community not to be naive about that.

Roy Beggs (UUP, East Antrim)

Will the Member give way?

Clare Bailey (Green, Belfast South)

Certainly.

Roy Beggs (UUP, East Antrim)

The UK as a whole has a net zero target. The issue is that there is recognition by the Climate Change Committee and its scientific review that Northern Ireland provides food to other parts of the UK and, as such, contributes to climate change emissions. Does the Member not accept that putting additional burdens on local production will simply offshore our food and generate increased carbon outputs from areas that are not as climate-efficient as we are? That will be counterproductive. You will produce additional greenhouse gas emissions by offshoring our food production, whether it is to Australia, New Zealand or America, or even if it is produced in other parts of the United Kingdom.

Christopher Stalford (DUP, Belfast South)

Before the lady answers that question, I want to say that this will be a long hike, folks. I am sure that everyone will get to make their points, so, if we could try to keep interventions shorter, that would be great.

Clare Bailey (Green, Belfast South)

I thank the Member for the intervention. Again, I will go back to what I just said. The imports from other trade deal negotiations being undertaken by Boris Johnson — the post-Brexit utopia that he envisaged — are the greater threat to Northern Ireland produce being able to continue to survive in GB markets. To continue down that path with blinkers on is insanity, given that we do not know what is coming. We have to clean up our act so that we can differentiate ourselves in the global market on the basis of our excellent environmental and carbon credentials. Otherwise, we are sacrificing the future of farming for the sake of corporate profits now.

Diane Dodds (DUP, Upper Bann)

I thank the Member for giving way. She makes a really interesting point about our credentials in relation to climate change and carbon emissions. Does the Member agree that the demand for food will increase exponentially in the coming years? Unfortunately, that demand for food will be met by countries that do not have the climate change credentials that the United Kingdom currently has and, indeed, that, as a whole, the United Kingdom aspires to achieve by 2050. Indeed, after the EU-Mercosur deal, countries in South America are clearing whole swathes of the Amazon forest to increase their beef production. Food demands will have to be met, and the countries from which the Member is seeking to meet that demand do not have those climate credentials.

Clare Bailey (Green, Belfast South)

I thank the Member for the intervention. Of course, food supplies will change as climate mitigations and climate change become even more apparent. What they will be remains unknown, but we need to really question whether it is Northern Ireland that will feed Brazil, if that was your example. I am not really sure about that or whether we would even have the capacity to do that. We are part of the food production chain, and nobody is saying that we should stop producing food, but what the food supplies will be remains unknown.

Climate action is not anti-farming.

I have tabled amendments, which I will discuss later, to establish a just transition fund for agriculture that is just like those in the Netherlands and Scotland, for example. I have tabled amendments to ensure that plans and policies that come under the Bill take account of the particular needs of our rural communities. I have also tabled amendments to ensure that climate action here does not simply move the production of emissions elsewhere through the carbon leakage that has been mentioned by some. We must ensure that that is a fair process that will give agriculture the best possible chance of being a sustainable industry well into the future.

Setting the strong target is a political decision. We have only to look to our neighbours in Scotland to see how strong political decision-making on the issue leads to huge rewards. Scotland has set strong targets to be net zero by 2045 despite the fact that much of its economy is propped up by fossil fuels. Since that target was set in law, we have seen many innovative support streams from the green transition flooding into Aberdeen from the UK Government and the private sector.

Rosemary Barton (UUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I thank the Member for giving way. Ms Bailey, you speak about Scotland having set net zero targets by 2045. You expect Northern Ireland to go the same way. We cannot go the same way because we have a totally different topography. Scotland is a much larger area; it is much wilder, with more forestry and greater areas of bogland etc. We do not have that in Northern Ireland, so you have to rethink that.

Clare Bailey (Green, Belfast South)

I thank the Member for her intervention. I am not sure if she was here at the start of the debate, but I was not present to move amendment No 1, which proposed the 2045 target, so I think that that is off the table already.

Money is flowing into Scotland because of the challenges that Scotland faces with decarbonisation. Why, then, is there the attitude at UK level, which we in Northern Ireland buy into, that, where Northern Ireland is concerned, the support will not be provided to help us reach net zero ambitions, even if we wanted to? In a UK context, a relatively small agriculture sector is much easier to support when going towards net zero than the extensive Scottish oil and gas industry. This is a political decision. The UK Government can, and they should, support Northern Ireland's net zero ambitions and not leave us sitting as a dirty corner of Europe.

The UK Climate Change Committee has recommended that we set an emissions reductions target of "at least 82% by 2050". While the CCC is a highly respected advisory body, it is advisory. The CCC is not a policy-setting body. We are the legislators, and setting policy is our job. The CCC's advice does not make the case for Northern Ireland cementing its position as a climate laggard in law. Instead, it underscores that the UK Government need to step up and recognise some of the particular challenges that we face and to provide a greater degree of support and assistance like that that has been provided to parts of Scotland.

It is obvious that we share a single biogeographic unit with the Republic of Ireland and that, no matter your position on political unions, we are a separate land mass from GB. Our water flows, nitrogen flows, air and ammonia — the list goes on — do not recognise borders. Therefore, what happens when our behaviours here start impacting on those in the Republic? We are being told that we cannot meet net zero because of the emissions from our agri-sector. Yes, agriculture makes the biggest proportion of our emissions — it contributes 26% of the total greenhouse gases that are produced — but, as mentioned, agriculture emissions make up 37% of total emissions in the Republic. They have been politically brave enough, however, to set themselves an ambitious target because they know that that is where we all need to be if we are to have any hope of surviving.

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

Will the Member give way?

Clare Bailey (Green, Belfast South)

Certainly.

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

Does the Member realise that the Irish Republic has confirmed that it will reduce methane by 10% by 2030? Who is ahead and who is behind there? We are already ahead of the Republic of Ireland. The Member is moving into areas like waterways. The waterways issue is entirely different from the climate change issue. Dealing with phosphates appropriately is the way that will deal with our waterways. That is an entirely separate debate. Conflating the two is causing confusion, and she would be best not to do it.

Clare Bailey (Green, Belfast South)

I thank the Minister for his ambition. If we are really leading the way and doing better, why stop that ambition and slow us down? Why not keep going? The European Union has introduced a 2050 net zero target. Northern Ireland cannot just become a solitary corner of Europe that is left behind. Net zero is possible. The chief executive of the CCC, speaking on 'Good Morning Ulster' in November, said that there is no technical barrier to Northern Ireland reaching net zero emissions and that, if net zero is the way that politicians want to go, of course you can go further than 82%.

Steve Aiken (UUP, South Antrim)

I thank the Member very much indeed for giving way. The Member talks about the European Union's move towards net zero carbon by 2050, but she will also be aware that, in various European countries, including France, Spain and, I understand, Germany, there are different targets for different regions. Why would there be a set of different targets across France, Spain or, indeed, Germany and not within our great nation, the United Kingdom?

Clare Bailey (Green, Belfast South)

The Member rightly raises the fact that different states across Europe have their own targets. While Europe has set a target of net zero by 2050, Sweden, for example, has increased that ambition; I think that its target is now to reach net zero by 2045. Finland has set a target for net zero by 2035, in line with your policy; maybe Finland has taken a leaf out of the Member's manifesto. Different states can implement their own legislation, but the overall target for Europe remains net zero by 2050. Setting that legally binding target is a worthy and appropriate target for Northern Ireland.

Steve Aiken (UUP, South Antrim)

Will the Member give way?

Clare Bailey (Green, Belfast South)

Yes.

Steve Aiken (UUP, South Antrim)

Just for clarification, Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom and is likely to remain so for a considerable period. Therefore, it is within the UK's target of 2050. My understanding, from being at COP26, from the conversations that I have had with the CCC and from my previous work with the IPCC, is that one of the few countries in Europe that is likely to make the 2050 target is, indeed, the United Kingdom. Why is Northern Ireland, where we are looking at 82%, being singled out to have a greater target to try to achieve that goal?

Clare Bailey (Green, Belfast South)

I thank the Member for that. It goes back to what I have said already: we are a separate land mass, and the environmental impact is very different for us than it is on the GB land mass. We know that we, in Northern Ireland, are the climate laggards. We are the highest emitters across these islands. The biodiversity and the environmental damage being done here is not the same as that in GB. While we might be part of an overall UK net zero target, the environmental consequences of not reaching net zero that we will feel and the impact that that will have on our land mass will be very different from those in GB. Our biodiversity, our peatlands, our air quality, our water quality and our soil quality are all very different because we are a separate land mass. That needs to be taken into account.

Roy Beggs (UUP, East Antrim)

Will the Member give way?

Clare Bailey (Green, Belfast South)

I want to finish this. Am I only speaking to this amendment, Mr Principal Deputy Speaker?

Christopher Stalford (DUP, Belfast South)

Yes.

Clare Bailey (Green, Belfast South)

OK. Thank you. I will wrap up on this amendment. As legislators, this is our decision. The targets are a political choice. We have to make a decision for ourselves. It goes beyond party political interests. It goes beyond short-term considerations. It goes beyond elections. It goes beyond the interests of corporate lobbyists. It is about securing a future for ourselves, for our children and for our grandchildren. It is about setting the framework and creating systems that will be fit for the future. I urge the House: please decide wisely; if you want to sleep at night and look your grandchildren in the eye, make sure that you can be confident in telling them that you did everything possible with the privilege that you hold.

Christopher Stalford (DUP, Belfast South)

It is just past 12.55 pm, so I propose to suspend the sitting for a meeting of the Business Committee. When we return at 2.00 pm, the next item will be questions for oral answer to the Minister for Infrastructure. When we resume this debate after Question Time, the next Member called to speak will be Mr Philip McGuigan.

The debate stood suspended. The sitting was suspended at 12.55 pm.

On resuming (Mr Deputy Speaker [Mr McGlone] in the Chair) —

Oral Answers to Questions — Infrastructure

Christopher Stalford (DUP, Belfast South)

1. Mr Stalford asked the Minister for Infrastructure what consultation has been undertaken with businesses on the Ormeau Road in relation to the expansion of the Belfast Rapid Transit system. (AQO 3050/17-22)

Nichola Mallon (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Belfast North)

As the House will be aware, I launched a public consultation on 26 July that closed on 4 October, the purpose of which was to seek the views of the public, businesses and elected representatives on a number of potential routes for Belfast Rapid Transit phase 2 (BRT2). I am pleased that the consultation attracted a significant response, and my officials are considering the feedback received.

As part of the public consultation process, my officials met a wide range of stakeholders virtually and in person. Specifically in relation to Ormeau Road businesses, my officials have engaged on a number of occasions, including meetings organised by the Ormeau Road Traders' Association on Friday 1 October 2021, the Federation of Small Businesses on Friday 12 November 2021 and Retail NI on Thursday 20 January 2022. All those meetings included representatives from Ormeau Road businesses.

Following the identification of a preferred route, further engagement with businesses and residents will be carried out throughout the detailed design process with a view to mitigating any detrimental impacts identified.

Christopher Stalford (DUP, Belfast South)

I am grateful to the Minister for her answer. My concern is that engagement with officials is one thing, but it would be good — I am sure that the Minister will not have any objection to it — for the Minister to meet business leaders and owners on the Ormeau Road to see for herself the issues that they are raising. I ask that not to score points but in a friendly way, so that we can get Belfast Rapid Transit right. If the Minister would commit to that —

Patsy McGlone (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Mid Ulster)

Does the Member have a question? As he will know —

Christopher Stalford (DUP, Belfast South)

If the Minister could commit to that, it would be much appreciated.

Nichola Mallon (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Belfast North)

I have, on every occasion on which my officials have engaged with the Ormeau Road businesses, received feedback on the issues and concerns that have been raised. My officials have committed to meeting again with the businesses along the road to discuss their concerns and any mitigations, if that proves to be the preferred route. I am happy to meet the Ormeau Road businesses if there is additional information or there are issues that they have not raised thus far with my officials.

Matthew O'Toole (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Belfast South)

I welcome the Minister's commitment to BRT2, which could be transformational for South Belfast and, indeed, the north of the city. I welcome her commitment to engage and her Department's engagement with Ormeau Road businesses. I am delighted that she has committed her Department to reassessing the case for extending the Glider to Carryduff, as that could be transformative for that community in the south of the city. Will she ask her Department to look favourably on that extension? It is critical for the people and businesses of Carryduff.

Nichola Mallon (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Belfast North)

The routes brought forward for public consultation were developed in collaboration with expert transport consultants and were considered to offer the optimal options for extension of the rapid transit network. The suggestions that the routes be extended beyond the proposed end points, both in south Belfast and to Glengormley in north Belfast, were made during the public consultation exercise. I have asked the consultants to consider those matters further.

Paula Bradshaw (Alliance, Belfast South)

During the Adjournment debate that my colleague Christopher Stalford secured late last year, I raised the issue of the lack of transport infrastructure into Belvoir estate. Is that being considered as part of the consultation process?

Nichola Mallon (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Belfast North)

I thank the Member for her question. If the issue was raised during the public consultation process, it will be considered by my officials.

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

I thank the Minister for her response in relation to South Belfast. Given what she said about North Belfast, will she agree to meet the local MP to hear the concerns of residents and traders and to ensure that the rapid transit system goes all the way through Glengormley village and beyond?

Nichola Mallon (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Belfast North)

I thank the Member for her question. As she will be aware, the public consultation exercise for north Belfast is on two possible routes: Antrim Road and Shore Road. The important issue of the extension of the route to Glengormley has also been raised. As in the case of the Member for South Belfast, I am happy to meet elected representatives and local businesses where there are emerging new or additional issues that they have not already raised with my officials.

Steve Aiken (UUP, South Antrim)

Will the Minister come with me to Global Point in my wonderful constituency of South Antrim? That is where we would like the terminus to be located for the Glider that will come through north Belfast, either along the Shore Road or another way. I would be delighted if she could come with me to meet the local business community and the council to discuss locating the Glider terminus at Global Point.

Nichola Mallon (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Belfast North)

I am conscious that multiple meeting requests have been made, and this is only the first oral question.

[Laughter.]

I wonder how many hours in the day I will have to agree to them all. On a serious note, I am happy to consider representations, so, if the Member wishes to write to me in the first instance, I will certainly give consideration to the matter.

Ciara Ferguson (Sinn Féin, Foyle)

2. Ms Ferguson asked the Minister for Infrastructure to detail what plans she has to improve the railway line from the north-west transport hub to Belfast. (AQO 3051/17-22)

Nichola Mallon (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Belfast North)

Since coming into office, I have made my commitment to rail connectivity across this island a priority. I recognised the lack of investment west of the Bann and particularly how rail connectivity needed to be developed into the north-west. That is why I commissioned a new feasibility study to get phase 3 of the Derry to Coleraine rail line back on track. I am pleased to confirm that the study is now complete and a business case is being produced so that that important project for the people of Derry and beyond can be progressed. I have also commissioned further studies to examine options for new halts and associated park-and-ride facilities at Strathfoyle, Eglinton, City of Derry Airport and Ballykelly. The study will also examine the possibility of introducing half-hourly services from Derry, and I am pressing my team to finalise that as quickly as possible so that we can move forward.

While the departmental budget for future years has not yet been agreed, I have outlined the significant investment needed over multiple years to enhance our rail connectivity and our public transport network as a whole. I assure the Member that I will continue to seek funding for our public transport network with my Executive colleagues, building on the momentum that the new award-winning north-west transport hub has created, to outline the clear role of public transport in helping to address the climate emergency and helping the Executive to deliver on its other key priorities, including health, education and the economy.

Ciara Ferguson (Sinn Féin, Foyle)

I thank the Minister for her update. She mentioned that the study and the business case are complete and that she is looking at halts. Does she have a timescale for that? We know how critical it is; in particular, the delivery of phase 3 is urgent. If there is a deadline or a timescale for the Derry to Coleraine upgrade, it will be much appreciated.

Nichola Mallon (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Belfast North)

In June 2020, I announced that the new feasibility study was required to get phase 3 of the Coleraine to Derry rail line back on track. I ring-fenced the required funding for that work to be done at pace. As I said, the feasibility study is now complete, and it has outlined options for the redevelopment of that much-needed railway line. Those options will be taken forward and will be considered in a robust business case, which will ensure that all future spend is fully informed and that there are high-level assurances on the costs. The business case will be completed early this year, and I have instructed my officials to ensure that construction begins thereafter at the earliest opportunity.

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

I thank the Minister for recognising the underinvestment or, as we would say in Derry, neglect of the north-west over so many years. Nowhere has that been more visible than in the rail network. When might the additional carriages be rolled on to the Derry to Belfast line?

Nichola Mallon (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Belfast North)

As the Member will know, I invested £66 million in the purchase of 21 new train carriages. That was to ensure that we will have longer trains, facilitating passengers across our key routes. Derry is rightly identified as one of those, and the intention is that the new carriages will come into operation in the spring of this year.

George Robinson (DUP, East Londonderry)

Will the Minister give me an update on the much-needed Ballykelly halt, particularly its location?

Nichola Mallon (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Belfast North)

I thank the Member for his question. Ballykelly is one of the three locations that have been identified in the feasibility study for a new halt. Work is ongoing, and I hope to be in receipt of a report later this year and then to move to construction at the earliest opportunity, pending all the statutory processes being completed and the funding available.

Steve Aiken (UUP, South Antrim)

The Minister is fully aware that, when the railway line makes its way up there, one of the more important areas for development should be the halt at Ballymartin. Will the Minister give an undertaking that, when she looks at feasibility studies for improving halts and rail connectivity, she looks first at something much closer and that has much more economic significance, particularly to the people of south Antrim and Ballymartin?

Nichola Mallon (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Belfast North)

The Member will know that, along with Minister Eamon Ryan, I launched the all-island strategic rail review, the purpose of which is to look at existing rail connectivity to see where it can be improved in areas where it is not present. It will also look at rail connectivity to our international gateways — our ports and airports — and the role of rail in the transportation of freight. Certainly, if that issue has been raised during the consultation process, it will be given due consideration. As Minister, I am keen that we do everything that we can to maximise rail connectivity and to make sure that it is convenient for passengers across Northern Ireland.

Sinéad Bradley (Social Democratic and Labour Party, South Down)

3. Ms S Bradley asked the Minister for Infrastructure for an update on the Narrow Water bridge project. (AQO 3052/17-22)

Nichola Mallon (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Belfast North)

As a keen campaigner on the issue, the Member will know that the Narrow Water bridge project is a ministerial priority for me as well as a key commitment in 'New Decade, New Approach' (NDNA). I am pleased that I have been able to make progress, and, working with the Irish Government, funding has been secured. Working with partners and stakeholders, we are keen to see and are progressing on the delivery of this very important bridge. The bridge will be an iconic landmark that will increase connectivity and maximise the tourism potential of the cross-border region.

On 29 June 2021, the Irish Government announced €3 million in funding from the Shared Island Fund to allow Louth County Council to advance the project to tender stage on the basis of the 2012 design proposals. My officials are working closely with Louth County Council to complete the processes required to move to the tender stage as quickly as possible. I assure the Member that I am determined that we work at pace, so that this long-awaited, much-needed project moves from concept to reality as quickly as possible for the people of south Down. Subject to completing the necessary development and statutory processes, construction on the bridge could commence next year.

Sinéad Bradley (Social Democratic and Labour Party, South Down)

I thank the Minister for her answer. Minister, others talk the talk, but you have certainly walked the walk for Narrow Water bridge, and I thank you. I am conscious that only a short time is left in the mandate. Can the Minister give an assurance that the project has been sufficiently developed by the Department to ensure that any incoming Minister will have a clear pathway to its completion? I also ask the Minister to reference her good work on active travel and how that can be built around the bridge project.

I do not miss the opportunity to wish the Minister a happy St Brigid's Day.

Patsy McGlone (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Mid Ulster)

Go raibh maith agat as sin. Gurb amhlaidh duit. The same to you.

Nichola Mallon (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Belfast North)

I say, "Happy St Brigid's Day" to Sinéad Bradley as well.

I will deal with active travel first. My officials have been working on that because we want to make sure that we maximise the potential for the area. As well as maximising the tourism potential, we are making sure that we have good active travel opportunities for people. Not only is that good for the local economy and tourism; it is good for people's health and well-being.

In respect of the plans of a future Minister, I assure the Member and the House that we have been working to advance all the stages required as quickly as possible. Narrow Water bridge is an NDNA commitment. It is a five-party agreement, and I expect any future Minister to continue to work with the Irish Government, who are committed to funding the project, to ensure that we can see it finally delivered.

Sinéad Ennis (Sinn Féin, South Down)

Narrow Water bridge is a vital all-island project that has strong cross-party political support, North and South, and I have been seeking progress on it for some time. With reference to the Minister's answer to the previous question, can she indicate whether construction is set for 2023, or is it possible to advance that and bring it forward? It will bring a huge boost to the local workforce and tourism economy. Is the Minister in a position to give some details on the design — for example, will cycle lanes be separate from other vehicles and traffic?

Nichola Mallon (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Belfast North)

The project is working off the 2012 design, which will set out the cycling provision as well as the transport provision. With regard to construction potentially commencing in 2023, I caveat that by saying that it has to follow all the statutory processes. I am confident that there is a strong wind at the back of this project. We have the funding commitment from the Irish Government, and every effort is being made to ensure that we get to construction at the earliest opportunity because of the value of the project. As the Member rightly identified, it will bring employment opportunities to the area at a time when we are seeking to expand our economic recovery from COVID.

William Irwin (DUP, Newry and Armagh)

4. Mr Irwin asked the Minister for Infrastructure for an update on plans to improve the A3 road between Armagh and Portadown. (AQO 3053/17-22)

Nichola Mallon (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Belfast North)

My Department intends to take forward a scheme for the resurfacing and widening of the A3 Portadown Road, Armagh, starting at the climbing lane section from the Drumman Heights roundabout heading out of Armagh and extending approximately 1·3 km eastwards towards Portadown. The widening of the existing main trunk road to current design standards will improve safety by providing right-turning facilities into the Tirnascobe Road — I hope that I have pronounced that correctly — and other accesses into residential properties. The scheme incorporates substantial resurfacing and drainage improvements of the carriageway and the installation of vehicle restraint systems where needed. The scheme tender documents are being prepared for procurement and will be advertised in the coming weeks. The scheme is programmed to be awarded and constructed during the 2022-23 financial year, subject, of course, to funding being made available.

William Irwin (DUP, Newry and Armagh)

I thank the Minister for her response and welcome the fact that there will be a partial upgrade of the carriageway, and, even though it is only 1·3 km, it will still help. The existing dual carriageway has a couple of very dangerous turn-offs — Tirnascobe Road is one of them — so I welcome that. To my knowledge, the carriageway is one of the busiest single carriageways in Northern Ireland. Does the Minister agree that a wider upgrade is needed for the road in the future?

Nichola Mallon (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Belfast North)

I am not particularly familiar with the layout of the road, but, as the Member said, I am pleased that we are making some improvements. As always, I press my officials to make sure that we maximise our efforts to improve our road network, with road safety being a key aspect of that.

Cathal Boylan (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

I welcome the news. Minister, given that no additional bids were made in the January monitoring round for additional roadworks and the fact that you have responded to me in writing that contracts will not be issued in the Armagh City, Banbridge and Craigavon area until at least May, what measures are you taking to address some of the outstanding issues that we are still facing with the dire state of some of our roads? What measures can you introduce in the meantime to try to address those issues?

Nichola Mallon (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Belfast North)

I thank the Member for his question. As a long-standing member of the Infrastructure Committee, he will be very aware of the Barton report, which, if I remember correctly, identified annual expenditure of £140 million at 2018 prices to maintain our road network. Obviously, allocations to the Department have fallen significantly short of that year-on-year. We have a concerning situation with the road network in certain parts of the North. To try to address that, I have allocated the highest ever level of funding specifically to a rural roads initiative. We have allocated £17 million this year to the roads recovery fund, £15 million of which is specific to our rural roads. That is a 50% increase. The Member will also know that emergency works are carried out. I will, however, continue to press the Executive and colleagues to ensure that we can get sufficient funding to maintain and improve our road network across the North.

Justin McNulty (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Newry and Armagh)

Happy St Brigid's Day to you, a LeasCheann Comhairle, and to the Minister.

It is fantastic news to hear of the widening and resurfacing of the A3 carriageway from Armagh towards Portadown. The Minister mentioned the Tirnascobe Road junction, near which there is a house that requires a crash barrier. I hope that that can be factored into the design of those road improvement works.

The traffic on the road is immense —

Patsy McGlone (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Mid Ulster)

Does the Member have a question, please?

Justin McNulty (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Newry and Armagh)

Yes. How will traffic be reduced by reopening the Armagh to Portadown rail link, which has been factored into the rail review that the Minister recently completed with Minister Ryan? How will that, hopefully, help our climate as well —

Patsy McGlone (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Mid Ulster)

I ask the Member to bring his questioning to a close.

Justin McNulty (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Newry and Armagh)

Will that rail link be factored in to the reduction of traffic —

Patsy McGlone (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Mid Ulster)

I ask the Member to resume his seat, please.

Justin McNulty (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Newry and Armagh)

— on our roads?

Nichola Mallon (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Belfast North)

The all-island strategic rail review looked at the rail network across the island. We had, I think, over 7,000 online responses alone to the public consultation on the review, and I have no doubt that the Armagh to Portadown issue has been raised in them and will be given consideration. The Member will also know that, in addition to that, I offered part funding for a feasibility study into the Portadown to Armagh link. My understanding is that Armagh City, Banbridge and Craigavon Borough Council has appointed consultants and expects findings to be published in the spring.

Roy Beggs (UUP, East Antrim)

I will follow up that point by saying that it is vital that rail links be re-established. Minister, in your rail investment, are you prioritising rail routes that are relatively low-hanging fruit, which can be redeveloped at minimal cost, given that the rail bed is already in place?

Nichola Mallon (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Belfast North)

All those issues will, of course, be given consideration as part of the all-island strategic rail review, because it is about setting out a strategic and evidence-based approach to investment in our rail network. I have no doubt that the issues that the Member described as "low-hanging fruit" will be given consideration as part of that, and that will be informed by the investment decisions that are made by Ministers, North and South, on rail connectivity across the island.

Andrew Muir (Alliance, North Down)

The House is debating a climate change Bill. Will the Minister detail to me what impact, she feels, the climate change legislation under consideration will have on new road-building projects across Northern Ireland? How will road safety be considered as part of that?

Patsy McGlone (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Mid Ulster)

I am sure that the Minister realises that does not relate specifically to the original question. It is at the Minister's discretion whether to answer.

Nichola Mallon (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Belfast North)

Two such Bills are making their way through the House, with differing targets, and that will have to be factored in. There is no doubt that the climate crisis will significantly alter how we do business as a Government. It will have an impact on where and how we invest. It will require much greater investment in active travel infrastructure and in our public transport network. I have laid out before to the House the actions that we are taking as a Department on the electric charging infrastructure as well. It will certainly have an impact and will be one of the biggest challenges facing the new Executive and parties across the House.

Keith Buchanan (DUP, Mid Ulster)

5. Mr K Buchanan asked the Minister for Infrastructure for an update on the dredging of the River Blackwater at the mouth of Lough Neagh. (AQO 3054/17-22)

Nichola Mallon (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Belfast North)

My Department is not under any statutory obligation to carry out dredging at the mouth of the River Blackwater. Any work undertaken or contributed to by my Department would be on a purely discretionary basis and would need to demonstrate clear benefits for the community and value for money. That said, my officials are investigating what my Department would be in a position to do to facilitate progress on the issue. To that end, officials have been engaging with key stakeholders on dredging the mouth of the River Blackwater, meeting them on 10 December and again on 27 January. Conversations about what is required and how my Department can assist are ongoing. That will need to be informed by preliminary investigative work, such as the bathymetric and wildlife habitats surveys, to determine specific requirements.

I recognise the importance of the river as a gateway to Lough Neagh, and I am keen to do what I can to address any specific barriers to dredging and maintaining water levels and navigational markers that have been identified as impeding the lough's potential to contribute to the local community. My officials will continue to liaise closely with local stakeholders. I have asked to be kept informed of progress as we seek to work together to further the aims of the project.

Keith Buchanan (DUP, Mid Ulster)

I thank the Minister for her answer. Minister, we heard from Minister Poots earlier, who referenced Lough Neagh and Lough Neagh Rescue in his statement. Is the Minister aware that the Lough Neagh rescue boat cannot go down the River Blackwater because there is only approximately 450 mm of water, which is a foot and a half, in old money? Does that concern you? Are you content to press on to solve that problem?

Nichola Mallon (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Belfast North)

As I said, my officials met stakeholders just last week as part of ongoing discussions on a potential way forward. I have also indicated that I am willing to consider part funding suitable projects from my blue-green fund should an appropriate business case for funding be forthcoming. I assure the Member that my officials will continue to closely engage with stakeholders and that I will continue to closely follow that engagement. My offer of potential funding from my blue-green fund stands.

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

Since my late, great mother was called Brigid, it is only appropriate that I wish you all beannachtaí na Féile Bríde — a happy St Brigid's Day.

Minister, I previously asked you questions about Lough Neagh and its potential for increasing tourism and benefiting the people around the lough. You committed to doing what you can in your Department to promote the lough. What has happened since then? Will you commit to meeting the Lough Neagh Partnership about advancing that goal?

Nichola Mallon (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Belfast North)

My officials have had several meetings with the Lough Neagh Partnership about the future management of Lough Neagh. Discussions continue with various stakeholders, and they included a meeting in late January, which I referenced. I am clear that my officials will continue to engage with stakeholders in order to address any specific barriers that have been identified to dredging and maintaining water levels and navigational markers. I also reiterate my offer of potential funding from my blue-green fund.

I have to be honest with Members. The issue is that my Department's powers are limited when it comes to Lough Neagh, as it is in private ownership. In saying that, I have engaged with Minister Poots on it, and my officials will continue to engage with stakeholders.

Daniel McCrossan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, West Tyrone)

6. Mr McCrossan asked the Minister for Infrastructure for an update on infrastructure investment west of the Bann. (AQO 3055/17-22)

Nichola Mallon (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Belfast North)

There has been significant investment by my Department west of the Bann. My Department is investing in the construction of two very significant dualling schemes on the A6: the 15 km Randalstown to Castledawson scheme, which was fully opened to traffic in May '21; and the 25·5 km Drumahoe and Dungiven scheme, which is very well advanced and on course to be completed later this year.

The most significant road scheme that is under development west of the Bann is the flagship A5 project, for which my Department is working at pace on the publication of a new environmental statement addendum. I remain fully committed to progressing that project as quickly as possible.

A number of other strategic road infrastructure projects west of the Bann are being developed by my Department, including the A4 Enniskillen southern bypass; the A29 Cookstown bypass; the A32 Omagh to Enniskillen road upgrade; and the A2 Buncrana Road improvement scheme. In addition, my Department continues to progress roads and active travel investment in those areas, including schemes on Dublin Road and at O'Kane Park in Omagh, as well as a junction improvement scheme at Bells Park Road and Orchard Road near Strabane. The long-sought weight restriction through Clady came into effect with the placing of signs this week.

Flood alleviation schemes continue to progress. They include engagement with our partner consultant, revisiting the most recent flood study for Omagh town; the feasibility study for the Strabane significant flood risk area; and the design of proposed flood alleviation schemes for both Drumahoe and Eglinton. My officials have also completed a feasibility study for the Derry city area.

I have funded a number of transport projects west of the Bann since January 2020, including phase 2 external works of the north-west transport hub; the replacement of bearings for the Bann bridge in Coleraine; and the Bellarena permanent way storage and stabling facility.

Those projects are in addition to investment in a zero-emission bus fleet in Derry. There has also been significant investment in our water and waste water infrastructure.

Patsy McGlone (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Mid Ulster)

That ends the period for listed questions. We now move on to 15 minutes of topical questions.

Christopher Stalford (DUP, Belfast South)

T1. Mr Stalford asked the Minister for Infrastructure to undertake a review of the practical outworkings of the cycle lane scheme on the Donegall Road, given that, although well-intentioned, it has not achieved the desired outcome and, because the road has been closed using bollards, the trucks that clean it cannot get in to pick up glass, which is creating problems for cyclists. (AQT 2001/17-22)

Nichola Mallon (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Belfast North)

My Department has undertaken a review of the pop-up cycle lanes that were installed as part of our response to COVID, but I am happy to pick up on the individual issues that the Member has raised and come back to him in writing.

Christopher Stalford (DUP, Belfast South)

Pivoting to the other end of the constituency, the Minister will be aware that you have to wait for roughly 30 minutes or 45 minutes for a bus in the Belvoir estate and that they do not go directly into the centre of town. Will she look carefully at improving the frequency of and access to buses for the Belvoir estate?

Nichola Mallon (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Belfast North)

The Member will know that I am keen to expand our public transport network in terms of its frequency and extension to locations. Often, these are operational matters for Translink, but, if the Member is content to write to me and provide further detail, I can certainly pass that to Translink, or he may wish to raise it with Translink directly and, if necessary, come back to me afterwards.

Órlaithí Flynn (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

T2. Ms Flynn asked the Minister for Infrastructure, who will be aware that, at the end of 2020, a survey was carried out to assess the land at the Hannahstown community village, to provide an update on the available capital budget that might help to progress the scheme. (AQT 2002/17-22)

Nichola Mallon (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Belfast North)

I thank the Member for her question. Officials and I met members of the community association to discuss the issue. My officials subsequently attended a public meeting about it; I am sure that the Member was there. I have made it clear to my officials that it needs to be progressed quickly. It encapsulates a lot of what the blue-green infrastructure fund is about. I am bewildered that the village does not have a footway running through it. I have made it clear to my officials that we need to work hard to address that. A number of statutory processes have to be completed. The community association representative wrote to me recently on the matter, and I hope to write to him to provide him with a further update.

Órlaithí Flynn (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

I thank the Minister very much for that detailed answer. Obviously, a footway would bring a lot of health benefits to that local community. They have gone for long enough without one. Minister, you mentioned statutory processes that you need to follow up. Can you give any timeline for when the footway may be delivered?

Nichola Mallon (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Belfast North)

I am happy to provide detail in writing to the Member. I have asked officials to do exactly that so that I can provide an informed response to the community association. I am happy to provide you with the same information.

Joanne Bunting (DUP, Belfast East)

T3. Ms Bunting asked the Minister for Infrastructure when she anticipates that the long waits for MOT tests will end, given that she will be aware that although MOT test centres have been open and operational for a number of months, many people are still waiting two, three or four months for an appointment. (AQT 2003/17-22)

Nichola Mallon (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Belfast North)

The Member will be aware that, on 26 July 2021, the Driver and Vehicle Agency (DVA) reinstated normal vehicle test times, which has increased capacity across the network of test centres. From 1 September to 31 December 2021, the DVA conducted 264,540 full vehicle tests, which is 8% more than the five-year average for those months. The DVA has confirmed that, as of 31 January 2022 — yesterday — just over 55,000 vehicle test appointments were available across its network of centres up to 31 May 2022.

The DVA has steadily increased its vehicle testing capacity by adopting a range of measures, including the recruitment of additional vehicle examiners; the use of overtime to provide cover for leave and sick absence; and a reduction of the vehicle test appointment time. The DVA is also offering vehicle test appointments on Sundays and bank holidays at most test centres. Following the conversion of an adjoining building at the New Buildings test centre, additional test capacity is now available to meet demand in the north-west. The DVA is monitoring the applications received and tests carried out. It expects waiting times to reduce over time through the actions that it has taken to increase vehicle testing capacity across the network.

Joanne Bunting (DUP, Belfast East)

The Minister did not quite get to the detail of when, she anticipates, the long waits will end. We are now in a situation in which people will face sanction because they are not able to tax their car because they cannot get an MOT certificate for their car. What is she doing to mitigate that?