Northern Ireland Assembly, 23 April 2024

285 contributions from 55 members. The official report.

Members' Statements

Edwin Poots (DUP, Belfast South)

There is no Speaker's Business, so we will move straight to Members' Statements. As usual, there will be no interventions.

Steve Aiken (UUP, South Antrim)

I rise to speak as the Chair of the all-party group on science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) to congratulate Dr Rosemary Coogan on being selected for the final stage of her astronaut programme and being awarded her astronaut wings yesterday. It is a remarkable achievement for someone from Northern Ireland to join the European Space Agency's astronaut programme, but it also highlights the importance of the space sector to Northern Ireland.

It was not so long ago that, here in Belfast, we had the UK Space Conference, at which many companies from Northern Ireland demonstrated their ability to work in the space programme. Indeed, some of you might be surprised by the amount of work that is done in Northern Ireland towards the space programme. Work is being done in not only our universities and the Armagh Observatory, but in some of the great companies that we have in Northern Ireland such as Thales, which is heavily involved in the Artemis programme.

We are all proud of everything that Dr Coogan has done. Now that she has joined the astronaut programme and is very likely to fly, I hope to have her here in Parliament Buildings at some stage to talk about the importance of STEM, particularly to our young people — especially our young women — who will see that the study of engineering, science and technology is a great way ahead and a great way forward.

Finally, before I sit down, I will also talk about the new all-party group on aerospace, defence and space that I am setting up. That will be a great opportunity for all of us to encourage those developments here in Northern Ireland.

Cathy Mason (Sinn Féin, South Down)

I am very concerned that Downpatrick has been identified as one of the areas that is under the greatest pressure with regard to special educational needs. That is extremely worrying.

Too many young people and their parents are being failed by the current system. Each of us will have had anxious and worried parents come through our office doors at breaking point, because, after sitting on waiting lists for months, sometimes years, they have been told that there is no place for their child. That is not acceptable.

Young people with special educational needs and their families in South Down and across the North must have access to properly funded first-class services. We have consistently called for an overhaul of the SEN system to ensure that it meets the needs of children and families. We ask the Education Minister to work alongside the Health Minister to transform special educational needs provision so that it delivers for children in Downpatrick and across the North.

Michelle McIlveen (DUP, Strangford)

On 6 February, the Isle of Man Government launched a consultation on a proposal to close vast areas of their fishing grounds, which the Northern Ireland trawl fleet has fished for generations. The consultation closed on 18 March, and access was shut off on 1 April. The Manx Government's evidence document admitted that they cannot accurately measure the value of the fishing area to our trawl fleet. It also recognised that the closed areas interfere with trawl patterns in ways that make even trawling adjacent to the closed areas unviable.

The Isle of Man Government purport to have done that to protect blue-carbon habitats, but the science does not support blanket trawling bans as an effective measure. It is suspected that the purpose of the closure is the Isle of Man's proposal to establish a pot fishery for prawns where our vessels trawled. With Northern Ireland vessels out of the way, they have granted themselves a free run. However, there are flaws in the evidence document. In practice, only one in four of the animals in the pot fishery will be of marketable size to langoustine buyers, so it will not be the higher value fishery that the document suggests. To achieve the hoped-for economic benefit, instead of licensing 400 pots per boat, they will require more than 1,600 pots. The environmental impact of each boat working 1,600 pots is potentially catastrophic.

The UK Government gift the Isle of Man additional fishing quotas every year, which include prawn and herring quotas. Surely that cannot be allowed to continue, when the reward for that generosity is having our traditional fishing grounds snatched away from us. The ban will cause financial stress for almost every trawlerman in Northern Ireland, and it will put pressure on the 1,850 full-time equivalents in our fishing industry and those that they support. It is imperative that DEFRA, in recognition of this devastating decision, provides some means of compensation for the loss and to support diversification, perhaps in the form of additional herring quota. In no way will that replace the economic value of what has been taken, but Northern Ireland's fishermen need our support and a principled stand must be taken. I call on the Agriculture Minister to urgently meet his Manx counterpart to request that the position that has been taken be reversed, and to speak to the Secretary of State at DEFRA and the Fisheries Minister to discuss alternatives for our fleet.

Paula Bradshaw (Alliance, Belfast South)

I want to put on record my frustration at the ongoing delays in the interdepartmental working group between the Executive Office and the Department of Health bringing forward any meaningful work on historical clerical child abuse. Members will be aware that that working group was established in 2017 to pick up on areas that fell outside the remit of the inquiry into historical institutional abuse, including mother-and-baby homes, Magdalene laundries and workhouses and historical clerical child abuse. We know that work has been progressing on the mother-and-baby homes, and I look forward to chairing a session on that topic at the Committee for the Executive Office in May. Work on clerical abuse, however, appears to be far behind after seven years.

The Executive Office's website states:

"A high-level investigation plan has been developed and it is hoped to procure delivery partners by Autumn 2023."

That has not happened and there is no evidence of it. Furthermore, from papers provided to Committee members, we have seen that the Executive Office intends to:

"commission research into Historical Clerical Child Abuse to inform next steps".

It is many years, probably six, since I accompanied members of Birth Mothers and their Children for Justice Northern Ireland to a meeting with TEO officials, and I was advised then that that was TEO's plan.

At a meeting of the Health Committee in November 2020, we were told by representatives of the working group that they were:

"about to embark on the commissioning of research that will, ultimately, determine the Executive's actions to address the needs of individuals affected by historical clerical child abuse."

We were advised that the timescale for commissioning that research was "the coming weeks" and that the period covered by the research would be from 1968, due to the introduction of the Children and Young Persons Act in that year. I include that date in my remarks to indicate that time is not on our side in securing robust evidence.

There is a recurring theme: always just about to move forward with the research but never quite doing it. One of my main frustrations is that the procurement process, when it begins, can, we know, take months. Then, the research is conducted and the report is written, and, before we know it, two more years are lost. Then, the officials have to take their time to review the findings, conclusions and recommendations and consider what to put to the Ministers. Meanwhile, the victims and survivors of historical clerical abuse are left with the pain, shame and lifelong trauma of what happened to them. We can no longer continue to tolerate that. I call on the First Minister and deputy First Minister to sign off on the terms of reference for the research.

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

I welcome warmly the news that we are going to have a Test cricket match at Stormont. That is wonderful news. Cricket is a sport that has a proud and really fascinating history on this island. I am from Downpatrick, where cricket has historically been played; indeed, I used to work in the bar, pulling pints, at Downpatrick Cricket Club. Before I worked there, it had hosted the famous West Indies team of the 1980s and, indeed, the South African team of the 1990s. Obviously, it is only in the last few years that Ireland has become a Test nation. The first Test match was at Lord's last summer, and there was a subsequent Test match in Dublin. However, this will be only the second Test match played in Ireland and the first played in the North. That is wonderful news, and it is something to celebrate. I congratulate Cricket Ireland and, up here, the Northern Cricket Union and the North West Cricket Union on making it happen. I believe that they have engaged with the Communities Department. I encourage that partnership to continue.

Cricket is one of those sports that I wish I had played. I would have loved to learn how to spin bowl, but I did not get round to it. Maybe there is still time for me. Of course, it has many devotees in this place whom you would not automatically expect. Our former leader John Hume was an enthusiastic cricket player and supporter. Indeed, the former deputy First Minister, the late Martin McGuinness, was also a big cricket fan, which, of course, sometimes surprises people.

Cricket really is an example of pluralism and diversity as it works itself on the island and in this part of the island, which is something to celebrate. It is also an example of how sport can not only exemplify plurality on this island but unite us in our diversity. We have seen that in other arenas. We have seen it with the rugby team, which was triumphant, although not quite as triumphant as we would have liked in terms of the Grand Slam, but it won the Six Nations this year. We have seen it with the soccer teams on both sides of the border, albeit they have not been as successful recently in terms of qualification. We have also seen it with the GAA, which is reaching huge new communities and places, including east Belfast, where this match will be played in the summer.

Of course, some people prefer one-day cricket to Test cricket. They think that Test cricket can be grinding, attritional and difficult to watch. Some might say, "What better place for it than Stormont?". I would not say that: I would say that this will be a wonderful feast of sport. It should be part of building Belfast into a centre for sport. We will, hopefully, have the Euros at Casement Park in a few years' time. This is wonderful news. It is something to celebrate. Let us hope and keep our fingers crossed that —

Edwin Poots (DUP, Belfast South)

It is great to see you so enthused, but your time is up, Mr O'Toole.

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

— the weather is good for us. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

Pádraig Delargy (Sinn Féin, Foyle)

Today, I rise again to speak on behalf of classroom assistants. Classroom assistants deserve fair pay and conditions. They have been waiting too long, and they cannot wait any longer. It is time for the Education Minister to deliver fair pay and conditions now.

We have had agreement across the Assembly on many issues. One of those is provision for children with special educational needs. Why, then, are we still waiting for the Education Minister to deliver fair pay for classroom assistants, who provide support for children in our schools and enhance children's educational experience every day? I ask that for the many classroom assistants whom I have worked with as a teacher and the many whom I have met and listened to as an MLA. Staff are leaving in their droves because of inadequate pay and conditions. At a time when we are talking about workforce planning and encouraging people to become classroom assistants, where is that recognition? Where is the fair pay?

I want classroom assistants to know that we in Sinn Féin have your back. I want them to know that we will continue to fight for their pay and stand up for fair contracts and conditions.

Phillip Brett (DUP, Belfast North)

I stand to celebrate the success of Rathcoole Primary School and Nursery Unit at the Families First Awards, which took place on Saturday evening. Rathcoole Primary School was given three separate awards at the event, including a highly commended award in the best principal category for principal Emma Quinn, the school of the year award and the WOW award for a school culture that tries to ensure that its pupils thrive.

Rathcoole Primary School has been transformed in recent years. I pay particular tribute to our former Education Minister Michelle McIlveen, who is here today. She invested much time and effort to ensure that Rathcoole Primary School continues to grow and thrive. I thank the parents, pupils and leadership at Rathcoole Primary School, who, despite operating in some of the most economically challenged and socially deprived wards in Northern Ireland, continue to deliver educational excellence for our young people and ensure that the future generations of North Belfast have the education and support that they need to truly fulfil their potential.

Emma Sheerin (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

I rise to draw attention to the deepening concern felt in my area about the lack of capacity in ward 6 of the Thompson House unit in the Mid Ulster Hospital site, or, as it is still commonly known at home in south Derry, "the old maternity end". The rehab unit is a brilliant facility, but there is a massive issue with capacity there. It is used predominantly by patients who are ready for discharge from the hospital but are not quite ready to go home following a fall or some other incident. It is both a cause and effect of our enduring crisis in domiciliary care in south Derry, which means that people who should be at home but cannot be because of the lack of a care package end up in the rehab unit for longer than they need to be, and people who are in hospital cannot get into the rehab unit when they are ready because there is no space for them.

Recently, I dealt with two families who brought this to my attention. Last week, I was told about a husband and wife who both had falls at home recently. The wife, who is a dementia patient, has been in the rehab unit and made great progress, but she cannot return home because there is no domiciliary care package for her. Her husband is in the Antrim Area Hospital and ready to be discharged to ward 6, but he cannot get there because there is no bed for him. It is a really desperate situation. Their family is obviously experiencing massive stress, strife and anxiety over the head of it, and there is little we can do to offer a solution.

Another family contacted me just over the weekend. Their elderly mother, at 80 years of age, fell and broke her hip. She had her surgery eventually and will soon be ready to be discharged to ward 6, but she cannot because there is no capacity.

I raise the issue here in the hope that the Northern Trust and Minister can do something to increase capacity for that vital service in our area.

Paul Frew (DUP, North Antrim)

The Northern Ireland Statistics and Research Agency (NISRA) has recorded, for week 15 of 2024, that we have breached over 500 excess deaths, with 502. To put that in context, we have been experiencing excess deaths for two years now, but, this time last year, for week 15 of 2023, it was recorded that there were 117 excess deaths. Last year, there were 117, but, this year, there are 502. It took us until the week ending 24 November 2023 to reach 503 excess deaths, yet the Health Minister refuses to call for an investigation of excess deaths The Chief Medical Officer and the Chief Scientific Adviser play down the figures, and the media continue to ignore the deaths.

I take the opportunity to again call on the Health Minister to make a statement to the House and to commence an investigation of excess deaths in this country.

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

I pay tribute to the memories of three victims who died on the A5 — three members of the one family. The first-year anniversary of their deaths will be this week, on Saturday 27 April. On that day a year ago, travelling home from the funeral of a family member in England, they were travelling along the Aughnacloy section of the A5. The McSorley and McKane family members were in a minibus when, unfortunately, a tragic and terrible accident occurred. Of those on the bus, three lost their lives. One was Julia McSorley, and I am thinking on her husband Patsy, her son Patsy, her daughter Maria, her son Shane, her son Colin and her daughter Julie. Dan McKane lost his life, and I am thinking on his daughters, Cara and Ruth. His sister Christine McKane also lost her life in that accident, and I am thinking on Nicole, Gary and Danny. I know that the House will join me today in keeping them in our prayers as they face what will be an extremely difficult week.

That accident was one of the most horrific to have occurred on the road. It has hit hard in the community of Newtownstewart and in Strabane, and it has impacted deeply and very harshly on the wider family. Three members of the family survived that terrible crash, but I know that they have struggled all year to comprehend what happened. There are young people and children at the heart of this and a family who are suffering tremendous pain. The road continues to put people's lives at risk daily, and there is no day on which I do not hear of a serious accident. Unfortunately, the McKane family faced the worst possible consequences of that on a difficult section of the road. Fifty people have died on that road, and hundreds, if not thousands, have been injured. Unfortunately, unless the road upgrade is delivered, more will face terrible consequences. We need a decision, and we need one soon. Today and this week, given that a year has almost passed, I would like the McKane and McSorley family to know that they are in our prayers and that the Members of the House are thinking on them and on all families who have been affected by tremendous loss on the A5 road.

Deborah Erskine (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

Today, across the UK devolved regions, there is a campaign by the Brain Tumour Charity to ask all locally devolved Health Ministers to introduce a national brain tumour strategy. In late February, the Brain Tumour Charity launched an open letter addressed to the four UK Ministers. Within just three weeks of that letter going live online, it had exceeded its target of obtaining 40,000 signatures and had reached over 52,000 before it closed on 15 April. Today, Members of the Assembly have jointly written to our Health Minister to ask him to work on and implement a national strategy.

Brain tumours remain the biggest cancer killer of those under 40. That is a staggering reality, yet there have been few clinical breakthroughs compared with other diseases, with treatment options still mostly limited to surgery, chemotherapy and radiotherapy, all of which are tough on patients. There are also difficulties in getting a diagnosis. The Brain Tumour Charity carried out a survey that indicated that 41% of respondents said that they had visited their GP three times or more before getting a diagnosis. There needs to be an improvement in our health service for patients with a brain tumour in diagnosis, care, treatment and research. That is why, today, representatives across the political spectrum and across parties are coming together across the UK jurisdictions to call on the Health Ministers to tackle the issues through systematic change and a comprehensive national brain tumour strategy that covers the whole patient pathway.

Jim Allister (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

Last night, the Parliament of the United Kingdom completed the passage of the Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill. I do not think that it will deliver the stopping of the boats, but the issue of primary concern to me is in respect of Northern Ireland. That question is this: will the Bill even apply in its full reach to this part of the United Kingdom? I raise that question because of the fact that, under the protocol, the European Charter of Fundamental Rights continues to apply to this part of the United Kingdom and this part alone.

We have already seen how the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023 was struck down by our High Court because of incompatibility with the protocol. The logic and legal pathway that gave rise to that would equally apply to the provisions of the Rwanda Bill vis-à-vis Northern Ireland and the special arrangements that exist under the charter of fundamental human rights. Of course, the legacy Act case is under appeal, but, subject to that, it seems to me that, by virtue of the fact that article 18 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights has a special protection for asylum seekers, we are on course for the distinctly unacceptable possibility that the Rwanda Bill's ability to remove asylum seekers will not apply with the same force and effect to Northern Ireland, creating a further border, this time an asylum immigration border, and underscoring the iniquity of the Union-dismantling nature of the protocol.

It is something that one will watch with great interest, noting that the Rwanda Bill purports to disapply portions of the European Convention on Human Rights but does not disapply any portions of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, which, of course, applies here. Hence my conclusion that we are likely to see great disparity in the approach and great detriment to our supposed position as an integral part of the United Kingdom.

Tom Elliott (UUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

Joined by other Members, I attended a service on Sunday in Killyman church to remember eight members of the Royal Black Institution in that small area who were murdered by terrorists during the Troubles. Those members — Frederick Greeves, Cormac McCabe, Samuel Clarke, David Graham, Robert Bloomer, George Gibson, Stanley Hazelton and David Wilson — were all murdered by terrorists in cold blood. Cormac McCabe, for example, was a local schoolteacher who was kidnapped and brutally murdered by terrorists.

I am pleased that the Royal Black Institution held that service to remember those people and put their names on a bannerette that will always be close to them. They will remember them, future generations will remember them, and it puts down the facts of what happened to those people: that they were brutally murdered. Those people were part of the community. They worked in their civilian life — just, as I said, like Cormac McCabe, who was a schoolteacher — doing things for the community and educating our people for the future, and that was how they were treated. It is absolutely despicable. I commend and congratulate Killyman Royal Black district for doing that and for remembering those who were close to their hearts and their families.

Assembly Business

Edwin Poots (DUP, Belfast South)

Peter McReynolds has sought leave to present a public petition in accordance with Standing Order 22. The Member has up to three minutes in which to speak.

Peter McReynolds (Alliance, Belfast East)

I rise to speak on behalf of thousands of adults who are living with or potentially living with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) across Northern Ireland. All MLAs in the Chamber will be aware of the fight that parents face annually to attain access to statements or support for children in an education setting. It is rightly argued by some, however, that we have already missed two generations of children, now adults, who have had to mask their symptoms or suffer internally with the overwhelming nature of everyday life. One doctor whom I met recently explained to me that we are all walking on a treadmill in life but those with ADHD do so on a level 6 incline, meaning that they can complete their walk but it will be more fatiguing and easily lead to burnout.

My interest in the area was piqued when I asked a question for written answer of the current Health Minister about how many adults were on the waiting list for an ADHD diagnosis in Northern Ireland. I was stunned when I received the reply that, because there are no commissioned services for adults here, there is no need to keep such a list. Since then, I have received hundreds of emails, messages and phone calls from people telling me about their daily lived experience, about how the lack of commissioned services impacts on them, about the spiralling costs that some inflict on themselves each month and about the sheer postcode lottery across our trusts.

The petition that I present today has received 3,586 signatures in the three short weeks since I launched it. We call for an adult ADHD service to be commissioned in Northern Ireland and for the Health Minister and his officials to get an urgent grip on the issue rather than take the organic approach that has been allowed to happen, which is simply not enough. People have been suffering for too long. They are told that it is unlikely that they will be seen by someone in the health service for three to six years. The private sector has all but shut its doors owing to demand. People are receiving bills of hundreds of pounds for medication that one person described to me as being transformative to their life. In 2024, that is a disgrace.

I thank you, Mr Speaker, and your officials for arranging to accept the petition so quickly. I take the opportunity to thank Sarah Salters and Keith Anderson from ADD-NI, a charity that has been operating for the past 27 years that has been of massive help and support to me and the adults who have contacted me about their experiences. I also thank Claire and Stephen Loftus for highlighting this injustice through their own experiences and the long list of people who have communicated with me through social media and my office.

While I do not expect the petition to lead immediately to the introduction of services here, I see it as an important first step towards their introduction. Anyone watching today can rest assured that I will not stop raising the issue until people living with ADHD receive the support and dignity that they deserve.

Mr McReynolds moved forward and laid the petition on the Table.

Edwin Poots (DUP, Belfast South)

I will forward the petition to the Minister of Health and send a copy to the Committee for Health.

Executive Committee Business

Edwin Poots (DUP, Belfast South)

I call the Minister of Health, Mr Robin Swann, to move the Consideration Stage of the Hospital Parking Charges Bill.

Moved. — [Mr Swann (The Minister of Health).]

Edwin Poots (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 is a single group of four amendments that deal with the date for the ban on charges.

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

Clause 1 (New date for ban on charges)

Edwin Poots (DUP, Belfast South)

We now come to the amendments for debate. With amendment No 1, it will be convenient to debate amendment Nos 2 to 4. In that group, amendment Nos 1 and 2 are mutually exclusive; amendment Nos 3 and 4 are mutually exclusive; amendment Nos 1 and 3 are linked; and amendment Nos 2 and 4 are linked.

I call Mr Gerry Carroll to move amendment No 1 and to address the other amendments in the group.

Gerry Carroll (People Before Profit Alliance, Belfast West)

I beg to move amendment No 1:

In page 1, line 6, leave out "12 May 2026" and insert "1 September 2024".

The following amendments stood on the Marshalled List:

No 2: In page 1, line 6, leave out "2026" and insert "2025". — [Mr McGrath.]

No 3: In page 1, line 9, leave out "12 May 2026" and insert "1 September 2024". — [Mr Carroll.]

No 4: In page 1, line 9, leave out "2026" and insert "2025". — [Mr McGrath.]

Gerry Carroll (People Before Profit Alliance, Belfast West)

Every day, at the side of this Building, I walk past a small fleet of gleaming, top-of-the-range cars with a chauffeur in the driver's seat. Those cars, which park for free and are paid for through the public purse, belong to the very Ministers who are imposing — reimposing, rather — hospital parking charges on health workers and patients.

In hospitals across the city and beyond are our trust chief executives, many of whom opposed free hospital parking for staff and patients from the outset. At this moment, their cars are parked for free outside their place of work. People in the Assembly should think long and hard about the message that that sends out to health workers and the sick, who are set to face two more years of punitive taxation at the Executive's hands.

As People Before Profit has said time and again, hospital parking charges are a tax on health workers and on the sick. Health workers are being told that they must pay to work. Patients and their families are being told that they must pay for their illness. What a rotten state of affairs. The Executive tell us that they took in £6·4 million last year from hospital parking charges. That was at the last count. I repeat what I said last week: that is not a huge sum for the Department of Health, but it is an astronomical sum to be made up by health workers and patients who have struggled during the worst cost-of-living crisis in living memory.

We are talking about health workers who have had their pay cut, their bills raised and their overall living standards attacked by the Tories and successive Stormont Administrations. The last time I checked, health workers who have a permit were paying £200 a year to park at their place of work. That is high enough, but Unite, which represents some of the lowest-paid health workers in our hospital, has told us that some workers pay £2,000 a year to park at their place of work. That is almost 10% of a porter's wage. It is scandalous.

The DUP, Sinn Féin, the UUP, Alliance and others tell us what that figure and the earlier figure are per day. They have worked it out. They tell us that the rates hike that they voted through last month is only x pounds and y pennies. Some will tell us that water charges, prescription charges and other revenue-raising measures will cost the public only so much. We should add to that rising rents, rising bills and rising childcare costs. I invite the Executive to add them all up and tell us how much health workers, patients and others are meant to pay and how they are meant to cope with the situation.

Parties across the Chamber had no problem with voting for free hospital parking charges in the mouth of an election. The then and current Health Minister, Robin Swann, and his UUP colleagues could not wait to welcome them. The now junior Minister Aisling Reilly was seen posing for photos outside the Royal Victoria Hospital and telling voters how Sinn Féin had scrapped hospital parking charges. Lo and behold, now that the time has come to pay the piper, they have gone sheepish all of a sudden. They now tell us that there is no alternative and that the big, bad Tories are imposing another austerity budget. Ministers bemoan the devastating impact that it will have on public services, yet have agreed, once again, to do the Tories' dirty work for them.

I challenge the Executive today to put it up to the Tories and to say that our hospitals, workers' pay, schools and so much else cannot be weighed against a rotten Tory ledger. I challenge them to spend the money that is necessary to protect patient lives, educate our children and lift people out of poverty and then to tell the Tories that they need to find the money.

The Executive want us to believe that the state cannot afford the £10 million or so that it will cost to provide free parking, while handing some £400 million to private agencies for the provision of staff in our hospitals. While the private sector milks our health system dry, health workers and patients are asked to pick up the pieces. That is what it boils down to.

I put it on record that, from the outset, I and my party opposed the delay to scrapping hospital parking charges. Most other parties here voted to impose them for another two years. We are prepared to offer an alternative. The Health Minister says that the technology necessary for free hospital parking should be ready by September, so we are prepared to take him at his word. We want to speed up the process and scrap the charges by September. If he is telling the truth when he says that the necessary technology should or, perhaps, will be in place, there is no good reason why he, his party and other Members should not accept our amendment. If the Executive parties do not vote for our amendment, we will have called their bluff. A refusal to support our amendment will prove that the legislation was never about technological or logistical issues but was always about squeezing more money from people, including health workers and the public. Our amendment will ensure that patients, health workers and trade unions will know where the Executive really stand on the issue when all is said and done. We want hospital parking charges scrapped for good, as the Assembly voted for two years ago, and not just for electoral gain, which the Executive parties have shown once again that it was. If the Executive impose this regressive tax on health workers and patients, I will call on the public to organise a campaign to oppose them and to, hopefully, see the charges scrapped once and for all.

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

I welcome the opportunity to speak at Consideration Stage. While I welcome the Minister's response on the Bill last week and the level of clarity provided in his comments, it was as a result of those comments that we felt an amendment would be the best course of action.

In the previous mandate, all Executive parties supported the Hospital Parking Charges Bill through its entire legislative process. Today, all four of the Executive parties — Sinn Féin, the DUP, Alliance and the UUP — support the use of accelerated passage to delay the removal of hospital car parking charges. While, admittedly, it is for the Executive parties to justify or not justify their position, they have all had the opportunity to table an amendment to the Minister's Bill, and they have not done so.

Last week, Sinn Féin expressed its disappointment that the Hospital Parking Charges Act 2022 had not been implemented and asked how hospital car parking charges could be justified. The DUP said that it hoped that it would not take two years to get the 2022 Act into operation. The Alliance Party said that it supported the Hospital Parking Charges Act and welcomed its passage through the Assembly in the previous mandate. Alliance also stated that the Bill does not alter the intentions of the 2022 Act, but it does. The UUP has given its full support to today's Bill.

Let us not dance about it: while all parties endorsed the original Bill to remove hospital parking charges just before the election in 2022, today, only the Executive parties endorse delaying that by another two years. The SDLP and others want to see earlier removal of hospital car parking charges. However, as the Department evidently cannot deliver that within the time frame set out in the Act, the official Opposition have tabled two amendments to today's Bill.

Our two proposed amendments are minor and will work for patients and their families. The need for patients to have easy access to hospital services is obvious. It would be remiss of me not to mention that Asthma + Lung UK are in the Building today to launch its "Saving Your Breath" report, as it advocates the need for close and free access to hospital car parking services for those suffering from asthma. Its event will take place between 1.00 pm and 2.00 today. Our amendments will also work for hospital staff and, we believe, for the Department. That is the work of a constructive Opposition.

The Minister outlined last week that the need for the delay was the result of a lack of access to NHS England's shared business services framework. The health and social care trusts here had to set up a regional procurement plan of their own, and that resulted in a legal challenge. The legal challenge has now been resolved, and the Department still hopes to award the contract for the new system this month. The Minister has said that the system will not be ready until September and suggested that there will be a need for another few months to complete the process of ordering the equipment, assessing ground conditions and installing the equipment. We believe that will take us up to about February 2025.

While we recognise the good intent behind Mr Carroll's two amendments, it is our view that the Department will not be able to deliver on them. Should those amendments be made, the charges will be abolished on 1 September 2024, at which stage the barriers will go up for everyone, but the trusts will still be implementing the new system.

That will only cause confusion and disarray for patients, their families and hospital staff. The SDLP amendments, on the other hand, provide a proper lead-in time for the legislation.

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

Will the Member give way?

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

Yes, of course.

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

Does the Member agree that this and our amendments are really about honesty and competence in government? If the Executive parties regret the legislation's passing in 2022, they should have the honesty to say that they do not want to implement it. However, if they think that there are no logistical reasons why it cannot be implemented in a year's time, they should explain why our amendments are not acceptable. Our amendments are clearly designed to allow the change to be implemented, but with an amended lead-in time.

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

Absolutely, and I thank the Minister who, throughout the Second Stage debate and this debate, has been upfront and honest about the impacts of the Bill. However, it really is galling to see people jumping up and down, saying that the delay is absolutely horrendous, and then voting at every stage to create the delay. There is something in there that does not match up. It is important for the public and the staff who work for patients at the affected hospital sites to realise that you cannot have both: you cannot say, "It is a disgrace and it needs to change immediately", and then say, "But we will delay it and delay it". Contrary to what Sinn Féin, the DUP, Alliance and the UUP say, there is no need to delay the removal of charges at hospital car parks for two years.

There are further questions on which we require clarity from the Health Minister. Last week, I twice asked the Minister specifically about the expedited introduction of free car parking for staff. In one response the Minister said:

"There is work on that that is, again, dependent on this legislation going through." — [Official Report (Hansard), 16 April 2024, p70, col 1].

He also said:

"I have therefore directed that there be consistency across all trusts for those who apply for the parking permits that will be free of charge from the date of implementation." — [Official Report (Hansard), 16 April 2024, p68, col 2].

Can we get an assurance today on when that provision will be made available for staff? When will that be introduced? I ask that because we know that the removal of hospital car parking charges will, should it happen, provide a welcome morale boost for our hospital staff who work in some of the most pressurised environments.

However, I add a note of caution, which I would like the Minister to reply to in his remarks, on the criteria that will be set for free car parking for staff. We know that, at some of the larger sites, a significant number of staff receive varying scales of pay. If one of the criteria is based on income, will some staff will lose the ability to get a free pass? For example, could a nurse lose out on a pass because they earn more than a porter? On top of that, at the Committee, we heard from departmental staff that the criteria might also mean that a consultant would meet the criteria due to their working across three sites in a day. They might have surgery to perform in one hospital, a clinic to hold in another and be on call. We could have a nurse not being able to avail themselves of the pass because they earn more than a porter, but also because they do not meet the criteria that a consultant does. If that nurse lives in Carryduff, they might have to take the bus into the city centre and the Glider out to the Royal, which means that they would incur more cost than if they were paying hospital car parking charges. That cost could be above and beyond what they were paying for car parking. In other words, it could cost them more. Does the Minister think that that could be an unintended consequence of the 2022 Act? Did the initial sponsor of the 2022 Act ever discuss that with him?

Last week the Minister said:

"I have had the conversations with Aisling Reilly, the sponsor of the previous Bill, and she knows my intended consequences of moving this legislation." — [Official Report (Hansard), 16 April 2024, p69, col 2].

Surely this is something that has not just transpired. Was it not discussed that, rather than there being universal free car parking for staff, there would be criteria set and free car parking for some — not all — staff? Was that discussed with the sponsor of the then Bill throughout the legislative process? Were the Executive aware that there would not be a universal free facility as a result of the legislation? Have all the Minister's Executive colleagues been made aware that there will now be a tiered system of free car parking for staff and that many staff will, in fact, lose out?

As I said, the SDLP amendments are minor. The amendments that we have proposed would speed up the removal of car parking charges for patients, their families and healthcare staff, some of whom are spending thousands of pounds every year on parking charges. The timescale that we offer is achievable: we have suggested changing it to one year down the line instead of two. We have examined the Hansard reports of the Committee engagement and the Second Stage of the Bill and see no reason for delaying it for a full two years. We appreciate that, for whatever reason or regardless of who is at fault, the legislation has not progressed at the speed at which everyone who voted for it in 2022 understood that it would progress. However, a two-year wait is unfair and ridiculous, given the evidence that we have been presented with. That is why we have proposed the reasonable compromise date of May 2025 for the removal of that unfair tax on patients, their families and hospital staff. I urge other Members to support the SDLP amendments.

Liz Kimmins (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

I will not rehash the comments that I made last week. It is very clear that this is a Sinn Féin Act. We, particularly the primary sponsor, Aisling Reilly, worked extremely hard on this legislation. We consulted with the widest possible range of people on it. I do not accept the comments that others have made that we are delaying this because we regret the Act. We are completely committed to delivering on this for people. We have made that clear, time and again. However, we have to be realistic with people. The Minister and his officials have said that it is not possible, so it would be unfair to give people false hope by saying that we must continue to pursue it when we know that it is not possible. It would be completely unfair of us to do that and give people hope. We do not want to be in this situation, and the Minister said that he feels the same.

We understand why it has to be delayed — we heard the reasons in Committee — but I have some questions that I would like the Minister to answer as part of the debate today. Realistically, could the timeline be brought forward? We were told in Committee by officials and the Minister that it will take until at least September for the required infrastructure to be implemented. What else is required to ensure that the full removal of hospital parking charges can be implemented, and do we have a timeline around that? We have said at every stage that we do not want to delay this, but if that could be brought forward, we are happy to consider the amendments that are in front of us today. Can the Minister give us some clarity around how long it will take for it to be fully implemented? I acknowledge that we have had two years to look at this. The trusts have also had two years to look at it. I have heard about the challenges, but they are the same challenges that we heard about in the first debate.

We have been engaging. In Committee last week, we heard from the RCN. We have heard from the junior doctors committee and lots of different representatives about their views on the recent developments. It is very clear that we need to make sure that this is delivered at the earliest possible stage, but we have to be honest with people about how realistic that is. We want to ensure that that is done at pace, but we want to make sure that it is done properly, so that we do not have to come back here in September, or in six or eight months' time, and go through this all over again, with people saying, "What is actually happening?".

I ask the Minister to outline a realistic timeline as to what is involved. Does he foresee that being done? We have said that the two-year date is not a target; we want it to be done as quickly as possible. I am also conscious that we may be dealing with another Minister during that period, so we want to ensure that it is a very streamlined process in order to avoid any disruption or unnecessary further delays.

Diane Dodds (DUP, Upper Bann)

As the Member who spoke before me said, we do not — I made this absolutely clear last week — resile from the original Bill. That Bill was voted through with our support, and we do not resile from it. We cannot state that clearly enough. We supported the aims and objectives of that Bill. However, we are in politics to be practical and reasonable. It is important that, if a Minister says, "I cannot deliver in this particular time", we look at what is reasonable and practical. For that reason, we will not support Mr Carroll's amendment. We want to be clear with people. We do not want to raise expectations for something that we simply cannot deliver and that we cannot ask the Health Minister to deliver.

On that reasonable and practical issue, we want to know this: is there a way that the Minister can truncate his desire to withhold the measure for two years and give us the opportunity to implement the Act earlier? I hope that, by the time that a year has passed, the Finance Minister will be able to have a multi-year Budget, and, therefore, the Minister will have some clarity on the Budget. I hope that the Minister can clarify those issues for us and that we will be able to implement the measure much sooner.

I asked the Minister this question in the previous debate on the issue, and he answered it, but will he clarify whether he will look again at the range of options that are already there? When I met the Northern Ireland Children's Health Coalition, its representatives were absolutely clear that what is available is not adequate to address the needs of families with children who have long-term conditions, such as cancer, and who may be in hospital for weeks on end. They need better supports. Parking is a significant issue for them, and I want the Minister to come back and tell us clearly about that and not just repeat what he said last week. In the interests of being reasonable and practical, I would like the Minister to answer the questions and tell us whether he can shorten that time frame.

I know that the procurement process for operators for the car parks and so on has gone ahead, but I also ask the Minister to tell us whether there is a capital expenditure in buying further land at some hospitals for car parks. I have heard that mentioned a couple of times, and I want to be clear on it as well.

Danny Donnelly (Alliance, East Antrim)

I make my comments as an Alliance health spokesperson. I welcome the opportunity to speak in the debate, which is one of the first Consideration Stages of the mandate. Hopefully, it will not be too long before that becomes a more regular occurrence. The Alliance Party will not support amendment Nos 1 to 4, and we will vote to retain the initial date of 12 May 2026, as proposed in the Bill.

It is, of course, disappointing that the Hospital Parking Charges Act (Northern Ireland) 2022 is not yet ready to be implemented by the intended date of 12 May 2024. Other Members and I highlighted that in the Second Stage debate and at Health Committee briefings on the Bill with departmental officials. During the Health Committee meeting on 11 April, departmental officials told us the rationale for the two-year deferral specifically, as opposed to six months or one year. While the awarding of a contract for traffic management, followed by its implementation, is envisaged to be rolled out by September 2024, as we heard, there is no guarantee that that will be the case. We will be interested to hear the Minister will answer the queries about whether he will be able to provide a truncated period.

In correspondence to the Committee, the Minister indicated that he intends to bring forward a paper setting out his plans for the implementation of the legislation. I encourage him to do that as soon as possible. The Minister should also take the opportunity to develop a funding plan for the implementation of free car parking after the deferral period has ended. The Minister's proposition of making car parking permits free for some Health and Social Care (HSC) staff, subject to criteria, is welcome and should not be delayed. I echo the calls for clarity on that.

One reason why we cannot support the amendments is because of the pressures that are facing the staff in particular in the Department of Health. There are so many issues that the Department needs to work on and prioritise, a few of which include waiting lists, domiciliary care practices, general practice and community pharmacy. If we reduce the deferral period, as we are told, from the proposed two years to one year or just a few months, the Department will have to focus more of its already strained resources on that single policy issue, possibly to the detriment of others.

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

I am grateful to the Member for giving way. I am intrigued by the idea that delaying for one year as opposed to two years would put an undue and unnecessary burden on the Department and make it unable, for example, to deal with waiting lists. In that case, why not simply delay it indefinitely? It seems implausible that a delay of one year versus two years would be the difference in the Department's being able to deal with waiting lists and all the rest. I am intrigued to hear the Member's views on that.

Danny Donnelly (Alliance, East Antrim)

Certainly, it was raised in the Committee that certain departmental resources would have to be put into this, and I am sure that the Minister can clarify that in his response.

It is important that all Members consider the bigger picture on issues such as this. I understand that one of the Members who proposed the amendments is a member of the official Opposition, so holding the Executive to account is a key part of their role. Any proposals brought forward by the Opposition need to be workable and take into account the numerous and fundamental challenges facing the Department of Health and, indeed, all Departments.

Paula Bradshaw (Alliance, Belfast South)

I thank the Member for giving way. My concern and that of our party is that we have not yet seen the reconfiguration of the hospitals. In the intervening period, the Minister needs to bring forward proposals for that, because it is not just about better services; it is about better use of public money. That would give the Minister time to look at the issue in greater depth.

Danny Donnelly (Alliance, East Antrim)

Thank you. Certainly, we are looking forward to seeing the reconfiguration plans.

The pressures on the health service are immense and are resulting in unacceptably long waiting lists for treatments and poor health outcomes for many people across Northern Ireland. In that context, we have a responsibility to prioritise addressing multiple ongoing crises, workforce stabilisation and long-overdue reform. That is the basis on which the Health Minister was requesting a deferral period of two years. He has stated that it is his intention that the plans will be progressed to meet the September 2026 date supported by Members at Second Stage.

Alan Robinson (DUP, East Londonderry)

My contribution today will be short because, as for other Members, the points that I wanted to raise during last week's Second Stage and the queries that I wanted to pose have, on the whole, been answered.

One matter that I raised during my contribution last week, Minister, was not addressed. It is the issue of permits for the dedicated staff and those working shifts, especially the low-paid workers in our health service. Indeed, we received information this week that Northern Ireland junior doctors have reported costs of up to £1,150 a year to park at the Royal Victoria Hospital. Parking for a single shift at Belfast City Hospital can cost £11 a day. Again, following my query last week, will the Minister inform the House how advanced is the issuing of the permits? Who will benefit, and when does he expect staff to be in a position to avail themselves of these? Has the Minister had any conversations with the Infrastructure Minister about creating better transport links between public transport routes and Health and Social Care (HSC) sites?

Robin Swann (UUP, North Antrim)

Thank you for the opportunity to respond to the amendments tabled to the Hospital Parking Charges Bill. The amendments tabled by Mr McGrath would result in the postponement of the introduction of free parking for one year instead of the two years outlined in the Bill. The amendment tabled by Mr Carroll would result in the postponement of the introduction of free parking for three and a half months instead of the two years outlined in the Bill.

Members will recall that I hope that the traffic management system contract will be awarded in the next couple of weeks. In the coming period, it is envisaged that site surveys will be completed by the contractor to look at appropriate locations for equipment, assess ground conditions, assess signage requirements and order equipment. It is also expected that the installation of priority items and equipment will take place by that date. However, I have asked for a further period of approximately 12 weeks. That will be required for the installation of all other automatic number plate recognition (ANPR) items in areas such as the set-down locations, smaller parking areas, bus routes and delivery yards in order to facilitate free movement of on-site traffic and mitigate potential congestion.

Over the following eight weeks, there will be checks to assess whether the system is working as planned, management reports will be finalised, and data will be added in relation to permitted staff registration details, contractor vehicles and any known recurrent patient registration numbers to enable access to car parks. Training for front-line staff and back-office staff will take place during that period. The three-and-a-half-month timeline proposed by Mr Carroll would mean that, if parking were made free from 1 September 2024, there would still be a significant risk that trusts would not be able to control parking, preserve blue-light routes and protect designated spaces as required through traffic management systems, because those systems will not be fully operational. I think that Mr McGrath has recognised that.

Health and Social Care has advised that, once parking is made free with the desired traffic management system, it will be able to control parking, preserve blue-light routes and protect designated spaces. Trusts are at present fully committed to the implementation of Encompass, which will continue to 2025. I have been informed that the Encompass project impacts on the availability of trust resources in ICT and estates services and that that will need to be taken into consideration in the roll-out of the traffic management system.

A time frame of 12 months, as proposed by Mr McGrath, is not without risk. I have proposed a two-year deferral period to provide my Department with more time to stabilise its finances and allow trusts time and space to fully commit to the roll-out of Encompass without placing additional pressure on ICT and estates time. I propose to use the deferral period to fully implement the infrastructure required to manage free car parking. That period will also allow trusts time to fully review the impact of the new traffic management system and its impact on demand and car park usage and to overcome any teething issues. That will place trusts in the best position to ensure successful roll-out of free car parking after the deferral period.

Liz Kimmins (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

Will the Member give way?

Robin Swann (UUP, North Antrim)

I will respond to comments that have been made, and I will then give way to Members if I have not answered their questions during my contribution.

Mr Carroll talked about making permits free. I talked about that last time, Mr McGrath raised the issue, and other Members have spoken about it. If permits become free, a criteria-based allocation system will be rolled out regionally to ensure a fair and consistent award process. Regionally, there are 5,032 designated staff permit-holder car parking spaces, and over 11,600 staff have been allocated staff parking permits. Those spaces can be shared by part-time staff and hybrid and shift workers. I have committed and will commit in answer to Members' questions today that all 11,606 permits will be made free of charge if a deferral period is agreed. They will become free of charge on 12 May.

Access to a parking permit is currently awarded on a non-criteria-based system in the Southern Health and Social Care Trust and the Northern Health and Social Care Trust. In those trusts, permits have been awarded to staff on a waiting list on a solely first come, first served basis. The Western Health and Social Care Trust does not operate a staff permit system, as the use of the vast majority of its car parking spaces is already free of charge. Criteria-based permit allocation is preferable, as it provides a mechanism by which the staff who most need a car parking permit are prioritised fairly and equitably. Due to limited capacity, not all staff who meet the criteria for a parking permit will have access to one initially, with many staff being placed on a waiting list.

Criteria-based permit allocation is preferable because it provides a mechanism by which the staff who are in most need of car parking permits are prioritised, I have, as the Member identified, directed all trusts to roll out criteria-based permit allocations. The Belfast Trust's eligibility criteria include being required to use a private vehicle on a daily basis to deliver patient or client care; to provide regular clinics; to provide services at more than one site; to participate in a scheduled on-call rota; to manage service staff on more than one site; to hold a blue badge through disability; and to undertake cross-site working. The additional criteria will include the requirement to carry out shift working regularly scheduled to start before 7.30 am or finish after 7.30 pm; working permanently on night duty; being a registered car sharer who is actively sharing on a daily basis; having a public transport journey that involves one or more changes including park and ride and that exceeds one hour of commuting; or being a parent, guardian or carer who uses a private vehicle to transport children or provide caring responsibilities on the way to or from a base site and public transport is not available.

Income criteria are currently not applied in the Belfast Trust or the South Eastern Trust. I note that many lower-paid workers tend to live closer to their workplace at the minute, and that information is coming from our trust staff. Staff permits are currently allocated on a needs basis, including on the basis of shift working, disability and the time and distance required to travel to the workplace. My intention is to apply the criteria consistently.

Diane Dodds raised a query from the Children's Health Coalition about children with long-term conditions. I indicated at Second Stage that a number of conditions met the criteria for accessing permits. I will now ask that the trusts and my officials who are present engage with the Member and the Children's Health Coalition to see what more work we can do to make sure that eligible parents get full access to the permit system, because that is a criterion that I want to see maintained.

I will take interventions at this stage, initially from the Chair of the Health Committee.

Liz Kimmins (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

I thank the Minister for giving way. I just want some clarity. He said, when talking about Colin McGrath's amendments, that the 12-month date is not without risk. Can you provide some clarity on that? Given the work that I would expect to have been done in the two years since the original legislation was passed and given where we are now, I would like to think that we now have a clear understanding of what is involved to ensure that the change is implemented. Nothing is without risk, so I would prefer to know whether two years is the more realistic option for having the legislation implemented, because we could be back here in another two years hearing, "We need another 12 months", and that would not be without risk either. Can we get some clarity on what is involved and on how likely it is that full implementation can be successfully achieved in that period?

Robin Swann (UUP, North Antrim)

I thank the Chair for her intervention. I will address her comments. As I said, the 12-month date is not without risk. The original Bill was introduced over two years ago, and we now face additional challenges with our finances. It comes back to the point that Alan Robinson made, and the Chair raised it as well. If I thought that this could be done in less than two years, that is what the legislation would state. If the changes could be delivered in less than two years, I would seek that my officials do that. To be realistic about delivery, however, and given the commitment that I have made to Executive colleagues that trusts will look at how we manage the financial impact rather than seek additional moneys from the Department of Finance, I think that two years is realistic and deliverable and, to use Mrs Dodds's words, "reasonable and practical". Rather than have to come back in a year's time to seek a further extension, it makes sense to embed the two years in legislation now, and, if that period can then be shortened, it can be. That is why I ask Members to oppose Mr McGrath's amendments and definitely Mr Carroll's amendments.

I will give way to Miss McAllister.

Nuala McAllister (Alliance, Belfast North)

I thank the Minister for giving way. One of my questions was answered during the debate, but I will follow on from what the Chair asked. On the extension, you are saying that you can commit today that, if this is doable before two years but most likely after one year, you will do it. It is important for the messaging that we hear that it will not take beyond the two years to implement, and we should seek that it be done before then.

My other issue is that, last week, we had representatives from the Royal College of Nursing before the Committee, and they explicitly stated their support for free car parking at hospitals to come in as soon as possible and said that a large number of their nurses want to use that. If we are not including income as a criterion, how do we get round the fact that there may be those who do shift work from perhaps 9.00 am until 6.00 pm or 8.00 am until 6.00 pm and therefore fall outside that criterion? What assistance can we give them?

Robin Swann (UUP, North Antrim)

I thank the Member for her intervention. On her first point, as I said, I considered at the start the time frame that I would ask for in the Bill. I have carefully considered the amendments that Mr Carroll and Mr McGrath have tabled about a change of timeline. I would not be standing here asking for two years if I did not think that that was the reasonable and practical ask to make sure that we can deliver free parking without risk, and, if we can do so, we will bring forward the date.

The specific criteria are about looking at how we support the entirety of our staff base rather than focusing solely on one profession. The criteria that I listed earlier are what I want to see all trusts working towards to make sure that there is a consistent approach across all trusts. It is about those who provide regular clinics or services, hold a blue badge due to a disability, or even do cross-site working. We also look again at the shift criteria and whether it is before 7.30 am or finishing after 7.30 pm. The initial intention of the Bill was to make staff car parking free, as I would like, but we are constrained at the minute to maintaining the number of permits that we have, but we will make sure that those are accessible to as many people as possible.

Jim Allister (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

Will the Minister give way?

Robin Swann (UUP, North Antrim)

Yes.

Jim Allister (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

I would like to ask the pro tem Minister to be absolutely clear on something that he said a few minutes ago. He is not suggesting to the House, is he, that, if the Department finds that it can do it quicker than the two years, it will do it? I ask that because the terms of the Bill are clear: it does not come into effect until May 2026, so there is no option, surely, to do it sooner, even if you could.

Robin Swann (UUP, North Antrim)

I thank the Member for his clear and astute point. If we find a point at which we can introduce it earlier, there will always be a point at which the House can change legislation —

Jim Allister (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

It will be new legislation.

Robin Swann (UUP, North Antrim)

— because we are a legislative Assembly, after all. Issues around the two-year period go back to Mrs Dodds's points on looking for a multi-year Budget that will allow those decisions to be made by the Department. The intention is that it is there for two years; that is why I set the criteria. If we can do things earlier and have the equipment and the finance in place, I hope that whoever is in this place does so.

I move now to some of the other comments that were made. Mr Carroll talked about Tory austerity and certain asks to be made of the Tory Government. I am aware, as, I am sure, Members are, that the First Minister and deputy First Minister met the Secretary of State on 19 April, and have asked for a meeting with the Prime Minister on the challenges that we face. Mr Carroll said, again, that £6·5 million is not a significant sum when it comes to the Department of Health. I can assure him that, when I look at this year's budget, what we want to do, the challenges that we have and what we could be looking at next year, £6·5 million is a considerable sum.

I think that I have answered Mr McGrath and the Chair's questions. Mrs Dodds asked a pertinent question at the end of her contribution about whether capital has been spent on additional car parks. I am not aware that it has, but I will ask trusts to confirm that, because, again, the capital budget line of trusts and the Department of Health is pretty tight, and I would be surprised if it was being used to buy land to simply extend the car parks estate. Danny Donnelly commented on one year versus two years, and he was supportive of the rationale as set out. I welcome his support on that.

Mr Speaker, I think that I have covered the majority of the points that have been —.

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

Will the Minister give way?

Robin Swann (UUP, North Antrim)

Yes.

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

Most of this conversation is around two or three issues, all of which will have been known when the Bill was passed. We are hearing a lot about financial implications. It would be clearer to simply say, "We just do not have the money to do this at this time, and that is what we are looking the extension for". Encompass was on the table when the Bill was passed, but it is being used now as the reason for a delay. It seems that it is being brought up as a way of saying, "We can't do it because we're too busy doing something else".

Has the Minister had any indication of how many staff will have parking spaces available? I ask that because if we go back and look at Hansard after Hansard after Hansard of the original debates on the original Bill, we see that it was always the intention of those who were supporting it that there would be universal free car parking. Moving now to that not being the case, and supporting the fact that there are going to be criteria, is significantly different from what the Bill sponsor, and others, were suggesting at the time.

Robin Swann (UUP, North Antrim)

I thank the Member for his point. As I said earlier when I was talking about the criteria, there are currently 5,032 designated staff-permit-holder car parking spaces across the trusts, but we have 11,606 staff who have an allocated staff parking permit. It is about how we migrate those, with a consistent approach to permits, but also make sure that, come 12 May, those permits are free of charge.

I am sure that the Member will appreciate that, given the challenges created by Encompass, we are still working with very small teams across the trusts to implement what will be electronic criteria. He is aware that the delay in the introduction of the equipment was due to a legal challenge, which has only just been lifted. Given when the work under the original Bill was scheduled, it would have been the same staff working in two different time periods. The delay in the installation of the equipment due to the legal challenge, means that we are now looking for the installation of the car parking equipment to coincide with the delivery of Encompass. That was not the timeline under the first Bill.

The Member made a very valid point about supporting the lung care event in the Long Gallery. I encourage all Members to go to that. That ties into Mr Robinson's point about the conversations and meetings with the Infrastructure Minister about how we join this up with public transport. I am sure that the Member will be aware that it is an ask of the clean air fraternity that we use public transport as much as possible. We have always looked to staff to do that. It goes back to Ms Bradshaw's point — she is not in the Chamber — and how we look at that reconfiguration. We must make sure that, when we ask patients and staff to travel, we support them not just by offering free car parking and free permits but by ensuring that there is public transport provision.

My primary concern has always been to protect access to hospitals for appropriate users. I know that many colleagues have supported this legislation because of the benefits to staff, patients and visitors. The trusts have been asked to stop charging for all existing staff car parking permits from 12 May. They should put in place a fair and consistent award process for the allocation of staff parking permits as soon as possible. Some trusts already operate a criteria-based system for the allocation of parking permits. Therefore, in the interest of consistency, regional collaboration has been recommended to promote consistency and a timely roll-out.

In conclusion, I do not support the amendments tabled by Mr McGrath or Mr Carroll. I assure Members that I and the Department are committed to ensuring full implementation of the Bill's provisions once they are passed into law, and I ask others to do likewise.

Edwin Poots (DUP, Belfast South)

I call Mr Gerry Carroll to make his winding-up speech.

Gerry Carroll (People Before Profit Alliance, Belfast West)

I want to go through some of the comments that have been made and then make some general points at the end. Mr McGrath, referring to his amendments and mine, said that, if my amendments were voted through, they could bring some "confusion and disarray". I remind him that, last week, the Minister said that the technology should be in place by September. To repeat, I want to take him at his word, hence the date in my amendments.

On a general point, this place should set out its priorities and its views on things, and Departments should take a lead and follow on from that. The Member called this an "unfair tax", and he is right. However, he criticises the Executive parties for extending it for two years, but he and his party are happy to extend it for another year. The logic of his argument does not really stand up.

The Chair of the Health Committee stated that she and her party are committed to delivery of the Act. She said that she did not want to give "false hope", but she and her party will continue to give false hope by, presumably, voting against these amendments and supporting the Minister's Bill. Generally speaking here, it is a case of free parking for MLAs and Ministers but not for the public — "Do as I say, not as I do".

Mrs Dodds said that her party would not resile from the original Bill but that, in politics, you have to be practical and reasonable. I would argue that it is impractical and unreasonable to vote to reintroduce parking charges, and that it is unfair to impose this regressive tax and penalty on people, which is what it is.

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

Will the Member give way?

Gerry Carroll (People Before Profit Alliance, Belfast West)

I will give way briefly.

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

Does the Member agree that, when we had the discussions about the original Bill, never mind delays, there was no mention of criteria being put in place that staff would have to meet to avail themselves of free parking? The whole way through the process, we were led to believe that staff would be able to access free parking and that that was the purpose of the then Bill. Yet, now, the Department will suggest to the trusts that criteria be introduced, which will see many staff not being able to avail themselves of free car parking. Their hopes have been built up and they have been told that they will get money back in their pockets, but the bottom line now is that a sizeable majority of them will not.

Gerry Carroll (People Before Profit Alliance, Belfast West)

I thank the Member for his intervention. We discussed that two years ago at the Health Committee. That confirms my suspicion that there is an element in the Department, and, maybe, in the Minister's team, who want to chip away at the legislation. That is my recollection of the briefings at the time, and the Member's comments confirm that. That is very concerning, and it goes against the spirit and the detail of the legislation.

Danny Donnelly, who, if I am correct, is a former healthcare worker —.

Danny Donnelly (Alliance, East Antrim)

I still am one.

Gerry Carroll (People Before Profit Alliance, Belfast West)

He still is one. He said that he is disappointed about the delay. Again, his party and others are disappointed about the delay, but they are voting for it, which does not really add up. There will be a continuation of the charges for at least two years. I say "at least", because who knows what the new Health Minister will decide and what state our health service will be in in years to come? Mr Donnelly also talked about pressures on the Department. I repeat that £400 million was spent on agency staff last year. Compared with that, £6 million or £10 million is miniscule. The money is there, but the Department, in many ways, is prioritising things in the wrong direction.

Alan Robinson talked about the large figure paid by junior doctors. It would be remiss of me not to talk about the fact that their pay has been reduced and that they are overworked. For them, the parking charges really add insult to injury.

The Minister said that the system will be in place in the coming weeks, with, amongst other things, equipment being ordered. He said that, if my amendment is made, there is a significant risk that the system will not be in place on 1 September. I respectfully say to the Minister that work needs to continue at pace to speed up the implementation of the system. We have had two years to get this correct. Leaving aside the court case and the legal challenges, I sincerely ask what has been done over those two years.

Hospital parking charges are an unfair tax and revenue-raising measure. We heard Members say that it is an important revenue-raising measure in the context of budgets being squeezed. Here we have the absurdity and unfairness of it all. We have huge, out-of-control waiting lists that the public are told to stomach and underpaid health and social care workers, some of whom are on welfare, who, to put the cherry on top, have to continue to pay to go to work for at least another year but possibly two years or longer. In a different context during COVID, some decisions were made quickly. Departments did not always make the right decisions, but those decisions were made quickly. It is beyond belief that it will take some four years to implement the system that Members voted through. I have heard of a snail's pace, but that really takes the biscuit.

There was some allusion to a bogeyman argument that people might park in hospital or health centre car parks if they were free — people just parking there for the craic. There is no evidence of that; no data has been provided. Two years ago at the Health Committee, I asked departmental officials for that evidence, and it was not provided. That argument does not recognise the fact that, despite charges already being in place, people who work in hospitals and healthcare centres have to park off-site. There is a wider point being made by some Members and Ministers about investment in public transport. I urge them to get on with that at speed.

I ask the House to support amendment Nos 1 and 3, which are in my name.

Edwin Poots (DUP, Belfast South)

Members should note that, as amendment Nos 1 and 2 are mutually exclusive — amendments that are tabled to the same place in the Bill — and amendment Nos 2 and 4 are linked to each other, if amendment No 1 is made, I will not call amendment Nos 2 and 4.

Question, That amendment No 1 be made, put and negatived.

Amendment No 2 proposed:

In page 1, line 6, leave out "2026" and insert "2025". — [Mr McGrath.]

Question put, That the amendment be made. The Assembly divided:

Ayes 28; Noes 48

AYES

Mr Allister, Mr Brett, Mr Brooks, Ms Brownlee, Mr K Buchanan, Mr Buckley, Ms Bunting, Mr Carroll, Mr Clarke, Mrs Dodds, Mr Dunne, Mr Durkan, Mr Easton, Mrs Erskine, Ms Forsythe, Mr Frew, Mr Harvey, Ms Hunter, Mr Irwin, Mr Kingston, Mr McCrossan, Mr McGrath, Miss McIlveen, Ms McLaughlin, Mr McNulty, Mr Middleton, Mr O'Toole, Mr Robinson

Tellers for the Ayes: Ms Hunter, Mr McGrath

NOES

Dr Aiken, Mr Allen, Dr Archibald, Ms Armstrong, Mr Baker, Mr Blair, Mr Boylan, Ms Bradshaw, Miss Brogan, Mr Brown, Mr Chambers, Mr Dickson, Mrs Dillon, Mr Donnelly, Ms Eastwood, Ms Egan, Mr Elliott, Ms Ennis, Ms Ferguson, Ms Flynn, Mr Gildernew, Miss Hargey, Mr Honeyford, Mr Kelly, Ms Kimmins, Mrs Long, Mr McAleer, Miss McAllister, Mr McGuigan, Mr McHugh, Mr McReynolds, Mrs Mason, Mr Mathison, Mr Muir, Ms Mulholland, Ms Á Murphy, Mr C Murphy, Mr Nesbitt, Ms Ní Chuilín, Ms Nicholl, Mr O'Dowd, Mrs O'Neill, Miss Reilly, Mr Sheehan, Ms Sheerin, Mr Stewart, Mr Swann, Mr Tennyson

Tellers for the Noes: Dr Aiken, Mr Nesbitt

Question accordingly negatived.

Edwin Poots (DUP, Belfast South)

I will not call amendment Nos 3 and 4, as they are linked to amendment Nos 1 and 2, neither of which were made.

Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Long title agreed to.

Edwin Poots (DUP, Belfast South)

That concludes the Consideration Stage of the Hospital Parking Charges Bill. The Bill stands referred to the Speaker. I ask Members to take their ease while we change the top Table.

(Mr Deputy Speaker [Dr Aiken] in the Chair)

Private Members' Business

Órlaithí Flynn (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

I beg to move

That this Assembly notes with concern NISRA's 2024 report on 'Drug-related and drug misuse deaths', which found a significant increase in the number of deaths attributed to drugs and alcohol; further notes the intrinsic connection between social deprivation, poverty, isolation, mental health and addiction issues; acknowledges with concern the NISRA figures that show that drug-related deaths are highest among 25-34-year-olds, are five and a half times more likely in areas of highest deprivation and that opioids are consistently the most common form of drug listed as cause of death; and calls on the Minister of Health, in cooperation with the Executive's ministerial committee for public health, to urgently implement the provisions aimed at harm prevention, harm reduction and tackling addiction within the substance use strategy 2021-2031, including developing plans for a new residential rehabilitation unit in Belfast.

Steve Aiken (UUP, South Antrim)

The Business Committee has agreed to allow up to one hour and 30 minutes for the debate. The proposer of the motion will have 10 minutes in which to propose and 10 minutes in which to make a winding-up speech. As an amendment has been selected and published on the Marshalled List, the Business Committee has agreed that 15 minutes will be added to the total time for the debate. Please open the debate on the motion.

Órlaithí Flynn (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

Go raibh maith agat, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle.

[Translation: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker.]

It gives me no joy to bring forward this motion. It comes from a place of sadness and tragedy. For the past three years, I have worked with bereaved families from across the North, campaigning alongside them in the hope that we can secure additional resources to help people who are battling with addiction and to help to prevent or reduce harm, where possible. My time spent with those families has brought home the absolute devastation that drugs cause to families in all our communities. I doubt that any Members would struggle to think of a family whom they know personally, represent or have worked with who has not been, or is not, affected by the awful disease that is addiction. It costs our economy £1·5 billion a year. That figure alone makes a powerful argument for investing now to help people recover when they are battling with addiction. Investing in recovery can and will save people's lives. Again, I have no doubt that we have all heard many sad and heartbreaking stories from families who tried to get help for their loved ones before it was too late but failed.

The families with whom I have worked over the past number of years have told me that the reason that they failed in their desperate attempts to keep their loved one alive was the lack of available treatment options at that time of crisis. Families exhausted routes via their GP, via emergency departments and via community addiction teams. They made multiple attempts to find an appropriate and accessible wrap-around residential rehab unit that could have taken in their loved ones during that small, precious window of opportunity when they were crying out for the help that they needed.

I in no way underestimate the excellent work that services provide and the brilliant and dedicated staff who work in addiction services at community level, at trust level or in primary care. We know, however, that the number of deaths has doubled over the past 10 years. That tells us that something, somewhere is not working. Too many people are dying an unnecessary death. Addiction is a disease, not a choice. It tears families apart, and we should not leave those families to deal with the additional burden of not knowing where to turn or where to send their loved ones when battling with that illness.

We talk about harm reduction and harm prevention. An overdose prevention facility is needed in Belfast. Throughout Europe, overdose prevention facilities have been successful in managing the number of overdose deaths. Of course, the ideal scenario is that people do not inject drugs, but if they are going to inject, it makes more sense for them to do so where it is safe and where trained staff can help them, monitor them and work with them, and if the worst happens and people overdose, they can reverse it.

Rapid drug testing is another initiative that will save lives. The Minister is probably aware that a model is available through Queen's University at the minute. I know that budgets are tight and are squeezed, but if it were possible to get that model funded even for the first year in order to get it off the ground, its testing programme could provide a 24-hour turnaround that would confirm when dangerous or lethal drugs are in circulation on our streets. That would allow an alert system to kick in, similar to what happens in Dublin and parts of Britain. The Dublin model is used elsewhere. If we could introduce it here, in some form or at some level, it would save lives.

As the amendment implies, the issue requires Executive-wide support. During questions to the Minister of Justice yesterday, we heard about the pressure on our prison system. People who fall through gaps in the health system, in education and across society sadly end up in jail with poor mental health and addictions. In our schools, children are now at huge risk. It has been reported in the news recently that vapes mixed with spice have made their way into the school community. Parents have been put on alert by the PSNI, which is warning that, for young people, it is an immediate concern. Every Department must make interventions to help with those critical issues. As the motion states, there is an intrinsic connection between poverty, deprivation, and drug and alcohol addiction, and that will also require a strong response from the Department for Communities through anti-poverty interventions.

I understand that the issue is cross-departmental and that each Department has a huge responsibility to address it, but I hope that, from the health perspective, the Minister can respond positively to the motion and support the calls that are coming from families who are sadly at the other end of the problem, with their loved ones having already died. Their lives have already been lost to drugs. My hope is that their voices can be heard loud and clear during today's debate.

The Jack's Promise campaign group has invited parents, siblings and friends who have lost loved ones to a candle-lit vigil that has taken place in the past couple of years on the steps of Stormont, in the mouth of Christmas, to highlight the empty seat they have at their Christmas table because their loved one has died. The People's Kitchen held a poignant demonstration last summer, when it laid out 212 pairs of shoes along the steps of Stormont to mark each life that has been lost to an overdose in 2021.

I am really pleased that the Minister has agreed to meet some families this Thursday, which is a coincidence as we are debating the matter today. I know that the Minister will meet and directly engage with families this week, and his officials have intently engaged with some of the bereaved families, which they appreciate — I know because I have been at some of the meetings — and they will also appreciate the direct conversation with the Minister on Thursday. Outside of the meetings and the engagement, we need a firm commitment to deal with the rise in drug and alcohol deaths and to provide the resources to assist with doing that, and it is not an easy ask.

I will conclude by highlighting the calls from mothers in the Belfast area who attended the Stormont vigil a few months ago and who are making a direct plea for a rehabilitation unit in Belfast.

Chloe Lennon from West Belfast was 22 when she died from a drug overdose in November 2022. Her mother, Lorraine, told BBC News that her daughter had started taking drugs at the age of 13. She stated:

"She suffered trauma and took cannabis to deal with that. Then she started taking pregabalin, cocaine, heroin and strong alcohol. Her mental health went through the roof. She needed help in Belfast but there wasn't anything when she needed it."

It was heart-wrenching, her mother said, that, two weeks after Chloe died, she received an appointment for help. Mrs Lennon explained:

"One did come through, but they discharged her because she didn't attend. She didn't attend because she was already dead - it was too late."

Those are her mother's words: it was too late.

Lorraine Brennan's son, Jack, died from a drug overdose in 2021. She said that Jack needed help; he was crying out for help, but the services were not available. She stated that when he was brought to A&E:

"I begged the mental health team to keep him. He begged to be sectioned. But he was let home."

Jack was also from West Belfast. He had taken prescription drugs since he was 15 and, by the age of 21, was using heroin and suffered from mental health issues, alongside his drug use. Lorraine said:

"We as a family, want to prevent other families from losing a loved one to addiction and experiencing this painful grief and loss. We want to give our young people more hope and support when they need it."

The Jack's Promise petition was presented to the Assembly in 2021. It now has over 4,000 signatures. Sadly, Jack's experience is not an isolated one, and it is arguably one of the most common experiences that families are currently facing, not just in Belfast but in every area of the country.

I will end my remarks by reading one of Jack's poems. Jack, God love him, wrote it before he went into rehab in Liverpool. The poem is so heart-breaking, and it is called 'The Days of My Life':

"Surrounded by people yet all alone trapped within this darkening zone. A world where chaos and hate overtake any bit of happiness that tries to escape. Laughter and positive thoughts never seem to last, because I am haunted by my memories of the past. Running the distance with nowhere to go, these are the days of my life, a Broadway show. I scream out for help yet they never really hear, the demons of death are coming so near! Echoes in my head tormenting me all day long, breaking the man who was once whole and strong. What does serenity mean anyway? Is it the spring in my step or the words that I say. Suicide seems the answer, many times I’ve tried, happiness seems to be the tears that I have cried. Unable to distinguish what’s real from fiction. Hope is an illusion, an optimists prediction. I wonder what will it take to get me right, a visit from the devil on a lonely night? Angels prepare to battle and take a stand to remind me of their holy land. When I want to give up, they push for me to be strong, and in my head I hear their comforting song. Life is an illusion, a constant mind trick on me... who knows what my fate will be. Heaven and hell are both fair game, will I find peace or leave them with shame? Surrounded by people, yet all alone, trapped within this darkening zone".

I am sorry for going over time.

Steve Aiken (UUP, South Antrim)

Thank you for those poignant remarks at the end.

Alan Chambers (UUP, North Down)

I beg to move the following amendment:

Leave out all after "including" and insert; "plans to develop a residential rehabilitation service in a regionally strategic location; and further calls on the Executive to commit to providing appropriate subsequent resources in the 2024-25 Budget for the Department of Health."

Steve Aiken (UUP, South Antrim)

Alan, you will have 10 minutes to propose and five minutes to make a winding-up speech. Other Members who are called to speak will have five minutes. Over to you, Alan.

Alan Chambers (UUP, North Down)

Thank you. Mr Deputy Speaker. I commend the proposer of the motion for bringing forward such an important topic for discussion.

Alcohol and drug abuse can ruin families and sadly cost lives. I offer my deepest sympathies to all families who have sadly lost loved ones in such difficult circumstances. I cannot start to imagine the helplessness and grief experienced by families as they watch a close loved one succumb to the dreadful illness of uncontrolled addiction.

Unfortunately there is not a town, village or, indeed, corner of any of our constituencies that has escaped unscathed the ravages of drug abuse and addiction. As the motion rightly highlights, drug-related deaths are significantly more common in the areas of highest deprivation. That presents an even greater need for us, as MLAs, and all Ministers and stakeholders to ensure that we, collectively, do all we can to highlight and tackle the problem.

Of course, the dilemma with addiction and drug-related deaths is that the problem can be so large and multifaceted that it requires an all-encompassing response. No single reason or automatic change in circumstances leads to such challenges in one's life. Addiction and drug misuse is a society-wide problem, but some contributory factors are more common than others. Poverty and deprivation are certainly two, but there are many others such as mental health, family and personal circumstances and, even, more deep-rooted inequalities such as educational attainment and housing standards. There is, unfortunately, a particularly deep-rooted and interlinking connection between homelessness and drug misuse. However, overall, there are no specific causes, and thus addiction and, tragically, drug-related deaths can visit any home across Northern Ireland.

I am sure that the Preventing Harm, Empowering Recovery substance use strategy will be referenced regularly during the debate, and so it should be. It goes without saying that we should all have a close interest and desire to see that strategy implemented. It is important to note that many of the underlying causes and harms arising from substance use cannot be tackled by one Minister or one Department. Thankfully, thinking back to the strategy's launch in 2021, I recall that it had Executive-wide support, and I suspect that it retains broad cross-party support to this day. Of course, whilst the substance use strategy is a very important document, it sits alongside other equally important pieces of work, such as the 10-year mental health strategy and Making Life Better, Northern Ireland's overarching framework for public health.

Nevertheless, whilst it is all fine and well to have well-intended strategies, as the Minister has often said, the true value of such documents and plans can be truly realised only through delivery and implementation. In that regard, I am glad that there appears to have been some good progress already. Particularly relevant to today's debate is the work on substance use services, which I was pleased to see moved to the next step earlier this year and which I look forward to hearing more about, not only later in the debate but in the weeks and months ahead.

That brings me to my amendment. Ultimately, whilst I suspect there is likely broad political unanimity on implementing the various plans relevant to the debate, we need to realise that, if we wish to see the full potential of the improvements and transformations on offer, it will cost money. The Executive must decide collectively whether the strategies that the previous Executive signed up to are still a priority and are still to be taken forward and funded as such. Whilst we can certainly never put a price on a life, we need to remember that sufficient upfront investment in substance use and mental health services can often save much more in the longer term. As Ministers meet in the coming days and weeks to thrash out the 2024-25 Budget, I hope that the real implications of the future viability of the various hugely important health strategies and plans remain to the fore of their minds.

Moving to the other key part of my amendment, I fully agree that it is important that we examine and enhance our existing inpatient treatment services. I hope that the review that is under way sets a clear and evidence-driven direction of travel. While I largely cannot fault any of the substantive motion, I had some concern about the reference to locating a new residential rehabilitation service in Belfast. Whilst I absolutely understand that there have been some particularly compelling calls for such a service in Belfast, there are calls for the service to be located somewhere else in Northern Ireland that are, perhaps, equally persuasive. I think in particular of the services that are on offer in the Northlands centre in Londonderry as an example. Of course, it is essential that the location of any new service is evidence-led and decided only after full and detailed consideration. That is why the tier 4 review that is under way is so important. Whilst my amendment removes the call for the service to be located in Belfast, that does not necessarily mean that it will not be; it will be located wherever it has the greatest impact and benefit.

I am happy to move today's amendment. Again, I thank the sponsors of this important motion. I end my remarks by offering my heartfelt sympathy to every family that has lost a loved one in such difficult circumstances.

Diane Dodds (DUP, Upper Bann)

As the previous Member did, I offer my sincere condolences to those who have lost loved ones. I thank the proposer of the motion for the beautiful poem, which describes the chaos and difficulties of someone caught in the trap of addiction.

I start by reflecting on the number of drug deaths in Northern Ireland and the fact that we have seen an explosion in those deaths over the past 10 or 15 years. We have seen a 98% increase in drug-related deaths since 2012. In 2022, there were 154 drug-related deaths, which represents a 40% increase from 2014. In 2022, the underlying causes of 82·5% of drug-related deaths were substances that are controlled under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, with heroin and morphine being the most prevalent ones listed. Those statistics are taken from the Northern Ireland Statistics and Research Agency (NISRA) report that was recently released. In 2022, two thirds of those who suffered from drug-related deaths were men. That is a really sad reflection on society and the increasing use of drugs, but it would be remiss of us not to say today that we all support removing the scourge of drug dealers from our communities. They bring nothing but pain and death. It is incredibly important that we look at that.

The proposer of the motion rightly spent her time reflecting on some of the stories and the humanity behind drug misuse and addiction. I will look at some of the strategies and the wider areas that we, as policymakers, also need to look at and reflect on. Mr Chambers mentioned the Preventing Harm, Empowering Recovery strategy, on which a report was published last month. In that most recent report, 33 actions — 58% — are currently set as green, so they are progressing as planned, which is good news in many ways. However, 24% are not and are set as amber, since they require the confirmation of additional funding.

Before the restoration of devolution, I attended a meeting with community groups whose funding has been cut. One issue that was cited was the fact that community groups that deal with drug addiction and the misuse of drugs have had a lot of their funding cut. We need to look at restoring that. I appreciate, Minister, and understand the difficulties. That is why I support the amendment, because that issue is very important.

We also need to look at how we prevent and tackle the issue by trying to get it at source before it becomes a huge problem. In 2020, the Northern Ireland Audit Office (NIAO) report, 'Addiction Services in Northern Ireland', showed that the Department of Health spends £900 million each year on tackling drug and alcohol misuse but only a small budget is allocated to combating the issue: £8 million for implementing the drug and alcohol strategy and £8 million for statutory addiction services. I suggest that, if we are to prevent the huge amount of money that the health service spends on that very important issue, we need to get into the prevention space much more quickly and effectively.

Gary Middleton (DUP, Foyle)

Will the Member give way?

Diane Dodds (DUP, Upper Bann)

Yes, of course.

Gary Middleton (DUP, Foyle)

I fully agree with the Member. Does the Member agree that the early intervention piece is key to ensuring that, by investing early, in the long term, we save money for the health service?

Steve Aiken (UUP, South Antrim)

The Member has an extra minute.

Diane Dodds (DUP, Upper Bann)

Thank you. I absolutely agree that it is totally key and extremely important.

To close, I will speak a little about dual diagnosis. That term is used to describe the concurrence of a mental health problem alongside substance misuse. It is a significant issue for the health service. Up to 70% of people in drug services and 86% in alcohol services also experience mental health problems. It is really important that we look at and deal with the issue of dual diagnosis. Many of those people are young. Between 64% and 88% of adolescents with substance misuse disorders have at least one co-existing mental health issue. Therefore —

Steve Aiken (UUP, South Antrim)

I ask the Member to draw her remarks to a close, please.

Diane Dodds (DUP, Upper Bann)

Yes. Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for allowing me to go on.

We need greater coordination between the services, and I appeal for the Minister to look at that as well.

Danny Donnelly (Alliance, East Antrim)

I support the motion and the amendment. I thank colleagues from Sinn Féin and the Ulster Unionist Party for bringing these important issues to the Assembly.

NISRA's 2024 report on drug-related and drug-misuse deaths makes for truly shocking reading. It is extremely concerning that there has been a 98% increase in deaths due to drug-related causes since 2012. It is also concerning that the majority of those deaths — 55·8% — were of individuals aged between 25 and 44. As the motion rightly states, opioids are consistently the most common form of drug listed as a cause of death, averaging 118 deaths a year between 2020 and 2022. By comparison, road deaths average around 54, which, obviously, is still far too high.

Like the proposer, I attended the vigils at Stormont and spoke to families who have lost a loved one. It can be easy to get lost in the statistics in debates such as this, but we should never forget that each drug- and alcohol-related death is the loss of an individual and a devastating loss for their families, friends and wider community. We must do everything that we can to tackle the harms around substance abuse. It is important that the Department of Health progresses the implementation of the 57 actions outlined in the substance use strategy.

With support, people can turn their lives around. We have seen that again and again. As has been noted by Members, tackling drug addiction and drug-related deaths is not solely a health issue, and a joined-up collaborative approach is required across the Executive to confront the root causes of drug addiction.

Philip McGuigan (Sinn Féin, North Antrim)

I thank the Member for giving way. Obviously, the statistics in the report are shocking, and it is right and proper to say, as the Member did, that we need action to be taken by more than just the Department of Health. Nominally — at least, in theory — we have a public health approach to alcohol- and drug-related deaths.

As a fellow member of the all-party group (APG) on reducing harm related to gambling, does the Member agree that we also need to seriously tackle addiction that is related to gambling and that that too needs to be included in any public health approach that the Department takes forward?

Steve Aiken (UUP, South Antrim)

The Member has an extra minute.

Danny Donnelly (Alliance, East Antrim)

Yes, absolutely, and, as someone who sits on the APG on reducing harm related to gambling, I have heard horrendous stories about the addictive nature of gambling, and, certainly, we have to address that as a public health issue.

The motion notes the:

"intrinsic connection between social deprivation, poverty, isolation, mental health and addiction issues",

and many steps must be taken to confront each of those challenges. The absence of opportunities in many communities remains an issue for many young people, particularly in housing and employment, which exacerbates existing poverty and isolation. The greater prevalence of mental health problems in Northern Ireland, as Diane Dodds noted, compared with the rest of the UK, not least because of the legacy of the Troubles, reiterates the importance of the full implementation of the mental health strategy 2021-2031.

We are happy to support the amendment. It is important that plans for a residential rehabilitation service are outlined as soon as possible, especially in what constitutes a regionally strategic location. The service does not necessarily have to be in Belfast, as mentioned, but, as Belfast is the capital city and where most of those issues are prevalent, a location there may prove to be the most suitable and beneficial. We will await detailed proposals from the Department.

I want to touch on something that was initially absent from the motion but that was then mentioned by the Member who moved the motion, Órlaithí Flynn. That is the inclusion of an overdose prevention centre. Overdose prevention centres are safe and hygienic spaces where people are allowed to inject drugs under the supervision of professionally trained staff who can offer safe equipment and drug testing and who can respond immediately to any overdoses. An overdose is a medical emergency that can be treated primarily with naloxone. There are over 200 overdose prevention centres across 17 countries worldwide, and peer-reviewed research evidences that overdose prevention centres can prevent thousands of deaths, decrease the spread of disease and improve communities by reducing drug litter and by making drug use on our streets less visible. They can also save taxpayers' money through reduced emergency service use. The provision of the opioid reversal drug naloxone to users and their families has also been shown to save lives. I hope to see that progress too.

Section 5 of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 prohibits overdose prevention centres, but, despite that, there are plans to open the UK's first sanctioned facility later this year in Scotland, following the experience of an unsanctioned overdose prevention centre in Glasgow in 2020-21. The Lord Advocate for Scotland has provided guidance for police, highlighting that it is not in the public interest to prosecute someone for using an overdose prevention centres. Last year, Belfast City Council voted to support a motion to set up an overdose prevention centre in the city, and I believe that the Assembly should now look at that. Doing so would complement the motion by providing a tried and proven method of saving lives and preventing drug-related deaths. We also need wider reform of drug policy and legislation, particularly the increasingly outdated Misuse of Drugs Act 1971. However, that is for Westminster, given that those are primarily reserved matters. In the Assembly, we must do all that we can to reduce harm, tackle addiction and prevent drug-related deaths. The provision of a regional rehabilitation centre and overdose prevention centre would be key steps forward.

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

Addiction is a plague in our society. It is the great equaliser. It does not discriminate based on age, gender, race or social status. The story of addiction is a human story; it is one of pain and struggle and one that I am sure all of us can relate to in some way or another. Sadly, like many here, I see the impact of addiction on an almost daily basis. For example, the bereaved parents whose lives have been shattered, the individuals in the throes of addiction who were maybe placed in emergency housing far from their family and support network and the young people who are at rock bottom, feeling that they have nowhere else to turn.

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

I thank the Member for giving way. Does he agree that it is important to recognise that drug addiction is a disease and that we should all respond to addiction with compassion, concern and empathy? For those battling addiction, it is important that we communicate this loudly: you are not alone in the struggle, and recovery and escape from drug addiction is a challenging journey, but it is one that can lead to hope, healing and transformation. Help and support are out there, free from the risk of prosecution. Stay strong, and know that there is hope for a brighter, healthier future.

Steve Aiken (UUP, South Antrim)

The Member has another minute.

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

I thank the Member for his intervention. I concur entirely that compassion is key to healing and helping those who are fighting addiction.

Many of us see and feel the impacts of addiction much closer to home, and the escalation in numbers of affected people and severity of illness has been heartbreaking to bear witness to — there but for the grace of God go I. At the moment, far too many vulnerable people fall through the gaps between addiction support services. We are witnessing a frightening trajectory in the number of drug-related deaths, with 212 people having lost their life in the past year. Behind every statistic, as others have said, is a life cut short, dreams shattered and a family devastated. Each death is a stark reminder of the urgent need for action.

It is no coincidence that drug-related deaths have trebled in a decade. It is a direct result of Tory austerity and failed leadership. The failures of government exact the highest cost: the loss of life. Our post-pandemic landscape and the cost-of-living crisis have rubbed salt into the wounds, compounding pressures on broken lives. The motion neglects to mention — other Members, including the proposer of the motion, have mentioned it — the co-occurrence of addiction and mental health conditions and the need for a dual diagnosis approach. Both conditions remain a harrowing feature in the lives of so many here. That cycle can prove difficult to escape, especially for those who suffer socio-economic disadvantage.

Those who are brave enough to seek support often find themselves forced to be led from pillar to post in their efforts to find meaningful and appropriate services and support. From housing to health services, it seems to have become, at times, a case of "pass the problem". That is about failing to see the son, the daughter, the parent, the brother or the sister struggling to stay afloat in a world that has become so unbearable. That is not to criticise staff of any of the organisations. They, too, are working in a challenging environment, unequipped to deal with the complexities and volume of people who present.

I am acutely aware that addiction is a complex issue. A range of factors leads people down that cruel path. Once on it, many individuals are pushed even further to the margins of society by a system that is stacked against them. The increased risk of homelessness and the situation around temporary accommodation that I mentioned really need to be addressed. At present, very vulnerable people are placed outside their home towns, away from family, friends and access to their GP. That marked isolation leaves people at risk of abuse, neglect and further exploitation by drug dealers — death dealers — who peddle misery with no care about consequences and little fear of punishment. We need tougher sentences for those dealers. I commend my constituent Pauline Duddy, who has channelled her grief at the loss of her lovely daughter Jasmin into a courageous campaign for tougher sentencing.

Collaborative work involving Departments, the police, the public and local organisations is the only way to achieve tangible results for people who are suffering. I place on record my gratitude for the invaluable work of organisations across the North but particularly in my constituency, including ARC Fitness, Northlands and Hurt, which are shining examples of the approach that we need to tackle the crisis head-on. First and foremost, it is about treating people with compassion. While we welcome plans for a new, regionally significant rehabilitation unit, it is imperative that the Executive and the British Government deliver on their commitments to provide adequate addiction funding and facilities for the north-west in order to prevent further loss of life and more lost lives. More broken promises are the last thing that people need.

Steve Aiken (UUP, South Antrim)

I call Carál Ní Chuilín.

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

Go raibh maith agat, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle.

[Translation: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker.]

I just want to put on record my thanks to you for swapping our chairing duties so that I could speak on this very important issue today. I also thank Órlaithí and Alan for moving the motion and the amendment.

When we are talking about mental health and addiction, the whole issue of dual diagnosis comes up every single time. Like many others, I have worked with health and social care professionals, in hospital settings and within the community, who have said that they are frustrated and that they want to try to help people, but there is still a lack of understanding about what dual diagnosis is. Diane Dodds explained it by saying that someone comes forward for help and they are under the influence of drugs, alcohol or both, and trying to help someone in those circumstances needs specialism and proper training. One thing that everybody has in abundance is care and compassion, so that needs to be put on the record.

All Members who have spoken have raised the issue that drug dealers are death dealers. I do not care what organisation they were or are affiliated with: they are armed gangs who peddle misery and kill kids, and that is it. Sin é.

[Translation: That is it.]

That is what they do, and I do not think that anyone is under any other illusion about what they are, because that is what they do.

I had and have the privilege — I am sure that we all do — of working with a lot of really compassionate people who go above and beyond. For example, they go into Belfast city centre — you know: this out of sight, out of mind — and talk to addicts on the street. They try to work with their families. They give them food and clothes, and they also help them with benefits. I visited the People's Kitchen when this place was recently restored, and the families there would have broken your heart.

The NISRA report is very helpful, but for me, as someone living in one of the most deprived constituencies, I could almost — I am sure that we do — put together a list of things that people are going to be affected by: poverty, ill health, poor mental health, poor housing, poor educational outcomes and the rest. They are very resilient people and very proud people, but I have seen the journey that people have been on. Unfortunately, a lot of us have gone to wakes after family members have died because they "loved a wee drink" or because they "had a wee problem". Now people are saying that he or she "was an addict", and they are saying that because the rest of the community knows exactly what it means.

The other aspect — I would say that we all have experienced this — is that I have sat looking at really elderly constituents who are paying off debts to drug dealers on behalf of their grandkids. They are going to credit unions and going everywhere because they do not want their grandkids getting hurt. For me, that is an absolute disgrace, because the grandparents of the people who are coming to their doors know the grandparents whom they are squeezing. They all know each other's families and they really do not care, but we care, and that is the clear message that needs to go out today.

In preparation for today, I talked to someone who still considers themselves an addict, and they explained to me that, when they went to the Mater looking for help, they were seen as a nuisance. Somebody who was really sick was more deserving than them. They took the brave step of going to the Mater to get help, and they did eventually get it, but they got it from other addicts. They went to housing, and it was almost like, "You cannot get a house", and when that person did get a house or was offered temporary accommodation, drug-related problems were prevalent in that area, and, because they wanted to get clean, they could not go.

Nuala McAllister (Alliance, Belfast North)

Will the Member give way?

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

I will, surely.

Nuala McAllister (Alliance, Belfast North)

I am conscious of the time. Do you appreciate that the staff who work in the Housing Executive do understand that this is a massive issue, but they are not equipped to deal with this issue? They need assistance from others.

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

The Member is right, and that is what I said at the start. All those professionals, be it in health, housing, education or the community, are really compassionate, but they are not equipped. The saying that we all live in and rely on each other's shadows is really evident, but we need somewhere. We need a place where it actually says, "You can come here and we can try to help", and that pathway and references to all the other supports that are there will be very clear.

The other elephant in the room is that we are a post-conflict generation — now into three and going into four generations. We need to take a trauma-informed approach to addiction. I have seen the grandchildren of people who have been through the conflict, and who lost members of their family during the conflict, and I cannot dismiss the coincidence. Addiction is prevalent right throughout the family, and it seems that, the bigger the conflict and the bigger its impact, the more likely addiction is to become almost hereditary.

I thank all groups. For us, it is about where the need is. Órlaithí, as a Member for West Belfast, and I, as a Member for North Belfast, are going to argue for Belfast, but we want a needs-based approach to be taken to every available resource.

Steve Aiken (UUP, South Antrim)

Will the Member draw her remarks to a close, please?

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

I thank Members for their support. I commend the motion as proposed by Órlaithí.

Steve Aiken (UUP, South Antrim)

The Business Committee has arranged to meet at 1.00 pm. I propose therefore, by leave of the Assembly, to suspend the sitting until 2.00 pm. The debate will continue after Question Time, when the next Member to be called will be Alan Robinson.

The debate stood suspended. The sitting was suspended at 1.01 pm.

On resuming (Madam Principal Deputy Speaker [Ms Ní Chuilín] in the Chair) —

Oral Answers to Questions — Communities

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

Question 1 has been withdrawn.

Phillip Brett (DUP, Belfast North)

2. Mr Brett asked the Minister for Communities for an update on the development of a national training centre by the Irish Football Association (IFA). (AQO 324/22-27)

Gordon Lyons (DUP, East Antrim)

My officials are working closely with the Irish FA to take forward the development of a national training centre. National training centres are common in other jurisdictions, and the Irish FA considers a national training centre to be a crucial component of its future strategy to develop football locally. It is expected that the Department will make a small contribution to the funding for the development of a national training centre from the current subregional budget of £36·2 million, with the remainder of the funds provided by the Irish FA. A steering group has been established to assist the Irish FA in the development of a robust business case and to help secure a suitable site to locate a national training centre.

Phillip Brett (DUP, Belfast North)

I thank the Minister for his update and his commitment to football. Will he also commit to releasing the subregional stadia funding which, for far too long, has been held to political ransom by previous Ministers?

Gordon Lyons (DUP, East Antrim)

The Member is absolutely right to highlight the subregional stadia fund, and all of us in the House know how important that is. I have been asked a lot of questions about it, and I can inform the Member that significant work has been carried out in the two months since I came into office. I am pleased to report that I will soon be in a position to make further announcements on that. Of course, in order to stay in the Speaker's good graces, any announcements will be made to the House first. That will impact on performance clubs as well as grassroots football and the national training centre.

I am sure that everyone in the House will allow me to take the opportunity to congratulate Larne Football Club in getting one step closer to the league championship. I am aware that I am sitting beside and in front of Linfield fans, so maybe I should leave it there.

[Laughter.]

Jim Allister (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

Given the Minister's commitment to the Casement Park Euro project, what will be the actual physical legacy for football from the Euros?

Gordon Lyons (DUP, East Antrim)

The Member is correct to raise the impact of the legacy of the Euros. As I have said in the House and elsewhere, it is important that a footballing tournament has a footballing legacy. I intend that the subregional stadia programme, as well as other work that I intend to carry out in this area, will mean that we will have a much improved footballing legacy across Northern Ireland.

Michelle McIlveen (DUP, Strangford)

3. Miss McIlveen asked the Minister for Communities what steps are being taken to ensure the award of intimidation points for social housing is not abused. (AQO 325/22-27)

Gordon Lyons (DUP, East Antrim)

I am aware that there is significant concern that intimidation points are being abused. I can confirm that the Housing Executive undertakes a robust verification process to ensure that points are awarded to those who meet the specified criteria. However, I believe that change is needed to ensure that victims of trauma or violence, including victims of domestic abuse, are treated more consistently. People who are genuinely victims of violence must receive the priority they deserve.

We must also ensure that the system cannot be abused. As part of the ongoing fundamental review of social housing allocations, I will consider the future options for intimidation points. Independent research on the subject is close to completion. That will inform the options for future provision for the assessment, verification and prioritisation of housing need for victims of violence.

Michelle McIlveen (DUP, Strangford)

The Minister will appreciate that intimidation can cover a lot of scenarios. For example, there are instances where individuals who are intimidated out of their home due to their alleged criminal activity or alleged affiliation to another illegal organisation are simply moved down the street to another estate, inevitably bringing difficulties to the residents of the new estate. The Housing Executive and housing associations say that their hands are tied. Will the Minister look into how social housing providers can adequately address that issue in order to support the right of existing tenants to peaceful enjoyment of their properties, free from undue interference?

Gordon Lyons (DUP, East Antrim)

The Member has given an example that, I am sure, will be familiar to many Members. She is correct to highlight the importance of protecting the rights of existing tenants and the peaceful protection of their property. That is what I intend to do as Minister. As well as looking at the issue of intimidation points, I intend to keep under review policies and sanctions that will allow the Housing Executive and housing associations to take action against those who are causing problems in their neighbourhoods.

Kellie Armstrong (Alliance, Strangford)

Can the Minister, please, provide an update on proposal 7 in the fundamental review of the allocation system?

Gordon Lyons (DUP, East Antrim)

I am sorry. I do not have proposal 7. I am not sure which one that is.

Kellie Armstrong (Alliance, Strangford)

Strengthening verification.

Gordon Lyons (DUP, East Antrim)

Yes, that is part of the review. It is the one of the recommendations on which progress is to be made. I can give her that specific information. I am pleased that the recommendations that were agreed are moving forward at pace. I understand that some have been slower to progress than we would like. I intend to move those forward, as well as the outstanding ones, and consider them when the report comes through.

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

Minister, can you provide any detail on the number of people who have abused the intimidation points system over each of the last three years?

Gordon Lyons (DUP, East Antrim)

No, I am unable to provide that, because, of course, we do not have concrete evidence of exactly who has or has not been abusing that. A lot of the information we have is based on anecdotal evidence, which is not always possible to verify. The issue is raised frequently with me. I look forward to receiving the report so that I can base my decision on the evidence that is provided.

Ciara Ferguson (Sinn Féin, Foyle)

I welcome the fact that the Minister spoke about getting better at the verification process for intimidation points and that he will seek clarity on that. Can the scheme be broadened to protect those at risk from domestic abuse?

Gordon Lyons (DUP, East Antrim)

That issue is raised frequently. I know that there is a sense of unfairness about the fact that issues such as domestic abuse are not included. Protecting the most vulnerable in our society is central, and some of those who have been subject to domestic abuse, obviously, fall into that category. Under the current scheme, those who are subject to intimidation receive 200 points. Someone who leaves their home as a result of domestic abuse can be allocated 70 points for homelessness and up to 40 primary social need points for violence or the threat of violence, which is a total of 110 points. There is therefore a system in place that can be of some assistance if you fall into that category. Work on that is ongoing, and I will take that forward.

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

I call Colm Gildernew.

Colm Gildernew (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

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

[Translation: Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker.]

I apologise for not being in my place for a topical question yesterday.

Colm Gildernew (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

4. Mr Gildernew asked the Minister for Communities whether he will extend the benefit cap welfare supplementary payment beyond March 2025. (AQO 326/22-27)

Gordon Lyons (DUP, East Antrim)

My Department has a statutory obligation to produce a report on the operation of existing welfare supplementary payment schemes before 31 March 2025. It will then be for the Executive to consider the next steps.

Colm Gildernew (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

Minister, do you agree that families with children are much more likely to receive the benefit cap mitigation payment and that its removal would push those children further into poverty?

Gordon Lyons (DUP, East Antrim)

There certainly is evidence on the impact of the lack of mitigations in GB compared with what we have in place. It is my understanding that the number of families affected is going down. I think that will be a smaller cost to the Executive in future years. It is right and proper that we examine all the mitigations that we have in place, examine their effectiveness and make sure that we have money available to help tackle the issues that the Member and others have raised in the Chamber, especially during our debates on poverty last week.

Sian Mulholland (Alliance, North Antrim)

Minister, are alternative measures being considered to address the needs of those who might be impacted if the benefit cap welfare supplementary payment is not extended?

Gordon Lyons (DUP, East Antrim)

The Member will be aware of the independent advisory panel report on welfare mitigations. That sets out the issues and the potential costs of some of the mitigations that are in place currently. As well as that, it offers additional mitigations that could be put in place. Obviously, it is not for me to commit to any of those right now; that will be a decision for the Executive. As I said to the Committee Chair, it is important that we use the limited resources that we have in a way that helps to target and has the most impact on issues such as poverty.

Brian Kingston (DUP, Belfast North)

I thank the Minister for his answers so far. How much do the current mitigations cost, and what are the projected costs of the additional welfare mitigations highlighted in the report?

Gordon Lyons (DUP, East Antrim)

The funding that is paid for the current mitigations, not including their implementation and delivery, is £24 million for the social sector size criteria; £2 million for the benefit cap; £122,000 for the loss of care payments; £113,000 for the time-limiting of employment and support allowance (ESA); and £354,000 for the move from disability living allowance (DLA) to personal independence payment (PIP). It will be difficult for my Department to estimate the total cost of the potential additional mitigations — some of them are hard to estimate — but the cost of the ones that we have figures for is probably in and around £700 million.

Andy Allen (UUP, Belfast East)

The Minister has highlighted the important work of the independent panel. We would love to be able to fund and take forward many important mitigations in its report. I appreciate that the Minister will not commit to those today. What are his views on the carers' recognition payment?

Gordon Lyons (DUP, East Antrim)

The Member is absolutely correct to recognise that all that will, obviously, be subject to Executive agreement and a Budget being in place. Our carers do a fantastic job. In so many areas, we have people — carers who work in the voluntary and community sector — who take huge pressure off Departments. That should be taken into consideration.

Connie Egan (Alliance, North Down)

5. Ms Egan asked the Minister for Communities what financial support will be available for people from Northern Ireland competing in the Paralympic Games. (AQO 327/22-27)

Gordon Lyons (DUP, East Antrim)

I eagerly await the upcoming Paralympic Games in Paris for the opportunity to watch athletes from Northern Ireland competing on the world stage. Northern Ireland has a number of noteworthy Paralympic athletes, including Claire Taggart, who is from my constituency, and James MacSorley. Both Paralympians have represented Team GB and NI at recent games.

Connie Egan (Alliance, North Down)

Thank you, Minister. I agree that we have absolutely fantastic Para athletes in Northern Ireland. I give a shout-out to Kelly Gallagher from my constituency, who was one of the first women on Team GB to win gold in Para alpine games. Minister, what plans do you and your Department have to ensure that people with disabilities can access sport across Northern Ireland?

Gordon Lyons (DUP, East Antrim)

I should have answered the Member's initial question fully by saying that £37,000 has been provided to individual Paralympic athletes through the athlete award programme and that, since 2020, Disability Sport Northern Ireland has received £663,502 from Sport NI.

The Member asked what support we can give those who are disabled to take part in sport, which is of interest to me. I am pleased that we will soon bring forward a disability strategy that will have a sporting element, but, overall, I want to see more people taking part in sport, especially those who have been under-represented in the past, such as women and disabled people. I think that I have an invitation to meet people who are interested in the issue, and I am more than happy to meet them as we put together the disability strategy.

Cheryl Brownlee (DUP, East Antrim)

I thank the Minister for his positive responses. Will he detail the practical support that will be provided for those athletes?

Gordon Lyons (DUP, East Antrim)

Yes. Sport NI offers its facilities at the Sports Institute in Jordanstown, in our constituency, which seeks to support national governing bodies by helping to improve individual athletes' sport performance through the provision of its science, medicine and support programmes. That includes performance management, performance skills, performance analysis, performance nutrition, strength and conditioning and sports medicine.

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

Paula Bradshaw is not in her place.

Diane Dodds (DUP, Upper Bann)

7. Mrs Dodds asked the Minister for Communities to outline the amount of financial support provided to the faith-based sector in the past five years. (AQO 329/22-27)

Gordon Lyons (DUP, East Antrim)

The faith-based sector plays an important role in society across Northern Ireland, and the Department works closely with faith-based organisations that are involved in delivering projects and support to communities to help address societal issues including childcare, deprivation, health and well-being and access to critical services. In the past five years, the Department has provided over £5·6 million in resource and capital funding through various programmes to a range of faith-based organisations for community development and support programmes. The Department has also invested some £375,000 over the past five years as part of our infrastructure support to promote the role of faith-based organisations in serving the needs of communities across Northern Ireland.

Diane Dodds (DUP, Upper Bann)

Thanks to the Minister. I know that he is personally aware of the huge role that faith-based organisations play in our community. Too often, they have to sort of have their faith as a secondary element in order to ask for grant support either from government or from wider agencies. Will the Minister commit to looking at that element of the support for faith-based organisations and acknowledge the significant community services that they provide?

Gordon Lyons (DUP, East Antrim)

I am absolutely happy to look at that. The Member will be aware that many of the services that were originally provided to people across Northern Ireland, such as schools and hospitals, came from a faith-based background. That continues today. Many churches and faith-based organisations are involved in various anti-poverty measures, in food banks, in mental health support and, in particular, in youth and children's work. That is particularly significant here in Northern Ireland. We can think of many of the youth organisations that provide an incredible service, especially to children and young people. We should look at the ways in which we can share their help to deliver some of the support services that they provide.

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

I call Sorcha Eastwood.

Sorcha Eastwood (Alliance, Lagan Valley)

I would like to ask the Minister whether he has any intentions to —.

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

Sorry, Sorcha. Please call out your question number.

Sorcha Eastwood (Alliance, Lagan Valley)

8. Ms Eastwood asked the Minister for Communities whether he will introduce a social housing decarbonisation fund. (AQO 330/22-27)

Gordon Lyons (DUP, East Antrim)

I am committed to ensuring that social housing tenants are not left behind on the pathway to net zero by 2050. My Department has developed a housing supply strategy, which acknowledges the importance of ensuring that we have good quality homes. One of the proposed long-term commitments of the strategy is to ensure that there is an emphasis on improving the energy efficiency of homes and ensuring a just transition to decarbonised solutions.

My Department has also supported the Housing Executive in securing and utilising €22·951 million from the European regional development fund for its energy efficiency in social housing programme, with match funding from the Housing Executive. The programme improved the thermal efficiency of 1,406 non-traditional construction homes within the Housing Executive stock. A further £57·5 million has been made available for the Housing Executive’s thermal improvement and low-carbon programmes in the financial year 2024-25. My officials are also working on developing the NIHE revitalisation programme and a potential future retrofit funding model for registered housing associations.

Given that level of investment in social home decarbonisation alongside the severe financial and budgetary constraints that all Departments are facing, I have no plans to introduce a separate social housing decarbonisation fund.

Sorcha Eastwood (Alliance, Lagan Valley)

Sorry about that, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. It is one of those weeks, and it is only Tuesday.

I thank the Minister for his response. How would the implementation of the social housing decarbonisation fund help to achieve net zero targets?

Gordon Lyons (DUP, East Antrim)

Some of the work that I have just outlined will significantly contribute to our net zero targets, because we understand how much residential buildings are contributing to meeting those targets. For me, it is even more important to make sure that people have a warm home to live in. We know the health impacts that that can have, and we know how it can impact on young people's educational attainment. Having the most energy-efficient homes and warm homes helps to protect people and protect their incomes, and that is one of the most important reasons for us to take this on.

Ciara Ferguson (Sinn Féin, Foyle)

Can the Minister outline the most up-to-date projected scale of social housing investment required to address the backlog in maintenance and reflect decarbonisation costs to future-proof our social homes?

Gordon Lyons (DUP, East Antrim)

I do not have the specific figure with me, but, for the overall budget that is required to bring our homes up to standard, including the energy efficiency measures and the schemes that will need to take place to help us reach net zero, we are talking in the billions of pounds.

Sinéad McLaughlin (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

As you said, Minister, there are huge health benefits to decarbonisation. Some of our older housing stock is contributing to making people sick. People are coming into our offices with asthma and COPD, and, ultimately, that can be worked back to the state of their house. How can you address those health inequalities in the provision of housing that you are overseeing?

Gordon Lyons (DUP, East Antrim)

Unfortunately, that is not limited to any one area. All of us will have had constituents come to us highlighting the issues with some of the housing stock that we have in Northern Ireland. That is why it is essential that we invest more. That may require a change to how the Housing Executive in particular operates. I am determined to take that forward. If we can change that system and how it is funded, we can improve our social housing stock so that people can live in warmer and healthier homes.

Deborah Erskine (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I welcome what the Minister said about warmer homes. That is important. What more can be done to retrofit existing housing stock with renewable energy solutions, taking into account what the Minister has already said?

Gordon Lyons (DUP, East Antrim)

The Member is absolutely right to highlight the renewable energy solutions that can be deployed to make sure that we have more energy-efficient homes. If a home has a roof, which all should, that provides great opportunity for householders to generate some of their own energy through the installation of solar panels. We should all be considering that, especially right now, given that the price of solar panels has gone so low. That is a way that helps us not only to meet our targets but, importantly, allows people to keep more of their money in their pockets.

Doug Beattie (UUP, Upper Bann)

9. Mr Beattie asked the Minister for Communities to outline what impact the challenges faced by Northern Ireland Water (NIW) has on his Department’s ability to achieve its plans to build new social homes over the next five years. (AQO 331/22-27)

Gordon Lyons (DUP, East Antrim)

The impact of capacity restrictions on water and sewerage infrastructure on residential development is significant. It is highlighted regularly in discussions between my Department and stakeholders regarding social housing delivery.

I will mention the social housing development programme. In the event of a confirmed and significant reduction in the capital budget allocation for Northern Ireland Water over the coming years, the Northern Ireland Housing Executive has been advised that NIW's understanding is that housing developments that are under construction should generally still be permitted to connect to the Northern Ireland Water network at completion stage. From the 2024-25 programme year onwards, it is my understanding that any reduction in the Northern Ireland Water capital budget will have a knock-on impact on the timetable for planned upgrade works over the coming years. Whilst that will not necessarily preclude new social housing developments being approved and developed, it will mean that the current position, whereby the majority of new developments require a site-specific Northern Ireland Water engineering solution in order to progress, will continue for a longer period.

Doug Beattie (UUP, Upper Bann)

I thank the Minister for his answer. He answered a bit of my question, but some areas are already at capacity, with owners having to install their own septic tanks at a cost that is maybe just shy of £10,000, and that is increasing the cost of social housing. Will the Minister consider a scheme to match fund so that we can ensure that social housing can continue to be built in areas where we are at capacity?

Gordon Lyons (DUP, East Antrim)

The process that I just outlined will, inevitably, add delays and costs to the planning approvals process for new social housing developments. I am open to all ideas about how we can progress this, but, ultimately, we need to deal with it at the root cause, which is making sure that we have the necessary waste water infrastructure in place. That is where it should be directed in the meantime.

Phillip Brett (DUP, Belfast North)

Given the pressure on providing social homes as a result of a lack of sewerage capacity, will the Minister agree that it is nonsensical to demolish houses in areas of high social housing demand? I am thinking in particular of my ongoing campaign to save Abbotscoole House in Rathcoole in north Belfast, where residents want to remain but the Housing Executive wants to put them out of their home and knock those homes down. Will the Minister commit to supporting my campaign to keep those families in their home?

Gordon Lyons (DUP, East Antrim)

I am grateful to the Member for raising that with me yet again. He has been consistent in his desire to see those homes remain. It is important that we look at the cost of the renovations that may need to take place, but we also need to make sure that there are homes that can be lived in. We also have to take into consideration the views of local residents when it comes to these issues. Many want to ensure that they continue to have a supply of housing. My priority is to make sure that we have housing and that we look at whatever options will help us to achieve that.

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

Given the capacity issues faced by Northern Ireland Water and the impact that they have on the delivery of housing, particularly social housing, can the Minister outline any collaboration, or even conversations, that he has had with his counterpart in DFI, the Minister for Infrastructure, about addressing this issue?

Gordon Lyons (DUP, East Antrim)

Absolutely. My officials regularly engage with their counterparts in other Departments and with those in the Department for Infrastructure in particular. I will bring a housing supply strategy to the Executive soon, because I recognise that this is not an issue for just one Department to tackle. We need cross-party, cross-departmental working, and I believe that I will be able to get that housing supply strategy to the Executive and get buy-in so that we can address those issues.

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

Question 10 has been withdrawn.

Joanne Bunting (DUP, Belfast East)

11. Ms Bunting asked the Minister for Communities whether he will consider reviewing the relevant policies and sanctions to enable the Housing Executive to deal more effectively with persistently problematic tenants. (AQO 333/22-27)

Gordon Lyons (DUP, East Antrim)

The Housing Executive has a range of powers at its disposal for dealing with antisocial behaviour issues. My Department keeps those powers under review to ensure that they are working effectively. To that end, as part of a joint public consultation with the Department of Justice, my Department recently published proposals to amend existing antisocial behaviour legislation, including grounds for possession and injunctions against antisocial behaviour. Officials will review the responses received, and I will consider the recommendations and next steps in due course.

Joanne Bunting (DUP, Belfast East)

The issue is that there are tenants who have problems and other tenants who wilfully cause mayhem and misery wherever they live and wherever they are moved, and the Housing Executive is obliged to house them. Those tenants are persistent offenders, and it seems that the thresholds to deal with them are extremely high. What measures will the Minister take to ensure that whatever is brought forward will have the teeth needed to deal with people who wreck the reputations of given areas?

Gordon Lyons (DUP, East Antrim)

I am grateful to the Member for her question and for raising the issue. As I said to Michelle McIlveen a few moments ago, that is a real issue. Problem tenants do not just cause problems for themselves or their immediate neighbours; sometimes, they cause problems for quite a number of people throughout the area in which they live.

The first thing that we need to do is ensure that the Housing Executive and housing associations are able to use the powers that they currently have and that, where changes are needed, they are put in place. In addition, as part of the review of the housing selection scheme, my Department is committed to taking forward legislation that will implement changes to eligibility for social housing and full duty homelessness status where there has been unacceptable behaviour. Such a Bill would be subject to the Executive’s legislative priorities.

I would be more than happy to further discuss the issue with the Member.

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

Minister, you mentioned the joint review that is being undertaken between your Department and the Justice Department. Do you specifically plan or intend to make a joint announcement on next steps with the Justice Minister? When might we expect that?

Gordon Lyons (DUP, East Antrim)

The joint consultation was launched in November and ran until March. A further extension was granted until 5 April. I will be briefed on the responses to the consultation and on next steps in due course. I will be happy to keep the House informed.

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

Very quickly, Kellie.

Kellie Armstrong (Alliance, Strangford)

When the Housing Executive is provided with data that can help with the removal of problem tenants, the same data cannot be provided to housing associations. Will the Minister consider reviewing the policy to allow that to happen?

Gordon Lyons (DUP, East Antrim)

I would be happy to do that.

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

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

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

T1. Mr McCrossan asked the Minister for Communities, in light of the fact that, at its meeting last week, the Committee for Communities was told that temporary promotions were given in DFC only in exceptional circumstances, with the aim of restricting their duration to a year, to outline why 3,499 people have been temporarily promoted for up to one year, 725 for up to two years, 201 for up to three years, 67 for up to four years, 18 for up to five years and 10 for over seven years. (AQT 211/22-27)

Gordon Lyons (DUP, East Antrim)

Clearly, we are not happy with that. Work is ongoing; in fact, there has been some movement on it in recent weeks. I raised the issue with the permanent secretary last week, as the Member will have done. The level of temporary promotions in DFC is in line with that in other departments across the Northern Ireland Civil Service (NICS). My Department operates in line with the temporary promotions policy that sets out how such promotions are to be managed. The duration of temporary promotion relates to individuals, not to specific posts.

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

I thank the Minister for that. I think he is saying, "It is awful, but we are no different from every Department, so every Department is awful". That is an unacceptable situation. I am sure you will agree that the huge number of temporary promotions in your Department is a cause of concern for existing staff in terms of available opportunities for them and is not best practice for your Department or any other in the Executive.

Gordon Lyons (DUP, East Antrim)

I thank the Member. As I said, I am committed to reducing the number and duration of temporary promotion arrangements. My officials are engaged with NICS HR to progress recruitment competitions that will fill more posts substantively and to improve and speed up recruitment processes through the NICS people plan.

David Honeyford (Alliance, Lagan Valley)

T2. Mr Honeyford asked the Minister for Communities to explain the delay with the Casement Park project and, with the tender documents for Casement Park having been ready and with him for almost two months, to outline the difference in his approach and that of his party colleague the Education Minister, Paul Givan, who is pressing ahead with a £400 million capital school-building project in Omagh without a business case or security of future funding. (AQT 212/22-27)

Gordon Lyons (DUP, East Antrim)

Quite simply, we are waiting for funding clarity from partners, including from the UK Government. Once we receive it, we will consider next steps.

David Honeyford (Alliance, Lagan Valley)

Given that the delivery timeline for Casement Park is extremely tight, I asked why what is good for one DUP Minister is not good for the other. The Education Minister is pressing ahead without a business case and without security of funding, so can the Minister give a firm commitment, reassure the House and ensure that he will not let the tender process or any other process delay or drag to the point that we miss out on Euro 2028?

Gordon Lyons (DUP, East Antrim)

As I have already said, that depends on funding from the UK Government. On the Strule education campus, my understanding is that the Minister went to the Executive and received the funding that was needed to begin that project. We do not have the funding clarity that we need.

Declan McAleer (Sinn Féin, West Tyrone)

T3. Mr McAleer asked the Minister for Communities whether he will consider reviewing the policy that he referred to in a reply to a recent question, in which he said that the regeneration focus of his Department is on populations of 5,000 or more, given that, in rural constituencies such as West Tyrone, there are only two settlements of more than 5,000 people (AQT 213/22-27)

Gordon Lyons (DUP, East Antrim)

While my Department is responsible for urban regeneration, I understand the issues faced by our rural communities. I come from a rural community, and I represent one. My predecessor, Paul Givan, when he was Communities Minister, indicated that he wanted to extend the Department's scheme to regenerate public spaces to small towns and villages. We hoped to have a phased approach, beginning with settlements of over 2,500 persons and working closely with councils and the Department for Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs. However, that was dependent on the resources being made available. No further funds were found to take that forward. Since then, particularly in response to COVID-19, my Department has led on the COVID-19 recovery, revitalisation and small settlements programmes in partnership with DFI and DAERA. The cross-departmental nature of those regeneration activities has been clearly demonstrated, which has confirmed the need for the Executive to take them forward.

Declan McAleer (Sinn Féin, West Tyrone)

I welcome the Minister's response. In light of that, is he satisfied that his Department is fulfilling its statutory responsibilities under the Rural Needs Act 2016 to pay due regard to the needs of rural areas when developing and implementing policies?

Gordon Lyons (DUP, East Antrim)

Yes. I believe that we are adhering to our statutory responsibilities. We can, however, always do more than simply follow the law. We can go over and above what is required, and that is why I am always more than happy to work with my ministerial counterpart in DAERA to put in place schemes to support regeneration in rural settlements such as the village catalyst grant scheme and the Architectural Heritage Fund (AHF) grant scheme as well as work through the Housing Executive.

Nick Mathison (Alliance, Strangford)

T4. Mr Mathison asked the Minister for Communities to confirm a time frame for when local government remote meetings regulations will be brought to the Assembly, further to the papers on the issue that were tabled at the Committee for Communities. (AQT 214/22-27)

Gordon Lyons (DUP, East Antrim)

I hope to be in a position to bring the regulations to the Assembly in the coming weeks.

Nick Mathison (Alliance, Strangford)

I thank the Minister for his answer. His papers that have been tabled with the Committee detail how there will be conditions that the member must meet to attend a council meeting remotely. Can the Minister advise what those conditions will be?

Gordon Lyons (DUP, East Antrim)

My approach has been largely to leave it in the hands of councils. There will need to be changes to their standing orders. I have my views on how and when a member should be allowed to attend remotely, but, ultimately, that should be a decision for the councils.

Phillip Brett (DUP, Belfast North)

T5. Mr Brett asked the Minister for Communities, following the closure of the boiler replacement scheme by his Department before Christmas, for an update on his plans to introduce a new boiler replacement scheme to support families across Northern Ireland, given that one of the biggest causes of fuel poverty for our constituents is the cost of boiler replacement. (AQT 215/22-27)

Gordon Lyons (DUP, East Antrim)

In September 2023, the closure of the boiler replacement scheme was announced owing to budgetary constraints. In the previous two years, the scheme had seen a significant decrease in enquiries and applications received. The decision was made to consolidate and protect the affordable warmth scheme, which was kept open. I understand that there are still people who need help to heat their home, and the affordable warmth scheme is open to applications and is set to run until March 2026. The scheme continues to assist low-income owner-occupiers and households in the private rented sector with an annual household income of less than £23,000.

My Department is in the early stages of developing a new fuel poverty intervention that will replace the current affordable warmth scheme when it ends. A boiler replacement element could be part of the new scheme.

Phillip Brett (DUP, Belfast North)

Thank you, Minister. I welcome your commitment to developing a new policy support, but, like you, we on these Benches were elected to help working families. One of the main concerns with those schemes was the low-income threshold, which meant that hard-pressed families across North Belfast were not able to avail themselves of the support. Will the Minister look at raising the income threshold to ensure that working families can avail themselves of the scheme?

Gordon Lyons (DUP, East Antrim)

We are in the early stages of the redevelopment of the scheme. A lot of different factors and elements have to be considered, as well as the issue that the Member has raised about eligibility. I absolutely agree with him, however, that some of the most hard-pressed people in our communities are working families — the working poor — who so often miss out on other benefits that are available. Those people need our help and support, and making sure that we can help the most hard-pressed will drive decision-making.

Brian Kingston (DUP, Belfast North)

T6. Mr Kingston asked the Minister for Communities to outline the support provided by his Department to fulfil the long-held desire of the community in the Westland estate in North Belfast to have a replacement community centre. (AQT 216/22-27)

Gordon Lyons (DUP, East Antrim)

The Member frequently raises the Westland estate with me. I will have to visit sometime, because I have heard so much about it from him. I understand that the proposal to build a new community facility to serve the Westland estate is being managed by the Executive Office through its Urban Villages programme. My officials have engaged with community representatives in the area over a sustained period to support and develop community infrastructure in the area through the Westland Community Group, and that is being delivered through the capacity support project.

Brian Kingston (DUP, Belfast North)

I thank the Minister for his reply and his commitment. Can he set out his Department's financial support for community development in the Westland area in recent times?

Gordon Lyons (DUP, East Antrim)

Yes. In November 2023, my Department issued a neighbourhood renewal grant funding agreement to provide salary and programme costs to enable Belfast City Council to engage a community development worker to support the group for the period from November 2023 to March 2025. Funding of £12,007·09 was awarded for the period from December 2023 to March 2024. Funding for 2024-25 remains to be determined; however, £8,417 has been awarded for the first quarter of the year, in line with funding procedures for the neighbourhood renewal funded organisations, while the Department's budget allocation is clarified.

Emma Sheerin (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

T7. Ms Sheerin asked the Minister for Communities for an update on the sexual orientation strategy. (AQT 217/22-27)

Gordon Lyons (DUP, East Antrim)

My Department has responsibility for a number of the social inclusion strategies. I am currently considering evidence, advice and briefing on each of those. They are at different stages. When I have an update, I will, of course, bring that to the House.

Emma Sheerin (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

I thank the Minister for that answer. In the absence of a bill of rights for the North, we are obviously in a rights deficit here, and that is particularly true of groups, such as the LGBTQIA+ community, who suffer that vividly. Does the Minister agree with me on the importance of the strategy, in the first instance, and will he commit to liaising with the sector on the specifics of the strategy?

Gordon Lyons (DUP, East Antrim)

Of course, I am happy to engage with anyone whom the Member wants to bring to speak to me to help inform the development of the strategies.

Nuala McAllister (Alliance, Belfast North)

T8. Miss McAllister asked the Minister for Communities, who will be aware that his Department granted a licence for exploratory work at Milltown cemetery, in the area at the bottom of the cemetery that includes the graves of babies and unmarked burial plots, whether, given the information that has come to light, he will use his power to enforce that the Catholic Church, through the trust diocese, stops any works there until such time as an independent investigation is carried out. (AQT 218/22-27)