Northern Ireland Assembly, 29 April 2024

376 contributions from 64 members. The official report.

Assembly Business

Edwin Poots (DUP, Belfast South)

I advise Members that Patrick Brown resigned as a Member of the Assembly for South Down with effect from 23 April 2024. As Speaker, I notified the Chief Electoral Officer of a vacancy in accordance with section 35 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998. I have been informed by the Chief Electoral Officer that Andrew McMurray has been returned as a Member of the Assembly for South Down to fill that vacancy.

Jim Allister (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Following the resignation of Mr Brown, will you clarify something for the House? Since Mr Brown was the object of an ongoing complaint before the Commissioner for Standards, is that complaint now aborted as a result of his resignation, or does it continue? If it continues and if it were to have adverse findings, how would any such strictures be applied to him?

Edwin Poots (DUP, Belfast South)

On the first part of the question, as I understand it, that is a matter for the Committee on Standards and Privileges in the first instance. I further understand that there was an investigation taking place and that investigation was ongoing. It is a matter for the Committee on Standards and Privileges if it wishes to bring forward a report to the House; it is still in order for the Committee to do that. It is a matter for that Committee to bring that report forward, if it so desires.

Edwin Poots (DUP, Belfast South)

Last Monday, 22 April, a number of issues were raised with me about comments made during the debate on relationships and sexuality education. As is normal practice for my office, I have now reviewed the Official Report of the entire debate. Members may recall that, on 8 April 2024, I made a ruling on a different exchange at that time. I made two points that are relevant here.

First, Members have a legal right to freedom of expression, which means that they may sometimes choose to express their views forcefully and points may be made that other Members will not agree with, sometimes in terms that other Members would not use themselves.

However, secondly, Members are expected to exercise that freedom of expression within the Assembly's standards of debate. That requires exchanges between Members to demonstrate courtesy, good temper, moderation and respect. The motion last Monday was on an issue on which there were strongly held opposing views. In such circumstances, it is likely that there will be passionate and robust debate. There is nothing wrong with that in itself. However, there were occasions when the behaviour of Members in different parts of the House, in speeches and from a sedentary position, fell short of showing courtesy, good temper, moderation or respect towards other Members or their views. For instance, comments that were made that linked parties to the far right or that associated Members with figures such as Hitler and Mussolini and organisations such as the Ku Klux Klan and the National Front were entirely inappropriate.

Similarly, extrapolating a party's position on previous legislation on human trafficking and prostitution to associating Members with standing with pimps and those who traffic people into the country was also inappropriate. None of those comments could be considered to have demonstrated courtesy, good temper, moderation and respect. That was a good example of where one or two exchanges can lead to the tone of the remainder of a debate spiralling downwards.

As a number of Members could have been perceived to be involved in the exchanges and behaviour that breach the expected standards of debate, I am not going to take action on this occasion, but I will be writing to a number of Members to clarify some issues that have been raised. However, for the future, I return to the point that there is a balance between having a full and frank debate that can legitimately be challenged and having civility in exchanges that avoid personal attacks. Therefore, I remind all Members that they should exercise care in the language that they use and be mindful of the need for courtesy, good temper, moderation and respect.

Members' Statements

Edwin Poots (DUP, Belfast South)

If Members wish to be called to make a statement, they should indicate so by rising in their place. Members who are called will have up to three minutes in which to speak. There will be no interventions.

Pat Sheehan (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

Ba mhaith liom labhairt arís ar maidin ar chúrsaí atá ag titim amach in Gaza.

Is deacair a chreidiúint go bhfuil an cinedhíothú ag dul ar aghaidh go fóill, ach ar an drochuair tá.

Shíl muid nach dtiocfadh le rudaí bheith níos measa, ach ansin chuala muid an tseachtain seo caite gur thángthas ar chóir a bheith 400 corp a bhí curtha faoi thalamh thart timpeall ar an dá otharlann, al-Shifa agus Nasser.

Ina measc bhí páistí, mná, seandaoine, dochtúirí agus daoine eile a bhí ag obair sna hotharlanna nó a bhí ann le cóir leighis a fháil.

I gcuid mhór cásanna bhí a lámha ceangailte taobh thiar dá ndroim, agus bhí fianaise ann go ndearnadh céasadh ar chuid mhór acu chomh maith. Creidtear fosta gur cuireadh cuid acu faoi thalamh agus iad go fóill beo.

Tá sé deacair a shamhlú go bhfuil daoine ann a bheadh sásta é sin a dhéanamh, daoine nach bhfuil croí ar bith iontu agus a dtiocfadh leo cruálacht agus drochíde a thabhairt ar dhaoine eile.

Ach in ainneoin na cinedhíothaithe, tá léas dóchais ann leis na hagóidí atá ar siúl i láthair na huaire in ollscoileanna fud fad Stát Aontaithe Mheiriceá. Chuirfeadh sé na seascaidí i gcuimhne duit nuair a bhí na hagóidí ag dul ar aghaidh i gcoinne an chogaidh i Vítneam.

Tá míléamh ollmhór déanta ag Rialtas Iosrael. Chreid siad go dtiocfadh leo na mílte Palaistíneach a mharú gan bheith freagrach as. Ach tá dearcadh an phobail i gcoitinne ina n-aghaidh. Tá an pobal ar fud an domhain ag teacht le chéile i gcoinne an tsléachta.

Ba cheart don phobal idirnáisiúnta brú a chur ar Iosrael, go háirithe na Stáit Aontaithe, an Ghearmáin agus an Bhreatain, chun stad a chur leis an slad. Caithfidh sos cogaidh a bheith ann anois. Agus má bhíonn an choimhlint seo le teacht chun deiridh caithfidh próiseas fiúntach síochána bheith ann. Ní bheidh réiteach ann go dtí go mbeidh Palaistín neamhspleách ann a bheidh saor ó ansmacht coilíneach.

[Translation: I would like to speak again this morning on events in Gaza.

It is difficult to believe that the genocide is continuing, but, unfortunately, it is.

We thought that the situation could not get any worse. However, then we heard last week that almost 400 bodies had been found buried around two hospitals, al-Shifa and Nasser.

Among the bodies were children, women, old people, doctors and others who had been working in the hospitals or who had gone there for treatment.

In many cases, their hands had been tied behind their backs and the bodies showed evidence of torture as well. It is also believed that some of them had been buried alive.

It is difficult to imagine that there are people who would be prepared to inflict that type of cruelty and barbarity on other human beings.

Despite the ongoing genocide, there is a ray of hope with the protests that are taking place in universities right across the USA. They are reminiscent of the protests in the sixties against the Vietnam War.

The Israeli Government have made a massive miscalculation. They thought that they could slaughter thousands of Palestinians without being held to account for their actions.

However, public opinion is against them. People around the world are coming together to oppose the slaughter.

The international community, especially the US, Germany and Britain, need to bring pressure to bear on the Israelis to stop the killing.

There must be a ceasefire now.

If this conflict is to come to an end, there must be a meaningful peace process. There will be no resolution until there is an independent Palestinian state, free from colonial oppression.]

Alan Robinson (DUP, East Londonderry)

I offer my congratulations to Limavady United Football Club, which has won the Playr-Fit premier intermediate league championship. That will see the club play in the championship next season, and, given the team that has been built by the manager, Paul Owens, which he has retained and added to, I have no doubt that it will hold its own in that league. I also want to congratulate the club on being treble winners this season, having also won the North West Cup and the Craig Memorial Cup. To add to their credit, Alex Pomeroy, the club's key target man, was awarded the premier intermediate player of the year.

I had the opportunity to watch the Roesiders on a number of occasions, and, indeed, I enjoyed the final home game of the season, where they proudly and deservedly lifted the league-winning trophy. I previously invited the sports Minister to visit the club, and, when his diary permits, the club will have an opportunity to showcase its trophy haul to him.

The club has an illustrious history dating back to the late 1880s, and its triumphs this season will only add to the rich list of local footballing honours that it holds. Had the late David Brewster still been with us, who wrote many a piece on player appearances and, indeed, compiled books on the history of the club, he would have been kicking every ball. He would have spent Saturday evening smoking his pipe in one hand, his Limavady United scarf in the other, with, on his desk, his famous fax to Manchester City, in which he offered to take Carlos Tevez on loan, as long as Manchester City continued to pay his £200,000 a week wage. I have no doubt that the place that we call heaven will have been a noisy place on Saturday night.

I commend the management, players and, of course, the band of loyal Limavady United supporters who follow and assist the club, week in and week out. The success of Limavady United adds to the number of sporting achievements in the town of late, and long may it continue.

Sorcha Eastwood (Alliance, Lagan Valley)

I speak in support of the Carers NI campaign for paid carers' leave. At first glance, such a policy could support 1,000 unpaid carers. People want to work, but we keep putting barriers in their way. We know that around 220,000 people in Northern Ireland are providing unpaid care for family members and friends. The people whom they care for need them, and we as a society depend on them.

Carers are having to juggle jobs, family life, bills, home life and other responsibilities, all whilst caring for loved ones. It is easy to talk about carers and not put faces to names, so I want to take you through some people whom I have come across in the past few weeks and months as I listened to people's stories on this matter. Last week, I met three incredible young carers — Nikita, Paul and Ella — all of whom have cared for a parent or a sibling or, indeed, a combination of the two since they were able to do so. That has included their giving care to those people whilst in primary school.

Incredibly, all those young people want to work: indeed, they love working and love that aspect of having something outside of themselves and having a different identity. As I am only just starting to learn personally, being a carer is all-consuming and often engulfing. We want to give those people an opportunity, and we think that getting behind the Carers NI proposal for paid carers' leave is a way to do that.

Indeed, as the Carers NI report notes, we need to remember that a huge number of those people will, indeed, love their careers, as I said. We also need to remember, however, when reading through the report, that behind those people are stories with unique circumstances.

Another person whom I have met is a constituent of mine called Alison. She is desperate to work and loves her job, but she has been forced out of work because she does not have the supports in place to allow her to work. She has had to leave her job due to the pressure of caring and now feels that she is taking a step backwards in her career and her life. Indeed, in her own words, she says that she feels as though she is starting off back at the start, where she was 10 or 15 years ago, losing everything that she fought so hard to build up for her and her son.

While GB has passed legislation for unpaid carers' leave, we in Northern Ireland have a special opportunity to take a step ahead, do what is right and bring forward legislation to introduce paid carers' leave. Thirty trade union leaders, economists, carer charities and women's sector groups have all backed the Carers NI campaign, and so do we. That is why I urge the Economy Minister to include provision for paid carers' leave in the employment Bill that, I hope, he will bring forward very soon. I trust that that will have the support of the House.

Mike Nesbitt (UUP, Strangford)

I stand to pay tribute to one of the finest public-spirited citizens this place has ever seen. Stephen Grimason passed away at the weekend after a long illness. It followed an even longer career as a public servant. I could simply list his career chronologically, but I think that it is much more important to discuss his character. However, for the record, Stephen was born in Lurgan. He was a reporter with the 'Lurgan Mail' and the 'Ulster Star' and became editor of the 'Banbridge Chronicle' at the tender age of 27. Then he went to Belfast, where he worked for the 'News Letter' and the 'Sunday News' and — the big move — as political editor of BBC Northern Ireland. Then the scoop of scoops: that famous moment in April 1998 in the car park of Castle Buildings, just halfway down the hill outside, when he gave the Belfast/Good Friday Agreement its first public outing as he uttered those famous six words:

"I have it in my hand."

Stephen always said that he would take the name of his source to the grave, and, as ever, he has been true to his word. As journalist Kathryn Johnston put it, he was:

"A wonderful, scrupulous and ethical journalist."

Earlier this year, Stephen and his good friend Ken Reid, the long-time political correspondent at UTV, were honoured with chancellor's medals at Queen's University. It was a bittersweet night: great to see them in public again, but tinged with that unspoken suspicion that it was to be for the last time. They did not just reminisce; they revealed, including something that very few people knew. While they remained fierce rivals at all times, beyond the competition, there was collaboration. Sometimes you needed to be in two places at once, so when Stephen interviewed somebody, he sometimes asked them to turn 90 degrees to create a different background and interviewed them again — the second interview mysteriously turning up in the UTV edit suite.

After journalism, he worked for the Executive here. Yesterday, Sam McBride of the 'Belfast Telegraph' wrote:

"When he was Stormont's"

director of communications,

"I spent years bombarding him with awkward questions. He never held it against me, and when he retired he'd ring up with encouragement, advice, and tip-offs."

I will finish with a word cloud of what people have been saying about Stephen: "scrupulous"; "even-handed"; "intelligent"; "funny"; "compassionate"; "a tireless mentor"; "encouraging"; team player"; "trusted"; "authentic"; "courageous"; "kind"; and "brilliant".

My thoughts are his wife and family, his many, many friends and his countless admirers. Rest easy, Stephen Grimason.

Cara Hunter (Social Democratic and Labour Party, East Londonderry)

I wish to raise the lack of appropriate animal welfare in Northern Ireland. In the past three years, in the Causeway Coast and Glens area, we have seen over 1,000 incidents of animal cruelty. Across Northern Ireland, animal welfare is not regarded as a priority. The current process for reporting such cruelty is not only not fit for purpose but absolutely appalling. There is a significant lack of investment in protecting our animals here, and the current process has not worked and does not work.

Over the past few months, we have seen dogs drowned in Tyrone and dogs buried in Co Derry. We clearly have a profound issue with the treatment of animals here. Not only that, but there is a lack of prosecutions for evil perpetrators who maliciously carry out horrific acts towards innocent animals. When we look at sentencing, we see that, when the perpetrators are caught and brought to court, they receive painfully lenient sentences. In one case, for example, a man held responsible for what was defined as a barbaric injury towards a dog got just nine months. Nine months. Knowing that, we must ask this: where is the deterrent for cruelty towards animals? We need to relook at the lack of lengthy sentences here for such barbaric actions. Abuse towards animals is widely recognised as a precursor for abuse towards human beings, and it is important to acknowledge that here today.

I recently had meetings with two animal charities in my consistency: the Causeway Coast Dog Rescue and Dog Leap in Limavady, both of which are led by incredible ladies who work so passionately on this issue. They have gone above and beyond to protect animals where local councils have, I believe, undeniably failed. There is an unbelievably obvious issue here: when you come across an abused animal after 5.00 pm or at the weekend, there is absolutely nobody available and no number to call. That issue needs to be urgently addressed. It is not a failing system but a failed system, and we must act. There is also a huge lack of clarity on how much power and training local councils and the PSNI have in the handling of animals.

In the North, we urgently require an animal welfare strategy. Otherwise, how will we know which direction meets the needs of the community and what services we require? An understanding of the financial resources available is crucial. We need to know how to put services into place. Currently, the lack of data on animal cruelty incidents is unbelievable. There are challenges with tracking, and the level of transparency when a report is made is truly shocking.

The rising costs of vets' bills are crippling. When they come across injured animals, charities cannot afford to help each and every one of them. We need to think seriously about how we prioritise the health and well-being of vulnerable animals here. They look to us to protect them. I will be demanding action from the Minister of Agriculture. The current legislation is as weak as water. It is time for change.

Cathy Mason (Sinn Féin, South Down)

The £25 million investment in childcare by our Minister of Finance, Caoimhe Archibald, now puts the wheels in motion to deliver high-quality and affordable childcare. Funding to kick-start the initial actions that a cross-departmental working group on childcare proposed shows the Minister's commitment to working with all parties to deliver high-quality and affordable childcare. It is a positive first step by the Finance Minister that reaffirms the Executive's commitment on childcare, but that commitment must also be a priority for the Minister of Education and his Department. We now need the Education Minister to move urgently and introduce his plans for a bespoke childcare scheme that provides good-quality, affordable and sustainable childcare for families and providers.

Childcare costs are currently far too high and unaffordable for many. At a time of rising living costs, childcare costs place more and more financial pressure on families, providers and childcare workers. A bespoke childcare model must meet the needs of all children and young people. It must cater to the acute needs of children with special educational needs, children with physical disabilities and children who speak English as a second language. Delivering high-quality, affordable childcare is absolutely essential to ensuring that our young people get the very best start in life. I look forward to working with all parties, childcare providers, workers and families to help shape the much-needed new childcare strategy.

Brian Kingston (DUP, Belfast North)

I recognise and welcome the fact that, last week, the grounds here at Stormont played a part in this year's D-Day 80th anniversary commemorations. Last week, I was contacted by Patricia Pedlow of the Royal Scottish Pipe Band Association Northern Ireland about the pipers' 80-day countdown to D-Day. Pipers are playing the tune 'Highland Laddie' at prominent venues across the United Kingdom, the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man at 8.00 am for 80 days in the run-up to the 80th anniversary of D-Day on 6 June 2024. I am grateful to officials here at Parliament Buildings who agreed to the request. At 8.00 am last Thursday, Patricia played at the bottom of the steps in front of Parliament Buildings. Likewise, I obtained approval for her to play in front of Belfast City Hall at 8.00 am on Saturday, at which we were joined by the High Sheriff of Belfast, Councillor Sammy Douglas. We are very grateful to pipers Patricia Pedlow of Ballydonaghy Pipe Band and David Hanna of Altnaveigh Memorial Pipe Band for ensuring that Northern Ireland participated in the national commemoration for 10 days. During those 10 days, they, between them, also played 'Highland Laddie' in front of Newry town hall, in Bessbrook, in Kilkeel, in Rathfriland, at Newry cemetery, at Lisburn civic centre, at the Barbican Gate in Antrim and at the fort in Royal Hillsborough.

The national initiative is led by piper John Millin and his son, Jacob. John's father, piper Bill Millin, famously played the pipes while under fire during the D-Day landings in Normandy. A Canadian, he was the personal piper of Simon Fraser, 15th Lord Lovat and commander of the British 1st Special Service Brigade on D-Day, who instructed him to play during the ferocious landing scene. Millin played 'Highland Laddie', 'The Road to the Isles' and 'All the Blue Bonnets are over the Border' as his comrades fell around him on Sword Beach. He later played as commandos marched on Pegasus Bridge, which was captured. Millin's actions on D-day were portrayed in the 1962 film 'The Longest Day'. This commemoration is a fitting tribute, with historic resonance, recognising the brave soldiers who were part of the D-Day landings who sacrificed so much helping to secure the freedom that we all enjoy today. We will remember them.

Kate Nicholl (Alliance, Belfast South)

The first Member's statement that ever I made was on the situation in Gaza and the call for an urgent ceasefire, the immediate end of Israel's siege in Gaza, the immediate release of the hostages by Hamas, a sustainable humanitarian corridor for aid to reach Gaza, the international community to do more and international community-led mediation to ensure a two-state solution.

I also talked about how I had met a group of film-makers during the 25th anniversary of the Good Friday Agreement and how fascinated they were by the mundane, including how our Committees operated, how we were able to discuss and put forward legislation and policy and the fact that we had so many different views on things but were still able to work together. Now that the Assembly is up and running, they have returned. They are here today, in the Gallery, and it is wonderful to see them. I think that that is a reminder that we are so lucky to have what we have and for what has been achieved by so many of the people in this Chamber who paved the way for peace and for us to have these conversations about carers, animal welfare and other things that we are doing in the community. That is so wonderful, remarkable and precious, and we can reflect on that today and hold on to that for the future. They are here today, and, if any Members are about, I know that they would love to meet you and hear about what we are doing in the Assembly and how we are moving forward. I know that everyone in the House is sending our very best wishes to everyone in Palestine and Israel with a deep hope that peace can be found at last.

Sinéad McLaughlin (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

I rise to speak on behalf of many women in the Western Health and Social Care Trust area and across Northern Ireland who are deeply concerned about the reports of smear tests that have been misread and which have led to devastating consequences for women. One woman came to my office and said, "It is very hard to live with the knowledge that I didn't get cancer. I was given cancer". That is how she feels. Her smear tests were misread in 2011, 2014 and 2017. In 2021, she was diagnosed with cervical cancer and had to undergo a hysterectomy.

Since 2017, we know that at least 12 serious adverse incidents have been registered in our trust area. It was really important that the Southern Trust undertook the previous review, and I know that any woman who hears of a review will be, understandably, really scared, as will the men and the families in their lives. It is not my intention to stir up fear today, and I want to be really clear that it is in women's interests to come forward and that these tests are absolutely vital to detect the early signs of cervical cancer and then to prevent the disease. I will continue to urge women to do so. It is vital that women come forward for their smear tests; it can literally save your life to do so. However, let us be honest. To ensure that as many women as possible do come forward, we need to make sure that every woman has the confidence in the health service in the first place. We need to ensure that these concerns are dealt with and that the Minister of Health and the chief executives of all the trusts can reassure the public on this issue. Trust and confidence are absolutely crucial, and, in the meantime, I encourage other women who might have been affected to come forward and share their stories. I have asked the Minister of Health whether he will start a public inquiry into cervical cancer screening, and I look forward to working with the Minister and, indeed, his successor and colleagues from across the Chamber to ensure that women have confidence in these services.

Cheryl Brownlee (DUP, East Antrim)

I congratulate Larne FC on being crowned Irish Premiership champions for the second year in a row. Larne has been on an incredible journey, not only with its football club but as a town and a community. The area has been literally transformed and is now thriving with community passion along with great football. I say, "Huge congratulations" to Larne FC for its well-deserved first-place finish. However, it would be remiss of me, as a Carrickfergus girl, not to also acknowledge Carrick Rangers Football Club for its campaign this season. It has finished in its highest-ever position — seventh — with its highest-ever points total — 50 — with its most wins in a Premiership season —15 — and with a cheeky European play-off qualification. I give a huge "Well done and congratulations" to the Amber Army for its season of many firsts and solid performance. East Antrim is leading the way in football, much to the dissatisfaction of my colleagues.

Jim Allister (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

I want to raise the controversy that the Dublin Government have whipped up about unwanted migrants crossing into the territory of the Republic, it is said, from Northern Ireland. There is a rich irony about that complaint, because the same Justice Minister and the same Government vehemently opposed the very idea of so much as a camera on the international frontier. At the time, Helen McEntee said:

"We have been very, very clear from day one, there cannot be a physical border and that means ruling out cameras, that means ruling out technology, that means ruling out anything that would imply a border on the island of Ireland, it is not an option for us".

Maybe, today, they wish that there was a border, because, then, there could be the restraints that they ask for. You reap what you sow, and the Dublin Government are reaping what they sowed in this regard.

Yesterday, the Prime Minister said:

"My focus is on the United Kingdom and securing our borders."

I hope that he meant it, because he failed lamentably in securing our borders over Brexit when he partitioned the United Kingdom with a regulatory and customs border down the Irish Sea. That is a template that every unionist should warn him not to even contemplate in further placating the intransigent Irish Government, because, no doubt, they would love to see immigration passport checks and the rest of it at the Irish Sea border. I trust that the Prime Minister, when he says that he is in the business of securing the borders of the United Kingdom, means it and it is the border that is the international frontier that will be secured.

Whatever the problems of the Irish Republic, they are largely of their own making. Indeed, if they had not been so intransigent, they would have had infrastructure that would have aided in dealing with this situation. Now they are paying the cost.

Gerry Carroll (People Before Profit Alliance, Belfast West)

I salute and acknowledge the important work done by the Freedom Flotilla, which is seeking to break the siege of Gaza and bring much-needed aid. It is an international aid flotilla with activists from across the world bravely taking part. Whilst Governments across the world send bombs to Israel to drop on the people of Gaza, those activists are bringing almost 6,000 tons of much-needed aid. As the Freedom Flotilla says: "When Governments fail, we sail". On that boat is Tyrone man, John Hurson, a long-time Palestine Solidarity Campaign activist. I wish him and all the flotilla the very best of luck and solidarity.

That important act of solidarity really exposes the situation starkly. On the one hand, you have Israel backed by the US, the highest military power in human history. Instead of all that technological skill and resource being used to help people, it is being used to commit a live-stream genocide. On the other hand, it is up to activists, volunteers and campaigners to expose Israel and call out its obscene actions.

Gaza is the end of the world that never ends. It is a daily nightmare for those who are trying to live there. Six months in, we daily see slaughter, massacre and hospitals and buildings being blown to smithereens. At least 35,000 people have been killed and 100,000 injured, not to mention the people still under the rubble. Palestine is the front line. It is the front line when it comes to facing the brutality of imperialism and settler colonialism; standing up to a brutal thug and bully who decides who lives, who dies and who lives where, with a brutal computer-assisted AI weapons system that slaughters on a mass scale; and resisting evictions from homes and towns. Solidarity with those on the flotilla and solidarity with the Palestinians.

Executive Committee Business

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

I beg to move

That Regulation (EU) 2023/2419 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 October 2023 on the labelling of organic pet food should be added to the Windsor framework by the United Kingdom and the European Union within the Joint Committee in Accordance with article 13(4) of that framework.

Edwin Poots (DUP, Belfast South)

The Business Committee has agreed that, as the motion relates to legislation, there should be no time limit on the debate. Please open the debate on the motion.

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

Before I start, I offer my condolences to the family, friends and colleagues of Stephen Grimason at this very difficult time. There is no doubt that Stephen made a huge contribution to journalism and was front and centre of some of the biggest moments in our political history, including the signing of the Good Friday Agreement. He was a much respected director of communications for our Executive, and he will, no doubt, be missed by all those who knew and loved him. I wanted to put that on record on behalf of the Assembly.

The deputy First Minister and I jointly tabled the applicability motion that regulation 2023/2419 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 October 2023 on the labelling of organic pet food be added to the Windsor framework, within the Joint Committee, in accordance with article 13(4) of that framework. On 28 March, the Speaker informed the Executive Office that notification of a new EU act had been received from the British Government's Windsor framework task force. The new act — regulation 2023/2419 of the European Parliament and of the Council — relates to the labelling of organic pet food products and is subject to the applicability motion process set out in the Windsor Framework (Democratic Scrutiny) Regulations 2024. The notification was accompanied by an explanatory memorandum drafted by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA). The Speaker has shared the notification and the explanatory memorandum with the Assembly.

The regulation was adopted by the EU on 9 October 2023. It entered into force on 30 October 2023, and the new provisions will be applicable from 1 May 2024. The regulation extends the labelling and production requirements that are in place for organic food for human consumption and livestock feed to organic pet food. The EU is seeking to apply the measure using the process set out in article 13(4) of the Windsor framework. It will apply here only if agreed at the EU-UK Joint Committee.

The explanatory memorandum explains that the regulation would extend the same labelling requirements to organic pet food as currently exist for other organic food. That means that pet food will need to be produced with at least 95% organic agricultural ingredients if it is to be labelled as organic. It is highlighted that producers here currently have to comply with more stringent regulations in order to ensure that their pet food can be marketed as organic and identifies the challenges due to the lack of availability of appropriate organic ingredients.

The British Government advise that, if introduced here, the regulation would bring our production requirements for organic pet food into alignment with production requirements in Britain. That is because, prior to the regulation, pet food produced here needed to be made with 100% organic ingredients, whereas the requirement for producers in Britain mandated only 95% organic ingredients. The explanatory memorandum emphasises the Government's position that we should continue to have unfettered access to the UK internal market and notes that, if adopted, the regulation will enable producers here to use a single standard when producing and marketing organic pet food, removing the need for them to apply more stringent standards than their competitors in Britain. That view is reinforced in the explanatory memorandum, where DEFRA notes that it does not expect:

"any material impact on trade ... save for a limited positive benefit from the creation of a common standard for organic pet food production".

In the explanatory memorandum, DEFRA also explains that, if the regulation were to apply here, its position is that it should not apply to pet food moving here under the NI retail movement scheme, as existing arrangements with the EU allow for the recognition of comparable rules in that regard. It notes that the position would be subject to engagement with the European Commission.

The explanatory memorandum outlines business impacts, identifying that local producers may benefit from the more flexible approach to classifying organic pet food products set out in the regulation, which brings the EU regulatory framework in line with the rules applied in Britain and would have the effect of creating a common production standard. DEFRA has explained that the potential impact of not adopting the regulation is that local businesses could be placed at a disadvantage relative to competitors in the South of Ireland, who would automatically be able to take advantage of the greater flexibility provided by this EU law when marketing their products across the EU.

DEFRA also draws our attention to the fact that no concerns were raised about the regulation during its engagement with relevant organic certification bodies, pet food trade associations and manufacturers here. It also highlights the fact that the majority of producers of organic pet food in Britain already comply with the requirements of the regulation in order to produce goods that can be sold in the British and EU markets.

In summary, the regulation relates to a comparatively small and defined area of trade and business. Its impact in any direction should, therefore, not be overstated. However, in the event that the regulation is not adopted, we expect the impact on trade to be negative from the perspective both of internal trade and of trade between us and the EU. There is a risk that local businesses trading with the EU could be placed at a disadvantage relative to businesses in the South, which would automatically be able to take advantage of the greater flexibility provided by this EU law when marketing their products across the EU.

We jointly tabled the motion to allow the Assembly to debate and vote on the addition of the regulation to the Windsor framework.

Philip McGuigan (Sinn Féin, North Antrim)

I will make a few brief remarks as Chair of the Windsor Framework Democratic Scrutiny Committee. At its meeting on 21 March, the Committee considered correspondence from the British Cabinet Office that indicated that the European Commission had confirmed its intention to seek to add the act to the list of EU laws applicable here under the Windsor framework through the article 13(4) Joint Committee process. The correspondence further indicated that the Assembly would be formally notified of the act subsequent to further discussions with the European Commission at the earliest opportunity.

Although the Committee does not have an explicit function to carry out inquiries or any other scrutiny in response to a notification that a new act has been published, the early alert from the British Cabinet Office provided time, albeit limited, for the Committee to gather evidence on the impact of the act. Specifically, the Committee requested a written departmental assessment of impact. We also heard oral evidence from departmental officials, and we sought views from key representatives of business and civil society that were identified as being affected or who would be affected if the act were to be added to the Windsor framework. Subsequently, a letter was issued to all MLAs, informing them that the evidence gathered was published and available on the Committee web page. I hope that Members found that useful in preparing for the debate.

I will make a few additional comments as a Sinn Féin MLA. Obviously, Sinn Féin will support the applicability motion. The regulation extends the labelling and production requirements that are in place for organic food for human consumption and livestock feed to organic pet food. Prior to the regulation, to be considered organic, pet food needed to be produced with 100% organic ingredients; under the regulation, to be labelled organic, pet food will need to be produced with at least 95% organic agriculture ingredients. There are currently no producers of organic pet food in the North, but that could change, and the legislation could encourage that position, because producers in the North would benefit from greater flexibility, as pointed out in DEFRA's explanatory memorandum. No businesses or trade associations raised any concerns about the regulation.

To conclude, a DAERA official who presented to the Windsor Framework Democratic Scrutiny Committee, said:

"There appear to be no downsides to this; in fact, it would make sure that, if there were producers of organic pet food in Northern Ireland, the implementation of the act would align the position with GB and with the position in the rest of the EU."

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

I will speak uncharacteristically briefly, perhaps, on the motion. The SDLP — the Opposition — will support today's applicability motion. The previous Member to speak, Philip McGuigan, who is the Chair of the Windsor Framework Democratic Scrutiny Committee, outlined the fact that no trade bodies raised any objections to the regulation. Where practical outcomes are concerned, there are no organic pet food producers in Northern Ireland, but, clearly, the continued realisation of the benefits of dual market access requires us to maximise the ability to export seamlessly into both markets.

Given that there does not appear to be any downside for any future producers — there are no producers of organic pet food here currently — there seems to be no good reason for us to not agree to the new law applying to Northern Ireland. I will not go much further. I was thinking of saying that should organic pet food be produced in Northern Ireland, it would be of a very fine pedigree, but, of course, that would be a pathetic pun to lighten the mood in the Assembly.

Other than that, we support the new law. It is important that we have the ability to debate it. We have always said that, when there are debates about changes and improvements to the protocol, which is now called the Windsor framework, we are happy to acknowledge that it is good to have increased scrutiny. That is what is happening in the Chamber today. We support the applicability motion.

David Brooks (DUP, Belfast East)

The Democratic Unionist Party will support the motion. In restoring the institutions for the good of Northern Ireland as a whole, we sought to restore unionist confidence by ensuring that the concerns of our community were heard and systems put in place to protect our trade within our UK borders and our place in the UK single market. We have successfully delivered changes to article 13 of the protocol to give locally elected representatives a say on whether new or amended EU laws should apply in Northern Ireland and have seen already that the applicability motion mechanism has allowed unionist representatives at the Assembly to vote against the adoption of EU rules that relate to non-agricultural GIs.

The issues with new EU legislation on dental amalgam have been well documented in the press. Should no reasonable accommodation be reached with Brussels, I suspect that it is likely that the available mechanisms will be used to object to those rules as well, ensuring our ability to remain aligned with UK rules, which, in that case, are not only beneficial but absolutely necessary.

The party has said, however, that it will not use the mechanism on every piece of forthcoming legislation, but with reference to the impact of relevant legislation on the people of Northern Ireland. This piece of legislation brings us into line with UK rules. To vote it down would be punitive and fruitless. It would not in any way lead to the removal of all EU law. Speaking personally, such removal is desirable, but it will not be attained by any vote today, and deliberately voting for an outcome that will, at best, force continued divergence with GB, is irrational. Those shouting from the sidelines have no plan, only rhetoric. From what I can ascertain, our detractors agree that the outcome is desirable, but the route is objectionable. I understand that. Indeed, I do not disagree in sentiment, but I do not agree that we should willfully prolong needless, even potentially, economically harmful divergence with the rest of the UK, knowing that to do so would not result in any move from the UK Government to rectify the same.

We recognise that some EU law remains in Northern Ireland. Some try to misrepresent our position when we have been clear: we argued that the people of Northern Ireland, through their elected representatives, must have a say in the laws that govern them. While removing EU law is desirable, the DUP has focused on tangible, practical outcomes and on preventing regulatory borders from emerging. The DUP has made it a key objective to tackle the democratic deficit created by the protocol. The debate is further evidence of our success in giving the Assembly a meaningful say over future laws that apply in Northern Ireland. The safeguards against future uncontrolled divergence delivered by this party were a step forward from where the negotiation began. At no stage was it argued to be perfect, rather that we would bank the progress and work to build on it.

I recognise that, at times, it is complex and convoluted. I suspect that none of us who sit on the Democratic Scrutiny Committee would argue with that, but it has given the unionist population of Northern Ireland safeguards that we did not previously have. It has extracted from the UK Government and Brussels concessions that they would not previously give and that, our detractors said, they would not give; indeed, it was said that they would not negotiate at all.

Our detractors have no plan. They have never offered an alternative road map for the way forward. They can certainly articulate idealism — even, in many cases, in terms that would be desirable to many of us on these Benches — but they offer no means by which, in today's Northern Ireland, those ideals can be delivered. It is this party that is willing to lead, make difficult decisions and do what is required to move beyond stirring but empty words to deliver tangible progress.

Eóin Tennyson (Alliance, Upper Bann)

Like others, I intend to be uncharacteristically brief on the motion.

My party's overriding economic priority throughout the Brexit process has been to protect and uphold Northern Ireland's dual market access, giving us a unique and privileged competitive advantage. Sustaining that dual market access will require parties to take a pragmatic approach to applicability motions and to democratic scrutiny more broadly, prioritising the substance of motions over party politics or ideology.

If we are to take full advantage of the opportunities before us, we owe it to our business community to offer the maturity, certainty and stability that it so desires. In that vein, I support the motion, and, at the outset, I welcome the fact that the First and deputy First Ministers have managed to jointly table the motion on this occasion. It is a genuinely positive step, and I believe — I hope, rather — that we have crossed the Rubicon in our approach to dealing with EU law, which is important, albeit technical, in this instance.

Organic products are a highly regulated area. For a product to bear an organic logo, it must be subject to a fairly robust process. The motion before us is about a specific area: organic pet food. In effect, the regulation provides additional flexibility to producers, meaning that products containing 95% organic ingredients can be marketed as such. Whilst there are no pet food manufacturers in Northern Ireland currently registered as organic, we have to be cognisant of the fact that there may well be those who wish to enter the market in the future, and the regulation guarantees them that additional flexibility.

The regulation not only brings pet food into line with standards for human and livestock food, which sounds eminently sensible, but enhances alignment across these islands, moving us to a common production standard across the UK and EU to ensure that any pet food producers who seek to operate from Northern Ireland will continue to have the benefit of accessing both markets. Again, that is a huge advantage. In some ways, it is small, but it is not insignificant, and we should all be advocates of it.

It is, however, a matter of regret that applicability motions are another element of Assembly procedure that is subject to cross-community vote. When it comes to Brexit, we talk on numerous occasions about the importance of cross-community consent. However, I am conscious that the people whom I represent are not properly included in that process. My party will continue to articulate and raise concerns about that issue.

We are happy to support the motion.

Steve Aiken (UUP, South Antrim)

I congratulate the First and deputy First Ministers on taking an interest in the applicability motion. Members will remember the last applicability motion that came before the Chamber. I raised several questions from the Floor about when somebody was going to take ownership of that applicability motion, but no one did until the last possible minute. Rightly, it was rejected.

On this occasion, the Ulster Unionist Party will support the applicability motion. To do otherwise would create a divergence from the rest of the United Kingdom. In the complexity that is EU rules and regulations, Members need to realise that, on some occasions, we cannot be seen to diverge from the rest of our nation. It is important that we recognise these issues.

I welcome Mr Tennyson to the Democratic Scrutiny Committee, whose members will know that, at that Committee, on several occasions, I have raised the point that we are not curious enough about the regulations that are coming forward. I am glad to see that our Committee now takes a more proactive approach; indeed, we have already heard the issues about dental amalgam. I hope that those issues will be raised in the Joint Committee and that we do not get to the point where we have to debate them on the Floor. The issue should be sorted before we go ahead.

I encourage the Chair and members of our Committee to remain curious, because many elements coming through will challenge many in the Chamber not just on an intercommunity basis but for all of us on where we are likely to be. It is important that we continue to do our horizon scanning of what is going on. I am glad that the First Minister and deputy First Minister are here. They need to look closely at how we resource what we are doing. We need to ensure that our office in Brussels is ready to interact as legislation comes through. We also need to make sure that we have sufficiently well-trained staff supporting the Northern Ireland Executive and the Democratic Scrutiny Committee who understand the legislation and the rules as they come through. As a warning, First Minister and deputy First Minister, I have been in communication and conversation with our friends in Norway, who have a lot of difficulty in dealing with EU rules and regulations, even though they have to accept most of them. I also took the matter up recently with a senior Estonian politician, who said exactly the same thing. We need to be more proactive; we need to look at how we resource these things; and we need to be prepared to work closely with all stakeholders to make sure that we understand the challenges that we are about to face.

Once again, I congratulate the First Minister and deputy First Minister for actually taking ownership of something. For that, we should all be grateful.

Jim Allister (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

The primary focus of the debate to this point has been on the content of this EU law. I want to shift the focus to the much more important issue of the constitutional affront that the motion is. That constitutional affront can be summarised in this way: the motion amounts to an acknowledgement of and assent to the fact that, on what is patently a devolved issue — namely how we prepare animal foods — only the EU can now make those laws for us. The Assembly cannot legislate on the issue. The Westminster Parliament cannot legislate for this part of the United Kingdom on the issue. Only a foreign jurisdiction — the EU — can formulate and pass laws that touch on the issue. Of course, it is not just this issue; it is every issue that is recited, to the tune of hundreds of laws, in annex 2 of the protocol.

Some do not want to face up to that constitutional affront. Some, of course, embrace it, because they want to see Northern Ireland being subjugated under the EU. Those who claim that they do not are not facing up to the situation in which a pretty mundane law can only ever now be made by a foreign Parliament. It cannot be made by the Parliament of the United Kingdom or the Northern Ireland Assembly; it can be made only by a foreign Parliament.

The motion is well named as an "applicability motion" because, by our slavish acceptance of it, we assent to the applicability of the appalling and absurd situation in which only a foreign Parliament can legislate for this area of law in Northern Ireland. That is what the Assembly is being asked to assent to. That is so constitutionally absurd and such a constitutional affront that, frankly, I cannot and will not support it. Is it not the ultimate absurdity to be told in the debate by the DUP — the party that told us, in the words of Sammy Wilson:

"there should be no EU law applying to this part of the United Kingdom.",

which was repeated by the then leader Sir Jeffrey Donaldson and by multiple Members of the House — that EU law was a red line?

We were told that it should not be applied to this part of the United Kingdom as we are not part of the EU. Today, however, the DUP or, at least, the DUP Members who are here — there are some notable absentees — has come to the point of telling us that the only way to attain parity with Great Britain is to vote through this EU law. Think of it: the only way to get parity with Great Britain is to vote through an EU law, because that law just happens to bring the EU into line with Great Britain. It may well be sensible for the EU to reduce its unattainable 100%-organic requirement. It may well be sensible for it to come into line with the 95% requirement that prevails elsewhere, but, when it comes to Northern Ireland, it should be the Assembly or, at least, Parliament that makes that decision, not the foreign EU Parliament.

We have been told that there are "no downsides". Sorry, but there is a huge constitutional downside. Those who have rolled over and assent to that are showing their disregard for that constitutional affront and, of course, for what, we were told, was their unalterable position. They say, "If you don't vote for it, there will be divergence". No, there will not be. We know from the explanatory paper that the British Government will assent to it anyhow, but we will give them cover.

What about tomorrow? What if GB decides, as part of further deregulation, to deregulate organic pet food to a standard below 95% and goes down to 90%? Remember, the British Government are conducting a review of all their legislation on organic products. No publication of that is expected until the end of 2025, but the legislation is subject to review. What then? What if GB goes to 90%? Hapless Northern Ireland, supposedly an integral part of the United Kingdom, remains trapped by the EU law and subject to the 95% delineation. There is no assurance of parity. The only assurance is of subservience to a foreign Parliament. Sadly, unsurprisingly for some but surprisingly for others, that is the position to which DUP Members and Ulster Unionist Members in the House have got themselves. They are embracing a situation in which, if any such product were to be produced in Northern Ireland, it would not be labelled as produce of Northern Ireland. Article 4 of the regulation makes it clear that it would have on it the EU logo and EU labelling, underscoring the fact that we are subservient to EU law.

This is a situation in which Northern Ireland, part of the United Kingdom, is being subjected to colonial EU law, law that we did not make and cannot change but that today we are invited to endorse slavishly. We are asked to endorse colonial rule from the EU. It made the law. It is its law, not ours, and we cannot change it. Regardless of the merits or demerits of the content, it does not deserve democratic assent from anyone who holds to the fundamental democratic principle that, when you live in a place, you should be able to make your own laws, not be subjugated to the laws of a foreign power. I will not give my consent today. I was not sent here to consent to colonial EU rule, and I certainly will not consent to it. The DUP made that mistake on 8 December 2020, when they blindly and foolishly and in the face of warning embraced 45 EU laws, including the one that says you cannot bring British soil into British Ulster. They voted that onto the statute book. Sadly, today, we will have a repeat performance.

One will be interested to see, if we get a vote, who does not vote for this. As I have pointed out, I noted some notable absentees from the divided DUP Benches. I wish they had the courage to vote against — stand up against — EU colonial law and the obscenity and affront that it imposes on a supposed democratic Assembly.

Edwin Poots (DUP, Belfast South)

I call the deputy First Minister, Emma Little-Pengelly, to wind up the debate on the motion.

Emma Little-Pengelly (DUP, Lagan Valley)

I thank you, Mr Speaker, for sending the First Minister and me the formal notification, and I thank Members for their comments and input to the debate on the applicability motion. The case setting out the arguments for the measures contained in Regulation (EU) 2023/2419 being added to the Windsor framework are set out clearly in the UK Government's assessment in its explanatory memorandum accompanying the notification.

Members will be aware now, in some way, of the procedure, having debated the previous regulation. For an applicability motion to pass, it must receive cross-community support, as outlined in section 4(5) of the Northern Ireland Act 1998. If the threshold is met, the Assembly will have been seen to agree to the addition of the regulation to the relevant annex of the Windsor framework, and that will be adopted at the meeting of the UK-EU Joint Committee. If the applicability motion does not pass, the UK Government will veto the addition of the act to the Windsor framework of the Joint Committee. I believe that that section is still misunderstood by some. If the applicability motion does not pass, the UK Government will veto it. However, they can agree but only if the Minister considers that there are exceptional circumstances or that adoption would not create a new regulatory barrier between Northern Ireland and Great Britain. Those were the new arrangements under the 'Safeguarding the Union' paper. In proposing to add a new rule to the Windsor framework on that basis — that it would not create a regulatory border or because there are exceptional circumstances — a UK Government Minister must make a statement to Parliament before doing so, explaining why they are of the opinion that either of those conditions have been met. The UK Government must also have indicated that, in this scenario, they intend to notify the Assembly of that decision.

I will respond to some Members who have made comments during the debate. In my view, the cop-out thing to do on the issue would be to vote against the motion, to leave it to others to make those decisions with the Assembly having no say and no role. Personally speaking and with regard to my party's position, that is exactly why we fought for and secured new mechanisms to give this place a meaningful say on matters that impact the people of Northern Ireland.

Jim Allister (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

Will the Minister give way?

Emma Little-Pengelly (DUP, Lagan Valley)

No. Apologies.

In particular, those mechanisms were designed to ensure that Members here would have a significant role in stopping potential future divergence. Indeed, the explanatory memorandum on the regulation before us, which was published on 4 April, makes it clear that adopting the regulation would lead to a common production standard across the UK; would avoid NI producers having to abide by a more stringent and costly requirement than firms in GB; would not impede unfettered access in marketing of NI produce in GB; would reduce burdens on local producers in the development of their product ranges, especially in sourcing ingredients; and would not affect organic pet food that is made to UK standards being sold and circulated in Northern Ireland.

Some Members have referred to the constitutional position in relation to that matter. I firmly believe in the principle of UK parliamentary sovereignty; indeed, I understand that the Member who has just spoken on that does so, too, and agrees with my position that the UK Parliament can legislate if it so wishes. However, today's debate and the position that I have taken on the matter —

Jim Allister (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

Will the Member give way?

Emma Little-Pengelly (DUP, Lagan Valley)

I will finish the point. The matter that we are considering relates to an existing provision in annex 2. Annex 2 applies in Northern Ireland through the Windsor framework and did so before that through the protocol arrangements, not because it was imposed by the EU but — sadly, in my view — because the UK Government and our UK sovereign Parliament agreed that the laws and regulations set out in annex 2 apply to Northern Ireland. Our UK sovereign Parliament sets out the fact that the mechanism for changing that relates to the amendment of EU proposals or replacement of the law. As the Member is fully aware, under the Windsor framework, there was no democratic accountability for this place in relation to that decision by the UK sovereign Parliament on the laws that apply here. That is why the new mechanisms — applicability motions and the Stormont brake — were brought in. They were brought in because we — I speak personally and of my party — highlighted the absolutely appalling democratic deficit in our sovereign UK Parliament agreeing a mechanism for rules and regulations to be made automatically in the case of amended law or, in the case of new law, by decision of the UK and EU sitting in the Joint Committee.

It was my party that pushed for the mechanisms to be put in place in order to allow this place to have debate, not because we embrace the concept of annex 2 or we agree with our UK sovereign Parliament on the matter — indeed, we did not; we voted and spoke against it — but because, unlike some Members in the Chamber, I accept the legal reality of where we are. One thing that I will absolutely always do is put Northern Ireland first. I will ensure that Northern Ireland will not be left behind when the rest of the UK moves to a different position. I will not allow Northern Ireland to be in a position in which there is internal regulatory divergence in relation to new or amended law. Is this the way that I would ideally like it to be done? Absolutely not.

Jim Allister (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

Will the Member give way?

Emma Little-Pengelly (DUP, Lagan Valley)

I have been clear on many occasions that it is not the way that I would choose to do these things, but, frankly, no pathway on the issue has been set out by any Member or by the UK Government. Therefore, we are exercising the mechanisms that we pushed for and secured so that the House now has a meaningful role in looking at regulations, primarily to ensure that what is done does not create a new regulatory barrier. If, indeed, we were to vote against —

Jim Allister (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

Will the Member give way?

Emma Little-Pengelly (DUP, Lagan Valley)

— Northern Ireland would be the only place across the United Kingdom that would be stuck with the old rule. It is important to clarify for people out there that the regulation is not new and additional but a replacement law and that, if it were not applied in Northern Ireland, the existing regulation would apply, putting us in a different position from that of the rest of the United Kingdom.

Jim Allister (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

Will the Member give way?

Emma Little-Pengelly (DUP, Lagan Valley)

Politics is about hard decisions. I wanted to stand here today to explain why —

Jim Allister (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

What about taking interventions? Is that too hard?

Emma Little-Pengelly (DUP, Lagan Valley)

— the right thing to do is, of course, to make sure that Northern Ireland is not left behind. Today's decision will be hard for many people. We disagree with the approach taken by the UK sovereign Parliament to the provisions, but those are the provisions that we currently operate under. We are therefore prepared to make the hard decisions on behalf of everyone in Northern Ireland to ensure that there are no new regulatory barriers across the United Kingdom.

Jim Allister (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

Will the Member give way?

Emma Little-Pengelly (DUP, Lagan Valley)

The debated regulation relates to a small, defined area of —

Edwin Poots (DUP, Belfast South)

I ask the Member to take her seat. The Member has clearly decided not to give way. I spoke about this last week and said that, if a Member chooses not to give way two or three times, Members should not continue to chunter from the sidelines. I would appreciate it if Members observed that.

Emma Little-Pengelly (DUP, Lagan Valley)

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I believe that the Member may want to make some point about the constitutional position, but the reality is that the UK sovereign Parliament can decide to make regulations for Northern Ireland if it so chooses. It has chosen the mechanism that we are operating under today.

The debated regulation relates to a small and defined area of trade and business. In the event of it not being adopted, we expect the impact to be negative from the perspective of both internal UK trade and NI-EU trade. It is, therefore, our jointly agreed view that the Assembly should agree to the addition of the regulation to the relevant annex of the Windsor framework. That is a demonstration of the democratic scrutiny mechanisms and the role that this place will have in ensuring that free flow of trade.

Edwin Poots (DUP, Belfast South)

Before we proceed to the Question, I advise Members that the motion requires cross-community support.

Question put. The Assembly divided:

Ayes 72; Noes 2

AYES

NATIONALIST:

Dr Archibald, Mr Baker, Mr Boylan, Miss Brogan, Mr Delargy, Mrs Dillon, Mr Durkan, Ms Ennis, Ms Ferguson, Ms Flynn, Mr Gildernew, Miss Hargey, Ms Hunter, Mr Kearney, Mr Kelly, Ms Kimmins, Mr McAleer, Mr McGlone, Mr McGrath, Mr McGuigan, Mr McHugh, Ms McLaughlin, Mr McNulty, Mrs Mason, Ms Á Murphy, Mr C Murphy, Ms Ní Chuilín, Mr O'Dowd, Mrs O'Neill, Mr O'Toole, Mr Sheehan, Ms Sheerin

UNIONIST:

Dr Aiken, Mr Allen, Mr Beattie, Mr Brett, Mr Brooks, Ms Brownlee, Ms Bunting, Mr Butler, Mrs Cameron, Mr Chambers, Mr Clarke, Mr Dunne, Mr Elliott, Mrs Erskine, Ms Forsythe, Mr Givan, Mr Harvey, Mr Kingston, Mrs Little-Pengelly, Mr Lyons, Mr Middleton, Mr Nesbitt, Ms Sugden, Mr Swann

OTHER:

Ms Armstrong, Mr Blair, Ms Bradshaw, Mr Dickson, Mr Donnelly, Ms Eastwood, Ms Egan, Mr Honeyford, Mrs Long, Miss McAllister, Mr McReynolds, Mr Mathison, Mr Muir, Ms Mulholland, Ms Nicholl, Mr Tennyson

Tellers for the Ayes: Mr Brooks, Mr McGuigan

NOES

UNIONIST:

Mr Allister, Mr Easton

Tellers for the Noes: Mr Allister, Mr Easton

Total Votes74Total Ayes72[97.3%]Nationalist Votes32Nationalist Ayes32[100.0%]Unionist Votes26Unionist Ayes24[92.3%]Other Votes16Other Ayes16[100.0%]

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

That Regulation (EU) 2023/2419 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 October 2023 on the labelling of organic pet food should be added to the Windsor framework by the United Kingdom and the European Union within the Joint Committee in Accordance with article 13(4) of that framework.

Edwin Poots (DUP, Belfast South)

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

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

Steve Aiken (UUP, South Antrim)

Order, please, ladies and gentlemen. Can we just settle ourselves down? Thank you very much indeed.

The next item of business is the Further Consideration Stage of the Hospital Parking Charges Bill. I call the Minister of Health to move the Further Consideration Stage.

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

Steve Aiken (UUP, South Antrim)

As no amendments have been selected for debate, there is no opportunity to discuss the Hospital Parking Charges Bill today. Members will, of course, be able to have a full debate at Final Stage. The Further Consideration Stage of the Hospital Parking Charges Bill is therefore concluded. The Bill stands referred to the Speaker.

Conor Murphy (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

I beg to move

That the draft Period Products (the Department for the Economy Specified Public Service Bodies) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2024 be approved.

Steve Aiken (UUP, South Antrim)

The Business Committee has agreed that there should be no time limit on the debate. I call the Minister to open the debate. Over to you, Minister.

Conor Murphy (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

I seek the Assembly's approval for the draft Period Products (the Department for the Economy Specified Public Service Bodies) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2024. These regulations were laid before the Assembly on 29 March 2024 and will come into operation once they are approved by the Assembly.

Period poverty is the inability of some women or girls to access sanitary products and/or the education that is needed to use products effectively, often due to their economic status. Research by Plan International UK found that one in 10 females cannot afford to buy sanitary products, while one in seven have struggled to afford them. In the South of Ireland, 50% reported occasional experience of period poverty, and 10% reported use of less suitable sanitary products. The Period Products (Free Provision) Act (Northern Ireland) 2022 aims to remove financial barriers to accessing period products. It places a statutory duty on Departments to specify public service bodies that will be legally required to provide access to free period products in accordance with agreed arrangements. The Act also places importance on respect for the dignity of those who will avail themselves of those products. This is progressive, positive legislation and a major step towards eradicating period poverty.

The draft regulations relate to my Department's section 2 duties under the Act and specify the public service bodies within my Department's remit to which that legal requirement will apply. The Assembly has already approved similar regulations that were brought forward by the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs and the Department of Education. The Executive Office is progressing section 1 of the Act to require period products to be obtainable free of charge to everyone who needs to use them.

As bodies in the educational sphere are specifically referenced in the Act, I will turn to those bodies first. In further and higher education settings, students who experience period poverty can find that they are unable to attend classes, or even exams, if they do not have access to period products. It was acknowledged during the Assembly's consideration of the Bill that nobody should miss out on their education because of that. The draft regulations aim to address that by placing a statutory duty to provide access to free period products on the six further education colleges and the five higher education institutions. I am proud of the work that my Department has already undertaken in that area, through its designing and delivering successful pilot schemes in each sector. In particular, I note the excellent work of the stakeholders involved in delivering the higher education pilot, which, in its three years of operation, is projected to deliver over 180,000 products to those in need. That pilot was significant in the development of the overarching Act. It is because of the successful implementation of the pilot schemes that both sectors stand prepared to deliver the statutory obligation that the regulations will place on them.

The Act is permissive and does not place any limitations on free provision. Although I am keen to keep any limitations in the regulations to a minimum, it is important that the safeguarding of young persons and vulnerable adults in those settings be maintained through limiting access to those who have a legitimate reason to be on the premises. That is staff, students and visitors. In line with the outcome of the consultation conducted by the further education colleges and the higher education institutions, the draft regulations therefore define "premises", "persons" and "in use" for the purposes of the Act in order to help define more clearly how the products should be made available.

I turn now to the non-education bodies that fall within my Department's remit. The regulations specify the Construction Industry Training Board Northern Ireland (CITBNI), the Labour Relations Agency (LRA), the Consumer Council, the Industrial Tribunals and Fair Employment Tribunal (ITFET), Invest NI and Tourism NI. The specification of those bodies is in keeping with the overall aim of the Act.

There are some bodies that fall within the remit of my Department that are not specified in the draft regulations. Members may wish to note those bodies and the reasons for their non-inclusion. First, the Industrial Court is not specifically included, as it uses premises that will already be covered by the specification of the Industrial Tribunals and the Fair Employment Tribunal. Secondly, the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) has not been included, as its interaction with the general public tends to be at workplaces on other sites rather than on its own premises. Thirdly, NI Screen has not been included, as it does not fall within the Act's definition of a public service body. InterTradeIreland is not specified, as it is a cross-border body and therefore not solely within the function of my Department. Finally, the Certification Officer is not included, as he is a statutory appointee rather than a body.

All the bodies mentioned here today, both those that are specified in the draft regulations and those that are not, were consulted in accordance with my Department's statutory duty under the Act. The draft regulations before Members today reflect the outcome of that consultation. Our specified public service bodies will be carrying out their own consultation exercises with product users on the specific arrangements for the free provision of period products on their individual premises in due course, after the regulations come into operation. I thank them for their cooperation thus far. I also thank the Economy Committee for its prompt scrutiny of the draft regulations. I commend the regulations to the Assembly.

Phillip Brett (DUP, Belfast North)

I thank the Minister for bringing the draft statutory rule (SR) to the House so quickly. I will speak briefly as Chair of the Economy Committee. The Committee considered the regulations at its meeting on 10 April 2024. As the Minister has indicated, the regulations will specify which premises are to be treated as being those of a specified public body for the purposes of the 2022 Act. They will also set out when those premises are considered to be in use. The Committee welcomed the provisions made under the 2022 Act, which was widely supported across the Chamber at the time and introduces a statutory requirement for free access to period products in education settings and other public buildings. The Committee supports the principle and the practice of the provision of free period products, thus reducing the financial burden on women and girls and promoting financial equality and equal participation in civic society. For technical reasons, the rule had to be relaid. The Examiner of Statutory Rules commented on that but did not raise any concerns. That brings to an end my remarks as Committee Chair.

As a private Member, I put on record my thanks to and appreciation of the Bill sponsor, Mr Pat Catney, who introduced the Bill in the previous mandate. Pat Catney was an excellent MLA and is much missed from this House. One of the first phone calls that I received on being elected to the Chamber was from Mr Catney, not to be commiserated on his loss but to congratulate me on being elected. That is a testament to the gentleman that Mr Catney is. Although he is no longer in the House, his legacy and the work that he did will continue to live on for many generations. With that, I am very happy to support the draft regulations.

Sinéad McLaughlin (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

I welcome the regulations. This is another step towards seeing the SDLP legislation, led by our former, formidable MLA Pat Catney in the last mandate, come to fruition. I also thank Menstruation Matters Belfast for the tremendous work that it did in support of Pat to ensure that the legislation passed in the previous mandate.

We need to work together to end period poverty once and for all. I know that many across the House feel, like I did, that the passing of the legislation in the previous mandate was an example of what we can do when we work together. It is welcome that we will see the roll-out start on 13 May. As the Minister stated, it is truly progressive and positive legislation. It is particularly important that the regulations concern higher education and further education colleges as well, given the student advocacy that was central to the campaign, as was the good work of many professionals, bodies and institutions.

Our party commends the regulations.

Pádraig Delargy (Sinn Féin, Foyle)

Period products are essentials, not luxury items. For many people and families struggling with the rising cost of living, they can be a huge financial burden. Free access to period products must be the norm in schools, universities, colleges, workplaces, football grounds and concert venues. Sinn Féin will continue to campaign in the Assembly and in councils.

In 2018, my party colleague Sandra Duffy tabled a motion that helped to make Derry City and Strabane District Council the first district in Ireland to provide period products free in sporting grounds and in other public buildings. Sandra was inspired by the grassroots On the Ball campaign led by three young women who are passionate supporters of Celtic Football Club and who wanted to make the provision of period products as normal as the provision of soap and toilet roll in the stadium that they visit every other week. Not only did they achieve that, they were pivotal in sparking an important conversation and in making free availability of period products the norm in football grounds everywhere, with well over 100 football teams now getting on board.

That is a powerful example of positive change. It is important that we in the Assembly work together to deliver positive change for people here by making period products the norm in public buildings.

David Honeyford (Alliance, Lagan Valley)

I will be brief because I was not expecting to be called. We support and welcome the regulations. Free access must be the norm in all workplaces. We thank the Minister for bringing them through, as Phillip from the Committee said. It goes beyond workplaces to further education colleges and sports facilities. Alliance wants to see this become the norm in society.

I have spoken previously about Pat Catney, and Phillip has mentioned him. As someone from Lagan Valley, I wish Pat all the best in his role as a councillor. He is now elected to Lisburn and Castlereagh City Council, and he will do a first-class job there, as he did in the House. I pass on my regards to him, and I welcome the regulations.

Mike Nesbitt (UUP, Strangford)

I have been asking myself three questions. One is whether the Minister is genuine in wishing to oversee his Department roll out this legislation; two is whether I think that his departmental officials are determined to roll it out; and three is whether it will be a permissive policy with minimum restrictions, in other words, maximum rather than minimum roll-out. As the answer to all three questions is "Yes", I see no reason to delay the House except to echo the sentiments of wishing the best to Pat Catney, who started this journey.

Conor Murphy (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

I thank Members for their contributions and the Business Committee for scheduling the debate. I share in the acknowledgement of the initiation of the legislation by Pat Catney and the good work that was done at local government level by Sandra Duffy and others to advance the issue. As others have said, it is important legislation where society is progressive and is an example of the positive change that the Assembly can bring to citizens when we work together. I commend the regulations to the Assembly.

Question put and agreed to. Resolved:

That the draft Period Products (the Department for the Economy Specified Public Service Bodies) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2024 be approved.

Steve Aiken (UUP, South Antrim)

Please take your ease while we get ready for the next item of business.

Naomi Long (Alliance, Belfast East)

I beg to move

That the draft Lay Magistrates (Eligibility) Order (Northern Ireland) 2024 be approved.

Steve Aiken (UUP, South Antrim)

The Business Committee has agreed that there should be no time limit on the debate. I call on the Minister to open the debate on the motion.

Naomi Long (Alliance, Belfast East)

Lay magistrates are members of the devolved judiciary whose role was introduced into the justice system in Northern Ireland in April 2005 following the recommendations of the criminal justice review, which published its report in 2000. Lay magistrates carry out important roles in the justice system. In the Youth Court, they sit as panel members tasked with determining the outcome of criminal proceedings brought against a child aged up to 17. They also sit as panel members in the family proceedings courts, determining matters relating to residence and contact arrangements for children, as well as considering applications from public authorities in relation to care proceedings. Lay magistrates are also empowered by various pieces of legislation to sign documents such as summonses and warrants.

Lay magistrates are appointed by the Northern Ireland Judicial Appointments Commission, whilst the Department of Justice has responsibility for the terms and conditions of appointment of these judicial officeholders and makes decisions in relation to their remuneration. Until recently, the age of retirement for lay magistrates was 70, which was provided for in section 4(11) of the Justice Act (Northern Ireland) 2015. Section 26(1) of the Judicial Pensions and Retirement Act 1993 set the retirement age for other members of the judiciary at 70, but there was a facility under section 26(5) of the 1993 Act for the Minister of Justice to extend any individual's appointment for a year at a time up to a maximum age of 75, if it was deemed to be in the public interest to do so. However, that provision did not extend to lay magistrates, and, therefore, unlike for other members of the judiciary, there was no facility to extend their appointment beyond the age of 70.

The Public Service Pensions and Judicial Offices Act 2022, which was subject to a legislative consent motion on 1 November 2021, changed the retirement age for all members of the judiciary in Northern Ireland, England and Wales from 70 to 75 and, in doing so, removed the facility under the 1993 Act to extend appointments, as it was no longer required. The change in retirement age applied to lay magistrates too. Some lay magistrates, however, had recently been obliged to retire at the age of 70 with no facility to extend their appointment, whilst their colleagues benefited from the change in the retirement age that was effected by the 2022 Act. There seemed to be an inherent unfairness in the fact that some individuals would be prevented from continuing in their important roles on the mere basis of the date on which their birthday fell. To address that unfairness, the 2022 Act contains provision to reappoint retired lay magistrates who were required to retire at the age of 70 but had not yet reached the age of 75. The criteria for reappointment were to be set in secondary legislation that would be subject to the draft affirmative Assembly procedure. Given that it was not possible to progress that secondary legislation during the absence of the Assembly, I am pleased to be able to bring the draft order before the Assembly today.

The criteria for the eligibility for appointment of lay magistrates are determined by the provisions of the Lay Magistrates (Eligibility) (Northern Ireland) Order 2004. The 2004 order contains a list of roles that will render an individual ineligible to carry out the role of a lay magistrate in Northern Ireland. In setting the eligibility for the reappointment of retired lay magistrates under the 2022 Act, the Department carried out a consultation with interested stakeholders, including lay magistrates, from 6 June to 1 August 2022. The consultation response was small, with three individuals responding. However, their responses were supportive of the approach proposed by the Department. An analysis of the responses with proposed next steps was published on the Department's website on 20 September 2022.

The consultation responses indicated that a number of eligibility criteria for the reappointment of lay magistrates should be adopted, and they are reflected in the draft order. The criteria are as follows: individuals who are reappointed must still meet the criteria provided for by the Lay Magistrates (Eligibility) (Northern Ireland) Order 2004; any person seeking reappointment must not have been removed from their role as a result of disciplinary proceedings or have been subject to any pending disciplinary proceedings at the date of their retirement; the individual must have been aged between 70 and 75 on the date that the 2022 Act received Royal Assent, which is 10 March 2022, in order to be eligible to apply for reappointment; and any people seeking reappointment must be prepared to undergo any training or continuing professional development that may be identified as being necessary or desirable for their continued role as a lay magistrate.

The consultation response summary contained an additional reappointment criterion that would have required an individual seeking reappointment to be prepared to offer a reasonable period of service before they reached the age of 75 and to retire under the provisions of the 2022 Act. However, given the effect of the two-year absence of the Assembly, I have decided that that criterion should not be adopted.

In addition to the criteria contained in the draft order, practical steps will be taken to ensure that the individuals who are reappointed will be subject to appropriate disclosure and barring checks if those have lapsed. It should also be noted that the reappointment of individuals under the 2022 Act will not have an effect on the complement or maximum number of lay magistrates that has been determined by the Northern Ireland Judicial Appointments Commission and the Department.

I commend the draft Lay Magistrates (Eligibility) Order (Northern Ireland) to the Assembly.

Steve Aiken (UUP, South Antrim)

As Question Time begins at 2.00 pm, I suggest that the Assembly takes its ease until then. The debate will continue after Question Time, when the next Member to speak will be Joanne Bunting, Chair of the Justice Committee.

The debate stood suspended.

(Mr Speaker in the Chair)

Oral Answers to Questions — The Executive Office

Edwin Poots (DUP, Belfast South)

Mr Buchanan sought to withdraw his question after the deadline, and he is not in his place. I call Declan Kearney.

Declan Kearney (Sinn Féin, South Antrim)

2. Mr Kearney asked the First Minister and deputy First Minister for an update on work to recruit commissioners to the Office of Identity and Cultural Expression. (AQO 339/22-27)

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

With your permission, a Cheann Comhairle, junior Minister Reilly will take the question.

Aisling Reilly (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

Go raibh maith agat, agus gabhaim buíochas leis an Chomhalta as ucht a cheiste.

[Translation: Thank you, and I thank the Member for his question.]

Tá Oifig an Fheidhmeannais freagrach as na socruithe riachtanacha a thabhairt chun tosaigh leis na forálacha atá san Acht um Fhéiniúlacht agus Teanga (Tuaisceart Éireann) 2022 a chur i bhfeidhm, ina measc, bunú na nithe seo a leanas: an Oifig um Fhéiniúlacht agus Léiriú Cultúrtha; Coimisinéir Teanga na Gaeilge; agus an Coimisinéir um thraidisiún na nAlbanach Uladh agus na mBriotanach Uladh. Beidh sé seo ag teacht le cinntí na nAirí agus coinneoidh muid na Comhaltaí ar an eolas.

[Translation: TEO is responsible for taking forward the necessary arrangements to implement the provisions of the Identity and Language (Northern Ireland) Act 2022, including the establishment of the following: the Office of Identity and Cultural Expression; the Irish Language Commissioner; and the Commissioner for the Ulster Scots and the Ulster British tradition. This will be in line with the Ministers' decisions. We will keep Members updated.]

Declan Kearney (Sinn Féin, South Antrim)

Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire shóisearach as ucht a freagra. An dtabharfaidh an tAire sóisearach uasdátú ar an obair atá idir lámha leis na struchtúir agus córais a chur ar bun a leagtar amach san Acht Féiniúlachta agus Teanga?

[Translation: I thank the junior Minister for her answer. Will the junior Minister give us an update on the work that is ongoing to establish the structures and systems laid out in the Identity and Language Act?]

Aisling Reilly (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

Cinnte, agus arís gabhaím buíochas leis an Chomhalta. Tá obair ullmhúcháin déanta ag feidhmeannaigh na Roinne, agus ina measc sin na socruithe praiticiúla leis na comhlachtaí a bhunú. Mar chuid de sin, tá an obair ullmhúcháin is gá le riachtanais maidir le hearcaíocht, rialachas agus cóiríocht, mar aon le cás gnó achomair a thabhairt chun cinn. Is í an chéad chéim eile sa phróiseas seo na cinntí aireachta nach mór a dhéanamh leis na comhlachtaí nua a bhunú. Nuair a bheas na cinntí sin déanta, beidh muid in ann tús a chur ar an phróiseas ceapacháin.

[Translation: TEO officials have undertaken preparatory work, including the practical arrangements to establish the bodies. That includes the necessary preparatory work to take forward recruitment, governance, and accommodation requirements, alongside an outline business case. The next stage of the process is that ministerial decisions are required to establish the new bodies. Once those decisions have been taken, we will be in a position to commence the appointments process.]

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

An dtig leis an Aire shóisearach clár ama a thabhairt dúinn ar cad é mar a bheas rudaí agus cén uair a cheapfar na coimisinéirí? Ina theannta sin, cén buiséad a bheas ag oifigí na gcoimisinéirí?

[Translation: Will the junior Minister give us a timeline as to how things will materialise and when the commissioners will be appointed? Moreover, what will the budget look like for the commissioners?]

Aisling Reilly (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

Gabhaim buíochas leis an Chomhalta as ucht a cheiste.

[Translation: I thank the Member for his question.]

De réir na taithí i mo Roinnese, glacann an próiseas ceapacháin phoiblí thart ar bhliain iomlán ón uair a dhéanann na hAirí cinntí tosaigh maidir leis an phróiseas. Ós rud é go gcaithfidh trí chomórtas a reáchtáil ag an aon am amháin le suas le hocht gceapachán phoiblí, d’fhéadfadh sé go mbeadh níos mó ama de dhíth. Ag caint go pearsanta, mar Ghaeilgeoir, beidh mise ag déanamh mo sheacht ndícheall agus ag obair i gcomhar leis na hoifigí ina bhfuil na feidhmeannaigh seo bunaithe. Tá an tAcht, mar is eol duit, tá sé i bhfeidhm le breis agus bliain. Tá pobal na Gaeilge ag fanacht le blianta fada leis na Coimisinéirí, ionas gur féidir leis an obair tosú agus dul chun cinn a dhéanamh ar chearta, ar chomhionannas agus ar fhéiniúlacht. Mar sin, tá mise tiomanta dó seo, agus tá a fhios agam gurb amhlaidh leat féin, ag iarraidh na Coimisinéirí agus na hoifigí a fheiceáil. Chomh luath agus a bheidh tuilleadh eolais agam air sin, tiocfaidh mé ar ais chugat le scéala.

[Translation: The experience in my Department is that public appointment processes take approximately a year once Ministers make the initial decisions about the process. As three competitions need to be run at the same time for up to eight public appointments, more time may be required. Speaking personally, as a Gaeilgeoir, I will be doing my utmost and will work closely with the offices in which those officials will be housed. The Act, as the Member knows, has been in effect for more than a year now. The Irish language community is waiting for the appointment of the commissioners so that they can start working on the progress that has been made in rights, equality and identity for many years now. I am determined, as I know the Member is, to see the commissioners established in their respective offices. Once I have any further information on the matter, I will get back to the Member.]

Edwin Poots (DUP, Belfast South)

Doug Beattie.

Doug Beattie (UUP, Upper Bann)

[Long pause.]

Sorry, Mr Speaker. I had headphones on and did not hear you. A question was asked about the budget, and I will ask it again. What is the budget likely to be, and has it been factored into the Budget that was announced recently?

Aisling Reilly (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

On the budget and projected costs — I will answer in English; you do not need to worry about headphones — a business case in respect of establishing the new bodies is well advanced and is in the process of being approved. It will not be possible to meet the cost of establishing and running the bodies, now that the legislation has passed and partially commenced, without additional funding being provided to TEO.

The Executive will make a case — as they have been doing — that the North is massively underfunded, and that case will continually be made by my Executive colleagues and the First Minister and the deputy First Minister to the British Government. As we all know, we have suffered 13 years of Tory austerity, and we should all lay the blame firmly at the doors of Westminster and the Tory party. However, we have work to do: there is a lot of work that we can do and many things that we can continue with, and the implementation of the Act that came into effect in 2022 is one of those.

Connie Egan (Alliance, North Down)

Apologies, my earphones were not working. I am very sorry if my question has already been asked. Again, it is on the budget. We had the statement last week. What was the Executive Office's bid for those offices?

Aisling Reilly (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

I do not have that information in front of me, but I am happy to come back to the Member on that.

Stephen Dunne (DUP, North Down)

3. Mr Dunne asked the First Minister and deputy First Minister for an update on financial contributions from institutions to the Historical Institutional Abuse Redress Board's compensation scheme. (AQO 340/22-27)

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

I am pleased to confirm that we have agreed contributions towards the cost of the redress scheme from two of the institutions, based on compensation paid to date. A payment has been received from the Good Shepherd Sisters, and our officials are engaging with Barnardo's on its payment, which we expect imminently. We are grateful to both institutions for their constructive engagement on the matter. We have listened to the victims and survivors, and we know that, for many, financial contributions from institutions are an important matter of accountability. The independent facilitator, Mr Paul Sweeney, also engaged with victims and survivors in the development of a framework for reaching agreement. That framework has formed the basis of the ongoing negotiations.

Engagement is ongoing with the other four institutions on appropriate contributions to the cost of redress and specialist support services. We will continue our discussions with the Good Shepherd Sisters and Barnardo's on a final payment following the closure of the redress scheme. The value of the total contributions will not be known until all applications that are made to the HIA Redress Board by the closing date of 2 April next year, 2025, have been determined. We encourage all victims and survivors who intend to make an application to the board to do so as soon as possible and definitely in advance of next year's deadline.

Stephen Dunne (DUP, North Down)

I thank the First Minister for her answer. The Hart report ultimately found that abuse was widespread and recommended an apology and compensation, amongst other things. I share the welcome for the financial commitment from Barnardo's and the Good Shepherd Sisters. Does the First Minister agree that the remaining institutions need to do the right thing, step up and make a contribution?

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

Yes, absolutely, and that is why it is important that we have the framework in place and that Paul Sweeney continues with the work that he has commenced. We now have those two contributions secured, and it is important that each of the other institutions step forward and pay their contribution. As I said, this is an important part of what victims and survivors expect. It is part of the healing process and is about the institutions doing the right thing and stepping forward. We will be very happy to keep the Member and the House updated on any progress that we make in the area.

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

Will the First Minister confirm whether there is a timeline for the negotiations? I appreciate that April 2025 is the deadline, but is there a timeline for the negotiations to ensure that all the other four institutions not only make an interim payment but make their payment in full?

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

As the Member appreciates, these are obviously very sensitive and detailed negotiations that need some space and time to continue in a constructive manner. The discussions, however, are also important to many victims, as they want to see the institutions make those financial contributions to the redress scheme, as I said. To date, the negotiations have involved the production and scrutiny of accurate individual data sets for each institution. There has been consideration of complex determinations where a victim or survivor may have been resident in multiple institutions. There has been consideration on the basis of the Hart report and the independent facilitator's framework of each institution's ability to pay and of any payments or any other outlay that the institutions may wish to be taken into account.

The Member is right. The negotiations will not stop at the closure of the redress scheme in April next year. It could take a further 12 to 18 months to finalise the remaining contributions for the institutions after the closure of the scheme. That will depend on how many applications the board receives in the last year, how quickly they can be determined and whether there are any legal challenges to the scheme in that period that could delay matters.

Paula Bradshaw (Alliance, Belfast South)

You will be aware, First Minister, that the institutions and the religious orders were put on notice in 2010. They have had 14 years to come forward with their contribution. Will you consider legal action if they do not come forward in a timely manner?

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

Yes, it has taken far too long to get to this point. We are making progress, but, clearly, we have more to do. We have to keep all options on the table. For now, the approach has been constructive and has been built around the framework that Paul Sweeney developed. Everybody understands it. I have just run through the kinds of areas that are examined as part of that work. It is important that we keep all options open, but I encourage all the institutions that are found guilty of systemic failings of the victims and survivors to step forward and do the right thing. I would like to think that they would. That is obviously the optimum approach for the victims and survivors. Until this point, a lot of the conversations have been constructive. Two organisations have stepped forward, and the others need to do likewise. I hope that we can progress that in the weeks and months ahead.

Mike Nesbitt (UUP, Strangford)

I welcome the progress as reported by the First Minister. Was any consideration given to asking the institutions to pay upfront into a fund from which any overpayments could have been refunded?

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

As I outlined in a previous answer, the process involved looking at all the data sets and the information that we had, the institutions disclosing their financial circumstances and our officials doing due diligence on what we understand to be the assets of some of those organisations. At this stage, our approach has been the right one. We are trying to get to the point at which there is an agreed contribution that is based on all the data that we have garnered. However, if we hit or a wall or have challenges with some of those institutions stepping forward, we will, as I said previously, look at the other options that are open to us. To this point, it has not delayed any of the compensation that we have been able to pay, but we need to recoup that money. Those institutions must pay for what they did.

Sinéad McLaughlin (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

Minister, will you name the institutions that are dragging their feet? We have called them "institutions" multiple times. Please name them. Will you give us details of the monetary value that is being sought from each of the institutions?

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

I cannot put a monetary value on what is being sought from each institution, the reason being that the negotiations in live play. They are ongoing and sensitive. They are each at different stages of what we have been able to establish from the data and the finances, so it is important that we give space to the negotiations and that we encourage the constructive manner in which they have been held. At this stage, it is not appropriate to announce the amounts that we have been able to achieve from the two that have come forward, but that will all become transparent in time. At this stage, we should not speculate about how much we might be able to receive in full. Suffice it to say that we will publish that information as soon as the negotiations have concluded. People will be able to judge, on the basis of the contributions that will be laid out for everybody to see, how appropriately the institutions have responded.

Paula Bradshaw (Alliance, Belfast South)

4. Ms Bradshaw asked the First Minister and deputy First Minister whether they will consider a public inquiry following the truth recovery design panel's report on ‘Mother and Baby Institutions, Magdalene Laundries and Workhouses in Northern Ireland’. (AQO 341/22-27)

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

We have been unwavering in our commitment to implement the five key recommendations in the truth recovery design panel's report on 'Mother and Baby Institutions, Magdalene laundries and Workhouses'. That includes the commitment to an integrated truth investigation and related public inquiry. The first stage of the investigation has already begun, with the appointment of a non-statutory independent panel in April 2023. Key services are now in place to support victims and survivors through the testimony process. It is our intention to launch a public consultation on issues relating to the statutory public inquiry and the redress scheme as quickly as possible, following which we will finalise the draft legislation for Executive agreement, prior to its introduction to the Assembly.

Paula Bradshaw (Alliance, Belfast South)

I thank the Minister for the response. I am very conscious that time is marching on, and, like victims and survivors of other historical abuse, the people who have been campaigning for accountability, truth and justice are getting very fed up. You said that you were going to launch the consultation as soon as possible. Do you have a specific timeline for that?

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

The deputy First Minister and I have met our officials on this issue. Both of us have made it very clear that our priority is to get the legislation through the Executive and into the Assembly for discussion, debate and voting through. It is important that we continue to work with the victims and survivors to take them through that process. We are hopeful that we can move at pace. We have met our officials in the past week or so, and we hope to have a paper back on our desk with proposals for the time frame. We will, of course, engage with the Committee and you, as Chair, about the process that we will take forward. The legislative process will come forward in the months ahead.

Linda Dillon (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

You have met Birth Mothers and their Children for Justice and other groups over the past number of years, and I know that you met that group again recently. It has requested a meeting with the First Minister and deputy First Minister, and it would greatly appreciate being able to have that conversation. Will you assure us that all the victims and survivors of the mother-and-baby homes and Magdalene laundries will be given the information about timelines and the consultation on what will happen next before anyone else?

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

I absolutely agree that, as I said in the previous answer, women who were in mother-and-baby institutions, Magdalene laundries or the workhouses have all waited for far too long for truth, justice and acknowledgement.

What many of those women experienced and endured in those institutions is probably beyond the comprehension of many of us. Our intention is that a consultation on the key policy issues relating to a public inquiry be launched as soon as possible. The consultation will also be an opportunity, as the Member said, for victims and survivors to have their voice heard, particularly on the key policy issues that we are going to legislate for. Following the consultation, we will be in a position to finalise the draft legislation. I look forward to bringing the legislation to the Executive and introducing it in the Assembly as soon as possible. Both the deputy First Minister and I are absolutely keen to meet the women mentioned by the Member when we have the policy proposals to take them through.

Brian Kingston (DUP, Belfast North)

Will the Minister tell us more about the engagement that has taken place with the institutions? How hopeful is she that we are reaching an end point to that process?

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

The engagement has been going on for quite some time, as many Members have indicated. It is so important to do it in an ongoing way. It is happening across a number of areas. We had the initial engagement with the institutions, and our officials wrote to the relevant institutions and offered a briefing across the whole truth recovery programme ahead of the consultation. A number of institutions have taken us up on that and participated in some of those discussions. In addition to the institutional engagement, engagement with Public Record Office of Northern Ireland and the independent panel has happened.

To date, no negotiations have been undertaken with the institutions on financial contributions, because we need to get to the point of having the policy agreed before we can talk to them about their contributions. Clearly, what we have received to date was for what had gone before, but, when we introduce the new legislation, we will need additional contributions from the institutions, including from those that have already announced their contributions relating to this phase.

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

Has the First Minister considered the appointment of a dedicated advocate for the victims and survivors of mother-and-baby institutions, given that many of them feel left behind and let down by the process?

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

It is important that victims and survivors hear directly from the deputy First Minister and me about the policy proposals that we want to take forward. Engagement has happened in a number of ways up to this point. In keeping with the recommendations of the report, TEO officials have worked closely with victims and survivors to progress implementation and to ensure accountability. It is also really important that the voices of birth mothers, adopted adults and their family members are central to that.

TEO officials have also met victims and survivors and their family representatives at monthly consultation forum meetings on 29 occasions since the truth recovery programme was established. About 20 people attend those meetings each month, so there is a good level of engagement. No doubt there are perhaps areas where there are sensitivities and where things are not always agreed. We should always strive to do better on the engagement piece. When we look at the policy proposals, we will keep the issue of having an advocate under review.

Liz Kimmins (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

5. Ms Kimmins asked the First Minister and deputy First Minister for an update on the appointment process for a new Commissioner for Victims and Survivors. (AQO 342/22-27)

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

As the deputy First Minister has emphasised in the Chamber previously, ensuring that victims and survivors have a strong, independent voice remains a key priority for the Executive. The appointment of a new Commissioner for Victims and Survivors is essential to inform the development of policies and to help ensure that the longer-term needs of victims and survivors are addressed. We are reviewing the appointment plan for the recruitment competition to appoint a new commissioner, and the competition will be launched as soon as possible. The appointment process is regulated by the Commissioner for Public Appointments, and we estimate that it will take approximately six months to complete.

Liz Kimmins (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

I thank the First Minister for her answer. I know that safeguarding and protecting the rights of victims and delivering services is a key priority for her. In the absence of a commissioner, can the Minister update us on the work of the Victims' Commission?

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

As a body corporate, the commission continues to be in legal existence in the absence of a commissioner. In the current context, the chief executive officer is responsible for the day-to-day business of the commission. The commission continues to operate on the basis of the work programme that was agreed by the previous commissioner. It focuses on three broad areas of strategic development: advocacy, history and education, and young people. The commission also continues to play a key role in important areas such as the design of the new draft strategy for victims and survivors, development of the regional trauma network and delivery of the victims' payment scheme. There is no substitute for a commissioner, as a key advocate for victims and survivors, being in post, so I am very hopeful that the recruitment process will launch as soon as possible.

Edwin Poots (DUP, Belfast South)

Question 6 has been withdrawn.

Robbie Butler (UUP, Lagan Valley)

7. Mr Butler asked the First Minister and deputy First Minister for an update on the Troubles permanent disablement payment scheme. (AQO 344/22-27)

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

I acknowledge the importance of the victims' payments scheme to victims and survivors. It recognises the suffering of those who have a permanent disablement as a result of the conflict and provides the financial support that they need to help them move forward with their lives. As of the week commencing 22 April, almost 7,500 applications had been submitted to the scheme, with just over 1,300 determinations made by the Victims' Payments Board. To date, more than £39·6 million has been made in payments to applicants. We appreciate that there are some concerns about the length of time that it can take to process an application. That is because each application is unique and has its own complexities, and the Victims' Payments Board must consider each application on its merits in order to provide the best outcomes for applicants. The historical nature of much of the evidence, when record-keeping may not have been to the same standard as it is today, also means that evidence gathering can, at times, be challenging. The Victims' Payments Board has processes in place with a range of partners to assist in retrieving that evidence on behalf of applicants.

I reassure everyone that officials are working closely with all organisations that support victims and survivors to keep the scheme under review and to look for ways in which to improve the throughput of cases. The deputy First Minister and I have also written to the Secretary of State to support the extension of the backdating deadline, which is currently 31 August of this year. We have also suggested that the extension should align with the closing date of the scheme, which is currently 31 August 2026, because that would allow more time for eligible applicants to avail themselves of the backdated payments.

Robbie Butler (UUP, Lagan Valley)

I thank the First Minister for her answer and for her assurance about looking at the timescales. Another issue that is popping up, and of which the board will be aware, is that of unsuccessful applications. Is there any evidence for why applications are not successful? Can the First Minister point those who have been unsuccessful to the main reasons for their applications not being successful?

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

As I said, there are a number of complexities built into the system for gathering information and doing the due diligence work, but each application is unique and brings with it its own set of complexities. For example, another added complication is that one in three applications includes multiple relevant incidents, with up to 50 incidents listed in one application. That demonstrates the challenges. As I said, the historical nature of much of the evidence is also a challenge, as record-keeping then was not the same as it is today. I am not aware of any particular underlying thematic issue, but I will enquire, since the Member has asked me that question. We will write to him if anything is identified, but I assume that, given the ongoing review of how we are doing things, how the payments are being made and how the processes work, that would be flagged as an issue. If we find out anything in particular, however, I am happy to write to the Member.

Ciara Ferguson (Sinn Féin, Foyle)

The victims' payments scheme is a crucial support mechanism for those who have suffered permanent injury during conflict. My question is about cost. At one stage, it was suggested that the scheme would cost upwards of £600 million. Will the First Minister outline the future funding arrangements for the scheme?

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

Funding for the victims' payments scheme continues to be an area of significant concern for the Executive. We are aware that the Finance Minister, Dr Caoimhe Archibald, is engaged in a formal dispute process with the Treasury in London. The issue was noted in the Executive's letter to the Prime Minister and discussed at length with the Secretary of State when we met him on 18 April. It is our view that the British Government must contribute to the scheme's costs. It has always been, and remains, the Executive's position that the scheme, which was designed and legislated for by the British Government, goes further than what was originally intended by the Executive and what was set out in the Stormont House Agreement and that not enough consideration was given to the potential impact on the Executive's Budget. That will be an ongoing piece of work for us.

David Honeyford (Alliance, Lagan Valley)

First Minister, when will the scheme be extended to include those people who were bereaved?

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

Sorry. I did not hear the end of your question.

David Honeyford (Alliance, Lagan Valley)

When will the scheme be extended to include those people who were bereaved?

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

Thank you. It is something that we are looking at. We are very aware of the issues affecting bereaved victims and survivors. We are very keen to address their needs and to acknowledge the ongoing loss felt by many. Our Department has, for many years, been funding the Victims and Survivors Service (VSS) to provide financial support to bereaved victims and survivors. I am pleased that, in April 2021, we were able to reopen the scheme for new people to come forward so that all bereaved victims can avail themselves of the support. Since the self-directed support scheme opened in 2017, our Department has provided over £13·5 million in funding to the VSS to support bereaved victims and survivors. We continue to keep under review the support that we are able to provide.

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

Minister, further to the previous question about victims and survivors, there are those who do not have physical scars but whose life has been changed utterly and who bear psychological scars. They have had to leave their home and move country to get away from the terror, and they bear the scars to this day. Will the Troubles permanent disablement payment scheme accommodate those people?

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

I have set out the complexities. It is important that we, as a society that has come from conflict, do everything that we can to support victims, survivors and people who have been impacted on by conflict. The category of people that you refer to is not currently under the remit of the scheme, but I take on board what the Member said.

Phillip Brett (DUP, Belfast North)

8. Mr Brett asked the First Minister and deputy First Minister for an update on the Urban Villages initiative in North Belfast. (AQO 345/22-27)

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

With your permission, Mr Speaker, junior Minister Reilly will answer the question.

Aisling Reilly (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

Thank you, Mr Speaker. The Urban Villages programme has had many positive outcomes, with 56 capital projects, comprising shared community facilities, parks and public realm, now completed, 13 of which are in North Belfast. A further 16 projects are progressing through the capital development life cycle, including four in North Belfast.

A few examples of those projects include the Marrowbone Millennium Park and the ABC Trust Health and Leisure Hub in north Belfast; Páirc Nua Chollann and Healthy Living Centre in the Colin area of west Belfast; New Gate Arts and Culture Centre and Meenan Square in Derry; the ProKick community gym and the Hosford Community Homes: Inclusion Hub in east Belfast; and the Lockhouse and the Donegall Pass Good Relations Hub in south Belfast.

Since 2016, £13·5 million has been invested, through revenue projects, in improving good relations outcomes in all five Urban Village areas, with over £2 million having been invested in North Belfast.

Officials have developed a range of options for the future of the Urban Villages programme. We are committed to continuing to promote thriving places and achieving the best outcomes for all our citizens. We will update Members on future plans for the programme when options have been considered.

Phillip Brett (DUP, Belfast North)

I thank the junior Minister for that update. Can she confirm that, as part of its work on the options, the Executive Office will look at the extension of the Urban Villages scheme to cover other parts of North Belfast in order to ensure that all communities continue to benefit from that very welcome investment?

Aisling Reilly (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

I thank the Member for his follow-up question. In its design, Urban Villages was never intended to be a core funder. The aim was always to provide additionality to supplement areas' existing provision. It was always envisaged that Urban Villages would be a time-bound programme and not a perpetual or long-term funder. The Urban Villages revenue funding programme was extended to 31 March 2024 to allow appropriate time to support all project promoters, including by encouraging collaborative approaches for the purpose of shared benefits, delivery and identifying alternative funding sources.

The Urban Villages team will operate in North Belfast until at least 2027 to allow capital projects to be completed. We continue to work with our colleagues in other Departments to ascertain how support can best be delivered to communities in a way that will be impactful and sustainable.

Kate Nicholl (Alliance, Belfast South)

Amazing projects, in Sandy Row and elsewhere, came to an end when the funding ceased. Will the Executive bring forward any other support to allow some of those projects to continue?

Aisling Reilly (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

I thank the Member for her question. As I mentioned, the Department recognises that needs vary across communities here and seeks to address as many of them as possible. Since Urban Villages launched in 2016, there has been a range of other developments that will impact on what Urban Villages does next. That will include reviews of programmes such as Together: Building a United Community (T:BUC) and DFC's neighbourhood renewal programme, and a cross-departmental test and learning pilot to test departmental joint working, initially in the Diamond area of Derry and in Aughnacloy.

We look forward to updating Members once we have considered how best to continue with our aim of promoting thriving places and achieving the best outcomes for all our citizens.

As you said, the Urban Villages programme idea has proved to be very successful, particularly the co-design process with communities. We all know that communities are better placed to reflect their needs than any of us here or any official. As I said, TEO officials have developed options on the future of the programme, and, once those have been considered, Members will be updated.

Edwin Poots (DUP, Belfast South)

We move to topical questions.

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

T1. Mr O'Toole asked the First Minister and deputy First Minister whether the First Minister agrees that we need an open border on this island, something that the SDLP has spent years arguing for, for goods and people, and whether she agrees that, should a united Ireland be successfully achieved, we will need the most open of borders possible between the islands of Britain and Ireland. (AQT 221/22-27)

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

It is really important that we respect all sets of relationships across our two islands and that we work on the basis of being good neighbours. Obviously, when it comes to the constitutional position, what I want to achieve and what the deputy First Minister wants to achieve are different things, but that is OK. We can work together in the Executive whilst pursuing our political aspirations for the future of the place that we all call "Home".

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

First Minister, I specifically asked you about the phrase "open borders". That is important because our parties have fought for a long time to have the most open border on this island for goods and people. If you agree with that, why is your party leadership using a hard-right dog whistle to talk about open borders? Is that not, for the sake of a few votes, emboldening those who want to create a hard border on the island for reasons including to make life more difficult for vulnerable people?

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

Let me be clear: I have no truck with the hard right, as the Member well knows. I absolutely support a migration policy and system that is fair, efficient, enforceable and compassionate. We must do everything to make sure that anything that is done is human-rights-compliant. That should be the underlying factor in everything that we do. Of course, we have a unique circumstance on our island because of partition, and that must be respected, but we also enjoy the free movement of people across our islands.

To make a more political point as opposed to a point from an Executive Office point of view, Ireland cannot become a casualty of the horrific Rwanda legislation that the Tories have decided to railroad through. I am clear about that. It is a disgraceful policy that serves the needs of nobody. Given the issues that have arisen over the last couple of days, officials now need to get to grips with the matter. We have tasked our officials to engage with counterparts in Dublin and London to get more information on the issues that have been raised, because it is important that solutions are found when problems are identified.

Danny Baker (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

T2. Mr Baker asked the First Minister and deputy First Minister, in light of the fact that, tomorrow, we will hear a report on a recent meeting of the North/South Ministerial Council, whether the First Minister agrees that the efficient functioning of all our interlinked political institutions provides us with the opportunity and structures to build cooperation and joint approaches across these islands. (AQT 222/22-27)

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

Yes, and that builds on the previous question. The North/South Ministerial Council, which I will make a statement to the Assembly about tomorrow and give feedback on, is an important part of the jigsaw of the institutions of the Good Friday Agreement. It is important that all elements of that agreement are up and running and working again. I am glad that we have sectoral meetings happening again, because our people are best served when all institutions of the Good Friday Agreement are delivering on both a North/South and an east-west basis. It is important that all those sets of relationships are respected and worked on. I am certainly committed to making progress and continuing to work together on all those bases, because, when we collectively work through all the institutions of the Good Friday Agreement and are faithful to that agreement, we can continue to build a better future and give the people the support that they elect us to deliver for them.

Danny Baker (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

A few weeks ago, the British-Irish Parliamentary Assembly met and discussed a range of issues including the horrors that are unfolding in Gaza. It called for an immediate humanitarian ceasefire. Does the First Minister also acknowledge the importance of that forum?

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

Yes. I do not think that we can pick and choose across the institutions. It is really important that we respect all parts of the Good Friday Agreement and all institutions of the Good Friday Agreement, so I recognise the importance of the British-Irish Parliamentary Assembly. I repeat the point: we are all better served when all the institutions are working better.

I acknowledge the Member's comment about the gravest human rights violation of our time that we are witnessing unfolding in Palestine. We have to use all the forums and platforms that are open to us to call for an end to the genocide, for an immediate ceasefire, for aid to be delivered and for the hostages to be released. It is important that, collectively, we make as much noise on that as we can.

David Brooks (DUP, Belfast East)

T3. Mr Brooks asked the First Minister and deputy First Minister to outline the discussions that the Executive Office plans to have with His Majesty’s Government to speed up the delivery of a fair funding model for Northern Ireland, given that the Fiscal Council has warned that, despite top-ups, the Northern Ireland block grant will not meet our budgetary needs until 2035. (AQT 223/22-27)

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

I thank the Member for that question. As he knows, that has been the number-one issue for the Executive. We acknowledged from day one that the funding that was on the table was never going to be enough and that we needed to get to a point where we had a sustainable budget situation and were in a much better fiscal environment. We have just come through a very tight Budget, and there are difficult choices for Ministers to make, but it is important that we continue the ongoing discussion on the fiscal framework with the Treasury. Our officials and our Finance Minister continue to work at political and official level on the application of the needs-based adjustment factor in our financial package, so that we get to the point where we have a proper funding model in place. We have work to do as an Executive. We need to transform things, and we need to do things better. We know all of that, but we need the right resources with which to do that, and we need the money to invest in public services. I am absolutely determined, as are, I think, the Executive, to, with a collective voice, continue in that conversation with the Treasury.

David Brooks (DUP, Belfast East)

I thank the First Minister for her answer. She spoke about difficult choices. Most will understand that additional funding will come with some push for more efficient, cost-effective and better services through reform. Given the lack of pace of reform in some areas — health, for example — how will the Programme for Government encourage significant progress?

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

The Executive are committed to transformation. We know that we can transform things, and we know that we can do things better. We will always be stronger at doing those things when we work in partnership and provide the leadership that is required. That is the case in health and education and across all of our public services. We know that, when it comes to the health service, for example, we need to transform that service and get to the point at which we are talking about people's outcomes, how they can live longer and how they can be treated better. When it comes to education, we need to ensure that every child is valued in the education system, particularly the children with additional needs. It is important that we continue to fight and let the public know that we will continue to fight for a proper funding model to allow us to do those things much better.

Paula Bradshaw (Alliance, Belfast South)

T4. Ms Bradshaw asked the First Minister and deputy First Minister, following the earlier question about the amount that each institution is contributing to the redress scheme, whether the First Minister is satisfied that the amount being asked of the institutions is adequate when compared with the cost to the public purse, in light of the fact that £90 million has already been paid out, albeit that amount does not include administration and legal costs. (AQT 224/22-27)

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

I am satisfied that the framework that is being developed is the fairest way to advance these conversations, so I am satisfied that Paul Sweeney, who heads up the work on our behalf, is challenging, pushing back and thoroughly investigating the contributions of the institutions. However, we are not at the end of the road yet; even the payments that have come forward are only partial payments. There is more to come, and we need to continue to ensure that the institutions pay up, because the costs are so large. It is the right thing to do, of course, but it is important that the institutions pay up. It is hard to judge the sufficiency or otherwise of them until we get to the final picture.

Paula Bradshaw (Alliance, Belfast South)

Maybe I misheard you earlier, First Minister, but did you say that there may be a point at which some of the contributions may go back, once a threshold is reached? I am conscious that the institutions should pay not just for the redress but towards the professional ongoing services that many victims and survivors will need for the rest of their lives.

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

No, I did not say that. To be clear, I agree with you: it cannot be for just the payment itself; it has to be for the services and the wrap-around support. That needs to be absolutely factored into the contributions. I can envisage no situation where, if a payment came forward, it would be given back to the institution.

Stewart Dickson (Alliance, East Antrim)

T5. Mr Dickson asked the First Minister and deputy First Minister, given the Legacy Act’s imposed ending of Troubles-related inquests on 1 May 2024, which is causing serious and legitimate concern among organisations that support victims and survivors of the Troubles, demand for whose services will rise, to outline the additional funding that will be provided for those organisations to facilitate the additional work that the imposed legislation will generate. (AQT 225/22-27)

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

I assure the Member — we have shown it to date — that, when it came to finding efficiencies in the Department, we did not touch that area and were able to protect that funding. That remains our position. The Member is absolutely right: when the legislation comes into effect on Wednesday of this week, it effectively closes the door on all those who are seeking truth and justice. It is the collective will of all parties in the Chamber that this horrific legislation should be repealed immediately.

Back in 2015, with the Stormont House Agreement, we had a way in which to deal with the past, and I still commend that approach today. What the British Government are doing, however, by shutting the door firmly on access to justice and the courts is totally unacceptable. It is harrowing, and the last number of weeks, with the inquests that have come forward, have been a bruising time for so many families. That highlights and underlines why the legislation is absolutely not good enough and is unacceptable and should be binned.

Stewart Dickson (Alliance, East Antrim)

I thank the First Minister. Given the cliff-edge nature of the Legacy Act, does the First Minister recognise, as I do, that there is a serious threat to good relations and reconciliation in Northern Ireland as a result of its imposition? What measures will her Department take to deal with that in order to improve good relations?

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

We are all committed to good relations and to lifting up everybody in society. Given the complexity of our past, when we look to today and to the future, prosperity should be the thing that unites us all. We need to allow everybody to prosper. That is what I and the deputy First Minister are determined to do: to build around that prosperity agenda. Nevertheless, there is no doubt that, as a result of Wednesday's legislation coming into effect, the victims and survivors and their families will feel the brunt of it. That is unfair. It will burden today's generation with carrying on that battle, and that is completely unfair as well. We will all continue to say with one voice that the legislation should be repealed; it should be absolutely stripped back.

Emma Sheerin (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

T6. Ms Sheerin asked the First Minister and deputy First Minister whether the First Minister commits to the ending violence against women and girls strategy, in light of the news coverage in recent days about the circumstances in which Katie Simpson sadly lost her life in 2020, which has generated a lot of questions about how women are treated by the criminal justice system. (AQT 226/22-27)

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

I thank the Member for raising that matter. As always in such cases, first and foremost, our thoughts are with Katie's family, who must be heartbroken and devastated to have lost their daughter and sister. I absolutely agree with the Member that that is why we have to get to grips with tackling violence against women and girls. We are committed to prioritising the bringing forward of that strategy, and excellent work has been done on it to this point. We have to break the cycle of violence, and that is the job not just of women but of wider society. That is the outcome that, I believe, everybody in the House wants to achieve, working together.

Emma Sheerin (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

Does the First Minister agree that to end violence against women and girls will take a whole-of-government approach?

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

Yes, I absolutely do, and much more needs to be done to end the cycle of violence against women and girls. That is at the heart of the strategy that we are developing. We need to see enhanced collaboration and partnership working across all Departments and public bodies, working with Women's Aid and all the other excellent community-based organisations that are on the ground and at the coalface. That will be a critical first step in setting us on the right direction, with the right interventions and support at the right time for the women who need it.

Alan Robinson (DUP, East Londonderry)

T7. Mr Robinson asked the First Minister and deputy First Minister, further to the question posed by his colleague David Brooks from East Belfast, whether, in the short term, the First Minister expects further financial support from the Treasury to help to address Stormont’s funding concerns. (AQT 227/22-27)

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

That is the battle for us from day one. We need a proper funding model. Our public services have been decimated for over 13 years by Tory austerity. It is not just here: it is the same picture in England, Scotland and Wales. The Tories have decimated public services across the piece, and that has led to the running-down of our public services. We have a battle on our hands, but it is a battle that the public, rightly, expect us to fight.

We cannot continue to be hamstrung by the Tories, who are stripping out public services day by day. I want us to do more and do better, and I think that we can, but we need the finances to be able to do so. Getting to a proper funding model will be an ongoing theme, to which, I think, we are collectively committed.

Edwin Poots (DUP, Belfast South)

We now move to questions to the Minister for the Economy.

Oral Answers to Questions — Economy

Sorcha Eastwood (Alliance, Lagan Valley)

1. Ms Eastwood asked the Minister for the Economy whether he has met the Minister of Education regarding improving careers advice in schools. (AQO 353/22-27)

Conor Murphy (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

Ensuring that we have a high-quality careers system is key to connecting our people with the full range of opportunities that exist across our economy. While the Department's Careers Service works with clients of all ages and in a range of settings, it is critical that our young people in schools have timely access to high-quality, professional careers advice and guidance. I recently met the Education Minister to discuss opportunities to enhance our careers provision and increase engagement across both Departments. We agreed to work collaboratively in order to ensure that all young people have access to the full range of career options that exist and that they receive the best careers advice possible as they progress through school.

Sorcha Eastwood (Alliance, Lagan Valley)

I thank the Minister for his answer. I am glad to hear that there has been that collaborative working. We have talked about that over the past few weeks. Is there an intention to agree a joint action plan? If that is the case, is there a timeline to go with it?

Conor Murphy (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

We discussed it on a couple of occasions, and then we brought officials with us when we met. We want to ensure that the Careers Service, and all the information that goes into it, is accessible to all young people. That is perhaps not currently the case in every set of circumstances. In the first instance, we want to make sure that the full range of advice is available to people. The Careers Service keeps itself very much up to date on developing work opportunities and careers and those that may become available in the future, as well as the skills and the education that are needed to engage with them. We agreed that that is the first phase of what both Departments want to develop in order to ensure that we have a seamless way of working people through the education system, from primary school right up to university and beyond.

Robbie Butler (UUP, Lagan Valley)

We know that children who come from a special educational needs background, children with a disability and those from a socially disadvantaged area will, sadly, struggle to get a job in the same way as others. What conversations have you and the Education Minister had about redressing the balance?

Conor Murphy (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

We want to ensure that the full range of advice is available to all kids, regardless of their background or school setting, and that there is an opportunity for all young people and their parents to get proper, professional advice on the range of options that are available. Of course, the more options we have, the more young people can access skills and training and get opportunities for employment. That is not confined to one particular set of students; it is for every student who is going through our system.

Cara Hunter (Social Democratic and Labour Party, East Londonderry)

Minister, on the point about the joint action plan with the Minister of Education, let me say that I recently met a speaker for schools on the lack of standardised work experience. Have you had conversations with the Education Minister about the access to work experience and the need to ensure that children get every opportunity possible?

Conor Murphy (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

As I said, the meeting that I had with Minister Givan was to discuss, in the first instance, careers advice. We both agreed that the two Departments, because we share responsibility for education, need to work together closely and seamlessly to make sure that all young people experience maximum advantage as they go through school. That will include work experience, because that is very much part of preparing people for choosing the path that suits them best.

In the first instance, as I say, we are concentrating on careers advice and making sure that that is available and delivered to all. We have agreed that we will continue that work and develop more areas of work as that progresses.

David Honeyford (Alliance, Lagan Valley)

2. Mr Honeyford asked the Minister for the Economy to outline what action he is taking to address the challenges faced by the hospitality sector as a result of rising costs. (AQO 354/22-27)

Conor Murphy (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

I understand the importance of the hospitality sector for both the tourism industry and the high street economy, with approximately 57,000 jobs in the accommodation and food service sector. Addressing the challenges of rising costs cuts across several areas of government, including the Department for Communities and local councils. My Department is taking steps to support businesses through delivery of the Executive's path to net zero energy strategy, a key objective being to ensure that all consumers have access to essential and affordable energy.

The level of VAT is also a specific issue. The Department of Finance has repeatedly raised with the Treasury the negative impacts on hospitality of high levels of VAT.

David Honeyford (Alliance, Lagan Valley)

Thank you, Minister, for your response. Every quarter, 13% of hospitality businesses are losing money, 20% are just breaking even, and a further 20% have no cash reserves. You have outlined that the hospitality industry is a hugely important sector that generates growth and drives the economy. Is it now time, Minister, for you to get together with the Department of Finance to come up with a relief package for those businesses?

Conor Murphy (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

In the context of the Budget that we have available to us, that will always be very challenging, but there are things that we can do. As I said, one of the key elements of the increasing cost of doing business is energy costs. Through the path to net zero energy strategy, there are supports for energy, being more efficient and having access to renewable energy for businesses through Invest NI. We will continue to provide that.

I have no doubt that the Finance Minister will continue, as I did when I was in that position, to fight the fight on VAT with Treasury. However, I have to say that it has never appeared to be very much minded to move on those things when we have engaged with it. We will continue that work. Of course, whatever measures can be taken within the limited resources that I have, or, indeed, the Finance Department has, to support people, we will certainly take them. I am putting together a tourism implementation group to work on issues that will bring support to tourism and hospitality. The hospitality sector will be represented on that.

Philip McGuigan (Sinn Féin, North Antrim)

Just as you were finishing your response, Minister, you mentioned the tourism partnership board. Recently, you announced your intention to set it up. How will you ensure that the hospitality sector will be represented and allowed to play a fruitful role in that organisation?

Conor Murphy (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

I am a firm believer that policies and strategies must be co-designed with the people who are at the working end of them in those sectors. Clearly, when we are designing a strategy for the tourism and hospitality sector, we want people who are in that sector to be engaged in it. I think that that will lead to the best outcome. As I said, in a space where we have limited resources, we need to ensure that what we are doing with those resources is targeted in the most effective way. People who work in the industry, working with officials, will give us the best possible outcome. We will ensure that people from that sector are included.

Mike Nesbitt (UUP, Strangford)

Beyond rising costs, another challenge to hospitality and tourism is the electronic travel authorisation. I would be grateful if the Minister could update the House on any negotiations that he is having on that issue. Is he aware of whether it is on the agenda of the British-Irish Intergovernmental Conference (BIIC), which meets today?

Conor Murphy (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

I am not. We do not have access to the agenda for the British-Irish Intergovernmental Conference. I am not sure whether that issue is on it, but I know that, if part of that is to support the arrangements from the Good Friday Agreement, both Governments need to ensure that what they are doing collectively supports the general direction that we are trying to develop to grow the economy.

As I said, the sector is important. Recently, there has been consultation on a document. That has come back in. From that, we want to set up an implementation group that will try to develop a strategy, and do so at pace — this is not about kicking the can down the road — that will inform the targeting of our limited resources in the most effective way. Some of that is about targeting resource. Some of it is about clearing away barriers to tourism growth and ensuring that the agencies and facilities that we have at our disposal are working in the most effective way.

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

Last week, the Sooty Olive restaurant in my constituency closed its doors for the final time. When asked what the Government could have done to help, the owner said, "Anything". The Minister rightly pointed out the difficulty that the Budget presents and how that would make it difficult to do anything around rates, but will he accept that the rates that are generated by a business that has closed down amount to much less than the discounted rates that could be offered to hospitality businesses?

Conor Murphy (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

Yes, I do understand that fully, and that is an ongoing challenge. The rates that we collect fund about 10% of the Executive's available resources, and that goes into health, education and all the other priorities that Members in this Chamber stand up and say we need to spend more money on. That is the balance between trying to raise money and doing so in a way that tries to ensure that businesses stay open. Clearly, if the consequences of rates being collected put businesses out, no rate is collected. There are other challenges with energy costs and other matters that equally provide significant challenges to businesses, and we have to try to find ways to support people across a range of matters so that the issue of rates does not become the key factor in their survival or not as a business.

Doug Beattie (UUP, Upper Bann)

3. Mr Beattie asked the Minister for the Economy to outline the role of Intertrade UK in the delivery plan of his Department's 10X Economy strategy. (AQO 355/22-27)

Conor Murphy (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

The responsibility for establishing Intertrade UK sits with the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities and is in the planning stage. As part of my plans to grow the economy, we will be engaging with all relevant partners and bodies to ensure that trade moves smoothly and businesses are kept informed of new trading arrangements. We look forward to working with all stakeholders, including Intertrade UK. I had initial discussions at the East-West Council meeting recently on what positive steps can be taken to grow trade across these islands. Smooth trade across the islands and further afield is critical to successful business export growth.

Doug Beattie (UUP, Upper Bann)

Thank you for your answer. I get that we are still in the really early stages of Intertrade UK, so it is good that you are engaging, and thank you for that. Looking forward, you clearly put in a Budget bid for InterTradeIreland. Have you done the same for Intertrade UK, working on the principle that it is roughly the same type of budget?

Conor Murphy (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

As I said, Intertrade UK is a creation of Whitehall. Its ownership stays in Whitehall with the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, so we do not have any funding input to it. InterTradeIreland, as you know, is a creation of the Good Friday Agreement and the North/South bodies that flow from that, and the arrangements for funding — our contribution and Dublin's contribution — were established 25 years ago. Intertrade UK is a different animal, if you like. It will not have the same functions as InterTradeIreland. It is about making sure that information is shared, that there is promotion of trade east to west and west to east, ensuring that people are aware and, where problems may arise, that people are informed about solutions to them. We do not have a direct funding input, and as the Member has acknowledged, its development is at its early stages. Obviously, we will keep an eye to that, and anything that can enhance our trade across the islands is something that we will engage with.

Sinéad Ennis (Sinn Féin, South Down)

Since taking office, the Minister has set out a clear and positive strategy on how to develop our economy. Will he ensure that his Department's budget aligns with that economic strategy?

Conor Murphy (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

As I have been saying in response to previous questions, there is a real challenge for all Departments with the budgets that are available to us. There was an acknowledgement by the Government, prior to the Executive's coming back, that we had been underfunded. We continue to suffer from the legacy of that underfunding, which has not been properly addressed by the Treasury as yet. On the fiscal framework that we need to be in, discussions have begun and are ongoing between the Treasury and the Department of Finance, and I know that the First Minister and deputy First Minister will become involved in that as well. We all face the challenge of very restricted budgets. I have provided strategic focus to the Department across four areas, so we will ensure that whatever limited resources we have are being used with an eye to that strategic focus and, in that way, try to achieve good outcomes for regional balance, good jobs, productivity and our challenges in meeting net zero.

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

Minister, the question referenced the 10X Economy strategy. As far as I can ascertain, "10X" is a slogan coined by a US self-help expert and not a real, meaningful target for the Northern Ireland economy. Will there be specific targets around growing the all-Ireland economy? Will they be in the Programme for Government, will they be aligned to a multi-year Budget and what will those targets be?

Conor Murphy (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

The Member has made his own commentary on 10X. We have a three-year mandate. If we were to go back to starting all these strategies from scratch and going out to consult on them, the mandate would be over by the time that that was complete. Therefore, we decided, with the agreement of the Department and of Invest NI, to put in place a strategic focus. One of the criticisms of Invest NI in the report was that there had not been sufficient strategic focus.

On the all-Ireland economy, as the Member will know, at the North/South sectoral meeting last Friday, we agreed the increased headcount for InterTradeIreland to do more work in the area of North/South collaboration, the growing of clusters, exports and developing the North/South economy.

The economy, North to South, grew from just over £2 billion in 2015 to just over £10 billion by 2022. Organically, it has clearly been growing, even through the debates and the uncertainty around Brexit. We now have an opportunity to make a step change. As yet, we have not set a specific target, but I will certainly develop those discussions. Now that we have put InterTradeIreland on the footing that will allow it to do much more in that area, we will examine what can be done. We have already had useful and fruitful discussions with all the Departments in Dublin that we deal with on growing the economy.

Jim Allister (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

It seems to me that the Minister does not exude much interest or enthusiasm for InterTrade UK, but, if he ever gets around to discussing it with the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, will he at least advocate that it be headquartered in Northern Ireland in a progressive commercial town such as Ballymena?

[Laughter.]

Conor Murphy (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

Did you say "progressive"?

[Laughter.]

OK.

Anyway, as I said in answer to Mr Beattie, it is an idea that was developed as a consequence of the Command Paper. It is not fully developed. In that paper, it was agreed by the British Government that it would be housed in Whitehall and would be the responsibility of the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities. We do not have a function in its actual operation. It is to provide a service. I had discussions on it with Michael Gove, the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, at the meeting of the East-West Council. It is about having a service to inform businesses that wish to do business over here how they can go about doing that. That is its function. I would be happy to engage with anything that improves east-west or North/South trade, even for Ballymena.

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

4. Ms Ní Chuilín asked the Minister for the Economy to outline how his Department will promote community wealth building. (AQO 356/22-27)

Conor Murphy (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

Community wealth building is an important piece in the delivery of my overall economic strategy and one that I am committed to strengthening. Community wealth building cuts across several areas of government and, in particular, connects with the work of the Department for Communities. I intend to work closely with DFC to address agreed recommendations outlined in its recent report by an independent ministerial advisory panel.

The report's first recommendation is to adopt, deliver and resource a social economy strategy. In response, I have initiated the development of a comprehensive three-year social enterprise action plan. I will be working closely with sector representatives to ensure that the action plan is co-designed and aligns with my economic strategy.

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire as ucht a fhreagra.

[Translation: I thank the Minister for his answer.]

Minister, given the focus that you have rightly put on regional balance, will you please ensure that the focus of the social economy and community wealth building is on areas of deprivation such as the north-west and parts of Belfast?

Conor Murphy (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

A pilot scheme is already up and running on community wealth building between Larne and Derry. It is for the north-west generally but is focused on Derry. We recognise that, when we talk about regional balance and addressing inequality, imbalance does not exist just outside Belfast and that there are areas in Belfast that suffer from inequalities that need to be addressed.

Of course, when we talk about issues such as community wealth building and social enterprise and the contribution that both could make at grassroots level, we acknowledge that they are not a replacement for economic activity in those areas through conventional means. We want to support community wealth building and social enterprise, however, and some good projects are being developed. There are good action plans from the social economy side to provide support for people who wish to enter the workplace and for projects that will bring about not just economic benefit but social benefit for communities that need it most.

Sian Mulholland (Alliance, North Antrim)

Following on from the question from Carál, how can community wealth building be utilised in rural areas, specifically in my constituency of North Antrim, to build economic resilience outside the more urban hubs?

Conor Murphy (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

There are many good social economy projects in rural areas. As I said, we have resourced a three-year strategy for the social economy that, I expect, will not be confined to urban areas. The community wealth building pilot project to which I referred will bring us much good information on how that can be done. At the moment, the one linkage is between Larne and Derry, which is a good project, with people very knowledgeable of the areas involved. It also involves — the name of the organisation escapes me — the community development trust.

Those schemes are not just for urban areas. The pilot happens to involve urban areas, but we want to see opportunities for social enterprise across rural areas as well. We understand clearly that rural areas suffer from a lack of access to services and from what is, in many ways, hidden deprivation that is not readily identified. It is important that the projects reach into those areas and work with communities. We will encourage that through the strategy.

Maolíosa McHugh (Sinn Féin, West Tyrone)

5. Mr McHugh asked the Minister for the Economy for an update on the 2028 UEFA European Football Championship bid. (AQO 357/22-27)

Conor Murphy (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

Following a historic and successful joint bid, the five football associations across these islands are set to host the UEFA European Championships in 2028. In February, officials from my Department and the Department for Communities, alongside the Irish FA and the GAA, met a UEFA delegation in Belfast. Since then, there has been further engagement. Significant progress has been made, including on detailed plans that demonstrate how a redeveloped Casement Park can host games during Euro 2028. We await a final report from UEFA in response to the proposals, which is expected by early June. It is estimated that the tournament will generate £2·6 billion of benefits across these islands. With games due to be hosted in Belfast and Dublin, it creates a fantastic opportunity to promote the island of Ireland to a worldwide audience of over six billion people.

Maolíosa McHugh (Sinn Féin, West Tyrone)

Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire as a fhreagraí go dti seo.

[Translation: I thank the Minister for his answers so far.]

The Minister knows not only that Casement Park is an Executive flagship project; he knows how sensible a project it is for meeting the needs of the Gaels of Antrim and the wider Ulster Gaelic community. Can the Minister give us an update on where we are with the redevelopment of Casement Park?

Conor Murphy (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

I acknowledge what the Member says. At its initiation, Casement Park was a project to provide for Gaelic games in Ulster and further afield and to provide economic regeneration in that part of west Belfast and, I have no doubt, the whole of Belfast through the provision of a fantastic venue.

The work is progressing well. The Ulster GAA council has commenced site clearance work, which is a welcome proactive move on its part. It has committed £4 million of its own money to keep the project alive, which is a clear demonstration of its commitment to being a positive and active contributor in bringing the Euro 2028 international soccer tournament to Belfast.

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

What communications has the Minister had with his colleagues in the Executive Office about how delays to tendering are hiking costs and potentially scuppering the possibility of the Euros being hosted in west Belfast in 2028?

Conor Murphy (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

The matter does not rest with the Executive Office; it rests with the Department for Communities. I would like to see the tendering documents being released. That would give us more certainty about what the cost of the project will be. I recently met the IFA and the GAA. There is a concern that any delays with this will potentially dent UEFA's confidence in the project, and it is UEFA's decision whether or not it will host the games here. I would like to see that moving at pace, as soon as it can happen. I understand that the Communities Minister is engaged with the British Government about their contribution, but that should not necessarily delay the release of tender documents. As I said, the work has begun on site, at the GAA's own risk and using its contribution. If those documents were to be released, we would get a clearer sense of what the cost might be.

Eóin Tennyson (Alliance, Upper Bann)

6. Mr Tennyson asked the Minister for the Economy whether his Department plans to introduce socialisation of grid connection charges. (AQO 358/22-27)

Conor Murphy (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

I plan to introduce socialisation of grid connection charges. Socialisation of connection charges is an important step in removing the current high cost barrier to the mass adoption of heat pumps and electric vehicles. It will create opportunities for businesses to decarbonise and is a key enabler in meeting our net zero targets.

Precise details of how that will work will need to be worked through. My Department conducted a joint call for evidence on Northern Ireland's connection charging policy with the Utility Regulator late last year. A paper summarising the responses to the joint call for evidence will be published shortly. Officials from my Department, along with the Utility Regulator, are assessing the evidence with a view to publishing an options paper for consultation in June.

Eóin Tennyson (Alliance, Upper Bann)

I thank the Minister. That is positive news. The Minister will be aware that the cost of connection, lack of market support and planning timelines are the three big barriers that are always cited by the renewables sector. Further to his announcement about connection charging, what engagement has the Minister had with his colleague in the Department for Infrastructure about planning improvement programmes?

Conor Murphy (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

Last summer, when the parties who were going to make up the Executive met, we talked about planning reform, not in the sense of planning policy but in the sense of improving planning systems and getting decisions to be taken quickly. There was broad agreement across all the parties. I have not had an opportunity for direct engagement on that, but I have no doubt that, when we produce the paper, it will take me into a conversation. The Member is correct to say that a number of factors are cited that will move us further down the renewable energy path, which we need to do. According to the targets that have been set for us for 2030 and 2050, we need to move quickly into that area. Anything that provides a barrier to that needs to be addressed, certainly when it comes to the systems of government.

Áine Murphy (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

Minister, given that grid connection tends to be a lot more difficult to achieve in rural areas, do you agree that the socialisation of costs will promote regional balance?

Conor Murphy (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

Yes, it will. The Member will know, as I do, from representing rural areas that connection charges can be prohibitive because of the isolated topography. The opportunity to socialise charges will assist people to get support for building their own homes or establishing small businesses or businesses in rural areas. It is an important factor in ensuring that we have more regional balance and move towards meeting our net zero targets.

Declan McAleer (Sinn Féin, West Tyrone)

7. Mr McAleer asked the Minister for the Economy for an update on proposals to introduce a scheme to invest in the agri-food sector. (AQO 359/22-27)

Conor Murphy (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

I recognise the importance of the agri-food processing sector to our economy and the contribution that it will make to delivering my economic strategy. My Department, through Invest NI, provides a wide range of support to the sector in areas including innovation, skills, sustainability and export development. However, the sector faces challenges including a productivity gap compared with firms in the South and in Britain. I am supportive of activities that will help to address that challenge and will consider any proposals that are presented to me in relation to support for the agri-food and drink-processing sector.

Declan McAleer (Sinn Féin, West Tyrone)

Go raibh maith agat.

[Translation: Thank you.]

I thank the Minister for his commitment. What is the potential timeline for any scheme to support the agri-food sector to be formulated and launched?

Conor Murphy (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

A project for that is under discussion. It has been through various processes, including in my Department, and is now going through a business case process in the Department of Finance. I expect that we will be in a position this year to announce support for the sector.

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

Minister, with regard to the agri-food sector and wider farm produce, will your Department be in a position to contribute in any way to the obligations of the just transition?