Northern Ireland Assembly, 11 June 2024

267 contributions from 54 members. The official report.

Members' Statements

Edwin Poots (DUP, Belfast South)

The first item in the Order Paper is Members' statements, and the usual rules apply.

Pam Cameron (DUP, South Antrim)

Last week, seemingly without consultation or notice, BBC Northern Ireland announced that it was immediately withdrawing the provision of sign language from its televised lunchtime bulletins. I find that to be a thoroughly depressing move from the BBC that will cause an even greater sense of isolation among the deaf community in Northern Ireland.

Over the past few years, I have had cause to engage at length with many deaf people in the community and, indeed, at family gatherings. I have to say that I had very much underestimated how disadvantaged that group is in society. It caused me to raise questions in this place about how we, as elected Members, interact with the deaf community here and in our constituency offices. I was pleased, therefore, to hear my friend the Communities Minister, Gordon Lyons, announce plans for a sign language Bill and more interpreters for the deaf in Northern Ireland.

There is perhaps no organisation as vocal in its cry for equality and representation of minority groups as the BBC, and yet, to suit its internal agenda, it removes a much-loved and much-needed service from viewers, who are told to go online instead. That is hardly an example of care in the community, is it? I will write to the BBC on behalf of those constituents, and I encourage other Members to do likewise. We really cannot let such a decision by a publicly funded body go unchallenged.

Linda Dillon (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

I have just come from an event upstairs marking International Day of Play. We are often accused of not playing fairly or well with one another in the Chamber, but, in truth, this is a really important day. It is important for our children and young people, because, as was said at the event, they make up 25% of our population but 100% of our future. Play is really important for their education and mental well-being and for giving them the skills for their future for the jobs that they will be able to do in our economy. Most importantly, however, play is about their well-being and resilience. We need to ensure that every child has access to play. That means that all children, no matter where they live, what their abilities or disabilities are or what challenges they have in life, should have the capacity to play. We as a Government must support them and have a policy and a framework in place to ensure that every child has accessible play.

My local council, Mid Ulster District Council, now has a policy in place to ensure that there is at least one item of accessible equipment in any new play park or in play parks where refurbishment is being carried out. That is nowhere near enough, however, for the children in our community who need more accessible play. We therefore must ensure that there are better policies from my council and every other council across the North. Additional funding is not required for most of this. Most of it is simply about a change of mindset and culture. It is about our belief in the importance of play for our children. If we want to have a better future, because — remember what I said — children are 100% of our future, and if we want them and, in turn, everyone coming behind them to have a better future, we need to take the importance of play seriously. We need to have a policy and a framework.

We are behind every other part of these islands, and that is not good enough. At one time, we were ahead of some parts. We were ahead of Scotland, but Scotland is way ahead of us now. That is not good enough, so we need to look at that. The last time that a policy framework was in place was in 2006. Perhaps we do not need something new. Perhaps we just need to look at what was there, at why it was not implemented, at what was implemented and at what we can do better. It is about a change of mindset from all of us in the Chamber, because we are the leadership, and if we have a change of mindset and culture, we will find that that will roll down into our education establishments, the health system and every other part of life: our economy, our communities and our justice system. Play is important, and we need to take it seriously.

Danny Donnelly (Alliance, East Antrim)

I congratulate Carnlough Controlled Integrated Primary School, which, last Friday, was awarded the excellence in integrated education award (EIEA). That small rural school on the east Antrim coast transformed to integrated status in 2001, the first to do so in the millennium. Since then, for more than 20 years, it has been a leading light in the field of integrated education in the area. The school provides education for children between the ages of four and 11 from all faith or no faith backgrounds, and it is committed to providing the highest standard of education for every pupil. The staff and pupils celebrated winning the award by putting on a fantastic performance in the local library of the Dr Seuss classic 'The Butter Battle Book' and having a day of play at the school. The principal, Miss Claire Mulholland, and her staff and governors are absolutely committed to the holistic development of each child in their school. They are very proud of their integrated status and live out every day the values for which integration stands.

According to the Integrated Education Fund (IEF):

"integration symbolises the new Northern Ireland where the community works side by side for the benefit of all."

In assessing the school for the award, the Northern Ireland Council for Integrated Education (NICIE) stated:

"Carnlough Controlled Integrated Primary School is an excellent example of an integrated primary school in action. Its ethos is strong and is visible in all areas of school life. The role of the school in the village and community is notable. All staff, pupils and parents shared a pride in their school. The leadership of the principal is integral to the positive relationships and a warm, inclusive environment for the children and adults alike."

There is a specific pledge in the Good Friday Agreement:

"to facilitate and encourage integrated education"

as an essential part of creating:

"a culture of tolerance at every level of society".

The teachers, children, parents and governors of Carnlough Controlled Integrated Primary School are a fantastic example of integration, providing direction for the future development of integrated education in the area and across Northern Ireland.

Steve Aiken (UUP, South Antrim)

Last Thursday, the Windsor Framework Democratic Scrutiny Committee considered, and its Alliance Party and Sinn Féin members approved, a report on regulation (EU) 2024/1157 and associated amending regulations.

The regulations refer to waste management in Northern Ireland. In the report are two comments — one from our legal advice and the second from industry — that Members who believe in effective scrutiny should consider. First, paragraph 32 of the report states:

"Having considered its commissioned legal advice, the Committee concluded that the replacement EU act significantly differs, in part, from the content or scope of the EU instrument which it amends or replaces."

Then, in its published response, Recycle NI, the trade association for waste management companies in Northern Ireland, when asked:

"Does it appear likely that the EU act would have a significant impact specific to everyday life ... in Northern Ireland ... ?",

answered yes. Its explanation included the comment:

"this could add significant costs to the treatment of recycled materials generated in Northern Ireland, which would be passed on to ratepayers and could impact on Northern Ireland's ability to meet future recycling targets ... This in turn could attract monetary fines that would impact on ratepayers or taxpayers."

Given those two very real flags that there could be a significant impact on everyday life in Northern Ireland, how do you think the Democratic Scrutiny Committee acted? The report agreed by the Alliance and Sinn Féin members stated that the Committee:

"concluded that it was unable to reach a view on whether the replacement EU act would have a significant impact specific to everyday life of communities in Northern Ireland".

It was "unable to reach" a decision, despite the clear evidence. Furthermore, the Alliance and Sinn Féin members have refused to allow dissenting opinions to be raised in the report, instead saying that, for any contrary views, reference will have to be made to Hansard.

One of the primary roles of the Assembly must be to scrutinise legislation effectively. The renewable heat incentive debacle and the recent decision of the High Court, with its references to ill-thought-out legislation, should have taught us that we can ill afford to ignore real challenges to our constituents when problems have been so clearly highlighted. The Windsor Framework Committee is supposed to act as a dispassionate safeguard against EU regulations interfering significantly with Northern Ireland in comparison with the rest of our nation. If the majority of the Committee members continue on the course that they have clearly set for themselves, it will be clear that that safeguard is not democratic, nor does it provide any scrutiny. We all deserve better.

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

Over the past few weeks, I have been contacted by hundreds of my constituents in East Derry regarding the vile and horrifying treatment of dogs in the Ballykelly area. The abuse was videotaped, shared online and viewed by thousands. It is so graphic that I cannot detail it in the Chamber.

There is an onus on us in the House, regardless of political party or stance, to reiterate our commitment to protect and preserve the safety, well-being and dignity of animals. A few weeks ago, I stood in exactly this spot and raised the heartbreaking issue of animal cruelty in Northern Ireland, the scale and prevalence of which is, frankly, unbelievable. Our councils have failed to adequately address the issue, and the PSNI continues to fail to prevent it and to adequately hold those responsible to account. We in the Chamber must take the action that is so desperately needed.

In order to finally make the progress that is so badly needed on this important issue, I call today for the establishment of an animal welfare commissioner and commission to tackle it. We have seen the success of the Scottish National Party initiative in Scotland on the creation of such a unit to provide the clarity of governance needed to properly protect wild and companion animals. The Assembly desperately needs expert guidance, and the welfare of our animals requires such oversight.

For far too long, we have seen disturbing images and videos of depraved people carrying out depraved and cruel acts on innocent and helpless animals. We must now act to put an end to that disgraceful ongoing reality. The establishment of a commission will set the stage for evidence-based policy on the protection of animals and will provide the necessary guidance for legislative and non-legislative routes to foster an environment in which all animals finally get the protection that they rightfully deserve and that my constituents and those of Members across the House deserve to see.

Now is the time for action. Now is the time to establish an animal welfare commission and commissioner. For too long have we witnessed horrific actions of cruelty and violence towards animals. We really can make a change. That is why, today, I will write to the AERA Minister to demand that change urgently.

Philip McGuigan (Sinn Féin, North Antrim)

On Saturday, I will join others from all over the island at a major event in the SSE Arena in Belfast organised by Ireland's Future. The event is a significant and important opportunity to engage in the conversation about how we shape the path towards a new Ireland. Ireland's Future is a group established to advocate, promote, debate and have discussions about Ireland's future, particularly focused on the potential that exists for new constitutional arrangements on the island.

I commend Ireland's Future for organising this pivotal event and providing opportunities and spaces for this important conversation to flourish. I encourage all MLAs to read a number of insightful documents published on its website that cover topics as diverse as rights, citizenship and identity; planning for a strong all-island economy; and the potential for a world-class, all-island national health service. This Saturday's event, entitled "Pathway to Change", will cover those subjects, as well as hosting discussions on the labour movement,; arts and culture; and disability matters in a changing Ireland. There will also be an important discussion focused on perspectives from those in the Protestant community.

The conversation for constitutional change in Ireland is getting louder. It is getting more detailed, and its benefits are becoming increasingly apparent. I encourage everyone with an interest in their future and the future of the people of this island to attend Saturday's event at the SSE Arena in Belfast.

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

Next month — July — marks 17 years since the Northern Ireland Executive confirmed their acceptance of the A5 western transport corridor proposals to be taken forward: 17 years. In that time, 56 people have died on the A5 road, and thousands have been injured. This week, I have been alerted every day about serious accidents that have occurred on the A5. Luckily, this week, we have had no fatalities, but 56 people have died in that short space of time.

The road is dangerous. It puts our citizen's lives at risk; it does not discriminate. It claims the lives of husbands and wives, sons and daughters, neighbours, friends and people throughout our community. Those people, for the record, were Janeen Black, Colin Thornton, Tony Thompson, John Walker, an unnamed lorry driver in 2007, Leslie Edgar, Mary Elizabeth Scott, Desmond Bingham, Pat McCourt, Shane Caldwell, Zoltan Szabo, Darren McAnenly, Mary Wasson, an unnamed female pedestrian in 2009, Zbigniew Bartnicki, Declan Harvey, Gareth Gallagher, Simon Glenn, Peter Fugill, Cathal Donaghy, Kovacs Szabolcs, Leo McKeever, Alexander McEntee, Patsy McCroary, Kieran McSorley, Michael McDonald, Aaron McDonald, Sean McElwee, Neil McAleer, Shane Rafferty, Caoimhe O'Brien, Maurice McCloughan, Killian Doherty, Margaret McLaughlin, Kathleen McGarvey, Sean Reid, an unnamed male in 2018, an unnamed female in 2018, Darren Gallagher, Aaron Harkin, Nathan Corrigan, Petey McNamee, Peter Finnegan — one of the most horrific accidents on the A5; those three young men lost their lives — Jonathan Reilly, David Gilmore, Sammy Patterson, Niall McDonald, John Rafferty, Julia McSorley, Christine McKane, Dan McKane, an unnamed passenger in 2023, and, since the House returned in February, Caolan Devlin, Oonagh Burns, Kamile Vaicikonyte and Jamie Moore. Those are the lives lost on that road.

We need the A5 scheme announced and delivered before any further pain is added to the people of our communities. We think on them all and their families.

Pat Sheehan (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

Rinneadh Lá Domhanda na nAigéan a cheiliúradh Dé Sathairn. Bíonn an lá sin ann gach bliain lena chur i gcuimhne do gach duine an tábhacht a bhaineann leis na haigéin. Is iad na haigéin scamháin an domhain. Tig breis agus 50% den ocsaigin atá againn ó na haigéin. Is iontu fosta atá bunús na bithéagsúlachta ar domhan.

Ach tá na haigéin ag dul i ndrochdhóigh: tá 90% de stoic na n-iasc mór ídithe; tá 50% de sceir coiréil scriosta; agus, achan lá, baintear níos mó as an fharraige ná a thig léi a sholáthar. Níl sin inbhuanaithe. Ach, mar a dúirt eagraithe Lá Domhanda na nAigéan, tá an saol mór bodhar ag éisteacht le figiúirí. Ní leor figiúirí le daoine a ghríosú, agus, mar sin de, ní raibh sna hiarrachtaí a rinneadh go dtí seo leis na haigéin a chosaint ach cneasú thar goimh.

Má tá athrú le teacht ar an scéal, ní mór dúinn múscailt, agus sin an téama a bhí ag Lá Domhanda na nAigéan i mbliana: múscailte go grinneall. Tá na Náisiúin Aontaithe ag iarraidh gluaiseacht saoránach a mhúscailt ar son na n-aigéan. Tá siad ag iarraidh sin a dhéanamh trí lucht déanta beartas, ceannairí dúchais, eolaithe, an earnáil phríobháideach, agus gníomhairí óige a thabhairt le chéile. Caithfimid uilig go léir ár mana faoi na haigéin a athrú. Caithfimid teacht ar dhóigheanna leis na haigéin a chosaint agus bainisteoireacht inbhuanaithe a dhéanamh orthu.

Ar an oileán seo againne, tá an tAigéan Atlantach ar an chósta thiar, an Mhuir Cheilteach ar an chósta theas, Muir Éireann ar an chósta thoir, agus Sruth na Maoile ar an chósta thuaidh. Mar sin de, a Cheann Comhairle, tá súil agam go mbeidh muidne anseo in Éirinn in ann ár bpáirt a dhéanamh sa ghluaiseacht ar son na n-aigéan.

Edwin Poots (DUP, Belfast South)

That concludes Members' statements.

Ministerial Statement

Edwin Poots (DUP, Belfast South)

I have received notice from the Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs that he wishes to make a statement. Before I call the Minister, I remind Members that they should keep their questions concise.

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

Steve Aiken (UUP, South Antrim)

Minister.

Andrew Muir (Alliance, North Down)

With your permission, Mr Deputy Speaker, I wish to make a statement in compliance with section 52 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 regarding the twenty-eighth North/South Ministerial Council (NSMC) agriculture meeting, which was held in the NSMC joint secretariat offices, Armagh, on Wednesday 29 May 2024.

Junior Minister Aisling Reilly MLA, junior Minister Pam Cameron MLA and I represented the Northern Ireland Executive at the meeting. The Irish Government were represented by Charlie McConalogue TD, Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine, and Heather Humphreys TD, Minister for Rural and Community Development. Minister McConalogue chaired the meeting. The statement has been agreed with junior Minister Reilly and junior Minister Cameron, and I make it on behalf of us all.

It was a positive meeting, and a lot of progress was made. I will take each paper in the order in which it was discussed.

On the review of the work programme, the NSMC noted that officials from the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs (DAERA), the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine (DAFM) and the Department of Rural and Community Development (DRCD) had concluded a review of the work programme for the NSMC agriculture sector and agreed a revised programme for the sector.

On cooperation on animal health, the Council noted the continuing work and progress achieved on the delivery of the ‘All-Island Animal Health and Welfare Strategy Action Plan’ since the last NSMC agriculture meeting in November 2020. Ministers welcomed the establishment in 2023 of the all-island surveillance forum. The NSMC acknowledged the ongoing efforts by officials from both jurisdictions to seek ways to maximise existing cooperation on animal health and welfare, including the joint DAERA/DAFM exercise on contingency planning for swine fever, which was planned for June 2024. Ministers looked forward to the continuation of practical and effective cooperation on animal health and welfare and disease control in both jurisdictions in order that the health and welfare of livestock is maintained at the highest level.

On cooperation on plant health and pesticides, Ministers welcomed the ongoing commitment of DAFM and DAERA to the shared objective of achieving and maintaining good plant health status on the island.

The Council noted the ongoing collaboration and sharing of expertise in training; scientific research; diagnostic capability; risk anticipation; risk management, including contingency planning; and risk communication in plant health. The Council welcomed the intention to conduct a joint DAFM/DAERA simulation exercise in 2024 to test plant health contingency plans. Ministers welcomed the continued sharing of expertise and training between DAFM and the Agri-Food and Biosciences Institute (AFBI) — there are lots of acronyms in the statement — as the result of DAFM's acting as a national reference laboratory for DAERA and AFBI. Ministers noted the continuing cooperation in the regulation of placing on the market and using pesticides.

The NSMC welcomed the continuing cooperation between both Administrations on farm safety and the ongoing work to improve it. The Council also welcomed the first joint meeting of the farm safety partnerships from both jurisdictions, which took place in February this year.

With regard to cooperation on rural development, the Council welcomed the establishment of the North/South rural policy forum, which provides a mechanism to share information and best practice and to identify opportunities for joint working on issues that impact on rural areas and rural communities. Ministers noted the cooperation between the two jurisdictions on rural development, as well as the strong commitment of both Administrations to share information and best practice on rural development and to enhance cooperation on it.

Ministers acknowledged the good collaboration between DAERA and DAFM in maximising the drawdown of EU funding under Horizon 2020 and Horizon Europe. The Council welcomed the €106·6 million in funding secured by successful applications from both Administrations for projects in the agriculture, forestry, food, marine and bioeconomy sectors under Horizon 2020, as well as the €4·5 million secured to date under Horizon Europe.

Ministers noted the progress made in joint funding bids from both jurisdictions under the DAFM national competitive calls, including €10·8 million by DAFM and £3·8 million by DAERA for 12 projects since 2021. The Council noted that seven projects involving total funding of €7·6 million have been funded over the eight years of the US-Ireland R&D Partnership in agriculture. Ministers welcomed the announcement of a €9 million funding initiative to support the development of the all-island bioeconomy in the agriculture and marine sectors, with co-funding from the Government of Ireland's Shared Island initiative, DAFM and DAERA. The NSMC welcomed the ongoing consideration by DAFM and DAERA of further possibilities for research collaboration under existing or new measures.

There was also a presentation on water quality from an agriculture perspective. Ministers noted the presentation on water quality and the way in which science and innovation are being harnessed to improve water quality from an agricultural perspective.

The Council welcomed the ongoing cooperation between both Administrations on addressing climate change and the loss of biodiversity in the agriculture sector. Ministers agreed that officials from DAFM and DAERA will explore the potential for increasing North/South cooperation on those issues.

The Council agreed to hold its next agriculture meeting in autumn 2024. I welcome the re-establishment of formal NSMC meetings and look forward to working with my counterparts in the South in all areas of cooperation in the agriculture sector. I commend the statement to the Assembly and welcome any questions.

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

Thank you, Minister, for the statement. A lot of areas were covered, and I seek a bit more detail on some of them.

You mentioned cooperation on rural development and on sharing information and best practice. Will there be some mechanism for providing us with more detail on those, aside from today's statement, of course? What are the actualities when it comes to cooperation between both jurisdictions on those matters of mutual interest and concern?

Secondly, you stated that Ministers noted a presentation on water quality and the science and innovation that are being harnessed. Does that include blue-green algae? I know that parts of the rest of the island suffer from that plague in our waterways, although maybe not to the same extent as we do in Lough Neagh. Is there any complementarity in research or scientific work that could be undertaken on an all-island basis?

Andrew Muir (Alliance, North Down)

I thank the Member for his question. Rural development was discussed at the NSMC, and I also discussed it with one of the junior Ministers on St Patrick's Day in Brussels. There is a real opportunity to take learnings from what the South has done and use those to help shape rural affairs policy in the North. I will want engage with the Committee and relevant stakeholders as we set out our road map on rural development policy. There is lots to learn. We need to develop a policy. I have heard the Committee's concerns about the need to shape rural development policy in Northern Ireland. I want to engage with the Committee and stakeholders on that. It is critical that we do it in a process of co-design.

In Armagh yesterday, we talked about blue-green algae in the environment and the aquaculture and marine sectoral meetings. There is a real desire from the South to work with us on this, taking account of the fact that the catchment area of Lough Neagh incorporates parts of the South. Hopefully, the Executive can agree the Lough Neagh report and action plan, which provides a template for lots more North/South cooperation on this issue, particularly around science and research.

Declan McAleer (Sinn Féin, West Tyrone)

I thank the Minister for his statement. The statement refers to cooperation on animal health issues across the island. We have a serious issue with bovine TB. We have a rate of 10% in the North, compared with a rate of 5% in the South, and it costs your Department £53 million. Was there any discussion on cooperation on testing and preventative regimes, particularly in border areas?

Andrew Muir (Alliance, North Down)

I thank the Member for his important question. Not a day goes past when the issue of TB is not raised with me. The level of infection in our herds is not sustainable for my Department nor for farmers in Northern Ireland, so we need to take action on it. I am meeting the Chief Veterinary Officer this afternoon on possible actions. Hopefully, we will outline those over the summer. At the Committee last week, I said that I am happy to appear before the Committee over the summer to talk through those. There are opportunities for North/South cooperation, because we have mutual challenges. I am looking forward to engaging with the South on what they have done, and how we can work together to address this issue. This is critical for me. I realise the importance of acting, and I will not be found wanting.

William Irwin (DUP, Newry and Armagh)

I thank the Minister for his statement. To add to the Deputy Chair's question, TB is a serious issue. Was it discussed at the meeting yesterday, or was it not? It is important to learn lessons from the situation in the Irish Republic, where levels of TB are much lower than ours.

Andrew Muir (Alliance, North Down)

I thank the Member for his question. The issue of TB featured in the papers for the North/South Ministerial Council that we are talking about. There is a need to do a lot more work, North/South and east-west, because there are also learnings to take from GB. I get the concerns. The difference between now and January of this year is that there are now Ministers in post. I have been working with officials. I tasked my Chief Veterinary Officer on the first day that he started the job to look at the issue afresh. Over the summer, we will bring forward proposals for action. That will involve taking learnings, North/South and east-west. That will be a key feature, and I am keen to do it.

John Blair (Alliance, South Antrim)

I will continue on a theme already established and ask the Minister whether he has any plans to increase dedicated cross-border working on animal welfare such as that done previously, as mentioned in the statement, on the African swine fever contingency plan.

Andrew Muir (Alliance, North Down)

I thank the Member for his question. Animal health and welfare, as outlined in the statement, was discussed at the meeting. It is a key area of cooperation, North/South, but a lot more can be done. DAFM in the South is looking at a ban on the importing of dogs with cropped ears and a prohibition on shock collars. I am keen to explore similar measures in Northern Ireland, resources and time permitting. There needs to be North/South cooperation on animal welfare. I am meeting the Chief Veterinary Officer this afternoon about not just TB but animal welfare.

It is important that, on the road ahead, I am able to outline my vision for how we improve protections against animal cruelty in Northern Ireland. I am very clear that that should be a process of co-design. There are a number of areas where we need to take action. I want to engage with stakeholders to get their views on these issues. I also want to engage with my counterpart in the South to see what they are doing and how we can work together. That engagement will have lots of mutual benefit in planning the road ahead.

I am aware of the calls for an all-Ireland register of animal welfare offenders. I hope to pick that up with my counterpart down South. I am prepared to look at the evidence base on that and, most importantly, engage with stakeholders to see how we can look at the issue alongside everything else. I am not ruling anything out. I will engage with stakeholders, the Chief Veterinary Officer and officials to scope out how we can have the best and highest protections against animal cruelty in Northern Ireland.

Nicola Brogan (Sinn Féin, West Tyrone)

Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire.

[Translation: I thank the Minister.]

On addressing climate change and loss of biodiversity, it seems sensible to have a joined-up approach to biodiversity loss on our island. What scope is there for a truly integrated approach to the issue through the development of something like an all-Ireland biodiversity strategy?

Andrew Muir (Alliance, North Down)

I thank the Member for her question. There is a lot of merit in that. From the discussions that we had yesterday on climate change, the challenges in the North are similar to those in the South. I am quite keen to explore that because, North/South and east-west, we will be much stronger if we work together on this, particularly in investment in science and research.

Andrew McMurray (Alliance, South Down)

I thank the Minister. In developing a new rural affairs policy, will the opportunity for cross-border cooperation be considered?

Andrew Muir (Alliance, North Down)

I thank the Member for his question, and the answer is yes. We had discussions on that on St Patrick's Day, and, obviously, as part of the discussions that occurred as part of the NSMC meeting. There is lots of stuff happening in the South that we want to take learning from, but we also want to have a rural development policy that reflects the real issues and challenges of today, particularly the place of women in rural communities and childcare, because those are the issues that are facing society today. I want to do that in a process of co-design, but I will engage with my colleagues, North/South and east-west, to see how best we can have a policy that meets the needs of people in rural areas of Northern Ireland.

Paula Bradshaw (Alliance, Belfast South)

Thank you, Minister, for your statement. Did Lough Neagh come up? If so, what discussion took place and what actions came out of it?

Andrew Muir (Alliance, North Down)

I thank the Member for her question. Lough Neagh was discussed as part of the meeting, but it was also discussed yesterday as part of our sectoral meetings on the environment, aquaculture and the marine. There is a wide range of opportunities for cooperation, North/South, which will be predicated on the Lough Neagh report and action plan, which, hopefully, will be agreed by the Executive soon. It is imperative that we agree that report and take action. I was updated by officials this morning that, this year, there have been 33 reports of blue-green algae in Northern Ireland at 19 sites, so it is absolutely critical that we take action on that. At the meeting, there was a presentation on water quality and how the North/South issues have been faced. I want to move forward on these issues and take the learning from the South but also explore opportunities for cooperation.

Dealing with the issues associated with Lough Neagh is based on four pillars: education; investment and incentivisation; regulation; and enforcement. There are many areas within those pillars where there is real potential for cross-border cooperation. For example, setting up a science platform and taking the North/South learnings on training and engagement with our farmers. Our farmers are part of the solution here, and lots of stuff has been done down South that we want to take learning from. On catchment areas and one-to-one engagement with farmers, we are doing that in the North and in the South, and we need to take the learning and see how we can do that much better and roll it out further in Northern Ireland.

On incentivisation, we are doing stuff in the North that we can share with the South, such as better management of slurry as part of the small business research initiative (SBRI) and increasing tree planting. On regulation, there are areas such as the nutrients action programme and the third river basin management plan that we are looking at, North and South. Down South, they have set up a fertiliser database, which is something that we want to consider in the North. On enforcement, there are lessons to be learned, North and South, on how we can do that better. Let us be clear: there are opportunities for action, and there is clear plan ahead through the Lough Neagh report and action plan. I want us to get cracking and be able to give people in Northern Ireland hope that we are turning the situation around, working in partnership in the Assembly and Executive, North/South and east-west.

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

I thank the Minister for his statement. With regard to the all-island animal health and welfare strategy, was access to veterinary medicines discussed, given that the end of the grace period is coming and the potential implications for animal health and welfare and, by extension, for farmers from the costs associated with those changes?

Andrew Muir (Alliance, North Down)

I thank the Member for his question. That was not discussed specifically at the meeting, but I am aware of the concerns about it. I will meet another stakeholder group about that matter today. Further to the debate that we had in the Assembly a few weeks ago, I am working with officials on the correspondence that I promised to send to the UK Government on that. That correspondence will be focused on proposed solutions, because solutions are what we need to focus on when it comes to EU exit. It is about being pragmatic and constructive in this place and bringing forward ways in which the UK Government and the EU can bring solutions to aid the resolution of that issue. That is what I intend to set out in the weeks ahead.

Peter McReynolds (Alliance, Belfast East)

Thank you, Minister, for your statement. Can you provide an update on the sustainable production of biomethane?

Andrew Muir (Alliance, North Down)

I thank the Member for his question. I am quite excited about that. It is quite good. I do not think that I would have been so excited about it a number of months ago. It is an opportunity for Northern Ireland to showcase itself. We do ourselves down too much here. We have a problem with slurry here in Northern Ireland, but we have solutions. For that issue, we have the small business research initiative. In phase 1, six local companies developed proposals for that, and we are moving into phase 2. Essentially, rather than looking at something as a problem, the initiative looks at it as an opportunity and a resource. That fits in well with the Lough Neagh report and action plan. We are doing a number of things in Northern Ireland that we need to shout about. As well as that initiative, there is the soil nutrient health scheme and future farm support. There is a positive future ahead for us. I am keen to sell that to people once we launch phase 2 of the initiative, because it allows us to bring solutions to environmental problems and challenges for the farming community.

Steve Aiken (UUP, South Antrim)

Some Members indicated that they wanted to come in, but they were not here when the Minister started making his statement, so, regrettably, they will not be called this time. I appreciate that we are running slightly ahead of time.

That concludes questions on the statement. Members may take their ease while we get ready for the next item of business, which will be a motion on the legislative programme.

(Mr Speaker in the Chair)

Executive Committee Business

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

I beg to move

That this Assembly notes the Executive's legislation programme as presented by the First Minister and deputy First Minister in their statement of 23 May 2024.

Edwin Poots (DUP, Belfast South)

The Business Committee has agreed to allow up to two hours for the debate. The proposer of the motion will have 10 minutes in which to propose and 10 minutes in which to make a winding-up speech. All other Members who are called to speak will have five minutes.

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

On 23 May, the deputy First Minister and I made a written statement to advise the Assembly of the legislation that Ministers on the Executive Committee intend to introduce in the period up until the end of this calendar year, subject to Executive agreement on the content of each Bill. It may be useful for me to begin by setting out for Members the principal considerations that informed the preparation of the programme.

The context in which the programme is being presented differs from that in previous years. The continuity of policy and legislative development that would normally have been maintained between mandates and sessions of the Assembly has undoubtedly been disrupted. With the return to full operation of the institutions in February, Ministers inherited a wide range of issues that may ultimately require the enactment of legislation. In the absence of Ministers, the development of policy across those areas had not been consistent and, in many cases, could not be translated into firm proposals for Bills. For the purposes of the legislative programme that we have presented to the Assembly, the Executive have therefore focused on the proposals that, we believe, can be introduced as Bills in the remainder of 2024. We wish to emphasise, however, that the programme by no means represents the totality of the Executive's legislative ambitions for the mandate.

Work is ongoing in Departments as the policy development process resumes, and we anticipate returning to the Chamber later this year with a further programme setting out the Executive's legislative intentions until the end of the 2024-25 session. The programme will be monitored regularly to assess progress and identify emerging legislation.

I will now turn to the programme itself and briefly set out the purpose of each Bill, as outlined in our statement. Members will be familiar with two of the Minister for Communities' four Bills, as the Defective Premises Bill and the Pensions (Extension of Automatic Enrolment) Bill were introduced in the Assembly on 20 May and have already passed Second Stage. The Child Support Enforcement Bill is scheduled for introduction on 17 June and will make provision for the enforcement of child support and other maintenance in order to maintain parity with Westminster legislation. To recognise, promote and protect British Sign Language (BSL) and Irish Sign Language (ISL), the Minister for Communities also proposes to introduce a sign language Bill.

The Minister for the Economy will introduce legislation relating to his Department's financial powers, legislation to provide a new function for the Utility Regulator and legislation to make provision for the renewable heat incentive (RHI) scheme. A financial assistance Bill will resolve issues with some of the Department for the Economy's financial powers. A Utility Regulator decarbonisation powers Bill will provide the Utility Regulator with a new function to enable it to support the Department for the Economy in the delivery of the Executive's energy strategy and targets under the Climate Change Act 2022. An RHI scheme Bill will make provision for the future of the scheme.

The Minister of Finance will introduce the normal Budget Bills as part of the annual financial cycle and a financial provisions Bill to reconcile several routine financial matters across Departments. The Minister will also introduce a Fiscal Council Bill to establish the Fiscal Council on a permanent, statutory basis in order to bring greater transparency and independent scrutiny to the current and future state of local public finances.

The Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs will focus his legislative plans on dilapidated buildings and altering provisions relating to EU food legacy. A dilapidation Bill will confer functions on councils to provide them with a modern, fit-for-purpose regime to tackle dilapidated and often dangerous buildings and sites. In addition, the Minister proposes to introduce an agriculture Bill to provide powers to allow the Department to transition from or end the legacy EU fruit and vegetable aid scheme and EU agri-food information and promotion scheme as they apply locally.

The former Minister of Health introduced the first Bill of the mandate — the Hospital Parking Charges Bill — on 15 April. After process by accelerated passage, it received Royal Assent on 16 May. His successor proposes to introduce a further two Bills on the modernisation of public health legislation and adult protection. A public health Bill will replace and widen the scope of the Public Health Act 1967, which is over 50 years old and needs to be updated to make it fit for purpose. The adult protection Bill is a response to the Commissioner for Older People's 'Home Truths' investigation into Dunmurry Manor care home and the certified professional environmental auditor's independent review of safeguarding and care at Dunmurry Manor. It will introduce additional protections to underpin and strengthen the adult protection process and align it with best practice in other jurisdictions.

The Minister of Justice plans to introduce a justice Bill, primarily relating to the retention of fingerprints and DNA profiles and other provisions about child bail, remand and custody.

The Minister for Infrastructure will introduce a water, flooding and sustainable drainage Bill to provide new and additional powers across seven areas of water, flooding and drainage legislation.

Finally, as First and deputy First Minister, we will introduce a Bill on a mother-and-baby homes, Magdalene laundries and workhouses public inquiry and financial redress. Its purpose is to establish a statutory public inquiry to investigate issues of individual, institutional, organisational and state responsibility for human rights violations experienced in mother-and-baby institutions, Magdalene laundries and workhouses between 1922 and 1995. It will further include provision for the Executive Office to establish a redress service to administer financial redress schemes.

On behalf of the Executive Committee, we commend the legislative programme to the Assembly. We hope that Members will engage positively with the Ministers responsible for the Bills as we seek to impact positively in a practical and meaningful way the communities that we have been elected to serve.

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

I am pleased to debate the legislative programme for 2024, such as it is. We are told by the First Minister that the programme, which was laid on 23 May by written ministerial statement, does not represent the totality of the Executive's ambitions in relation to legislation. All I can say is, "Thank goodness for that", because, when compared with some of the promises that have been contained in motions from Executive parties over the past four and a half months and with the promises that have been made in PR photo opportunities, in videos by Ministers and, indeed, in party manifestos, what is in the legislative programme is, I am afraid, pretty thin gruel. I acknowledge that this is a three-year mandate. Curtailed and constrained by public finances as it is, it is still a significant period in which significant legislative achievements can be met.

Before I make broader comments, I want to go through some of the specifics in the legislative programme. In framing some of my comments, it would be helpful to know, perhaps from the First Minister or the deputy First Minister, whoever is winding up, to understand which of the Bills were in draft form when the Executive were restored in February or, indeed, which of them were in draft form when the Executive collapsed in 2022. Several of the Bills that we are talking about here are Bills that have been talked about for a long time, but there are lots of other Bills that are not on this programme that have also been talked about for a long time.

I commend a couple of the Bills in particular that, I am glad, are coming forward. The Minister for Communities has been commended, deservedly, for working with his colleagues to introduce the Defective Premises Bill in relatively quick time. The sign language Bill, clearly, is important progress for people in that community. There are some welcome tidying-up measures from the Minister for the Economy around the Utility Regulator's powers and the RHI scheme, but they are, as far as I am aware, legislation that has been in the works for a long time. There is nothing particularly that aligns to the Economy Minister's grand vision, much of which I agree with in principle. There are no legislative indications of how any of that will be delivered. There is certainly not the ambitious workers' rights legislation that has been promised by the Economy Minister and his party. Let us bear it in mind that these are simply Bills to be introduced this year. I am sure that few of them will be passed this year. I am glad that the Minister of Finance is introducing a Bill to put the Fiscal Council on a statutory footing. That is most welcome, and I have been calling for it for some time, as others have.

The Bill from the Health Minister to respond to the findings in relation to Dunmurry Manor is, of course, welcome. There are other measures, including the Minister of Justice's updating of the rules around fingerprints and DNA profiles. I have put on record my disappointment that the Minister of Justice has walked away from her and her party's long-standing commitment to a stand-alone hate crime Bill. I hear sighs from my colleagues on the Alliance Benches, but my job is holding the Executive to account, and I will not be deterred from doing that, no matter what Members from Executive parties think. That is what the Opposition are here for, and we will do that job.

Under the previous item of business, we had a discussion about the North/South Ministerial Council agriculture meeting, and you, Mr Speaker, are from an agricultural background. There is a saying in agricultural circles in Texas that certain farmers can be all hat and no cattle. Well, I would say that, looking at some of what has come out of the Executive over the past four or five months, the public of Northern Ireland might well conclude that, so far, the Executive is all hat and no cattle. We have had dozens upon dozens of motions promising everything from action on Lough Neagh to support for childcare — I admit that there has been some spending on childcare from the Education Minister, which I commend — and a range of other things. Indeed, this morning, the First Minister was saying that Sinn Féin is bringing forward a motion to support uniform costs. That is enormously welcome and urgent, but, so far as I understand, that will come via a private Member's Bill; it is not even in the Executive legislative programme.

All of those motions laid out vital aspirations with which we do not disagree. When will they be implemented? When will we see an actual Programme for Government? It is nearly 130 days into the mandate, after hundreds of meetings between civil servants and Executive parties between 2022 and 2024, and we still do not have that signed off.

Edwin Poots (DUP, Belfast South)

The Member's time is up.

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

Although we will not force it to a Division, we will not support the legislative programme.

Edwin Poots (DUP, Belfast South)

The Member's time is up.

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

It is all hat and no cattle. It is time for delivery.

Paula Bradshaw (Alliance, Belfast South)

Although I am Chair of the Committee for the Executive Office, I speak in my capacity as an Alliance MLA. In that capacity, I endorse the legislative programme and will provide my party's initial response.

I trust that what is before us will indeed be what is delivered. Since the First Minister and deputy First Minister are presenting it as their programme, there must be no excuse for any delay in bringing forward the Bills contained in it across all Departments, including those that may usefully be introduced before the summer.

In the Executive Office, the introduction of legislation to set up a public inquiry and redress scheme for the victims and survivors of mother-and-baby institutions, Magdalene laundries and workhouses is, of course, welcome; indeed, it is long overdue. The inquiry will, it is stated, address human rights violations, and it is correct that it should do that. However, as with what we refer to as historical institutional abuse, we should call this out for what it really was: child abuse.

I note also that the statement uses the term "mother-and-baby homes" with reference to the planned Bill but that, later in the statement, the reference is to "mother-and-baby institutions". I urge them to use the term "institutions" in the legislation, as, I am afraid, there was nothing homely about those places.

With regard to Justice, the statement refers to a justice Bill, a modernisation Bill arising from the justice (miscellaneous provisions) Bill agreed to by the Executive back in 2020. Given the timescale, it is essential that that Bill be brought forward before the summer, and I trust that the First Minister and deputy First Minister will be able to confirm later in the debate whether that will be the case.

In Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs we have two important Bills: the dilapidation Bill, which aims to confer functions on councils to tackle dilapidated buildings and sites, and the agriculture Bill on the continuation of EU legacy funding. Those are important modernisation bills that are most obviously of significance to rural communities.

In Health, we have concerns about the adult protection Bill, even though we fully accept its intent. We do not believe that mandatory CCTV is legally competent, and we fear delays in the subsequent regulations. We trust that the new Minister can address those concerns as a priority as a step in restoring families’ confidence. It is important legislation, and we want to make sure that it works. We also recognise the need to update our public health legislation but will reserve our position until we see what is in the Bill. I acknowledge, however, that the Health Minister provided some clarity on that at Question Time yesterday.

In Economy and Finance, we have the financial assistance Bill, on which the Department for the Economy is consulting but which, I understand, will probably transfer to the Department of Finance. The Bill seeks to clarify the Department's powers to provide financial assistance in the interests of the economy, to form companies, to exempt or remit certain fees relevant to Tourism NI, and to make other amendments, including to departmental accounting. We welcome those steps while reserving our position on the final Bill, depending on the detail that will follow the consultation.

In Economy, the Utility Regulator decarbonisation powers Bill will be the subject of an Alliance motion later today, so little more needs to be said here. We feel, however, that it falls short of extending the regulator's powers to cover oil, which my Alliance Party colleagues and I regard as a wasted opportunity. It is also concerning that we do not yet appear to have had Executive agreement on an RHI scheme Bill, despite its appearance in the statement.

In Finance, we support the Fiscal Council Bill to put the Fiscal Council on a statutory footing, but we would like its remit to include a specific requirement on assessing the costs of division. We recognise that this is a busy legislative period for the Department, with various Budget Bills and other legislation, such as on no-fault divorces, planned for later in the mandate.

Kate Nicholl (Alliance, Belfast South)

Will the Member give way?

Paula Bradshaw (Alliance, Belfast South)

Yes.

Kate Nicholl (Alliance, Belfast South)

Does the Member agree that it is important to introduce as many Bills as possible before the summer in order to allow time for consultation and to be ready for scrutiny by Committees in the autumn?

Edwin Poots (DUP, Belfast South)

The Member has an extra minute.

Paula Bradshaw (Alliance, Belfast South)

Thank you. I agree with the Member. It would be a wasted opportunity if we did not get as many Bills out to consultation as possible over the summer. I thank the Member for her comment.

In Communities, we saw regulations yesterday on the Pensions (Extension of Automatic Enrolment) Bill and the child support enforcement Bill. They align with the rest of the UK and should lead to notable efficiencies of clear benefit to the population as a whole, so, of course, we support them. Personally, I warmly welcome the inclusion in the statement of a sign language Bill, although I hoped that it would have already been introduced during the mandate. My own view, which is well rehearsed, is that the Bill's contents should have been included the package of language and identity legislation passed in 2022, arising, at least in part, from the negotiations between parties after the institutions collapsed in 2017.

In Infrastructure, we welcome the water, flooding and sustainable drainage Bill, with the seven elements now contained in it, including expanded hosepipe bans. We will check the details as the Bill progresses, as it is important to avoid any unintended consequences. Two elements have been omitted from the Bill, on powers of entry and compensation to landowners for alleviating flood risk.

The legislative programme is a good start, but, of course, it needs to be accompanied by a Programme for Government. I recognise the difficulty that the calling of the UK election has caused, as noted by the deputy First Minister yesterday during Question Time, but we will need to see a Programme for Government urgently afterwards —

Edwin Poots (DUP, Belfast South)

The Member's time is up.

Paula Bradshaw (Alliance, Belfast South)

— to give greater purpose to this set of Bills.

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

Gabhaim buíochas leis an Chéad-Aire as ucht an rúin ar maidin.

[Translation: I thank the First Minister for moving the motion this morning.]

I want to be clear: the leader of the Opposition will force a Division, which means opposing sign language.

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

Will the Member give way?

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

No, I will not, Matthew. Thank you.

It means opposing sign language and opposing protections for some of the most vulnerable adults through the regulation and protection of safeguarding.

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

We are not forcing a Division, Carál. You are misquoting me.

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

Sorry?

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

I said that we are not forcing a Division.

Edwin Poots (DUP, Belfast South)

Order.

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

OK, you will not force a Division — thanks for that clarity — but you are going to vote against the motion

[Interruption.]

You are going to vote against a public inquiry into mother-and-baby institutions and Magdalene laundries. You are also opposing fiscal transparency through putting the Fiscal Council on a statutory footing. It is important to make that clear. As we would say in the New Lodge rather than Texas, that is all fluff and no stuff. We will move on.

I welcome the Executive's programme of legislation for this year. It will probably be a minimum. It is an ambitious programme of legislative work, given that many of the issues have been around for some time. It is a demonstration of the Executive moving forward, and that is to be welcomed. Notwithstanding the challenges and the work that is ongoing to ensure that the British Government provide funding that meets our objective need, it is good that, at least, there is some funding to underwrite the legislative programme. I hope, as I am sure will others, that the Executive will progress the Programme for Government very soon.

It is clear from what the First Minister said that the Executive's legislative programme is the result of the advanced stages of work on policies from the Department. Paula, the Chair of TEO Committee, outlined some of the issues around scrutiny for TEO. I am sure that members of other Committees will do likewise. It is also important that the programme will not be just the final piece of the legislation. I am encouraged to hear that other legislation will perhaps be brought forward, followed by a statement by the First Minister and the deputy First Minister.

I welcome in particular, as I said, the introduction of legislation on the Fiscal Council, because it needs to be put on a statutory footing. Although I do not sit on the Finance Committee, in my opinion, that will ensure greater independent transparency and scrutiny. That is important work for our Finance Minister.

I am delighted to see the sign language Bill. I have been working on that matter for a long time. It should have been brought forward before. I do not agree with the format that you outlined, Paula, but it will be welcomed, particularly by the deaf and hearing-impaired community, because, effectively, without putting it on a statutory footing, unintended consequences and discrimination will continue.

I also welcome the adult protection Bill. It is very important, as the First Minister said, in the aftermath of the review of Dunmurry Manor care home. That all must be done using a human-rights approach. At the core of the legislation, every process must be implemented to uphold the dignity and rights of some of those who are the most vulnerable. I have looked at the legislation that the Health Minister will introduce, and I would like to see an individual duty of candour in Health and Social Care, particularly given the hyponatraemia and neurology scandals.

When it comes to mother-and-baby institutions, Magdalene laundries and the need for a public inquiry and everything that we have heard, I want to see an acknowledgement that, while financial redress is important, it is about not only acknowledgement but inclusion. We have listened to the members of the consultative forum and learned that they are not happy with the officials' approach. I want to see a greater level of inclusion as part of that and, indeed, other legislation.

Edwin Poots (DUP, Belfast South)

The Member's time is up.

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

I welcome the legislative programme. It is good progress, but there is still much work to be done. I look forward to seeing what private Members' Bills are brought forward. Tacaím leis an rún.

[Translation: I support the motion.]

Deborah Erskine (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I welcome the opportunity to speak on behalf of the Committee for Infrastructure. As the First Minister outlined, the Executive's legislative programme for 2024 includes one Bill for the Department for Infrastructure, and that is the water, flooding and sustainable drainage Bill. That is the first of five potential Bills that the Department identified, and the Committee understands that there will be at least three Bills in the current mandate. The water, flooding and sustainable drainage Bill will expand the range of activities that are to be included in a hosepipe ban; provide enabling powers for guidance on sustainable drainage systems (SuDS); enable the adoption of pre-1973 private drainage infrastructure; include powers for Northern Ireland Water to fix missed connections and register adoption agreements in statutory charges registers; put the homeowner flood protection grant on a statutory footing; and make technical amendments to existing legislation.

The Committee received oral evidence from departmental officials on the outcome of the Department's consultation and from NI Water, as the Bill will make amendments to its powers and duties. Although the draft Budget allocations had not been announced before the evidence sessions took place, the Committee was fully aware of the overall constrained financial position that the Executive faced. Departmental officials were therefore questioned on what cost or savings analysis of the Bill's provisions had been undertaken. However, they were unable to provide details of potential costs or savings. They explained that the Bill will provide for enabling powers, with the details subsequently being worked out in subordinate legislation.

In advance of its evidence session, Northern Ireland Water provided the Committee with its response to the Department's consultation, which was dated June 2022. In its covering letter to the Department, Northern Ireland Water stated that it would need clarity on the funding and cost implications of the proposal. During the oral evidence session, almost two years later, NI Water said that it had still not had clarity or detailed discussions, yet the proposed extended or new powers appear to have cost implications for it. Members will know the funding issues faced by Northern Ireland Water and the impact that underinvestment has had, particularly on waste water infrastructure. I expect the potential financial implications of the Bill to be of particular interest when the Committee undertakes its detailed scrutiny at Committee Stage.

Other areas explored during the evidence session with departmental officials were the policy proposals relating to SuDS and the homeowner flood protection grant scheme. While the Bill will provide enabling powers for the SuDS guidance, the detail will be brought forward in secondary legislation. It appears that quite a bit of secondary legislation will follow from the Bill. The Committee will want to consider whether the use of delegated powers is appropriate or the provisions should be included in primary legislation. Where delegated legislation is appropriate, we will want to ensure that it is afforded the proper level of Assembly control.

In closing my comments made with my Infrastructure Committee hat on, the Committee understands that the Bill is not expected to be large in the number of clauses that it will contain. Nonetheless, it will include important provisions, and the Committee will want to take time to consider them in detail when the Bill is introduced later this year.

As a DUP MLA, I will briefly touch on some aspects of the Bill. Through the Committee, I have become aware of legislation that is not fit for purpose, such as that which relates to our taxi industry. It is important that the Department takes that seriously, such are the consequences for home-to-school transport and, indeed, our night-time economy. Furthermore, there must be implementation of the planning reviews and strategies born from Northern Ireland Audit Office and Public Accounts Committee reports. Planning issues have a knock-on impact on our ability to grow our economy and could have a detrimental impact on our ability to reach the climate change targets that are already set out in legislation.

As I have said in the Chamber, infrastructure is the bedrock of our society. It is therefore important that legislation and finance match it to make Northern Ireland better.

Brian Kingston (DUP, Belfast North)

Will the Member give way?

Deborah Erskine (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

Yes.

Brian Kingston (DUP, Belfast North)

Does the Member agree that the legislation is urgently required and that all parties should cooperate to ensure that progress is made at the earliest opportunity?

Edwin Poots (DUP, Belfast South)

The Member has an extra minute.

Deborah Erskine (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

Absolutely. I thank the Member for his intervention. It is vital to growing our economy and making Northern Ireland better. I therefore endorse the legislative programme, and I look forward to working on it with all colleagues.

Edwin Poots (DUP, Belfast South)

I call Dr Steve Aiken.

Steve Aiken (UUP, South Antrim)

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I am willing to accept an intervention right now from our friends in the SDLP in order to clarify the question of what was actually said and whether the SDLP will vote for the motion.

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

I am happy to intervene. I did not realise that that was how interventions worked. As I pointed out, we said that we will not force a Division. That does not mean that we endorse the legislative programme. We do not have to force a Division in order to indicate that we do not endorse or support it. We think that that support should be fulsome. As I said, much of the legislation is very welcome, and we will support it. I am grateful to have been offered the opportunity to intervene.

Edwin Poots (DUP, Belfast South)

The Member has an extra minute.

Steve Aiken (UUP, South Antrim)

Thank you very much, indeed.

I just wanted to get some clarity as we go forward with the debate. Some people may think that the Ulster Unionist Party is also heading in that direction, but I can assure you that we endorse the legislative programme.

Deputy First Minister, in your summing up, will you clarify the issue with a Programme for Government? Many people in Northern Ireland will be concerned by, what seems to be, a fairly light legislative programme. Comments have been made on several occasions that that is due to a Programme for Government not being able go forward because of what is going on in Westminster. Many people have pointed out that the Assembly has been back for well over 100 days. Maybe there will be a degree of clarification on that.

Our party particularly welcomes the legislation concerning the Utility Regulator. Many Members will know that there are many concerns out there about how the Northern Ireland energy market works — or, indeed, does not work. Giving more powers to the Utility Regulator will be vital to supporting and improving that.

I join with my friend across the Floor in welcoming the Fiscal Council Bill. That is a much-needed piece of legislation, and putting the Fiscal Council on a statutory footing should be progressed and welcomed by all.

I notice that some things are not in the legislative programme. Indeed, my party is particularly interested in looking at the future status of Northern Ireland Water and the Northern Ireland Housing Executive, because they are vital for building social housing and making sure we have water and waste water infrastructure that is capable of doing what we need it to do.

We also need to be aware of some previous issues with ill-thought-out legislation coming before the House and being pushed through. I refer in particular to issues with legislation related to the justice sector and RHI. Such legislation needs to be scrutinised effectively and properly, and we cannot be in a position where our judicial process is questioning the validity of some of the legislation that the Northern Ireland Assembly has passed. That is a substantive issue, and it is something that we, as Members, need to be cognisant of to ensure that we are capable of carrying out our roles. Effective scrutiny is vital, and we need to be able to manage that effectively.

There are other Bills, but, again, the question needs to be about how quickly we can start the process. Again, I put it to the First Minister and the deputy First Minister that the people of Northern Ireland want to see a Programme for Government. We need to get moving. To be quite honest with you, from being out there, knocking on doors and getting ready for the Westminster election, people do not understand why we are delaying. Will you address those issues in your comments?

For any legislation that comes through the Assembly, we must look at it appropriately, give it the due diligence and scrutiny that it requires and look at it dispassionately across the Chamber to make sure that we provide good legislation that works for the people of Northern Ireland.

Brian Kingston (DUP, Belfast North)

I welcome the publication of the programme of legislation, which the Executive intend to bring forward during the remaining six months of 2024. Let us be mindful of the timescale: it not a full year's programme and is for the remaining six months of the year. As has been stated, the programme does not represent the totality of Ministers' intentions, but it is a clear commitment from each Minister to legislation that they will progress during the remainder of the year.

The programme responds to real needs in our society and the need to catch up with relevant legislation in the rest of the United Kingdom. As a member of the Committee for Communities, I welcome the undertaking by the Minister to bring forward four Bills. The first is the Pensions (Extension of Automatic Enrolment) Bill, which was introduced last month and encourages employees, particularly young people, to take up the opportunity for automatic enrolment in pension schemes, where they will receive an employer's contribution. That will lower the minimum age and minimum salary level so that more young people have the opportunity to be automatically enrolled onto pension schemes and receive the employer's contribution. The second is the child support enforcement Bill. This will address lengthy court times, which are typically 22 weeks in Northern Ireland. In the rest of the UK, however, they have been reduced to typically six weeks. That will be welcomed by all, ensuring that payments are received by parents with responsibility. Thirdly, Members will be aware of the Minister for Communities' very timely and responsible actions in taking responsibility for defective premises. He is addressing an issue that was highlighted in the news by bringing forward legislation that, again, establishes parity with arrangements elsewhere in the United Kingdom. The periods of liability will be 30 years retrospectively and 15 years prospectively. With the approval of the full Executive, the Minister agreed to bring that forward under accelerated passage. The full Executive supported that. There was a matter on which there was confusion over where responsibility lay, but the Minister for Communities stepped forward. There will also be a sign language Bill to ensure access to British Sign Language and Irish Sign language.

Briefly, as a member of the Committee for the Executive Office, I welcome the commitment to introduce a Bill relating to mother-and-baby institutions, Magdalene laundries and workhouses between 1922 and 1995. There is a commitment to a public inquiry to investigate the range of responsibilities and establish further redress services. The Committee received delegations from a range of relevant agencies. What we heard was, at times, quite poignant and, indeed, harrowing. We heard from various groups representing victims and survivors, from the Commissioner for Survivors of Institutional Childhood Abuse and from departmental officials. For all concerned, this has been a long campaign for recognition, accountability and redress. It is important that victims and survivors, who have been waiting for many years, see completion on this matter during their lifetime, as many are at an advanced age.

As a member of those two Committees, I welcome the commitments made by the Ministers to progress those matters.

Connie Egan (Alliance, North Down)

I will speak in favour of the motion on the legislative programme for 2024. While I may have some concerns on combined outstanding commitments, I see this as a noteworthy step forward in our politics and, in this mandate, an opportunity to further the rights and experiences of people across Northern Ireland.

When we take a step back and read the document in the whole, it gives us some hope, not necessarily in its legislative proposals alone but in the idea of a moving, functioning Government seeking to deliver change for people in Northern Ireland. A few months ago, we did not have that. I will evaluate the legislative plan — I urge others to do the same — by how it ensures the success of our individuals and communities, adds to their lives and helps them to gain the justice that they seek.

The cross-departmental picture that is presented is largely welcome. Looking to the Department of Justice, I am excited by the contribution of the Justice Minister, Naomi Long, who will not just extend the rights of children to an international standard but will retract and rewrite the archaic and out-of-date laws that do not represent modern society.

The Finance Minister's Fiscal Council Bill will establish the Fiscal Council on a permanent, statutory basis, which will create more transparency on what comes out of the public pocket and how we grow our accounts to better our public services. I welcome that, but, as my colleague Paula Bradshaw touched on, we could expand the Fiscal Council's remit to include assessment of the costs of division.

A sign language Bill is to be brought forward by the Minister for Communities. The deaf and hard-of-hearing community have been asking the House to take leadership on that for many years. I hope that the Bill will look to our building an increasingly accessible and inclusive society.

I am also glad to see the legislative plans of the Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs, particularly the dilapidation Bill, which aims to confer on councils further functions to tackle dilapidated buildings and sites. We see the need across Northern Ireland for such a Bill, but I am acutely aware of the need for it in my constituency of North Down.

We also really welcome the Bill that will be introduced on a mother-and-baby homes, Magdalene laundries and workhouses public inquiry and financial redress scheme. As my colleague highlighted, we have heard extensive testimony from victims and survivors. That work is not just welcome but long overdue. Justice and answers must be given. We need a public inquiry and financial redress.

Taken together, the Bills will enhance the experiences of our people through different legislative avenues. I urge every Department to continue to have meaningful engagement with stakeholders and our communities on the ground to ensure that the expectations of those who live with the realities that the Bills seek to address are met.

Although I welcome the efforts being made, it would be remiss of me not to recognise the context in which we have received the legislative programme. How can we impactfully assess a legislative programme without having an outcomes-based Programme for Government? How can we approve actions for change without knowing the desired outcomes? I say this sensitively: there are also many outstanding commitments on the table to ensure that we progress as a society. Positive steps and recommendations have already been agreed to in the New Decade, New Approach agreement and other agreements. Those agreements were negotiated to improve the lives of people in Northern Ireland. Whether it be delivering an anti-poverty strategy, reform of the Civil Service, a bill of rights or action in many other areas, we cannot let those commitments fall by the wayside. There are already commitments in place to make changes that will have a positive impact on the lives of those who live here. The lack of delivery on those promises dilutes the hope and goodwill that people have for us to get the job done, and I include in that the legislation on the table today. That is not to diminish the ambition of our legislative programme. I welcome some of its commitments, especially the public inquiry into mother-and-baby institutions. As my colleagues and I have said in the Chamber, the programme marks a positive and welcome step in this mandate for delivery for the people of Northern Ireland. The fact, however, that it is not aligned with a Programme for Government is a lost opportunity.

Paul Frew (DUP, North Antrim)

I welcome the legislative programme from the Executive, but I sound a warning that having a programme is all well and good, but it should never be about quantity. Rather, it should always be about quality. There are examples from the previous mandate that should warn us all. The Department of Justice and its Minister are in a sorry mess because of legislation that the Minister of Justice passed in the House. In addition, the Department of Health was in the High Court on 29 May 2024 on account of the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (No. 2) Regulations 2020, particularly regulation 7(1). It has been attested that the PSNI did not have the power to enter premises to issue fixed penalty notices, which means that most of those fixed penalty notices are now unsafe. It is therefore really important that the Ministers in the Executive and the MLAs in the Assembly ensure that there is full scrutiny of all legislation that comes before the House.

When I look down the programme, I get all excited, because I see opportunities for me to table amendments to legislation to effect change in a positive way. I therefore welcome the programme, but there are Bills missing from it. It was interesting yesterday when the Sinn Féin Member Pat Sheehan asked the Minister of Health about introducing an individual duty of candour. The waffle that we got from the Minister, who talked about black boxes in aeroplanes, was astounding. That, however, typifies the Department of Health on the issue: it intends to consult it to death. It has no intention of introducing an individual duty of candour.

Let me remind the House: the report on hyponatraemia-related deaths was published in January 2018, following an inquiry into the deaths of five children in hospitals in Northern Ireland. Five children. The report concluded that the deaths were avoidable and that the culture of the Health and Social Care service and arrangements in place to ensure the quality of services and behaviour of individuals had contributed to their deaths. Justice O'Hara was appointed chair of that review and made 96 recommendations for HSC improvement, among which were the enactment of an organisational duty of candour and an individual duty of candour with criminal sanction for breach.

Robbie Butler (UUP, Lagan Valley)

I thank the Member for giving way. This is something that I am passionate about. The Member and I will disagree on a number of issues, but we certainly agree in and around health and moving forward on a duty of candour. However, does the Member agree that politicians, when they are not here — they were not here for five years out of seven — have not played their part in any change and improvement to people's lives, whether in health or education, and that there is a responsibility on all of us to ensure that that does not happen again?

Edwin Poots (DUP, Belfast South)

The Member has an extra minute.

Paul Frew (DUP, North Antrim)

I thank the Member for his contribution, but that does not cut it. It simply does not cut it because there is no intent and has been no intent by the Department of Health, no intent by the previous Health Minister and absolutely no intent with the new Health Minister to bring in an individual duty of candour with criminal sanction for breach. That is astounding, and I wish to pursue that.

Pat Sheehan, who is not in his place, raised this yesterday, which alerted me to the fact that Sinn Féin must be in a position to support this. I give this guarantee and make this commitment: I will put my name to any amendment that brings in an individual duty of candour. I will work with any Member to effect change to make sure that the Roberts family get the justice and acknowledgement that they deserve, along with the blood transfusion scandal people and the Muckamore Abbey Hospital victims, and to stop the gaslighting and isolation of the vaccine-damaged and bereaved community, because they also deserve acknowledgement with regard to an individual duty of candour with criminal sanctions for breach.

It is not the fact that someone makes a mistake or even that there was wrongdoing. It is the fact that it is covered up — systematically covered up — by a Department, trusts and a health service that deem it necessary to do so. That is tremendously sad, and I will fight and put every effort I can into seeing that duty of candour in this place.

Diane Dodds (DUP, Upper Bann)

Like many others here this morning, I welcome the legislative programme. People across Northern Ireland will be glad to see the work that the Assembly is doing and will recognise that this is, potentially, a first start at getting the Assembly moving on issues that really matter.

I particularly welcome the Health Minister's intention to introduce a public health Bill. As was noted in the statement, the current public health legislation dates from the 1960s. We do not have to look too far back to understand how inadequate that was in dealing with an unprecedented pandemic. We need to see a public health Bill that addresses some of those issues. There has been discussion about the public health Bill in the Health Committee, although we have not seen any drafts or been given any detailed information. I guarantee that we will scrutinise that Bill, because we want to ensure that its powers are appropriate and are organised appropriately. There is a bit of concern around the timescale for the public health Bill. The previous Minister, Minister Swann, indicated that we would see the public health Bill in June: we have no indication from the current Minister whether that will be the case. It will be fairly complex legislation that will have to go through consultation etc, and, if we are to make moves in relation to the public health Bill, we need to see it fairly quickly.

I welcome the adult safeguarding Bill. It has always been the DUP position that we need a legislative approach to protection and safeguarding that prioritises the prevention of harm and affords disabled persons the dignity that they deserve. Again, I have a word of warning about the timescale. The adult safeguarding Bill has grown out of the Commissioner for Older People's investigation into Dunmurry Manor. The consultation on that dates back to 2020, and, therefore, we need to get a move on to make sure that the adult safeguarding Bill sees the light of day and that we are able to scrutinise it appropriately.

I will reinforce what my colleague said about the duty of candour. I was pretty appalled yesterday to listen to the Health Minister go on about everything and anything except a duty of candour. It arises out of the really sad circumstances of the deaths of young children in Northern Ireland, and there is a duty on the Health Minister to start to seriously look at it in a legislative way. It is not something that we on these Benches will give up on.

Those individual pieces of legislation are, however, just part of a wider, very complex picture for the Department of Health. The Department of Health has told us a lot about what it cannot do, but it needs to start to tell us what it can do with its substantial budget. It needs to tell us how it will prioritise waiting lists. It needs to tell us how it will prioritise the cancer strategy and red-flag patients who cannot get appointments.

Steve Aiken (UUP, South Antrim)

Will the Member give way?

Diane Dodds (DUP, Upper Bann)

No, I want to finish. The Department of Health needs to tell us how it will make progress on the stroke strategy and address the crisis in children and young people's services.

In April, I asked the previous Minister of Health when he would bring forward his plan for the reorganisation of the health service. He told me on 15 April that he would do it in a couple of weeks. Obviously, he has left office, and I have invited the current Health Minister to bring forward that plan, but —

Edwin Poots (DUP, Belfast South)

Bring your remarks to a close.

Diane Dodds (DUP, Upper Bann)

— we will not see an improvement in Health unless we see reorganisation, and we currently have no plan —

Edwin Poots (DUP, Belfast South)

The Member's time is up.

Diane Dodds (DUP, Upper Bann)

— to scrutinise. We need to see the plan.

Sinéad McLaughlin (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

I welcome the opportunity to discuss the Executive's legislative programme. It is good that, after almost 130 days, we finally have a bit more clarity on what exactly the Executive intend to do in the remaining time in the session.

There is a lot in the programme that I welcome and would like to see progressed as quickly and as judiciously as possible, and I further clarify that the leader of the Opposition has clearly stated that the SDLP will not force a Division. We are, however, rightly critiquing the level of ambition. As the official Opposition, we have repeatedly pressed the case for delivery, and it is right that greater transparency is welcomed, even in the absence of a Programme for Government. After all, stop-start government has repeatedly prevented legislation here, and certain Bills have been delayed by dysfunction in this place. For example, the First Minister and deputy First Minister's Bill on a mother-and-baby institutions, Magdalene laundries and workhouses public inquiry and financial redress scheme cannot come soon enough; indeed, for many victims, it is already far too late. The Executive Office should proceed with haste with its introduction, conscious of the years of justice delayed and denied to those victims by the decisions of the parties of the First Minister and deputy First Minister to collapse this place again and again in recent years.

It is also welcome to see that the Justice Minister has committed to legislating on a range of issues, notwithstanding the long list of issues that remain unresolved, from the necessary ban on good character references to stand-alone hate crime legislation.

As SDLP economy spokesperson, I welcome the Bill that will adapt the functions of the Utility Regulator and look forward to the House's scrutiny of it. As we will debate later this afternoon, energy costs are out of control. That is thanks in no small part to the Government's failure to properly regulate the sector by giving the Utility Regulator the power to advise Departments, as well as the power to regulate home heating oil, something that, I hope, the Minister will consider including in the Bill.

Paul Frew (DUP, North Antrim)

Will the Member give way?

Sinéad McLaughlin (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

Sorry. I have literally five minutes in which to speak.

We need to tell the truth about the programme in front of us, including its shortcomings and omissions. It lacks ambition. Over months now, we have debated issue after issue, many of which related to legislation. Now, we know that the Executive parties met 100 times in advance of the return to the Assembly. In that context, I am surprised that the programme is so light in substance and that so many important issues are missing.

The Minister of Education has said that he is looking at legislation involving a price cap on school uniforms, but that is nowhere to be seen. Families are looking down the barrel of another summer of forking out absurd sums of money to send their children to school. The party of the Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs promised an environmental Bill to create an independent environmental protection agency, but, in the middle of the biggest ecological disaster in living memory, we still do not see that coming through on the books. The Minister for the Economy has talked about legislating for the rights of unpaid carers, but, as we speak, tens of thousands of carers are still forced to choose between pursuing their career or caring for their relative. On each of those issues and many more the programme shows that people will be left waiting for another year at least.

I also want to address the issue of regional balance in the programme or the lack thereof. Members might think that I am a broken record on that topic — truth be told, I wish that I did not have to be — but nowhere in the legislative programme can I see a commitment to legislation on regional balance or any indication of how that body of work will level the playing field between different places. There are many objectives in this place. We all believe in causes that hold a special place in our politics, but surely we have some common ground in ensuring that everyone, regardless of postcode, has the opportunity to go as far as their talents will take them. The Economy Minister is aware that I am convinced that only legislation will address the issue of regional imbalance in a long-term and sustainable fashion.

I understand that it represents only the beginning of the Executive's legislative programme, but I think that the public will be underwhelmed by the lack of urgency that the Executive parties are collectively displaying and the slow pace of change in our politics. The public deserve speedy action on the issues that they care about a lot —.

Edwin Poots (DUP, Belfast South)

The Member's time is up.

Sinéad McLaughlin (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

Sorry.

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

I rise as a Member from the Opposition to do what the Opposition do: provide scrutiny of the legislation and statements that are presented to the House. That is what the Opposition do here. I am pretty sure that it is what the Opposition do 100 miles down the road. That is our task. I certainly will not be taken to task for providing that scrutiny.

I welcome that, at least, the legislative programme is being offered. However, I agree with my colleagues: there is not much in it. It deals mostly with the mundane and things that, Departments say, have to be done, rather than being strategic or planned or offering something for the future. It simply deals with a lot of things that, Departments have said, need to see some movement after seven years when there was not much government here.

With regard to the health portfolio that I carry for my party, I am looking at things such as the public health Bill. It has been suggested that it will replace legislation that has been there for over 50 years.

It is out of desperation that we need some of the changes and that is why that Bill is coming forward. If we look back at the COVID period and how a lot of those regulations came in and at the difficulties that there were, we will see that the Department is saying that it needs the new legislation in order to be able to deal with things in a better way for the future.

Again, the adult protection Bill is there as a response to some current issues, but some, especially those that are to do with Dunmurry, showed how out of touch the legislation was as it was not able to deal with any of the issues that were being presented. That is why there was an urgency about updating those matters. Again, however, that is being done out of desperation. When problems arise, we have to rush and get some sort of legislation to try to cover the cracks that have been exposed. That is not planned or strategic, and it does not present a better future for people. It is about doing the barest minimum that we absolutely have to do because of what has taken place.

Things like the adult protection Bill expose how we operate in silos here. One arm of the Executive — the Health Department — is going to propose the Bill, which will include a requirement for the recruitment of a huge number of new social workers. However, there is no money from the Finance Department to go to the Health Department to deliver the new staff who are required. I have no doubt that we will pass the Bill, but then there will be a crisis, because we will not have the staff, as the money will not be there. That is what happens whenever we deal in silos.

Steve Aiken (UUP, South Antrim)

Will the Member give way?

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

Yes. I would like the extra minute.

[Laughter.]

Steve Aiken (UUP, South Antrim)

Well, we are all here to be supportive. The Member will be aware, of course, that because the Health budget has been cut by 2·3%, it will be increasingly difficult for any Health Minister to be able to deliver what is required. Indeed, many Members throughout the House will agree that cutting the Health budget by 2·3% is not what we should be doing, particularly given the approaching crisis.

Edwin Poots (DUP, Belfast South)

The Member has an extra minute.

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

Thank you. It should be an extra minute and a half, because he covered the next 30 seconds of my remarks, which deal with the fact that the available budget will not even be able to do what is currently expected of the Department of Health and that the Department, when the Bill is passed, will not have the money from the Finance Department or the Executive to be able to deliver what is needed.

There is not one MLA in this room who has not heard, time and time again, that our health service needs to be transformed. We urgently need transformation in order to make our health service fit for the future. Is that in this year's legislative programme? No. All that we will be left with, then, is two years to pass some legislation to deal with transformation. I do not believe that that will happen. Alternatively, as has been mentioned, we will end up with such a short period of time to deal with an issue such as transformation that we will probably mess it up, because it will be rammed through with not enough time for scrutiny or interrogation of the Bill to make sure that it will be done properly.

That brings me to the next piece of legislation, which is to do with hospital car parking charges. Only this Executive could pass a Bill about cars that involves a U-turn. They overturned their own decision that they took only two years previously. They rammed it through in the time before an election when there was not the proper time for scrutiny.

I believe that the legislative programme will deliver some work but not enough. We must have more ambition for this place in order to be able to deliver much, much more.

Edwin Poots (DUP, Belfast South)

I call the deputy First Minister, who has 10 minutes to make her winding-up speech.

Emma Little-Pengelly (DUP, Lagan Valley)

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I thank Members for their contributions. This has been a wide-ranging debate that has touched on many of the key issues that the House has already discussed through a number of motions and debates. All those issues are, of course, important.

Passing legislation is the primary function of the Assembly. That is why we were determined to make our written statement and to move the motion, which sets out the Executive's immediate programme of primary legislation work. It was encouraging to hear from so many Members, and I want to touch on a number of points that were made in the debate.

The leader of the Opposition, Matthew O'Toole, described the programme as "thin gruel". I assure the Member that — he mentioned it in his remarks — this is the programme for the remainder of 2024. There are six months left, including the summer period. Of course, we have to be realistic. It is a primary duty of elected Members and, indeed, Ministers in this Government to ensure that we are honest with the public about what is realistic in what we can do. He accused us of being all hat and no cattle. I do like a hat, but, having attended some fantastic country shows over the past number of weeks, I like my cattle as well. On the serious point, the First Minister and I have discussed this issue in some detail. We find it incredibly important for us to get out there to support communities and to support events, but we recognise that absolutely key to this Administration will be delivery. It will be the cattle, and that is what we are working hard on. Of course, it is also key that what we focus on is deliverable. If we try to prioritise everything, nothing will be done. That is what we are working on in the Programme for Government and within the Executive Office. I can assure him that this is just the start of our ambition, and we are deeply ambitious for this place. We have a shared determination to build a better and brighter place, and that must include addressing the problems, growing our economy and, of course, the important work of the transformation of our public services.

The Chair of the Committee for the Executive Office, Paula Bradshaw, is not in her place. I welcome her endorsement of the programme. She raised a number of key aspects. She welcomed, as others, including Carál Ní Chuilín, did, the sign language Bill. I welcome that deeply. It is a very good indication and sign of our inclusive agenda to ensure that everybody is able to participate and access the public services that they require.

It is critical to recognise the role of this place on legislation. It must be about the identification of need. In a personal capacity, I am a small government politician. I do not support legislation for legislation's sake. It is a significant mistake for people to look at this Assembly and judge it on, as Paul Frew said, the quantity and not the quality. I urge Members to take caution because, when we look back over the past 17 years since restoration in 2007, we see that a number of the significant challenges and problems that we have faced have been to do with legislation or policy that ought to have been better and ought to have been scrutinised, with problems identified at an earlier stage. We have had to spend considerable time trying to address those problems.

Tom Elliott (UUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I thank the deputy First Minister for giving way. I fully agree with her that those issues need to be scrutinised and better looked at. On the programme that we are debating, the ministerial statement says:

"An RHI Scheme Bill will make provision for the future of the scheme."

However, there is no detail whatsoever. It would be helpful if there were more detail on that.

Emma Little-Pengelly (DUP, Lagan Valley)

I thank the Member for his intervention. Of course, an important point on the legislative programme, as was touched on by the Chair of the Committee for the Executive Office, is that this programme represents what Ministers have put forward but is very much in the context that the content of the legislation still needs to be agreed. It will need to be scrutinised by the Executive Committee and then by the Assembly Committees. The actual policies in those Bills are not yet agreed. Some of them we have a greater understanding of than others, but that will have to come forward. You are absolutely right that, on this issue, it is important that we get it right. That is the point that I was making around the role of the Assembly and of its Committees. In the Northern Ireland Assembly, Committees have a very particular role, which is different from that of Committees elsewhere: it is not just to scrutinise but to aid and support Ministers on policy development. That presents an incredible opportunity for Committees. I would like to see all of us commit to ensuring that we do not value quantity or speed over quality and getting things right. We absolutely have to scrutinise —.

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

Will the deputy First Minister give way?

Emma Little-Pengelly (DUP, Lagan Valley)

Unfortunately, I have only 10 minutes, and I have a lot of contributions to touch on, I am afraid. I want to be fair to as many people as possible

Like a number of Members, Deborah Erskine mentioned her policy brief in relation to her chairing of the Infrastructure Committee, which is very welcome. I touch again on the point that, if the Northern Ireland Assembly and Executive are to deliver and have the determination to deliver, we will only do so by working hand in hand with the Committees, relying on them to call the relevant witnesses to really scrutinise the legislation to ensure that we are doing the right thing. I welcome the contributions from Deborah and other members of the Committees.

Steve Aiken mentioned the Programme for Government. As indicated yesterday, we are in the same position as Scotland and Wales. All three jurisdictions were in an advanced position with their programmes for government, and all three, having taken guidance about the election period, will not be publishing them. That is right and proper. I would love to say that the Programme for Government is so good that to publish it would give an electoral advantage to the First Minister and I, but, of course, that is what the guidance is there to caution against. I have no doubt that there will be a variety of views on the Programme for Government. Of course, we will publish it for consultation, because we want to hear those views and improve it. We are very mindful of our responsibilities during the election period, but we are determined to get it published as soon as possible following that.

Some Members referenced using the summer period for consultation. We acknowledge that using the summer period for consultation on legislation or policy is not ideal, but it allows people a little bit of extra time. We would have to consult into the autumn, as well, to ensure that there is adequate consultation time.

The policy area of a duty of candour was mentioned by a number of Members, and I add my support to that. I was not here for questions to the Health Minister yesterday, but there was a reference to "the black box" then. There is an excellent book called 'Black Box Thinking' that deals with that very particular point. It talks about why so much goes wrong, such as medical negligence and other issues, and focuses on the specific issue of candour. There is an important point on candour, not just relevant to our health sector but across all our policy areas and all our legislation: we need to be open and frank on what works and what does not work. If something is not working, let us get it changed; let us work together to try to address it. That is the only way that we will improve things.

Robin Swann (UUP, North Antrim)

Will the deputy First Minister give way?

Emma Little-Pengelly (DUP, Lagan Valley)

Unfortunately, I have only a minute and a half left.

I want to add to that point by saying that it is incredibly important that we are fully aware of the impact of what we are doing on all the issues. I come back, again, to the point about quantity in relation to legislation. When we speak to people on the doors, as all of us will be doing over the next number of weeks, the key issue that we hear about, time and again, is that people want their public services to work for them, such as access to GP services and affordable childcare, in health and education respectively, and all those types of issues. We are also conscious, however, that legislation is not always the answer to the problem. Sometimes the answer will be transformation, restructuring and getting the right policies in place. The Committees have an important role in all those things, as does the House.

I thank Members for their contributions to the debate. It has been very useful, and important issues have been raised. I urge people to consider this, however: let us get the right legislation, prioritising quality over quantity and consideration and scrutiny over speed. That is what the people of Northern Ireland demand of us and that is what will deliver for people throughout Northern Ireland.

Question put and agreed to. Resolved:

That this Assembly notes the Executive's legislation programme as presented by the First Minister and deputy First Minister in their statement of 23 May 2024.

Edwin Poots (DUP, Belfast South)

I call the Minister for Communities, Mr Gordon Lyons, to move the Consideration Stage of the Defective Premises Bill.

Moved. — [Mr Lyons (The Minister for Communities).]

Edwin Poots (DUP, Belfast South)

Members will have a copy of the Marshalled List of amendments detailing the single amendment for debate. The amendment will be debated under the group headed:

"Defective materials, products and design features etc."

I remind Members that, once the debate on the group is completed, the Questions on the amendment and clauses stand part will be put. If that is clear, we shall proceed.

Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

New Clause

Edwin Poots (DUP, Belfast South)

We now come to the single amendment for debate. I call Daniel McCrossan to move the amendment.

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

I beg to move the following amendment:

After clause 1 insert -

"Defective materials, products and design features etc.

1A. In the Defective Premises (Northern Ireland) Order 1975 after Article 4 insert?—

'Defective materials, products and design features etc.

4B.—(1) The Department may, by regulations, specify?—

(a) particular building materials;

(b) particular building products;

(c) structural design features; and

(d) any other construction details as the Department may consider appropriate,

which are likely to give rise to a cause of action under Article 3 [or Article 4A].

(2) The Department shall have due regard to the Building Regulations (Northern Ireland) Order 1979, and guidance published under those Regulations, when specifying any materials, products, features or other construction details under paragraph (1).

(3) An action shall not be deemed to fail solely on the grounds that the premises in question does not feature a material, product, feature or other detail specified in regulations made under paragraph (1).

(4) The provisions of this section shall be without prejudice to other considerations the court may deem relevant in the determination of an action under this Order.

(5) Regulations under this section may not be made unless a draft of the regulations has been laid before and approved by a resolution of the Assembly.

(6) Before any regulations are laid before the Assembly, the Department shall lay a report with the Assembly detailing the factors which will inform the content of the regulations.'."

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

As outlined in a contribution to the Second Stage debate, this is not the way in which we prefer to do business. Accelerated passage is not the most appropriate way for legislators to consider legislation that will have a direct impact on the lives of our citizens. It is right and proper that we go through the accountability and scrutiny mechanisms that are there. On this occasion, the Committee process was bypassed. That said, we recognise the importance of the Bill. Although we have some concerns, we recognise the importance of aligning with the legislation that is in place for the rest of the UK. We also recognise that that should have been done some time ago. That said, there are wider issues here in Northern Ireland, and there will potentially be further issues down the line with defective materials, products and design features. In the amendment, we allow some protection for those who may be affected. As the Bill's explanatory and financial memorandum explains, there is significant disparity between Northern Ireland and England and Wales on the limitation periods for legal action where a building is shown to be defective. That is why the Minister introduced the Bill.

The purpose of the amendment is to address a particular gap in the Bill's provisions. At the outset, I emphasise that the amendment is Bill-friendly. By that, I mean that it does not interfere with the Bill's purposes: it imposes no direct burden on the Department, as the new clause is an enabling one that gives the Department permissive rather than prescriptive powers; it places no financial burden on the Department; and it is designed, in the spirit of the Bill, to extend its support a little wider. Members will notice that the amendment does not alter a single word of the Bill as laid but is constructed as an additional clause. That is my deliberate choice, to ensure that the Bill's overarching intentions are unaltered.

I am sure that all Members are aware of the horror stories that have emanated from places such as Donegal, Mayo and other counties across the island of Ireland concerning the shocking effects of defective building materials, including mica, pyrite and reinforced autoclaved aerated concrete (RAAC), on domestic premises. This affects not just domestic premises. There is every sign that various aspects of all infrastructure have been affected as a result of those defective materials. Young families have been left devastated as their homes cracked from bottom to top and leaked water, making them very difficult to live in and, in some instances, dangerous because they were literally falling down around them. It has also affected more mature couples, whose life savings, which they had put into building their dream homes, have disappeared overnight.

In this instance, there is huge concern, particularly in border constituencies, that the issues that we have seen play out in Donegal and in other counties across Ireland will affect people here. I get the sense that people are reluctant to come forward because there is no mechanism to support them — no real advice is available — and there is huge fear as a result of what they have seen in Donegal. Here is a map of the border counties that are affected. There are 5,700 homes affected by those defective materials. If we look at the map, we can see the border, which shows clearly why there is huge concern that defective materials have undoubtedly appeared in homes across my constituency of West Tyrone, the constituency of Fermanagh and South Tyrone and across Derry and beyond.

At some stage in the not-too-distant future, people will start to come forward, as some already have. In my constituency, a young family was affected. Their dreams were shattered, and their house was left in a terrible state of disrepair. They do not know where to turn to, and they cannot get advice or support. They believe that the future looks quite bleak when it comes to getting any support. In my colleagues' constituency of Foyle, we have seen families speak out as well, and we believe that there are examples right across the entirety of Northern Ireland and Ireland, North and South. The use of defective building materials will have a huge impact on people's mental health, as will their concerns about how the issue can be dealt with. Although the situation has happened as a result of the use of defective building materials and, for a long time, there seemingly being no fit-for-purpose remedy to the unfolding disaster, as I have previously stated in the Assembly, it is inconceivable that such defective building materials are to be found on only one side of the border. It is surely not a matter of whether they will be found but rather when they will be found, and to what extent. The amendment would enable the Assembly and the Department to be ready.

I seek to extend the legal protections that the Bill provides to situations that previous experience tells us are likely to emerge in our jurisdiction. I appreciate that the Minister intends to bring a more substantive Bill to the House in the future and that its provisions may afford a remedy to the matters to which I draw Members' attention. Introducing such a Bill is some time off, however, particularly given the pace of movement in the Assembly and the uncertainty, which was very clear in the past, over whether this place will function. When an issue is foreseeable and a remedy is at hand, why would we not put plans for it in place today? The point of the amendment is to put protections in place today so that it readies the Department to act. I therefore urge the Assembly to support the amendment and its genuine intention.

Gordon Lyons (DUP, East Antrim)

I appreciate the Member's giving way. I hope that he understands my sincerity in asking this question: what does he believe that the legal effect of the amendment would be? The building materials that he is talking about are already covered under building regulations. He wants the Department to specify a list of materials, but he is not making that list exclusive, and there is already a legislative remedy. The point of a Bill is to change the law, and the amendment does not appear to me to achieve any substantial legal effect, so what is the point of it?

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

I will put it this way: if the House or the Department finds itself in a similar situation with the scale of the number of homes affected, the Minister will not be asking, "What is the point?". The reality is that, in response to such a situation, people will be asking, "What are you doing about it?". The amendment would put in place regulations to specify areas that the Department must consider in order to protect those who may be affected as a result of defective building materials.

Gordon Lyons (DUP, East Antrim)

Will the Member give way?

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

I will finish my point. The Minister said that the matter is already covered by regulations. Those regulations sit with the Department of Finance, as the Minister knows. In fact, it was only this week that the Minister did not even believe that it was a devolved matter, as far as I remember. Hopefully, he has sought clarification on that since.

The legal advice that I obtained believes that the amendment would in no way have any effect on the Bill's current clauses. That is my view. I do not believe that it would in any way interfere with what is laid out in the Minister's Bill. The reality at the centre of the matter is this: homes across Northern Ireland will undoubtedly be affected by defective building materials. At this juncture, we can ensure that we put in place mechanisms that will allow people to seek help where they can. It also will prepare the Department and, indeed, the Executive for dealing with the issue. Does the Minister want in?

Gordon Lyons (DUP, East Antrim)

I appreciate the Member's giving way, but, with respect, he has not answered the question of what legal effect the amendment would have. He is not creating an exclusive list of materials and saying, "It must be under this". He is saying, "Here is a list. I want you to go out and think of all the materials that can come into it". His amendment says that a material not being on the list does not preclude action being taken. He acknowledges in his amendment that the regulations exist. His proposed new paragraph 4B(2) states:

"The Department shall have due regard to the Building Regulations (Northern Ireland) Order 1979".

That is entirely covered. You are bringing nothing new to the table; the amendment has no legal effect.

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

I thank the Minister for that intervention. We are providing clarification, because, in reality, throughout the process, as is typical of how the DUP and, indeed, Sinn Féin have done government in the past, there has been no proper scrutiny of important legislation that will have unintended consequences. It is ironic that the Minister has concerns about the legal implications of an amendment — a positive amendment — to a Bill that has not received the scrutiny that it should and must receive. No lessons have been learnt from legislation previously brought through the House, even though there were clear warnings and signals at that point —.

Gordon Lyons (DUP, East Antrim)

Will the Member give way, for scrutiny of his amendment?

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

The Minister has said enough. He did not want to take advice in Committee. Some Executive Ministers want to take advice only when it suits them. They wanted to bypass the Committee Stage of this legislation and avoid due scrutiny of the Bill. I could go into the intricacies of the legal advice received and the concerns about the legislation, of which the Minister will be well aware, as he will be aware of the concerns expressed by various stakeholders and witnesses about the Minister's pace in getting it through the House.

The Minister should understand that, with great caution, we support the Bill, but we are raising considerable concern about it. If the Minister wants to ensure that there is as wide a net as possible to protect people who are affected by defective premises, and if mica, RAAC and pyrite are in the homes of people in Tyrone, Donegal and Derry, the Minister would do well to remember his words in the House today. If he supports the amendment, at least he can say that he was ahead of the ball, which is not something that can be said very often of the DUP, let alone the Executive.

I put to the House this important amendment. The reach, if I may describe it that way, of the amendment is contained in paragraph 4B(1), sub-paragraphs (a) to (d). Those provisions enable the Department to specify by regulation, as the Minister has pointed out, deficiencies that could give cause for action, and they will greatly strengthen the hand of anyone seeking redress through the courts.

I regret not being able to speak to colleagues in other parties before today about the amendment, particularly those on the Communities Committee, of which I am a member. The use of accelerated passage made that impossible, and the timing was challenging. However, I can provide a measure of assurance by noting that the Bill Office was very helpful. Indeed, the Bill Office has provided invaluable advice and support to enable me to draft this important amendment with appropriate wording and to ensure that it is fit for purpose. Members will note that the Department, in taking action by making regulations, is required to "have due regard" to our existing building regulations and that those new regulations:

"may not be made unless a draft of the regulation has been laid before and approved by ... the Assembly."

As I indicated earlier, I know that these building regulations are under the responsibility of the Department of Finance and some cross-departmental working between Executive Ministers will be required — something that, again, does not happen as much as it should. Furthermore, a report must be provided to the Assembly:

"detailing the factors which will inform the content of the regulations."

The measures ensure that the Committee for Communities and, indeed, the Assembly can scrutinise developments in future. I trust that those "safety features" — that is what I describe them as — will give the Assembly enough confidence in the amendment to support it. If we in Northern Ireland are affected to the same extent as homeowners across Ireland, we will face a major crisis. I do not say that my amendment saves the day, but it lays a clear pathway for people who are affected to seek support and action where appropriate.

In reality, for the past number of years, in the time that the House has been sitting, I have written to multiple Ministers of each relevant Department, asking what they are doing to help to identify traces of pyrite, RAAC and mica in homes across Northern Ireland.

I received a very blunt, one-line response to say, "I have no knowledge of it". It is a partitionist mentality that believes those materials did not cross the border, and, indeed, it is arrogant to assume that no other quarry has manufactured products that may be defective and affecting homes across Northern Ireland.

Have any lessons been learned on this side of the border from how the crisis in the South unfolded that left 5,700 families in dire circumstances? The Minister is far away from Tyrone, but when the chickens come home to roost, as I believe they will, the House had better be ready, because it will be a huge crisis. Closing your eyes and blocking your ears will not resolve what, potentially, could be on the track. The amendment is positive; it adds protections for people who are affected or potentially will be affected, right across the North of Ireland.

The reality is that I have already heard about and visited multiple affected homes. People's concern is that there is no support, Stormont is not listening — if it is even functioning at various points — and if they are in that situation, what are they going to do and where will they turn? The only authority that I have seen take any action is Derry City and Strabane District Council, which allowed people to come forward and register concern if they believed that their home was affected. That is the only positive action that I have seen during a crisis that is five minutes from my doorstep, where thousands of people’s homes and dreams have been destroyed.

If the House chooses to ignore what potentially could be a huge crisis, it will reap the consequences, but if we get ahead of the ball and start reaching out to identify the number of homes that are, or potentially will be, affected, we can mitigate what could be a disaster for public finances in Northern Ireland but also for homeowners right across Northern Ireland. This is here; people need to recognise it. The scale of it will only be determined in the future, but the Departments and the Executive need to be conscious that there is a very serious problem down the line.

Ciara Ferguson (Sinn Féin, Foyle)

Every individual or family has a right to a safe, secure home that is suitable for their needs and of a decent standard. We have a duty to ensure that no one is left behind. As discussed in our contributions, our support for the Bill is primarily due to the need to address the existing legislative disparities that face residents here and to ensure that we provide a workable avenue for those seeking legal redress. It is based on assurances from the Minister and the Department that the Bill is effective, proportionate and fit for purpose, and that he is cognisant of the concerns raised with him to date. That is of particular importance, given the use of accelerated passage and the absence of the Committee Stage. The Committee Stage is often an important forum to discuss potential amendments to a Bill, such as that debated today. Accelerated passage is not and should not be the norm to progress legislation. However, in this instance, an immediate remedy is required for affected residents and homeowners.

The proposed amendment gives the Department the power to make regulations specifying particular building materials, products, design features and any other construction details that it considers are likely to give rise to a cause of action. While, in principle, that seems positive, I also note the Minister's comments during the Second Stage debate when he stated:

"It is intended that the legislation will offer owners the opportunity for legal recourse if defective materials have rendered a premises defective." — [Official Report (Hansard), 3 June 2024, p64, col 2].

I want the Minister to clarify today whether "defective materials" is sufficiently included in the current Bill. Ultimately, we want to support affected residents and homeowners to ensure parity with limitation periods elsewhere and to provide an avenue to seek legal redress for defective premises.

We also recognise that it is imperative that we make continuous improvements in respect of building safety and standards. Further work is urgently needed regarding the development of a wider building safety Bill here. That will assist us in supporting the built environment industry and building control professionals to achieve only the highest standards of safety and accountability.

Sian Mulholland (Alliance, North Antrim)

I welcome the Bill's Consideration Stage. As has been mentioned, accelerated passage is not the ideal mechanism, but it is necessary, given the concerns that have necessitated expediency on the issue.

I concur with the Member who spoke previously and the Deputy Chair of the Communities Committee. We want to see a more fulsome Bill come forward, but we are aware of the limitations of the mandate. It is something that my colleagues and I will push for as we proceed, because we want to see the fulsome address of our building regulations.

We will not support the amendment. We understand that the intention behind it is to enhance the safety and quality of buildings, but significant issues could be unintended. The proposed clause grants the Department the authority to specify particular building materials, products and design features through regulations. That broad, sweeping power raises several concerns. We are at risk of creating a more rigid and overly prescriptive regulatory environment. Protection is already present in the Building Regulations (NI) Order. Additionally, there are some concerns around the amendment adding any substantial value to the Bill. It prescribes for actions already covered in existing duty provisions in article 3.

The proposed clause mandates the Department to consider existing building regulations but does not adequately mitigate the potential for conflict and confusion. It just adds another layer of specifications that could lead to inconsistencies. My party and I believe that the Bill has to be enacted swiftly to address the urgent issues at hand to achieve parity with England and Wales.

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

I thank the Member for giving way. She outlines that the amendment could pose unintended consequences in its legal effect. Does she agree with me that the Bill, through accelerated passage, will have significant unintended consequences, of which we are well warned?

Sian Mulholland (Alliance, North Antrim)

I thank the Member for his intervention. I have said that accelerated passage is not the preferred method or mechanism for doing this business. However, I am aware that the expediency with which we have to put the Bill in place necessitates this approach. I understand where the Member is coming from.

I want to emphasise that my opposition to the amendment does not come from a disregard for people's safety and the well-being of our residents. On the contrary: I am acutely aware of the importance of ensuring that every home in Northern Ireland is safe and secure, and I cannot even begin to imagine the experiences of those who live in defective premises. They cannot be overlooked or minimised. Those individuals or families have only one place that they call home, and it is our duty to protect them immediately, which is why I support the expediency that is afforded by the Bill.

While the proposed amendment to the Bill is well-intentioned, it presents significant challenges and risks. We have to strive for a solution that protects residents from defective buildings, and, by opposing the amendment, we can ensure that the Bill progresses quickly and effectively, addressing the urgent needs of our residents without unnecessary complication.

Andy Allen (UUP, Belfast East)

At this point, I do not intend to restate the comments that I made in the accelerated passage debate and at Second Stage. They are on the public record and available for people to read.

I turn to the amendment. We believe that, in seeking to specify defective materials, products and design features, the proposed amendment to the Defective Premises Bill is not necessary. The current law already mandates that the construction work be performed in a workmanlike or professional manner, using proper materials, ensuring that the dwelling is fit for habitation upon completion. It is our view that that requirement inherently includes the use of safe and appropriate materials and design features. We are of the view that the existing legislation covers the aspects that the amendment intends to cover. During the Second Stage debate, the Member opposite highlighted concerns about specific building materials, and many across the House share those concerns and echoed them today. I assume that that, as he stated, is what he is attempting to capture in the amendment. The Minister stated during the Second Stage debate that the Bill:

"provides more time to hold to account those responsible for building the house or carrying out work on it, in order to ensure that the work is of the highest quality and is done using the best materials for the job." — [Official Report (Hansard), 3 June 2024, p58, col 2].

I am happy to give way to the Minister if he wishes to clarify whether there is a necessity to specify defective materials, products and design features by regulation in order to enhance the level of protection that is provided.

Gordon Lyons (DUP, East Antrim)

I am happy to clarify to the Member and the Deputy Chair that that is not necessary, because the existing regulations cover those and they do not need to be specifically identified in order for that action to be taken. Where a material, product or structural design is known to lead to defective premises, there are already legislative solutions in place to restrict or even deny its use, namely, part B of the materials and workmanship section of the building regulations.

Andy Allen (UUP, Belfast East)

I thank the Minister for that clarity. That was our interpretation. I would have liked the opportunity to engage with the Member more broadly in order to scope that out. Indeed, as other Members said, it would have been preferential to have had the opportunity, notwithstanding what I said during the accelerated passage debate, to explore some of those aspects during Committee Stage, but that was not the case, as per the will of the House. On that, I will end my comments.

Edwin Poots (DUP, Belfast South)

The Business Committee has arranged to meet at 1.00 pm today. I propose, therefore, by leave of the Assembly, to suspend the sitting until 2.00 pm, when we will have Question Time. The debate will resume immediately after Question Time.

The debate stood suspended. The sitting was suspended at 12.57 pm.

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

Oral Answers to Questions — Infrastructure

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

We will start with listed questions. Questions 3 and 11 have been withdrawn.

Stephen Dunne (DUP, North Down)

1. Mr Dunne asked the Minister for Infrastructure whether he will restore the pothole intervention level depth from 50 mm to 20 mm. (AQO 570/22-27)

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

My Department has been operating in a difficult financial environment for a number of years due to underfunding and austerity by the British Government. In response, my Department has had to reduce its road maintenance activities to a limited service that prioritises delivery of essential services for maintaining public safety and protecting the transport network. Consequently, only the highest-priority defects across the network are currently being repaired. That means that defects greater than 50 mm in depth are being repaired across all roads. However, on high-traffic urban and rural roads, defects greater than 20 mm are also being repaired. The level of repairs that can be carried out in any financial year depends on the funding available to my Department. I continue to engage with my Executive colleagues to ensure that my Department is properly resourced and funded.

Stephen Dunne (DUP, North Down)

I thank the Minister for his answer. Over the past year, the sheer number and scale of potholes in the North Down constituency has been truly shocking and a cause of great concern for the community that I represent. One example is the busy Castle Park Road in Bangor, which has a surface more akin to the surface of the moon. It has, so far, not been resurfaced as the potholes are millimetres short of the 50 mm. When will the Minister take proper action to address our roads crisis and restore the depth to 50 mm, as it was in 2015-16?

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

I thank the Member for his question. We are taking all actions available to us. The Member will be acutely aware that Ministers from all Departments and parties are under significant financial pressure. Since going into the Department, I have engaged with my departmental colleagues on how we improve public services as best we can with the limited public resources available to us. We have set in place a plan for reacting to potholes. I accept that potholes are an issue on many roads, but that is not only the case in this jurisdiction: in the South, England, Scotland and Wales, there is also a potholes crisis. It all goes back to this one issue: 14 years of austerity leading to a deterioration in public services and public infrastructure. Our roads are a glaring example of that.

Declan McAleer (Sinn Féin, West Tyrone)

Minister, given the prevalence of potholes, what is your assessment of the use of concrete for road repairs?

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

Generally, concrete surfacing is used only on rigid pavement construction where all pavement layers are concrete. There are few roads here of that type, and, because of that, concrete is not considered a suitable option for maintenance resurfacing on the existing road network. The use of concrete road surfacing also raises environmental concerns, including noise and embodied carbon. It entails high initial costs, excessive maintenance costs and high replacement costs at the end of life.

Connie Egan (Alliance, North Down)

I concur with my North Down colleague that Castle Park Road in Bangor is an absolute mess. It is not just the depth of the potholes that your Department will not resurface but the number of them. The number of potholes is dangerous for cyclists. They are also near a school, and it is a busy road. Please, Minister, will you listen to us and resurface it?

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

As the Member will be aware, when reports of potholes come in, they are logged in the local section office. Where there is a group of potholes, they are most likely to be inspected by the inspection and maintenance team. Where they meet the criteria, they will be repaired. Where there are significant numbers of potholes in the one area and the resources are available, we will resurface significant stretches of road, as Members have seen in recent months in different areas. I am minded that the June monitoring round is coming up, and I will make a bid in relation to road maintenance to ensure that our network is maintained as well as it can be in the current scenario.

As I said to the Members who asked the previous questions, many of our public services are crumbling. The thing about roads is that you see that happening physically in front of you. That is what happens when you have had an austerity agenda at the heart of the British Government for the past decade.

Brian Kingston (DUP, Belfast North)

2. Mr Kingston asked the Minister for Infrastructure to outline what measures he and his officials are taking, with other statutory agencies, to address the non-cleaning of unadopted alleyways in North Belfast. (AQO 571/22-27)

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

My Department is not responsible for the inspection or maintenance of unadopted alleyways that are in the ownership of other parties. It is the Department's policy not to adopt alleyways and pathways that are not essential for safe vehicular and pedestrian access and where the area is already served by a good network of public footways. My Department has been operating, as I have said, in a difficult financial environment for a number of years. My Department fully supports the efforts in local communities to improve the appearance of back entries and other similar spaces in their areas to enhance community pride, reduce antisocial behaviour and improve the general area, and we will continue to engage with statutory agencies and stakeholders in an advisory capacity on the issue. Officials from my Department attended a workshop on unadopted alleyways hosted by Belfast City Council's people and communities committee in February 2024.

Brian Kingston (DUP, Belfast North)

I thank the Minister for that stock reply. As the Minister, the Principal Deputy Speaker and other Members will be aware, unadopted alleyways are a major problem in Belfast, particularly in areas of older housing. No statutory agency will take responsibility, and, particularly with the growth of private landlords, you get alleyways that become a hazard for residents. They cannot put out their bins, and some areas get severely overgrown and become a fire risk because people cannot get out or a fire engine cannot get in. I note what the Minister said about a meeting held at the council. Is the Minister willing to continue or commence discussion with, in particular, Belfast City Council and the Housing Executive to find a solution or to support resolution of the matter? No one wants to take responsibility, and it is a real issue that affects many residents.

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

I certainly think that there is a responsibility to continue to engage, whether with Belfast City Council, any other council or the Housing Executive, to see whether we can find a common solution to these matters. The unfortunate thing is that, when Departments are dealing with constrained budgets and reduced staff numbers, they have to prioritise their statutory functions, which does not allow them to carry out other matters that they would like to do. I certainly want to see my Department playing its full part in local communities and engaging with and supporting them to improve the environment that people live in, but I do not want to overpromise or lead people on a merry dance by suggesting that there will be a solution from my Department to this. However, my Department and I will play our part in discussions. As we all know in this place, it is good to talk, and you may find a solution by doing that.

Danny Baker (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

Does the Minister agree that it is important that all public infrastructure, including our footpaths and roads, is well maintained and kept clean?

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

I agree, but, unfortunately, when you get into the bureaucracy of government, you sometimes find that you have to find out who owns that public infrastructure. That is the challenge for each Department. However, as I said to Mr Kingston, I am more than happy to play my part, along with my Department, in engaging with any of our councils or the Housing Executive on how we can find solutions. One of the solutions may well be empowering communities and seeing how we can engage with communities and community organisations on how we can support them to maintain areas that are not under the ownership of any Department.

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

Question 3 has been withdrawn.

William Irwin (DUP, Newry and Armagh)

4. Mr Irwin asked the Minister for Infrastructure to outline what resources he will allocate to grass verge cutting to improve visibility when exiting junctions. (AQO 573/22-27)

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

It is my intention that my Department will deliver a full programme of grass cutting in accordance with the new approach to verge management across the road network that I announced in October 2022. That new approach increases the focus on protecting wildlife and promoting biodiversity without compromising road safety and will support the actions needed to comply with the Climate Change Act passed by the Assembly in 2022.

All my Department's operational areas implement a blended approach through the use of internal and external contractors for the delivery of verge management. Staff from my Department's internal contractor have been trained in various duties depending on need, such as grass cutting, patching, gully emptying and other responsive duties. Therefore, they are not dedicated solely to grass cutting but provide a uniquely flexible resource.

Grass-cutting schedules are prepared at a local level to ensure that two cuts are completed within the timescales laid out in policy. Schedules include additional cuts of areas such as sight lines at junctions, and further responsive treatment at junctions is also undertaken as resources permit.

External contractors are used to supplement my Department's internal resources and operate in a similar manner, completing grass cutting in accordance with instructed schedules.

William Irwin (DUP, Newry and Armagh)

I thank the Minister for his response. One of the main issues is sight lines at junctions. Contractors are inclined to take one swathe with a width of around 1 metre or 1·5 metres, which is totally unacceptable and still does not give a clear sight line. The Minister needs to look at that issue.

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

Whether the work is done by staff in my Department or by contractors, there must be a clear sight line at a junction. I am certainly not of the view that they are restricted to a 1-metre strip in any area. They are contracted to ensure safety at junctions. That is paramount. I will certainly review that with my officials to make sure that I am correct. I have reduced areas of grass cutting, but I certainly have not reduced sight lines. They are paramount for road safety.

Nicola Brogan (Sinn Féin, West Tyrone)

Will the Minister consider a wildflower planting scheme for road verges to promote biodiversity?

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

Yes. We work with a number of councils and organisations to promote biodiversity along road verges and at major junctions and roundabouts. I have previously mentioned Causeway Coast and Glens Borough Council in the Chamber as an exemplar of how those things can be done. The Department for Infrastructure is a major landowner. A lot of that land is along roadsides, and we plan on using it more and more to increase biodiversity and wildflower distribution. Again, some of it comes back to resources, but, if we can work in partnership with others, it will be an exciting project that will enhance the aesthetic look of many areas.

Sian Mulholland (Alliance, North Antrim)

The Minister has just mentioned the Causeway coast and glens, part of my constituency. There is a divergent approach across my constituency, because it straddles two council areas. Will the Minister commit to writing to councils to try to get them to take one approach to biodiversity, wildflowers and grass cutting?

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

When I was in post previously, I corresponded with councils and other statutory landowners about that. I am more than happy to do so again.

John Stewart (UUP, East Antrim)

I thank the Minister for clarifying the issue. Sadly, the reality is that, in East Antrim — in Carrickfergus, Larne and Newtownabbey — large areas at junctions remain uncut, which has led to a number of near misses. In the areas that have been cut to date, the quality of the cutting is less than satisfactory and has led to a number of complaints. What scrutiny is the Department doing to analyse the work of contractors to ensure that the cutting is up to standard and is being done on time, as it should be?

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

Members should contact their local section office first about such matters, as, I am sure, they do. If there are areas of specific concern, Members should contact my private office, and I will ensure that their concern is followed up.

The contract for grass cutting is ongoing. Contractors are out cutting grass at present, as is my team in the Department. It is a an operation on a huge scale. I emphasise time and time again, however, that sight lines are a priority and that verges should be cut properly.

Cathy Mason (Sinn Féin, South Down)

5. Mrs Mason asked the Minister for Infrastructure for an update on the ongoing review of the 2023 floods in Downpatrick. (AQO 574/22-27)

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

Following the significant flooding that occurred in autumn 2023 across the south and east, including Downpatrick, a joint organisational learning review is well under way to capture any learning identified on preparedness, response and recovery to inform any future collective civil contingencies preparations. While the review is being coordinated by the Executive Office, my Department, along with the Department for Communities and local government, is leading the way on the aspects for which it is responsible.

An independent consultant, Jacobs, has been appointed to assist and provide an independent technical insight into the causes of the flooding and to present considerations to inform any viable solutions. Public open evenings will be held later this month from 4.00 pm to 7.00 pm at the following locations: Portadown on 25 June; Downpatrick on 26 June; and Newry on 27 June. Invitations have been issued to those affected, and the Department has issued social media notices to promote attendance. It is intended that a formal report will be compiled by the end of June 2024, with its findings and recommendations made publicly available thereafter.

Cathy Mason (Sinn Féin, South Down)

I welcome the ongoing work that the Minister's Department and others are doing for businesses and homeowners in Downpatrick, and I look forward to attending the information session. Is there an update on the homeowner flood protection grant scheme?

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

The homeowner flood protection scheme is available to homeowners. The grant covers up to 90% of costs to a maximum of £10,000, following a survey of the estimated costs. The homeowner is required to make a contribution of 10% of the survey and estimated installation costs, plus any additional costs that may be incurred above £10,000. Further information on the homeowner flood protection grant scheme is available on my Department's website. To date, 130 installations have been completed at a cost of approximately £1 million.

Andrew McMurray (Alliance, South Down)

Can the Minister provide an update on the work to develop a flood forecasting system and say whether he is actively working with other Departments to deliver that?

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

I have been engaging with my officials on that matter, and we are seeking investment, if we can, through various monitoring rounds or other programmes that the Executive may run now and in the future. If we can properly resource it and put it in place, it will be an extremely beneficial scheme. I am examining ways to deliver that.

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

Whilst I appreciate that it is not the Minister's fault, when we met officials after the floods, we were told that the report would be available by June of this year, which might have allowed some work to take place over the summer and, therefore, ease business owners' concerns that the floods might happen again in October. To hear that it has been pushed back to next year will make business owners very concerned. Is there any mitigation available in the time in between? We do not want to see a repeat this autumn of what we saw last year.

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

Perhaps I misled the Member or spoke incorrectly. It is intended that the formal report will be compiled by the end of June 2024. The findings of that report will be available to us. We have not been standing still: my Department and my officials are still examining how we can support communities across the North that have been impacted by flooding. We want to learn lessons very quickly. I assure the Member that, when the report becomes available to me, I and my departmental colleagues will act quickly to bring forward the report's recommendations as soon as possible.

Deborah Erskine (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

The Infrastructure Committee received information about properties that are at risk of flood. For example, 45,000 properties are located in at-risk areas, and, when you add climate change to that, there are an additional 14,800 at-risk properties. The Committee has asked for a breakdown of where those properties are. I am cognisant of the fact that the budget position is not exactly helpful in relation to prioritising schemes. Will the Minister detail what he intends to do about flood alleviation schemes for that significant number of properties in Northern Ireland?

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

I am finalising my current capital budget and will publish it later. It will indicate the funding for flood prevention schemes. Work is ongoing, although I do not have the exact figures in front of me for that investment. We are investing in flood defence schemes across the piece, and some are at a more advanced stage than others. Of course, I would like more finances and a bigger budget to carry out those schemes, but I have to deal with the budget that I have and use it to its maximum, and I will do that.

I am looking at the home flood defence scheme. Currently, under that scheme, if your area is scheduled for a flood alleviation scheme or major works, you may not be entitled to the home flood defence scheme. I am looking at that to see whether we can be more flexible with that. Despite our best efforts, some flood alleviation schemes take several years to deliver, and some of them can be very complex. You have to match opportunity with budget. I am looking at other ways of supporting homeowners and businesses to protect their homes and properties from floods.

Harry Harvey (DUP, Strangford)

6. Mr Harvey asked the Minister for Infrastructure to outline his Department’s plans to complete the upgrade of the A7 Crossgar Road, Saintfield. (AQO 575/22-27)

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

The A7 from Belfast to Downpatrick forms part of the strategic road network and is classed as a link corridor. The A7 Rowallane to Doran's Rock scheme proposes to widen approximately 1,500 metres of existing carriageway to improve the forward visibility, with a wide verge on one side and a footpath on the other. The scheme was at an advanced stage of development several years ago, with the design work and an environmental assessment for the scheme being substantially complete. However, the scheme, regrettably, was not taken forward due to other priorities at that time.

My Department is currently developing proposals for a new regional strategic transport network transport plan, which will set out the priorities for future development of the main road and rail networks. I will consider proposals for improvements to the A7 as part of that process. The transport plan is still in development, but, once I have identified my preferred options and priorities, a draft document setting those out will be issued for public consultation, giving everyone an opportunity to have their views heard.

Harry Harvey (DUP, Strangford)

I thank the Minister for his detailed answer. The resurfacing scheme on the B7 road from Ballylone to Drumnaconagher in Ballynahinch is now almost complete, and I thank him and his Department for that. Will the Minister please advise when the second phase of that scheme is scheduled to take place at the Crossgar end of the B7, as that section is equally broken up and uneven?

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

My officials are aware of the condition of the B7 road at Crossgar, and any need for resurfacing will be prioritised against other roads in the division and programmed on the basis of available funding. The division programmes are currently being prepared and will be published in due course. In the meantime, my officials will continue to inspect and repair defects that meet the current limited services intervention level to protect public safety.

Nick Mathison (Alliance, Strangford)

The Minister will be aware of how critical the delivery of the Ballynahinch bypass is for the area that Mr Harvey highlighted. Will the Minister confirm when we will receive a further update on the delivery of that scheme?

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

I am working through my capital budgets, and, once I have done that, I will further engage with my officials responsible for major road improvements. I am keen to deliver the Ballynahinch scheme. It is a worthwhile project and will bring huge benefits not only to the town of Ballynahinch but further afield. It is a case of matching budgets with the opportunity at the time, but it is certainly, in my mind, an active scheme that I wish to progress during my tenure in this post.

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

7. Mr McCrossan asked the Minister for Infrastructure for an update on when he plans to publish the report following the public inquiry on the A5 western transport corridor. (AQO 576/22-27)

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

The A5 western transport corridor is a critically important infrastructure and flagship project for the Executive. The Planning Appeals Commission (PAC) issued its final advisory report from the latest public inquiry process in 2020 and 2023 to the Department on 31 October 2023. That report included 30 advisory recommendations, many of which are detailed and require legal and professional review, advice and input. That complex process is now close to completion.

I will be in a position to make an announcement in respect of the scheme when I have reviewed all of the relevant information in relation to the project. When I make my announcement, I will do so in accordance with all relevant statutory procedures and on the basis of all evidence, representation and advice that I have received from officials, statutory agencies North and South, members of the public and all other bodies that have participated in the process to date. My announcement will be accompanied by a statement of the reasons for the decision. That will take the form of a departmental statement, which will include a detailed response to the PAC advisory report and publication of the PAC report itself at the same time.

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

Minister, 56 people have died on the A5 since 2006, and, since the Assembly came back in February, a further four people have died. The report has been on your desk for eight months. Is there any particular reason that we should be concerned about for the delay, and can the Minister give us any steer or a concrete answer on when it will be published?

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

I am acutely conscious of the deaths on the A5, and I am acutely conscious of the deaths on the A5 since I came back into post. Throughout my time in the Department, I have prioritised engagement on the Planning Appeals Commission's report. As I said in my opening remarks, the process is highly technical, highly legal and highly complex. I am also required to carry out significant scientific data collection. The nature of that data collection means that it has taken several months. That data collection is now complete and is with a laboratory in England that will report to me in due course. When I have all the evidence, information and answers in front of me, I will be in a position to make an announcement.

David Honeyford (Alliance, Lagan Valley)

I thank the Minister for helping me with a question that I asked recently about Moira park-and-ride. I appreciate his help in allowing that project to progress.

Can the Minister give us an update on the essential upgrade of the A1 between Newry and Sprucefield? Has the project moved forward in the last couple of weeks or recent months? Is it any closer to making that road safer for the public?

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

Again, I am finalising my capital budget allocation and will make announcements later. I am committed to delivering on the A1 junction phase 2 improvements. That is another extremely busy road that has seen far too many casualties and accidents. Those road safety improvements need to be carried out. I hope to be in a position to make further announcements about that matter shortly.

Linda Dillon (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

I thank the Minister and his Department for the work that they have done on the A5. I do not think that we need to reiterate the horror that has been visited on many families, not least those in my area.

I am grateful for the work that the Minister is doing to make sure that there are no further legal challenges, but can he confirm whether there have been conversations with the road safety board and the PSNI about what can be done to keep the road and the people using it as safe as possible in the interim?

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

I have had discussions with the PSNI, and the road safety partnership continues to play its part as well.

The best way to improve road safety in general is for all of us, as road users, to change our habits. Whether you are a driver, cyclist, motorcyclist or pedestrian, the action that we take on the roads decides whether we and the people we share the road with arrive home safely.

I accept that there is also a responsibility on my Department that, where measures need to be taken on engineering solutions to road safety, they should be. I continue to examine options to see whether I can identify further investment for the road and what the best use of that investment would be on further safety measures on the A5.

Pat Sheehan (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

8. Mr Sheehan asked the Minister for Infrastructure for an update on his Department's efforts to improve road safety. (AQO 577/22-27)

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

It is a matter of deep regret that we continue to see so many lives lost on our roads. We must remember that each life lost is not merely a statistic but a family member, a parent, a child or a friend. Those deaths cause so much pain to families and tear communities apart. This month, I intend to bring a revised road safety strategy to the Executive for their agreement. A digital advertising campaign is nearing completion, and, last week, the British Heart Foundation became the latest organisation to partner with us by pledging to Share the Road to Zero.

The road safety strategy is an important document for refocusing minds and energy on creating safe roads, safe vehicles and safe people. However, it is only the collective efforts of us all that will truly make a difference. My officials are working alongside those in other Departments and from the emergency services to ensure that we have a single, agreed and collaborative approach to road safety. Once the outworkings of the Budget are known, officials will work with road safety partners to agree a forward action plan covering engineering, enforcement and education.

As I have said, we can all play our part in road safety and potentially in saving a life by thinking about how we act when we are travelling from A to B using roads or footpaths. We all need to wise up and take personal responsibility for behaving in a way that keeps us and others safe on our roads.

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

Tá brón orm, a Phat, ach níl ach bomaite amháin agat.

[Translation: Sorry, Pat, you have only one minute.]

Pat Sheehan (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

Go raibh maith agat, a Phríomh-Leas-Cheann Comhairle. Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire as ucht a fhreagra.

[Translation: Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. I thank the Minister for his answer.]

Can the Minister tell us the aim of the road safety strategy?

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

Quickly, Minister.

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

The aim is to cut road deaths substantially, in line with ambitions and targets in other European states and across these islands.

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

That ends the period for listed questions. We will now move on to 15 minutes of topical questions. Questions 6, 7 and 9 have been withdrawn.

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

T1. Mr Durkan asked the Minister for Infrastructure for his assessment of the suitability and effectiveness of existing taxi legislation and to state whether he has any plans to review it. (AQT 381/22-27)

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

Taxi legislation and the challenges that face our taxi industry have been raised with me many times. My view is that the main challenge that faces our taxi industry is not the current taxi legislation but the different economic factors that have come into play as people's habits have changed since COVID, their spending limits have been reduced as a result of the cost-of-living crisis and different employment opportunities have arisen for those who normally drive taxis. There is a range of issues. To date, I have not committed to reviewing taxi legislation, as resources and personnel in my Department will not allow me to do so. I have to prioritise other matters. I am committed to working alongside the taxi industry and taxi drivers to do what I can, but if I am going to do something, I want to make sure that it will be an effective response to their needs.

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire as a fhreagra.

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

The Minister has given his personal view. It certainly does not seem to be a party view, because a previous Minister, Chris Hazzard — this pre-dates COVID and the problems that the Minister outlined — expressed a desire to review the legislation on the basis that it was outdated. If it was outdated in 2016, is it not outdated now?

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

The Member should never look back in anger. This is 2024. I am now the Minister for Infrastructure, and I have to make decisions that are based on the reality that is in front of me now. The Member asked what had changed since 2016. COVID, the economy, available jobs: all those things have changed, right? So, how do we support our taxi industry? How does our legislature support our taxi industry? I am open to engaging with the taxi industry. In fact, rather than having a constant conversation about reviewing the legislation and about what one of my colleagues committed to eight years ago, I am writing to the Department for Transport in England to ask it not to proceed with the VAT increases on taxi fares and taxi operators, because that will have the most devastating impact on taxi operators.

Maurice Bradley (DUP, East Londonderry)

T2. Mr Bradley asked the Minister for Infrastructure what discussions his Department has had with NI Water to address the sewerage capacity issues across East Londonderry. (AQT 382/22-27)

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

I have had no specific conversations with NI Water about the Member's constituency, but I have had conversations with NI Water about how it faces the challenges of a budget that does not meet its immediate needs. We all accept that NI Water and other public bodies need more finance, but this is one of the areas where we will have to give leadership rather than say, "It is all terrible. There is nothing that we can do". I am confident that NI Water will do everything that is in its power to continue to deliver front-line services and to try to advance our waste water treatment works across all constituencies in a very restricted budgetary period. I will work with it in doing that. I will also work with my Executive colleagues to secure more funding for NI Water, Translink and, indeed, my Department. However, I do not intend to bury my head in the sand and say, "It is all terrible. It is all awful. We cannot do anything". My attitude to the current financial crisis is that we should work together, work with the Finance Minister, work collectively around the Executive table and seek solutions.

Maurice Bradley (DUP, East Londonderry)

I thank the Minister for his answer. The reality, Minister, is that the lack of infrastructure right across Northern Ireland — in East Londonderry in particular — is stopping the development of social housing and private housing. It is an emergency situation, as, I am sure, you are well aware.

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

If you do not have the capacity to invest in your public services, there will be an impact. That is just reality, but I will say this: each application must be judged on its merits. NI Water will have to make decisions on whether it can provide the waste water treatment services that a new development requires. If it cannot, can it work in conjunction with the developer to provide the services that are required, or can the developer provide those services on its own? We will have to do things differently moving forward. The other choice is to do nothing, and I do not think that that is a choice. Let us do things differently and find solutions to the problems that we face.

Kate Nicholl (Alliance, Belfast South)

T3. Ms Nicholl asked the Minister for Infrastructure for an update on the north to south Glider route. (AQT 383/22-27)

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

Is that phase 2 of the Glider route?

Kate Nicholl (Alliance, Belfast South)

Yes.

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

I am working with my officials to see how we can progress the next steps of delivering the decision that I made a number of years ago on the Antrim route and to move it out further than south Belfast and beyond that again. Again, we face financial challenges, but we can make progress on the first part of my decision in this term. I also want to make sure that I lay firm foundations to progress the Glider service so that it serves as many people as possible, because it has been proven to be a very effective and efficient means of delivering of public transport, and it has taken significant numbers of private vehicles off the roads.

Kate Nicholl (Alliance, Belfast South)

Thank you, Minister. When I receive casework queries from constituents in Carryduff, the number-one issue that is raised is when the Lidl will open, and the second one is whether the Glider scheme will be extended to serve Carryduff. Are you able to answer that question and commit to the Glider service extending to Carryduff?

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

The ambition is for the Glider route to proceed to Carryduff. I cannot give you a time frame, but, yes, the ambition is for the Glider service to go out as far as Carryduff.

John Blair (Alliance, South Antrim)

T4. Mr Blair asked the Minister for Infrastructure, having discovered in his work on water pollution a historical document, dated 2007, by the Utility Regulator, entitled 'Regulation of the Northern Irish water and sewerage industry: Statement of Regulatory Principles and Intent', which states, amongst other things, that there should be a reduction in the investment backlog in the foreseeable future and that there are "more exacting enforceable quality standards to be achieved", for an update on how those projected outcomes are being measured and on the work that is being done to address the investment backlog in waste water collection and treatment that presents quality compliance issues. (AQT 384/22-27)

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

On the investment backlog, until this year, NI Water was fully funded in accordance with the price control period — fully funded. Until 2024-25, NI Water's investment plans have been fully funded. As a result of the Budget and 10 or 11 years of austerity under Tory rule, it will not be possible to fully fund NI Water for 2024-25 in accordance with the price control period. I am looking towards 2025-26. My officials and I are engaging with NI Water. I also met the Utility Regulator to see how we can move forward to protect our waste water treatment infrastructure and our environment.

John Blair (Alliance, South Antrim)

I thank the Minister for that answer. I will continue with a question on water quality. Can I have an update on the implementation, if there is to be any, of event duration monitors, which give notification that there will be a sewage overflow issue?

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

They are part of NI Water's future infrastructure investment plans. I will do my best to support NI Water in delivering those, because, as the Member said, they are an aid in tackling sewage and rainwater overflows into our watercourses.

Emma Sheerin (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

T5. Ms Sheerin asked the Minister for Infrastructure to give a commitment that funding for community transport will not be cut in light of the 2024-25 Budget? (AQT 385/22-27)

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

My budget will be announced later. I have done everything in my power to protect community transport's funding at last year's levels, including the restoration of some funding that it lost last year. Community transport, as the Member will know from her rural constituency, provides a vital service to many in the rural community. I also hope to meet Minister Muir, Minister Nesbitt and the Minister for Communities to discuss how community transport engages with and delivers services to their Departments and how they, in turn, can help to support community transport. We need a long-term sustainable plan for community transport, both for those who use the service and those who manage and work in it.

Emma Sheerin (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire as a fhreagra.

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

As you outlined, Minister, community transport is vital, particularly for the most vulnerable and marginalised in rural communities. Will you provide detail on your plans for increasing the accessibility and sustainability of community transport?