Northern Ireland Assembly, 22 October 2024

254 contributions from 59 members. The official report.

Members' Statements

John Blair (Alliance, South Antrim)

If Members wish to be called to make a statement, they should rise in their place. Those Members who are called will have up to three minutes to make their statement.

I remind Members that interventions during this item of business are not permitted, and I will not take points of order on this or any other matter until this item of business is finished.

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

Yesterday, I was asked about the age of the young person who was sent inappropriate text messages by a Sinn Féin representative. It was my understanding that the young person was 17 years of age, based on the information at application to join the party. That information was wrong. Over the weekend, the young person made it clear that he was in fact 16 at the time, and I fully accept this. I want to put it on record that he was in fact 16 years of age when these inappropriate texts were sent.

What happened to this young person was wrong. Niall Ó Donnghaile's behaviour was unacceptable and entirely inappropriate, and no young person should have experienced that. As I said yesterday, I am absolutely so sorry for the hurt caused by the statement that was issued following his resignation.

On a separate matter, yesterday, 21 October, a Sinn Féin employee who worked in the Assembly made the party Chief Whip aware of their involvement in an incident regarding a portrait in Belfast City Hall. That took place on Saturday 19 October. The employee was immediately suspended, and we notified the PSNI. The employee has now resigned from their employment and party membership.

Phillip Brett (DUP, Belfast North)

I have given notice that I will raise a point of order after Members' statements. I am disappointed, given the issue that I want to raise, that the First Minister is now walking out of the Chamber.

Another day and another Sinn Féin scandal: another day and another police investigation surrounding the behaviour of Sinn Féin employees and members. Let me be abundantly clear: the decision by a Sinn Féin employee and member at the weekend to desecrate the portrait of DUP Lord Mayor Wallace Browne was absolutely disgraceful and poses many questions for Sinn Féin.

The event on Saturday evening at which the incident took place was attended by leadership figures of that party.

Did any of those leadership figures witness the incident that took place? Will they cooperate with the police investigation? Will they encourage others to cooperate with the PSNI investigation? When did Sinn Féin first become aware of the incident, and why only after our party raised this matter at City Hall and through the media did Sinn Féin then make a statement late last night? Did the Sinn Féin employee explain the rationale for the attack? Why did they single out a portrait of a unionist Lord Mayor? Why did they single out a portrait painted by a member of the Jewish community? Was it in retaliation for the democratic decision taken by members of Belfast City Council to remove the portrait of disgraced Sinn Féin senator Niall Ó Donnghaile? I will table further questions to find out whether the Sinn Féin employee was in any way connected to any Member of this House. These are very serious questions that need to be answered, and I and this party will continue to pursue these acts of criminality, violence and utter disgrace.

Kellie Armstrong (Alliance, Strangford)

I rise to congratulate Portaferry GAC on winning the Down Senior Hurling Championship on Sunday. Hurling on the Ards peninsula, part of my Strangford constituency, is very strong. Three parishes — Portaferry, Ballygalget, which I live in, and Ballycran — quite often make it to the Down Senior Hurling Championship finals. I give my congratulations to Portaferry, albeit I am from Ballygalget. Well done to the team, to captain, Matt Conlan and to the Portaferry guys who beat Ballygalget. The score was 3-21 to 2-15. Tom McGrattan got some fantastic scores throughout the match, and I am sure that his dad, Gerard McGrattan, who was an all-star, was extremely proud to see his son achieving so well. I wish Portaferry all the best of luck in the forthcoming Ulster Club Championship.

Diana Armstrong (UUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I rise to pay tribute to Siobhan Allister, a tireless charity campaigner and fundraiser who passed away suddenly, aged 63, on Saturday night.

Siobhan was diagnosed with multiple sclerosis in 2010 at the age of 49. Facing that personal health challenge, she joined the Fermanagh MS group, and, through her commitment to that group, she became lead support volunteer and group coordinator. She raised in excess of £100,000 for MS causes in Northern Ireland, organising abseiling and marathon cycle events amongst others, and she was an active member of the all-party group on MS and neurology, using her knowledge of the condition to lobby for more research and funding for patients. Siobhan ensured that MS patients in Fermanagh received the benefit of her fundraising for therapeutic care. Her personal experience of the condition enabled her to display great empathy and passion for her patients and their families.

In recognition of her exemplary fundraising and dedication to the MS charity, she was awarded the British Empire Medal. She was also presented with the MS Society's Shining Star award and the Points of Light award by the Prime Minister in Downing Street. In addition to that, she raised significant funds for the Aisling Centre women's health and well-being hub in Enniskillen and was a key organiser and enthusiast for the annual Lady of the Lake Festival in Irvinestown, her home town.

Siobhan is survived by her husband, Stevie, sons Daniel and Ben and siblings Catherine, Michael and Louise. It is to them that I send my deepest sympathy. Whilst small in stature, she was big in heart, and her contribution to the local community was immense. She will be fondly remembered by all who knew her as an inspirational person. May she rest in peace.

Sinéad McLaughlin (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

I have really strong concerns about Minister Givan's response last week when asked about the development of a childcare strategy. In his answer, the Minister suggested that we would have to wait:

"years to get the final comprehensive childcare strategy in place." — [Official Report (Hansard), 14 October 2024, p29, col 2].

Parents and those in the childcare sector cannot afford to wait years. It is true that stakeholders will want the strategy to be comprehensive and detailed, but, after years of delay and waiting, they should be able to expect such a strategy to be delivered with urgency. It is one of the key priorities in the Programme for Government. Parents need long-term sustainable support, and they need it now.

The childcare system in the North has been at breaking point for well over a decade, with many parents paying much more on childcare costs than their mortgage every month. Childcare providers are desperate for support, and families cannot make ends meet. We all know that the status quo cannot be allowed to continue. Earlier this year, we finally saw some progress through the Northern Ireland childcare subsidy scheme (NICSS), a practical success that was achieved by many politicians working in collaboration right across the political spectrum. Yet, we know all too well that that is only a start. The NICSS is a welcome intervention, but it is not a long-term solution to the issues that we face. It is not a childcare strategy. Parents cannot continue to wait for more support with their childcare bills.

The childcare sector has some of the hardest-working, most-dedicated and passionate people that I have met in all my years in business. Those people deserve better from the Executive and cannot afford to wait years for a strategy. Our children are our future. They are the next generation of politicians — God forbid — doctors, engineers, entrepreneurs and everything in between. We must ensure that they are not burdened by the failure of the Government. We must support their aspirations. The delivery of a childcare strategy must be an immediate priority.

Maolíosa McHugh (Sinn Féin, West Tyrone)

Ba mhaith liom aire an Tí a tharraingt ar Lá Náisiúnta an Úill, a bhí ann inné. Is i mo bhaile dúchais féin, Caisleán na Deirge, a bheidh Aonach Úll ann an 25 Deireadh Fómhair. Comhairle Chathair Dhoire agus Cheantar an tSratha Báin a bheidh á urrú. Ní ócáid aon uaire i gCaisleán na Deirge é Aonach Úll: tá sé á reáchtáil ar an bhaile le mo chuimhne, agus, leoga, ar feadh i bhfad níos faide ná sin.

De ghnáth, bhíodh an tAonach Úll ann an Aoine dheireanach de mhí Dheireadh Fómhair. Bhí an t-am ann nuair ba é buaicphointe na bliana é, nó thagadh na sluaite chun an bhaile go bhfeiceadh siad na seastáin agus go gceannaíodh siad a raibh de dhíobháil orthu le haghaidh an gheimhridh. Thagadh na feirmeoirí úll agus torthaí eile agus glasraí ó Chondae Ard Mhacha, "úllghort na hÉireann", agus ó i bhfad níos faide i gcéin ná sin. Bhíodh na sráideanna plódaithe, nó bhíodh daoine ag ceannach úll, oráistí, piorraí agus daimsíní agus gach aon chineál eile toraidh as a ndéanadh siad subh agus anlainn agus pióga. Bheireadh na fir cuairt ar na seastáin crua-earraí le trealamh a cheannach le haghaidh an ama a bhí le teacht. Dhéanadh an iomad ealaíontóirí sráide: fir láidre, draíodóirí agus áilteoirí — dhéanadh sin siamsa do na páistí. Tháinig laghdú ar an líon daoine a bhíodh ag freastal ar an ócáid tuaithe seo sna 70í. Caithfimid ár mbuíochas a ghabháil leis an chomhairle as acmhainní a chur ar fáil don Aonach Úll leis an nós tíre ársa seo a athbheochan agus le brí agus fuinneamh a chur arís ann.

Beidh buaicphointe an Aonaigh Úll á cheiliúradh ag grúpa pobail Bhaile an Teampaill ar Bhóthar an Lorgain Bhuí an tráthnóna sin. Chuaigh an grúpa sin i ngleic le fadhb thinte cnámh na hoíche Samhna agus leis an iompar frithshóisialta a bhí bainteach leo. Chuaigh an grúpa i dteagmháil leis an phobal, agus cinneadh ar aonach siamsaíochta a chur ar cois ar láithreán an ghrúpa pobail. Mar chríoch ar an aonach beidh taispeántas tinte ealaíne iontach ann. Beidh an pobal uile go léir i láthair — clabhsúr cuí ar an Aonach Úll i gCaisleán na Deirge. Tá ardmholadh tuillte ag grúpa pobail Bhaile an Teampaill as a ndea-cheannaireacht. Bígí linn, a chairde. Beidh fearadh na fáilte agaibh i gCaisleán na Deirge ar an Aonach Úll.

Maolíosa McHugh (Sinn Féin, West Tyrone)

[Translation: I draw the House’s attention to the fact that yesterday was National Apple Day. On Friday 25 October, my home town of Castlederg will host Apple Fair Day, sponsored by Derry City and Strabane District Council. This is not a one-off for Castlederg: it has hosted the Apple Fair for as long as I can remember and much longer than that. Traditionally, Apple Fair Day took place on the last Friday in October. Years ago, it was the highlight of the year, as people flocked to the town to view the many stalls, make purchases and make preparations in anticipation of the winter. Producers of apples and other fruit and vegetables descended on the town, having travelled from Armagh, “the orchard of Ireland”, and much further afield. The streets would be thronged, as people purchased apples, pears, damsons and other kinds of fruit that would be turned into jams, sauces and pies. The men would visit the hardware stalls, buying equipment for the coming years, and the children would be entertained by the many street artists, strong men, magicians and clowns. Attendance at the rural event declined in the 70s. Derry City and Strabane District Council is to be congratulated for putting resources into Apple Fair Day and reviving and giving a new lease of life to this ancient country custom. The climax to the Apple Fair Day’s festivities will come that evening at the Churchtown community group’s site on the Lurganboy Road. The group tackled the issue of Halloween bonfires and the antisocial behaviour associated with them. Working with the community, the group will stage a funfair on its site, culminating in a fantastic fireworks display attended by all. It will be a fitting end to Apple Fair Day in Castlederg. Churchtown community group is to be commended for such good leadership. Come and join us. You will be most welcome in Castlederg at the Apple Fair Day.]

Stephen Dunne (DUP, North Down)

I am pleased to welcome the news today that the Commonwealth Games are set once again to be hosted by Glasgow in 2026. That secures the future of those prestigious games, which were in real jeopardy following a number of setbacks, with the Australian state of Victoria pulling out late in the day from hosting the games.

Often referred to as the "friendly games", the Commonwealth Games were first held in 1930 in Canada. Northern Ireland has competed in 19 of the 21 Commonwealth Games, beginning with the second games, which were held in 1934. Our wee country has achieved an incredible 142 medals at the games. A total of 3,000 athletes from up to 74 of our Commonwealth nations and territories are expected to compete at the 2026 games across a new, compact 10-sport programme. The Commonwealth Games provide the only opportunity for our local athletes to represent Northern Ireland while competing at international level in a multi-sport event. It is welcome that our aspiring athletes will again have that opportunity.

Team Northern Ireland has always punched well above its weight at the Commonwealth Games, and the 2026 games represent a fantastic opportunity to build on the success of the 2022 games in Birmingham, at which our athletes won a record 18 medals. We saw in the summer the success of our golden Olympic heroes, including Rhys McClenaghan and Daniel Wiffen, who both won medals at the 2022 games in Birmingham. That clearly demonstrates the pathway to success that is available to all. Many of our most decorated athletes, including Lady Mary Peters, enjoyed success at the Commonwealth Games: long may that continue.

The games are an incredible opportunity for athletes from across Northern Ireland to compete at an elite level in so many sports, including athletics, boxing, netball, swimming, gymnastics and other sports that we have excelled in for many generations. I wish Team Northern Ireland — Conal and the whole team — all the very best, as they can now plan and train with certainty for the 2026 Commonwealth Games.

Michelle Guy (Alliance, Lagan Valley)

Since joining the Education Committee, I have been trying to meet as many stakeholders as possible, including the parents of children with special educational needs (SEN). I express my admiration for those parents. Many mothers in particular are dismissed as being hysterical, which is an infuriating stereotype, but the women whom I have met have been calm, articulate and expert at advocating for their children. I will focus my statement on the crusade of one such mother: Deirdre Shakespeare, mother of Harry.

Deirdre has spearheaded an inspiring and effective campaign for what has become known as "Harry's law" to highlight the use of restraint and seclusion in schools. I acknowledge that colleagues in my party and across the Chamber have been advocating on the issue for years, as have, most importantly, parents, carers and young people with lived experience. When I spoke to Deirdre recently, she told me about Harry's experience of being repeatedly restrained in school without her knowledge and about the heartbreaking, even harrowing, impact that it had on her son. The impact of restraint and seclusion can be devastating on young people, many of whom are non-verbal and unable to explain what has happened.

I acknowledge the work that the Department has done: the 2022 review and the subsequent draft guidance that has been published for consultation. However, we still await further updates on when the statutory guidance will be in place and on the changes that have been made since the Department received substantial feedback from those with lived experience and from organisations such as the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission. It is essential that schools and teaching professionals are knowledgeable about and trained in statutory guidance that is crystal clear. That is why I have serious concerns that the draft guidance repeatedly uses "should":

"Educational settings should review their policies and practice ... should develop a policy on the reduction and elimination of the use of restrictive practices".

Those are "musts", and I hope that that is reflected in the updated version.

The Department's review of restraint and seclusion recommends the repeal of article 4(1)(c) of the Education (NI) Order 1998, but we are yet to have the Minister's unambiguous commitment that that will happen. I hope that he will do that and do it soon for the sake of those kids.

Gerry Carroll (People Before Profit Alliance, Belfast West)

A year into a brutal genocide that has killed at least 100,000 people, you think that you have witnessed everything. After seeing refugee camps blown to bits, hospitals and schools flattened and universities wiped out, you think that you have seen everything. Then, last week, we saw something horrific and brutal that really showcases what Israel and Zionism are all about at their core. We saw the incineration of Sha’ban al-Dalou — the burning alive of a man who was not yet 20 years old. Can you imagine the rightful and justified horror and outcry if that had been carried out in a hospital in Ireland, Europe, America or elsewhere? However, it is deemed to be acceptable and OK because it is another massacred Palestinian. To me and to millions and billions of people across the world, that is not normal, acceptable or right. After a year of genocide and normalisation of the abnormal — the killing of people on the basis of their nationality and the massacre of Palestinians on an industrial scale — we have witnessed a mass movement to defy the political consensus and the actions of Washington, London, Berlin and other states.

We have to ask questions and focus on the role played by the Governments on these islands in funding the war machine and, in particular, the use of airports. We know that US warplanes go through Shannon Airport, and I pay tribute to the anti-war activists who protested at Shannon a few weekends ago. Journalists from 'The Ditch' reported that weapons of war had gone from the US via Shannon in Ireland to arm the Israeli war machine under the watchful eye of the Southern Government. What is flown through Aldergrove airport? Who is monitoring what goes through Aldergrove? I asked the Economy Minister a question about that, and his answer was that, effectively, nobody monitors it and it is not monitored by the Department. Are the First and the deputy First Minister monitoring what goes through Aldergrove? If it is found that weapons of war for Israel are going through that airport, who will do something about it?

Colm Gildernew (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

This morning, I will draw attention to some of the fantastic community and voluntary search and rescue organisations that we have across the North. I think particularly of the K9 Search and Rescue service, which is based in County Down. In April, many of us met members of the service in the Long Gallery. In my constituency, we have Dungannon Sub Aqua Club, Tyrone Underwater Search and Recovery and Matthew’s search and rescue drone, which was set up after young Matthew McCallan lost contact with his friends on a night out and, tragically, lost his life at some time that night. His family have organised and fundraised to set up a service whereby a drone can provide assistance in search situations and pick up on body heat.

The organisations all have a tremendous range of expertise and skills and commitment to what they do. It has come to my attention that, at times, some of the organisations struggle to be included in heartbreaking search situations because they are not part of a list maintained by the PSNI that is used to draw in services from groups. I fully recognise the need for the PSNI to be assured that anyone whom it works with has the required experience, qualifications, skills and equipment, and I believe that that applies to many of the groups. However, the groups say that it is difficult to find out how to get on the list, how to meet the requirements and what the criteria to might be. I will speak to the Justice Minister in due course to see whether we can provide further information to the groups. We all recognise that, if we were in that situation, we would want people with the required skills and equipment to assist in the search for our loved ones.

I acknowledge the work and effort that go into those groups. They fundraise, train voluntarily and maintain very high standards of practice. I encourage the Department and the PSNI to see how they can work better with those groups to utilise their skills when they are needed.

Brian Kingston (DUP, Belfast North)

Tomorrow, 23 October, will be the 31st anniversary of the Shankill bomb. On that sunny Saturday afternoon in 1993, two IRA men walked into Frizzell's fish shop on the Shankill Road carrying a bomb designed to kill.

When they triggered it at 1.06 pm, the explosion ripped through the building and out into the street, resulting in the death of nine innocent people — men, women and children. The Provisional IRA claimed that it was targeting a meeting upstairs, but there was no meeting. The terrorists were entirely prepared to put the lives of innocent people at risk in the planning and execution of the bombing, and they killed nine innocent people.

Over the years, I have met many relatives of those killed in that IRA atrocity. I have also met many people who were injured that day, some of whom were buried under bricks and rubble and had to be dug out, and the people who did that digging, frantically tearing at bricks with their bare hands: they all bear the mental scars of that traumatic experience.

In its callous disregard for human life, the IRA was also prepared to sacrifice the lives of those whom it sent to carry out the atrocity, with one being killed and the other owing his survival to those who rescued him from under the rubble, where he was surrounded by the bodies of those who were less fortunate.

The nine innocent people whose lives were taken will always be held dear in the hearts of the Shankill community. Last year, on the 30th anniversary, a new memorial clock face was unveiled at the location of the bombing, and a circle of nine trees was planted in the park beside West Kirk Presbyterian Church. Floral wreaths will be laid tomorrow.

The innocent victims were the shop owner, John Frizzell, aged 63; his daughter, Sharon McBride, aged 29, who was also a wife and a mother; Michael "Minnie" Morrison, aged 27, after whom a youth football tournament that takes place each year is named; his partner, Evelyn Baird, also aged 27; and their daughter Michelle Baird, aged seven, in whose memory a play park in Glencairn is named — the couple's two other children were left parentless; George Williamson, aged 63 and his wife, Gillian Williamson, aged 49, who were out shopping when they were both killed in the blast, leaving behind two children; mother-of-two Wilma McKee, aged 38; and Leanne Murray, aged 13. We mourn the recent passing of her mother, Gina Murray.

Let us continue to support the families. Let there be no attempts at justification. Let their needs be placed above all other considerations. We will remember them.

Andrew McMurray (Alliance, South Down)

I rise to acknowledge the upcoming one-year anniversary of the flood events that affected the south-east. Portadown and Newry were particularly badly affected, but I want to acknowledge the devastating effects of the flooding that are still visible in Newcastle and Downpatrick in my South Down constituency. Standing in Downpatrick under blue skies while watching the flood waters come in like a rising tide was an awful sight; in fact, the atmosphere was akin to that at a wake.

While moneys were made available to the businesses affected, the process was, at times, clunky, with many business owners struggling to quickly access the funds required to get their business back up and running. Indeed, since taking up office in Downpatrick, I have stood on Market Street, where, in times past, many shops were open for trade and were busy, and yet now, many shops are still closed for business. It will take more than a one-year programme for the centre of Downpatrick to recover from the economic shock that was visited upon it in the shape of those floods.

While the traders in Downpatrick deservedly received a lot of attention, the residents of Newcastle must not be forgotten. Last October marked the second time in three years that residents' homes were flooded. That left residents, quite understandably, in fear every time that there is an adverse weather forecast. Residential homes need more support after such incidents.

Sports clubs, museums and charities were also affected by the floods, and those sectors need support to become resilient to such incidents.

We are still waiting on further information about potential alleviation schemes that will go some way towards preventing such events happening again. While the reports and reviews are welcome, residents and traders are impatient to see tangible developments that will prevent flooding from happening to the same degree again. The reality of the situation is that these events will become more commonplace, given the climate breakdown that we are experiencing. Our seas are becoming warmer. As a result, tropical storms gain more energy and manifest themselves over our island, with more intense bouts of wind and rain.

Timothy Gaston (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

Sunday was the 17th anniversary of the murder of Paul Quinn. Let me remind the House, which is apt to forget or ignore such things, what happened to Mr Quinn. After luring him to a farm just across the border in County Monaghan, where three of his friends were being held hostage, a group of around 10 men beat him with iron and nail-studded bars for upwards of half an hour, breaking every major bone in his body. In the aftermath of the murder, Conor Murphy defamed that young man, making accusations that he has not withdrawn to this day. No one seriously believes that anyone other than the IRA was responsible for that brutal murder, yet Stormont continued regardless.

Last week, we had confirmation from the PSNI that the 2015 assessment of the Provisional IRA remains valid. It retains an army council that oversees Sinn Féin, it retains weapons, and it continues to gather intelligence. There was a politically motivated attempt over the weekend to ease the pressure on Sinn Féin and those who shamefully sustain it in government, but I say this to the DUP, the Ulster Unionists and the Alliance Party: do not act surprised that a party overseen by an illegal terrorist organisation that is responsible for 1,800 empty chairs across the Province and countless broken bodies and shattered minds is not squeaky clean when it comes to issues related to child protection.

The 2007 DUP manifesto pledged that there would be a complete end to paramilitary and criminal activity and the removal of terrorist structures prior to Sinn Féin's entry to the Northern Ireland Executive. It now plays second fiddle to Sinn Féin in the Executive in spite of the continued role of the IRA army council at the head of the republican movement. Whether it is child protection or terrorism, the fundamental remains the same, and the question that faces the House is this: is there anything that republicans could do that would mean that those partnering them in government would walk away from this immoral sham? Once again, it appears to me and many outside this place that some value the institutions as more important than delivering truth and accountability on how Sinn Féin operates and the past and present scandals that it has been embroiled in.

John Blair (Alliance, South Antrim)

I call Deborah Erskine for two minutes.

Deborah Erskine (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I want to draw attention to an event happening tomorrow at Westminster that will highlight the importance of two paused growth deals for which we are still awaiting confirmation on funding. As we all know, the Causeway Coast and Glens and Mid South West growth deals are the only two deals in Northern Ireland that are paused by the Labour Government, and it is shameful. The Mid South West growth deal, which is in my area, represents three council areas and had the highest level of investment outside the Belfast region. The Government's decision to pause the deals highlights a compete disregard for those areas. Without a decision to proceed, inequality and regional imbalance will be further widened.

For weeks in the Chamber, I have heard a lot of fine words about addressing the regional imbalance in Northern Ireland. However, for some, when the fight was over for their council area, they were content. I am not content when parts of Northern Ireland do not get their equal, fair share. Northern Ireland will truly succeed only if all parts are on a level footing.

The DUP secured city and growth deals as part of the confidence-and-supply agreement, and we will continue to fight to ensure that Northern Ireland and each part of it gets its level, fair share of funding. I thank my DUP colleagues for continually raising the case at Westminster. My council area was to sign its heads of terms last week, and there was an event in Dungannon with the First Minister and deputy First Minister and the Finance Minister. The deal will be an economic game changer for my area, and tomorrow, at Westminster, that event will showcase that for the affected areas.

Assembly Business

Phillip Brett (DUP, Belfast North)

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Yesterday, during questions to the First Minister, the First Minister once again said the line that has been proven to be incorrect. At the weekend, the information was clear that the teenager subjected to inappropriate contact by Senator Niall Ó Donnghaile was 16 years of age.

Yesterday, the First Minister once again reiterated the incorrect information that he was not a minor.

The First Minister then came to the Chamber in her role as a Back-Bench MLA to give a Member's statement to correct the record, not as First Minister, the capacity in which she was answering questions yesterday. Mr Deputy Speaker, will you rule on whether it is in order for a Minister to correct the record while not in the capacity in which they made the statement? Secondly, what avenues are open to Members to question Ministers on why they wilfully mislead the House?

John Blair (Alliance, South Antrim)

If Members feel that there is an issue with answers given by a Minister, they have ways of pursuing that further, including through the tabling of further questions. If we are given notice that a Minister is coming to the House to make a statement, the House will be informed. Should it be the case that any Minister or Member feels the need to correct the record, they have the opportunity to come to the House to do so simply by raising a point of order.

Ministerial Statement

John Blair (Alliance, South Antrim)

Before I call the Minister, I remind Members that they must be concise in asking their questions. This is not an opportunity for debate, and long introductions will not be allowed.

Mike Nesbitt (UUP, Strangford)

Mr Deputy Speaker, given the nature of the subject matter, with your indulgence, I suspect that the statement may exceed the normal duration.

I welcome the opportunity to update Members on maternity and neonatal services, including the report by Professor Mary Renfrew entitled 'Enabling Safe Quality Midwifery Services and Care in Northern Ireland'.

Pregnancy is, of course, a normal life event. For some, it can be a more challenging experience, but it is mostly a time of joy and new beginnings. The vast majority of women have a safe birth and get to go home with their healthy baby or babies. I acknowledge and thank the staff across our health service in hospitals, GP surgeries and communities who make that possible every day through their dedication to pregnant women and babies, often in challenging circumstances. However, I also recognise that, for some, that is not the case. Whilst, unfortunately, some situations are outside our control, we must do all that we can to make sure that maternity and neonatal services provide the best care. Therefore, improving maternity and neonatal services is an immediate concern for me and for my Department.

Maternity and neonatal services are made up of various areas that work together to provide support to women during pregnancy and in the early months after birth. They include community midwives, antenatal clinics, multidisciplinary teams (MDTs) in consultant-led maternity units, midwifery-led units and post-partum support such as health visitors, community midwives and GPs, as well as hospital neonatal units that care for sick babies. I must acknowledge that services have needed to adapt and change over recent years. The impact of COVID-19 meant a downturn and new ways of working for some services. I recognise that that was a difficult time for everybody involved: expectant mothers, their partners and maternity staff. However, having emerged from that difficult period, we now have an opportunity to rebuild and transform service delivery to adapt to current demands, with a new focus to improve maternity and neonatal services.

Women in Northern Ireland can give birth in one of the seven consultant-led maternity units staffed by midwives, doctors and other members of the multidisciplinary team; in an alongside midwifery-led unit; or at home, supported by midwives. Maternity staff work closely with women to enable them to make an informed choice about where to have their baby. For babies who, unfortunately, require additional support at birth, that is provided by one of the neonatal units around the region, which are all aligned with the seven maternity units. Those units take care of some of the most vulnerable members of our society. My Department has been overseeing a major programme of work on improving maternity and neonatal safety, and I will now update Members on that.

As you will be aware, concerns about the safety of maternity services across other parts of the United Kingdom have come to light in recent years. In November 2022, the coroner for Northern Ireland contacted my Department with concerns around her findings following an inquest into the death of a baby who was stillborn after being transferred from a free-standing midwifery-led unit to a consultant-led maternity unit. As I deliver the statement, my thoughts turn to the family of the baby who tragically died. My condolences go out to them and to all those affected by such a tragic loss.

In light of the concerns, my Department established a maternity and neonatal services safety oversight group in January 2023 to receive assurance on the safety of maternity and neonatal services for the population of Northern Ireland. That group is made up of senior officials from my Department and the Public Health Agency (PHA). A broad programme of work is ongoing, with an immediate focus on improving governance and safety across maternity and neonatal services. The programme includes a comprehensive independent review of midwifery services led by Professor Mary Renfrew that I will come to shortly.

My Department also asked the Regulation and Quality Improvement Authority (RQIA) to carry out a review of the governance arrangements in place to support safety in maternity services in Northern Ireland. That report was published in May of last year. The RQIA report made 23 recommendations to strengthen the governance, systems and processes that support the delivery of safe, effective care in maternity services across Northern Ireland. The Department accepted the report's recommendations in principle, with the caveat that the implementation and timescales may differ from those suggested by the RQIA due to the need for additional funding and the ongoing work on maternity and neonatal safety.

Other areas of work ongoing include reviewing progress with the implementation of relevant National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guidance and developing a gap analysis of the implementation of all relevant reports and recommendations that have been endorsed by my Department. Although work is ongoing and improvements are required, it is important to say that, to date, no material safety concerns have been identified in that suite of work.

Regarding midwifery services, the oversight group established a work stream to consider issues highlighted in the coroner's report, which recommended that the Department should:

"conduct a comprehensive review of the number of staff, experience, education, training and policies required for Freestanding Midwifery Led Units ... consider the need for further guidance to all HSC Trusts in relation to the Coroner’s findings regarding the management of BMI and shoulder dystocia ... undertake further work to inform a consistent approach to provision of midwifery services, including integration across wider maternity services."

To address the issues identified by the coroner in April 2023, my Chief Nursing Officer commissioned Professor Mary Renfrew, an independent expert in the field of midwifery with professional experience outside Northern Ireland, to carry out a comprehensive and independent review that would help inform a consistent approach to the provision of midwifery services throughout Northern Ireland. The terms of reference for the review were based on the areas identified by the coroner that I mentioned. The broad scope led Professor Renfrew to undertake a comprehensive review of midwifery services and care in Northern Ireland, including all its interdependencies within the overall maternity service. That included a review of the evidence base and models of care across the region and internationally.

(Madam Deputy Speaker [Ms Ní Chuilín] in the Chair)

In developing her report, Professor Renfrew and her secretariat team carried out extensive and widespread engagement with maternity service users and advocates, holding face-to-face and virtual listening events with women, families and professionals across Northern Ireland. I am incredibly grateful to the professor for undertaking the review, which assists the Department in strengthening midwifery services and care across Northern Ireland. I acknowledge the effort of all the participants who contributed to the report — those with professional and expert input and, particularly, the women and families who were willing to share their own experiences, no matter how difficult or traumatic, to assist change and provide improvement in our maternity services.

My Department received the final report during the summer and has had the opportunity to consider it fully. It will be available to view on my Department's website from today.

Professor Renfrew is clear that our maternity and neonatal staff are committed and determined to provide the best care that they can. In her report, there are examples of good-quality care across Northern Ireland, including: the appointment of a consultant midwife in each health and social care trust and the roll-out of a new model of care; continuity of midwifery care, which means that women receive support from the same midwifery team during and after pregnancy; and the establishment of a weekly, multidisciplinary clinic in the Western Health and Social Care Trust to enable teamwork in the development of individualised pathways for pregnant women who experience gestational diabetes.

(Madam Deputy Speaker [Ms Ní Chuilín] in the Chair)

I also recognise that Professor Renfrew's engagement identified a level of adverse experiences reported by some women and families, as well as stress and distress being reported by all staff groups who participated in the review, especially midwives. It is important to acknowledge that the number of individuals engaged with during those events represents a small proportion of the overall maternity population in Northern Ireland. The number of women engaged with represents 0·5% of the total number of women who gave birth in 2023. The number of midwifery staff represents around 10% of the total number that were recorded in March 2023. Nevertheless, the messages were clear and consistent from those women and staff. The system must, and will, listen to their concerns.

The report contains 32 detailed recommendations that are aligned to seven interrelated key conditions. Those conditions are themed under five areas: safe quality care in midwifery units and at home for home births; regional strategic developments; safe quality care and services in all settings; monitoring and review of information and data; and building for the future.

In summary, the report advocates:

"A reconfigured relationship with women, families and communities"

that ensures respectful, personalised care and genuine involvement.

Next, it advocates:

"A consistent, region-wide, evidence-informed approach to planning, commissioning, standards, provision, monitoring, and review of maternity and neonatal services."

Next, it advocates:

"Improving clinical, psychological, and cultural safety and equity for women, babies and families across the whole continuum of care and in all settings".

It also advocates:

"Changing the prevailing work culture to implement an enabling environment for all staff and managers".

That includes ensuring that midwives are represented at senior management levels, tackling silo working and developing an open learning culture at every level of the system.

It recommends:

"strengthening midwifery care and services across the whole continuum of maternal and newborn care"

with

"Investment in community as well as hospital services ... And increasing midwives’ influence over the safety and quality of care and services."

The report also recommends:

"Better oversight through improved accountability, monitoring, evaluation, and research".

And:

"A unified approach to education and training of all staff, including leadership development - especially for midwives - and capacity building for the future."

The report identifies three issues as critical priorities. The first is improving:

"Postnatal care both in hospital and at home".

That is about ensuring that women receive adequate pain relief and essential care for themselves and their babies.

The second is improving:

"interdisciplinary working for women requesting care ‘outside of guidance’, and improved safety for the midwives who care for them."

The third is:

"Psychological safety for all staff."

Whilst it is recognised that some of the actions required to address the critical priorities will require regional coordination, trusts have already been asked to take immediate action in a number of areas to address those critical priorities.

Having considered Professor Renfrew's report and the assessment carried out by my officials, I have accepted the report in principle, with caveats on some recommendations that will present particular implementation and funding challenges and will need further consideration. However, the recommendations in the professor's report provide us with an opportunity to strengthen and improve maternity services for women and babies and for the dedicated staff who provide the services.

At this time, I am unable to commit to part of the fourth recommendation, which is that service users and advocates should receive remuneration for the time that they spend participating in stakeholder and engagement events. While the feedback that was provided by service users and advocates is invaluable, I am unable to commit to payments under that recommendation at this time. There is a policy in place, however, to provide reimbursement to service users and advocates for issues such as travel expenses, subsistence and childcare where appropriate.

One recommendation that I have partially accepted in principle refers to the future of free-standing midwifery-led units. I want to explain this point very carefully. It is important that women have safe options to give birth outside of labour wards, if that is their preference. Professor Renfrew advocates a rethink on how we provide those care options for the women of Northern Ireland, and he outlines eight key requirements that need to be met for those options to be safely provided. Those key requirements provide a framework to strengthen and connect the whole maternity system.

The evidence, coupled with the feedback that Professor Renfrew heard from the women and staff whom she engaged with, is that safe, quality care for all women and babies requires Northern Ireland to ensure that community and hospital options for care and pregnancy, birth and the postnatal period are available. The report recognises that the old model of service delivery and the terminology used created the potential for free-standing midwifery-led units to become disconnected from the maternity service. The eight requirements seek to reconfigure and transform that service model.

In addition, Professor Renfrew states that at least one community midwifery hub should be available in all HSC trusts and that the sites of the free-standing midwifery-led units should be developed and reconfigured as community midwifery hubs in a phased programme to ensure safe, quality care for all. I believe that it would be premature at this point to make decisions on the future of the free-standing midwifery-led units transitioning to community midwifery units or on the recommendation that one should be available in each trust area.

In the meantime, antenatal care will continue to be provided at Lagan Valley Hospital, Downe Hospital and the Mater Hospital, taking into consideration Professor Renfrew's eight requirements. There are, however, no plans to resume births at the three units at present. Before any community midwifery hubs offer facilities for labour and birth, all essential requirements outlined in the report must be met. The immediate focus must be on the stability of maternity and neonatal services. The future configuration will need to consider the key requirements outlined by Professor Renfrew, the wider health and social care population needs, demographic trends and system capacity.

I am conscious that the content and findings of the report may be met with elements of concern about the safety of maternity services in Northern Ireland, particularly for pregnant women and those who are planning a pregnancy. It is important to recognise that, while the vast majority of women will have a safe birth and a positive experience, many of those who contributed to the report did not. We must acknowledge the failings that the report has highlighted in many areas and be clear that there must be improvement and a prioritisation of those services. Caring for women and babies must be a top priority for our future. It is, after all, one service that each and every one of us requires.

With the support of dedicated maternity professionals, pregnancy and childbirth is a relatively uncomplicated process for most. Northern Ireland has key strengths in its maternity services. It has a skilled and dedicated workforce that is committed to providing high-quality care. I recognise, however, that, in recent years, the wider system has struggled to refresh and transform services at the pace required to enable them to cope with the changing needs of pregnant women. As a result, many staff members have experienced exhaustion and burnout, and they must be better supported in that vital role.

While birth rates in Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom have fallen in recent years, maternity care has become more complex, with an increasing proportion of women having health problems, which increases the risk of adverse events for them and their babies. More than half of pregnant women require specialist care during pregnancy or delivery, or following the birth, and one in 10 newborns also requires specialist care, which is provided by a range of professionals who work as a multidisciplinary team. The proportion of women requiring specialist care has increased significantly over the past 10 years. For example, around one in eight pregnant women in Northern Ireland now has some type of diabetes, and one in 20 has high blood pressure. That means that women require specialist care from multidisciplinary teams. Other health inequalities also have a major impact on pregnancy outcomes, so it is essential that we continue to prioritise initiatives that not only enhance the quality of care at all levels but address health inequalities across Northern Ireland. Midwives have a critical contribution to make to both of those priorities.

Professor Renfrew's report highlights the increase in caesarean births in every part of the United Kingdom and Ireland over the past 10 years and the fact that those rates are out of step with similar countries internationally. The reasons for the increase may include a number of factors, such as an increase in the number of complex pregnancies due to a range of factors, including older maternal age and underlying health conditions, as well as maternal choice. While the rate of caesarean births has increased, it is in line with other UK countries. The priority must remain to provide the most appropriate care for mothers and their babies, taking account of their individual needs and personal choice.

My Department has endorsed the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guidance on caesarean sections, which describes the benefits and risks associated with caesarean birth and vaginal birth and provides guidance on the care of women and babies before, during and after caesarean births. Health professionals have a professional and legal duty to discuss the benefits and risks of different care options with women, taking into account their individual circumstances, concerns, priorities and plans for future pregnancies, and they should support women's decisions on how they would like their baby to be born.

All the work that I have outlined will form part of a consolidated regional action plan, which will be fundamental to improving maternity and neonatal services and outcomes for mothers, babies and their families in Northern Ireland. It will also help to inform the future strategic direction for maternity and neonatal services. It is important that the challenges facing maternity and neonatal services and the implementation of the consolidated regional action plan are approached collaboratively across the region, ensuring, as far as possible, that care is consistent and equitable no matter where it is accessed.

Given the fact that there are interdependencies between maternity and neonatal services, I will establish an interdisciplinary maternity and neonatal partnership with a programme board governance structure to lead the development, implementation and oversight of evidence-based, safe and quality maternity and newborn care and services in order to maximise the contribution of those services to maternal and newborn health. That will also include the implementation of a consolidated regional action plan.

The partnership will include representation from my Department, the Public Health Agency (PHA), health and social care trusts, primary care and service users. It will incorporate the work and functions of the existing maternity quality improvement collaborative, which is a facilitated group of clinicians from across the region that is largely focused on regional agreement on protocols and clinical issues, and the clinical groups of the neonatal network. The programme board will draw membership from senior officials from my Department, the Public Health Agency and the health and social care trusts. Final proposals for the partnership and programme board are being developed. Members will appreciate that there will be a funding requirement associated with that and with the implementation of the consolidated regional action plan, and I hope that my Executive colleagues will be supportive of that. I see this as being a high priority and would like to see the partnership established as soon as possible.

I agree with Professor Renfrew that how we care for women and babies is a measure of our society and that pregnancy, birth and the early weeks of life are fundamentally important for each woman, baby and family. At the heart of this matter is the clear message that we must listen to women. I have listened: I hear them, and I agree that improvement is needed. The birthing process is a vulnerable and intimate time for women, babies and their families. It is essential that they are provided with safe, respectful, kind, evidence-informed, multidisciplinary and individualised care across the continuum and in all settings. I am determined to ensure that all midwifery services and care in Northern Ireland are safe, respectful and compassionate, and that women and their families feel heard, valued and supported.

Finally, I can assure you that improving services for pregnant women and new mothers and babies is and will continue to be an immediate priority for me and my Department. I trust that the information that I have provided to Members today in the statement gives some assurance of the priority that I am giving to the issue.

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

I thank the Minister for his statement, which, fundamentally, references the Renfrew report. I would have thought that, in the interests of openness and transparency, that could have been circulated to Health Committee members before its being published on the website for the public today, not least because buried right down in it, on page 26, in the middle of the first priority that is referenced, is the issue of staff shortages, which are impacting on the whole sector.

The Birthrate Plus® report indicates that we are 80 full-time midwives short, with only 16 of 80 students qualifying this year planning to work full time. We will hear lots of words, as ever, but, Minister, when do you intend to publish a workforce plan specifically for midwifery that addresses the specific issues detailed and provide us with a specific timetable to see those issues addressed?

Mike Nesbitt (UUP, Strangford)

I thank the Member for his comments. On his question, as recently as yesterday, I had a meeting with a large number of officials — we are talking about not just midwifery but nursing and allied health professionals; the gamut of healthcare delivery sections — and they have gone away to see how we can improve the recruitment, the training and, particularly, the retention of staff.

I cannot be specific, but I can tell you that it is very much on not only my agenda but the agendas of many senior officials in the Department. Funding is a big issue, but I have always said that the budget is not the be-all and end-all of healthcare delivery, and the workforce is vital. Yes, we need buildings, equipment and medicines, but there is nothing without the workforce, and I am very much focused, with senior colleagues, on ensuring that we improve the retention and, indeed, the recruitment of staff, including midwives.

Liz Kimmins (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

I thank the Minister for his statement. Like other Members, I believe that there is still a lot to digest. We need to read the full report, and we will probably have more questions on the back of that, but I welcome its publication. We have been waiting for it for some time. It crystallises the vital role of midwives and their expertise. That is important, given that they will have an increasing influence in shaping and delivering safety and quality of care and services.

Minister, in that vein of safety and quality of care and services, which is a key theme in the report, there is a note that the immediate focus needs to be on the stabilisation of maternity and neonatal services. Over the past week, I have been in frequent contact with the Minister and his officials regarding issues in the Southern Health and Social Care Trust, particularly at Daisy Hill and Craigavon hospitals. What will that immediate stabilisation look like? Obviously, we want to see a workforce plan for long-term sustainability, and the previous Member asked about that, but what will we see in the immediate future, because that is key to stabilising services now?

Mike Nesbitt (UUP, Strangford)

I thank the Chair of the Committee. I will, if I may, focus on Daisy Hill and the issues within the Southern Trust, because those are the most pressing ones. From my point of view, the Southern Trust was late in alerting the Department — certainly, in alerting me — to the current issues. It has never been my intention that Daisy Hill would not deliver maternity services, so it is not part of any plan. The Member knows that I have published a paper about viewing our hospitals as a network to deliver better outcomes, which is a kind of preview of the idea that we may need to reconfigure and that not every hospital will deliver every service. However, I again emphasise that Daisy Hill should be offering maternity services. Furthermore, any reconfiguration must be planned and managed. It should never be as a result of service collapse, and I do not want to see service collapse with regard to Daisy Hill and maternity services. Meetings continue at the highest level this week to look at the available options to resolve those issues, but I hope that the Member gets the sense that I am not happy.

Diane Dodds (DUP, Upper Bann)

Minister, on the back of the last question, we have a serious issue in the Southern Trust, where maternity services, not just at Daisy Hill Hospital but in Craigavon Area Hospital, are in jeopardy. That raises a fundamental question for you, your Department and, indeed, the trust. It cannot all be left at the door of the trust. I accept that you feel that it informed you late of the difficulties that it is having. Apart from having meetings, what specifically can you do and what actions can you take to ensure that the situation with maternity services at Daisy Hill and Craigavon — I am told that both are in a serious situation — is resolved immediately? That is the stabilisation bit for women in the area that I represent.

Mike Nesbitt (UUP, Strangford)

I thank the Member for her question. There are two aspects to the answer. What can we do? We have to talk, because we have to understand why the Southern Trust is in the situation that it is in. We need to understand what it intends to do about it. Once we understand the issues — I understand them to relate specifically to the workforce — we have to then question whether the Southern Trust can rearrange its workforce in a way that meets the demand and cures the problem. If not, can we look elsewhere? Are there other trusts or areas that we can look to to, as it were, fill that gap?

The second point is that, yes, the Member can say that we cannot just say that it is all a problem for the Southern Trust, but the fact of the matter is that, if the Southern Trust chooses to make a decision and call it a "temporary decision", I cannot stop it. I can tell the trust that I do not like it, and I can express my displeasure, but it is entirely in the trust's gift, if it is a temporary measure, to make that move.

Nuala McAllister (Alliance, Belfast North)

I thank the Minister for coming to the House and making the statement. I noted that he said that the report was actually published. Hopefully, the Health Committee will get a chance to go through it in detail. It was bad form not to give Committee members sight of the report.

Given that the RQIA's governance report made 23 recommendations, the maternity and neonatal safety oversight board will, no doubt, make separate recommendations to those of the Renfrew report and RQIA report, and you have spoken now about a consolidated regional action plan, what accountability will you provide to the House and the Committee to ensure that recommendations are actually implemented, without our having to ask for those updates every quarter or six months? How can we ensure that the action plan will actually be implemented? We have had many strategies —

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

OK, OK.

Nuala McAllister (Alliance, Belfast North)

— and many reviews. What can the Minister —?

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

Minister.

Mike Nesbitt (UUP, Strangford)

Again, perhaps there are two things. I apologise if Committee members feel that they were not given early enough sight of the report. However, I do not see this being the be-all and end-all of the discussion. I would welcome the Committee's taking a detailed look at the Renfrew recommendations. As regards implementation, I can assure the Member that Professor Renfrew, whom I met this week, is an impressive expert in the field. There is no point commissioning a report if you do not look closely at its recommendations. Basically, with the couple of exceptions that I mentioned, we accept those recommendations. It is an incredibly important area. Members are aware of the genesis of commissioning that report. We have got to get this right. I am not going to sit and just ignore those recommendations. I want the best possible service. In discussions with the professor, we agreed that it is an opportunity for Northern Ireland to become the best region or nation of the United Kingdom for birthing and maternity services. That is my intention.

Alan Chambers (UUP, North Down)

This is a very important and timely report that will help to inform and improve maternity services across Northern Ireland. In early 2020, Minister, your predecessor, Robin Swann, announced an increase in pre-registration and midwifery training places from 90 to 115. The first of those recruits entered the workforce just last year. Will the Minister give his assessment of how that has contributed to stabilising the wider midwifery workforce across Northern Ireland?

Mike Nesbitt (UUP, Strangford)

In June of this year, the workforce data indicated an overall reduction in vacancies across the region, which, of course, is a good thing. The regional vacancy rate for registered midwifery roles is below the HSC average, sitting at 4·7%. Pre-registration midwifery places were increased from 90 to 115 for the three financial years 2020-21, 2021-22 and 2022-23 to address the shortfall in qualified midwives. The first cohort entered the workforce in September of last year. Training places returned to 90 in financial year 2023-24. That is both a sign of our commitment to the service and an indication that things are improving.

Órlaithí Flynn (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

Professor Mary Renfrew presented to the all-party group on women's health last year on the brilliant work that she was carrying out, so I am delighted to hear today's announcement. The RQIA review, with its 23 recommendations on governance, was published in April 2023. Does the Minister have any update on whether any of those recommendations have been delivered? He talked about a regional action plan for maternity and neonatal services. Will that allow work to continue on a renewed maternity strategy, taking into consideration all the reports, or is the focus now on the action plan?

Mike Nesbitt (UUP, Strangford)

I do not want to misspeak, so I will write to the Member about the RQIA's 23 recommendations. I am not confident that I am across every detail.

The Member will recognise that, when it comes to breast screening, I am looking more towards regional services, allowing for any idiosyncrasies or particular regional or subregional requirements. Yes, we have five geographic trusts, but the closer that they come to operating as a single Northern Ireland-wide trust, the better. That is where my focus is. I want to absorb what is in RQIA, what is in Renfrew and what the new group brings forward so that we can try to become the best. Our aspiration should not be confined to being the best in the United Kingdom; why not try to be a global front runner in maternity services?

Diane Forsythe (DUP, South Down)

I thank the Minister for the statement. I especially welcome his commitment in the House to the continuation of maternity services at Daisy Hill Hospital. He acknowledged in his statement the importance of the staff. As he will be aware, staff have been subjected to a great deal of stress over the past few weeks with regard to the Daisy Hill Hospital situation. A couple of weekends ago, staff were, at short notice, diverted to work at Craigavon Area Hospital. Just last week, a full staff meeting of the midwifery team was called with 20 minutes' notice, with no union representatives. Many of the staff left in tears, not knowing whether they would have jobs at Daisy Hill beyond the end of the week. Given that the value of midwifery and neonatal services staff is highlighted in his statement, will the Minister commit to encouraging the management of the Southern Trust to deal with its staff with clarity in open communication? A week ago today, I asked for an urgent meeting with the management of the trust. I still have not secured that; I am struggling to get clarity, as are the staff. Will the Minister commit to encouraging the Southern Trust to deal with its staff with openness and to value its —

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

Thank you, Diane.

Diane Forsythe (DUP, South Down)

— midwifery team?

Mike Nesbitt (UUP, Strangford)

I thank the Member. If she were a fly on the wall in the ministerial office in the Department, she would note that, over the past four and a half months, staff morale has been a particular interest of mine. I have very much picked up the impression that, of the various groups of professionals who deliver healthcare, morale is at its lowest among those who deliver maternity services, and midwives in particular. We need to improve that.

I hope that the Member has already picked up the impression that I am not happy with the way in which the management of the Southern Trust has been dealing with that issue.

I understand that it is a genuine workforce issue, but the best way to resolve workforce issues is to bring your workforce with you.

Danny Donnelly (Alliance, East Antrim)

I thank the Minister for his statement. It is very concerning to hear that stress and distress was reported by all staff groups who participated in the review, especially midwives. We heard from Diane Forsythe about specific issues in the Southern Trust. If the psychological safety of all staff is a critical priority in a safety-critical profession, then ensuring a fully staffed workforce at safe levels is crucial. How does the Minister plan to include the recommendations of the review in future safe staffing legislation?

Mike Nesbitt (UUP, Strangford)

That is something that flows into safe staffing legislation, and we are working on that. I recognise that some Members are perhaps a little frustrated about the pace of development in that area, but the document that we published today is very important in many areas. On the specific point that the Member raised, I guarantee that the report will input into our thinking on safe staffing legislation.

Ciara Ferguson (Sinn Féin, Foyle)

I welcome the statement from the Minister this morning and his commitment to rebuilding and transforming our maternity and neonatal services. I also welcome his reiteration of the importance of women being heard, valued and supported. How does the report suggest that we ensure that midwifery-led and home-birth options remain safe and sustainable for women and babies?

Mike Nesbitt (UUP, Strangford)

I thank the Member. Did she mention community-based care?

Ciara Ferguson (Sinn Féin, Foyle)

Midwifery-led and home-birth options.

Mike Nesbitt (UUP, Strangford)

I will focus, if I may, on the community aspect, because the professor suggested that we go for community midwifery hubs. I do not think that we are ready for that. It needs more work, particularly if we are talking about births in what the professor called "community hubs" or "midwifery-led units". She mentioned eight requirements for community midwifery hubs, which were free-standing midwifery-led units. It is worth defining those eight requirements, if the Principal Deputy Speaker will allow me the time to do so. They include:

"Development and implementation of consistent, evidence-informed and context-specific standards, policies, guidelines, with commitment to evaluation and ongoing improvement"

and

"Ensuring evidence-informed decision-making, information for women, and knowledge and skills of staff".

The third requirement is:

"ensuring appropriate staffing and experience"

in those units.

The fourth requirement is:

"Implementing interdisciplinary support, consultation and regional referral pathways".

The fifth is:

"Pathways and regional policies and protocols for emergency procedures".

The sixth is:

"Ensuring education and training for safe, quality care and services in out-of-hospital settings".

The seventh is:

"Appropriate funding, leadership and governance".

The final requirement is:

"Community engagement to ensure equity and inclusion, local relevance, meeting community needs".

Ticking all eight boxes will require time. At that point, I will be with the professor on the matter of the community hubs.

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

Before I call the next Member, I gently remind the Minister that a lot of Members want to ask questions. If there is any further information, could he write to Members with it? That was a very substantial statement, and time is limited. With that said and understood, I call Deborah Erskine.

Deborah Erskine (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

Thank you, Principal Deputy Speaker. There seems to be a bit of work to go on the recommendations in Professor Renfrew's report. You have referenced the funding that is required quite a bit. I am looking specifically at the regional action plan. How does that fit in with your hospital reconfiguration framework document, and when can we expect to see the regional action plan? I am looking specifically at the South West Acute Hospital (SWAH), where there has been quite a bit of good work on stabilisation. There seems to be a lot of work to do on the regional action plan and on fitting it in with the reconfiguration document as well as getting funding.

Mike Nesbitt (UUP, Strangford)

Funding is a continuing issue. The Member will know, because she voted for the Budget, that we are under severe pressure when it comes to funding for this year. I do not anticipate that that will get better in the next financial year. I will consult the Department about timelines, and I might be able to write to you and give you something indicative on timelines.

Sinéad Ennis (Sinn Féin, South Down)

I really welcome the Minister's clarity on the issues with Daisy Hill maternity services. My colleague Liz Kimmins, other members of the Daisy Hill future group and I will work with him to ensure the stabilisation of the services there.

Minister, your statement talks about improved data and information systems. How does the Minister think that that will contribute to better oversight, safety and learning in maternity care?

Mike Nesbitt (UUP, Strangford)

The Member will know that we are rolling out Encompass, and, in 2025, the Southern Trust will join the others that are currently online. Once we have Encompass in all five geographic trusts, we will certainly be in a unique position in the United Kingdom, and on these two islands, in having the ability to harvest data that will impact on population health.

Alan Robinson (DUP, East Londonderry)

Like others, I thank the Minister for his statement. You say in your statement that trusts have already been asked to take "immediate action" to address critical issues. Can you provide more detail on those actions to the House today, and will you keep a close eye on the key issues that require immediate action?

Mike Nesbitt (UUP, Strangford)

To answer in reverse order, yes, I will keep a close eye on that because that is an extremely important area. Effectively, the trusts have been asked to ensure that, at all times, they are providing a safe, empathetic and professional service for people who are pregnant and those in the early weeks and months after delivery.

Kellie Armstrong (Alliance, Strangford)

Minister, given that one in four pregnancies ends in miscarriage, what plans are there to support and care for women and their families who have lost a baby during pregnancy or soon after birth so that they do not have to be in wards where other families are celebrating the birth of a newborn? What mental health protections will be in place for women who are grieving after their loss?

Mike Nesbitt (UUP, Strangford)

Any loss is a tragedy, and it is, of course, personal to that woman and that family. Unfortunately, healthcare workers have to deal with that daily. I am not aware of any particular concerns, although you raised the fact that these things happen while others are celebrating a successful and healthy birth. Given the confines of space and budget, it is very difficult to do everything that you would want to do in separating people out. I am very happy to engage with the Member if she has ideas on how we can do that better.

Sinéad McLaughlin (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

I welcome the statement and the comprehensive report from Professor Renfrew. Minister, you spoke about proposals for the partnership and programme board and the implementation of a consolidated regional action plan on maternity and neonatal safety. Minister, the same recommendations could be made on many other gynae health issues. Is it not time to consolidate and widen the recommendations under a wider women's healthcare strategy? We are the only region on these islands that does not have one.

Mike Nesbitt (UUP, Strangford)

I thank the Member. I am afraid that I do not think that a strategy for women's health will happen in the immediate future, and the reason for that is the financial constraints and the absence of a long-term Budget in Northern Ireland. I am saying to my officials, "Let's talk about an action plan. Let's talk about what we can actually do with the resourcing and funding that we have available". The Member can shake her head, but I can tell her that I was very pleased when my predecessor brought forward a 10-year strategy on mental health. I was really, really pleased, yet I stand here knowing that we have, in the assessment of the mental health champion, one eighth of the budget that we need to deliver the action plan for this year's part of that 10-year plan. What is the point of saying to people, "Here is a lovely, shiny strategy" and raising really high expectations when you do not have the funds to deliver on it? I will focus on an action plan that is deliverable in this financial year and in this Assembly mandate, and I will not raise expectations. Of course, in an ideal world, I would ask for a strategy, but I just do not see the value of it in the real world.

Michelle Guy (Alliance, Lagan Valley)

Thank you, Minister, for the statement. Communication will be key across areas where the free-standing midwifery-led units are based. If they transition to community-led midwifery hubs, how will the Minister ensure that the population is brought along with them?

Mike Nesbitt (UUP, Strangford)

I thank the Member for her question. I have outlined the eight areas of work that the professor wants to see, and which I will want to see enacted before we go to these community hubs. Communication of that, as with all policies, is a challenge, but I do not see it as a particularly difficult challenge. When somebody becomes pregnant, they engage with healthcare professionals, and we will ensure that the healthcare professionals alert them to all the options: home birth, birth at a community hub or birth in a hospital. I do not see it as being a particular issue.

Paula Bradshaw (Alliance, Belfast South)

Thank you, Minister, for your statement. You referenced the words "equity" and "inclusion". In your statement, you said that the Department has endorsed the NICE guidance on caesarean sections, but I do not see any reference to the NICE guidance on the fetal anomaly screening programme, in terms of a quadruple or combined test for women in their first trimester. You talk about the best service for women across these islands, and yet women here still experience disadvantage and disparity. Does the consolidated action plan include reference to reviewing the screening programme?

Mike Nesbitt (UUP, Strangford)

Work is ongoing in the area of antenatal screening for fetal abnormalities and inherited conditions. Once the information is collated, it will be considered by the Northern Ireland screening committee before informing a future policy decision. I hope that that addresses your questions in that area, but I am happy to engage.

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

Minister, we all welcome and appreciate efforts to improve maternity services, but you must recognise that there are mixed messages. I am being contacted by senior midwives and clinicians who are really fearful for the future of maternity services at Daisy Hill Hospital and angry about the manner of communication by management to them. What reassurance can you give midwives and mothers with babies in my constituency that the existing suite of maternity services at Daisy Hill Hospital will be secured and protected right now, and enhanced for the future, and that the maternity unit at Daisy Hill Hospital will be funded with 24·6 full-time equivalents, which is the safe operational level for staff in our maternity units?

Mike Nesbitt (UUP, Strangford)

I acknowledge the Member's continued passion for services at Daisy Hill Hospital. I can only repeat that I do not have the power to stop the Southern Trust if it decides to make a decision on a temporary reallocation, but I do not want it to happen. I can only repeat that, if there is going to be a reconfiguration of service deliveries between hospitals, it needs to be planned and managed, and people — the staff and the community — need to be brought with us. We need to explain why we are doing it. We are only going to do it on my watch if I am convinced that the outcome is better outcomes for people. I do not see better outcomes if there is a collapse of maternity services at Daisy Hill Hospital, and we are working to understand the problem and to try to identify solutions. That is all that I can say to the Member, except to repeat that if he were to ask me whether I am happy with the way in which the management of the Southern Trust has conducted business in that area over the past number of days and weeks, no, I am not.

Sian Mulholland (Alliance, North Antrim)

Thank you, Minister, for this. I will be brief because I know that we do not have much time. I do not see anything written about the update on a mother-and-baby unit, which is absolutely essential to postnatal care, particularly for women who are experiencing psychological illness. Will you give us an update on that?

Mike Nesbitt (UUP, Strangford)

Yes, there is a proposal for a mother-and-baby unit, and we have looked at the potential location for it and identified Belfast City Hospital as the place where we would base it. The Belfast Trust has been asked to look at a business case. I understand that that business case is pretty well advanced. Once we get the business case, we will have to look at available funding. That, of course, will be a capital project rather than part of the resource departmental expenditure limit (DEL), and, from early discussions, I do not think that funding is going to be an insurmountable obstacle. We are making progress to deliver a mother-and-baby unit in due course.

Timothy Gaston (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

My wife and I have been blessed with the safe arrival of three healthy boys over the past four years through Antrim Area Hospital's maternity unit. On each visit, the dedicated midwives have been run off their feet due to its being seriously understaffed.

The closure of the maternity unit at Causeway Hospital in July 2023 has put additional pressures on the services at Antrim and has meant additional journey times for expectant mothers. Minister, do you stand over the decision to relocate the maternity service at Causeway to Antrim, and can you confirm what you are doing to ensure that the maternity units are adequately staffed?

Mike Nesbitt (UUP, Strangford)

On the second point, I think that I have already addressed workforce issues during the question-and-answer session.

I stand over the decision to move maternity from the Causeway to Antrim Area Hospital. The Member will be aware that there is also a consultation live from the Northern Trust regarding general emergency surgery, again, potentially moving from Causeway to Antrim Area Hospital. Not every hospital will be able to deliver every service, and that is why we have to start looking at hospitals as a network. I accept that transportation will be an issue for some, and that is why it is a focus of mine in thinking about how we introduce a new regime where not every hospital delivers every service.

Gerry Carroll (People Before Profit Alliance, Belfast West)

Minister, it is concerning that there is no plan to rectify the fact that there are 1,600 nursing and midwifery vacancies. It is also concerning to hear nothing about the reversal of closed maternity units. I have heard reports of women giving birth at the sides of roads recently, and that is really dangerous and worrying stuff. What funding is attached to today's announcement, Minister?

Mike Nesbitt (UUP, Strangford)

We have a workforce strategy 2026, so it would be wrong not to say that we are focused on the vacancies and on how we improve recruitment. It is not just about recruitment; you have to retain your staff, and there are a lot of competing and some new pressures. I have said before that we used to worry about nurses and doctors moving to Australia and we now worry about them moving to Athlone, such is the attractiveness of salaries in Sláintecare. Workforce planning is an issue, but we are well focused on it.

Claire Sugden (Independent, East Londonderry)

Minister, you have acknowledged postnatal care and postnatal mental health, however there is not much detail on that. Currently, that is provided via a GP, a health visitor or MDTs in GP surgeries, but it is not consistent across the board. Some people have good experiences, and some people do not. Minister, I also ask you to note that it is not a mere matter of weeks following birth; it can be up to a year or two years. I ask the Minister to focus on that to ensure that people get the continuing help that they need; otherwise, it will be much longer than that.

Mike Nesbitt (UUP, Strangford)

I accept the points that the Member has made, and the inconsistency is something that I would like to see rectified. Again, let us identify what is best practice and where it is being rolled out and then roll it out to make it common practice across all five geographical trust areas. I was up at Altnagelvin a couple of months ago and met some family nurses who deal with young mothers. It is a tremendous support for those young mothers during pregnancy and then in the months and indeed years after delivery to help them deliver the best outcomes for their young children.

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

Thank you very much, Minister. That concludes questions on the statement.

Committee Business

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

If the motion from the Committee on Procedures is passed, it will create a new Standing Order for the provision of proxy voting in plenary sittings where specified conditions have been met.

Kellie Armstrong (Alliance, Strangford)

I beg to move

After Standing Order 27 insert: "27A Voting by proxy (1) A member (M) may arrange for M’s vote to be exercised by a proxy (P) where— (a) M meets the conditions set out in paragraph 2, (b) the Speaker has published a proxy voting scheme (the Scheme) in accordance with paragraph 3, (c) P is not the Speaker or a deputy Speaker, and (d) M and P have complied with the terms of the Scheme. (2) The conditions are— (a) M could, if an employee, exercise a right to maternity leave, paternity leave, adoption leave, shared parental leave or parental bereavement leave, (b) M is affected by complications arising from pregnancy, including miscarriage, stillbirth and baby loss, or (c) M has fostering responsibilities of a kind prescribed in the Scheme. (3) The Scheme must include— (a) the process by which M may designate P, (b) the period for which a proxy vote may be exercised, (c) how M may vary or withdraw that proxy, and (d) subject to paragraph 4, details of how a proxy vote may be exercised. (4) A proxy vote— (a) may be exercised only in a plenary session of the Assembly, (b) is to be disregarded for the purposes of Standing Order 9 (Quorum), (c) must be recorded as such in the Official Report and the Journal of the Proceedings of the Assembly, (d) may not be exercised in a vote on any of the following— i. a Bill to which section 7A of the 1998 Act applies, ii. the democratic consent process at Schedule 6A of the 1998 Act, iii. any motion which requires the support of a number of members of the Assembly which equals or exceeds two thirds of the total number of seats in the Assembly, and iv. any motion which requires the support of a number of members of the Assembly which equals or exceeds two thirds of the total number of members voting on the motion. (5) In this standing order— ‘employee’ has the meaning given by Article 3 of the Employment Rights (Northern Ireland) Order 1996 ‘the 1998 Act’ means the Northern Ireland Act 1998."

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

The Business Committee has agreed to allow up to one hour and 30 minutes for the debate. The proposer of the motion will have 10 minutes to propose and 10 minutes to make a winding-up speech. All other Members who are called to speak will have five minutes. Kellie, please open the debate.

Kellie Armstrong (Alliance, Strangford)

Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. As Chairperson of the Committee on Procedures, I am delighted to bring to the Assembly during Parenting Week a new procedure to allow for proxy voting for MLAs in certain circumstances.

As all of us know, an MLA's role has a number of facets. We have our parliamentarian role in the Assembly, our constituency role and our party roles. As MLAs are not employees, we do not have terms and conditions that would support Members who have become parents. When an MLA is absent from a plenary sitting due to maternity, paternity or similar leave, there is no procedure to ensure that their democratic role in the House can be fulfilled. The new procedure will allow MLAs to vote in the House by proxy.

Let me give some background. When the Procedures Committee was first established a few months ago, we were faced with a large number of topics that needed attention. The Committee was unanimous in deciding that we would make proxy voting in plenary sittings for MLAs on parental leave our top priority. We initially considered a range of possible categories for proxy voting, including parental leave, long-term illness, bereavement and absence on official Assembly business and whether it should be extended to Committees as well as for plenary business. However, the Committee expressed concerns that, with the exception of proxy voting for parental leave in plenary sittings, the other categories of proxy voting in plenary and in Committees would require a level of deliberation and assessment of implications that would require a long-term piece of work. On the other hand, proxy voting for parental leave is a well-established practice in many other legislatures and has fewer operational issues. We knew that, if we did our research and spent some time considering the issues in depth, it could be introduced to the Assembly with a degree of assurance that the associated implications were well known and had been explored in the Assembly context. It is worth emphasising that foremost in our considerations was ensuring that proxy voting could be introduced without undermining or damaging the integrity of our voting system.

The Committee has taken a two-part approach, with the first part providing the key principles for proxy voting in the Standing Order that is before you today. The second part of our approach is to ask the Speaker to provide guidance on how the proxy voting scheme will operate on a practical and administrative level. Those are the day-to-day things, such as how to make a notification, what the deadline is etc, and other matters that do not need to be in a Standing Order but that Members need to know to make the scheme work. The Committee discussed those practical matters in some detail, and our thoughts and suggestions are contained in the Committee report. We anticipate that our deliberations on them will be helpful to the Speaker in producing the guidance. I will cover some of them in my speech today but, as it is the Standing Order that the Assembly will vote on, I will concentrate on explaining that.

A copy of the draft Standing Order is on page 25 of the Committee report, which was issued to all MLAs on 15 October by email. In the Standing Order, paragraph (1) sets out the eligibility criteria for proxy voting. It requires that the Member who wishes to designate a proxy has to satisfy one of the conditions set out in paragraph (2). Paragraph (1)(b) also requires the Speaker to have issued guidance or, as it is referenced in the Standing Order, "the Scheme".

Moving on to paragraph (1)(c), in the Assembly, the Speaker does not vote on any plenary business, and the Principal Deputy Speaker and Deputy Speakers do not participate in the debate, including voting, on any item of business for which they have occupied the Chair. With that in mind and to ensure that we maintain that essential element of our voting system, paragraph (1)(c) provides that the Speaker and Deputy Speakers cannot act as proxy for another Member. For the avoidance of doubt, let me be clear that the provision also covers the Principal Deputy Speaker. There is no reference to the Principal Deputy Speaker in the Standing Order as it is not in law a discrete office. The Principal Deputy Speaker is necessarily also a Deputy Speaker.

Paragraph (1)(d) requires the Member and their proxy to have complied with the guidance. Paragraph (2) sets out the principal conditions for eligibility for the scheme.

Paragraph (2)(a) is intended to make it clear that Members, while not entitled to various statutory leave for the variety of parental leave, as noted in the Standing Order, may apply for a proxy vote in circumstances where an employee would have the right to such leave. In other words, if a Member takes maternity leave, paternity leave, adoption leave, shared parental leave or parental bereavement leave, they will be entitled to apply for a proxy vote. It is worth noting that the Committee has been clear that the scheme is not available to Members who are looking after a sick child or need to accompany a child to an appointment. Proving a proxy vote for that type of parental leave may be addressed in the future, but, for now, it is not included in Standing Orders.

The categories in paragraph (2)(b) are not currently statutory rights but are included in recognition of their impact on the individual and because similar circumstances are covered in other legislatures.

Paragraph (2)(c) provides for parental leave for fostering responsibilities. There is no legal concept of fostering leave, and we in the Assembly will be first to include it as a category of parental leave. As there is no legal concept of fostering leave and as fostering covers many variations, the Committee on Procedures has been more definitive in our report on what we mean by "fostering". I will cover the fostering aspects in more detail later.

Paragraph (3) sets out the matters that must be included in the scheme and guidance to be issued by the Speaker. They are the processes by which a Member may designate a proxy, the period for which a proxy may be exercised, how a proxy can be varied or withdrawn and how a proxy vote can be exercised.

Paragraph (4)(a) sets it out that the proxy voting scheme may be used only in plenary sessions of the Assembly: it does not cover Committees. I have already explained that we felt that it would take considerable work to explore the implications of proxy voting in Committee. Paragraph (4) also provides that a proxy vote cannot count towards quorum in plenary and that a proxy vote must be recorded in the Official Report and the Minutes of Proceedings. The latter provision is to ensure full transparency for other MLAs and the public.

Paragraph (4)(d) sets out certain matters on which a proxy vote may not be exercised, which were included after much discussion and consideration of legal advice. Paragraph (4)(d) prevents a proxy vote being used on matters on which legal certainty is required or that may be subject to legal challenge. Those are matters on which the Assembly rarely votes, however, and it is unlikely that the provision will have a significant impact on Members who wish to exercise a proxy vote. The matters include a Bill to which section 7A of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 applies, which would mean a vote to alter the size of the Assembly, and a vote on the democratic consent process as per schedule 6A to the Northern Ireland Act 1998. Members will be aware that the first such vote is expected in December, with a vote every four or eight years thereafter, depending on whether the vote receives cross-community support.

Paragraph (4)(d) iii and iv relate to votes on motions that either require the support of a number of Members that equals or exceeds two thirds of the total number of seats in the Assembly or require the support of a number of Members that equals or exceeds two thirds of the total number of Members voting on the motion. At the moment, that covers only certain motions, as outlined in detail on page 17 of our report. I will repeat them to ensure that they are read into the record. They are a recommendation for the removal from office of the Comptroller and Auditor General (C&AG) for Northern Ireland, the dissolution of the Assembly, a recommendation for the removal from office of the Northern Ireland Public Services Ombudsman (NIPSO) and a recommendation for the removal of the Assembly Commissioner for Standards. Paragraph (4)(d)(iii) and (iv) are drafted to ensure that, if a similar super-majority provision were included in a future Act, it would be covered by the Standing Order.

Finally, paragraph (5) is an interpretation provision. As I mentioned, the Committee was aware that the Standing Order would need to be accompanied by guidance on a range of practical and administrative matters. I intend to use the remainder of my time to cover aspects of those matters. The Committee's consideration covered the notification process, the eligibility criteria, the duration of parental leave and how a proxy vote may be exercised.

First, I will cover the notification process. The Committee suggests that the deadline for notifications should be 4.00 pm on the working day prior to the sitting at which the arrangement is due to begin. The Committee is aware that some Members wanted a later deadline, and we considered that. While a later deadline worked during the COVID-19 pandemic, it was not felt to be appropriate in the post-pandemic environment. The integrity of our voting system was one of our major considerations, and a deadline on the day that a proxy vote was to be exercised, with, perhaps, a vote expected an hour or two later, would leave little time to ensure that all the proper processes were in place and Tellers had been informed. Furthermore, the vast majority of parental leave cases are well known in advance, and most Members who wish to avail themselves of a proxy vote will have ample time to submit a notification.

I am just noticing the time, Principal Deputy Speaker. Other matters that the report covers include fostering. We will be the first legislature to bring forward that measure. I will also clarify for everyone that the Committee suggests that the duration of application for a proxy vote for parental leave in plenary be a maximum of nine months and that that apply to all categories.

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

Kellie, I am sorry about that. OK?

Kellie Armstrong (Alliance, Strangford)

I will just clarify, if I may, Principal Deputy Speaker, that we advise that Tellers should not be proxy votes.

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

I appreciate that, Kellie. Thank you very much.

Diane Forsythe (DUP, South Down)

The Democratic Unionist Party welcomes the creation of the new Standing Order, which will provide Assembly Members with a formal entitlement to a vote by proxy when they are on parental leave, have fostering responsibilities or tragically suffer from complications in pregnancy, including miscarriage, stillbirth or baby loss. There will, of course, be a number of practical and administrative matters to be ironed out by guidance, and the DUP will work alongside other parties on the Assembly Commission to ensure the smooth operation of any scheme. However, the principle of the changes is one we can all stand four-square behind today.

It should be a basic requirement, whether in Northern Ireland or further afield, that modern legislatures reflect, as far as is practicable, the challenges faced by elected representatives who balance the position entrusted to them by the electorate with their role as a mother, father or foster carer. Members who are also parents do not seek preferential treatment. It is right, however, that, on balance, the procedures of the House recognise the need for compassionate and flexible arrangements in situations where significant events and changes in personal circumstances place a Member in an almost invidious position. There will be little appetite to use the mechanism frequently, but it is reasonable and proportionate for it to exist. We have worked hard to increase the representation of women in the Chamber, and we want to keep that and improve it. In this mandate, some five of our female MLAs have had babies and been able to maintain their MLA roles. We want to see that continuing.

Similar procedures have been put in place in other Parliaments across the United Kingdom. That is vital to ensuring that there is no chill factor for those in society, both now and in the future, who have a desire to seek political office and cherish their roles as parents and caregivers. We feel that exclusions for more significant votes, including those that require cross-community support, are fair and reasonable. The new Standing Order will ensure that the new entitlement is exercisable for the bulk of plenary votes, whilst respecting the role and traditions of this place. The DUP supports the motion.

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

I will only say a few words. I was going to start by saying that moves like this welcome us into the 21st century. Then I checked, and the legislation for the rest of society was passed in 1999, so we are catching up with the last century by implementing the changes. All I will say is this: great, wonderful, but can we get on with some more? There are many other changes that we would love to see, such as electronic voting, so that it does not take 20 minutes to progress every time we have a Division because people have to physically walk around the Chamber. Many other changes could be made, but it is great to see the ones that we are discussing. This place should reflect society instead of being something like the ark. I definitely welcome the changes.

Sian Mulholland (Alliance, North Antrim)

I welcome the changes to our Standing Orders, as someone who had to return to work when my baby was just five weeks old after the return of the House in February. I was unable to legally drive myself to the Building: I was still healing, physically and mentally, from major surgery and also had the day-to-day fog that comes in the newborn phase. I know, first-hand, the challenges that are faced by parents, particularly new mothers in political life. It was not easy, but it highlighted the urgent need for change. Had I stayed away from the Assembly, my vote would have been lost, and my constituents would not have been represented in the Chamber.

There is a point to be made about some of the criticism — others might say "trolling" — that I received when I brought my baby to the Chamber. First, I was asked, "Why don't you put her into childcare?". There are very few childcare places available for a baby who is five weeks old. Secondly, I was asked, "Why doesn't your husband look after her?". I recognise my privilege, and I was in the fortunate position that he was able to step in as the primary caregiver because he was able to take shared parental leave due to the date of my co-option to the Assembly. Had I been co-opted two weeks earlier, my husband would not have been eligible for shared parental leave because his ability to take it was based on my previous employment. As MLAs, we are not regarded as employees or sole traders, so, after legal advice, we found that we were only eligible due to the date of my co-option into the Assembly. Some MLAs are not in a position where the father or another caregiver can take that shared leave.

There are many reasons why we should have the proxy vote provision, but I will focus on the rural aspect. Many MLAs can manage because they live close by or within driving distance. However, when you have guidance that says that a newborn baby cannot be in a car seat for longer than 40 minutes and you live an hour and 20 minutes away, that poses a logistical issue.

If we want to truly encourage more women and parents to step into civic and political roles, we have to ensure that they have the support that they need to balance their family responsibilities with the demands of public service. The introduction of parental leave for MLAs is a really key part of that. It signals that we value the contributions of families, mothers and fathers and recognise that family life should not be a barrier to political engagement. I welcome the fact that these changes acknowledge the rights and needs of not just biological parents but all parents, be they biological, adoptive or foster in nature.

We know that this will significantly impact on mothers and their ability to balance new motherhood with being a political representative. We still lag behind other legislatures in the percentage of MLAs who are women. I think that we are at 36%, which is far below gender parity. Other Parliaments across the UK and Europe have taken stronger steps than this to improve gender balance and create family-friendly policies, be those on the timings of debates or the provision of a crèche facility. It is about making it as easy as possible. The proposals on parental leave are an important signal that we are serious about catching up to, as Mr McGrath said, "the last century" — not even this one — and ensuring that our Assembly reflects the diversity of the people whom we represent. I feel that it is time —.

Kellie Armstrong (Alliance, Strangford)

Will the Member give way?

Sian Mulholland (Alliance, North Antrim)

Yes, of course.

Kellie Armstrong (Alliance, Strangford)

I thank the Member very much for her comments so far. I note that Mr McGrath said that we are catching up to the "last century". It is important that we, as the Committee on Procedures, take a family-friendly approach, because, if we do not, we will lose the good people who are in the Chamber today.

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

Sian, you have an extra minute.

Sian Mulholland (Alliance, North Antrim)

Thank you.

That is a great point. What I see now when I look around this Building and at those who sit in the Chamber is very different from what I saw growing up, particularly in the female representation and age. We have more people with young families. As I look around the Chamber, I see quite a few Members, be they male or female, who have young families. Anything that we can do to create a working environment where more women and parents feel empowered to join us in shaping the future of our society is a good thing.

Timothy Gaston (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

I welcome the amendments to Standing Orders. To me, they seem to be a necessary acknowledgement that MLAs are people too and require time off for bereavement and other sensitive reasons.

There is one issue on which I would like clarity from the Committee Chairperson. I received correspondence last month from the Committee on Procedures in which it indicated that it will look at proxy voting for long-term illness, bereavement and absence on official business, which you, Chair, acknowledged in your opening remarks. Chairperson, can you confirm that MLAs should not and, indeed, would not be able to take advantage of those provisions if they go on holiday while the Assembly is in session? I ask that in the context that, just last week, a Minister was on holiday and was therefore unable to fulfil her duties in the House, even though the Assembly is in recess next week. I want the record of this debate to be clear that there is no provision in this amendment for any MLA, be they party leaders, Ministers or lowly Back-Benchers like me, to vote by proxy while sitting poolside.

Gerry Carroll (People Before Profit Alliance, Belfast West)

I certainly do not oppose the changes, but I fear that this may be a missed opportunity. The announcement of changes to Standing Orders for paternity or bereavement issues is welcome, but, as the Chair said, there are gaps around child appointments, child sickness and other areas, which, I fear, is a missed opportunity. The proxy voting arrangements that are proposed are too restrictive. COVID showed many's a thing, such as how proxy voting arrangements could be altered and implemented. Certainly, from this end, there seemed to be no issue or problem with that process being in place. It seemed to run smoothly from this end. If there were issues outside or on the technical side, I would be happy to hear about those. However, from here, it seemed to work smoothly. I believe that we need to get back to that system. I have raised that with the Chair in a few previous debates, but I want the Committee to get on board with that.

To be honest, it probably would not be of massive benefit to me, being an MLA in Belfast, unless there were unforeseen circumstances. Proxy voting arrangements would probably benefit bigger parties and people outside Belfast in particular. I am happy to give way if the Chair wants, but some still believe that what happens in this place trumps all and that this is the sole, primary place for political discussions or decisions. However, there is obviously a lot more work taking place outside this Building, and, given the lack of legislation coming through, some would argue that more important work is happening in constituencies, with meetings and groups of individuals and so on.

Kellie Armstrong (Alliance, Strangford)

I thank Mr Carroll for giving way. As a Committee, we considered that and took significant legal advice. Our main point, as I mentioned in my speech, was that we wanted to maintain and uphold the importance of our vote in this place. We are not in COVID times now, so the decision was taken to limit proxy voting to very specific purposes that would have the most benefit and the quickest benefit in the House.

The Committee will look at long-term illness and other options for proxy voting in the future, but, for now, the Standing Order covers just parental leave at time of birth or when there are fostering responsibilities.

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

Gerry, you have an extra minute.

Gerry Carroll (People Before Profit Alliance, Belfast West)

I appreciate the Chair's comments, but I have responded to the Committee to say that it should look at the wider proxy voting system, as the Chair may know, and I repeat that it is too restrictive. Ultimately, it should be up to MLAs to decide. If they are not in the Building and are deemed to be MIA, they can be voted out by the public, who, ultimately, decide those things.

I think that the current system is too restrictive for all sorts of reasons. There is full proxy voting in France, Luxembourg and New Zealand, and the sky has not fallen in. I was going to ask the Chair about the opposition to the changes, but she alluded to it already.

I also think that the deadline is too restrictive. It does not take into consideration Members who intend to travel in to vote on a debate, but life can change and weather patterns can change, and I am thinking in particular of Members from Derry or the north-west who may be unable to get down the Glenshane Pass but want to vote. Many people could be unintentionally disenfranchised by this too rigorous, restrictive system.

I support the changes proposed today but urge the Committee to consider extending them to a wider range of circumstances.

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

I call Sinéad Ennis to conclude and make a winding-up speech on the motion. You have 10 minutes.

Sinéad Ennis (Sinn Féin, South Down)

Go raibh maith agat,

[Translation: Thank you,]

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker.

To remove any element of doubt for some Members, I will say that what we are debating here is a new Standing Order on proxy voting for parental leave. The clue is in the title for people who are a bit confused as to what we are discussing here today.

It is my pleasure to make a winding-up speech on the motion. I will begin by thanking everybody who took part, and I welcome the fact that the debate has been largely positive and welcomed the new Standing Order.

Most MLAs who contributed to the debate will recognise that we are not Assembly employees and that we cannot take leave for maternity, paternity, adoption etc in the same way that an employee can. I appreciate Sian's outlining the difficulties that face new parents, particularly new mothers, when they are in a political role. I know what it is like. I have been in the situation where maternity leave was not an option, and I was answering constituency queries from a maternity ward, which was not ideal.

Overall, in the Chamber today, there has been a broad welcome for the new Standing Order. It will allow MLAs to take such leave and still have their vote count, thus ensuring that they continue to represent their constituencies. The new provision will ensure that a core part of the role that an MLA has been elected to do can still be delivered.

I will pick up on some of the points that Members have raised. Diane talked about the guidance in relation to the Standing Order. The Standing Order is what is being voted on today, and the guidance will issue from the Speaker's Office. The Committee has made suggestions as to what should be in the guidance, but, ultimately, it is up to the Speaker. I assure the Member that the Committee has been in close contact with the Speaker throughout the development of the Standing Order. His thoughts and views have been extremely helpful to the Committee, and I am sure that he has taken note of the comments made by Members today on what may or may not be included in the guidance.

Gerry Carroll asked why the provisions will not extend to other instances such as ill health and bereavement. The Committee did not include other categories in the provisions for proxy voting that I have just outlined. I am aware that other places provide for proxy voting in categories such as ill health, bereavement and absence on official business, but even a quick glance at those categories showed that a number of issues would need to be considered in more detail before such provisions could be introduced to the Assembly. I assure the Member that they are firmly on the Committee's radar, and we may deal with them at a future time.

Gerry Carroll (People Before Profit Alliance, Belfast West)

I thank the Member for giving way so that I can ask her to clarify. Was there agreement or disagreement on the Committee to widen the proxy voting arrangements to have a system similar to the one that was in place during COVID? Does the Member's party agree with that?

Sinéad Ennis (Sinn Féin, South Down)

I am speaking as Deputy Chairperson of the Procedures Committee and can assure the Member that that was a considerable part of the Committee's consideration. However, once we sat down to look at it, we saw that the breadth of considerations on which we would have to deliberate was large. As the Chairperson said, we decided to do the work in small chunks. COVID was an exceptional time. I am sure that there is learning to be taken from COVID — the arrangements were convenient — but I do not think that we want to be in a place where it is, "Whatever you're having yourself". We need to start by introducing the provisions for parental leave. That is the most pressing concern, but the Committee has committed to looking at other circumstances that we all encounter in our daily life.

Gerry, you also raised the deadline of 4.00 pm. The Committee discussed issues relating to the notification process, including the deadline, and we are aware that some Members would like the deadline to be as late and as flexible as possible. To repeat what the Chairperson said, ensuring that the integrity of our voting system is never called into question was first and foremost in our minds. While having a 9.30 pm deadline on the day worked during the pandemic, it is not ideal. We heard from officials that a sitting day is one of the busiest times of the week in the Business Office. Processes and systems must be put in place to make the proxy voting system work seamlessly and to ensure the integrity of the vote. For that reason, we agreed that the approach suggested by the Speaker of a 4.00 pm deadline would be more suitable. Members may wish to note that the deadline is not provided for in Standing Orders but will be in the guidance.

We see the Standing Order as a progressive and inclusive step that will benefit the Assembly as a whole and bring us into line with other Parliaments. I am pleased that, overall, there has been a warm welcome for it from MLAs, and I commend it to the Assembly.

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

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

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved (with cross-community support):

After Standing Order 27 insert: "27A Voting by proxy (1) A member (M) may arrange for M’s vote to be exercised by a proxy (P) where— (a) M meets the conditions set out in paragraph 2, (b) the Speaker has published a proxy voting scheme (the Scheme) in accordance with paragraph 3, (c) P is not the Speaker or a deputy Speaker, and (d) M and P have complied with the terms of the Scheme. (2) The conditions are— (a) M could, if an employee, exercise a right to maternity leave, paternity leave, adoption leave, shared parental leave or parental bereavement leave, (b) M is affected by complications arising from pregnancy, including miscarriage, stillbirth and baby loss, or (c) M has fostering responsibilities of a kind prescribed in the Scheme. (3) The Scheme must include— (a) the process by which M may designate P, (b) the period for which a proxy vote may be exercised, (c) how M may vary or withdraw that proxy, and (d) subject to paragraph 4, details of how a proxy vote may be exercised. (4) A proxy vote— (a) may be exercised only in a plenary session of the Assembly, (b) is to be disregarded for the purposes of Standing Order 9 (Quorum), (c) must be recorded as such in the Official Report and the Journal of the Proceedings of the Assembly, (d) may not be exercised in a vote on any of the following— i. a Bill to which section 7A of the 1998 Act applies, ii. the democratic consent process at Schedule 6A of the 1998 Act, iii. any motion which requires the support of a number of members of the Assembly which equals or exceeds two thirds of the total number of seats in the Assembly, and iv. any motion which requires the support of a number of members of the Assembly which equals or exceeds two thirds of the total number of members voting on the motion. (5) In this standing order— ‘employee’ has the meaning given by Article 3 of the Employment Rights (Northern Ireland) Order 1996 ‘the 1998 Act’ means the Northern Ireland Act 1998."

Private Members' Business

Michelle McIlveen (DUP, Strangford)

I beg to move

That this Assembly believes those convicted of animal cruelty should be prohibited from owning or breeding animals in the future; notes with concern the recent figures from the Department of Justice indicating that, between 2018 and 2022, only 12% of convictions for animal welfare offences in Northern Ireland resulted in a custodial sentence; highlights that this is compounded by current bans on keeping animals that have proven to be ineffective in preventing reoffending; calls on the Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs to work with his Executive colleagues to review safeguards against those with such convictions from later being employed in roles relating to the care of animals; and further calls on the Minister to explore proposals to establish a register of banned animal welfare offenders and to make that information readily accessible to animal rehoming charities and reputable pet retailers.

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

The Business Committee has agreed to allow up to one hour and 30 minutes for the debate. The proposer of the motion will have up to 10 minutes in which to propose and up to 10 minutes in which to make a winding-up speech. All other Members who speak will have five minutes.

Michelle McIlveen (DUP, Strangford)

Cruelty against animals is a despicable crime. We are, proudly, a nation of animal lovers. Like many in the Chamber, I was brought up in a home with pets who were very much part of our family. The idea that anyone could be so cruel as to harm an animal that looks to us for food, care and shelter is horrendous, and we should be taking all necessary and reasonable steps to ensure that our animal protection and enforcement measures are robust and effective: robust in punishing and deterring offenders and effective in preventing harm to such animals.

As a result of legislation passed by the Assembly since 2011, we have brought enforcement for animal welfare to local councils; increased the maximum sentence for animal cruelty in Northern Ireland to five years in prison; and brought into force, this year, the Pet Abduction Act, which makes it an offence for a cat or dog to be taken from a person with lawful control of the animal. Those are all positive steps forward.

It is disappointing to note that DAERA has cut resource funding for animal welfare departments in councils from around £1·2 million in 2019-2020 to £625,000 in 2023-24. Even without taking into account inflationary and increasing wage pressures, that is a huge cut to what was already a tight budget. Councils have a responsibility to enforce animal welfare regulations in respect of non-farmed animals. Under the budget provided to them, they provide advice, issue improvement notices, take animals into their possession where there are extreme cases of suffering and take enforcement action. That work is carried out by nine welfare officers operating across the 11 council areas. In 2022, councils secured 20 convictions, and the PSNI, which deals with animal fighting and other animal-related offences, secured a further 12 convictions.

There are steps that have not been taken, steps that not only have the support of political representatives but have strong public support. They include Lucy's law, which bans third-party puppy sales. My former colleague Robin Newton championed it, and the mantle was taken up by another colleague, Keith Buchanan. While the Minister has said that he will explore options, we are still no further forward on the issue. That is meant as a criticism not of the Minister but of the slow grind of the bureaucratic machine that operates under him and other Ministers. Such a law would put a stop to unethical breeding enterprises, and I look forward to it eventually becoming a reality.

The other step and the subject of the motion is the establishment of a register of banned animal welfare offenders. The Assembly has been debating that for over 10 years, and, each time that it has been debated, the motion has been passed. Since 2016, seven of our councils have passed motions calling for the creation of a banned offenders register. The register envisaged would be a readily accessible register of convicted animal abusers who have been banned by the courts from keeping animals. Those on such a register should have a legal duty to update their details should they move house or change their name. The Ulster Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (USPCA) has welcomed the increased penalties, including bans, but believes that a register of banned offenders is essential to make such bans effective.

Concerns have been expressed about data protection issues around such a register. In June of this year, the Minister committed to gathering information on whether a register has worked effectively elsewhere. I will refer to two examples: New York City and Finland. In 2014, New York City Council passed the Animal Abuse Registration Act. Anyone required to register is prohibited from owning, possessing, residing with, having custody of or intentionally engaging in any physical contact with any animal. The registration period lasts for five years after sentencing or, if incarcerated, five years after release from prison. Failure to register is an offence in itself and can result in up to one year in jail, a fine of $1,000 or both. Animal shelters, animal rescue groups, pet shops and other animal-related businesses are required to check the register and refuse to sell or transfer ownership of an animal to anyone appearing on it. New York City operates a closed register that only specified organisations can access.

In Finland, the Court Registry Centre owns and maintains its register. Once the court has imposed a ban on keeping animals, it notifies the centre of the decision. Information from the register may be disclosed by means of an extract from the register, which may be ordered in writing from the Court Registry Centre. Information from the register may also be disclosed by authorities specified in the legislation. GDPR is enforced in Finland, as it is here. It is a semi-closed register, where a fee must be paid to check whether an individual is on the register. If data protection concerns can be addressed there, they are not insurmountable here. Other places, such as Tennessee, have an open register that holds the name and address of the offender. I appreciate that such a register would be difficult to have, given our data protection laws and the risks that it might pose to those on the register. However, as a party, we are clear on our belief that Northern Ireland should have high animal welfare standards.

We are committed to ensuring that animals are cared for and that those who abuse animals are adequately punished. It is important for us that agencies that have statutory and legal responsibilities for animal care and welfare enforcement are properly supported and adequately funded and have the appropriate tools to carry out their jobs. It is on that basis that we have campaigned in election after election. While we have some of the toughest legislation against animal cruelty in the world, with raised maximum custodial targets and the introduction of Finn's law to give greater protection to service animals, we need additional legal measures to prevent reoffending and avoidable harm to animals.

The disproportionate cut to council animal welfare services will have a devastating impact on enforcement against offenders and the protection of animals. We understand the budgetary pressures facing all Departments, but it is up to the Minister to decide how he distributes his budget. Cutting funding in half cannot be justifiable if the Minister wants councils to be able to do their jobs.

We believe that the introduction of a register will be a useful tool. There is a recurring problem of animal cruelty offenders who, although banned from keeping animals, reappear, sometimes in a matter of weeks, charged with new animal cruelty offences. That is because authorities and rehoming charities have no knowledge of that individual's status. One of the primary causes identified by the USPCA is the lack of monitoring of banned animal abusers. A register would assist in addressing that. A register means having a central point to access key information to assist enforcement authorities in policing animal cases and for reputable dealers and rehoming charities to screen those purchasing or adopting an animal. It would also be a useful tool for those who care for animals to check potential employees for their status on the register. As part of that, we ask the Minister to work with his Executive colleagues to review safeguards against those with such convictions from later being employed in roles relating to the care of animals.

The Minister said in June of this year that he would seek the views of the Irish Government on a register and potential all-island cooperation. What have been the outcomes of those discussions? What conversations has he had with other devolved Administrations and the UK Government about a joined-up approach across the British Isles?

We also face the situation that the current legislation does not cover animals being kept by family members in the same household as a banned individual. That is a complicated issue for enforcement, and I ask the Minister to look specifically at it.

I hope that the Minister agrees that animal welfare should be at the heart of the matter. It is about prevention of harm above all else. The thousands of members of the public who have signed petitions on the matter recognise that; the majority of our councils, who have passed such motions, recognise it; and the Chamber has recognised it each time that the issue has come before us.

Declan McAleer (Sinn Féin, West Tyrone)

I welcome the opportunity to speak on the motion. It reflects our collective commitment to safeguard the welfare of animals. Under the Welfare of Animals Act 2011, we have a crucial framework that provides the powers to protect farmed animals, non-farmed animals and wildlife. The Act is a vital tool in ensuring that we do everything in our power to uphold the highest standards of welfare.

In March 2014, the Assembly took a decisive step by passing a motion that called for a review of the implementation of the Act. It was clear then, as it is now, that we need to take a hard look at how effectively we combat animal welfare offences, particularly in relation to sentencing guidelines and practices. The public's demand for action was loud and clear.

Following that debate, the then Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development, Michelle O'Neill, took swift action. In partnership with the Department of Justice, she initiated a review of the Welfare of Animals Act 2011. That review was not just about ticking boxes but about making real, impactful change. The final report, containing 68 recommendations aimed at strengthening the animal welfare framework, was published in February 2016. Those recommendations addressed key themes such as sentencing, delivery structures, enforcement collaboration, public service, dog breeding and online pet sales and equine welfare.

One of the most pressing concerns that was raised by stakeholders during that consultation was the perception of unduly lenient and inconsistent sentencing. People felt that those who committed serious acts of cruelty against animals were not being held fully accountable. That is why one the most important outcomes of the review was the decision to increase the maximum penalty for the most serious animal welfare offences from two years to five years. That change reflected the gravity of those offences and sent a strong message that cruelty to animals would not be tolerated. It was a recognition of the public's demand for justice and a signal that we, as legislators, were serious about animal welfare issues.

The review, however, was not just about penalties. Many of the recommendations focused on enhancing communication between enforcement bodies, improving delivery processes and ensuring that the public is aware of the resources and services that are available for animal welfare. The 2016 review highlighted concerns about the efficacy of a central register, including complex issues regarding data protection, privacy and the ECHR. We must continue to work with government agencies, animal welfare groups and the public to ensure that our laws are enforced, that services are effective and that best practice is shared with rehoming organisations to enhance their assessment processes.

I commend the progress that we have made since the passage of the Welfare of Animals Act 2011, but let us be clear: there is still a lot of work to be done. The creation of a register for those who are convicted of animal cruelty is a step that could have a profound impact on deterring future offenders. However, we must also be mindful of the potential legal challenges that that could raise. No doubt, the Minister will touch on that in his response to the debate. There are questions around data protection, privacy rights and cross-jurisdictional enforcement that must be addressed carefully to ensure that the register can be implemented without facing legal obstacles. By proactively addressing those issues, we can ensure that the tool is not only lawful but an effective means of preventing further cruelty to animals.

Together, we must ensure that the island of Ireland remains a place where animal welfare is a shared priority and is treated with the seriousness and respect that it deserves.

John Blair (Alliance, South Antrim)

I thank the Members who tabled the motion, as it is based on an issue that is very important to me and that my party takes very seriously. The establishment of an animal welfare offenders register has long been a key goal of the Assembly's all-party group on animal welfare, which I am pleased to have chaired for a number of years.

The motion calls for a proactive step, but it also embodies our moral duty to protect animals, which are, of course, unable to protect themselves. The purpose of the motion is evident: individuals who are unkind to animals should be barred from owning them. All too often, we encounter cases where those who are found guilty of serious animal welfare violations are allowed to acquire or even breed animals. A register of animal welfare offenders would provide a transparent mechanism for holding offenders accountable, ensuring that those who commit acts of cruelty are recognised and, importantly, prevented from repeating such offences.

The Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs and the Department of Justice have considered the matter extensively and significant challenges have, unfortunately, been raised. The two main barriers are the significant cost of establishing and maintaining a register and the data protection implications, which, by all accounts, appear to be prohibitive. We need a system that is detailed, accessible and capable of monitoring offenders thoroughly. That will require resources. The register must be designed to respect the rights of individuals while prioritising the safety and welfare of animals. The previous AERA Minister, who is a member of the same party as those who tabled the motion, stated those exact issues when I put the question to him about a register in the previous mandate. He said that a register would be untenable because of those issues. I should further point out that I raised the issue with the then Minister a number of times.

The Alliance Party will continue to support and investigate initiatives that not only explore effective strategies for the proposed register but seek to eliminate instances of animal suffering across the region. We need to stay dedicated to cultivating a culture of compassion and accountability for animals and to promoting thorough animal welfare policies that are centred on the prevention of animal cruelty.

Despite the barriers that I mentioned, which are on the public record, and the aspirational nature of the motion, I have no difficulty in offering my support and that of my colleagues.

Robbie Butler (UUP, Lagan Valley)

I thank the Members who tabled the motion. I support the motion, which seeks to address the scourge of animal cruelty in Northern Ireland. As a society that often describes itself as animal-loving, we should hold ourselves to the highest account in how we treat the most defenceless amongst us, which includes animals, who rely on us for care and protection. The figures provided by the Department of Justice, which are mentioned in the motion, are alarming, showing:

"between 2018 and 2022, only 12% of convictions for animal welfare offences ... resulted in a custodial sentence".

That is simply unacceptable. When individuals commit acts of cruelty or violence against animals or neglect them, they must face meaningful consequences that prevent them from reoffending and deter others from committing similar crimes. I cannot even bring myself to read into the record some of the disgusting instances of animal battery and neglect that I read of in the research papers and the papers supplied by the USPCA. As we have seen, despite that, current bans on keeping animals have proven to be ineffective. High-profile cases, such as those that Members will, I am sure, have read about, show that convicted individuals can slip through the cracks, which can have devastating consequences for the animals.

The truth is that cruelty often begins behind closed doors, but it does not stop there. Those are the same doors behind which the cases that we hear about occur: cases of kittens or pups being cruelly drowned, suffocated in bags or starved to death when they are not fit for the purpose that people want them for. Those horrific practices still occur and need to be rooted out. The USPCA, along with many other stakeholders, has put forward a series of vital, practical proposals that could strengthen our animal welfare laws. The Assembly should listen carefully to those who are on the front line of animal protection. I echo the calls on the Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs to take decisive action and adopt those recommendations. We have had some discussions about that, and I know that the Minister is committed to engaging on animal welfare issues.

I will read through a few of the recommendations, if that is OK, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. The first is on the register of banned offenders that has been called for. We must establish a publicly accessible register of those who have been convicted of animal abuse. Whilst GDPR may limit those who can access the register, it should not prevent its creation. We can work out in the Chamber how best to ensure that that information serves the purpose for which the register would be established.

The second recommendation is to amend the Welfare of Animals Act (Northern Ireland) 2011, extending the bans to include those who live with convicted offenders. It is crucial to consider that recommendation. I get that it is a difficult subject, but it is one that we need to discuss, because we have heard of cases where individuals who were banned from owning animals simply moved into households, or already lived in households, where pets were present. That undermines the intent of the ban. That is what I call a loophole, in that it is incongruous.

Another recommendation is for regular inspections: council animal welfare officers should be required to conduct quarterly inspections of individuals banned from owning animals. That measure would provide an ongoing safeguard against further abuses and ensure compliance with disqualification orders. As we heard, there is a shortage of those officers, unfortunately, so there may be a workforce issue, as there is across most of the public sector today.

The fourth recommendation is to promote community reporting. A public campaign could and should be launched to empower communities to report suspected cases of animal cruelty. If we are, indeed, a nation of animal lovers, I do not think that it will be too difficult to get people to reach out, because early intervention can help to save lives and end suffering, and greater awareness will help to shine a light on those heinous acts.

The fifth recommendation is on annual reports. The publication of annual reports detailing disqualification orders and compliance rates would bring much-needed transparency and accountability to the enforcement of the law. As we know, measuring effectiveness is the only way to achieve and improve compliance rates.

We cannot allow convicted abusers to return to environments where they can harm animals, nor can we permit any leniency that devalues the life and well-being of animals in Northern Ireland. The motion and the USPCA's proposals are a step forward in ensuring that justice is served and that we prevent further suffering. Let us not forget that every time we fail to act on this issue, innocent animals will pay the price.

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

I welcome the motion and the focus on the need for tougher action against those who are convicted of animal cruelty. I suspect that most parties support the motion, at least in principle. After all, we are all animal lovers.

It should not be a surprise that the SDLP supports the motion. In particular, we support the call for the Minister to establish a register of banned animal welfare offenders. We and, I think, all parties present supported the DUP motion in 2016 that called on the then Justice Minister to establish an accessible central register of those convicted of animal welfare offences. It was made clear shortly afterwards that the responsibility for establishing a register would lie with the Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs.

The SDLP, with others, continued to lobby the relevant Minister on the issue. In 2021, we presented a public petition to the Assembly, signed by thousands of individuals and supported by the USPCA, calling on the AERA Minister to work alongside the Minister of Justice to establish such a register. Both Ministers at that time expressed support for the register. However, the then AREA Minister concluded in March 2022 that creating a register of animal cruelty offenders was not feasible. In his explanation for that decision, the DUP Minister responsible referenced apparent low reoffending rates, no evidential need for a register, the cost of establishing and maintaining a register, and the data protection implications. We did not agree with his reasoning then, and we do not now. I would be interested to hear from the proposer of the motion whether they now disagree with their party colleague, because the current Minister responsible has taken the same line, presumably based on the same advice from that same Department. We believe that any potential issues can and should be overcome.

We believe that there is a need for a register that is established on an all-island basis. What is currently missing is the political will to make that happen. That will require a change in mindset in the Minister's Department but also in the Republic. What is noticeable is the low number of prosecutions brought to completion by the various enforcement bodies compared with the number of complaints and other actions taken. That is, perhaps, an indication that prosecutions are seen as a reluctant last resort, and that should certainly not be the case. If we are to take seriously the issue of cruelty and abuse of animals — or, indeed, abuse of our environment — that culture of enforcement needs to change. I hope that the Minister will take that point on board, and I do not doubt his sincerity or the will to do so.

The Minister has suggested that there is a lack of evidence that registers of this kind are effective elsewhere. I would argue that the sample size is too small and the situations too varied to reach a conclusion based on that. A register of banned offenders would be an important additional tool in the battle against those who would abuse animals. That is how it should be assessed, and we are in a unique position here. To be effective, a register should be established on an all-island basis. The cross-border nature of criminal activity such as dog-fighting, badger-baiting and illegal puppy farming demands it. The Minister should consider proposals on that basis, and work with the Irish Government to that end.

Let us do everything that we can to help those who are trying to prevent animal cruelty, and let us make animal welfare issues one of our key priorities. More proactive enforcement, tougher action against those found guilty of animal welfare offences — some of which are incredibly crass and cruel — and the establishment of an all-island register of banned offenders would be a step in that right direction.

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

The Business Committee has arranged to meet at 1.00 pm. I propose, therefore, by leave of the Assembly, to suspend the sitting until 2.00 pm. The first Member to speak after Question Time will be Áine Murphy.

The debate stood suspended.

The sitting was suspended at 12.59 pm.

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

Oral Answers to Questions — Justice

John Blair (Alliance, South Antrim)

Questions 9 and 13 have been withdrawn.

Alan Robinson (DUP, East Londonderry)

1. Mr Robinson asked the Minister of Justice what discussions she has had with the PSNI regarding the future of Limavady police station. (AQO 1019/22-27)

Naomi Long (Alliance, Belfast East)

The management of the PSNI estate is an operational matter for the Chief Constable, who is accountable to the Northern Ireland Policing Board. I am committed to respecting the operational independence of the Chief Constable and the role of the Policing Board. As I have not had any discussions on the matter, it is therefore suggested that the Member should write directly to the Chief Constable.

Alan Robinson (DUP, East Londonderry)

I thank the Minister for her response. Does she agree that it would be entirely wrong that police stations, such as the one in Limavady, would be closed as a sacrificial lamb to help to pay the £750,000 Information Commissioner's Office (ICO) fine and other subsequent costs following last year's data breach?

Naomi Long (Alliance, Belfast East)

As I have said, it is not for me to opine on the right decisions for the PSNI to live within budget. That is entirely a matter for the Chief Constable. He has operational independence on that matter but is also operationally accountable to the Policing Board for those decisions. However, with respect to the ICO fine, you will be aware that the PSNI did considerable work to reduce the fine. I wrote to the ICO to make those representations, because I believe that to take public money out of the police purse at this time is likely only to increase pressure on the very people who were impacted by that data breach.

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

Can the Minister outline the time frame for the closing of Crossmaglen police station, as per the recommendations of the 'South Armagh Policing Review'?

Naomi Long (Alliance, Belfast East)

I refer the Member to my answers to both of the previous questions. The management of the policing estate is a matter for the Chief Constable in cooperation with the Policing Board. It is not a matter that falls to me as Justice Minister, nor would it be appropriate for me to breach the boundaries of the tripartite arrangement to reach in or control that. I encourage the Member to write to the Chief Constable, who may be able to furnish him with further information in that regard.

Joanne Bunting (DUP, Belfast East)

2. Ms Bunting asked the Minister of Justice for an update on the implementation of domestic abuse protection notices (DAPNs) and domestic abuse protection orders (DAPOs). (AQO 1020/22-27)

Naomi Long (Alliance, Belfast East)

My Department has progressed significant preparatory work to bring forward domestic abuse protection notices and orders. However, as Members will be aware, the statutory requirement to lay regulations has not been met. My officials are continuing to work with partners to resolve a number of significant and complex operational challenges to ensure that the regime is affordable and deliverable and, crucially, that it will enhance the protections that are available to those who are most at risk of harm. However, we are determined to make progress. My officials intend to provide a further update to the Justice Committee on that work in December. I believe that the introduction of domestic abuse protection notices would make a real difference to the safety of those at risk of harm from domestic abuse. I am keen to find the best way to progress it.

My Department's high-level estimate is that the total new cost arising from the proposed DAPN/DAPO regime is likely to be in excess of £12 million in year 1, rising to over £17 million by year 3. That is not affordable within my Department's current budget, so resources will need to be made available to support their introduction. They have been identified as a pressure with the Department of Finance. However, cost is not the sole reason for not bringing DAPNs and DAPOs forward at this time. My officials are also exploring other operational factors with partners to ensure that the eventual model is effective, adds value and is operationally deliverable.

Joanne Bunting (DUP, Belfast East)

I am grateful to the Minister for her answer. She will appreciate that, in the current climate, it is important that all options are available to help people who find themselves in such situations. She cited the year-on-year costs, which are, indeed, significant for the Department. Can she outline why that is; the rationale behind the year-on-year increases; and, perhaps, how that reflects on the potential success of various strategies?

Naomi Long (Alliance, Belfast East)

The Member's question on the success of various strategies has a number of strands. The first thing is that the rise, if you like, is likely to increase and then level out as people become more familiar with the use of the system. That is why the cost goes from £12 million to £17 million. It is then likely to be maintained at that level.

With respect to the cost, it is hard to know exactly how many will come forward, but we have done it on the basis of an estimate from looking at what is happening in other jurisdictions where they have not been introduced successfully and have been judged not to add value. We are trying to take account of that learning. However, we are working with the PSNI and the Department of Health to identify not just how we can better introduce DAPOs and DAPNs with the right underpinning regulations but further measures that, we believe, would enhance the protection of those at risk of harm from domestic abuse. That includes investment in services to address offending behaviour; measures to enhance multi-agency work to assess and mitigate the risk posed to victims of domestic abuse; investment in technologies to support the PSNI response; and measures to reinforce the ability of Health and Social Care (HSC) to support those at risk. Again, additional resources will be needed for that.

We have included DAPOs and DAPNs as an inescapable pressure because there is a statutory duty on the Department to deliver them, but that requirement has not been met. We need additional resources, which we bid for through the transformation bid for the violence against women and girls strategy, but, again, that bid was not agreed.

Connie Egan (Alliance, North Down)

I thank the Minister for her answers so far. Minister, will you clarify whether the difficulties were unforeseen? Were concerns raised at the time?

Naomi Long (Alliance, Belfast East)

It originated as a Committee amendment at Consideration Stage of the Domestic Abuse and Civil Proceedings Bill. While we, as a Department, noted the potential merit of notices and orders, we did not support that amendment because we had significant concerns at the time about including that level of detail in secondary legislation, rather than in primary legislation. We also raised concerns about the restrictive two-year time frame, because it was an untried and untested policy. It had been legislated for in Scotland, but it had not been operationalised. It was only when it was operationalised that they realised the extent of the problem. It is also affecting implementation in England and Wales.

I want to reassure Members that we are committed to introducing DAPOs and DAPNs. There is a mechanism by which we can ensure that they add value to the current protective mechanisms, including, for example, non-molestation orders. It is about ensuring that there is additionality and, crucially, that we introduce them only at a point at which they are properly resourced. If victims go seeking protection and that protection fails, that is a real issue for us. We have to be sure that whatever we introduce is operationally sensible and deliverable.

Jonathan Buckley (DUP, Upper Bann)

3. Mr Buckley asked the Minister of Justice for her assessment of whether a £13·3 million investment in a new kitchen and cafe at Magilligan prison is value for money. (AQO 1021/22-27)

Naomi Long (Alliance, Belfast East)

I am satisfied that the planned investment in a new kitchen and cafe at Magilligan prison represents a necessary investment of the limited capital resources made available to my Department. The existing buildings were constructed as a temporary facility and have been in place since 1990. They were designed to provide meals to 300 prisoners three times a day. However, the population of Magilligan is now at its maximum capacity of 500 prisoners.

The current facilities have served well beyond their lifespan and are not fit for purpose in respect of meeting current health and safety requirements. Nor are they able to provide prisoners with the opportunity to undertake the full range of qualifications in hospitality and catering that are available in other prison establishments. The project will involve the closure of two separate inefficient buildings and the construction of a more energy-efficient mixed-use building that will serve as a prison kitchen, catering college and cafe for both prisoners and prison staff.

Jonathan Buckley (DUP, Upper Bann)

I thank the Minister for her answer and her invitation to visit the facilities, to which I have replied. Minister, I am sure that you will agree that, on the face of it, an investment of £13·3 million in a kitchen and cafe seems excessive. How confident is the Minister that that will deliver value for money? Is she in a position to outline the detailed specification and a breakdown of the cost? The issue is of huge concern, particularly given the huge budgetary restraints that we have across government at this time.

Naomi Long (Alliance, Belfast East)

I am perhaps more cognisant than most Ministers of huge budgetary restraints, given that I have been facing them for much longer than most. Even when a surfeit of money was available, the Department of Justice never saw the benefit of it. My officials and I are very aware of the need to achieve value for money.

The project will bring a number of benefits. Since 2017, we have spent around £500,000 on the kitchen to maintain the status quo, which is completely inefficient and does not represent value for money. The project will offer more reliable environmentally sustainable energy provision, which will contribute to the relevant government targets in achieving net zero emissions. That, obviously, comes at a premium. It also allows us to improve our rehabilitative offer at the Magilligan site. Crucially, it ensures that the facilities are operational for the size and capacity of the prison that we now have on that site. In addition, it is a clear indication of my support for the continuation of Magilligan prison and the investment that that represents in the north-west region, a matter that has exercised many of the Member's Assembly colleagues.

Stewart Dickson (Alliance, East Antrim)

Minister, it was probably surprising that the existing kitchen facilities were not blown away in the recent storm. Is it not important, particularly given the role of Magilligan prison in rehabilitation and training, that the facilities train people for jobs and life?

Naomi Long (Alliance, Belfast East)

Absolutely. Rehabilitation is and must remain the priority for the Northern Ireland Prison Service (NIPS). Central to that is the infrastructure pillar of the Prisons 25by25 strategy, which aims to ensure that we have a fit-for-purpose and secure prison estate. Outline business case 1 (OBC1) approval was granted by the Department of Finance for the redevelopment of Magilligan project. However, because of cost inflation, over which we have no control, NIPS is now proceeding with a phased approach determined by urgent business need. Alongside a new wing at Halward House, the project forms part of the first phase of essential capital works at Magilligan to deliver a safe, decent and secure environment to facilitate prisoner rehabilitation and prepare them for reintegration into the community at the end of their sentence.

The Member said somewhat jokingly that he was surprised that the kitchen had not been blown away. It is fair to say that we have been worried on occasions that that might happen at Magilligan. It is not a minor issue. We had problems earlier in the year where, for example, the gas supply to the kitchen was damaged. We had to seek external support in order to feed the prisoners at Magilligan. It is a serious issue, and it is only coming to a head now because it is in absolute crisis. We have to resolve it.

Deborah Erskine (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

4. Mrs Erskine asked the Minister of Justice to outline how the Justice elements of the Programme for Government 2024-27 will be funded. (AQO 1022/22-27)

Naomi Long (Alliance, Belfast East)

My Department contributes to a number of priorities in the draft Programme for Government (PFG). However, my Department's ability to deliver on those priorities is dependent on adequate funding being made available. There will be difficult decisions ahead if we continue to have insufficient budget allocation to meet the demand-led pressures of my Department. The front-line services delivered across the Department must be considered collectively and not as individual areas. The Budget outcome for 2025-26 and beyond is yet to be confirmed but is likely to be very challenging for the justice sector as a whole.

My Department is ambitious to deliver on the priorities set out in the Programme for Government for the people of Northern Ireland. My officials and I continue to press for greater resources through regular engagement with the Department of Finance, the Finance Minister and the Executive.

Deborah Erskine (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I thank the Minister for her answer. Minister, you talked about how the pressures need to be looked at collectively. However, we need to increase police numbers. Sadly, 42 females have been murdered in eight years. We have had an increase in hate crime, and we need to look at prevention and rehabilitation measures. How do you intend to prioritise those pressures with the budget that you receive?

Naomi Long (Alliance, Belfast East)

I intend to prioritise them in the manner that I always have. I want to say a couple of things. First and foremost, as I have made clear, if we are going to change the rates of femicide in Northern Ireland and tackle violence against women and girls, we need an Executive-wide approach. It requires, for example, changes to our relationships and sexuality education (RSE) in schools, which was recommended by Sir John Gillen but never delivered by Ministers. Changing attitudes in society to women and girls will require cross-departmental cooperation.

The truth is that, by the time people come through my Department, where we have made changes to the law around, for example, domestic abuse, stalking and sexual offences, they are already victims and it is, essentially, too late to protect them from harm. Protection from harm means moving upstream. It means working with the Department of Health, as I do, on the domestic and sexual abuse strategy. Money has been allocated to that. It also means working with TEO to ensure that the ending violence against women and girls strategy can be fully implemented in a way that complements the domestic and sexual abuse strategy.

There is no question but that it will require difficult decisions. Everyone in the justice system will be hurting. Members can expect to get many letters that will tell them that different aspects of the justice sector are under pressure. That is as true for my Department as anywhere else. We are carrying a vacancy rate of between 10% and 12% as a result of a lack of resource.

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

Will the Minister confirm whether there will be timed and measurable targets in the final PFG against which her Department's progress can be monitored?

Naomi Long (Alliance, Belfast East)

I submitted a series of key performance indicators (KPIs) along with my key submissions to the Programme for Government. My Department set out measurable targets that were challenging but achievable. Those will, I think, form part of the annex to the Programme for Government in due course. The Executive are to meet halfway through the consultation period to discuss further iterations of the Programme for Government in relation to the feedback that we receive.

I have submitted key performance indicators, but whether they are published as part of the Programme for Government is a matter for others. However, they will certainly be what guides my Department.

Andrew McMurray (Alliance, South Down)

Will the Minister give examples of where financial pressures are being felt in her Ministry?

Naomi Long (Alliance, Belfast East)

It would be very difficult to suggest that any part of the Ministry is not under financial pressure. As things stand, we have reached the point in the Department of Justice where, when we push down on one cost centre, another one rises. For example, if we decide not to invest in electronic monitoring, we push up the cost of probation and policing and increase the risk to the public. If we push down on probation and community-based sentencing, we push up the prison population. If we push down the prison population, we push up the need for community monitoring. At every stage, if we try to speed up justice, we push up the legal aid bill.

There is no easy fix, and I am not pretending that there is. We need a whole-system approach, and that is what I have been endeavouring to do, but it is very clear to me that, unless the Department of Justice budget actually starts to match the inflationary pressures that we have faced over recent years, we will not be able to continue to deliver the level of service that we currently deliver. If our budget had risen in line with inflation since 2011, there would be no extraordinary pressures facing the Department. It is because the Department has been starved of resource that we find ourselves in this situation, and, with all due respect, that is a matter for the Assembly and the wider Executive, not just the Department of Justice.

Paula Bradshaw (Alliance, Belfast South)

5. Ms Bradshaw asked the Minister of Justice what action she is taking to contribute towards ending violence against women and girls (EVAWG). (AQO 1023/22-27)

Naomi Long (Alliance, Belfast East)

Every life lost through violence is an unacceptable tragedy, and I think that we are all rightly and deeply appalled at the increase in incidents of violence against women in recent weeks. All of us must do everything in our power to challenge and change the attitudes and behaviours that treat women's lives as though they are expendable. There must be a collective effort across society and government to address those issues.

The cases involving four of the recent victims are being processed through the criminal justice system. Domestic homicide reviews have so far been commissioned in two of those cases. However, there is also ongoing work under way to reduce risk and to contribute to an end to violence against women and girls. That includes work under the domestic and sexual abuse strategy, which is led by my Department and the Department of Health. That strategy was launched by the Health Minister and I on 25 September.

The interdependencies between that strategy and the strategic framework on ending violence against women and girls (EVAWG) are evident, given that women and girls are disproportionately affected by domestic and sexual abuse. All efforts to address domestic and sexual abuse under the strategy will directly contribute to the broader goal of ending violence against women and girls. However, importantly, we also recognise that violence perpetrated against women and girls is not restricted to domestic situations and that domestic and sexual abuse can also affect men and boys. That reinforces the need for the Executive's strategic framework on violence against women and girls to be implemented in parallel with the domestic and sexual abuse strategy. My officials work closely with the Executive Office on the development of the EVAWG framework, and we are committed to continued collaboration and partnership. Our governance structures will ensure alignment and support ongoing joint efforts to protect everyone.

Paula Bradshaw (Alliance, Belfast South)

Thank you, Minister, for your answer. Will funding be provided to the community and voluntary sector to allow it to continue its valuable work on ending violence against women and girls?

Naomi Long (Alliance, Belfast East)

First, we will all want to acknowledge and pay tribute to the invaluable role that the voluntary and community sector plays, not only in providing crucial support to victims and survivors but in bringing collective knowledge, skills and expertise to inform our strategic policy and operational responses. With the launch of the strategy came the launch of the domestic and sexual abuse small grant scheme. That scheme offers voluntary and community sector members the opportunity to apply for funding to support new ideas and initiatives that align with the strategic objectives of the domestic and sexual abuse strategy. Initially, those grants will be drawn from our ring-fenced cross-cutting domestic and sexual abuse funding that is aimed at supporting the vital work that is carried out by front-line organisations. Through that initiative, we hope to empower our partners to continue their essential work and make a meaningful impact.

Doug Beattie (UUP, Upper Bann)

Minister, robust sentencing is another tool for ending violence against women and girls. Does the Minister agree that, when it comes to sentence credit, which is a useful tool for getting the guilty to admit their guilt early, leaving it until the last moment to admit guilt while still getting the same credit is quite negative?

Naomi Long (Alliance, Belfast East)

As the Member will know, the decisions that are made by the judiciary are entirely independent when it comes to sentencing. However, the issue of sentence credit has been raised by a number of members of the Criminal Justice Board. The determining point is what we consider to be an early plea. Is it on the first day of the trial, which may be early from the perspective of the judge in court, or is it early in the investigation, which could save the police and Public Prosecution Service (PPS) huge investigatory resources? I believe that it should be the latter, not the former. It is important that we talk that through with the Lady Chief Justice and others around the Criminal Justice Board table.

We must also ensure that people understand the sentencing frameworks that are in place and how they are being applied. Often, sentencing appears to be opaque, and the reasons for discounts and other things in sentencing are often misunderstood. The very language of "discount" is often very offensive to victims. We need to work through those issues in a manner that is sensitive to victims and their needs, and one of the reasons why I created a Commissioner Designate for Victims of Crime was that she would be able to, impartially and without any overtures of political interference, raise those sorts of issues in the right way.

Cheryl Brownlee (DUP, East Antrim)

Revenge porn is undeniably a form of sexual abuse that causes significant psychological harm. Will the Minister give her assessment of the current effectiveness of the revenge porn legislation?

Naomi Long (Alliance, Belfast East)

The revenge porn legislation in Northern Ireland is reasonably up to date, in the sense that it was first introduced, I think, in 2014-15. It was then further refined, as some of your colleagues who sat on the previous Justice Committee will recall, to include threats to release private materials, which is a form of blackmail but also a form of sexual abuse.

Where further work can be done and where we have been engaging with the Home Office is on such issues as deepfake imagery, which is often not as easy to prove in order to get convictions. It can also be very difficult to detect. With the increase in AI and deepfake technology, we need to be constantly horizon scanning for what needs to come next.

There was an intention for a Westminster Bill on that issue to come forward before the general election, but it fell. As yet, we are unaware whether the Labour Government intend to reintroduce some of those measures, which also included, for example, things like a specific offence of spiking. If the opportunity comes for us to seek legislative consent to piggyback on that legislation, I would be open to doing so.

Linda Dillon (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

When we talk about violence against women and girls, we need to be clear that it is by men. When we talk about it in the domestic setting of men and boys, it is mostly by men. We need to be honest about that. For those on remand, who are mostly, in these cases, men, what can we do to put something in place? Very often, they are released from prison because they have served their time on remand. We need to make sure that they are getting counselling, anger management or whatever needs to be put in place to protect the women, girls and children who will be around them when they are released.

Naomi Long (Alliance, Belfast East)

The Member probably highlights the most frustrating thing for victims when it comes to holding people on remand. When people are given bail, it can be incredibly frustrating for victims, particularly where they feel vulnerable or under threat. What is even more frustrating is when victims, in cases where they get a conviction, see somebody released time served. It looks as though they have not been punished for what they did. When they are on remand, unfortunately, we cannot compel them to comply, because they are innocent until proven guilty. We can offer them education and rehabilitation, but, as most people on remand maintain their innocence until the court trial starts, we often find that people are unwilling to, for example, engage in specific perpetrator programmes. We are looking at what we can do before people offend by working with those at risk of offending or with a history of offending.

We have found that perpetrator programmes often work better for those who voluntarily sign up to them than for those who are assigned to them by the courts.

Deirdre Hargey (Sinn Féin, Belfast South)

6. Miss Hargey asked the Minister of Justice how many allegations of inappropriate behaviour within the Northern Ireland Prison Service have led to disciplinary action over the past five years. (AQO 1024/22-27)

Naomi Long (Alliance, Belfast East)

The Northern Ireland Prison Service takes any allegation of inappropriate behaviour by a member of staff seriously and has well-established mechanisms to investigate and respond. In the past five calendar years, 2019-23 and inclusive of 2024, 10 allegations of inappropriate behaviour led to disciplinary action and awards under the Northern Ireland Prison Service professional code of conduct.

Deirdre Hargey (Sinn Féin, Belfast South)

I understand that there was another death in custody at the weekend, bringing to four the total number of deaths in the past five weeks. It is a concerning picture. What is being done to tackle that situation?

Naomi Long (Alliance, Belfast East)

I caution Members against assuming that every death in custody is under suspicious or other circumstances that may be of concern. Many deaths in custody are of natural causes, but we are not able to disclose that kind of detailed information in respect of individual prisoners until their families have been informed and until the Prisoner Ombudsman has done its full investigation and, indeed, until the coroners have reported.

The preliminary findings of the initial at-speed review will often give us an indication of whether there are any suspicious or concerning circumstances of welfare or harm surrounding deaths in custody. Much of our prison population is now ageing. Many of them arrive at us from a position of homelessness and, often, rough sleeping and are in very poor health when they arrive. Many have drug addictions and mental health problems, and that can make them very vulnerable not only to self-harm or suicidal ideation but, sadly, to natural-causes deaths.

Stephen Dunne (DUP, North Down)

Will the Minister provide an update on any NI Prison Service recruitment campaigns, particularly to help deal with the pressures of ever-increasing prisoner numbers?

Naomi Long (Alliance, Belfast East)

We have a recruitment campaign, which I believe is due to start this autumn. As you know, I had agreed that we should add to our complement of prison officers to ensure that prisoners and prison staff are safe in our establishments and that we are able to maximise the regime. When we are low on numbers, it is not necessarily that people immediately become unsafe, but it does impact very much on prisoners' ability to access training and education, family visits and other things, because we have to have a more restrictive regime when we have fewer numbers. It is very important for us, for rehabilitation, education and family support, that we are able to give prisoners the full regime that is available as well as keeping prison officers and prisoners safe, so we will be recruiting to deal with that.

Eóin Tennyson (Alliance, Upper Bann)

7. Mr Tennyson asked the Minister of Justice for an update on her Department's budgetary position following the in-year budget information gathering exercise. (AQO 1025/22-27)

Naomi Long (Alliance, Belfast East)

As reported to the Department of Finance in the urgent in-year budget information-gathering exercise, my Department is facing inescapable stabilisation pressures of £48 million. This position remains unchanged. In addition, my Department is facing exceptional pressures of £227 million in relation to legal claims from McCloud injury to feelings, data breach and holiday pay. Those costs are not affordable within my Department's budget under any circumstance.

Whilst my Department has been proactive in taking action in recent years to ensure that we live within budget, we are now at the point where all options have been fully exhausted. Given the severity of the financial position and the demand-led nature of justice expenditure, there is really no scope for my Department to absorb the remaining pressures. I will continue to work with my Executive colleagues to ensure that the necessary funding for my Department is achieved in the October monitoring round.

Eóin Tennyson (Alliance, Upper Bann)

I thank the Minister for that answer. Minister, what actions have already been taken to live within budget?

Naomi Long (Alliance, Belfast East)

My Department has been proactive in taking difficult decisions to reduce the level of financial pressures to £48 million from £86 million after the June monitoring round. That has not been achieved without an adverse impact on the justice system, particularly but not solely on the PSNI in the recruitment of police officers. We are also having to manage significant pressures in legal aid, and the Department's payment policy is currently the matter of a judicial review. In the absence of sufficient additional funding being allocated to my Department, extremely difficult decisions on prioritisation and service provision will continue to be required.

As always, our priority is to keep people safe. However, at this stage, it is hard to see how any of the things that we are doing, whether in policy development, legislative progress or funding the front-line services, do not contribute to keeping people safe. We are not running off on fool's errands; we are very focused on core issues that are addressing the key issues that are affecting society.

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

8. Mr O'Toole asked the Minister of Justice for her assessment of the operation of section 9(3) of the Justice (Sexual Offences and Trafficking Victims) Act (Northern Ireland) 2022. (AQO 1026/22-27)

Naomi Long (Alliance, Belfast East)

Section 9(3) of the Justice (Sexual Offences and Trafficking Victims) Act (Northern Ireland) 2022 amended the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992 to extend the existing anonymity for victims of sexual offences and complainants in sexual offence cases for 25 years after their death. This amendment implemented a Gillen review recommendation as concerns had been raised with Sir John that a victim's identity may become known after their death with undue distress for their families.

Under section 3A of the 1992 Act, which was inserted by section 9(3) of the 2022 Act, an interested party can apply to the court after the victim or complainant's death for an order to have the reporting restrictions disapplied or modified. The reporting restrictions apply only in respect of sexual offences and do not prevent the reporting of a victim's name in relation to other offences that may have been committed, provided that such reporting does not lead to the identification of the person as a victim of a sexual offence.

The provision was commenced on 28 September 2023, and, to date, one application has been made to disapply reporting restrictions.

The application was granted by the court on 18 October 2024. That suggests that, at this early stage, the provision is operating as intended. However, as is always the case with new legislation, its operation in the courts will be kept under review. If Members have concerns, I am more than happy to meet them to discuss that.

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

May I ask a brief supplementary?

John Blair (Alliance, South Antrim)

Unfortunately, Mr O'Toole, there is no time for a supplementary.

That ends the period for listed questions. We will now move to 15 minutes of topical questions. Questions 1 and 6 have been withdrawn.

Danny Donnelly (Alliance, East Antrim)

T2. Mr Donnelly asked the Minister of Justice for an update on the progress of the revised environmental allowance uplift for PSNI civilian staff. (AQT 682/22-27)

Naomi Long (Alliance, Belfast East)

I thank the Member for the question. I made a commitment to unions and police staff that I would work with the Chief Constable and the Department of Finance to resolve the issue of ensuring that staff are paid a meaningful rate of revised environmental allowance in recognition of the important role that they play in the PSNI in keeping people safe, including in front-line roles. I am delighted to have assisted in securing the uplift, which is effective from 1 April 2025, and an interim payment, which was paid to people this year. I acknowledge the patience and understanding demonstrated by police staff, while the issue has been ongoing, and their cooperation as we move forward.

Danny Donnelly (Alliance, East Antrim)

Minister, has a future review mechanism been agreed?

Naomi Long (Alliance, Belfast East)

The issue of a future review mechanism continues. It was one of the more complex issues in ensuring that there were no repercussive implications. NIPSA is very much part of that conversation, as will the other unions be. It is our intention, hopefully, to be in a position to confirm that with the unions as soon as possible, whilst working closely with the Minister of Finance, whom I omitted to pay credit to for very quickly clearing the financial agreement once we had the detail in place.

Paula Bradshaw (Alliance, Belfast South)

T3. Ms Bradshaw asked the Minister of Justice to provide an update on the evaluation of the Connect project, as part of the Executive programme on tackling paramilitarism and organised crime. (AQT 683/22-27)

Naomi Long (Alliance, Belfast East)

The Connect project, which is funded through the Executive programme on tackling paramilitarism and organised crime and led by the Education Authority, provides professionally qualified youth workers, based in two emergency departments, to engage with and support vulnerable young people aged from 15 to 25, who are often hard to reach and vulnerable to harm, when they arrive in emergency departments. An evaluation report, commissioned by the Executive programme on paramilitarism and organised crime, by Queen's University shows that 73% had probable PTSD and depression, over one quarter had been attacked with a weapon, 45% had been threatened by paramilitaries and 36% had been attacked by paramilitaries. On completion of the project, the young people were less likely to attend the ED, engage in unlawful behaviour, be exposed to violence, and screen for probable depression and were more likely to be employed. The report highlights the complex needs of many young people, which, if left unaddressed, can make them more vulnerable to violence and criminal exploitation. It also recognised the potential for this approach to further reduce youth violence and demands on hard-pressed critical care services.

Paula Bradshaw (Alliance, Belfast South)

Thank you, Minister. Do you agree that learning from this project might be useful in other contexts, especially at a time when resources are so constrained and public services so stretched?

Naomi Long (Alliance, Belfast East)

I absolutely agree with the Member. The project is an excellent example of the use of a public health approach, which has been adopted by the tackling paramilitarism programme. It is about undertaking small-scale projects like this to address a specific issue, rigorously and robustly testing them, and looking to imbed and scale them in a way that works. The fact that this has been externally verified to have been successful is really important, because, in such constrained times, if we are going to put money into projects like this, it is important to mainstream things that we know actually work.

Eóin Tennyson (Alliance, Upper Bann)

T4. Mr Tennyson asked the Minister of Justice for an update on the roll-out of children's sexual offences legal advisers. (AQT 684/22-27)

Naomi Long (Alliance, Belfast East)

Cases involving sexual crime are obviously some of the most intrusive and difficult for victims to endure. The impact on children is understandably far more intense. I have met young victims and their families who have told me directly how challenging the criminal justice process can be. The adult sexual offences legal adviser (SOLA) service was launched in April 2021, but there was recognition that, due to the greater complexity of child sexual offences, more time was required to develop an equivalent service for children, young people and their families. The additional preparation time has allowed us to engage with children and young people to seek their views on what a child SOLA service can deliver for them. It has also allowed us to learn lessons from the adult scheme.

Preparations to launch a specific SOLA service for children and young people are now well advanced. In September, Victim Support NI launched a process to recruit child SOLAs. The application process closed on 1 October. I anticipate that, subject to applicants being successful at interview and completing the required training, the new service will be operational early in the new year.

Eóin Tennyson (Alliance, Upper Bann)

I thank the Minister for that answer. Minister, will you outline the costs that might be associated with the roll-out of children's SOLAs?

Naomi Long (Alliance, Belfast East)

The roll-out will cost £134,000 in 2025-26 and £139,000 in 2026-27. It is really important to recognise the impact that the adult SOLAs have had on the willingness of victims and witnesses, who are often also victims, to turn up and give evidence in court and on their feeling supported and empowered in doing so. That often leads to early guilty pleas, which we discussed earlier. We hope that, with child SOLAs, we will be able to tackle some of the challenges that face young people, who may find even attendance at the remote evidence centre daunting. Having somebody there who can give them and their families legal advice and support as they navigate the justice system is incredibly important.

Andrew McMurray (Alliance, South Down)

T5. Mr McMurray asked the Minister of Justice for her assessment of the success of the domestic abuse contest courts (DACCs) that were run in the Belfast remote evidence centre. (AQT 685/22-27)

Naomi Long (Alliance, Belfast East)

Since December 2023, the Belfast remote evidence centre (REC) has hosted domestic abuse contest courts. On a DACC day, several contests are listed to run consecutively, with all victims giving their evidence from the REC. There have been four DACC days to date: 12 December, 11 March, 13 May and 23 December. A total of 18 cases have been listed to date, with 14 concluded and four adjourned to a future date. Of the 14 completed cases, there have been 12 convictions — nine by guilty plea, meaning that the victim did not need to give oral evidence, and three by guilty verdict — and two acquittals. Future days are scheduled.

Feedback, particularly from the judiciary and criminal justice organisations, has been extremely positive. Importantly, victims have also been extremely positive, with many of them saying that, without the REC, they would not have been able to continue with their case, they would not have given evidence and the perpetrator would therefore, in most cases, have walked free. The fact that victims are empowered to turn up makes it more likely that there will be a guilty plea or at least a trial. In the cases of people who did not receive the outcome that they hoped for, they nevertheless felt more empowered by being able to take part in the proceedings. That is incredibly important to people's ability to move on with their lives.

Andrew McMurray (Alliance, South Down)

Will the Minister clarify whether any arrangements similar to those in Belfast and Craigavon are in place elsewhere?

Naomi Long (Alliance, Belfast East)

Although not part of the formal REC project, arrangements have been made to allow male and female victims of domestic abuse to give remote evidence from the Fermanagh Women's Aid building in Enniskillen. Officials are involved in discussions with partners to establish similar arrangements in the Foyle family justice centre. The success in Craigavon and Belfast indicates that that is the way forward for the very sensitive cases in which victims may be afraid of confronting their abuser or their abuser's supporters. To know that they are attending a different location means that they are able to give their evidence in the best way possible and with maximum confidence. Going through the courts is still a stressful process, but that opportunity has certainly been appreciated by the victims who have taken it.

Paul Frew (DUP, North Antrim)

T7. Mr Frew asked the Minister of Justice, as the Justice Committee considers its forward work programme on scrutiny of the Justice Bill, whether she would advise the Committee to invite outside organisations to discuss half a Bill or to wait until organisations can see the full content of the Bill in order to form judgements on it. (AQT 687/22-27)

Naomi Long (Alliance, Belfast East)

Given that most external organisations generally comment on the policy intent of a Bill rather than its clauses, it would probably be wise to consult on the policy content of the entire Bill, which is known to the Committee now. However, if the Committee wishes to wait, as is its wont, until it has all the clauses, that will be, as already indicated, before Christmas and potentially — some good news — slightly earlier than anticipated.

Paul Frew (DUP, North Antrim)

I thank the Minister for her answer. I was going to ask her when she will publish the missing parts of her Justice Bill.

I am also concerned about when the Minister will introduce the sentencing Bill. Can she reassure the House that it will not be half a Bill?

Naomi Long (Alliance, Belfast East)

I can reassure the Member absolutely that it will not be half a Bill. The sentencing Bill is a much wider Bill in its policy extent and size. Whilst the Justice Bill is wide in scope, it is, as the Member will understand, narrow in focus and technical in nature.

The victims Bill is much wider-ranging. It covers many sensitive issues that have been raised with Members and on which I have been lobbied to deliver. My anticipated scheme is one Bill per year, and that remains my intent. Whether that Bill passes will be determined by the schedule that the Committee chooses to scrutinise the Justice Bill and whether it wants to manage two or, potentially, three Bills at once. The proposal for an 18-month Committee Stage creates the jeopardy that we may not be able to get the sentencing Bill or, potentially, the victims Bill through in the mandate.

Claire Sugden (Independent, East Londonderry)

T8. Ms Sugden asked the Minister of Justice, while welcoming her plans to introduce the sentencing Bill this year, whether, given Peter Dolan's criticism last week of the delay, the extended Committee Stage will cause further delay and risk the Bill not passing all the stages in this mandate. (AQT 688/22-27)

Naomi Long (Alliance, Belfast East)

I very much share the views of Enda Dolan's parents. I have met them on a number of occasions and sought to reassure them that it is a priority for me. We have issued drafting instructions for what needs to be done. The policy intent is clear, and we have shared that with the family.

For five of the past 10 years, we have had no Assembly; I cannot control that. That has been the largest part of the delay. In the last mandate, I agreed that we would do this. The Assembly fell again, so we are back to where we are now. The Bill is moving forward. I cannot guarantee what business the Assembly will schedule and what time the Committee will take — those are matters for the Assembly and the House — but I can guarantee that my Department will bring forward a sentencing Bill in line with the legislative programme.

Claire Sugden (Independent, East Londonderry)

Will the Minister outline the impact on the wider criminal justice system of not taking forward the sentencing Bill?

Naomi Long (Alliance, Belfast East)

The Justice Bill that we are bringing forward deals with a lot of unfinished business in a lot of small, discrete and technical areas. It is important because a number of pieces are court-required, but it will not have a huge impact in its reach into the community. The latter two Bills of the mandate certainly do.

The sentencing Bill will cover, for example, aggravators for hate crime, aggravated offences for attacking public service workers and changes that we hope to make around death caused by dangerous and intoxicated driving. It will also cover Charlotte's law. A number of Members will be aware that the families of Charlotte Murray and Lisa Dorrian have invested a huge amount of energy and effort to ensure that we have a version of Helen's law that, I believe, is superior to what has been introduced in England and Wales. If the Bill is not passed, that will fall until the next mandate. With all due respect to the House, given our reputation for moving swiftly and smoothly from one mandate to another, I understand why the families might despair at that thought.

There is also a specific issue with the victims Bill. We need to put the Victims' Commissioner on a statutory footing and finish implementing Gillen. Again, that is important work that needs to happen.

John Blair (Alliance, South Antrim)

I call Sinéad McLaughlin. We have one minute left.

Sinéad McLaughlin (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

T9. Ms McLaughlin asked the Minister of Justice whether, given her constituents' dreadful experiences of the family court system, which she has spoken to the Minister about, that system needs to be overhauled to put victims at the centre of all its processes. (AQT 689/22-27)

Naomi Long (Alliance, Belfast East)

The issue with the family court system is that it is, essentially, a judge-led system. Therefore, the changes in law that we bring forward in the Chamber are still at the discretion of scheduling and other things that happen in the court system. We introduced additional protections for cases where domestic abuse is involved, so that those involved could not cross-examine each other or use the courts vexatiously and to provide additional financial support.

Ultimately, at the heart of the family justice system is the child. That should be paramount in cases where judges make decisions on the future of a child. Any Member who is concerned that that has not happened in a particular case should write to the Lady Chief Justice and draw it to her attention.

John Blair (Alliance, South Antrim)

Time is up.

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

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker, I wonder whether any guidance exists for you or the other Deputy Speakers on ensuring that there is a plurality of questions, including from the official Opposition. Twice during Question Time, I was denied the opportunity to ask a supplementary question when time existed to answer it. I simply want to ask whether there is guidance on ensuring that the official Opposition, who are designated as such, have the opportunity to ask supplementary questions when they seek to ask them.

John Blair (Alliance, South Antrim)

Mr O'Toole, on at least one occasion during Question Time, I took the supplementary questions in the order in which Members indicated and tried to ensure that there was a spread of questions from across the Chamber. My hope is that most Members would agree with that. However, I am happy to ask that your question, given that it involves my chairing of the Assembly, be referred to the Speaker's Office for an update and advice.

Naomi Long (Alliance, Belfast East)

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker, I want to address a matter that was raised by a Member for East Belfast on 14 October. The Member referred to comments that I made during the Second Stage debate on the Justice Bill on the Committee's request for a Keeling schedule. In my response, I indicated that a Keeling schedule had never been produced for an Assembly Bill. I have since been made aware by the Member that that was inaccurate. In raising the point of order, the Member identified three Keeling schedules that had been provided to Committees as well as a clear commitment that had been given to produce a schedule for one other Bill. She asked me to reconsider providing a schedule for the Justice Bill.

I am grateful to the Member for raising the matter. I thought it important to take the opportunity to apologise for my statement being factually incorrect and correct the record. I hope that Members will accept that I was speaking during the debate on the basis of information then provided to me by officials and that my mistake was inadvertent.

One of the schedules that have been identified was provided to the Committee for Justice in 2014 on the Legal Aid and Coroners' Courts Bill. It may raise eyebrows that we were unaware of it. However, that Bill predated my time in post as Justice Minister by some time and went through the House during a period when I was not a Member. Further, the officials who managed the Bill in 2014 have since left the Department, so there was no corporate memory in the Department of a Keeling schedule ever having been prepared.

We will write to the Committee for Justice shortly in response to a number of requests for information in respect of the Justice Bill, including its request for a Keeling schedule.

John Blair (Alliance, South Antrim)

Thank you, Minister. That will be written into the record.

As indicated previously, time is up. Members, please take your ease before we move to the next item of business.

(Madam Principal Deputy Speaker in the Chair)

Private Members' Business

Áine Murphy (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I welcome the opportunity to speak to the motion, which aims to prevent repeat offenders from harming animals and to enhance transparency and enforcement in protecting animal welfare.

Animal welfare is a shared priority across our island. It requires a unified approach to ensure high animal welfare standards and promote North/South cooperation to strengthen enforcement. Whilst we have made significant strides since the passage of the Welfare of Animals Act 2011, it is clear that more work lies ahead. We must continue to advance efforts to ensure that that legislation, along with the penalties that it imposes, acts as a strong deterrent to those who would harm animals.

In 2021, the former AERA Minister Edwin Poots, working with the then Justice Minister and other key stakeholders, took important steps to explore the creation of an all-island register of individuals convicted of animal abuse. That initiative was a recognition of the deep concerns of animal welfare charities regarding those convicted of such heinous and grotesque acts. However, the Minister cited legal and financial challenges, with concerns including compliance with data protection laws and the cost of establishing and maintaining a register. In March, the current AERA Minister stated that the creation of an all-island register was "untenable". It is crucial that we carefully examine the legal and financial issues involved in the establishment of the database.

A balanced approach should be explored to ensure effective enforcement and compliance with the law. Protecting animals is a priority, but we must ensure that the system is as robust and effective as possible. In addition, we need updated data on the number of individuals who reoffend after conviction to fully understand the scale of the issue and ensure that any measures that we implement are necessary and effective in preventing further abuse.

Our commitment to protecting animals must remain steadfast, and I am confident that, with the right actions, we will achieve even greater progress. We must continue to advance efforts here and across the island to ensure that legislation acts as a strong deterrent against who harm animals.

Joanne Bunting (DUP, Belfast East)

I am extremely passionate about the issue. Cruelty to and the mistreatment and neglect of animals are utterly repugnant. Many of us believe that there should be zero tolerance, yet we find ourselves in the most bizarre of circumstances: although some have been banned from keeping animals, there is no official record of them beyond the court and, therefore, nobody to ensure that the court's judgement of a ban is upheld and enforced. It is clear that, in the last mandate, progress was being made. The key now is to build on it and finally move to establish the register.

In 2020, I raised questions with the then AERA Minister, Mr Poots. He advised that the responsibility for creating a register was not entirely in his gift, as the data was held by the Department of Justice. He further cited issues of data protection, human rights and cost that had to be overcome but said that he was engaging with DOJ and would continue to do so to see whether those issues could be resolved. He indicated that he had requested his officials to take those efforts forward and develop potential next steps before the end of that year.

Mr Poots elaborated, saying that he did not get all the issues around data. Since most of the offences are public, the cases have been through the courts and so are already in the public domain. After all, the issue is to ensure that those who have been found guilty of cruelty to animals do not have the opportunity to do it again. The more people who are aware of that, the better.

At that time, the Minister cited considerable concern in the DOJ about how to handle and engage in compliance with existing procedures. He said that he hoped that, before we reached the end of the mandate, DOJ would be in a position to give the new Minister room to move it forward in conjunction with a future AERA Minister. Here we are, again seeking to move it forward. It is clear that there was movement and progression at the previous Minister's direction and under his leadership. All that remains is for the current Ministers to pick up his mantle.

Shortly after the restoration of devolution, I asked the current Minister whether he would bring forward proposals on an animal cruelty register, to which he responded that he was aware of the case for it and that his Department had identified operational challenges. I know that a Minister is not bound by a predecessor's views. However, it is clear that work was being done to progress the register, which matters to a multitude of our citizens and all right-thinking people but now appears to have stalled.

In March, the Justice Minister indicated that she had not had formal discussions with her colleague in DAERA about the register, as policy sits with his Department, but was open to discussing how best her Department could support his on the penalties and fines attached to animal welfare offences, whether that is through a register or otherwise.

Let us turn to sentencing. Many in Northern Ireland have been horrified by the cases that they have seen and are, at best, unhappy with the sentences meted out. Those are only the ones that receive press attention. In the last mandate, I asked the Minister whether she would make representation to the then Lord Chief Justice to ensure that judges made full use of the sentences available to them for animal cruelty offences. I am told that Northern Ireland has some of the most stringent sentencing available on animal cruelty. There are, however, few examples of stringent sentences being handed down. There are multiple repeat offenders, and sentences involving a ban on keeping animals cannot be implemented or enforced, which renders the sentence redundant and subjects further animals to cruelty and mistreatment.

The Minister indicated that sentencing was entirely a matter for the independent judiciary, taking into account all relevant factors in the individual case. She stated that the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) had the power to refer animal cruelty cases to the Court of Appeal, if he deems that the sentence handed down in certain Crown Court cases is unduly lenient. That might be fine, if any animal cruelty cases went to the Crown Court, but they almost never do. From where is the appeal request on lenient sentencing to come?

In my first meeting with the Lady Chief Justice, the issue of sentencing — the public's understanding of it and lenient sentencing — arose, so I took the opportunity to bring to her attention the public concern over the sentencing in some cases and the inability to appeal. The bottom line is this: if bans are to be meted out as part of a sentence, that sentence must be enforced, and it is impossible to enforce such a ban if there is no register. The whole thing becomes a farce and, thus, is far removed from being a deterrent or a means to prevent repetition.

If the will were there, it would be done. I believe that it is the will of the House and of the people of Northern Ireland, so let us get it done and provide more than lip service to issues of animal welfare and protection.

Stewart Dickson (Alliance, East Antrim)

As someone who has had the sad duty to report a number of animal cruelty cases in my elected lifetime, I believe that there is no question that those who commit acts of cruelty against animals should be fully accountable for their actions. However, while the intention behind the motion is commendable, we have to approach it with a clear understanding of the complexities that it presents.

At the motion's core is a shared desire to ensure that individuals convicted of animal cruelty are prevented from reoffending. I wholly concur with and support that sentiment. Once someone has been demonstrated to be a danger to animals, they should never again be allowed to own or care for them. I recognise that the current system has shortcomings. The fact that only 12% of those convicted of animal welfare offences in Northern Ireland between 2018 and 2022 received custodial sentences is a stark reminder that much more needs to be done. However, we must be realistic about how we can address the issue. A register of animal welfare offenders may seem like an appealing solution, but it raises significant legal concerns. The most pressing of those relates to data protection. Any register that contains personal information about convicted individuals must comply with strict regulations, including GDPR. Legal advice indicates that establishing such a register, especially one that is accessible to third parties such as charities or pet retailers, could conflict with current data protection laws.

In addition to the legal challenges, the financial implications are substantial. Setting up and maintaining a register would require considerable resources, so, while we can support the further exploration of the idea, it would be somewhat misleading to suggest that a register could be implemented quickly or easily.

Despite the challenges, the Alliance Party remains committed to improving animal welfare. Indeed, under the leadership of our Minister at DAERA, Andrew Muir, we have made significant progress in tackling issues such as the illegal breeding and smuggling of puppies. We have also recognised the need for stronger protections and better enforcement, especially when it comes to preventing reoffending by those convicted of cruelty.

I appreciate that we share the goal of holding those convicted of animal cruelty to account and preventing reoffending, but we need to recognise the legal and practical challenges of having a register as proposed. Instead of offering unrealistic promises, it would be helpful if the Assembly could focus on practical steps that strengthen our animal welfare laws, ensuring that they are enforceable and effective and make a real difference.

Stephen Dunne (DUP, North Down)

I welcome the opportunity to speak on an important motion on animal welfare across Northern Ireland.

It is appropriate that the United Kingdom, as a nation of animal lovers — animals both domestic and farmed — has one of the toughest sentencing regimes in the world for animal cruelty. It is imperative that we in Northern Ireland keep pace and, indeed, lead the way on animal welfare when compared with neighbouring jurisdictions.

Our party is fully committed to ensuring that animals receive the necessary protections from harm and cruel mistreatment. We have been pleased to see recent progress in the area, as my colleagues have said, to tackle pet abductions and immoral puppy breeding practices. However, the statistics for animal abuse and those responsible for it show that, far too often, repeat offenders are able to get access to animals continuously, despite having already been punished for heinous animal cruelty crimes.

There is a very important role for the Department, our councils and the PSNI around animal welfare. We need to see a more coordinated, collaborative and joined-up approach to tackling animal cruelty. As can be the case on a range of issues here, there are often 11 different approaches to animal welfare across our councils — something that is not unique to the issue of animal welfare, where we have that variation, positively or negatively, across our 11 councils.

There is also a body of evidence that highlights an inconsistent approach by our judicial system to animal welfare sentencing across Northern Ireland and the awarding of sentences, including disqualification orders. Recent figures show that just 12% of those convicted of abuse or neglect towards animals end up with a custodial sentence. From that, we can take two points. First, it is clear that we need stronger deterrents to send a message to would-be abusers and, importantly, to prevent repeat offenders. Secondly, it is clear that reputable dealers and rehoming charities do not have access to the information to vet individuals who express an interest in purchasing or assuming care for an animal. Moreover, our local police officers and animal welfare officers are unaware if a potential offender already has a track record of animal cruelty when investigating complaints and potential crimes. By introducing an animal welfare offenders register, we can equip the relevant organisations with the tools to crack down on those responsible for these cruel, heinous and barbaric crimes, but we can also ensure that offenders are accountable for their crimes. Accountability is crucial, and we could do more on that.

Whilst there are legitimate concerns around the register's implications relating to budgets, data protection and human rights, there is evidence from across the world that it can be done, and I believe that it should be done. As my colleague Michelle McIlveen rightly highlighted, a number of examples exist around the world, including in New York and Finland, that demonstrate that it can work. Every effort should be made by the Minister on best practice from around the world. I appreciate his efforts, to date, on this important issue.

As has been said, there is strong appetite around our council chambers, with seven out of the 11 having debated or passed motions calling for the creation of a banned offenders register, since 2019 — something that has been supported by a number of charities, including the USPCA. I noted that one of the Minister's first visits was to the USPCA and that he stated that he wanted to make animal welfare a priority. This is an opportunity for him to demonstrate that with actions. Without such a register, the ability of the relevant statutory agencies with animal welfare enforcement responsibilities to ensure that bans on animal possession are enforced is severely limited. This is a welcome opportunity to put that forward. With those points in mind, our motion calls on the Minister to look seriously at establishing a register and to ensure that he consults with Ministers in the Republic of Ireland and, importantly, across the UK to ensure that we remain a world leader for animal welfare protection.

We all know the value that so many of us place on animals. We are often reminded of that, particularly when we go round the doors and see the number of dogs — often not just one but two or more dogs in, sometimes, every other home — and the love that they bring to so many people across our community in every corner of Northern Ireland. It is important that we give a voice to them today. I encourage the Minister to work with all colleagues and, through a joined-up approach, to look at a range of measures to improve the welfare of animals across Northern Ireland.

Phillip Brett (DUP, Belfast North)

As a proud member of the all-party group on animal welfare, I am pleased to make a short contribution to the debate. First and foremost, I pay tribute to my colleague the Member for Strangford Michelle McIlveen not only for tabling this important motion but for being a strong and relentless champion for animal welfare issues in our party, for many years. I thank her for that. I know that the Minister shares our passion in relation to addressing these important issues, and we look forward to hearing his remarks later today.

Animal cruelty and those who engage in it are a scourge upon society. I do not think that anyone outside the Chamber, or anywhere, would disagree with what we are trying to achieve: a ban on anyone who has been convicted of animal abuse being allowed to keep a pet or breed a pet.

We are all united in that and committed to working with the Minister to try to see how, collectively, the House and the Executive can deliver on that shared goal. As my colleague highlighted earlier, the fact that only 12% of the most extreme cases of animal welfare issues result in a custodial sentence is something that we should all be concerned about, and I am sure that it is something that the Minister continues to raise with his colleague the Justice Minister.

Budget pressures face all Departments, but the cut in funding for animal protection officers in our councils, which was highlighted earlier, is clearly an issue of concern. The Member for South Antrim Mr Blair and I proudly served on Antrim and Newtownabbey Borough Council over 10 years ago, and it was an issue that he and I worked strongly on. I was delighted that John and I were able to ban circuses with wild animals from being able to operate on council-owned property, and continued campaigns to ensure that the investment needed in animal welfare protection was at the forefront. That speaks to the issue: it is not a party political issue, but is something on which all Members of all sides of the House are united. In North Belfast, it is an issue that I raise regularly. I pay tribute to one campaigner in my constituency in particular: Ms Krystal Allen, who, every time I canvass or speak to her, asks whether we have managed to get the register in place, because it is such a vital issue.

When the Minister sums up — Members have articulated the difficulties in creating a register — what other aspects can we support the Minister in doing to ensure that preventing animal cruelty continues to be high on the agenda? It is a moral imperative upon us, as legislators, to put in place the strongest possible protections for animals across Northern Ireland, and if the House speaks today with one voice, united on this important issue, we can continue to work together to protect animals, which we all want to do.

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

The issue of animal cruelty stirs great emotion in many people who recognise the sentience of animals and their right to live free from human abuse. Equally, the persistent failure to deal adequately with the perpetrators of animal cruelty continues to enrage many. Most of us find the crime of abusing a defenceless animal particularly disturbing, serious, unacceptable and deserving of a custodial sentence. However, despite the horror and disgust that those crimes evoke, we have failed to implement robust laws and processes either to deter would-be offenders or prevent reoffending. More must be done. The figures that have been cited — only 12% of those convicted of animal cruelty receive a custodial sentence — communicate just how low down in the pecking order the welfare of animals is here. Animals that can feel anxiety, fear and pain deserve our protection. It is high time that the Executive acted to ensure the welfare of animals and to deliver justice to those who perpetrate these terrible crimes.

The SDLP led the charge for the establishment of an all-island cruelty register, launching its campaign and petition on the matter a few years ago, recognising that animal welfare knows no borders. To tackle animal cruelty across the island, an all-island approach is absolutely necessary to prevent offenders from owning pets across the jurisdictions. In response to my earlier request, the Minister stated that the creation of such a register was untenable and that a clear evidential need was not identified. How can that possibly be, when we see so many high-profile and heartbreaking cases in the media? The evidence is all too clear. How many more examples do we need to see before real action is taken?

As I said, the SDLP would like to see a cross-border approach. At the very least, as Mr Dunne said, we would like to see a consistent, cross-council approach to animal welfare, with councils adequately resourced and empowered to do more.

We feel that the motion could go a wee bit further. While the creation of a register is welcome, we must also look at preventing known animal abusers from acquiring a pet by other means. We have no reliable register of animal breeders in the North. There is a huge black economy in which unscrupulous puppy breeders are willing to hand vulnerable animals over to anyone with the money to buy them. Indeed, serious animal welfare considerations remain with regard to some legal dog-breeding establishments. There are farms, and there are factories. Moreover, with no registered dog breeders at all in huge swathes of the North, the picture emerges of an unchecked and unregulated black market in which we have no real idea of how many dogs there are. Without implementation of wider legislation that takes seriously the issues around breeding and dog ownership, we stand little chance of ending animal welfare crimes.

I was glad to receive a commitment from the Minister to introduce Lucy's law in the North, which will, effectively, spell the beginning of the end of puppy farming here. I would like an update from the Minister on the Department's progress on that issue and, hopefully, a time frame for implementation.

Whilst more stringent controls on those who can acquire a pet would be welcome, and tougher sentences for animal abusers are greatly needed, those actions alone will not go far enough to ensure that our animals enjoy the safety and protection that they deserve. Whilst we commend much in the motion and will certainly support it, I reiterate the SDLP's call for the Executive to go even further and act to establish an animal welfare commission, following the example that was set by the Scottish Government. If we are truly to take animal welfare seriously, we need a comprehensive, well-funded and evidence-led strategy to tackle animal abuse.

Timothy Gaston (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

Some weeks ago, I had the pleasure of attending an event held in Parliament Buildings by the Northern Ireland Companion Animal Welfare Group. I undertook to explore some of the issues that the group raised with me. I make no apology for drawing heavily from its policy priorities document, which, in a logical and devastating way, highlights how devolution has failed the animals that we are talking about. The first page of the document opens with this telling sentence:

"Northern Ireland badly falls behind the rest of the UK in legislation on breeding and sale of puppies and kittens."

In England, the Animal Welfare Regulations 2019, better known as Lucy's law, are designed to prevent third-party sales. There are loopholes that we can learn from. In particular, we must stop the importing of puppies and kittens from outside the UK to then be sold on by dishonest sellers to innocent members of the public. However, at least a start has been made.

As well as seeking tougher sentences, there is a lot of merit in the suggestions that we introduce regulations on breeding establishments and subject rehoming organisations, sanctuaries and pound and kennelling facilities to licensing and inspection. I note that, while the Westminster Government introduced compulsory microchipping of pet cats in England earlier this year, there is no such plan for that in Northern Ireland that I am aware of.

We are falling behind the rest of the UK in how we deal with those issues. Even when it comes to what is already in place, the system simply is not working. There are up to 10 animal welfare officers working across Northern Ireland. That figure is woefully inadequate given the job that they are required to perform. I am reliably advised by those who engage with the sector that that number is regularly much lower due to staff sickness. When I sought to explore the extent, the Minister washed his hands of the matter and said that it was for councils to deal with. There is an urgent need for a guiding hand to oversee the issue. If it is not for the Minister and DAERA, who is it going to fall to?

Gerry Carroll (People Before Profit Alliance, Belfast West)

I support the motion, but I also want to draw attention to animal cruelty that happens on a deep societal level and is usually deemed acceptable or, even, lauded. The organisation of our society around the profit incentive has widened the rift between humans and nature to a point beyond all recognition. In particular, the widespread abuse of animals in factory farms is animal cruelty on an industrial scale.

Moy Park was recently lauded for being the first company in the North to reach a turnover of £2 billion even though it cut its workforce by 7% in the process. For now, leave aside the fact that there has not been a statement from any Minister about Moy Park's profits, which really shows the power of capital to avoid ever being questioned or challenged. Moy Park has a serious problem with animal welfare, but nobody seems to want to talk about it. Video evidence of the treatment of chickens at Moy Park is disgusting and abominable. Chickens in the factory farm live in horrifying conditions in double-decker sheds. Birds are left unable to walk, they live with horrific injuries and they are deprived of water. That is bad enough, but people are also supposed to eat that stuff. In 2022, chickens at Moy Park died in a particularly cruel way — slowly and of heat exhaustion — because of inadequate ventilation during a heatwave. If that is not textbook animal cruelty, what is?

In addition to treating animals with abject cruelty, Moy Park is a notorious polluter of the local environment that damages our soil quality and pollutes our water, constantly breaching legal limits for pollutants at Lough Neagh. Executive parties reward Moy Park for its impressive animal cruelty with industrial derating, which is likely to be worth millions, if not tens of millions, of pounds. On one level, parties bang the table about tougher sentencing, but, when it comes to Moy Park, it is a case of "Fill your boots". I predict that there will be no arrests of the senior management or chief executives of that organisation.

We also need to talk about the role of landlords, who often force people to get rid of pets or prevent them from having pets. People should be able to have pets, not only for the obvious health benefits but for the enjoyment that they bring to their lives. Landlords should not have a veto on that. Surely those landlords who force people to give up pets are, by extension, engaging in animal cruelty.

My final point is about the fact that the North is the only part of these islands — in the UK, at least — without a ban on hunting with dogs. I know that the Member for South Antrim John Blair is trying to rectify that, but it is a serious hole that needs to be legislated on if we are going to stop animal cruelty.

Claire Sugden (Independent, East Londonderry)

I support the motion to establish a register of animal welfare offenders. We must strengthen our efforts to protect animals and prevent repeat offences. If people are capable of that behaviour once, they are capable of it again. It would be remiss of us not to use that information to protect animals, particularly when animal welfare issues are increasing and becoming more sinister.

Animal welfare is not an isolated issue but a reflection of the health values and humanity of our society; it is deeply embedded in the wider societal challenges that we face. Earlier this month, I sponsored an important animal welfare conference in the Long Gallery, hosted by Causeway Coast Dog Rescue, which brought together key stakeholders from across these islands, including Dogs Trust and Battersea Dogs' Home. A key theme was the link between animal abuse and human violence. It is well documented that those who harm animals are more likely to commit violent acts against people. By recognising that cruelty link, we can help our wider community. That underscores the fact that improving animal welfare is not just about animals but about creating safer and more compassionate communities for everyone.

The issue is not new to the House. I recall responding to a similar debate when I was Minister of Justice eight years ago, so it remains an active concern for Members, the public and advocacy groups. I expect that most Members in the House, including the Minister, are supportive of a register. However, as has been mentioned, there are challenges with its implementation, including the legal framework, public accessibility and cooperation across all the relevant agencies. I recall responding with similar concerns when I was Minister, but we need to work through those challenges because the issue persists. Perhaps it is helpful that the Minister of Justice and the Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs are from the same party: the cooperation might between the two Departments might be better than it previously was.

For the register to work effectively, we need to underpin it with a solid legal framework. There is enforcement through the Welfare of Animals Act 2011, but that remains fragmented. A centralised register with clear legal backing would streamline enforcement and ensure that bans on offenders are not just theoretical but enforceable. A register of that kind will not only act as a deterrent but ensure that convicted offenders are prevented from owning or acquiring new animals. Currently, the enforcement of bans on offenders keeping animals is inconsistent. A register would close that gap by providing a centralised, accessible resource. It would enable rehoming centres, pet sellers and law enforcement to easily verify whether an individual was prohibited from keeping animals. That transparency is crucial to building public trust and ensuring that those who report abuse feel that their concerns are taken seriously.

Finally, as other Members and I mentioned, cooperation is key to underpinning such a register across all agencies, including the Department, councils and the PSNI, and essential for the success of such an initiative. The fragmented nature of the current system has led to inconsistent enforcement and confusion about roles and responsibilities. As MLAs, we all receive reports of animal welfare issues in our constituencies where there has been no follow-up. People feel that nothing was done, and councils say that they do not have the enforcement powers. That in itself warrants a review of current animal welfare legislation. We need to focus our efforts on the perpetrators so that they will not be allowed to keep animals again. It makes no sense that we have that information yet allow that to happen. In a way, that puts the responsibility back on to us as Members.

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

I call Andrew Muir, Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs, to respond to the debate. Minister, you have 15 minutes.

Andrew Muir (Alliance, North Down)

Thank you very much, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. I thank Members for the respectful debate and for the opportunity to respond.

I understand and empathise with the concerns of Members, stakeholders and the public about animal welfare sentencing. The Welfare of Animals Act 2011 made it an offence to inflict unnecessary suffering on an animal. At that point, the offence was triable in a Magistrates' Court, and the maximum available sentence was six months in prison. In 2014, Members raised concerns with the then Minister about the limitations of the penalties in the Act, following a horrendous animal welfare case in which the perpetrators received suspended sentences. The Minister listened and undertook a review, and parties in the House worked together to introduce tougher sanctions. Those included the ability to refer animal welfare cases to the Crown Court and the potential for five-year custodial sentences.

The new sanctions became law in 2015, and, at that juncture, Northern Ireland had the toughest penalties for animal welfare offences in the UK and Ireland. It was viewed as a triumph for animal welfare and a recognition that the House and the people of Northern Ireland would not tolerate animal cruelty. Tellingly, Scotland enacted five-year sentences only in 2020, with England and Wales following suit in 2021. Therefore, it is evident that we have the tools and ultimate sanctions to deal with offending.

Our animal welfare laws are on a par with anywhere in these islands. I must stress, however, that I cannot control how animal welfare prosecutions are taken forward, nor can I dictate what sentences should be handed down by the judiciary. Quite rightly, no Minister has the power to intervene and take charge of criminal cases. I am not shirking responsibility, but I want to be frank when I say that there is no legislation that I can commend to the House that would resolve everyone's frustrations around sentencing.

The courts and judiciary operate independently and are free from government influence. No matter how worthy the subject under scrutiny, that should always be the case. At present, the Public Prosecution Service could choose to send animal welfare cases to the Crown Court rather than to the Magistrates' Court. My understanding is that its decision depends on the severity and circumstances of the case, and the maximum sentences available will differ depending on where the case is heard. When the PPS determines that a case be heard in the Crown Court, the maximum sentence is five years' imprisonment and/or an unlimited fine.

It is clear from the correspondence that I receive that the citizens of Northern Ireland view animal welfare offences as some of the most serious types of offence. Some of the letters highlight a disparity between the expectations of the public and how those cases are processed in the judicial system. I recently asked my officials to engage with the statutory agencies across the justice system to better understand the rationale when they determine which court will hear animal welfare offence cases. It is important that we get an understanding of prosecution policy and which factors determine how a case is handled. It is vital that the organisations in the justice system, which are, quite rightly, focused on their own responsibilities and functions, be made aware of the public's views on animal welfare and how they expect those who inflict pain and suffering on animals will be punished. We must get maximum utility out of the powers that we have. I am conscious that my predecessor, Edwin Poots MLA, now Speaker of the House, wrote to the Lady Chief Justice in 2021 to seek clarity on sentencing guidelines. The Lady Chief Justice's office advised that judges are very conscious of their range of sentencing powers when passing sentences. Her office made it clear that sentences must be based solely on the evidence that is provided and take appropriate account of any sentencing guidelines and mitigating and aggravating factors.

The sentencing guidelines for animal welfare offences are published and available to view on the Judiciary NI website. Those guidelines were most recently updated in November 2018. Any case for further update of those guidelines is a matter on which I will engage with stakeholders in the time ahead. I will talk about that planned engagement with stakeholders. With respect to the sentences that are available, I am content that the range of penalties that are available here is appropriate and on par with what is available to judges across the rest of the UK. I want to make it clear that I respect the role of the judiciary here and the importance of impartiality, and I highlight to Members that the full use of the sentencing that is available is a matter for judges who do take into account the individual aspects of any particular animal welfare case that is before them.

On bans and disqualification orders, the motion states:

"this Assembly believes those convicted of animal cruelty should be prohibited from owning or breeding animals in the future",

but it also refers to:

"current bans on keeping animals that have proven to be ineffective in preventing reoffending".

I will endeavour to provide some detail around current powers because, as the motion suggests, the law here already enables individuals to be prohibited from owning animals. When a person is convicted of either a section 4 offence, causing unnecessary suffering, or a section 9 offence, failing to meet the needs of animal, a court has the discretion to impose what is known as a disqualification order. The nature and intent of disqualification orders can be varied, which gives the court scope to deal with a broad range of circumstances. For example, a person can be disqualified from owning animals for a defined period of time or given a lifetime ban, depending on the gravity of the case. A person can also be banned from participating in the keeping of animals, having influence on the keeping of animals, transporting animals or even arranging the transport of animals. When a disqualification order is handed down, the court can also take any animals that the person owns from them and arrange for them to be disposed of. Finally, if a person who has received the disqualification order holds a licence for a regulated activity involving animals, that licence can be revoked. I reiterate that the decision to impose a disqualification order does not rest with my Department, the council or the police. The decision to impose that order is a sanction that can be applied only by a judge.

From the statistical data that has been supplied to me covering the period from 2018 to 2022, I am aware of four people who were found to have breached a ban on keeping animals. Even one person breaching a ban is too many, so, be assured that, where a breach of a ban is detected, action is being, and will be, taken.

On a register of animal welfare offenders, which is the substantial aim of the motion, it is not the first time that my Department has been asked to consider establishing a register of offenders. The desire to implement a register first surfaced in 2014, when the then Minister, Michelle O'Neill, instigated a review of the implementation of the Welfare of Animals Act (Northern Ireland) 2011. As part of that review, stakeholders asked that consideration be given to publishing the names and details of offenders on a central list. In essence, such a central list already exists. Data on convictions is held on the Department of Justice's Causeway system and can be accessed via the criminal records viewer (CRV). Officials determined that it would be possible, in theory, for organisations beyond the criminal justice system to access the criminal records viewer, but each organisation wishing to do so must be able to demonstrate a legitimate business need, such as national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country; the prevention of disorder or crime; the protection of health or morals; and the protection of the rights and freedoms of others. In short, criminal records data is deemed to be highly sensitive personal information, and the bar to access that information is set at a high level.

The review also found that, even if a case could be made for public access, organisations would have to sign up to a data sharing agreement and must abide by strict control procedures. Finally, it found that the creation of a central list that was made available to non-statutory bodies would engage difficult and complex issues around freedom of information, data protection, the rehabilitation of offenders and protecting certain human rights, particularly the right to life and the right to a family life.

Following that analysis, there was insufficient evidence or justification to recommend that a register be established. The review concluded that a better option was to continue to focus resources on front-line enforcement duties. Many organisations also stated that they deployed a range of different measures to provide assurance regarding the suitability of those to whom an animal is rehomed.

The final report, which addressed the matter, was formally published by the then Minister, Michelle McIlveen, in November 2016.

Since taking up this role, I have fielded many questions about creating a register that operates not just here but on an all-Ireland basis. I asked my officials to re-examine all of the available evidence, and I met my counterpart in the Irish Government, Minister Charlie McConalogue, to determine whether there was a desire for some sort of cross-border register. The legal complexities and protections that were present in 2014, when the ask was first made, still pertain today. We cannot shy away from the fact that there are safeguards in sharing personal data and that those are difficult to overcome.

My officials have advised me that one potential workaround would be for my Department to put in place a team that would have access to the Causeway system. Third parties could then make requests for information to that team, which would determine the veracity and lawfulness of the requests. That approach would require significant investment in staff and resource and would certainly need ongoing legal support. Work would need to be undertaken to scope out costs, but broad estimates from 2021 suggest that annual costs could be about £1 million for staff, the securing of the necessary IT and training. Unfortunately, that is money that my Department does not have. It is questionable whether such an approach would ever pass the value-for-money test. We should never apply the value-for-money test to preventing cruelty to animals in Northern Ireland; I am just talking about how we would evaluate it and make a business case. It is also questionable whether such an approach would deliver benefits and have the impact that we want to see in safeguarding animals against cruelty.

My officials also stated that they had explored the possibility of a voluntary code, where animal rehoming organisations and commercial pet shops would be required to get prospective animal owners to apply for a basic AccessNI check. That would disclose the details of that check to the organisation or business concerned before the transfer of the pet took place. It was felt that that way forward could be implemented once guidance is developed and that it could be operational within months. There would be no cost to the public purse or rehoming organisations, and it would allow access to all unspent convictions.

Towards the end of 2022, officials engaged with the Northern Ireland Companion Animal Welfare Group to test their proposal. The Northern Ireland Companion Animal Welfare Group ruled out implementing the proposal, as it believed that it could lead to potential delays to rehoming pets due to the wait for the criminal record check; that rehoming centre staff could be put in a volatile position if they refused to rehome an animal due to previous convictions; and that it may dissuade potential owners due to the additional cost of the check, which is £16. While I respect the views of the Northern Ireland Companion Animal Welfare Group, it could be argued that those concerns would exist even with direct access to the criminal records viewer.

As it stands, no other part of the UK or Ireland has plans to create or establish a register of animal welfare offenders. When I spoke to Charlie McConalogue in September, he outlined that his Department was not contemplating establishing any form of register. The Welsh Government invited RSPCA Cymru to lead a task and finish group to explore the feasibility of a register in 2018. That exercise involved examining the effectiveness of registers operating in Finland and parts of the USA, as has been mentioned here today. The conclusion reached by the Welsh group was that no evidence could be found to prove that registers are as effective as desired; indeed, the findings of the group indicated that animal welfare agencies in the USA had concluded that the registers did not work. The report concluded that the operation of a register would involve a significant cost to government and that there are legal barriers that would prevent the establishment of the register. That mirrors the experience of my Department.

I have approached the matter with fresh eyes and an open mind. I have brought it to the attention of the Irish Government. I have not been found wanting. I have probed the topic in depth, as officials will know. It is hard to escape the fact that my Department has explored the matter on three separate occasions and creating a register remains legally complex and cost-prohibitive. If the rescue and rehoming sector or similar organisations feel that they need additional safeguards, an option already exists to establish their own processes around AccessNI checks.

Ultimately, my vision is to take Northern Ireland to a place where we do not have to rely on reactive enforcement. I want Northern Ireland to be a place where the lives of animals are appreciated and valued and people realise that maltreatment and abuse is abhorrent and wrong. Strong legislation and robust enforcement powers are only one component of achieving that aim. We also need to engage, educate and inform current and prospective animal owners on making the right choices and to give them the information that they need. To achieve that vision, I need the support of everyone in the House, all stakeholders and people in Northern Ireland with an interest in the well-being of animals and the general public.

I will say a few things to conclude. I support the motion, and I am happy to look at the issue again. I recognise the concerns that have been expressed in the House. The Member from North Antrim Timothy Gaston commented that we have fallen behind: that is partially due to the fact that the House did not sit for a number of years and we were not able to bring forward policy and legislation. I am glad that we are here, and I will use the rest of the mandate to the best of my ability to progress policy and legislation. I am engaging with the Finance Minister about the resources that can be allocated to my Department so that it can bring forward policy and legislation in the next financial year and beyond, because doing so requires resources. Over the next period, we will engage with the relevant stakeholders, whose work I immensely value, to understand the policy and legislative priorities that we can take forward.

Gerry Carroll (People Before Profit Alliance, Belfast West)

Will the Minister give way?