Northern Ireland Assembly, 3 December 2024

315 contributions from 59 members. The official report.

Assembly Business

Timothy Gaston (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

On a point of order, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. Yesterday, I wrote to the Attorney General to raise a query about the legality of the democratic consent vote that is due to be held in the Chamber next week. Section 38 of the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020 provides that the Windsor framework must be applied "without prejudice" to the constitutional status of Northern Ireland, which means that the suspension of article 6 of the Acts of Union is unsustainable. Will you confirm that the consent vote will not be held before the Attorney General's advice as to its legality is obtained?

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

Mr Gaston, I will pass that on to the Speaker's Office, which will get back to you in due course.

Members' Statements

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

If Members wish to be called to make a statement, they should rise in their place. Members who are called will have up to three minutes in which to make their statement. Members, you already know this, but I remind you that interventions will not be permitted and that points of order will not be taken until after the item of business has finished.

Declan Kearney (Sinn Féin, South Antrim)

Inniu táimid ag ceiliúradh Lá Idirnáisiúnta na nDaoine faoi Mhíchumas. Tugaimid aitheantas don mhaith a dhéanann daoine faoi mhíchumas do leas an phobail. Aithnímid fosta na deacrachtaí a bhíonn ann do dhaoine faoi mhíchumas rochtain a fháil ar sheirbhísí, fostaíocht agus deiseanna eile atá neamhiontach ag daoine eile sa phobal.

Bíodh gur tionscnaíodh Lá Idirnáisiúnta na nDaoine faoi Mhíchumas thiar sa bhliain 1992 is amhlaidh a chuirtear go fóill constaicí go leor i mbealach daoine faoi mhíchumas.

Bhí díospóireacht againn an tseachtain seo caite ar Choinbhinsiún na Náisiún Aontaithe ar Chearta Daoine faoi Mhíchumas a bheith ina chuid den dlí againn anseo. Is cinnte go mbeadh sin ina chuidiú le daoine faoi mhíchumas a chosaint, ach tá rud is suntasaí ná sin a thiocfadh linn a dhéanamh: cluas le héisteacht a thabhairt dóibh. Is ag na daoine faoi mhíchumas iad féin is fearr a fhios cad é atá le déanamh.

"Faic fúinn, gan chead uainn," sin mana atá ag an ghluaiseacht dhomhanda ar son chearta na ndaoine faoi mhíchumas. Thiocfadh linn uile go léir rud éigin a fhoghlaim ón mhana chéanna. Caithfear barúlacha agus tuairimí daoine faoi mhíchumas a chur san áireamh i ngach aon dlí dá rithimid sa Teach seo.

Ní bhfaighimis de chroí dlíthe a rith thar ceann cuid ar bith eile den phobal gan na dlíthe sin a cheadú leo ar dtús. Leoga, bíonn próiseas comhairliúcháin againn agus bíonn comhrá againn leis na daoine a rachaidh an dlí i bhfeidhm orthu. Cad chuige nach ndéanfaimis amhlaidh i gcás daoine faoi mhíchumas? Tá an ceart ar fad acu nuair a deir siad, "Faic fúinn gan chead uainn."

Ba cheart do lucht déanta beartas cluas a chur orthu féin ach chan é sin amháin, ba cheart daoine faoi mhíchumas a bheith i measc lucht ceannais láithreach bonn.

Declan Kearney (Sinn Féin, South Antrim)

[Translation: Today we celebrate International Day of Persons with Disabilities. We acknowledge the contribution that people with disabilities make to society. We also recognise the difficulties that people with disabilities face in accessing services, employment and other opportunities that others in society take for granted. Although International Day of Persons with Disabilities was established in 1992, there are still many obstacles put in the way of people with disabilities. We had a debate last week on the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities becoming part of our law here. That would certainly help to protect people with disabilities, but there is something more significant that we could do: listen to them. People with disabilities themselves know best what needs to be done. “Nothing about us without us” is the motto of the global movement for the rights of people with disabilities. We could all learn something from that motto. The views and opinions of people with disabilities must be taken into account in every law that we pass in this House. We would not dare to pass laws on behalf of any other section of the community without its prior approval. Indeed, we have a consultation process and have conversations with those who will be affected by the law. Why would we not do the same for people with disabilities? They are absolutely right when they say, “Nothing about us without us.” Policymakers need to listen, but, more than that, we need to see people with disabilities in leadership positions now.]

Maurice Bradley (DUP, East Londonderry)

I rise to highlight the further delay to the commencement of work on Portstewart's Merrow hotel and spa complex, which will be a tourist destination of immense benefit to the tourism offering in the Causeway Coast and Glens Borough Council area. The hotel project has finally been approved, following prolonged legal disputes that were led, in the main, by North Antrim MP Jim Allister, on behalf of objectors.

Causeway Coast and Glens Borough Council's planning committee approved the £20 million Merrow hotel and spa complex in Portstewart on Wednesday 28 August 2024, despite further submissions being made. The project has been beset by objections since it was first introduced by C&V Developments in 2016. Located near the start and finish lines of the renowned North West 200 motorcycle race, the project has faced several legal challenges over the years. The project now faces further delay, with the application sitting on the Minister for Infrastructure's desk waiting to see whether it will be called in. I checked with the council yesterday, and it said that it had written to the Department on 3 September and 12 September to seek guidance on the application's status. I asked the Department for an update on 7 November, and there has been further correspondence from Gregory Campbell MP. The council issued additional correspondence on 28 November, but the Department for Infrastructure has not replied. Paragraph 11.2 of the Department's guidelines on processing a call-in application states that it has a 28-day period within which to reply. The council sought guidance on 3 September, and it is now 3 December: two months later and still no guidance has been issued by the Department.

A new hotel on the north coast would provide much-needed accommodation, create various employment opportunities, offer training and support local businesses. If the planning application is subject to a call in, it faces further political delay. Mr Speaker — sorry, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker — I urge Minister O'Dowd to issue guidance to allow the project to commence and be built and functioning in time for the Open golf tournament and the North West 200.

Apologies.

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

You are grand, Maurice. Do not worry about it: I get called lots of things.

John Blair (Alliance, South Antrim)

I want to take a moment to reflect on the significance of World Wildlife Conservation Day, which is celebrated annually on 4 December. World Wildlife Conservation Day was envisioned and set in motion 12 years ago by then US Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton. The day was established by a pledge by the US State Department, which committed it to the vital cause of safeguarding wildlife species across the globe. Charities such as the World Wildlife Fund use 4 December to remind people of the urgent need to protect endangered species and their habitats. Over the past 12 years, we have made some strides in wildlife conservation. However, we have a long journey to make before we can truly commend ourselves for the progress that has been made.

The day offers an opportunity for us to reflect on our planet's astounding biodiversity and acknowledge the essential role that wildlife plays in sustaining the fragile balance of our ecosystems. Regardless of size, each species serves a specific function that supports our existence, yet we are confronted with a grim reality as our wildlife grapples with relentless threats, including habitat destruction caused by human expansion, the far-reaching impacts of climate change, the extensive dangers of pollution and the cruel practice of blood sports.

The alarming speed at which species are vanishing poses a severe risk to the natural world and, ultimately, humanity. Our well-being is intricately linked to the health of the ecosystems around us as they are connected to the processes that provide us with clean air, drinkable water and a sustainable food supply. Protecting wildlife is therefore synonymous with preserving our future. The importance of defending our planet's diverse creatures cannot be overstated. That involves igniting a passion for nature in future generations so that they, too, will appreciate its beauty and understand the urgent need to preserve it.

There are constant and dangerous threats to the local natural habitat. Our damaged and delicate ecosystems face many pressures, not least from pollution locally. Lough Neagh presents a current stark reminder of that. Members will know that Belfast lough is also presenting serious problems. It was most disappointing to me, therefore, that, just last week, the Committee for Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs, of which I am a member, refused to support efforts to reverse leniency on penalties based on cross-compliance in the agri sector. Those would simply have reverted to a previously held position and used penalties as a deterrent to breaches of matters including pollution. We really need to do better than that.

I am sure that I will have more to say on the matter when the political reaction to the next Lough Neagh crisis starts. It is crucial that we recognise —

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

Time is up, John.

John Blair (Alliance, South Antrim)

— our responsibility to actively protect our natural world for generations to come —

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

Time is up.

John Blair (Alliance, South Antrim)

— through actions as well as words.

Robbie Butler (UUP, Lagan Valley)

What date is it? It is 3 December. May I wish you a happy Christmas, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker? I am a Christmassy type of person, but I often have to catch myself on when December starts and I play my Christmas music and get really happy, because the reality for many people across the world is that they have illness or sickness, and, for them, Christmas can be a really challenging time.

I am not sure whether you were listening to the radio this morning, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. Kevin Sinfield, the Leeds Rhinos legend, is visiting Belfast today to raise awareness of motor neurone disease. Obviously, motor neurone disease affects people globally. Here in the UK, around 5,000 people a year are diagnosed and live with motor neurone disease. It is a debilitating and, ultimately, painful disease for those who have it and the families who support them.

Kevin and the Leeds Rhinos team have taken on a challenge. I think that this is their third year. Last year, they were in Dublin. Today, they are in Belfast. It is the 7 in 7 in 7 challenge. Over seven days, they are running 7 kilometres in seven regions and trying to do each 7 kilometres in an hour. I think that they are called ultramarathons. I know how hard it is to run 5 kilometres, never mind 7 kilometres. The team are doing it with a team of volunteers to raise awareness and, hopefully, money to combat what is a dreadful disease that affects far too many people.

When I worked in Springfield Road fire station many years ago, in the early 2000s, there was a very fit, popular and good firefighter who, in his early forties, was diagnosed with motor neurone disease. Sadly, he lost his battle after three or four years. We know that, often, it can be lonely for people with the disease, but a team of people in the Motor Neurone Disease Association will walk those steps with those who suffer and their families and support them on their journey. That is really important. What we can do is face into the challenge that affects those people. We can support them, raise awareness, hope and pray and put finances and resources towards, perhaps, one day, achieving a cure for that dreadful disease.

I put on record my thanks and, I am sure, the thanks of the Chamber to Kevin Sinfield for what he is doing in memory of his Leeds Rhinos teammate Rob Burrow. To all who are navigating their lives with motor neurone disease, I say this: we see you, we hear you and we will support you in your battle.

Philip McGuigan (Sinn Féin, North Antrim)

This Saturday, 7 December, is Small Business Saturday. The initiative, now in its twelfth year, aims to encourage people to visit their local town centres and support local traders and businesses. Essentially, it is to encourage people to shop and trade locally and to support the many micro and small businesses across the North that are the engine of our local economy and local communities.

Recently, we had a debate in the Chamber on rejuvenating our high streets. The consensus across the Chamber was that the hospitality sector, local traders and independent retailers play a vital role. There was agreement not only on their economic value but on their role in creating vibrant centres where we can live, work and socialise. That is certainly the case in the main towns in my constituency of North Antrim: Ballycastle, Ballymena and Ballymoney.

As we go about our Christmas preparations, Small Business Saturday presents a timely reminder to look to the small traders and independent retailers who can offer unique products and fresh produce with a shorter supply chain, as well as showcasing local talent in arts and crafts, bakeries, restaurants and much more.

If we want to see our high streets not just surviving but thriving, we need to play our part in promoting and supporting them. This Saturday offers a great opportunity to do so.

Tom Buchanan (DUP, West Tyrone)

TB has been a long-standing and challenging problem for farmers in Northern Ireland. Following the recent publication by the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs and the Chief Veterinary Officer of a 90-page review, it is extremely disappointing to find that TB is far from being resolved. It is clear that the Department has little or no intention of taking any meaningful action to tackle the crisis that is happening across Northern Ireland.

The scale of the problem is alarming. Northern Ireland continues to face one of the highest rates of TB in Europe, and, in the first half of 2024, there was a 22·5% increase in the number of cases compared with previous years. DAERA's efforts to control the spread of TB to date, at a cost of £55·7 million in 2023-24, have been unsuccessful. In fact, the Northern Ireland Audit Office stated:

"the continuous cycle of testing, removing and compensating for infected animals has failed to achieve the desired outcome and without eradicating the disease",

it cannot be argued that it is the best value for money.

The bovine tuberculosis eradication strategy for Northern Ireland was launched by my colleague, who was the AERA Minister at that time, Edwin Poots, and it consisted of 21 recommendations that would have enabled the eventual eradication of TB. However, it is disappointing to find that, as we stand here, the majority of those recommendations were not implemented and that, given the increasing scale of TB infections, the Department has now stated that that strategy is no longer sustainable.

Scientific studies all suggest that the most effective way to reduce the spread of TB is through wildlife intervention. Culling infected badgers is necessary to break the cycle of infection between wildlife and cattle. Culling, alongside the long-term aim of moving to a vaccination-only approach, is the only way that progress on reducing the number of TB infections can be made. No other method has worked thus far.

Farmers bear the burden of the Department's inaction on the continued spread of TB, with substantial financial losses due to herd restrictions, the loss of prized livestock and disruption to farm operations. It is therefore vital that the Department safeguards and protects the livelihoods of farmers and farming families by making the eradication of TB a priority. I hope that the Minister is listening today when I say this to him: continuing to kick the can down the road will not solve the problem. We need an effective eradication programme. The Ulster Farmers' Union (UFU) has asked:

"How many more farm families will be hit by TB by March 2025? How many will face another huge financial and mental blow" —

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

Time is up, Tom.

Tom Buchanan (DUP, West Tyrone)

—

"and how many will have their hearts broken by TB for the first time between now and"

2025?

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

Time is up.

Tom Buchanan (DUP, West Tyrone)

I trust that the Minister is listening and that he will take cognisance of the issue.

Danny Donnelly (Alliance, East Antrim)

As has been mentioned, today is International Day of Persons with Disabilities. It is appropriate that we take time to consider the continuing barriers that people with disabilities face in our society. The theme for this year is:

"Amplifying the leadership of persons with disabilities for an inclusive and sustainable future".

It is right that we seek to amplify the voices of the many passionate and determined campaigners who improve the lives of people with disabilities in Northern Ireland. Organisations such as Disability Action, the Inclusive Mobility and Transport Advisory Committee (IMTAC), My Way Access, Mencap and many more have been working here for years to support and advocate the rights of people with disabilities.

Last week, we debated the incorporation of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD) into our local law. It was encouraging that the Assembly endorsed that essential legislative change. The UNCRPD is recognised as the gold standard for equality rights. While the UK has been a signatory since 2009, it has not sought to fully incorporate the convention, and political instability here has resulted in a widening gap in equality legislation between Northern Ireland and the rest of the UK.

Today, I am launching a public consultation on a Member's Bill that would introduce a new "due regard" principle on public authorities in respect of our obligations under the UNCRPD. Such a Bill would represent a positive first step towards recognising the importance of the UNCRPD and improving the conditions for people with disabilities in all aspects of life. Given the shortened time that we have to legislate, equality for people with disabilities cannot be postponed any longer or delayed until the next mandate. I look forward to engaging with other Members and continuing to engage with the relevant sectors to develop the proposal. I encourage everyone to read and respond to the consultation.

Cathy Mason (Sinn Féin, South Down)

At the end of last week, I met a large group of local principals and special educational needs coordinators (SENCOs) to discuss the critical issues facing the special educational needs system in our schools, following widespread concern among school leaders in response to the Department's comments about the role of SENCOs. Following the meeting, it was clear that there is a disconnect between the Department, the Education Authority and the stark reality of SEN provision in our schools. Parents of children placed in the new specialist provision in mainstream (SPiM) classes shared their struggles and highlighted the constant battles they face to secure an appropriate education for their children. The stories paint a deeply troubling picture of the current state of SEN provision.

The challenges faced by children, families and educators in South Down highlight the urgent need for a major transformation of how SEN services are delivered. Without swift and meaningful action, I am deeply worried about the future of those children and their families. The staff who deliver the support to children with SEN are underpaid and under-resourced and feel undervalued. Those professionals keep the system afloat despite limited resources and ever-increasing demands, but their goodwill and determination cannot be relied on indefinitely.

At the heart of the issue are the children and families who rely on the SEN system. Parents across South Down have told me about the delays in assessments and statements that are creating an unacceptable backlog and leaving schools to manage complex needs without the necessary resources or specialist input from allied health professionals. That is having a profound impact on principals, teachers, support staff, children and families alike. One parent whom I spoke to whose child was placed in one of the new SPiM classes spoke of the sheer exhaustion caused by the constant battles for assessments, statements, places and even basic communication. That is not an isolated experience, and it reflects a wider failure in the system that forces families to fight for what should be a fundamental right: access to education.

The Department must now step up and listen. Without urgent and meaningful transformation, the future for too many children in South Down and, indeed, across the North will be compromised. Every child deserves the opportunity to thrive, and every family deserves to feel supported, not obstructed, by the education system. The time for action is now.

Paul Frew (DUP, North Antrim)

I rise today to talk about the support group Parents 4 PEGs. The group came to Stormont yesterday, and it fights — families, parents and friends — for their children, who have complex medical requirements and needs and thus have to be fed through a tube. Many of the children are still in prams or wheelchairs, and, for most if not all of their short lives, they have had to be fed through a tube. The tube goes up their nose and down their throat.

Some of the children have to use the tube for 17 hours a day, every day of their short lives, but that can be fixed by a simple procedure that takes up to 15 minutes to replace the tube with one that goes directly into the child's stomach. The procedure only takes up to 15 minutes, yet there are over 90 children in Northern Ireland who suffer this impact even though they have complicated medical needs and have to be fed through a tube that goes up their nose and down their throat. For the life of me, I do not know why those small vulnerable children cannot be served by our health service. Many of the children have to go to London to have the procedure done. All of them are on a waiting list; some have been waiting for years. It is not fair, it is not right, and the health service should sort it out.

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

Matthew, did you stand up to make a Member's statement at this late stage? OK. Go ahead.

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

Thank you, Principal Deputy Speaker, for clarifying that. In the season of goodwill, I appreciate your festive spirit in letting me in briefly.

I want to talk about a couple of developments in a really wonderful community — Carryduff — that is part of my constituency. Carryduff is one of the most vibrant, community-spirited parts of South Belfast, which will soon, for the purposes of the Assembly, be Belfast South and Mid Down.

In the last little while, there have been some really positive developments in the Carryduff community, and I just want to highlight them. Two of its brilliant local sports clubs, Carryduff GAC and the Carryduff Colts soccer club, have been rightly honoured for their amazing work. Carryduff GAC was named Down GAA club of the year. In the last couple of years, it celebrated its half-century. It has been an extraordinary achievement. It is now one of the fastest-growing and strongest senior clubs in the county. It is what is called a "dual code club": it is strong in both hurling and football; indeed, it is challenging for championships, certainly in football and possibly in hurling. Carryduff Colts is a glorious local football club. It has one of the largest and fastest-growing memberships in all of Northern Ireland. It won the Irish Football Association's regional amateur club of the year.

There is a wonderful local community group; indeed, Michelle Guy, who is in the Chamber and was just in a meeting with me, has been a strong supporter of that too over the years. The local Carryduff Regeneration Forum has done a huge amount of work to develop and grow Carryduff as a community.

The reason I say all this is that Carryduff, through local sports clubs, community organisations and community regeneration, has done a huge amount, and we will see evidence of that in the weeks to come around Christmas. However, it has never properly had support from its local council. That whole area of what is called "BT8" — the postcode of Castlereagh South — which includes Carryduff, Newtownbreda and Four Winds, contributes a huge amount in rates revenue to Lisburn and Castlereagh City Council. However, it gets a frankly shameful amount of support from local government, so it relies on those great community institutions — Carryduff GAC, the Carryduff Colts, Carryduff Regeneration Forum and others — to deliver for it.

In the next couple of weeks, we will see a really positive development in Carryduff, which is the opening of a new Lidl supermarket. That might seem to be a modest development, but it has been really longed for and long-awaited and has been literally a decade in the making for Carryduff. It is a really important development.

Going forward, however, we need more, and I want more for that community. I want more investment in the public realm. I want more investment in public transport for Carryduff, including, ideally, the extension of Glider phase 2, assuming that it is delivered, all the way to Carryduff to reduce congestion down the Saintfield Road to properly build and grow that community and make it sustainable and liveable in a way that the terrific residents of Carryduff and the groups that support them deserve.

Emma Sheerin (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

I congratulate Robert Emmet's GAC Slaughtneil on retaining an Ulster title on Sunday after a spectacular victory over Portaferry, when the team came from eight points down to eventually win by three points. I congratulate the people of Slaughtneil on again becoming Ulster champions. As my wee friend Patrick McMullan always says to me, "Up the Robbies". There will be plenty of people shouting, "Up the Robbies" from now on.

Peter Martin (DUP, North Down)

This morning, I rise to talk about dogs — super dogs. These dogs use a combination of air scenting and terrain training to locate missing and vulnerable people in any environment. Those amazing canines can cover a search area in half the time it would take a dozen humans.

The organisation is called K9 Search and Rescue. It is a professional, voluntary team that uses specialist search dogs to locate missing people across Northern Ireland and abroad. Last week, I had the opportunity to meet one of those four-legged heroes, the longest-serving canine, Max — also the name of our cockapoo — who has been leading the way on life-saving missions for more than seven years. K9 has 13 canines and 22 volunteer dog handlers.

The organisation has also trained some of its live-victim dogs as urban search-and-rescue dogs to help to locate people in collapsed structures, and they have been used in the aftermath of the 2023 Turkey/Syria earthquake and at the Creeslough explosion. Making the group a success are the incredible team members, who are entirely voluntary and on call 24 hours a day, balancing that commitment with their personal and professional lives. As it stands, the group receives no government funding and relies completely on public donations. The volunteers have met the cost of their own training and equipment, and, to give some context to that, training one dog over a year costs about £8,000.

The most incredible aspect of this story is that K9 Search and Rescue has been declined membership of the Northern Ireland Search and Rescue Practitioners Group by the Justice Minister on the grounds that there is "no service gap". That decision renders statutory agencies such as the PSNI and coastguard powerless to task K9 Search and Rescue directly, even though it may be in a position to assist in a search but, through red tape, cannot. Given that we hear regularly in the Chamber about legitimate shortages in Departments, it is, frankly, astounding that, in the case of an organisation that requires no resources, is fully qualified and is offering its service for free, the Department of Justice is refusing its help. In 2021-22, the PSNI received over 10,000 missing person calls. That is nearly 200 people a week. K9's purpose is to be life-saving, and given that there is no question about its professionalism and competence, it makes no rational sense to me for it to be made redundant by a Department at a time of extreme human need and distress. I call on the Justice Minister to urgently reflect on her decision and change it to the right one.

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

Time is up.

Phillip Brett (DUP, Belfast North)

I rise to raise my concerns about how the Northern Ireland guard force has been treated in Northern Ireland by the Ministry of Defence. The Northern Ireland guard force provides armed protection to 11 Army Reserve camps across Northern Ireland, including in my constituency, which is also yours, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker, at Dunmore in North Belfast. The role of the Northern Ireland guard force is to protect people and personnel as they carry out the vital work of the reserve services. It is its responsibility to search vehicles and to ensure that the public using those centres are protected. After many years of its members' dedication and brave service to the people of Northern Ireland, the Ministry of Defence earlier this year informed them that it plans to replace their roles. Members were told that their roles would be replaced by 2028 and that that would be done in clear consultation with current staff. Just two months ago, members of the force were informed that their roles would now be replaced in 2025, and that was done without any consultation or any due regard to the brave and dedicated service that members of the force have given for many years. There is no guarantee that they will be able to apply for those new roles, there is no guarantee that they will be given the same terms and conditions if they are granted the new roles and there is no guarantee that they will have continuation of service, which, as Members will be aware, will be vital to their pension contributions. Having spoken to members of the force, I know that their disappointment at how they have been treated is palpable.

The principles of the army are clear: courage, discipline, respect for others, integrity, loyalty and selfless commitment. The brave men and women of this force have shown those attributes in spades, however the Ministry of Defence has not. It has shown disrespect for their past service and disrespect for their future work. Today, I put on record my thanks to these brave men and women, who have provided armed guards and protection to people right across Northern Ireland during our darkest times. They have stood at our side to ensure that they were able to protect members of the public, and I and this party will continue to stand by them until the Ministry of Defence overturns its disgraceful decision.

Some Members

Hear, hear.

Ministerial Statement

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

The Speaker's Office has received notice from the Minister of Education that he wishes to make a statement. Before I call the Minister, I remind Members that they must be concise in asking their questions. This is not an opportunity for debate or long introductions.

Paul Givan (DUP, Lagan Valley)

I want to address the Assembly on the important topic of how we can enhance and support the educational experience of our young people through targeted, strategic capital investment in our schools. Investment in the schools estate is not just about how much money we spend but how well we spend it. Today, I am signalling a new approach to investment in our schools. I want to end the game of winners and losers: a situation where, given the limited budget, there are great facilities and opportunities for the few, but the many have to make do and mend.

In launching my new curriculum-led capital investment programme to support teaching and learning, I am determined to make sure that every child in every school feels the benefits of capital investment through a range of high-impact, lower-cost projects. The best investment is not necessarily the one with the highest cost; it is the one that has the greatest impact on children’s learning. Every child deserves access to the resources and equipment that will help them discover their full potential. The new curriculum-led capital investment programme will ensure that every pound of funding is used effectively to provide the tools and resources that will lead to the very best outcomes for our children and young people. That means smarter spending, focusing on what really works for pupils.

Historically, my Department’s capital programme has focused on new builds and major extension and refurbishment projects. Those large projects are extremely important but, unfortunately, can only be provided to a limited number of schools. Curriculum-related capital investment outside those programmes has, to date, been very limited. In recent years, smaller capital works have been restricted to emergency and statutory schemes to keep schools open and children safe. That is not acceptable. The aim of the new curriculum-led capital investment programme is, therefore, to invest in priority areas across the education system that will directly support, enable and enhance delivery of the curriculum in Northern Ireland. The programme will target for investment areas of learning across the curriculum, including physical education, science and technology and drama.

We have very strong evidence that inadequate facilities are having a key impact on the delivery of PE in our schools. It will, therefore, be the initial focus of the first stage of the programme, with a call launched for outdoor covered sports spaces for primary schools and synthetic pitches and sports halls for post-primary schools. The focus on PE will be supplemented by specific annual priorities to refresh resources and equipment more widely. That will allow us to target investment flexibly at key areas of need.

High-quality resources support high-quality learning and teaching. Therefore, this year, I will provide £10 million of funding, which will roll out outdoor play equipment for all nursery and primary schools. It will also deliver 15,000 new desktop computers across all post-primary and special schools and, as previously announced, defibrillators to all schools in Northern Ireland. The curriculum-led programme will ensure that every pupil in every school will benefit from capital investment to improve curriculum delivery. To quote Socrates — the Greek philosopher, not the Brazilian footballer that I knew:

"Education is the kindling of a flame, not the filling of a vessel".

With the right resources, we ignite curiosity and a lifelong love of learning.

So, why is PE being selected as the initial area of focus within the curriculum? The simple answer is that we know that the effective delivery of PE is often hampered by inadequate facilities. PE should be not only a key element of the curriculum but a central part of children’s overall development. There is growing consensus on the need for PE and sport to be positioned at the core of the curriculum. PE has a wide range of physical and emotional benefits, from developing muscle and bone strength, increasing concentration and improving educational performance and learning to boosting mood and reducing the risk of many lifestyle-related diseases. Developing regular physical activity in childhood is crucial. We know that children who are active are more likely to become active adults and to continue to reap the benefits of an active lifestyle throughout their life. In recent years, a growing evidence base has suggested that physical activity has the potential to support learning more broadly. Research has shown that physical activity can improve short-term memory, reaction time and creativity. It increases attention span, coordination and complex thinking and enhances behaviour and academic achievement. There is also a significant body of evidence that engagement of young people in high-quality PE supports the development of life skills such as leadership, organisation, communication, resilience and problem-solving, yet we know that our schools are frequently held back by having poor facilities.

In 2022, the Education and Training Inspectorate (ETI) thematic evaluation of PE highlighted the inequity in current facilities, with 30% of our schools having inadequate accommodation to plan for and deliver the PE curriculum effectively. Equally, the ETI highlighted the excellent practice that can exist when the right facilities are in place. We know that fewer than a quarter of schools are delivering the recommended two hours a week of PE. That contrasts with England, where the most recent PE subject report published by Ofsted found that most primary schools and about half of secondary schools timetable a minimum of two hours a week of PE.

The time has come to address those critical gaps in our school infrastructure. Many smaller primary schools in particular lack reasonably sized hall accommodation that is suitable for PE. Having to utilise available hall space for dining and all other school activities further reduces its availability for PE. Covered outdoor sports spaces can provide a lower-cost and convenient way in which to encourage and support a variety of sports activities. Such spaces have been utilised to good effect in the schools estate in England and Scotland. I am therefore announcing a pilot project to provide outdoor covered sports spaces at 20 primary schools. The application process will require schools to implement a minimum of two hours a week of curricular PE as a condition of funding and to participate in self- and external evaluation of the project. I am pleased that, to inform future investment, the ETI will evaluate the impact of the pilot facilities on the delivery of PE. Similarly, there remain post-primary schools without separate sports halls and on-site access to synthetic sports pitches. That needs to change.

Over the coming weeks, my Department will launch the application process for the pilot project. One of the most exciting aspects of the programme is that it will help ensure more equitable access to PE across all schools. Whether you are a pupil in a large urban post-primary school or a small village primary school, the programme will help increase opportunities for high-quality PE. I invite all principals, teachers, parents and pupils to embrace the new programme. It is time for us to recognise the critical role that modern, well-maintained PE facilities play in the success of our pupils. We are giving them the tools that they need to be not only successful students but confident, well-rounded individuals who are ready to take on the challenges of tomorrow. I hope to ensure that high-quality PE is at the heart of every school and that every child can discover the joys and benefits of an active lifestyle.

I will turn now to the annual investment streams for equipment and resources. This year, I am investing over £5 million through the programme to provide 15,000 computers to refresh completely the desktop stock at post-primary and special schools. Not all educational technology is equally effective, but, when used appropriately, it can improve education outcomes for all. It is not a substitute for good teachers or good teaching, but, in the hands of great teachers, it can be transformational, yet 42% of principals in Northern Ireland, when responding to the programme for international student assessment (PISA) in 2022 indicated that a lack of digital resources was a key barrier to teaching.

For our pupils to stay ahead, we must ensure that our schools are equipped with the best possible digital equipment. In this age of rapid technological advancements, computers have become indispensable in every area of life. From enhancing teaching and learning to facilitating communication, research and creative expression, computers are essential to modern education.

I am conscious that not every student has the same access to technology at home. By providing computers in schools, we level the playing field, ensuring that all students, regardless of their background or socio-economic status, have equal access to digital tools and opportunities. Investing in new computers for schools is not just an investment in technology; it is an investment in our future. It is a promise to our children that we are committed to their education, their growth and their success. The programme will ensure that every child, regardless of where they live, has access to the tools and resources that they need to succeed in the digital age.

Alongside the investment in computers for schools, I am delighted to announce a £4 million investment in outdoor play equipment for nursery and primary schools. Funding will be provided directly to schools to buy the equipment that they need most. There is an increasing understanding of the importance and value of outdoor play across all phases in the early years sector to promote the learning, development, resilience, health and sense of well-being of young children. For the vast majority of children, the opportunity to play outside when not in school is in decline. Therefore, outdoor learning needs to be a core component of every child's educational experience. It is an essential tool for fostering physical health, cognitive development, social skills and a connection to the environment. Appropriate equipment is a key element of high-quality outdoor learning.

The investment is a clear commitment to enriching the educational experience of our youngest learners and ensuring that they have access to safe, engaging and stimulating environments where they can grow and thrive. From climbing frames and balance beams to interactive play panels and sensory gardens, the resources will offer endless opportunities for children to explore, create and learn in the outdoors. Cost-effective investment will create a dynamic and engaging outdoor learning environment for our children.

Today, I have announced the first annual priorities for investment, which have been informed by recent inspection evidence and wider research as well as my extensive engagement with school leaders during the past 10 months. In the coming months, I will work closely with our educators to shape the annual priorities for future years. Early in the new year, my officials will launch a detailed survey for schools that will aim to pinpoint further areas where additional investment in equipment, resources and facilities is particularly needed and will significantly enhance curriculum delivery.

The curriculum-led capital investment programme represents a major step forward in our commitment to providing the best possible education for every child. By investing in equipment and facilities that directly support the curriculum, we are ensuring that our education system is aligned with the needs of the modern world. It is an investment not just in buildings and infrastructure but in the future of our education system. It is an investment that ensures that every child has better access to the resources, equipment and opportunities that will unlock their full potential.

Let me be clear: I will continue to make the case for much-needed higher levels of capital investment in our schools estate. There has been a legacy of underinvestment. We have to address the ageing schools estate and the requirement for additional specialist places for the rapidly increasing numbers of children with special educational needs, yet I am equally determined to make the most of the capital funding that is available to enhance learning and teaching for all our children. From technology upgrades to sports and play equipment and outdoor learning spaces, high-impact, lower-cost capital projects offer opportunities to enhance the learning environment for pupils across Northern Ireland. By making thoughtful, strategic investments, we can create school environments that are more engaging and supportive of pupils' learning across the curriculum. Effective spending in schools is not just about the quantity of funding but about how well that money is used to empower teachers and inspire pupils. A well-resourced classroom is a powerful engine of possibility. The right tools do not just support learning; they inspire it.

Our children need and deserve the investment, so, today I set out my unwavering commitment to providing the best resources possible for our children's physical and academic success. I finish by reminding the Assembly that money spent on our schools is never a cost; it is an investment in the future.

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

I thank the Minister for this positive statement of intent and investment.

Some Members

Hear, hear.

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

Many schools and students will be delighted to hear of an overdue upgrade of their computer facilities that will enhance access and educational opportunities across the board. Investment in PE is also massively welcome, given the indisputable health benefits that it brings. Can the Minister assure us that that there will be a level playing field for the pilot and that he will ensure a good geographical spread of successful projects?

Paul Givan (DUP, Lagan Valley)

I thank the Member for his warm words in welcoming the announcement today. It is absolutely good news for our children and young people across Northern Ireland. We will take forward the pilot scheme, which I referenced, for the 20 primary schools. We will set out the criteria that we will use to do that as we seek applications. I assure the Member that I will seek to have as wide a geographical spread as I can, but I can provide more details to him on how we will take forward that pilot project in due course.

Nick Mathison (Alliance, Strangford)

I welcome the announcement and thank the Minister for his statement today. Any investment in our education system is, of course, welcome.

I want to pin down some of the figures in a bit more detail. The beginning of the statement references £10 million and refers to outdoor play, computers and defibrillators. We then have a reference to £4 million for outdoor play and, later, £5 million for computers. Can the Minister outline the specific total amount of investment that is being announced today, break that down into the curriculum areas in which he will invest it and confirm to the Assembly the period over which the investment will be made?

Paul Givan (DUP, Lagan Valley)

I thank the Chair of the Committee for welcoming the announcement today. It is good news.

I have outlined the £10 million that we are spending now, in this current financial year. It is around £5·4 million for the computer roll-out in our post-primary settings; £4 million for the primary-school funding that will be allocated; and the defibrillators come to around £750,000. That is the spend that we will roll out this year for our curriculum-led capital programme.

I have outlined that, early in the new year, we will make that open call to all of the post-primary schools to bring forward their applications for the physical education component of the curriculum-led capital programme that I want to take into the next financial year. That will look primarily at issues around synthetic pitches and sports hall provision. When the call goes out, the applications will come in, and the funding will then be aligned to make sure that we can take forward as many projects as possible for that element of the programme next year.

Cathy Mason (Sinn Féin, South Down)

I thank the Minister for his welcome statement. A significant issue that faces the Irish-medium sector is the availability of language-appropriate support, curriculum resources and materials. Does the Minister intend looking at that issue with a view to supporting our Irish-medium school communities?

Paul Givan (DUP, Lagan Valley)

Absolutely. As regards supporting the Irish-medium sector, I have met the sector. I have been in many of the Irish language-speaking schools. One of the themes coming out of those visits is the ability to have the appropriate resources for those who choose to have their education immersed in the Irish medium, so it is important that that support is being provided and that I continue to engage with the sector to make sure that we can support them as best we can.

Harry Harvey (DUP, Strangford)

Minister, will you clarify which aspects of the programme will be delivered in this financial year?

Paul Givan (DUP, Lagan Valley)

I thank the Member for the question. The Chairman of the Committee asked how we would break down the spend this year. Obviously, there is £10 million for outdoor play, desktop computers and defibrillators, which will all be delivered in this current financial year. The £10 million is allocated for those purposes. We have already commenced the process of procuring the appropriate computer equipment. In the next number of weeks, we will provide that funding to schools, which can then procure the outdoor play equipment.

Colin Crawford (UUP, North Antrim)

I join others in welcoming the Minister's announcement and thank him for bringing it to the Assembly. How will the additional PE facilities cater for the needs of students with disabilities to ensure that all students can participate in physical education?

Paul Givan (DUP, Lagan Valley)

I thank the Member for North Antrim for welcoming this good news story. He rightly outlines the importance of sport being accessible to everybody. I very much want people who have additional needs to be supported by making equipment available and sports halls accessible to all. I have visited schools where those facilities are not accessible to all, and those schools are having to overcome challenges. The initiative presents an opportunity to enhance our infrastructure provision, and disability access is a vital part of taking that forward.

Declan McAleer (Sinn Féin, West Tyrone)

I thank the Minister for his statement, and I welcome the investment. I can talk with a little experience about my community, where we have a covered sports area that a multitude of sports use, including football and handball. Just recently, Ulster GAA had a wheelchair football session for our local school in that covered outdoor facility. I appreciate its benefits for local schools and the wider community.

Will the Minister consider reinstating the funding for the Department's GAA/IFA curriculum sports programme, which was recognised by the ETI review but revoked by the DE permanent secretary in the absence of an Education Minister?

Paul Givan (DUP, Lagan Valley)

Like the Member, I have played in those covered outdoor sports facilities. A covering makes the facilities accessible all year round and protects people from the weather conditions, which often change in our country. Having those covered outdoor spaces will enhance opportunities for play. That is why we want to take it forward.

The Member highlighted another issue, and, while I announced £10 million of funding, Members will always say, "Give us more", and I understand that. I have been engaging with the different sporting bodies on the scheme that he mentioned, which was developed a number of years ago and which was worthwhile and beneficial. I have met the GAA and the IFA, as well as Ulster Rugby and Ulster Hockey, and I am keen for those conversations to continue.

I would like that programme to be reinstated but not necessarily in the same format as it was previously — only the IFA and the GAA were involved in it — because other sports could benefit from that programme. The caveat that I always have to mention, unfortunately, is that all that is subject to finance. If we can secure the resources that we need, I would like to develop the scheme again.

Phillip Brett (DUP, Belfast North)

I thank the Minister for his excellent statement. It is yet another example of him and our party delivering for communities across Northern Ireland. Minister, will you confirm that the funding for the outdoor play equipment for schools in North Belfast, many of which you have visited, will be available in schools' accounts in this financial year so that pupils across my constituency can benefit from the excellent new announcement?

Paul Givan (DUP, Lagan Valley)

I thank the Member for North Belfast, who rightly harasses me to try to get as much funding into his constituency as possible — as do you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker.

[Laughter.]

As I said, the announcement will make sure that every school, nursery and pre-nursery will benefit. We are moving from major capital investments and school enhancement programmes, which are important, but those are for the few. The many are not getting what they need, so the £4 million that I have announced will be with schools before the end of this calendar year — within the next number of weeks. The funding that will be distributed will depend on the size of the school, but it will range from £2,000 up to £5,000 to every preschool, nursery and primary school across Northern Ireland. That will enable them to spend the funding on equipment that is important for meeting their needs.

Michelle Guy (Alliance, Lagan Valley)

I thank the Minister. I join everybody in welcoming the investment. A recent report said that only 13% of our kids got the recommended amount of physical activity, so this is really worthwhile. Is the Department collecting data on whether schools are delivering the minimum two hours a week of PE to ensure that we have some way of measuring the effectiveness of the investment?

Paul Givan (DUP, Lagan Valley)

We collect information to monitor that, and the ETI carries out inspections in that respect. That informs the decisions that we take. It is also why we are making it a condition on those 20 pilot schools for the outdoor cover that, to secure that funding, they need to guarantee two hours of PE. Recently, I was at Forthill Integrated Primary School, where they have been developing their physical education literacy as part of the curriculum. They showed examples of how they can do that, and the benefits of it are well understood by people who engage in it.

This is an important announcement. It is one that will enhance the opportunities for physical education and create that lifelong experience. I loved playing sport when I was younger. I went to school not necessarily for the academic education but because of my love of playing football. Often, on a Tuesday afternoon, it got me out of double award maths classes, and that was the highlight of getting picked for the team when I was at Laurelhill. However, it created a lifelong desire to be engaged in sport from that very young age. Tonight, I will be playing with a group of fellas that I went to school with, and now, in our early 40s, we are still engaged in sport. That is something that we need to cultivate with the younger generation and get them involved for the many different benefits that we can achieve from that.

Emma Sheerin (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

I thank the Minister for his statement. Is there any scope within the initiative for the return of free digital devices for children from disadvantaged backgrounds in order to support their learning?

Paul Givan (DUP, Lagan Valley)

The Member raises an important point. That is why I want to make sure that we address the inequality of the haves and have-nots in our society. Outside of school, it is a challenge. I have visited, now, upwards of 100 schools. I have been in some facilities where there is state-of-the-art digital technology, and in others where the technology is completely antiquated. Therefore, we need to make sure that there is a levelling right across Northern Ireland so that, at least when you are in school, you get the same opportunities to access the best possible technological equipment. That will help address the various different socio-economic factors that can have an impact on the educational outcomes of our young people.

Alan Robinson (DUP, East Londonderry)

I very much welcome the Minister's statement. Limavady High School has no dedicated sports hall. Indeed, it is the only post-primary school in that area that has no sports hall. Young people of that school have to carry out their sports activity in a park some distance away, where two people were killed and murdered. Does the Minister agree that that needs to change?

Paul Givan (DUP, Lagan Valley)

The Member articulates well the need that exists. I have been at that high school. The Member has had me there, engaged in this area and highlighted that need. As a part of his engagement, we are having a new policy created. He and other MLAs have highlighted the inadequacy that exists, and I have witnessed that when I have been in schools. I was very fortunate. My school had three grass football pitches, a gravel pitch and a sports hall. That was at a secondary school in Lisburn. I have been at schools where they have none of that, or they maybe have one gravel pitch. They often look with envy at other schools that have world-class facilities, and that is something that we need to address.

The Member highlighted a school in his constituency. There is now a gateway for that school to make an application and a dedicated curriculum-led capital programme that focuses on the early years of its development on physical education. I cannot guarantee to the Member that a sports hall will be provided for the school that he has highlighted, but I can say to him that there is a way forward that can be advanced by the school in Limavady and other schools across Northern Ireland to meet that need. We can now take that forward to the next stage.

Peter Martin (DUP, North Down)

I also warmly welcome the announcement this morning, which will make a real difference to, and impact on, pupils across Northern Ireland. Has the Minister any figures on how many schools in Northern Ireland have a shortfall in PE accommodation?

Paul Givan (DUP, Lagan Valley)

I thank the Member for the question. We carried out a survey in November to help to inform the decisions that have been announced today. We surveyed all 190 post-primary schools, and 125 responded. Of those 125 schools, 31 do not have a sports hall that is separate from their multipurpose hall, 71 do not have a synthetic pitch on their school site and 12 have access only to a shared synthetic pitch. That information from the survey demonstrates the need.

I was recently in Newry High School, to which my colleague Diane Forsythe invited me. It has one gravel pitch. There is no synthetic pitch or grass pitch. It was pointed out that all of the neighbouring schools have not just one but two pitches. It is often the case that we see inequality in the school estate. We follow the handbook standard of what needs to be provided in new builds; they will be given an array of sporting facilities. There are also schools that have next to nothing. That is why the curriculum-led capital programme is so vital. It is a new strand of the Department's wider capital approach. We are standing up that new strand and securing funding for it. We are already releasing £10 million for it this year, and we are well on our way to identifying opportunities for it to be recurrent spend of capital investment to benefit schools.

Andrew McMurray (Alliance, South Down)

I thank the Minister. Will outdoor play investment allow schools to develop outdoor learning environments suitable for the delivery of programmes such as the forest school programme?

Paul Givan (DUP, Lagan Valley)

The Member highlights the forest school programme, which is excellent; all schools now want to get accreditation in that. You have your Eco-Schools green flag, and you have your forest school; I want to see whether we can develop a physical literacy type of flag. We love our flags in this country, don't we? Imagine if you were at a school that had a green flag, a forest flag and a PE flag. We need to provide the infrastructure, such as outdoor play equipment, for schools to be able to do that. The programme is all about helping to achieve outdoor learning. There is a huge body of evidence that demonstrates how outdoor learning is beneficial to our children and young people. The programme will, undoubtedly, help schools to enhance their facilities in that regard.

Deborah Erskine (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I thank the Minister for his statement today. He is delivering on the key needs of schools here in Northern Ireland. I have no doubt that, when the call goes out, he will be inundated with schools looking to apply. That points to my question about the criteria: will the projects need to be spade-ready through the planning system to be able to access the fund? He will know about Devenish College's need for a hockey pitch; he is a hockey fan. Fermanagh has no hockey pitch provision. Will the projects need to be spade-ready to access the funds?

Paul Givan (DUP, Lagan Valley)

When I have met principals, I have encouraged them to engage in developing opportunities to apply to the fund and make sure that planning permission is not a barrier, which was one of the conversations that Diane and I had in Newry High School. We need to make sure that the planning process is in place when I make the call to schools to apply for funding. When we open up the call, schools can engage, and we will lay out the criteria.

It is important that we have shovel-ready projects, as Members often refer to them, because, typically, there will be some slippage in major capital projects during a financial year. Although we try to minimise that, it happens in all Departments. We then seek to spend funding on smaller capital-type schemes. It is important to have an extensive list of those opportunities, so that, at the end of the financial year, we are able to move quickly on, for example, an outdoor play project. I want to have a comprehensive list of applications available, so that all of them can be assessed. Like the Member, I very much want to promote synthetic pitches, but it is not for me to tell schools that they want a hockey pitch or a football pitch. Devenish College had an opportunity to have that when the school was being designed, but it chose to go with its current configuration.

There are opportunities as part of Your School Your Club that the Department for Communities has advocated. That will also provide an opportunity for schools to link in with other funders. Take a synthetic pitch, for example. We will fund the creation of it, but, if it will be for wider community use, you will often need to go to the local authority. It can fund the provision of floodlights, for example. Schools operate in daylight hours, but, if you want the pitch to be used in the evening, you need to engage with other stakeholders. I very much encourage collaboration on what funding opportunities can be achieved from that and also engaging with local government authorities.

Danny Donnelly (Alliance, East Antrim)

I thank the Minister for his statement. The funding is very welcome. I noted the Minister's enthusiasm for young people's involvement in sport. I want to tell him about fantastic work that is being done in Larne High School despite shocking dilapidation levels. The sports hall has holes in the floor. There are gaps in the roof and walls. As my colleague Nick Mathison asked yesterday: will the Minister accompany me on a visit to Larne High School to see the fantastic work that is being done in that area?

Paul Givan (DUP, Lagan Valley)

I suspect that the Member is late in asking me to go to Larne High School. I am pretty confident that my own party colleagues have already asked me to attend. Where I can incorporate other people, I am happy to do that.

Larne High School is another example of why I have wanted to take forward the opportunities for that capital programme, because we do not have the provision that we need, particularly when it comes to PE. We now have a new programme and opportunity about which, at least, when I engage with schools, I can say, "Here is a programme to which you can make an application". It is not in the gift of any Minister to be able to show favouritism to one particular school and say, "You have a new pitch facility". We will build the appropriate criteria around all those programmes. There will be prioritisation, subject to all that criteria, and then the funding will flow. That now gives schools an opportunity to make an application towards those schemes.

Maurice Bradley (DUP, East Londonderry)

I thank the Minister for his statement. It is very welcome. It gives schools in my constituency an opportunity to apply for much-needed funding.

Can the Minister explain why he believes that the programme is needed? Can he also give us an idea of whether schools that have next to nothing will be given some sort of priority over those that already have facilities?

Paul Givan (DUP, Lagan Valley)

I thank the Member for the question. I have outlined in the broader statement why I believe that the programme is needed. We all know that high-quality learning environments will help to support the delivery of the best outcomes for children and young people. We need to empower the great teachers that we have with great facilities. That combination will maximise the opportunity for young people to realise their potential.

Historically, the Department's capital programme focused on new builds, major extensions and refurbishment. This will now allow us to advance into a new of way of doing things, with smaller capital works schemes being able to be developed. Of course, the Member has highlighted the issue of where prioritisation will be. We will work through that in establishing the appropriate criteria when we make the call early in the new year.

Brian Kingston (DUP, Belfast North)

I join other Members in welcoming the very positive statement by the Minister.

Can he set out more detail on how much each primary school will receive, how they will access those funds and how they will go about spending that money?

Paul Givan (DUP, Lagan Valley)

The schools will be able to spend the funding through their normal processes. There is an Education Authority catalogue. There is a detailed list of the various outdoor play equipment. They can draw down from that, and, that way, we can follow an audit to see whether the spend is being appropriately utilised. The range of funding that will be allocated will be between £2,000 and £5,000. It will be distributed to schools within the next number of weeks. That allows schools and those who are best placed to know what they need for their particular setting to be able to spend that funding. Particularly, in early years, they know how much equipment is needed and how often it can break down and need to be replaced. The scheme will be very much welcomed by those early years organisations.

Jonathan Buckley (DUP, Upper Bann)

I thank the Minister for his statement and, in particular, the emphasis on and investment in PE. We know that, with the rise of unhealthy lifestyles, PE is essential to children's lives.

My question builds on the Member for North Antrim's question about kids with disabilities. Kids in special schools and their families face some of the most challenging circumstances, and their access to physical education is so limited. What assurance can the Minister give that those in special schools will be able to access fair and proportionate amounts of the funding?

Paul Givan (DUP, Lagan Valley)

The new curriculum-led capital investment programme builds on and sits alongside the special educational needs capital programme that we have announced. We are already looking at all 39 special schools to identify opportunities to enhance the provision in those schools. As part of this announcement, the provision of IT and computers will be extended to special schools to make sure that they get the opportunity to avail themselves of the most recent technology as well. The Member is right to highlight the need for an equitable and inclusive distribution of funding so that everybody in our society can benefit from it. That is what the schemes will allow us to do.

David Brooks (DUP, Belfast East)

I thank the Minister for the statement, which delivers on some of the commitments that he made when he gave us his vision early in his tenure. I know that many schools in my constituency, some of which he has visited, will be excited at the prospect of investment in pitches and outdoor facilities.

In the modern era of education, why is investment in technology so crucial?

Paul Givan (DUP, Lagan Valley)

I thank the Member for his kind remarks. He asks why we are investing in computers and about the need for that technology. There are a number of reasons, which are well evidenced. The ETI report, 'A Baseline Evaluation of the Digital Skills provision in Primary and Post-primary Schools' and the Confederation of British Industry (CBI) report, 'Software Skills for a 10X Economy: Digital Skills NI Network' highlighted that we have had a decline in the uptake of digital skills-based qualifications. That is having an impact. The number of girls who choose to study computer and software programming courses is also consistently low. More needs to be done to promote those programme pathways in order to meet the current and future needs of our economy.

I mentioned in the statement that 42% of principals who responded to the PISA 2022 survey highlighted a lack of digital resources as a key barrier to teaching. That can be compared with 24% at an international level. There is a clear need to provide the technology. It will be fully deployed using Windows 11, so the engine that will run the computers will provide a modern technology framework. That will have a real impact. When people choose their subjects, they will know that that is the kind of computer that they will use .

I picked my school because of the PE provision; that is what dictated where I wanted to go. Other people choose a school because they walk in and see incredible technology suites. The programme will help to enhance the courses that are available in schools for students who choose to pursue digital skills and to empower the teachers to effectively utilise modern technology.

Tom Buchanan (DUP, West Tyrone)

I thank the Minister for his statement to the House. Will he set out any plans that he has for other areas of the curriculum?

Paul Givan (DUP, Lagan Valley)

Yes. Mr Buchanan asks an important question about other areas of the curriculum. The programme's aim is to invest in priority areas in order to support, enable and enhance delivery of the Northern Ireland curriculum. It is not envisaged that the programme will be static, but, rather, that the longer-term focus on PE will be supplemented by specific priorities for investment that will be identified annually. That will allow the programme to target investment flexibly and in line with identified areas of need.

This year, we are looking at computing equipment to support digital literacy and outdoor play. Those are the first annual priorities for investment. They were informed by inspection evidence, wider research, my engagement with school leaders over the past 10 months and information that Members have brought to my attention. Over the coming months, I will work closely with educators to shape the annual priorities for future years. Early in the new year, as I indicated in the statement, we will launch a detailed survey for schools. That will aim to pinpoint further areas in which additional investment in equipment, resources and facilities is needed to enhance delivery of the Northern Ireland curriculum.

Gary Middleton (DUP, Foyle)

I join others in thanking the Minister for his statement. The Foyle constituency and many primary schools throughout Northern Ireland will be thankful for the announcement, particularly the part about outdoor play equipment. Will the Minister clarify whether preschools are included? Many preschools do not have the resources or access to resources that some other schools do, so will the Minister clarify whether those groups will be included?

Paul Givan (DUP, Lagan Valley)

I thank the Member. He has had me in Foyle on numerous occasions to highlight the needs of the schools estate in his constituency. He asked about preschool providers outside the statutory nursery sector. Yes, they will be included. When it comes to the preschool year group, the funding opportunity will be available to them as well.

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

That ends questions to the Minister on his statement. I remind Members that, if they want to ask questions about a statement, they need to be in the Chamber when the statement is being made. Members, take your ease while we change the top Table.

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

Executive Committee Business

Andrew Muir (Alliance, North Down)

I beg to move

That the Second Stage of the Agriculture Bill [NIA Bill 08/22-27] be agreed.

Steve Aiken (UUP, South Antrim)

Thank you, Minister. In accordance with convention, the Business Committee has not allocated a time limit to the debate.

Andrew Muir (Alliance, North Down)

I have brought this short Bill to the Assembly to provide for changes to two legacy EU support schemes, namely the fruit and vegetable aid scheme (FVAS) and the agri-food information and promotion scheme. The schemes have their roots in when the UK was in the EU, and, if they are to reflect post-EU policy development, new powers will be needed. If I may, I will first provide some background.

Under the EU common agricultural policy (CAP), the common organisation of the markets in agricultural products regulation (CMO) provided market support tools and aid schemes to certain sectors and encouraged producer cooperation. As part of the CMO, farmers and growers are incentivised to come together to form producer organisations (POs), which allows them to strengthen their position in the supply chain and increase their competitiveness. In addition, POs provide a mechanism for promoting environmentally sound cultivation practices and production techniques, including climate change mitigation.

While POs can be set up in a range of sectors, financial assistance is payable in the horticultural sector under the fruit and vegetable aid scheme, which supports the operational programmes that meet the regulatory requirements and fit within a UK strategy and environmental framework. Operational funds are part-financed by contributions from PO members, and, prior to EU exit, match funding came from the EU. Since Brexit, when the governing legislation transferred to UK law in what is now known as "assimilated law", the legal obligation to match-fund eligible claims for POs headquartered in Northern Ireland has, since mid-2020, fallen to DAERA.

Before I discuss the need for the Bill, I want to say that locally grown fruit and vegetables play an important role in the rural economy of Northern Ireland. However, it is my firm belief that the sector has the potential to grow and develop further for the benefit of our health, economy, food security and environment, including with respect to the decarbonisation agenda. I am, therefore, committed to fostering the sustainable growth of horticulture as part of our transition to more sustainable agriculture. To that end, my officials are continuing the development of the farm support and development programme in co-design with the Northern Ireland agriculture industry, including the horticulture sector and other key food and environmental stakeholders. Officials are also reviewing existing support under legacy EU schemes, including the FVAS, to evaluate what has been delivered and whether better targeted support could be provided in the future.

In addition, I am delighted that the Executive have recently agreed the food strategy framework, which sets the long-term direction to help to position Northern Ireland as the home of sustainable food. Increased availability of locally produced, sustainably grown fruit and vegetables will continue and will contribute to that ambition. I met representatives of the local mushroom sector, which currently avails itself of support under the FVAS, and I sought to reassure them that, while I have not reached any decisions on the way forward, I have no plans to pull the rug from under them when it comes to support. We need to let the current policy review run its course and then carefully consider the way ahead in the context of wider support to the horticulture sector.

Without the Bill, my Department will have an ongoing legal obligation to fund eligible claims under the existing legacy FVAS. Members will be aware that the autumn Budget statement will see funding for agriculture, including the FVAS, which was previously earmarked by His Majesty's Treasury, baselined within the resource funding provided to the Executive for 2025-26 and beyond. It will now be for the Executive to agree funding for agriculture as part of the Budget exercise. Therefore, the first thing that this short technical Bill does is make support under the FVAS discretionary so that Executive Ministers have the scope to fully decide on funding priorities and ensure that support is available where it provides best value for money and best meets local needs. Importantly, the second thing that the Bill will do is provide the power to amend the assimilated law governing the FVAS. By its very nature, that unique type of legislation has not kept pace with changes elsewhere, including in the EU, that seek to support productivity while contributing to protecting and enhancing our environment and tackling climate change. Therefore, the new powers will ensure that the scheme can be developed to best meet local need. That has been welcomed by stakeholders, given that it will allow for improvements to the scheme in the future, including its alignment with support elsewhere, if appropriate.

The third thing that the Bill will do relates to EU-derived legislation that provides support for information on and promotion of agricultural products. Under the legislation, not-for-profit organisations could apply for EU support for promotional campaigns, primarily in third countries. The aim is to open new market opportunities for farmers and the wider food industry and help them to build their existing businesses and sell products in an increasingly competitive global marketplace whilst delivering jobs and good green growth. While Northern Ireland benefited from the scheme in the past, there are currently no live projects. However, the Bill includes powers so that any future promotion schemes delivered under the legislation could be tailored to best meet local need, subject again to the review of the legacy scheme and future policy development on support for food promotion.

Before I discuss the details of the Bill, I thank those who responded to the consultation on the policy proposals earlier this year and those who had ongoing engagement with officials on the wider review. I am grateful to industry representatives for briefing me over recent months on the challenges for the mushroom sector and on the value of the FVAS to that sector.

The comments received on the FVAS reflect its importance to the local mushroom sector, with calls for the scheme to continue after the current programmes end in 2025. Stakeholders also detailed the changes that, they believe, should be made to the scheme. While it is vital that I can prioritise funding where it can best be used, I again reassure Members, as I have sought to reassure stakeholders, that I am aware of the importance of the support provided under the scheme over many years. By seeking to make support discretionary, I am not signalling any plans to end support for the sector here; rather, the Bill clearly provides the scope to allow for the scheme's future development so that it can best reflect the needs of Northern Ireland, subject to the outcome of the ongoing review and, of course, the available budget.

I look forward to seeing the conclusions of the ongoing review, and I again give my assurance that I will consider it in the context of wider support for the horticulture sector in making future funding decisions. The Bill has therefore been drafted in line with the consultation proposals, and it is my hope that it will reach Royal Assent next spring, before the end of the current programmes.

I now want to take a few minutes to set out in a little more detail the key clauses of the Bill. Clause 1 amends article 32 of the assimilated CMO regulation in order to remove the statutory requirement to fund all eligible FVAS claims. It also provides transitional provisions for existing FVAS programmes. Clause 2 provides that assimilated law governing the FVAS can be modified by regulation and, by virtue of clause 4, only with the approval by resolution of the Assembly, that is, by draft affirmative resolution. Clause 2 also includes an enabling power to make regulations regarding reviews of departmental decisions relating to aid that is necessary as a consequence of support under the FVAS becoming discretionary. Clause 3 provides that the assimilated law governing the agri-food promotion schemes can be modified by regulation, again by virtue of clause 4, by draft affirmative regulations.

In summary, the Bill, if enacted, will make support under the FVAS discretionary and empower my Department to amend both the FVAS and agri-food promotion schemes so that they align with post-EU local policy. I commend the Bill to the Assembly.

Robbie Butler (UUP, Lagan Valley)

Before I start, I commend the Minister for his performance on Radio Ulster this morning on the very important topic of Belfast lough. Whilst I commend you today, Minister, as Chair of the AERA Committee, I cannot guarantee that that will always be the case. The Committee will certainly work hard to keep your feet to the fire.

On behalf of the Committee for Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs, I welcome the Second Stage of the Agriculture Bill, which was introduced on 25 November. If the Bill passes Second Stage today, it will be the first Bill to come before the AERA Committee in this mandate. At last week's Committee meeting, to prepare for Second Stage, members considered the background to the Bill and the Committee's scrutiny of the matter to date. At the Committee meeting on 11 April, members considered a letter from the Minister informing us of his plans to consult on a Bill proposal to amend two legacy schemes from the common organisation of the markets and agriculture policy, otherwise known as CMO. The Committee is aware that, since leaving the EU, DAERA continues to meet existing funding commitments under the CMO schemes, including providing aid to producer organisations in the fruit and vegetable sector. The CMO schemes were part of the common agricultural policy that governed UK agricultural support as part of the UK's EU membership. The Rural Payments Agency (RPA) administers and publishes information on those schemes on DAERA's behalf.

The Minister then consulted on making the funding for the FVAS discretionary, providing a power to make subordinate legislation that will allow amendments to be assimilated law governing the FVAS and providing a power to make subordinate legislation, which will allow amendments to be made to the assimilated law governing the agri-food information and promotion schemes.

Just over two months later, at the Committee meeting on 20 June, members received an oral briefing from the Bill officials, which was to update us on the outcomes of the consultation. In summary, the Committee heard that seven responses had been received and that the comments reflected the particular importance of the FVAS to the local mushroom sector. While this was not universally supported, there was some understanding of the need to make funding discretionary and for the Minister to prioritise. There was a call for changes to be made to the scheme, as the EU scheme had improved since Brexit. At the Committee meeting on 12 September, we considered a further response from the Minister highlighting that the FVAS is a devolved scheme and that, therefore, Northern Ireland is free to consider what support best suits the needs of our horticulture sector, the current post-EU policy review and the development of agricultural support. We are told that that is ongoing. In parallel to that review, the Minister is seeking primary powers through the Bill to make FVAS support discretionary and allow DAERA to modify its legacy scheme.

I will turn to the main principles of the Bill. The Committee understands that one objective is to make the FVAS funding discretionary prior to the end of the current programme, as eligible producer organisations will be submitting new three-year programmes before September 2025, which adds some import to what we are doing today. The Committee appreciates the Minister's view that he wishes to be able to prioritise support where it provides best value for money. That should be close to home for all of us as legislators. However, if the Bill passes Second Stage, the Committee will need to consider the impact of the proposal from all sides. On 20 June, we heard the NI Mushroom Growers Association's concerns that if "discretionary" became "removal" at any point, it would remove one of the only supports for mushroom farms, as they are not eligible for land-based programmes, such as the basic farm payment. The Committee is also aware that it needs to consider the Bill in a different fiscal environment to that envisaged during the consultation — indeed, when the Minister launched it. I refer to the removal of earmarked funding for farming support payments now potentially putting additional pressure on any discretionary parts of the Minister's budget.

Other principles of the Bill are to provide DAERA with powers to make subordinate legislation that will allow amendments to be made to the assimilated laws governing the FVAS and to the assimilated law governing the agri-food information and promotion schemes. The Committee is keen to see bespoke schemes to support the local agri-food sector, but is being asked to consider the enabling Bill without having had sight of the completed policy review. That is not ideal, so we look forward to hearing what the fruit and veg growers and producers have to say at Committee on these matters, should the Bill pass its Second Stage.

Although the Bill is short, like myself, the Committee looks forward to proper scrutiny of the enabling powers and to engaging with stakeholders on these proposals to see what benefits they could bring, while fully investigating any unintended consequences. This is not the stage for going into detail on the clauses, but, in respect of the potential and unintended consequences, the Committee will need to consider and take advice on the powers in clause 4, which the Minister has touched on, although we note that they are underpinned by the use of the draft affirmative procedure. The Committee is supportive of the principles of the Bill regarding support being prioritised where it best provides value for money and best meets local need. The Committee looks forward to considering the Bill in further detail during Committee Stage, and, as I have said, will be particularly mindful of considering any unintended consequences through a detailed scrutiny process. That ends my comments as Committee Chair.

I will add a couple of small points, if that is OK. I will maybe phrase them in the way of questions, Minister, because we are now in the legislative process where we can have proper debates, which is good. It has been insinuated — it has not been bottomed out in my head — that if the scheme were not to change, DAERA would be faced with the potential of having to fund schemes outside of Northern Ireland. Perhaps the Minister could give us more detail regarding that aspect today, because I am sure that that is not somewhere that any of us would want to land. The Minister will also be aware, from last week's Adjournment debate, that the fishers, as well as the mushroom sector in particular, are under severe pressure at the moment with seasonal work and the inability to acquire useful visas for the workers who are required for that work. I have a concern about the potential worry of a double whammy for them. I know that the Minister has said that it is not his intention to remove the funding, but given that this is the only funding support that Northern Ireland's mushroom growers, in particular, can avail themselves of, they need some certainty in that regard. As a Member, I would welcome that certainty being given and underpinned at every iteration at which it is sought. My last point is this: we have a global food market, and the competition for every product is severe. Mushroom growers and the whole horticulture sector face into those pressures. We should be doing everything that we can do. Whilst value for money is absolutely appropriate, and we have to be on our toes fiscally, the reality is that food security on these islands has come under its greatest pressure over the past few months with the changes that have been brought in by the Labour Government.

I look forward to engaging with the Minister on the Bill. I cannot promise that we will always be so cordial — we will hold his feet to the fire — but I look forward to his answers on those points.

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

Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire as ucht an Bille a thabhairt os ár gcomhair.

[Translation: I thank the Minister for bringing this Bill before us.]

The SDLP welcomes the Second Stage of the Bill. I look forward to examining the Bill and its implications more closely during the Committee Stage, should it pass its Second Stage; hopefully, it will. However, it is somewhat disappointing that the Minister has been unable to introduce the comprehensive agriculture Bill that is required. A comprehensive agriculture Bill, unlike the one before us, would provide a clear purpose for future agricultural policy. It would set out clear objectives for the use of agricultural funding to guide policy decisions and is necessary to provide a strategic direction for agriculture here. I am sure that the Minister will respond later, so will he will introduce a domestic agriculture Bill before the end of the mandate? Both Scotland and Wales have already introduced that legislation, but we are still waiting.

The Bill may be small, but it is not insignificant. It is largely technical legislation that allows for changes to be made to the funding provided by the Department to producer organisations for operational programmes. That funding is to become discretionary where previously, as long as the programmes met certain requirements, funding was mandatory. Producer organisations enable farmers and growers in a variety of sectors to strengthen their position in the supply chain and increase competitiveness. It is very important that we provide support to producer organisations to make sure that a fair price, in effect, goes to farmers, who are the ultimate producers. They play a very important role in promoting environmentally sound cultivation practices in production techniques and, indeed, climate change mitigation.

This Bill introduces uncertainty over future funding for those organisations and, almost inevitably, cuts to the financial support available to them. It risks leaving producer organisations in the North at a disadvantage — I hope that the Minister will underpin that that will not be the case — particularly when they are in competition with organisations that are still in the EU. Inevitably, this is another consequence of Brexit. The financial support was previously provided from EU funding streams. As with other EU funds, the British Government have not properly replaced it. The British Government have, in effect, washed their hands of responsibility, and it is now up to the AERA Minister to find the required funding. The financial support for producer organisations will, in future, come from whatever level of budget the Minister can negotiate with his Executive colleagues from the block grant. Making that funding discretionary will mean that it will be entirely up to the Minister to decide which programmes are funded and which are not. It is not a particularly enviable position that the Minister has been placed in as a consequence, it has to be said, of Brexit.

Under those circumstances, it is not difficult to understand the concerns of producer organisations about the level of future financial support, but not all producer organisations will be equally affected. As already referred to today, one group that will potentially be affected are mushroom growers, who are not eligible for land-based programmes such as the basic farm payment or the Department for the Economy's energy efficiency scheme. The mushroom industry has already felt the impact of Brexit with the restricted access to labour through the seasonal agricultural workers scheme. I am glad that the Minister announced today that support will continue, at least for the future, I hope, on a stable basis when it is required for the mushroom industry. The best place for that would be to incorporate it in a comprehensive agriculture Bill, and I hope that the Minister will clarify that we will get a comprehensive and embracing agriculture Bill for the North, similar to legislation that has been introduced elsewhere.

Declan McAleer (Sinn Féin, West Tyrone)

I welcome the opportunity to speak today on the Second Stage of the Agriculture Bill. According to the Department, the Bill reflects the need to update legacy EU schemes, such as the fruit and vegetables aid scheme and agri-food promotion schemes, in the context of the post-Brexit reality.

Whilst the Executive have offered their support for the Bill, it should be pointed out that it presents challenges as well as opportunities for rural communities. The Bill marks a fundamental shift from mandatory funding to discretionary funding for the fruit and vegetables aid scheme. Whilst it may provide the Department with greater flexibility in managing spending, it also raises concerns about the impact on the horticultural sector and our rural economy, particularly given the divergence from the South, where mandatory funding remains in place because it remains in the EU common agricultural policy.

Stakeholders have rightly voiced concerns, during consultations and when my party met them. They noted that this disparity between North and South risks undermining the competitiveness of producers in the North, who are on an unequal footing compared with their counterparts in the South, who still benefit from the robust EU schemes.

The Agriculture Bill introduces key provisions to modify schemes such as the fruit and vegetables aid scheme, including by granting DAERA discretionary funding powers, enabling more flexible allocation of resources, providing enabling powers to amend schemes in line with evolving local policy needs and ensuring that a legislative framework is in place from 2026 to 2028, allowing producer organisations to plan their operational programmes effectively.

We in Sinn Féin acknowledge the necessity of reform, but we remain concerned by the Bill's scope. The proposal is, again by virtue of Brexit, less progressive than the EU's revamped common agricultural policy that benefits producers in the South by funding environmental initiatives, research and development and long-term plans. We believe that the North should align more closely with those forward-thinking policies to ensure fairness, sustainability and competitiveness for our primary producers. The post-Brexit context demands comprehensive, strategic action to fill the void that has been left in agricultural policy. We call for policies that promote equity across the island, ensuring that our producers have access to fair opportunities, robust funding mechanisms and the resources needed to thrive in an increasingly competitive market.

As representatives of rural communities, it is our duty to scrutinise the Bill thoroughly — we look forward to doing that during Committee Stage and remaining stages — and to advocate policies that deliver real change. Let us ensure that the legislation provides the necessary support for our farmers and rural businesses, paving the way for a fairer, more prosperous agriculture sector. I look forward to further deliberations and to working with all stakeholders to ensure that the final legislation truly reflects the needs and ambitions of our rural communities.

Michelle McIlveen (DUP, Strangford)

Like other Members, I welcome the opportunity to speak on the Agriculture Bill. Setting aside my concerns about the imprecision of the Bill's title, which, hopefully, will be revisited as it is misleading, the DUP supports the intention behind the Bill, which aims to ensure that a locally accountable Minister can bring forward proposals for and changes to the funding of the fruit and vegetables and mushroom sectors in Northern Ireland.

As the UK moves forward post Brexit, it is vital that the support mechanisms for those sectors are carefully restructured to ensure continued growth and competitiveness. However, while we acknowledge the need for flexibility, we emphasise that that must not come at the cost of financial stability or long-term sectoral growth. The transition to a discretionary model, as proposed in the Bill, offers an opportunity for innovation and tailored support to address the specific needs of the fruit and vegetables sector. It is essential, however, that the new model is not seen purely as a means to cut costs or reduce funding for critical sectors. The support provided must be viewed as a means to enhance long-term support for affected sectors, allowing them to invest in the industry and foster growth, competitiveness and sustainability.

The farm business improvement scheme has played a crucial role in reducing barriers to market entry, helping farmers and producers to meet required standards and access vital environmental and climate change support. As we consider future models of support, we must ensure that the core principles of the current system — supporting sustainable farming practices and climate change mitigation — are preserved. As other Members have said, the mushroom industry, which accounts for 40% of Northern Ireland's horticultural output and contributes approximately £64 million annually to the local economy, is a key pillar of the sector, with 700 people employed directly in mushroom production and over 300 in the supply chain. The sector's continued success is vital for economic growth and food security in Northern Ireland.

As we have discussed in Committee and in the Chamber, access to labour is vital for that sector, with 95% of those employed in it coming from outside the United Kingdom. Mushroom growers have expressed concerns about an uneven playing field between Northern Ireland and other jurisdictions, particularly regarding issues such as access to seasonal workers and financial support for innovations such as automation and energy efficiency. Those concerns highlight the need for a funding model that not only provides fairness but ensures that the industry can compete on an equal footing. Simply maintaining statutory obligations that are not finely tuned to local sectoral needs will not effectively address those challenges. A more adaptable and responsive model is needed, one that understands the specific dynamics of the mushroom industry and supports its unique challenges.

Whilst the proposed Bill provides greater flexibility, it is crucial that the Department outlines a clear pathway for the sector's development. As the Chair highlighted, the move from a 4·1% flat funding model to discretionary support raises significant concerns about the potential shift towards a competitive grant system, which could create uncertainty and insecurity for growers. Growers require clarity on future funding arrangements to enable them to plan effectively and make the necessary investments in their businesses. As the current producer organisation scheme is set to end in 2025, there is a pressing need for a statement of intent from the Minister on how future support will be structured.

The future of Northern Ireland's fruit and vegetables sector, including mushroom production, depends on a fair, flexible and secure funding model. The Minister needs to take the opportunity presented by the Bill to demonstrate a clear vision for the sector's growth, provide certainty for growers and enable them to plan for the future. Mushroom growers, along with other horticultural producers, deserve a sustainable framework that will support their vital contribution to food security, environmental sustainability and economic growth. The Minister needs to provide clarity on proposals for the development of the sector alongside the progression of the Bill, which will, hopefully, help to dispel fears within the sector. Will the Minister consult further with stakeholders in the near future on further proposals for the sector? In his response, perhaps the Minister could provide details of the next steps, including a timeline.

On the principles of the Bill, as outlined today, we are content to support the Bill at Second Stage. We look forward to scrutinising it and to hearing from stakeholders at Committee Stage.

John Blair (Alliance, South Antrim)

On behalf of the Alliance Party, I express our support for the proposed Agriculture Bill at Second Stage. The legislation represents a significant step forward in aiding the fruit and vegetables sector, supporting rural communities and ensuring a sustainable future for food production in Northern Ireland.

The challenges faced by the agriculture sector have recently been the focus of considerable discussion in the Chamber. Today, we have an opportunity to address some of those pressing issues with actionable solutions. First and foremost, I thank the Minister for bringing the Bill to the Assembly. By doing so, he has demonstrated a strong commitment to addressing our agriculture sector's challenges and a dedicated effort to create a more sustainable future.

The legislation serves as a vital pillar for fostering sustainable growth within our fruit, vegetables and horticulture sector. It introduces crucial reforms designed to support our farmers and producers as we navigate the post-Brexit landscape, enabling them to thrive in a competitive global market. Without passage of the Bill, the Department will continue to have a legal obligation to fund eligible claims under the existing fruit and vegetables aid scheme, a legacy EU position that would restrict the Minister's ability to prioritise support in a manner that maximises value for money and effectively meets specific local needs, and, crucially, arising needs. Therefore, the Bill allows for a more targeted approach, as other Members have said, incentivising producers to adopt sustainable practices.

Robbie Butler (UUP, Lagan Valley)

I thank the Member for giving way. This is a piece that has intrigued me. I know that the Member was at the briefing last week. There seemed to be a smaller uptake of the legacy aid scheme than was envisaged. I am sure that the Member will agree that to maximise participation in any new scheme is an ambition not just for food security but for the competitiveness that is required. Perhaps the Minister will indicate why he believes that some organisations, particularly those in apple growing, did not avail themselves of the scheme as it was, and whether it is the intention to develop something that will bring in a broader cross-section of the horticulture community?

John Blair (Alliance, South Antrim)

I thank the Member for the intervention. Like the Committee Chair, it is my hope that there will be increased engagement and uptake. Perhaps, the consultations and engagement on the Bill and other arising policy issues will assist in increasing that uptake.

As I was saying, the Bill incentivises producers to adopt sustainable practices that safeguard our environment. For example, it could support initiatives to reduce carbon emissions, improve soil health and conserve water resources. I also stress that the legislation provides much-needed clarity and stability regarding future horticulture support, which will, undoubtedly, be welcomed by those who work in that sector. The AERA Committee has been told of the continuing policy work in that area as well.

To conclude, the legislation signifies a substantial leap forward to a more sustainable future for our horticulture sector. By fostering local food production, advocating for sustainable farming practices and ensuring equitable access to markets for Northern Irish farmers, the legislation will directly contribute to decreasing the carbon footprint of our food system and invigorating our local economy by delivering jobs and growth. Alliance supports the Bill. We urge others to join us in expressing that support.

Andrew Muir (Alliance, North Down)

I am grateful for Members' contributions to the debate. I will try to respond to the key points that were made. I will also check the Hansard report and, where appropriate, follow up with individual Members in writing if I miss anything inadvertently, as I do not want anyone to feel left out.

Robbie, as Chair of the Committee, raised a number of legitimate points. One of them was on a potential liability arising from changes that DEFRA might make in England. Under the current rules, claims could come from POs that are headquartered in Northern Ireland. However, some of those growers are located elsewhere in the UK, so DAERA would have a duty to support those POs to the potential detriment of local growers or other agriculture support. I am aware of the developments on where DEFRA is going on that, which is one of the reasons why we need to get the legislation progressed. We need to support our local growers in Northern Ireland.

The other issue that the Chair of the Committee raised was on seasonal workers and the worry that there could be a double whammy in the pressures that we face in that respect. Hopefully, in my opening remarks, I gave a necessary level of assurance on the support that I want to continue to give. It is a sector that is important, and it is one that I wish to see grow for many different reasons, particularly environmental ones. In addition, it produces food that we export beyond Northern Ireland to great fame, and we should encourage that. I am very aware of the concerns about the impact on seasonal workers. That is why I have written to the UK Government. I have also engaged with the Economy Minister, who is taking the lead on the issue: we are seeking to get the UK Government to listen to the concerns. There are certain sectors — for example, the mushroom sector — in which automation, which is what the UK Government desire that we pursue, is not as practical as it is in others. That is why I will continue to do the work on that, and I hear the concerns about seasonal workers.

Patsy McGlone raised the issue of a more comprehensive agriculture Bill. Initial scoping is under way on that. It is about giving the Department the necessary powers to take forward the interventions that we need. If you give me time to go through that process, we will see what steps we can take after that. It comes back, again, to stop-go government. The Scottish Parliament and the Senedd essentially have a baton race, from one mandate to the next, progressing legislation and taking things forward. We have not been able to do that in Northern Ireland because of stop-go government. We need to understand that that has implications, not just for public services but for legislation and policy development in Northern Ireland. I will continue to highlight that.

On the concerns that you raised, Patsy, on the funding and whether it will stop, hopefully I have used a form of words that provides the necessary level of assurance. There is a need for us to be able to give a bit more clarity on those issues, and the review is under way. It should report towards the end of this year, subject to staff resources. After that, I will take some time to reflect on next steps. As Michelle outlined, engagement on that with stakeholders will be crucial. I found my engagement with stakeholders to be very productive. That took place not just in my office, but while I was out and about visiting, particularly the apple industry in County Armagh, for which we are famous.

I will have that engagement, and I will not be found wanting in that, because it is absolutely key.

Patsy pointed out that this is one of the consequences of Brexit, which it is. The point is that my approach is different from that of others, because I am focused on solutions. I see what is here and the issues that have presented themselves since the referendum in 2016. We could talk about the problems — we could talk quite a lot about that — but we are in public office to work through those issues pragmatically. That is what I seek to do, because we owe it to the people of Northern Ireland. Northern Ireland voted to remain, but we left the EU, so we will work through the issues arising from that.

There was one last point that was raised — I hope that I have missed nothing — and there was dialogue between John and Robbie about the uptake of previous schemes, particularly in relation to apple growing. That probably demonstrates why we want to bring the legislation through. The Committee can potentially tease that out at Committee Stage to help us to form judgements on future support so that we can target that support and ensure uptake. It is regrettable that there was not the same level of uptake in some industries; perhaps that was because of the administration involved and the need to follow certain procedures to access it. I am keen to see it happen. I have been in County Armagh a couple times. I got apples and turned them into apple crumble. Actually, I will admit to the House that it was my mother, not me, who made the crumble, and she did a good job. I hope to have the opportunity to do that again. Last Wednesday, I was able to enjoy an excellent apple crumble at Annagh Social Farm in County Fermanagh. All parts of Northern Ireland produce good produce for us to enjoy.

As we move towards the conclusion of the debate, we can, hopefully, consider how to go forward from Second Stage. The issues raised in the Chamber reflect the points raised by stakeholders during the consultation. As I said, I met mushroom growers and heard first-hand the case for the FVAS, with stakeholders setting out the scheme's strengths and its comprehensive nature, including the environmental and climate change benefits. They also noted its potential for the development of other horticultural sectors.

In my opening speech, I reiterated my aspirations for the sector more generally. I am passionate about seeing its growth in Northern Ireland. Therefore, I acknowledge calls for the continuation of support for the mushroom sector, in particular. I stress again that I have made no decisions on the future of the scheme here or on support for the horticulture sector more widely. A lot of people know that I want to support it. I will not take decisions until I have considered the outcome of the ongoing review of the FVAS and the planned review of food promotions. However, as I said, I and future Executive Ministers must have full scope to decide our funding priorities, including the levels of funding, in order to ensure that support is provided where it provides best value for money and to target it where it best meets local need. I therefore hope that Members will agree that it is an unsustainable position for a Minister not to have control over their budget allocation.

It is essential to be able to set departmental funding priorities and to allocate the available budget accordingly. It is now even more important that I, as the Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs, can make those decisions. That is what devolution is about. As Members will be aware, the budgetary allocation for farming is no longer earmarked by the EU or by Westminster and will be part of the wider Northern Ireland block grant from April next year. That is a new horizon for us, because, previously, that funding came in seven-year tranches from the EU. I am aware of the uncertainty around that. Hopefully, through the agreement of a draft Budget by the Executive, we can give some reassurance to our farming community.

Without making the FVAS funding discretionary, there is a risk that our commitments under the legacy scheme may become unaffordable and that other DAERA priorities are not adequately supported. I have given assurances that I wish to support the horticulture sector and help it to develop and grow. Therefore, there are no plans to close the FVAS here. The previous UK Government made legislation that would close the FVAS in England at the end of the current programme in December 2025 and replace it with a new scheme from 2026. The Chair touched on the implications of that. I appreciate that uncertainty around the UK Government's new position is a concern for all UK growers and that it particularly impacts on those in Northern Ireland who are members of POs headquartered in England. My officials will continue to liaise with their counterparts in DEFRA and across the UK to clarify their intentions and the implications for local stakeholders and, of course, for the Northern Ireland Budget.

I note the calls for alignment with the scheme as it has continued to develop in the EU since Brexit and the fact that stakeholders see that local growers are already at a disadvantage compared with their nearest competitors. I have heard that loud and clear. To that end, the Bill's enabling powers allow for the scheme to be amended, whether that is in line with developments elsewhere or simply to develop support that works best for Northern Ireland for our ambitions for a more sustainable agri-food sector. I welcome support for that aspect of the Bill.

In closing, I thank Members for their contributions, for the questions and issues that they raised and for their support for the Bill's Second Reading. It is a short Bill that will make support under the FVAS discretionary, the statutory requirement to do so being a legacy of its being an EU scheme and not appropriate in the post-EU exit world that we live in. Doing so does not, however, signal any plans to end the scheme here, and I have made no decisions on future funding ahead of the completion of reviews of the FVAS and of support for the sector more widely. The Bill will also allow for the two legacy schemes in question to be amended as necessary and appropriate in order to best reflect local policy and needs. I and my officials look forward to working closely with the Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs Committee as it begins its important scrutiny role. I commend the Bill to the House.

Question put and agreed to. Resolved:

That the Second Stage of the Agriculture Bill [NIA Bill 08/22-27] be agreed.

Steve Aiken (UUP, South Antrim)

That concludes the Second Stage of the Agriculture Bill. The Bill stands referred to the Committee for Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs.

Private Members' Business

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

I beg to move

That this Assembly notes with concern the growing disparity in the cost of rail fares between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland; acknowledges the significant role of affordable public transport in promoting social mobility, reducing carbon emissions and facilitating economic growth across the island of Ireland; recognises that Northern Ireland’s lack of ambition in relation to public transport has led to significant fare imbalances, creating inequality for cross-border commuters; and calls on the Minister for Infrastructure to work with the Minister of Finance and the Minister for the Economy to bring forward proposals to better align rail fares between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland in the context of the all-island strategic rail review and to undertake an assessment of the feasibility of creating a unified fare structure for cross-border rail services that encourages greater economic integration, reduces barriers to movement and promotes regional development across the island of Ireland.

Steve Aiken (UUP, South Antrim)

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

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

Go raibh maith agat, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle.

[Translation: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker.]

I have brought the motion to the House to address the shocking disparity in rail fares between the North and the Republic. The simple fact of the matter is that commuters in the North are being saddled with an enormous and unequal cost burden relative to our neighbours across the border. That fact is illustrated dramatically by the reality that a one-way fare from Newry to Belfast costs £14·50, whereas a one-way fare from Dundalk to Belfast costs just £6·85. That is a difference of 111%. That bears saying again: a difference of 111%. A journey from Newry to Belfast, which is shorter, on the same train on the same train line costs more than double the price of a journey from Dundalk to Belfast. That means that a commuter in Newry who works in Belfast every day will pay thousands of pounds above the odds every year for commuting. The motion calls for action to address the inequality that cross-border fare imbalances create for cross-border commuters. It is critical that we, as legislators, take a clear stand on the issue.

Affordable and accessible public transport is not a luxury; it is a necessity. It is a cornerstone of social mobility, economic growth and the fulfilment of our duty to combat the climate crisis. Public transport, particularly rail services, can be a powerful force for change. Effective rail services connect people to jobs, education, healthcare and leisure. They help businesses grow by providing employees and customers with reliable access to services. However, when public transport becomes prohibitively expensive or inaccessible, it risks creating a two-tier society where only those who can afford to travel or have access to transport or transit hubs can access the opportunities that public transport offers.

The startling disparity in rail fares between North and South is troubling. Let me be clear: this is not a trivial issue. Commuters travelling from my constituency of Newry and Armagh to work on a daily basis in Belfast, Dublin and places in between face increasingly unaffordable and unfair prices. Not only does that act as a barrier to access; it undermines our efforts to decarbonise transport behaviours. Existing rail fare structures in the North are not compatible with the integrated all-island economy that we strive for. We have to ask ourselves how we can expect people to move freely across our island for work, recreation or study when rail fares in the North make such travel prohibitively and unnecessarily expensive. How can we hope to foster a truly all-island economy when the infrastructure that connects us is so unbalanced and its pricing unfair? Affordable rail travel enables people to access better job opportunities, regardless of where they live.

The all-island strategic rail review, commissioned by the SDLP's Nichola Mallon, set out a bold vision for connecting every part of our island. It set a clear ambition of allowing people from rural communities to seamlessly commute to work in cities, facilitating students to pursue exciting opportunities across the island and enabling the isolated, the elderly and individuals living in rural areas to commute for leisure and recreation. That goes to the heart of what makes a society fair and just. The vision of the all-island strategic rail review should be lauded. My frustration is that we are missing opportunities with the basics: the fundamental foundations of building a sustainable public transport model, including fair pricing.

We are fully aware of the scale of investment required to ensure that our public transport infrastructure is fit for the future. That has been illustrated clearly by the investment required to establish the new Belfast Grand Central station. Grand Central station is a critical transport hub for the North; there is no refuting that. However, at the same time, it must be said that a £350 million investment for a new rail hub in Belfast must be met with an equivalent investment commitment to ensure that fares paid by computers are not artificially or unnecessarily inflated. We cannot simply invest in grand projects in our major cities while neglecting the fairness and equity of cross-border transport services. That is the political epitome of all fur coat and no knickers. As it stands, the lack of strategic focus on aligning rail fares between the North and the Republic is a missed opportunity. We must ensure that we do not neglect the basic needs of everyday commuters, who rely on affordable transport to get to work or school or to access healthcare.

That brings me to the core of the motion. The all-island strategic rail review represents an invaluable opportunity for us to rethink and reimagine how we approach cross-border transport. We must see the review not just as an academic exercise but as a practical step towards integrating and unifying our transport infrastructure across the island. With respect to the DUP amendment, I admit that I was somewhat surprised to see the DUP out ahead of Sinn Féin on an issue relating to cross-border transport. I largely welcome the input that the DUP has provided, and it is a positive sign that there is common ground. I enthusiastically support the re-establishment of the Armagh to Portadown rail line, which of course will extend through Monaghan, Clones and Cavan and into the midlands, as per the recommendations of the all-island strategic rail review, connecting Portadown and Derry.

I am sure that the DUP also recognises that Donegal has been forgotten about when it comes to rail connectivity and would therefore support connectivity for there, although that is beyond our remit right now. Moreover, we must ensure that Belfast International Airport is connected to a rail line. Those are all critical long-term strategic objectives that, if realised, will represent a quantum leap for public transport on the island, but they require the full weight and force of government to be behind them.

The motion calls on the Minister for Infrastructure:

"to work with the Minister of Finance and the Minister for the Economy to bring forward proposals to better align rail fares between"

the North and the Republic. That is a sensible and urgent step to take. By doing so, we would address a fundamental issue of fairness and take an important step towards greater economic integration on the island. The motion goes further, however, by calling for:

"an assessment of the feasibility of creating a unified fare structure for cross-border rail services".

That is a vision that we must pursue. Having a unified fare structure would make travel simpler, cheaper and more accessible. It would remove the barriers to mobility that currently exist and promote greater economic integration and growth between and in both parts of the island.

The motion represents an important step towards addressing the shocking, unfair and irrational disparity in rail fares between the North and the Republic. By aligning rail fares and exploring a unified fare structure, we would reduce inequality for cross-border commuters, promote economic growth and do our duty and address the climate crisis. There is a demonstrable inequality at the heart of rail fare pricing structures, and it would be totally unacceptable to me and to the SDLP if the current system that governs fares were allowed to persist. Public transport should be accessible to everyone on the island on an equal basis. The time has come for us to take action and address what is an unfair system. I hope and trust that Members will throw their support behind the motion and demonstrate that we are serious about incentivising public transport use, that we are serious about fair play and that, when a problem becomes apparent, we can move quickly to address it.

Steve Aiken (UUP, South Antrim)

I ask the Member to reflect on his remarks. He made a particular statement that some might find offensive. Some in the Building have already talked about the use of language and humour that are not respected by everybody. I ask the Member to be cautious in what he says in future. I understand that some Members have already raised concerns.

Deborah Erskine (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I beg to move the following amendment:

Leave out all after "economic growth across" and insert: "all jurisdictions; welcomes the four ongoing rail feasibility studies focusing on plans for the electrification of the railway from Belfast to the border, the reopening of the Antrim to Lisburn railway line, with an additional stop at Belfast International Airport, the reinstatement of the Portadown to Armagh route, and a new line between Portadown and Londonderry; recognises, however, that a lack of ambition in relation to public transport in some areas, including County Fermanagh, has led to significant imbalances, creating inequality regionally, in addition to fare disparities for cross-border commuters; calls on the Minister for Infrastructure to work with the Minister of Finance and the Minister for the Economy to bring forward proposals to better align rail fares and service planning between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland in the context of the investment in cross-border and regional rail infrastructure, envisaged by the all-island strategic rail review and the Union connectivity review; and further calls on the Minister to undertake an assessment of the feasibility of creating an aligned fare structure for cross-border rail services that encourages greater economic growth, reduces barriers to movement, and promotes regional development in all jurisdictions."

Steve Aiken (UUP, South Antrim)

You have 10 minutes in which to propose the amendment and five minutes in which to make a winding-up speech. All other Members who are called to speak will have five minutes.

Deborah Erskine (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. It is important that any modern, forward-thinking society have infrastructure projects that will aid the betterment of its people, socially and economically. Setting our sights high for infrastructure capital investment should be at the forefront of all our minds. No matter how ambitious the plan, however, we must ensure that we think first about our own jurisdiction and how a plan impacts on each and every citizen who lives and works in Northern Ireland. In these days of budgetary constraint, any plan must be fair and proportionate in order to balance the books.

The DUP seeks to amend the motion to ensure that we promote the needs of Northern Ireland's rail infrastructure and boost the opportunities that should exist for Northern Ireland plc. That is why our party has focused on the rail feasibility studies that are funded by the Union connectivity review. The plans consist of:

"the electrification of the railway from Belfast to the border, the reopening of the Antrim to Lisburn railway line, with an additional stop at Belfast International Airport, the reinstatement of the Portadown to Armagh route, and a new line between Portadown and Londonderry".

All those plans are important for creating a better public transport offering in those parts of Northern Ireland. I know that the SDLP likes to shout about being the proponent of the all-island rail review, but its motion does not recognise the review's failure to ensure that each and every county of Northern Ireland will have train track considered for it. To me, the real lack of ambition from the Department for Infrastructure does not necessarily pertain to fares but, in fact, to stepping out and building infrastructure in rural areas. Not including Fermanagh in the all-island rail review has led to significant regional imbalances and will create inequality. For a border constituency such as mine, Fermanagh and South Tyrone, not having ambitious plans for bus and rail expansion and development has, essentially, cut us off. There must be better service planning in the here and now and for the future.

At a recent meeting of the Infrastructure Committee, officials briefed us on the all-island strategic rail review. It will not surprise Members that Fermanagh was high on my agenda. Whilst mention was made of the Fermanagh and Omagh transport plan as a means to understand the transport needs of people in County Fermanagh, that plan is being developed up to 2035. I have read the document. I did not see rail wholly mentioned in that document. Furthermore, the timescales do not fit in with the 10-year review of rail for the area, as mentioned in the strategic rail review. Surely, we need to look at the inclusion of rail in transport development plans now for its inclusion ahead of the 10-year review. I was then horrified that officials deemed a transport hub offering in Omagh to be an acceptable alternative to developments in County Fermanagh itself. I am not great at geography, but I know that Omagh is in Tyrone, not Fermanagh. Fermanagh should not be disregarded. It is an integral part of the economy and has a wonderful tourism offering. A sustainable and reliable transport offering is needed for my area.

Whilst the motion refers to the all-island strategic rail review, for which some money is coming from the Shared Island unit, it is important to recognise the Union connectivity review. It overlap the all-island strategic rail review on the development of rail, but it has also provided the funds for the necessary feasibility work. That work was funded via the UK Government's Union connectivity development fund. Funding is the component to drive forward any rail or transport expansion here. We must be realistic about that. Businesses' investment and profit also drive that agenda. That is why I recognise the need for an aligned fare structure to ensure that the people of Northern Ireland have a fair and accessible transport network offering. We must ensure that fares are reasonable in our own jurisdiction to create that greater economic growth, ensure that barriers to movement are removed and promote regional development between jurisdictions.

It is important to note that Translink and Irish Rail are funded in different ways. Translink last increased Enterprise fares in March 2023. They had not been increased for five years prior to that revision. Irish Rail has been able to reduce its standard and online fares by 20% in recent years due to funding that has been provided by the Department of Transport. My party does not support the aspiration of a unified approach to cross-border rail services, not least because Irish Rail and Translink are constituted differently and it would require a harmonised approach to subsidies going forward. Any solution must, ultimately, respect the legal and political status of each jurisdiction as well as the bespoke funding arrangements for each operator. That does not, however, mean that we should not strive for greater alignment in fare structures within those parameters. Practical cooperation is possible and should be pursued. It is misguided, therefore, for the motion to propose to pitch alignment of fares in the context of economic integration.

Recently, Translink introduced a new online fare structure for the Enterprise service that is more closely aligned to the Irish Rail web fare. Translink has been operating in a challenging situation with an increasing cost base. There can be no question that the underfunding of public services in Northern Ireland has created disparities. Subsidies are likely to be required to meet the shortfall between the cost of running a rail service and rail revenues. That requires effective funding over a longer period than is currently the case with single-year budgets and an ad hoc in-year payment.

The all-island strategic rail review and the Union connectivity review present a clear vision for better connectivity throughout the British Isles. Full delivery of those commitments stands to unlock opportunities for economic growth and job creation in our communities. We will work constructively with the Executive and the UK and Irish Governments to that end and to progress the four feasibility studies that are under way. Hopefully, we will see more on rail and transport development across Northern Ireland.

It is crucial that we now see the impetus moving away from the ideas phase and aspirations to delivery. The elephant in the room is, of course, funding. As an integral part of any implementation plan, timescales need to be firmed up and underpinned by a clearly agreed understanding of available Executive allocations. Therefore, I commend the amendment to the House.

Steve Aiken (UUP, South Antrim)

The Business Committee has arranged to meet at 1.00 pm today. I propose, therefore, by leave of the Assembly, to suspend the sitting until 2.00 pm. The debate will continue after Question Time and the first Member to be called will be Cathal Boylan.

The debate stood suspended.

The sitting was suspended at 12.56 pm.

On resuming (Mr Speaker in the Chair) —

Oral Answers to Questions — Finance

Edwin Poots (DUP, Belfast South)

Questions 4, 6 and 12 have been withdrawn.

Eóin Tennyson (Alliance, Upper Bann)

1. Mr Tennyson asked the Minister of Finance whether she intends to bring rating policy proposals that will support hospitality businesses to the Executive. (AQO 1243/22-27)

Caoimhe Archibald (Sinn Féin, East Londonderry)

Sixty-five per cent of the hospitality sector as a whole is already in receipt of support via the small business rate relief scheme. While calls for ever-increasing rate support are prominent, the Member will appreciate that similarly vocal views on how that additional support should be funded are harder to solicit. As the Member will know, England is phasing out that measure, and the reduction in retail, hospitality and leisure rate relief from 75% to 40% means that the cost of support is lower in 2025-26. The Executive have therefore received a reduction of £58·2 million in 2025-26 in relation to business rates.

Every pound that we, as an Executive, spend on rate relief means reduced revenue for vital public services or higher rates bills for homes and businesses. There needs to be a clear economic rationale for additional support. The rating system is our sole devolved tax lever and is there to generate income for the Executive and councils. The Member will be aware of the wider funding challenges being faced across Executive Departments. However, I plan to meet representatives of the sector along with other sectors in the coming days to discuss the issues that they face and how we can work together.

Eóin Tennyson (Alliance, Upper Bann)

Minister, that is a somewhat disappointing response. While I accept that the public finances are constrained, if businesses go to the wall, our rates base shrinks. Will you commit to working with the Minister for the Economy and the chambers of commerce across Northern Ireland to bring forward some level of support for the hospitality and retail businesses that are struggling on our high streets?

Caoimhe Archibald (Sinn Féin, East Londonderry)

I have had significant engagement with businesses, as the Member will appreciate. I understand that they face a range of issues, a lot of which are outwith our control and are because of decisions that have been made by the British Government as recently as the Budget statement. Like, I am sure, other Members, I have had significant correspondence on some of those issues. The fact remains that 70% of non-domestic ratepayers here receive some form of support, and our finances for providing additional support are limited.

I will always commit to engaging with the sector in order to understand the challenges that it faces and to see whether, as an Executive, we can take actions to support it. Of course, the rating system may not be the most appropriate approach to providing that support. I am always willing to listen to business organisations' or other Members' suggestions in respect of that.

Diana Armstrong (UUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

What progress has been made on rating reform to help SMEs in particular?

Caoimhe Archibald (Sinn Féin, East Londonderry)

As I have said on a number of occasions, I have brought forward proposals to the Executive on my approach to taking a more strategic look at the rating system in the short, medium and longer term. I hope to communicate to Members on that in more detail in the near future.

Nicola Brogan (Sinn Féin, West Tyrone)

Will the Minister advise when she shared her rating proposals with her Executive colleagues?

Caoimhe Archibald (Sinn Féin, East Londonderry)

I first circulated my proposals for consideration by the Executive on 10 October. The proposals included details on a potential consultation on certain rating policy measures. I subsequently asked that my paper be considered at four meetings of the Executive: on 17 October, 7 November, 11 November and 21 November. I also wrote to colleagues to outline the potential implications that not tabling the paper may have for the implementation of any changes in April 2025.

It is regrettable that, despite having cross-party support — from my party colleagues and colleagues from the Alliance and the UUP — the paper has not been tabled for discussion at the Executive. I am not alone in holding the view that such important matters should be discussed collectively by the Executive, as evidenced by the cross-party letter that asked for my paper to be tabled. It is important to have Executive discussion, if not agreement, on the general direction of policy prior to engaging in further supplementary consultation.

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

Minister, I have been in touch with you about the plight of businesses on Foyle Street in my constituency that have suffered hugely due to protracted works by Northern Ireland Water in the area and are seeking relief on their rates bills. The process of revaluation is intrusive, exhausting and expensive for those businesses, and it is labour-intensive for Land and Property Services (LPS). Is there no other mechanism by which to reduce rates when the negative impact on those business is blatant.

Caoimhe Archibald (Sinn Féin, East Londonderry)

I know that the Member has raised that issue with me previously. I am sympathetic to businesses that are being impacted by works that are beyond their control. The Member is aware that rate relief is available through the hardship scheme for businesses that suffer from impacts that are beyond their control. The award of further relief for specific purposes would mean less money to spend on public services. As has been mentioned, rates are our only revenue generator. They fund our public services, so the choice would be to have less money to give out or to put up rates bills for other homes and businesses.

Under the rating and valuation system, every case is assessed by LPS on its merits, by considering the impact of the work on the net annual value (NAV) of the property. That is determined by established case law and a long-standing statutory framework that supports the stability of our tax base, which is used to fund central and local government services. The Member will appreciate that it is important to have that statutory framework and consider every case against it, because there are a lot of demands on LPS to make support available to businesses in difficult circumstances. There has to be that framework within which the issue is considered.

Gerry Carroll (People Before Profit Alliance, Belfast West)

Minister, you said that you were not developing a scheme at the minute, but, if you were, would you consider putting in conditions so that public money would not be given to organisations that are hostile to unions, do not pay a real living wage or use zero-hours contracts? Would you support such conditions in a public scheme?

Caoimhe Archibald (Sinn Féin, East Londonderry)

I did not catch the first part of the Member's question, but I think that I got the gist of it. As I outlined to Mr Durkan, rating relief is provided to businesses on the basis of a statutory framework. Some of those issues are included in our social value procurement framework for other government services.

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

2. Mr O'Toole asked the Minister of Finance for an overview of her Department’s strategy for utilising the financial transactions capital (FTC) allocated to the Executive in the 2024-25 financial year. (AQO 1244/22-27)

Caoimhe Archibald (Sinn Féin, East Londonderry)

Financial transactions capital can be used only to provide loans to or equity investment in the private sector. The funding is ring-fenced for that purpose and cannot be used for anything else. It is therefore more challenging for Departments to identify suitable projects that advance the Executive’s policy aspirations and fulfil the criteria of a loan or equity investment.

I have consistently encouraged Departments to consider how they can use the funding. My Department has agreed with Treasury that any FTC underspends not carried forward under the Budget exchange scheme may be used to offset the required repayment of 80% of FTC allocations, thereby using that funding to reduce future liabilities. I am pleased that, following our continued engagement, the level of FTC bids by Departments for Budget 2025-26 is up on previous years; however, we must still consider all feasible options to use the funding most effectively.

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

Minister, while your and your Department's approach to FTC has not quite been, "Computer says no", it has been, "Computer says this is quite difficult, so we need to look at it in more detail". I am afraid that we are handing back tens upon tens of millions of pounds of FTC every year. I offered the example of Tribeca, a northern part of Belfast city centre that has fallen into dereliction over decades and said that we could use the FTC for that. You sent me a letter that said —

Edwin Poots (DUP, Belfast South)

Have we a question, Mr O'Toole?

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

— that it will be "difficult but not impossible". Minister, rather than simply encouraging Departments, will your Department properly and proactively look at ways to deploy the money to improve people's lives, regenerate towns —

Edwin Poots (DUP, Belfast South)

OK. Minister.

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

— and build social houses in Northern Ireland?

Caoimhe Archibald (Sinn Féin, East Londonderry)

I will correct the point: we do not hand the money back; as I said in the previous answer, it is used to offset future liabilities. It is not, obviously, our preferred option for using the money, and we would much prefer it if Departments could identify projects. As I have said, I have actively encouraged bids in all my engagements with Ministers, and that has resulted in a significant uplift in the bids that have been made this year. The Member has made particular suggestions of his own and has had correspondence from my Department about those. I am happy to proactively engage with Ministers to identify ways to better utilise FTC. It is an important revenue stream that has supported development in line with the principles set out by the Executive.

Steve Aiken (UUP, South Antrim)

Minister, as well as FTC, you will be aware that Andy Burnham has been able to reach out to the likes of the National Wealth Fund and funding for GB Energy. Has the Minister tasked Neil Gibson and his merry bunch of staff to talk to people like Andy Burnham to see what we could do with other funding that seems to be there? Northern Ireland deserves a considerable chunk of those national funds as well.

Caoimhe Archibald (Sinn Féin, East Londonderry)

The Committee has received or will receive correspondence giving further detail about the National Wealth Fund and GB Energy. I had not specifically asked my officials to engage with Andy Burnham, but, as you will appreciate, they have regular engagement with Treasury to understand the outworkings of those funds and any plans that Treasury has to utilise the funds to positively impact on here as well.

Peter McReynolds (Alliance, Belfast East)

Minister, what actions have you taken to use financial transactions capital to support the expansion of green energy?

Caoimhe Archibald (Sinn Féin, East Londonderry)

The Member might be aware of the NI Investment Fund, which uses FTC on behalf of the Executive to support private-sector investment. One of the themes under which developers can access that funding is decarbonisation, which is one in respect of which we would encourage more interest from private developers, because there has been limited interest in it to date. We are keen to encourage more projects to be taken forward under that banner. If the Member wants to engage further with officials, I would be happy for him to do so.

Claire Sugden (Independent, East Londonderry)

3. Ms Sugden asked the Minister of Finance to provide an update on the new digital process for the Land Registry system, including the new service provider. (AQO 1245/22-27)

Caoimhe Archibald (Sinn Féin, East Londonderry)

The Department is currently finalising contract terms with Fujitsu for the provision of the new IT land registration solution, which will transform Land Registry's services. The new IT solution will implement a range of new services via digital channels, and customers will be able to submit applications online. Many manual processes will be automated, which will result in an improved quality of service, increased workforce productivity and value for money. It is anticipated that the contract will be signed in January 2025, with the implementation phase of the new solution commencing in April 2025.

Claire Sugden (Independent, East Londonderry)

Thank you, Minister. Does the Minister have any concerns about the Education Authority's (EA) recent decision not to proceed with a contract with Fujitsu for over £5 million?

Caoimhe Archibald (Sinn Féin, East Londonderry)

I am not over the detail of why the contract was not taken forward between the EA and Fujitsu. As the Member will be aware, public procurement here is regulated through the UK's Public Contracts Regulations 2015. My Department conducted a robust and vigorous procurement process that resulted in Fujitsu being the preferred bidder to deliver our new land registration IT solution.

Maurice Bradley (DUP, East Londonderry)

5. Mr Bradley asked the Minister of Finance to outline the average duration that Civil Service staff have been on temporary promotion in the past 10 years. (AQO 1247/22-27)

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

10. Mr McGrath asked the Minister of Finance to outline the policy overseeing temporary promotions within the Northern Ireland Civil Service. (AQO 1252/22-27)

Caoimhe Archibald (Sinn Féin, East Londonderry)

With the Speaker's permission, I will answer questions 5 and 10 together.

The career opportunities and promotion policy sets out the arrangements for temporary promotions in the Civil Service, including the circumstances in which they may be considered, eligibility requirements and the selection processes. Temporary promotions are designed primarily to meet business needs and can be required for several different reasons, such as covering sick absence or maternity leave; for special exercises that are time-bound projects; and to temporarily fill substantive posts that are vacant for reasons such as resignation and promotion.

Based on information from our HR services provider, over the past 10 years, the average duration of temporary promotion was 317 calendar days. Some staff may have been temporarily promoted more than once during that time period. As of the end of October 2024, the majority of temporary promotions, which is 76%, in the Civil Service were due to vacant posts and/or resulting backfill. The Civil Service continues to work to reduce the number of temporary promotions by filling vacancies, where possible, on a permanent basis through external recruitment competitions. Budget pressures have resulted in recruitment activity for the Civil Service being curtailed, which has impacted on the use of temporary promotions.

Maurice Bradley (DUP, East Londonderry)

I thank the Minister for her answer. Minister, temporary promotions are not intended to last for more than one year. While there is no strict maximum duration for temporary promotions, prolonged periods going from one year to over four years can lead to complications. For instance, if an employee remains in a temporary role for an extended time, they might argue that the temporary position has effectively become their substantive role. Could that lead to claims of implied contractual terms based on custom and practice? Is it not promotion without the due process of advertising roles and having interview and selection processes, and, if so, what does the Minister intend to do to rectify that situation?

Caoimhe Archibald (Sinn Féin, East Londonderry)

I thank the Member for his question. As I set out in my original answer, there is policy in place that temporary promotions are guided by, and an individual's suitability will be assessed under that policy in reference to the selection criteria for temporary promotion. In all circumstances, if an individual is selected, they must be deemed fit for promotion by their line manager. The career opportunities and promotion policy, under which temporary promotions fall, is being reviewed as part of a wider review of recruitment policies, but I must say that temporary promotions are still likely to be required as a temporary staffing solution in certain situations.

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

The Minister says that the Civil Service is trying to manage this. Well, it is failing. We have 10% of our Civil Service on temporary promotion, and that number is increasing year-on-year. I worry about the practices that are being followed for filling a lot of those positions. There is still a lot of nudge nudge wink wink going on and people saying, "There is a job for you". Will the Minister commit to filling the proper ranks with open competitions that will be completely fair and will give everybody the opportunity to apply for a full-time permanent post?

Caoimhe Archibald (Sinn Féin, East Londonderry)

I thank the Member for his question. I will push back a little bit on his characterisation of how the posts are filled. Proper process is followed. The Civil Service continues to work to reduce the number of temporary promotions by filling vacancies, just as he said, where possible, on a permanent basis through external recruitment competitions. As I mentioned in my opening answer, recent budget pressures have resulted in recruitment activity being curtailed, and that has had an impact on the use of temporary promotions.

Andy Allen (UUP, Belfast East)

The Minister will no doubt be aware that today is International Day of Persons with Disabilities, and, as we speak, in City Hall, the Equality Commission is holding a conference called Breaking Barriers, Building Futures. To that end, will the Minister advise what steps her Department is taking in the Civil Service to remove barriers for people with disabilities and to enable them to take up roles in the Civil Service?

Caoimhe Archibald (Sinn Féin, East Londonderry)

Yes. I thank the Member for his important question. I have discussed with officials at the highest level the issue of HR and recruitment and support for our existing staff. It is really important that the Civil Service, as one of the biggest employers in the North, leads the way and sets an example on issues including inclusion and accessibility for people with disabilities. I have actively encouraged that, and we are looking at our policies on how we support current workers and also at removing the barriers to employment. I am happy for my officials to write to the Member about some of the work that is being done to set that out for him.

Maolíosa McHugh (Sinn Féin, West Tyrone)

7. Mr McHugh asked the Minister of Finance for an update on any engagements she has undertaken with the banking sector. (AQO 1249/22-27)

Caoimhe Archibald (Sinn Féin, East Londonderry)

I thank the Member. I hosted a banking round table on 20 November with a wide range of representatives from the banking industry, the Financial Services Union, credit unions, the Post Office, business bodies and the community and voluntary sector. That provided an important platform to discuss key concerns and issues around access to cash and local banking services. I also invited the chief executive of the Financial Conduct Authority to the round table to hear the views of local stakeholders first-hand and to update attendees on the new rules that came into effect in September in relation to access to cash. My officials will monitor the impact of the new rules locally and will send a summary report setting out the key issues identified at the round table to the British Treasury and the regulatory authorities for a formal response. I also intend to visit one of the local banking hubs early in the new year to better understand the services that they offer, especially for the most vulnerable people in society. I will continue to engage with stakeholders, including by hosting an annual banking round table, to ensure that any local issues are brought to the sector and relevant authorities in Britain.

Maolíosa McHugh (Sinn Féin, West Tyrone)

Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire.

[Translation: I thank the Minister.]

Will she outline what her key asks are of the Treasury?

Caoimhe Archibald (Sinn Féin, East Londonderry)

A range of issues will be raised in the summary report to which we will ask the Treasury to formally respond. That includes the need to ensure that local issues are reflected in its new national financial inclusion strategy, given our relatively higher levels of vulnerability here. As the new access-to-cash rules do not cover financial advice, I am also keen to understand its plan in that regard to ensure that communities can still receive that vital service, which is so important for our most vulnerable people. Communities here also need to be made aware of the new rules and how they can submit assessment requests, especially where access to cash is already limited. I am keen to understand what the Treasury is doing to ensure that these new rules are effectively communicated here in the North. The Treasury will also be asked how non-profit businesses such as charities can be treated fairly under its regulatory regime. That is particularly important when local bank branches close and understanding of different business models for the voluntary and community sector is lost.

Diane Forsythe (DUP, South Down)

I welcome the Minister's comment that she will visit a banking hub in the new year. In Kilkeel in my constituency, we had the first banking hub in Northern Ireland, and another one is opening this week in Newcastle, which is great news. One thing that has often come from the feedback on banking hubs is that they do not give 24-hour access to cash through cash machines. Has the Minister done any work on, or made any commitments to, promoting the inclusion of cash machines to businesses in rural communities?

Caoimhe Archibald (Sinn Féin, East Londonderry)

I thank the Member for her question; I was not aware that a banking hub was opening in Newcastle this week. The issue of 24-hour access to cash was raised as part of the discussion and was put forward very strongly by some of the representatives in attendance, including those from the community and voluntary sector. It is fair to say that the new rules that have been put in place by the FCA only came into effect in September, so there has not been a lot of time to assess their effectiveness yet. As I have set out already, it is really important that people understand the ability that they have now to ask for assessments around access to cash and 24-hour access to cash and to ensure that that is available for communities. If the Member wants to write to me, I will be happy to get officials to provide some additional information on that.

Nick Mathison (Alliance, Strangford)

If the Minister would like to visit a banking hub, one is shortly due to open in Comber in my constituency, where she would be made very welcome. Can the Minister provide any more detail on the sorts of policy interventions at Executive level that would be useful for supporting the retention of high street banking services, particularly in rural areas?

Caoimhe Archibald (Sinn Féin, East Londonderry)

I know that the Member will be aware that we have very limited banking powers and that the majority of such powers are reserved. That is one of the reasons that we hosted the round table: to get an understanding of the issues. I have received lots of correspondence and representations from Members about access to cash, particularly in rural areas, and we have strongly conveyed that message to the FCA and, through my officials, to the British Treasury. The round table offered an opportunity for those issues to be aired. It was good to have the chief executive of the FCA in attendance this time to hear specifically about the local issues. He found it very useful, and he reflected that. As an Executive, we are in some respects a Treasury conduit for making representations and ensuring that regulations that are being implemented by it and the FCA are fit for purpose for our people and our communities. That is something that I am committed to trying to achieve.

Ciara Ferguson (Sinn Féin, Foyle)

8. Ms Ferguson asked the Minister of Finance for an update on the 2025-26 Budget process. (AQO 1250/22-27)

Caoimhe Archibald (Sinn Féin, East Londonderry)

The British Chancellor announced the Executive's funding envelope for 2025-26 in the autumn Budget on 30 October. The settlement for future years will be announced in spring 2025. I am engaging with Executive colleagues on our approach to the 2025-26 Budget and have been working at pace to develop proposals. It is my intention, subject to Executive agreement, to publish a draft Budget early this month to allow time for a full public consultation to be held before a final Budget is agreed by the Executive prior to the start of the new financial year.

Ciara Ferguson (Sinn Féin, Foyle)

I thank the Minister for her answer. Is she supportive of ring-fencing the agriculture funding that has been baselined for next year?

Caoimhe Archibald (Sinn Féin, East Londonderry)

I thank the Member for her question. In short, yes. I appreciate the uncertainty that the Chancellor's decision to remove the ring-fenced element of that important funding has created. It is also disappointing that the amount included in the Executive's baseline did not include an inflationary uplift. I am keen to see appropriate funding be made available to the farming and fisheries communities. I am therefore very supportive of ring-fencing that agriculture funding, and I will be proposing that when presenting a draft Budget for 2025-26 to the Executive. Ultimately, however, it will be a decision for the Executive as a whole to take.

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

9. Mr McGlone asked the Minister of Finance what engagement she has had with the Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs in relation to providing ring-fenced funding for farm subsidies, following the UK’s autumn Budget 2024. (AQO 1251/22-27)

Caoimhe Archibald (Sinn Féin, East Londonderry)

I met the AERA Minister in advance of the Budget announcement to discuss the importance of ensuring that adequate agriculture support funding is made available to farmers and land managers in the North. I also discussed the issue with the Chief Secretary to the Treasury and wrote to him to request clarity on the future of the ring-fenced agriculture support funding, as well as to request that consideration be given to uplifting any allocation for inflation. Unfortunately, an uplift was not included in the Budget settlement that the British Chancellor announced, and the agriculture support funding is no longer earmarked by Treasury. Following the Chancellor's Budget, the AERA Minister wrote to me, setting out his concerns and requesting that the resource departmental expenditure limit (DEL) that was previously earmarked by Treasury be treated as Executive earmarked funding. I appreciate the uncertainty that the Budget announcement created, and I am keen to see appropriate funding be made available to the farming and fisheries communities. As I said to the Member who asked the previous question, I am therefore supportive of the funding for agriculture and fisheries that had previously been earmarked by the British Government being similarly earmarked by the Executive in the 2025-26 Budget. Ultimately, that will be a decision for Executive colleagues, however.

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

Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire.

[Translation: I thank the Minister.]

The Minister mentioned that she had written to Ministers. What response did you receive, or has a response been received yet?

Caoimhe Archibald (Sinn Féin, East Londonderry)

Are you referring to my engagement with the Treasury?

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

Yes.

Caoimhe Archibald (Sinn Féin, East Londonderry)

I raised the issue with the Chief Secretary to the Treasury in person, as well as in writing. Off the top of my head, I cannot recall the response, but I am happy to correspond with the Member.

Edwin Poots (DUP, Belfast South)

We move on to topical questions.

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

T1. Mr O'Toole asked the Minister of Finance whether she views as surreal her decision to score as a saving the option outlined in the annex to the Budget sustainability plan, which was published with limited impact but much ballyhoo in October, of raising £6 million a year in revenue by not suspending hospital car parking charges, given that that legislation was introduced by her colleague, the junior Minister. (AQT 831/22-27)

Caoimhe Archibald (Sinn Féin, East Londonderry)

I am not sure that I would characterise it as "surreal". The Member will understand that the annex to the Budget suitability plan — we discussed it at length in Committee last week — was a requirement under the financial package for raising the £113 million of revenue over two years. Any revenue that has been raised this year or is projected to be raised next year is included in that annex. That is why it is reflected.

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

I appreciate the technical response from the Minister but, given her reputation for seriousness and detail, she would have to accept that it is a fairly surreal situation for a Finance Minister to rely on suspending the provisions of her ministerial colleague's private Member's Bill to secure savings. She has not got onto the Executive agenda a minor change to the rating system around the domestic rate caps. We have not seen any proposals as yet, despite elaborate promises, on fiscal devolution. Is it not the case that the big reform agenda that was promised around Budget and revenue-raising simply has not emerged yet?

Caoimhe Archibald (Sinn Féin, East Londonderry)

Again, to reflect, it was simply a case that it is money that is being accrued this year, and that is why it was included.

In relation to the broader issues that the Member has raised about rates and fiscal powers, the fiscal powers piece, in particular, is part of the discussions around our future fiscal framework. In relation to issues of income generation, the Member is aware that it is included in the Budget sustainability plan and that the Executive have committed to regular strategic consideration of our income generation measures. The Member will also appreciate that we are working to tight time frames in the development of our Budget for 2025-26, so it was not possible to include that consideration in time for that. It is certainly work that the Executive will continue to progress, and I, as Finance Minister, will continue to progress the negotiations with Treasury around our future fiscal framework.

Trevor Clarke (DUP, South Antrim)

I thank the Minister for her response on ring-fencing budget for struggling farmers. She is minded to do that, and I welcome that.

Trevor Clarke (DUP, South Antrim)

T3. Mr Clarke asked the Minister of Finance whether her Department costs the many environmental programmes run by the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs to see whether they are of benefit or are environmentally based with no consideration of the farmer or of savings. (AQT 833/22-27)

Caoimhe Archibald (Sinn Féin, East Londonderry)

First and foremost, it is for the Agriculture Minister to develop business cases for those programmes. Obviously, they would also have to go through the normal processes of ensuring value for money in departmental spend.

Trevor Clarke (DUP, South Antrim)

I appreciate what the Minister has said about value for money. Given that she has overall responsibility for the Budget in the Assembly, does her Department scrutinise those schemes to find out the net benefit for Northern Ireland as a whole, or are they just seen as some sort of environmental scheme that that Minister wants to push to the detriment of our farmers?

Caoimhe Archibald (Sinn Féin, East Londonderry)

I do not want to answer on behalf of the Agriculture Minister and will try to resist that, but I am sure he would not intend to detrimentally impact farmers. The cases for particular schemes that are developed by any Department — in this case, the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs — is a matter for that Department. Only in an instance where a business case is above a certain threshold would it come to the Department of Finance for consideration.

Robbie Butler (UUP, Lagan Valley)

T4. Mr Butler asked the Minister of Finance, given that today is International Day of Persons with Disabilities and that we have seen the Civil Service fail to set ambitious targets for employment of people with disabilities, with the figure staying stagnant at around 5%, whether she is happy with that position or has taken steps to increase that figure. (AQT 834/22-27)

Caoimhe Archibald (Sinn Féin, East Londonderry)

I thank the Member for his question. I answered a question from his colleague a few minutes ago about HR and recruitment policies in respect of people with disabilities. I have had considerable engagement with my senior officials on HR and recruitment in support of people who already work for us. I actively encourage and proactively ask the Department to ensure that we remove barriers to people with disabilities in accessing employment in the Civil Service.

Robbie Butler (UUP, Lagan Valley)

I thank the Minister for her answer, and I am sorry if I missed the answer to a previous question.

Does the Minister agree that we get it right when we set things up to ensure that people are not discriminated against rather than when we use some form of positive action? We should set targets and parameters for including people as opposed to trying to stop excluding them.

Caoimhe Archibald (Sinn Féin, East Londonderry)

I very much encourage that. As I said to Andy a few moments ago, it is important that, as one of the largest employers here, we ensure that we lead by example and set best practice. I actively encourage officials to look at how we can do exactly that.

Michelle Guy (Alliance, Lagan Valley)

T5. Mrs Guy asked the Minister of Finance, given that pooling budgets is a core element of the Children's Services Co-operation Act (Northern Ireland) 2015, whether her Department notes every instance of the pooling of budgets by Departments. (AQT 835/22-27)

Caoimhe Archibald (Sinn Féin, East Londonderry)

We actively encourage the pooling of budgets as part of the budgetary process, and we did so for Budget 2025-26. I am not sure that we record every instance of that, but we encourage it. If the Member wishes to ask for further information, I would be happy for her to engage with officials on that.

Michelle Guy (Alliance, Lagan Valley)

Minister, the Act confers powers on your Department to make regulations to determine how Departments come together to pool resources. Do you intend to make such regulations?

Caoimhe Archibald (Sinn Féin, East Londonderry)

That matter has been raised with me on a number of occasions. Guidance for Departments on how to do that is already in place. One concern that I have about making regulations is that it may hinder Departments in coming forward with more innovative solutions for working together to tackle particular issues. As it stands, there is sufficient scope for Departments to work together, but I am happy to keep that under review.

Peter Martin (DUP, North Down)

T6. Mr Martin asked the Minister of Finance, in light of changes to employers' National Insurance contributions, whether she has had any discussions with the Chief Secretary to the Treasury on support specifically for doctors' surgeries, dentists and community pharmacies. (AQT 836/22-27)

Caoimhe Archibald (Sinn Féin, East Londonderry)

That issue has been raised with me on a considerable number of occasions, as, I am sure, it has been raised with other Members. I have had correspondence from public-sector partners and community and voluntary organisations that deliver in partnership with or on behalf of government and from our business sector.

National Insurance contributions will have a significant impact. We are working through quantifying the costs relating to the public sector and those who work in partnership with us, and we have asked the third sector to share any information or evidence that it has. Officials have been engaging with Treasury, and we intend to progress that engagement in the coming days and weeks.

Peter Martin (DUP, North Down)

I thank the Minister for her answer. There has been a lot of chat about doctors' surgeries in the rest of the UK saying that they cannot afford to pay the contributions. If Treasury were to change what it has said about the issue to date and make a positive decision, would we see Barnett consequentials from that, and, if so, would those consequentials be ring-fenced?

Caoimhe Archibald (Sinn Féin, East Londonderry)

No Barnett consequentials are ring-fenced. It is for the Executive to decide how they spend their money, which is, obviously, an important aspect of having an Executive and Ministers locally. One of my concerns about the Barnett consequentials that we will get from the change in public-sector employers' National Insurance contributions — I am not alone in this; the Scottish Finance Minister has said it publicly too — is that they will not even cover our additional costs in respect of that. We are trying to get additional information to understand fully what the impact of the costs will be, and we continue that engagement with Treasury to communicate what the impact will be, because it will be significant.

Edwin Poots (DUP, Belfast South)

Mr Sheehan is not in his place. I call Áine Murphy.

Áine Murphy (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

T8. Ms Á Murphy asked the Minister of Finance whether she is concerned about the recent hike in insurance costs and the higher premiums. (AQT 838/22-27)

Caoimhe Archibald (Sinn Féin, East Londonderry)

Yes is the short answer. I am deeply concerned that increasing insurance premiums are adding further financial pressure on households, businesses and communities. My officials and I have been engaging with the insurance sector and the regulatory authorities to identify what is behind the rises and what can be done to control them. It is suggested that increases are being driven by a number of factors, some of which are being experienced globally due to inflationary pressures in the industry, whilst others appear to be more specific to the market here.

I raised my concerns directly with the chief executive of the Financial Conduct Authority when we met on 20 November. I asked for stronger regulation in the North, especially of claims management companies, which are regulated in Britain but not here. On 19 November, I attended a meeting of the inter-ministerial group for transport to discuss the work of the new task force on motor insurance, led by the then Transport Secretary, and I look forward to engaging further. I took the opportunity at that meeting to call for British Government Ministers to investigate high home insurance prices, which are also a particular issue here.

Áine Murphy (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

The Minister answered my question so well that she also answered my supplementary.

Doug Beattie (UUP, Upper Bann)

T9. Mr Beattie asked the Minister of Finance what horizon scanning her Department is doing on EU laws that will affect Northern Ireland's Budget and funding envelope in future years. (AQT 839/22-27)

Caoimhe Archibald (Sinn Féin, East Londonderry)

Did the Member say "EU laws"?

Doug Beattie (UUP, Upper Bann)

EU laws.

Caoimhe Archibald (Sinn Féin, East Londonderry)

Work has been undertaken on behalf of the Executive on new EU laws. There is obviously the work under the Windsor framework. On specific laws, departmental officials keep abreast of what is developing in Britain and in the EU to ensure that we are kept apprised.

Doug Beattie (UUP, Upper Bann)

Minister, thank you for your answer. Clearly, laws that will be introduced in the future affect people now. For example, in 2030, EU legislation will ban rubber infill on all 3G and 4G pitches. There will be a huge cost in setting up 3G and 4G synthetic pitches for that and in maintaining them post 2030. Have you had any discussions to see what packages we can provide to schools, community groups and sporting organisations to support them in that?

Caoimhe Archibald (Sinn Féin, East Londonderry)

The short answer is, "No, I haven't". That issue has not been specifically brought to my attention. In some respects, it would be within the remit of the responsibilities of the Education and Communities Ministers. I am happy for the Member to communicate with officials on the issue to understand what the implications might be.

Michelle McIlveen (DUP, Strangford)

T10. Miss McIlveen asked the Minister of Finance, further to her colleague Peter Martin's question, to clarify whether local government in Northern Ireland, which faces an estimated bill of £12·19 million, will be exempt from the changes to National Insurance employer contributions. (AQT 840/22-27)

Caoimhe Archibald (Sinn Féin, East Londonderry)

As I said to the Member's colleague, we are concerned that the Barnett consequentials that we got on employer National Insurance contributions for the public sector will not cover the additional cost. As the Member will be well aware, we face significant budgetary pressures in our general Budget. Therefore, we are concerned about the impact that it will have on public sector employers.

It is difficult at this point to answer the specific question of whom we will be able to support on National Insurance contribution costs, because we have not yet had the figure clarified by Treasury. We continue our engagement with Treasury to try to understand that and to communicate the impact that the changes will have on the public sector; the community, voluntary and third sectors that work in partnership with us; and the private sector.

Michelle McIlveen (DUP, Strangford)

I appreciate the Minister's response. I assume that the plan B option is being explored, given that, ultimately, the burden from the change will add to pressures on ratepayers. I am curious to see what other plans and options the Minister is exploring.

Caoimhe Archibald (Sinn Féin, East Londonderry)

We are scoping future plans to understand what those costs will be, for the public sector and more widely. We are continuing our engagement with Treasury, as I have articulated. Given the budgetary pressures that we face and the fact that we do not believe that the Barnett consequentials will be enough to cover the increased National Insurance contributions for public-sector employers, we are very concerned about what the shortfall in respect of that will be. That is what we are engaging the Treasury about.

(Madam Principal Deputy Speaker in the Chair)

Oral Answers to Questions — Northern Ireland Assembly Commission

Michelle Guy (Alliance, Lagan Valley)

1. Mrs Guy asked the Assembly Commission whether there have been any recent changes to security arrangements and protocols for guests and visitors to Parliament Buildings. (AQO 1257/22-27)

Sinéad Ennis (Sinn Féin, South Down)

I thank the Member for her question. While it would be unwise to discuss the detail of security arrangements in a public forum, the Assembly Commission takes security seriously. Arrangements are kept under review by Assembly management and are revisited and amended, as required. Access by visitors to Parliament Buildings is outlined in the Assembly Commission policy, 'Conduct and Behaviour of Visitors in Parliament Buildings'. That includes general rules of entry and those conditions that are applicable to visitors.

Members may have noticed a change, with the visitor experience team taking responsibility for the reception desk to greet visitors when they enter the Building. However, that change operates within the wider framework of our existing security arrangements, which include the requirement to go through the search facility on arrival and the presence of ushers in the Great Hall.

Michelle Guy (Alliance, Lagan Valley)

Thank you for the answer. You mentioned that security arrangements are reviewed as and when. Is there a particular time frame within which that happens? Does it happen on a regular basis?

Sinéad Ennis (Sinn Féin, South Down)

Not that I am aware of. The Assembly Commission will keep that under constant review. We will assess how well security arrangements are working, and if there are any incidents, or if there is any need to make any changes to that, any Member can write to the Assembly Commission on that and we will consider it.

Timothy Gaston (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

Will the Member detail or advise what changes have been made by the Commission in the light of the fact that a Sinn Féin employee, who stood accused of child sex offences, was given the run of this Building for months because of Philip McGuigan's failure to cancel his pass? When will we see the publication of the report on the issues that have arisen from the Michael McMonagle scandal?

Sinéad Ennis (Sinn Féin, South Down)

I thank the Member for his question. As he will know, issues relating to that are under investigation. The Assembly Commission has already said that it will not be providing a running commentary on that investigation.

Robbie Butler (UUP, Lagan Valley)

2. Mr Butler asked the Assembly Commission to outline any steps being taken to clean and maintain the façade of Parliament Buildings, given its listed building status. (AQO 1258/22-27)

Trevor Clarke (DUP, South Antrim)

I thank the Member for his question. The Assembly Commission takes its responsibility to maintain this historic Building extremely seriously.

As Parliament Buildings is a grade A listed building, there are strict guidelines governing how cleaning, repairs and other maintenance works are carried out. The first step in the process is to seek and receive listed building consent for proposed works. A proprietary application was made in September 2024 in relation to the specialist cleaning and repointing of the Building. The Building's age and listed building status mean that all cleaning and the repointing of joints will be agreed with a conservation architect and will conform to the British Standard code of practice on the cleaning of buildings and surface repair of buildings. All decorative features, metalwork and windows etc are to be protected throughout all cleaning processes.

The Assembly Commission has agreed that the east and west ends of the Building will be cleaned in the current financial year, subject to receipt of listed building consent.

Robbie Butler (UUP, Lagan Valley)

I thank the Member for his answer. I am a bit perplexed as to why we would only clean the east and west ends. We are the custodians of this Building and the Commission is charged with that. Is the Commission not being penny wise and pound foolish in that regard? In a number of years, will one of the lines on the tour be, "Not only did we cover the Building with tar and manure in the Second World War but we failed to maintain it in the 2020s"?

Trevor Clarke (DUP, South Antrim)

There was consideration given at the Assembly Commission to doing the whole Building. Consensus was reached on doing the east and west ends. The Building is not in such disrepair that it is causing much negativity other than among Members like yourself and others. However, doing the rest of the Building is under consideration for the future.

Gary Middleton (DUP, Foyle)

3. Mr Middleton asked the Assembly Commission to outline what steps are being taken to improve the safety and security of MLAs and their constituency office staff. (AQO 1259/22-27)

Sinéad Ennis (Sinn Féin, South Down)

I thank the Member for his question. The Assembly Commission takes the security of Members and staff extremely seriously, and it is recognised that the interactions that Members have mean that security in Assembly Commission offices also has to be considered. The Speaker and the Clerk/Chief Executive recently met the then Assistant Chief Constable Bobby Singleton to discuss the security of Members. It was agreed that that will lead to further meetings with senior PSNI officers to take forward Members' security on a broader, strategic basis. That should be built on the security and crime prevention advice that has already been provided to Members and their staff during previous briefings and discussions at Parliament Buildings. Staff from Usher Services and the Clerking and Member Support Office subsequently met the PSNI in Parliament Buildings to discuss the personal security and safety of Members and constituency office staff. In addition, the Assembly Commission approved a new 2024 determination that will introduce new provisions covering the cost of security measures at constituency offices and MLAs' private residences.

Gary Middleton (DUP, Foyle)

I thank the Member. She will no doubt share my concerns about constituency office staff, particularly those who work alone, and some of the challenges that exist there. Will the Commission agree to bring forward further measures that provide some reassurance to members of staff who are fearful about some of the more challenging situations that can arise?

Sinéad Ennis (Sinn Féin, South Down)

Yes, I share the Member's concerns. The provision in the new determination was brought about because MLAs raised concerns about previous incidents. I was subjected to an incident at my constituency office. It was only through discussions at the Commission that we were able to provide that new assistance in the determination, and MLAs should definitely use it. However, if there are any specific security concerns, here or at constituency offices, the PSNI should be made aware of those.