Northern Ireland Assembly, 20 January 2025

325 contributions from 66 members. The official report.

Members' Statements

Edwin Poots (DUP, Belfast South)

The first item in the Order Paper is Members' statements.

Declan Kearney (Sinn Féin, South Antrim)

I welcome the announcement of the ceasefire in Gaza. It is a pivotal occasion for the people of Gaza, Palestine, the wider Middle East and their neighbours in Israel. The conditions in Gaza at this time are those of an absolute apocalypse. The physical destruction and the unimaginable suffering and loss of life are beyond our comprehension. Prior to the ceasefire, 'The Lancet' reported that, as far back as June of last year, deaths in Gaza had been underestimated by 40%. The ceasefire is an opportunity for respite for the people of Gaza, and, critically, it is an opportunity for them to begin to mourn their losses properly. It cannot be temporary, however. The ceasefire must be fully implemented and observed, and all phases must be rigidly adhered to. That will demand good faith on the part of all actors: those who are party to the war and those who have indicated their willingness to act as guarantors of the ceasefire and the following phases. Much more is needed, however. The ceasefire must become a pathway to a permanent, democratic peace settlement in Gaza and for the people of Palestine, and it must become a pathway to the achievement of a sovereign Palestinian state.

As we know from our experience of peace processes, there is a need for great vigilance. However, it is also a time at which there must be increased political solidarity with the people of Gaza and increased financial solidarity to assist in overcoming the humanitarian challenges.

For the first time in many months, the children of Gaza can now, perhaps, look to the skies with hope not fear. We all have a duty to ensure that that is realised, that peace is achieved and becomes permanent, and that the people of Palestine and Israel can live in peaceful co-existence.

Jonathan Buckley (DUP, Upper Bann)

Just when we thought that six months of Labour's grubby hold on power could not sink to any new depths, it did so last week. Two-tier justice is no longer just the perception of some but the reality. Through the Labour Government's removal of a section in the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023 that blocked payments to terrorists, we see the potential for terrorists who were interned to be rewarded with big compensation claims because of an administrative error.

That includes Gerry Adams. Mr Adams claims that he was never a member of the IRA. I do not believe that anybody in this democratically elected forum holds that view. Mr Adams was the IRA chief of staff. The Provisional IRA killed some 1,700 people across the United Kingdom, yet, under the Labour Government, Mr Adams could potentially be in line for a six-figure payout. Could it get any more grotesque? This is a man who authorised what happened to the disappeared. We have heard harrowing accounts from their family members, but the remains of Columba McVeigh, Captain Nairac and Joe Lynskey still lie in bogs and unmarked graves, with no remorse or information from Sinn Féin and, indeed, Gerry Adams.

Let us compare the Government's approach to two-tier justice and the treatment of victims of the IRA. I recently represented Alan Black, the sole survivor of the Kingsmills massacre, who had to fight for a victims' pension because it was blocked by administration. Thankfully, that was resolved. The First Minister delayed the implementation of a victims' pension scheme. The Labour Attorney General represented Mr Adams in court just last year. Could it get any more barefaced?

The Labour Party must close the loophole. It must grow a backbone, stop supporting terrorists and start supporting decent, hard-working victims in this country who have received a raw deal under Labour Governments of the past and, as it appears, of the present.

Kate Nicholl (Alliance, Belfast South)

I welcome the recent deal in the Middle East and recognise the hope that it has brought to people across the world. For the past 15 months, MLAs have been meeting unofficially with members of Palestinian community and people who are and have been directly affected. It has been sobering. I know that I am not the only one who feels this way, but, when I put my children to bed every night, I feel an enormous sense of relief and privilege that I live in a place where my children are safe and they can dream of a better future. For so long, the children of Gaza have been denied that. Now, finally, there is hope for better.

At one of our meetings, there was a man who had recently returned from Gaza. He is a doctor in Dublin. He talked about how he was walking along a path with his extended family. He was carrying his niece on his back, and, as they were walking, he was hoping that that child would not see the bodies along the road. The impact of that and the trauma that he experienced at that time has stayed with me.

I do not think that we can overestimate the impact of the last 15 months. Collectively, our focus now needs to be on ensuring that humanitarian aid is able to reach children and families in Gaza. There needs to be increased access and safety, especially for humanitarian workers. There also needs to be accountability.

During the week, I spoke to a Palestinian doctor who works in one of our hospitals. I asked him how he felt, and he said that he had mixed emotions. There is such relief, but, just six weeks before, so many members of his family had been killed. He questioned whether, if the ceasefire had happened sooner, they would still be alive and said that he still fears for others. He said that, if there was anything that we as politicians could do to raise awareness and push for aid, we should. We will host another meeting with members of the community and the Disasters Emergency Committee (DEC) about its appeal and how we can support additional support in Gaza. He also referred to family visa schemes and said that they account for a very small proportion of those who are here. Those people contribute to our economy. His wife is a teaching assistant, and he is a doctor. If we can reunite families, that will really be something.

There is still work for us to do. International guarantors have to play their part. For now, our hearts are with those who have been impacted on, those who are mourning loved ones and the hostages who will, very soon, be finally reunited with their families. It has been an awful 15 months, and there is so much for us to learn from this. We need to look at the root problems. It did not start on 7 October. The international community has to push for a two-state solution and lasting peace.

Emma Sheerin (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

I commend the organisers of, and encourage attendance at, an event that we are having in Ballinascreen community hub tomorrow at 7.00 pm to raise awareness of drug addiction and abuse and to reduce its harm. Our community has come together in recent times to acknowledge the fact that drug addiction does not discriminate: it can affect anyone, regardless of race, class, creed, background or religion. Drugs are no longer something that you only find in big cities; they are now a rural problem as well. We see more and more young people come into contact with illegal drugs and, indeed, prescription drugs that can ruin lives, and, in many instances, do so. This is not about shaming anyone; it is about breaking the stigma, having a conversation and raising awareness of the forums that can help people who are suffering from the effects of drug abuse. I encourage people to come along, have that conversation and see whether, as a community, we can stamp out the problem.

Robbie Butler (UUP, Lagan Valley)

Members, today, I ask you to join me in helping to flip Blue Monday on its head by working with the Samaritans to rebrand it Brew Monday, a day not for misery but for mugs, chats and connecting over a good old-fashioned cup of tea, however you drink it. I know that many will rightly ask this question: "Can a cup of tea really fix all the problems in my life?" Probably not, but it is a great start. After all, nobody ever solved life's big questions with an empty mug in their hand.

Brew Monday is about taking time to talk and, more importantly, taking time to listen. The Samaritans — those incredible lifesavers who sit with headsets on — remind us that sometimes the greatest gift that we can give is not advice but a few moments of our time and the comfort of our presence. Let us face it: we have all been there, staring at a teabag wondering whether it is safe to reuse. That is just an analogy for what our problems sometimes look like. This is not about being perfect or having all the answers; it is about showing up for one another. The Samaritans know that better than anyone, and they offer a listening ear 24/7, 365 days a year with no judgement and no rush. Let us make Brew Monday a reminder that life might not come with a manual, but it does come with tea, and, sometimes, it is good to share it.

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

I too want to reflect on the news over the weekend of a ceasefire in Gaza in the Middle East. First, I welcome the fact that the immediate horror of bombs being dropped in Gaza has ended.

It is important to say first that the attacks that initiated this latest round of conflict in the Middle East were wholly wrong and reprehensible. The response to them has been not just wholly disproportionate but grotesque and wrong in the most profound way. Tens of thousands of innocent Gazans and Palestinians have lost their lives. The people of Israel and the wider Middle East have not been made any more secure by the actions of the Israeli Government in responding to the heinous attacks of 7 October.

As Declan Kearney and Kate Nicholl said, most people who saw the scenes of innocent Israeli hostages being returned and of aid surging into Gaza will have been relieved and felt some degree of respite from the onslaught of awful images that we have seen and, at times, felt unable to do anything about over the past 15 months. However, it is important to say that the legacy of the awful bombardment of Gaza, which was a wholly disproportionate and counterproductive response to a heinous set of acts by Hamas, is the creation of trauma that will be with the babies and children who are alive now and their families until the end of the century and beyond. It is that serious and significant, and we should not gloss over that. As someone who believes in the leadership of democracies in the world, I am afraid to say that the conflict has damaged people's trust in the ability of parts of the international community to lead and stand against the wholesale slaughter of innocents.

There is now a glimmer of hope. First, the immediate death has ended, and hostages have been returned to their families. Aid is surging into Gaza, although it needs to pour in in much greater quantity. As has been said, we all should be part of that by encouraging donations from Western and other Governments. Fundamentally, however, in order to resolve the conflict in the long term, as has been said for decades now, there needs to be a just and lasting settlement between the peoples of the Middle East. There needs to be a viable, durable and just Palestinian state that allows Palestinians and Israelis to live in peace in that part of the world.

Edwin Poots (DUP, Belfast South)

Time is up.

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

That is what we should all hope for and work towards.

Paul Frew (DUP, North Antrim)

I rise also to applaud the efforts that have been made over the last weeks and months to create a ceasefire in Gaza and to talk about the release of hostages and the fact that there is absolutely no reason why Israeli hostages are still in captivity. There is no excuse for that. However, a deal has been brokered that some of the families have applauded the Trump Administration for, so credit where credit is due. The deal was on the table last year. A deal has been done, and we pray that people will get respite from the war and all the horrors that war brings on a people, especially the innocent civilians in any given area.

The three hostages who have been released are Doron Steinbrecher, Romi Gonen and Emily Damari. I had the privilege and honour of meeting Emily's mother, Mandy, six months into her daughter's captivity. That was a meeting that will never leave me. What I witnessed that day was the complete numbness of not wanting to think the worst but not daring to hope for the best. Emily has, however, been reunited with her mother, Mandy, and we are grateful for answered prayers.

Emily's recovery has only started. She has had 471 days in captivity, held by Hamas terrorists. I pray for her recovery and for all the hostages who will have to recover. We know that she has lost fingers on her left hand, but that is only the damage that we can see. I pray that she will get the best treatment and care possible to recover from her ordeal. She spent 471 days in captivity. Can we remember our last 471 days and how we enjoyed the freedoms that we have and take for granted? Think of the ordeal that the hostages continue to go through, and it is not just adults but babies and toddlers who are being kept captive by Hamas terrorists. There is no excuse, and those young people — those human beings — should be released immediately.

Pat Sheehan (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

I seachtain seo Lá Idirnáisiúnta an Oideachais, athdhearbhaíonn Sinn Féin a dtiomantas a chinntiú go bhfuil an tús is fearr ag gach páiste agus ag gach duine óg agus iad ag gabháil i gceann an tsaoil agus a chinntiú fosta go bhfuil rochtain acu ar oideachas ardchaighdeáin. Ní hé amháin gur buncheart é an t-oideachas, ach is uirlis chumhachtach é leis an chomhionannas, leis an athrú shóisialta agus leis an chumhachtú eacnamaíochta a bhaint amach.

Agus sinn ag tarraingt aird ar Lá Idirnáisiúnta an Oideachais, aithnímid na dúshláin atá roimh mhic léinn, tuismitheoirí agus múinteoirí ar fud na hÉireann, Thuaidh agus Theas. San am atá romhainn, leanfaidh Sinn Féin de bheith ag obair go dian lenár dtosaíochtaí san oideachas a bhaint amach: ag gabháil i ngleic leis an tearc-ghnóthachtáil oideachais; soláthar riachtanas speisialta oideachais a athrú ó bhonn; cúram páistí a dhéanamh inacmhainne; agus cothrom na Féinne a fháil don Ghaelscolaíocht.

Tá Sinn Féin tiomanta bheith ag obair le daoine eile le córas oideachais cuimsitheach, lánacmhainne a chruthú, córas nach bhfágfar aon duine ar deireadh ann.

Peter McReynolds (Alliance, Belfast East)

I rise to highlight concerning video and bullying behaviour that I saw on social media last weekend against a young man with autism in Belfast and what it should say to all of us as politicians.

A while ago, I saw that New Yorker Joshua Block, otherwise known as "World of T-Shirts", was planning a trip to Dublin and would possibly come to Belfast. I noticed immediately a tone in those who responded with delight at the news. Mr Speaker, I am not sure whether you dabble in the world of TikTok, but Josh is a 23-year-old living with autism and a vulnerable adult struggling with alcohol issues. His videos are primarily of him consuming alcohol and behaving erratically. People send him money for that and, in turn, sustain his lifestyle and fuel his alcoholism.

Last weekend, when Josh came to Belfast, thousands of others on the platform and I saw large groups of young people following him around Belfast city centre and recording interactions with him on their phones. It involved him being jeered at, shouted at, cajoled, ridiculed, goaded and deliberately provoked by young people who should have known better. I get that he is somewhat of a public figure who puts himself out there, but that does not mean that standards have to drop as low as the behaviour of some last weekend in Belfast.

Respect for and understanding of neurodivergence have been hard fought for over the years by groups across Northern Ireland and now rightly receives the continuous attention that it deserves. I fear, however, that what we saw last week is what happens when we up here, including Ministers, do not act or intervene. That can lead to some thinking that it is OK to bully someone with autism and to brazenly record doing so.

It is timely that we will debate today the lack of specialist autism mental health services in Northern Ireland. I encourage all Members to look into the footage from last weekend, and let it be a warning to us all what a lack of input from us in the Assembly can mean for those living with autism.

David Brooks (DUP, Belfast East)

I speak to mark 80 years of Grosvenor Grammar School. As a past pupil, I know that the school has, for many, been more than a place of learning; it has been shaping lives, nursing talent and inspiring generations of local young people through those eight decades.

Since Grosvenor's foundation in 1945 — sited initially on the Grosvenor Road, before moving to Cameronian Drive in the premier east part of the city in 1958, with its new school opening in the same area in 2010 — it has remained steadfast in its commitment to excellence. It has not only provided academic excellence but raised young people with resilience and integrity. The school has seen countless achievements from academic triumphs to artistic and athletic brilliance, all fuelled by the dedication of excellent teaching staff and students. While grammar schools are often stereotyped as elitist, I can say, as a working-class former pupil, that the lion's share of my classmates were from places such as the Newtownards Road, the Braniel, Ballybeen or the Cregagh. Perhaps that is reflected in the truth that we were always rather better at Schools' Cup football than we were at rugby, as I recall.

One of the Cregagh's own was its most famous pupil, as the school famously had George Best leave after his first year due to his wanting the option of playing football. George Best has often been considered one of the most notable names associated with the school's past, but Nathan Connolly of Snow Patrol and, more recently, Oscar- and BAFTA-winning director Ross White are also notable alumni. Gavin Robinson MP is also a past pupil, and we have a past teacher in Michelle McIlveen sitting here. Gavin was a deputy head boy during my early years in the school.

What I recall about Grosvenor is its spirit of inclusivity, its ambition and its family-type ethos. As someone who had health issues that disrupted his education at the school, I remember not only the excellent academic teaching received but the pastoral care for pupils that was a hallmark of the school. Each Grosvenorite becomes part of the school's legacy, which extends far beyond the classroom, and alumni have contributed to society across a range of fields. As we look forward to the future, we celebrate the last 80 years with gratitude. Here's to Grosvenor Grammar School, particularly its leadership and staff down the years — a beacon of learning and inspiration for generations to come. Speaking of beacons, I know that the school is looking forward, as I am, to City Hall lighting up in celebration of this landmark later this week.

Colm Gildernew (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

Déanaim comhghairdeas le foireann sinsir na bhfear ó Airgeal Chiaráin a bhain cluiche ceannais craobhchomórtais sinsir chlubanna na hÉireann amach inné. Rinne siad tréaniarracht, agus chuir siad dlús leis an imirt sa dara leath, ach, ar an drochuair, níor éirigh leo.

Michelle McIlveen (DUP, Strangford)

On the evening of 13 December 1955, one of the most decorated soldiers of the Second World War, Newtownards native Blair Mayne, tragically died in a car accident at the age of 40. He was an extraordinary individual whose courage, heroism and determination under fire exemplified the very ideals that the Victoria Cross represents.

Blair Mayne was born in Newtownards on 11 January 1911. The sixth of seven children, he excelled at sports such as boxing and golf and particularly rugby, representing Ireland and playing in the British Lions tour of South Africa in 1938. He attended Regent House School and read law at Queen's University, and he then trained as a solicitor and eventually became secretary of the Law Society of Northern Ireland.

It is perhaps for his exploits as a soldier that he is best known. Blair Mayne served with distinction in the SAS during the Second World War, a career of exceptional valour with an unwavering commitment to his comrades and an unshakable sense of duty to his country. He was known for his daring leadership, his incredible bravery in the face of overwhelming odds and his remarkable ability to inspire others. During the battle of north Africa, on many occasions, he led small units on audacious raids behind enemy lines, targeting key positions and disrupting enemy supply chains. He showed exceptional leadership during those operations, with tactical brilliance and an unmatched fearlessness. Then there was the raid on the Italian-held port of Tobruk in 1941. Despite being outnumbered and facing heavy resistance, he led his men with incredible determination. His actions were crucial in securing vital intelligence and weakening the enemy's hold on the region.

Blair Mayne's leadership and selflessness under fire have been described as the hallmark of the finest military leadership. However, despite multiple nominations, Blair Mayne was never awarded the Victoria Cross, a medal that he so richly deserved. Even King George VI remarked that it "so strangely eluded him". He did not seek recognition; his focus was always on the mission and the welfare of his comrades. His bravery and valour, though celebrated by those who served alongside him, was never about personal glory.

It was about serving with excellence and dedication to his fellow soldiers and his country.

The Victoria Cross represents the highest military honour for acts of extraordinary bravery. I have no doubt that Blair Mayne exemplified those qualities. His contributions to the war effort and his extraordinary bravery, selflessness and devotion to duty deserve that highest and most prestigious recognition. It is time that the wrong is righted and that Blair Mayne is awarded the Victoria Cross, which he so richly deserved during his lifetime.

Some Members

Hear, hear.

Timothy Gaston (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

The Northern Ireland Executive's 2016 assessment of problem gambling demonstrated that we suffer from a significantly higher problem gambling prevalence than the rest of the UK: 2·3% compared with 0·5% for England. To put it another way, our gambling harm rates were five times higher than those of England. We have to assume that the situation has since deteriorated here, as it has in England. At that time, as now, the UK Minister had a regulation-making power under the Gambling Act 2005 to charge a gambling levy, requiring the industry to make a contribution to address the socially destructive effects of gambling. He used the threat of its deployment to extract a voluntary contribution from the industry. We eventually caught up, making a similar provision through section 15 of the Betting, Gaming, Lotteries and Amusements (Amendment) Act (Northern Ireland) 2022. Unlike the GB levy, however, our levy appears to apply only to terrestrial gambling. If I am right about that limitation, it constitutes a major difficulty, because the problem prevalence figures associated with online gambling are significantly higher than those pertaining to terrestrial gambling, and the gross gambling yield figures demonstrate that more than half of the gross gambling yield comes from online gambling.

Last year, the Government determined that it was time to use their regulation-making powers, and, on 12 December, the Gambling Levy Regulations 2025 were laid before Parliament. The regulations apply to terrestrial and remote gambling, placing a significantly higher levy on the latter. It is estimated that, operating from the coming financial year onwards, they will raise between £90 million and £100 million annually, an increase of £40 million on the voluntary contributions.

I do not believe that the regulation-making powers in our 2022 Act have yet been deployed. Even when they are, it seems doubtful that they will engage remote gambling. If my assessment is correct, two things are urgently required. First, we must use the regulation-making powers in the 2022 Act from 1 April, so that people experiencing terrestrial gambling harm in Northern Ireland are not disadvantaged compared with those in GB. Secondly, we must introduce legislation applying the levy to online gambling for the same purpose. If we cannot do the latter, we should ask the UK Government urgently to make the relevant legislative changes to the regulation-making power in the 2005 Act, so that the levy applies to Northern Ireland in relation to online gambling.

Edwin Poots (DUP, Belfast South)

That concludes Members' statements. I encourage Members who did not have the opportunity to raise their issues to come back tomorrow.

Members should take their ease for a moment while we change the Chair.

(Madam Principal Deputy Speaker in the Chair)

Executive Committee Business

Mike Nesbitt (UUP, Strangford)

I beg to move

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

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

The Business Committee has agreed that there should be no time limit on the debate.

Mike Nesbitt (UUP, Strangford)

I am seeking the Assembly's approval of the draft Period Products (Department of Health Specified Public Service Bodies) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2024. I am pleased to be able to introduce the regulations as part of a journey that began with the introduction of a private Member's Bill by former SDLP MLA Pat Catney in October 2021. That Bill was subsequently enacted as the Period Products (Free Provision) Act (Northern Ireland) 2022, which created a legal right of free access to period products in hospital premises in Northern Ireland for all those who need them. The Act places importance on respect for dignity and aims to remove financial barriers to accessing period products, when they are required. Period products are not a luxury item and should be available to everybody who needs them.

Period poverty is a massive issue in our society. Women often struggle to afford sanitary products and find themselves using unsuitable products as a result. Patients and staff of health trusts and visitors to their sites are there to receive care, provide care or visit individuals who are availing themselves of that care. In those instances, people should have access to the period products that they need. I am glad to be able to address that issue through the regulations. As I said, period products are not luxuries; they are essentials for all those who menstruate. They often cost a significant amount of money, and, as a result, some individuals are forced to go without them, which should never be the case. Such products should be available to all those who need them, and there should be no stigma around their provision. For anybody who is unable to obtain those items as and when they need them, there is damage not only to their physical well-being but to their mental well-being, so we need to do everything that we can to remove what is, in fact, a gender inequality. I am proud to be able to bring the regulations to the Assembly and, in a small but hopefully significant way, break down barriers and remove some of the gender inequality in our society.

I will now speak to the draft regulations. Members will be aware that all Departments must specify the public service bodies that will have duties under the 2022 Act. The Department of Health has specified the following public bodies, and liaised extensively with them on how the regulations will be implemented at their various premises: the Belfast Health and Social Care Trust; the Northern Health and Social Care Trust; the South Eastern Health and Social Care Trust; the Southern Health and Social Care Trust; and the Western Health and Social Care Trust.

The Act allows for the Department of Health to provide descriptions of persons and premises in order to allow its implementation to be operationally effective but stay true to the spirit of the Act. Significant consultation has taken place with the trusts to ensure that the regulations can be operationally effective across the vast number of health trust premises while staying true to the intention of the legislation, which is to provide free period products for those who need them. The trusts have undertaken their own consultation exercises with product users, and I thank them for their continued cooperation and support. There are other arm's-length bodies that have not been specified in the legislation, such as the Northern Ireland Ambulance Service (NIAS). However, those bodies operate voluntary schemes, even though they are not bound by the regulations.

The cost of implementing the regulations in the specified bodies is estimated to be approximately £1·5 million per year across the five trusts. However, as the level of usage remains unknown, especially in high-footfall premises, that is an estimate. The cost of implementing the regulations should be considered against the backdrop of a hugely stretched Health budget, which is being pushed further still by the legal requirement to implement the regulations. That is not to take away from the significance of the regulations, which I am pleased to present to the Assembly. This is a significant step forward in the fight against period poverty.

I thank the Health Committee for its scrutiny of the SL1 for the regulations. I will leave it there, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker.

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

Thank you very much, Minister.

Liz Kimmins (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

I welcome the opportunity to confirm the Health Committee's support for the motion. The Committee considered the policy proposal for the statutory rule (SR) and the statutory rule itself at four of its meetings since June 2024. It invited departmental officials to attend two of those meetings to discuss the regulations. As the Minister has set out, the regulations specify the public bodies that sit within the functions of the Department of Health that must ensure that period products are available, free of charge, to persons on their premises who need to use them.

The Committee supports the naming of the five hospital trusts as the public bodies that will provide free period products for use by patients, staff and visitors. It notes that that will result in the availability of period products on 1,300 premises across 507 health and social care sites.

Period products are necessary and essential items that should be readily accessible and available to those who need them, when they need them. By improving access to essential period products in our public service buildings, including in our hospitals, we will help normalise menstruation and reduce the stigma surrounding periods. Periods are a normal part of life. We often take it for granted that everyone has easy access to period products, when, unfortunately, that is not always the case. The free provision of period products in our hospitals will go some way to assisting those in our community who experience period poverty.

The provision of free period products in healthcare settings is particularly important and will ensure that everyone who needs to access what are essential items during their time in hospital can do so. Being in a hospital as a patient or when accompanying a patient is generally a very stressful and anxious time. The provision of such products will hopefully alleviate some of the embarrassment or discomfort of being in a hospital without having adequate protection.

The Committee recognises that the provision of free period products on that scale may present logistical challenges and add financial pressures to already stretched budgets for each of the trusts. The Department advised the Committee of estimated costs of between £200,000 and £300,000 a trust a year, which equates to between £1 million and £1·5 million annually in total. The Department also advised the Committee that no additional funding was available for compliance with the regulations and that the trusts would need to fund the costs from within existing budgets as part of normal operational costs. The Committee notes that the Department will have a better understanding of demand and the cost of operation. It looks forward to receiving an update on the actual cost of delivery when the figures become available.

It would be remiss of me not to point out the Committee's disappointment at how long it has taken to progress the regulations. Despite its best efforts to elicit from the Department the information that the Committee needed in order to understand the impact and implications of the regulations, it took five months before it was provided with that information, including an estimate of the costs and the operational date. The Committee understands that it has been difficult for the Department to provide some of the information that we requested, as the primary responsibility for delivery lies with the trusts. The Committee would, however, not be undertaking its proper scrutiny role were it not to persist in seeking the clarity that it required.

The Health Committee is committed to working in cooperation with the Department. I therefore ask the Minister that his officials support us in progressing future legislation by providing the full information that the Committee requires in a timely way.

In conclusion, the Health Committee looks forward to the regulations' implementation, as we view them as being an important measure for addressing issues to do with period dignity and period poverty. I am happy to confirm that the Health Committee agreed to recommend that the draft Period Products (Department of Health Specified Public Service Bodies) Regulations be approved and made by the Assembly.

Diane Dodds (DUP, Upper Bann)

I will briefly put on record my party's support for this move. Reducing period poverty is hugely important in our society. It is important that women and girls not be excluded, either from the workplace — in this case, healthcare workplaces — or from treatment as a result of period poverty. I therefore look forward to the effective implementation of the regulations. I am glad to hear, as the Health Minister pointed out, that the Northern Ireland Ambulance Service, although not named in the regulations, will also undertake to provide free period products.

I note that, as yet, there has been only a best estimate of how much this will cost. I appeal to the Health Minister that, as soon as the figures become available, we be made aware of the cost of implementing the regulations. This is a good move forward, however. It is good for women and girls, and it is important that our society reflects that.

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

I call the Minister, Mike Nesbitt, to wind up the debate.

Mike Nesbitt (UUP, Strangford)

Principal Deputy Speaker, thank you very much. I thank the Chair of the Committee and Diane Dodds. I assure Mrs Dodds that, once the figures have been firmed up, they will, of course, be made available to the Committee. I also thank the Business Committee for scheduling the debate. I see no reason to delay the House any longer, so I will finish simply by commending the motion to approve the regulations to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved:

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

Committee Business

Robbie Butler (UUP, Lagan Valley)

I beg to move

That, in accordance with Standing Order 33(4), the period referred to in Standing Order 33(2) be extended to 23 May 2025, in relation to the Committee Stage of the Agriculture Bill.

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

The Business Committee has agreed that there will be no time limit on the debate. I call on you, Robbie, as Chair, to open the debate.

Robbie Butler (UUP, Lagan Valley)

Thank you, Principal Deputy Speaker. On behalf of the AERA Committee, I request an extension to the Committee Stage of the Agriculture Bill to 23 May 2025. The motion was agreed after discussions in Committee on 12 December 2024. The Committee first heard of the proposed content of the Bill on 20 June, when officials briefed us on the outcome of the consultation that ran from 3 April to 27 May. We were informed that the Bill would have a narrow focus on directly amending assimilated law governing the legacy EU fruit and vegetables aid scheme (FVAS) and provide scope for DAERA to further amend the legislation that covers that scheme and another legacy EU scheme for agri-food information and promotion. At that meeting, we also heard from a mushroom producer organisation and Commercial Mushroom Growers UK, which highlighted the benefits of the current FVAS as it gives certainty for long-term planning.

Even at that early stage, the Committee recognised that, although a short Bill had been proposed, there would be considerable scrutiny to do. The Department's consultation had limited responses and revealed mixed views on the proposal that FVAS support would become discretionary. However, there was support for the need for DAERA to have a power to provide for the development of policy.

The Bill was not introduced until 25 November 2024, and Committee Stage commenced on 4 December. We started our scrutiny on 12 December with a briefing from the agri-food legislation branch. Officials then confirmed that the Bill amends the legislation governing FVAS to make support under that legislation discretionary, that it confers the power to make modifications to that legislation and that it provides a power to modify the legislation governing promotional schemes for agricultural products.

The Committee heard from the Research and Information Service (RaISe) on 16 January, which was last week, with a briefing on the RaISe Agriculture Bill research paper. RaISe highlighted a number of pertinent queries and issues that the Committee will want to pursue in detail with external witnesses and departmental officials. Those include the specific impact on the mushroom sector and the fact that the Bill was introduced before the completion of reviews into post-EU agriculture support. At this stage, the Committee has a live Citizen Space survey, which will not close until mid-February, and is inviting around 14 organisations from the mushroom, fruit and veg and environmental sectors to give evidence.

The Committee wishes to give the focused issues and wider impact of the Bill due diligence and scrutiny while keeping its important scrutiny of statutory rules, common frameworks and agriculture, environment and fishing policy moving forward. The Committee is also aware of the need to provide sufficient time for deliberations and to allow time for the potential overlapping of a second Bill in the not-too-distant future.

The Committee wishes to scrutinise making the FVAS discretionary. In budget-constrained times, we have all had experience of discretionary spend being what is described as "low-hanging fruit". We also wish to scrutinise the enabling power to amend the legislation to align with future farming policy and post-EU exit policy, which are still under the development of our Minister. We know that those powers would allow for Northern Ireland-specific schemes, but we see much broader sectoral producer organisation coverage in England and Scotland, and there is work to be done to understand why we have not had that uptake here in Northern Ireland. We know that one of the considerations was to include the proposals in this Bill in a broader agriculture Bill, so we wish to hear views on whether we are putting the cart before the horse and whether it is valid to do so in advance of a wider Bill in the manner that is proposed in this Bill.

In conclusion, having consulted the Bill Office and considered the evidence that we wish to take and our ongoing work, the Committee is seeking the support of the House to extend the Committee Stage of the Agriculture Bill to 23 May 2025, albeit the Committee will endeavour to report in advance of that date if at all possible.

Declan McAleer (Sinn Féin, West Tyrone)

The Agriculture Bill is a pivotal piece of legislation, with significant implications for the agriculture and horticulture sectors. Given its importance, I support an extension of the Committee Stage to allow for more comprehensive scrutiny of its provisions. The Bill grants DAERA rights to modify, amend, repeal or revoke regulations, particularly those concerning the fruit and vegetable aid scheme and food promotion activities. Those are crucial for the future of our agri-food sector, rural economy and alignment with broader policy frameworks. A research paper recently presented to the AERA Committee, which the Chair mentioned, highlights concerns about advancing the Bill before completing reviews of post-EU agriculture support and food promotion schemes, both of which remain ongoing as part of the food strategy framework. The paper also raises questions about the potential for the Bill to constrain future policy decisions and notes a lack of clarity around DAERA's long-term plans for horticulture support.

Clause 1 makes funding for the FVAS discretionary. That would have significant implications. The research paper warns that that could effectively lead to the closure of the scheme, creating uncertainty for the horticulture sector, especially the mushroom industry. Although the Minister has given his assurance that it will not be closed, the Bill gives no guarantees for continuation or replacement, so, effectively, it is not future-proofing it. The absence of an impact assessment on how those changes might affect the mushroom industry is another gap. Additionally, the budget pressures that are faced by DAERA, which have been made worse by Tory austerity, raise questions about whether discretionary funding will realistically support critical schemes such as the FVAS. The research paper highlights the fact that those constraints could lead to reduced or withdrawn support as other statutory obligations are prioritised. The accompanying rural needs impact assessment asserts that the Bill will have no direct impact on rural communities, but the research paper challenges that conclusion, warning that the changes to the FVAS or food promotion schemes could have economic consequences for rural businesses. A lack of further regulatory scrutiny for discretionary funding decisions heightens those concerns.

Extending the Committee Stage is essential. It will allow members to consider the issues more thoroughly, engage with stakeholders and ensure that the Bill aligns with the long-term aims of our agriculture strategy. More time will enable us to address gaps in the Bill and deliver legislation that is robust, transparent and fair. The Assembly has a duty to support our agriculture sector, a cornerstone of our economy. By granting more time for scrutiny, we can strengthen the Bill to meet today's challenges and prepare for the future.

Andrew Muir (Alliance, North Down)

I will speak briefly, and I do not oppose the motion. I fully understand the pressures on the Committee and its many competing priorities, but I would like to impress upon its members the need to have the Committee's consideration completed at the earliest opportunity. It is important that I put that on the record. An extension to 23 May will put at risk the Bill's completing all its stages before summer recess. As I have articulated previously, if the Bill has not received Royal Assent before the summer, it will have an impact on my ability to decide on DAERA's funding priorities for the next three years. Furthermore, the earlier that the Bill is enacted, the more scope that there will be to amend the scheme rules by subordinate legislation, including, possibly, to begin to address some of the issues that have been raised by stakeholders, should the scheme be rolled forward to next year.

It is my understanding that discussion surrounding the request for an extension at the Committee meeting of 12 December recognised that pressure and that an ambition was stated to have the Committee Stage completed before Easter recess. I do not wish to undermine or suggest limiting the Committee's important scrutiny of the Bill, which I fully acknowledge and accept. I am aware that other pressing issues are coming before the Committee in its forward work programme. As I said at the Bill's Second Stage, I and my officials look forward to working closely with the Committee as it undertakes its important role, but I ask that the Committee seeks, to the fullest extent possible, to expedite the scrutiny of the Bill, which I know that it will.

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

Thank you, Minister. Back to Robbie Butler to conclude and wind up on the motion.

Robbie Butler (UUP, Lagan Valley)

Thank you, Principal Deputy Speaker. The winding-up speech will be just like me — short. I thank the Deputy Chair and the Minister for his response. To pick up on a point that he raised: the Committee will absolutely give a commitment that if we can come to a position on the Bill in the shortest time possible, we will, but it would be remiss of us not to offer it the highest levels of scrutiny. Although the Committee absolutely had an interest in the Bill, certain parts of last week's RaISe presentation piqued its interest even more, and those are worthy of further development. The relationship between the Minister and the Committee so far has been good and constructive, and I hope that we can maintain that during the passage of the Bill. Thank you.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved:

That, in accordance with Standing Order 33(4), the period referred to in Standing Order 33(2) be extended to 23 May 2025, in relation to the Committee Stage of the Agriculture Bill.

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

Members, please take your ease.

(Mr Speaker [Mr Poots] in the Chair)

Private Members' Business

Doug Beattie (UUP, Upper Bann)

I beg to move

That this Assembly commits to providing continuous support for the LGBTQ+ and other minority communities throughout Northern Ireland, while ensuring there is no diminution of societal rights, particularly the rights of women; agrees that our justice system must ensure that those placed in custody should not feel any more vulnerable than what would be expected from having their liberty taken away; and calls on the Minister of Justice to bring forward supporting legislation to give guidance to the judiciary, the Police Service of Northern Ireland and the Public Prosecution Service (PPS), proposing that only biological males should be held in a male prison or holding facility, and that only biological females should be held in a female prison or holding facility.

Edwin Poots (DUP, Belfast South)

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 debate. Please open the debate on the motion.

Doug Beattie (UUP, Upper Bann)

Thank you, Mr Speaker. Some will think that this is an unnecessary or contentious debate, but the reality is that the conversation on the matter is happening right across our society. Therefore, it is important that we, as legislators, debate the issue and lay out our position. I hope that the debate can be both robust and respectful while being mindful of the fact that we are talking about lived experiences right across Northern Ireland. The motion falls into three main areas, which I will cover during my contribution.

First, it is important that we commit to providing support for minority communities right across Northern Ireland, including, for example, the Travelling community, the disabled, the elderly, the vulnerable and the LGBTQ+ communities, particularly in health, education, dealing with bullying and mental health. To vote to leave out any one of those groups is not in keeping with the inclusive Union that I aspire to. Therefore, I will not support the amendment.

Secondly, the motion talks about "societal rights". There is a saying that goes, "The right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins." What does that mean? It means that, at times, rights can be conflicting and that there is no automatic hierarchy in delivering what is best for the majority of people here in Northern Ireland or anywhere else. At times, there are genuine conflicts in rights, which are laid out in the Equality Act 2010. Over the past number of years, many women have felt that their rights have been undermined. Those issues can be best seen in spaces, sport and language. Do women deserve their own spaces, such as changing rooms, toilets, women-only groups, crisis centres, medical facilities, including hospital wards, and holding facilities, such as prisons? I believe that they do, and if you believe that they do, you should support the motion. Under normal circumstances, women should expect to be searched by women with only women present during said search.

Sport — not just elite sport but grassroots sport — is another area where women believe that the present system is against them. Transgender women, who are biologically male, have a physiological advantage over women. It is not fair. It should not be allowed. Sporting organisations should ensure that they do not allow it to happen. Imagine that you are a young woman now starting out in sport and wanting to reach the highest levels but, every time, being ignored or not selected due to the presence of a transgender woman who is bigger or stronger.

Asking for a separation of rights between women and transgender women is not an unusual position. The Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) outlines in its guide to single-sex service providers why it could and, I believe, should be the case for reasons of privacy or decency, to prevent trauma or to ensure health and safety.

Lastly, the changing of language associated with women needs to stop. It is not "chest feeding"; it is "breastfeeding". It is not a "birthing person" but a "pregnant woman". It is not a "frontal birth"; it is a "vaginal birth". It is not "cis women"; it is just "women". Of course —.

Kate Nicholl (Alliance, Belfast South)

Will the Member give way?

Doug Beattie (UUP, Upper Bann)

I will not give way until I get through my speech, sorry. If I find time at the end, I will give way.

Of course, the trans community exists. We must look to see how we can cater to, help and support that community. However, that should not be to the detriment of over 51% of the population in Northern Ireland, who are biological females.

I suppose that, at this point, we must define what a woman is, because that is at the heart of the issue. A woman is an adult female or, as 'The Law Dictionary' puts it:

"The sex which conceives and gives birth to young."

If Members have a different definition, they can lay it out today.

That brings us to the last point: where do we house biological males and females who identify as transgender if they are handed a custodial sentence? 'The United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners', known as the "Nelson Mandela rules", state:

"Men and women shall so far as possible be detained in separate institutions; in an institution which receives both men and women, the whole of the premises allocated to women shall be entirely separate".

Again, there is no legal policy on the issue. There are guidance notes, but they can be undermined by the courts; indeed, that is what happened in the most recent case, where a transgender woman who had been housed in Maghaberry was moved to Hydebank Wood following a court judgement.

Naomi Long (Alliance, Belfast East)

Will the Member give way?

Doug Beattie (UUP, Upper Bann)

I will not.

Why was the person moved? According to the Justice Minister on 21 December 2024:

"It was a judge who ordered the committal to Hydebank. It was not my decision or that of my Department. I set the existing policy and approach which had led to them being housed in Maghaberry",

and

"A risk assessment was used to address any such concerns. This prisoner was held in Maghaberry, for example. If a judge had determined a different approach is needed, we'll look at that judgement and respond. It was a judge that ruled they should go to Hydebank, not the Northern Ireland Prison Service."

It is a mess. There needs to be proper policy from the Minister to give legal guidance to our judiciary, Police Service and Public Prosecution Service (PPS). The argument that all transgender detainees are given a risk assessment before committal is fair enough, but every individual who is committed receives a risk assessment. It is normal practice. A risk assessment is normally done by the prison staff and, where needed, by prison health professionals from the South Eastern Health and Social Care Trust. It is normal. It happens quickly.

The argument that Hydebank is a fully mixed male and female prison just does not add up. Yes, males and females undertake education, training or work detail together, but that is closely supervised by the Prison Service. However, living support and accommodation are completely segregated. Women are housed only with other women. Two of the landings have an open-door policy. On one of the landings, the doors are open 24 hours a day, with the inmates holding the keys. On another landing, the doors are open until 2200 hours each evening. Putting a biological male in that environment is, in my opinion, wrong and contrary to the Nelson Mandela rules. Nobody is saying that all transgender women are predatory, but, again, the very presence of a male in a space designed for women creates problems and, possibly, anxiety and stress for the women housed there. At no stage are those women consulted before a biological male is placed in their midst.

Where does the confusion come from? In part, it is about our Justice Department failing to grasp the issues and continuing to send out mixed messaging. 'Supporting Change: A strategy for women and girls in or at risk of contact with the criminal justice system' states:

"For the purposes of this strategy, the term 'women' relates to female adults and girls, and those who identify as female or non-binary."

Under the Equality Act 2010, sex is a protected characteristic, as is gender reassignment: another conflict. The Act defines a man as "a male of any age" and a woman as "a female of any age", but it provides the ability to distinguish in service provision.

Many will cite the gender recognition certificate (GRC) as a reason for transgender females and males to be housed in a male or female holding facility in accordance with how they identify, but nowhere in the GRC is gender-affirming surgery expected. Put simply, a transgender woman who still has male genitalia could be housed in a women's prison. That could be in the most open part of the prison and cells.

I do not pretend to speak for all women. Nobody in the Chamber speaks for all women. Nevertheless, we can put in measures to deal with the issue, possibly including the repurposing of Murray House at Hydebank to house biological females who identify as transgender men, with something similar at Maghaberry and Magilligan for biological men who identify as female. However, intrinsically, I believe that biological males should be housed in a male prison and biological females should be housed in a female prison.

Timothy Gaston (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

I beg to move the following amendment:

Leave out all after "That this Assembly commits to" and insert: "ensuring that there is no diminution of societal rights, particularly the rights of women; maintains that our justice system must ensure that those placed in custody are given the basic human rights to safety and dignity and should not feel any more vulnerable than would be expected from having their liberty taken away; and calls on the Minister of Justice to bring forward supporting legislation and guidance to the judiciary, the Police Service of Northern Ireland and the Public Prosecution Service, ensuring that only biological males are held in any male prison or holding facility, and that only biological females should be held in a female prison or holding facility."

Edwin Poots (DUP, Belfast South)

You will have 10 minutes to propose and five minutes to make a winding-up speech. All other Members who speak will have five minutes.

Timothy Gaston (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

Before the debate, I, of course, studied the Prison Service guidance. I believe that the author of that guidance, while not agreeing with me on much, would agree that the opening words should be removed from the motion. I say that because the guidance states at paragraph 4:

"Being transgender isn’t the same thing as being lesbian, gay, or bisexual."

In the same paragraph, I read:

"A transgender person can be gay, lesbian, straight, or bisexual, just like someone who’s cisgender. A simple way to think about it is: sexual orientation is about who you want to be with. Gender identity is about who you are."

The core aim of my amendment is to place the focus where it needs to be: on the fact that what we should be addressing today is the rights of women. I see no reason to have to preface a motion before the House that deals with a women's rights issue with material committing our support to other communities, particularly when the policy paper that we are discussing says what I have quoted.

While it is interesting to think about what is in the document, it is enlightening to think about what is not in it: the words "woman" or "women" or "girl" and "girls" appear nowhere in it. Today, we rectify that. Today, we give voice to a section of society who, in the race to supposedly embrace a more inclusive future where we must respect —

Connie Egan (Alliance, North Down)

Will the Member give way?

Timothy Gaston (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

— every identity, are having their identity erased, so much so that officialdom cannot even define them: women.

I will move on. Later, I will give you the opportunity to come in.

The right of women to have their own space in the penal system had to be fought for and won. One of the most celebrated champions of female rights in the late 18th and early 19th century was the prison reformer Elizabeth Fry. At a time when women were denied the right to vote, Elizabeth Fry led a national movement demanding change. On 27 February 1818, she became the first woman to give evidence to a Select Committee of the House of Commons. Five years later, her campaigning bore fruit in the form of the Gaols Act 1823. The Act marked the beginning of government efforts to impose general standards in prisons across the whole country. Let me quote one short extract from the Act:

"female prisoners should be kept separately from male prisoners".

The world has moved on in many ways from 1823, and much of that has been progress. The inability of some today to say that a male is and always will be different from a female is not part of that progress.

Until 2017, Elizabeth Fry's reforms were recognised as so significant that she was deemed worthy of being depicted on Bank of England £5 notes. Who would have thought that, less than a decade after her face disappeared from the notes in our wallets, the battle that she won would have to be fought all over again? It is incredible that the reforms won by Elizabeth Fry against incredible odds at a time when women were excluded from the democratic process are being disregarded by the Prison Service today because of the unscientific, silly and, frankly, dangerous idea, which is blindly accepted in the guidance, that:

"people’s gender identities can be different from the sex they were assigned at birth."

Would anyone in the Assembly who is prepared to defend that guidance and argue that it is sound like to tell me how many gender identities there are? Before you do, consider that that question is materially relevant to how the guidance operates. In paragraph 7, we read:

"A case specific conference to consider the circumstances of each transgender prisoner will be chaired by the Director of Prisons. Attendees should include the Governor of the prison concerned (of [sic] their nominated deputy) and the Residential Governor. Wherever possible the panel should be gender balanced."

Regina Doherty, when she was leader of Fine Gael in the Seanad, said:

"Generations ago, there were two genders and two sexes. There still are two sexes, but today we probably have around nine genders".

In June 2022, 'The Daily Telegraph' ran a report about an email sent to BBC staff by Global Butterflies, a transgender group that the BBC had drafted in to do training sessions and that, no doubt, was handsomely reimbursed with licence fee payers' money. What did Global Butterflies say? It stated:

"People can self-identify themselves in over 150 ways, and increasing!"

How many genders are there, Minister Long? Are there two? Are there about nine? Are there over 150? It would be interesting if you could give us your position today. If you do not know or refuse to say, how is the guidance fit for purpose? If you accept the ideology that resulted in that guidance being produced, how can you ever say that the panel is, to use the Prison Service's own words, "gender balanced"?

This nonsense — I make no apologies for using the term — will always collapse under the weight of its own contradictions. If it were only laughable nonsense, it would not be so serious, but it is serious, Members. Why did Elizabeth Fry champion single-sex prisons? It is because, before she won that victory, women in the prison system were at risk of sexual and physical abuse from men. Now, the Minister will point to paragraph 7, which states that the Northern Ireland Prison Service:

"must ... take into account identified risks, and these must be managed appropriately."

Minister, the risks were identified by Elizabeth Fry. Any rowing back on what she achieved will result in the return of a risk to female prisoners.

We do not need panels concerning individual prisoners, convened at public expense, that are, by the definition of the terms they are set up under, inoperable. We need a bit of common sense: men should be detained in male facilities with male staff, and women should be detained in female facilities with female staff.

In September last year, when I raised the issue with the First Minister, I got a dismissive and condescending response that did not address the issue. Whatever the Minister of Justice says about it, the fact remains that in December, as reported by the BBC, a man won a High Court case to be transferred from Maghaberry prison to Hydebank Wood. In January last year, the case of Adam Binnie Bryson, a convicted double rapist, who was held at a women's prison in Scotland —

Naomi Long (Alliance, Belfast East)

On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

Timothy Gaston (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

— caused outrage, as he had been convicted of a crime —.

Edwin Poots (DUP, Belfast South)

Take your seat, Mr Gaston. There is a point of order.

Naomi Long (Alliance, Belfast East)

Mr Speaker, you will recall that, at Question Time last week, I set the record straight about the court case to which the Member and the former leader of the Ulster Unionist Party have referred. There was no ruling against the courts in that case. Can we get that on the record? Perhaps Members will stop misrepresenting the factual position.

Edwin Poots (DUP, Belfast South)

The Minister has put that on the record, and I am sure that she will clarify matters when she has her opportunity to speak.

Timothy Gaston (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

As I was saying, in January last year, the case of Adam Binnie Bryson, a convicted double rapist who was held at a women's prison in Scotland, caused outrage as he had been convicted of a crime that no woman could commit. Since then, a review has been conducted, which means that transgender prisoners are initially accommodated according to their sex at birth while an assessment is carried out into whether it is more appropriate to house them in a men's prison or a women's prison. The case also prompted action in England and Wales, with regulations being introduced in February 2023 to ban transgender women from being sent to women's prisons if their male genitalia are intact or they are sex offenders

The Assembly has an opportunity today to take a stand for common sense, to honour the memory of a trailblazer in the campaign for equality for women and, most importantly, to protect vulnerable women from the risk of abuse. I ask Members to support my amendment.

Deirdre Hargey (Sinn Féin, Belfast South)

The Ulster Unionist motion seeks to oversimplify a complex and sensitive issue. Instead of having concern for the vulnerability of people in custody, the motion seeks to use their vulnerability to play politics. The amendment from the TUV seeks to remove a broad expression of support for the LGBTQI+ community and other minority communities, which is yet another reminder of that party's disdain for the LGBTQI+ people in our society.

We believe that the safety of everyone in prisons, including trans prisoners, should be the priority consideration when managing prison populations. That includes the safety of the prison population as a whole, those who work in prisons and the offenders whose admission to prison is being considered. Indeed, we submitted an amendment to the motion, which set out that the safety of everyone must be the main priority. Unfortunately, our amendment was not accepted.

We support a risk-based approach that prioritises the safety of everyone within prisons. That, of course, should include consideration of an offender's record. A situation where an individual has been convicted for the non-payment of a fine is very different to one where an individual has been convicted for violent offences. We are clear that those with a history of sexual violence against women should not be placed in a women's prison. We want a risk-based approach that prioritises the safety of everyone in prisons and considers the admission of transgender prisoners on a case-by-case basis.

Joanne Bunting (DUP, Belfast East)

I am grateful to colleagues for tabling the motion, which is on one of the most serious issues that women may face.

All prisoners — indeed, everybody within and without the justice system — should, of course, be treated with courtesy, dignity and respect. However, in many aspects of life, women's rights and safe spaces are being eroded. That is a very serious issue of great concern to the public, and we must set down a marker and have clear guidance and policies. Some would seek to accommodate the wishes of a very small percentage of society at the expense of half the population. We must decide whether we will protect the rights of 50% of society, or sacrifice their rights and safety for the sake of a minority of men who want to be women or regard themselves as such.

The DUP will continue to advocate for the preservation of women-only spaces, including in our prisons, as a matter of principle and justice. Safety and safeguarding must come first. Allowing biological males to reside among the female prisoner population risks undermining those protections and could have serious consequences for the safety and dignity of women.

As I highlighted in the Chamber just last week:

"the issue of self-identification has the potential to be a predator's charter." [Official Report (Hansard), 13 January 2025, p27, col 1].

To avoid a rerun of other Members inferring from that something that I did not imply last week, let me be explicit: I am not equating transgenders to predators. Rather, I am saying that sexual predators will exploit self-ID. Those who present a serious risk and threat to women will absolutely seek to exploit self-identification, and any loophole that they can find, for their own sinister ends. It is only a matter of time. They will claim to identify as women specifically for the purpose of being put in confinement with women, either to prey on them or to have what they envisage as an easier time in a women's jail. It has already happened in other parts of the UK, so why would we think that we in Northern Ireland would be exempt? We must take steps to ensure that women are not prey. Of the 245 transgender prisoners in England and Wales who, as of 31 March 2024, reported their legal birth gender as male, 151 had been convicted of a sexual offence. We have therefore already seen, and should have learnt from, cases in England and Wales in which those convicted of rape and other sexually violent crimes self-identified as women and were placed in female prisons, to the severe detriment of biological female inmates, some of whom ended up being sexually assaulted as a consequence. That is so wrong. There was a subsequent public outcry, and, rightly, those woke policies and placements had to be reversed. I remain to be convinced that there can be any circumstances in which biological males should be able to serve their sentence in female prisons. Even the disparity in physical strength presents a difficulty.

Last week, the Minister kept her focus on the rights of transgender females. I, too, wish them to be treated with dignity and for them to be kept safe, as I wish for all prisoners, but I suggest that the Minister should also give due consideration to the rights and safety of adult human females and be very careful about self-identification. The Minister has been keen to rubbish recent reporting of the court ruling that touched on those issues, yet we have not had sight of the instructions that she had indicated were issued to governors providing guidance on the management of transgender prisoners in August 2022. I will make no apology for standing up for biological women or for stating that, when men decide that they want to identify as women, it is always the hard-won rights of women that are depleted and their safety diminished and compromised.

Naomi Long (Alliance, Belfast East)

Will the Member give way?

Joanne Bunting (DUP, Belfast East)

I am worried about women. I will give way.

Naomi Long (Alliance, Belfast East)

Will the Member inform us of when she has asked to see the policy on the housing of transgender prisoners?

Edwin Poots (DUP, Belfast South)

The Member has an extra minute.

Joanne Bunting (DUP, Belfast East)

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I have points to make, so I am not going to engage in pettiness.

Naomi Long (Alliance, Belfast East)

She has never asked.

Joanne Bunting (DUP, Belfast East)

It is a serious issue.

Naomi Long (Alliance, Belfast East)

It is.

Joanne Bunting (DUP, Belfast East)

Ironically, when the Executive are focused on tackling violence against women and girls, consideration is still being given, on a case-by-case basis, to allowing biological males into what should be a safe space for women, and, worse still, that is being done in the full knowledge of the numbers of vulnerable female inmates who have been abused and, as a result, are traumatised and suffering from mental ill health and anxiety. Prison is already a daunting place, even in a single-sex environment. There may be some in the Chamber who are unable, or unwilling, to define what a woman is. We are very clear, and it does not involve having male genitalia.

Ultimately, the welfare of women in custody must be safeguarded, particularly given the vulnerability of some of the women who are in prison. The very rationale for the establishment of women-only prisons was so that the specific needs of female inmates, some of whom will have experienced trauma or abuse, were met. That is another less-debated issue on the safety of women and girls, and we need to be able to have serious conversations about it and its implications. It remains abundantly clear to me that adult biological males should not be permitted into any women's safe spaces: not sports, not toilets, not changing rooms, not shower cubicles and certainly not prisons. We must take a stand and make a choice to protect women and girls, as we have pledged to do.

Connie Egan (Alliance, North Down)

I stand to speak on the extremely important topic of protecting the rights, dignity and safety of those in custodial facilities. My party and I wholeheartedly believe that we must do everything that we can to ensure that the societal rights of those in prisons or holding facilities are upheld while their liberty is taken away. Decisions and judgements must be made in the context of individuals' needs and risks. That is best done on a case-by-case basis, and that is why we will vote against the motion.

We do not need to attack the rights or diminish the well-being of others, particularly those who are vulnerable or who belong to marginalised communities, to secure our own safety. For us to build a justice system that truly works, respect for the dignity of everyone involved must be at its core. It is imperative that we meet the needs of those who are in custodial facilities and give our full support to those in the Northern Ireland Prison Service. They are met with challenges every day yet they still execute their responsibilities and meet their duty of care for those who are held there. Their priority is the safety of everyone involved, and the calls that they make are informed by the advice of the South Eastern Health and Social Care Trust and, very importantly, the Equality Commission: true expertise that has curated the approach that we have today, something that the motion ignores.

If we were to apply the blanket approach that the motion and the amendment suggest, we would not be fulfilling our responsibilities as a legislative Assembly to safeguard the well-being of those who are held in custodial facilities. There is nuance, individualism and context in every person who comes into contact with our criminal justice system, and it is imperative that we trust the judiciary, police and prison officers to recognise and respond to that.

The current approach allows for the needs and risks of each inmate to be assessed on a case-by-case basis and for that inmate to be accommodated through how they access services in the prison. That guidance was implemented by the Prison Service in 2022, and it aligns with international best practice, including that from the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime. It sincerely concerns me that any party that is represented in the Chamber could believe that there is a one-size-fits-all approach to our justice system and Prison Service. We are all different, and we all need different things. We should not make our approach to this issue any different. A blanket rule that does not have best practice at its heart is one of the dangers that is being discussed today. We have all been contacted by women's organisations, such as HERe NI and the Women's Resource and Development Agency (WRDA), which have asked us to oppose the motion. I will do so.

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

I will speak briefly on the motion and the amendment. When we discuss contentious issues that are subject to some controversy, as this issue clearly is — it would be odd not to acknowledge the fact that it has been the subject of significant public debate in recent years — it is important that we speak with honesty, sincerity and sensitivity. That goes for people who are trans, regardless of whether they find themselves in the custodial prison estate. It is important to note that, in Northern Ireland, transgender prisoners represent a tiny number of people. I do not know the exact number, but I think that it is in low single figures. For the best part of a decade, there was not a single individual. It also goes for women, who are entitled to an honest discussion about single-sex spaces, risk assessments in relation to the prison estate and other issues. The motion is specifically about the custodial context. Some remarks have strayed into other connected issues, because Members touched on the rights and expectations of trans people, but the motion is specifically about the prison estate, so I will limit my remarks to that and let others make comments about other issues.

First, the most important thing is to say that, in such issues, the primary motivation should be the safety of all those in the prison estate. When a court finds you guilty of an offence and a judge has sentenced you, you are deprived of your liberty for a set period of time. When you enter the prison estate, there is a process by which you are risk-assessed. If and when you leave the prison estate on licence, you will be managed by the Probation Board. Those are criminal justice professionals whose job is to make decisions on risk. Risks assessments are made in conjunction with the health service. Nothing should get in the way of the primary motivating purpose, which is the safety of all those in the prison estate. That should be the overriding concern.

One of my concerns with the text of the motion and, indeed, the amendment is that there are obvious potential unintended consequences. I will set them out. The motion says:

"biological males should be held in a male prison".

By "biological males" — I do not dispute the use of the term — Mr Beattie, I think, means "natal males": people who live as women but who were male at birth. A plain reading of the text is that, even if a person had, for example, received testosterone for decades, presented as a man and was living as a man — they could be a large, bulky individual and could even have been convicted of a violent crime — they would have to go into the female prison estate. Likewise, trans man would have to go into the female prison estate. There are clear unintended consequences that would not just present risks to the safety of other prisoners or, indeed, trans prisoners but place additional resource and management burdens on the Prison Service. The motion and the amendment would have very severe potential unintended consequences were they to represent a blanket policy.

I have no difficulty having these debates, but if we are going to table such motions in the Assembly, we should carefully think through the consequences of them. I have no difficulty talking about the importance of, in particular, female safety in the prison estate. I am also very clear on the need to talk about trans issues in a respectful and inclusive way. A very high proportion of trans people have been vulnerable in their lives and live pretty difficult lives, so, for example, simply shoving them into parts of the prison estate, particularly when they pose no discernible risk to anybody, would be a risk. As I said, I have no difficulty talking about safety in the prison estate, but we need to judge the issues on a case-by-case basis, with the absolute priority, whatever about questions of gender, being safety. It needs to be looked at on a case-by-case basis.

I do not think that the motion or the amendment today are as nuanced as the debate requires. If we are going to have such debates, we need to have them in full knowledge of the potential unintended consequences. As I said, a plain reading of the motion and the amendment is that they do not really deal with the issues that are here. If there is going to be guidance from the Department, it clearly needs to take into account all those factors. I am afraid that neither the motion nor the amendment does that.

Maurice Bradley (DUP, East Londonderry)

Today's debate demands compassion and common sense. It is about ensuring the rights and safety of all individuals in prison while protecting the dignity and security of women. Personally speaking, I do not like labels. I do not assign labels to anybody. Therefore, when I speak, I speak of all, not one particular section of the community or another. We all have rights, and we are here to defend those rights.

The motion highlights the need to support all minority communities and underscores an important principle: custodial facilities must safeguard the welfare of all inmates. Women's prisons exist to meet the unique needs of female inmates, many of whom have suffered trauma or abuse. Allowing biological males, particularly those with violent or sexual offences convictions against women, into those spaces undermines those protections.

The Department of Justice claims to manage transgender prisoners on a case-by-case basis, yet we lack clarity on how decisions are made or whether sufficient protections exist. Other jurisdictions have stricter policies. In England and Wales, transgender individuals with male genitalia or violent offenders are generally not housed in women's prisons. In Scotland, risk assessments prevent individuals with histories of violence against women from entering women's facilities. Does Northern Ireland provide similar safeguards? I do not know. Are provisions in place for transgender individuals who cannot be safely accommodated in either male or female estates? We do not know. That lack of transparency is unacceptable. We must embed a presumption that biological males convicted of violent or sexual offences should not be placed in women's prisons. Exceptions should only —.

Naomi Long (Alliance, Belfast East)

Will the Member give way?

Maurice Bradley (DUP, East Londonderry)

I am nearly finished.

Exceptions should only occur following rigorous risk assessments by multidisciplinary panels and ministerial approval. That approach respects individual circumstances while prioritising safety. It is not about denying rights but ensuring justice and protection for all. Women in custody must feel secure, and our policies must reflect that. Let us act decisively to safeguard those principles. If a panel decides to send a male to a female prison and it goes wrong, should that panel not be liable for prosecution for making a wrong decision?

Paula Bradshaw (Alliance, Belfast South)

I oppose the motion. I am, sadly, as disappointed as I am outraged by the gross insensitivity and playing to the audience by the proposers of the motion who, as individuals and as a party, are playing a very dangerous game with some of the most vulnerable people to have been committed to the care of our Prison Service.

Given the size and nature of the prison population in Northern Ireland, the motion and the solutions that it proposes are not only overly simplistic but could create severe risk and cause greater harm. The Assembly has a duty to ensure the safety and dignity of everyone in Northern Ireland, whether they are in wider society or in our prison system. Sadly, and to the disgrace of those who advocate it, the motion seeks to undermine that duty by supporting an approach that fails to address the complexities and sensitivities of the issue and, indeed, jeopardises the very safety that it seeks to protect.

Let me be clear: my party has always proudly championed the rights of and protections for LGBTQ individuals, women and other minority groups in Northern Ireland. That commitment is reflected in the policies that we, as a political party, develop and the work that we do every day. The motion takes us not only in the wrong direction but in a very dangerous one. A rigid ideological policy that segregates prisoners solely based on biological sex does not account for the nuances or the realities of often challenging custodial environments. Instead, it risks creating greater vulnerabilities and undermining safety for all.

The Northern Ireland Prison Service already employs a case-by-case approach to determining where and, indeed, how prisoners are housed. That system relies on thorough and well-tested risk assessments and professional advice, including input from South Eastern Health and Social Care Trust staff, in order to make decisions with safety as the top priority. Such a people-centred and evidence-based approach is essential in managing the complex risks that are in custodial settings. By contrast, imposing a blanket rule would strip professionals, who are, in my opinion, the people best placed to deliver them, of the flexibilities that they need to address those challenges effectively and responsibly and to care for some of the most vulnerable people in our prison system.

Prisons are inherently difficult and, at times, dangerous environments, and managing risks in such settings requires expertise and informed judgement. Professional assessments ensure that decisions are tailored to individual circumstances, recognising that no two cases are identical. A one-size-fits-all policy, as proposed in the motion, would tie the hands of those who are best placed to safeguard prisoners and staff. It is not only impractical but counterproductive and, frankly, cruel.

It is important to emphasise that opposing the motion does not mean dismissing concerns about safety in prisons. On the contrary; I wish to demonstrate my party's commitment to addressing those real concerns in a way that prioritises fairness, respect and the protection of everyone who is involved. The current case-by-case risk assessment approach offers the best framework for balancing safety and dignity. It allows professionals to weigh individual risks and to make decisions that are based on evidence and not arbitrary rules. We should be proud that our Prison Service meets best international standards in that risk assessment model.

In closing, I implore the Assembly not to be drawn into divisive rhetoric or simplistic solutions that fail to address the underlying complexities of our justice and prison systems. We must focus on fostering a compassionate, practical and fair approach that supports the rights and safety of all individuals. By rejecting the motion, we reaffirm our commitment to a justice system and a Prison Service that protect the vulnerable, empower professionals and ensure equitable treatment for everyone who is in custody. For those reasons, I urge Members to oppose the motion and the amendment.

Stephen Dunne (DUP, North Down)

I welcome the opportunity to speak on the motion, which seeks to balance the rights, dignity and safety of all individuals across Northern Ireland. We must continue to advocate for the preservation of safe and accessible women-only spaces, including in prisons, as a matter of fairness and equality. Safeguarding and protection must come first. The need for safe spaces extends widely across our society and, indeed, beyond our prisons and custodial facilities. It includes places such as changing rooms, toilets and sports pitches, to name but a few. Over recent years, we have seen a growing need for clarity and certainty when dealing with such a sensitive issue.

The proposer of the motion mentioned sports and some of the issues around that. It was interesting to note recent comments from Lord Coe, World Athletics president, when he said on the issue of trans policy in sports, as an example —.

Naomi Long (Alliance, Belfast East)

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. This is the second time in the debate that we are discussing athletics and sport. With all due respect, I am the least qualified person to answer questions in that regard. Is it not a general rule of thumb that when we are engaging in debate in the Chamber, it should be on the body of the motion and not wandering off into other areas?

Edwin Poots (DUP, Belfast South)

Essentially, it is for whoever is in the Chair to decide whether it is within the scope of the debate. We are talking, in the main, about prisons, but we are also talking about people who identify as trans females or trans males. Therefore, what the Member is raising is within the context of the motion.

Stephen Dunne (DUP, North Down)

Thank you, Mr Speaker, for that, and I will continue. The Minister will have her time later, I am sure. I know that she is keen to get involved in the debate, as we have already heard.

What I was saying gives a bit of context and shows that the issue does not relate solely to our Prison Service. As an example, Lord Coe said about sports:

"the International Olympic Committee needs a very, very clear policy in this space. And the protection of the female category, for me, is absolutely non-negotiable."

That gives some context to the scale of the issue and its importance across so many sectors of society. It is not related to solely the Northern Ireland Prison Service.

We have seen changes in recent years to promote fairness and equity across genders. There is no doubt that permitting biological males to reside among a female prisoner population carries risks that would undermine protections and could have serious consequences for the safety and dignity of women. An article in 'The Telegraph' last year stated that more than 70% of transgender prisoners in UK mainland jails were serving sentences for sex offences and violent crimes. That highlights the significance of the issue. As others have said, the welfare of everyone in custody must be paramount. We pay tribute to the dedicated staff in our Prison Service who deal with complex issues daily.

The very basis, as has been mentioned, for the creation of women-only facilities, including in prisons, was that their specific needs could be best catered for. Unfortunately, many will have experienced trauma or abuse. We need to look at the evidence from across the globe, including the UK. In March 2023, former Taoiseach Leo Varadkar said that Ireland may have to consider changing the law so that "women are protected". That links in with harrowing and horrific examples that we have seen in other parts of the UK, including in Scotland recently.

In the Chamber last week, we rightly spent several hours in collective agreement on the need to protect women and girls. I believed that we had reached a consensus that the rights and safety of women must always remain paramount. The motion and the amendment reflect a commitment to safeguarding women's spaces and rights in a manner that is consistent with fairness and equality.

The motion raises an issue of profound importance in the justice system. When individuals are placed in custody, they are already in a vulnerable position. Many women and girls who come into contact with the justice system are vulnerable and have a range of complex and sensitive needs, often as a result of physical, sexual or domestic trauma or abuse. It is imperative that the system responsible for their care make every effort not to add to that vulnerability, particularly of those who may already feel unsafe.

I believe that allowing biological males among such prisoners carries risks and could undermine the protections for the dignity and safety of all prisoners in our custodial facilities; indeed, the recent High Court case highlighted the difficulties with the current policy gap in regard to transgender people in custody.

As I said, we need clarity and certainty, and this space provides an opportunity for our Justice Minister to provide that clarity and a clear direction to ensure the protection of rights and safety in our custodial facilities.

Gerry Carroll (People Before Profit Alliance, Belfast West)

I oppose the motion and the amendment.

The motion talks about providing "continuous support" for the LGBTQ+ community, whilst urging the Justice Minister to force trans women into male prisons and to force trans men into women's prisons. The denial of trans and non-binary identity in prisons is inhumane. How can that be described as "continuous support" for transgender and non-binary people? I challenge those who tabled the motion on their rationale for that. The proposer of the amendment tried to solve that contradiction by completely removing any commitment to support the LGBTQ+ community, and that is pretty telling in itself.

The so-called debate about trans prisoners is just another culture war fuelled by lies and fearmongering about a marginalised, oppressed community. If it were not so serious, it would be almost hilarious to hear people talk about women's rights when their parties oppose them every step of the way. Trans people are not a threat to other women or to anyone else. The fact is that none — I repeat: none — of the 24 women killed in the North in the past four years, which is a huge number, was murdered by trans people. They were killed by cisgender men. If you do not know what that means, go look it up. In fact, trans people are at a disproportionate risk of violence themselves. Transgender Europe reports that at least 350 trans and non-binary people across the world were murdered in the past year. Most of them were trans women — not a mention of them from the Members who tabled the motion and the amendment.

Frankly, the debate is a complete waste of time. When there is so much work to do on ending violence against women and girls, the time would be much better spent trying to prevent misogynistic violence from the earliest possible stages.

Kate Nicholl (Alliance, Belfast South)

I thank the Member for giving way and for being the first male Member to allow a female to intervene. There has been mention of women's rights being undermined: does the Member agree that the women's sector in Northern Ireland is entirely trans-inclusive and is opposed to the motion?

Edwin Poots (DUP, Belfast South)

The Member has an extra minute.

Gerry Carroll (People Before Profit Alliance, Belfast West)

I thank the Member for her important point. I note that. It is a positive, progressive thing, and I think that most of the women's rights organisations in the South are the same. That is a positive thing as well. I was going on to talk about groups such as HERe NI, the Women's Resource and Development Agency and the Rainbow Project, which, among others, are experts on women's rights and safety as well as the rights of LGBTQ people, and they all reject the blanket approach in the motion.

Transgender people, including prisoners, have the right to be treated with dignity and respect. That includes access to appropriate clothing and gender-affirming healthcare. Beyond the lack of access to basic rights and services in prison, the Westminster Women and Equalities Committee recognised "a clear risk of harm" to transgender prisoners who are placed in prisons that do not align with their gender identity. That harm includes — I emphasise this — sexual assault, harassment, discrimination and mistreatment. People should heed those words.

Given the evidence, is it in anyone's interest to force a transgender man into the female prison estate? Does anyone really think that it is wise for a transgender woman to be housed in the male prison estate where she is at high risk of experiencing physical or sexual assault and abuse? What is really motivating calls for trans people to be placed at active risk of harm? For the most part, I think, it is bigotry, misogyny and transphobia.

It is also worth remembering during the debate that we cannot end transphobia without tackling the over-incarceration of people, especially the locking up of so many people who have serious mental health issues. The carceral state itself is transphobic, misogynistic, racist and oppressive at its core, and, as long as it continues to exist, the criminal legal system will deny prisoners, including trans people, the rights and dignity that they deserve. Rather than locking people up in a violent prison system, we should tackle the root causes of crime: poverty, abuse and a lack of access to education, good jobs, housing and, crucially, mental health support. We should strive for a society in which everyone's basic needs are met. That includes the needs of women, trans people and non-binary people. The motion is completely contradictory, disrespects the rights of transgender prisoners and, if acted on, would put trans prisoners in danger. I oppose it, and anyone who cares about the dignity, rights and safety of all prisoners should fundamentally oppose it too.

Claire Sugden (Independent, East Londonderry)

I will not support the motion, because I am not content with its blanket wording. We need to allow room for individual circumstances. However, I am sympathetic to the practical consideration of biological sex; indeed, it is crucial to address the difference between sex and gender. It is a distinction that directly informs the motion and the wider conversation that we are having around gender identity. Biological sex refers to physical characteristics, while gender identity is deeply personal and is rooted in an individual's sense of self. Both are valid and deserve respect, but they carry different implications in settings such as prisons, where physical realities and vulnerabilities must be prioritised to ensure safety. Indeed, while prisons have historically been segregated by sex, which, I appreciate, is to do with women's health and safety, that needs to be included in the discussion. By recognising sex-based differences, we diminish no one's identity. It is about safeguarding well-being, particularly in environments where safety and vulnerability are key considerations.

There is a wider conversation in Northern Ireland, the UK and the world about the tension that arises between women's rights and the recognition of gender identity. It is not an abstract discussion but a real, difficult and deeply felt issue for many, including cis women and transgender women. I am often asked, usually by a man, "What is a woman?". I am a woman, but that is a deeply personal consideration. It is not about physical stereotypes or societal expectation but about the right to be fully oneself without external definitions or limitations. That applies to a consideration of our spaces as well, to ensure that we can be women with dignity. At the same time, transgender individuals face challenges that are no less significant. They, too, deserve dignity and safety. Balancing those needs is not easy, but it is necessary. The answer lies in thoughtful policies that recognise and protect the rights of both groups without allowing one to feel that its rights are being diminished by the other.

Custodial settings amplify the tensions. Women in prison, many of whom are survivors of trauma including violence and sexual assault, need spaces in which they feel secure and supported to provide the maximum opportunity for rehabilitation, as any other prisoner would have. Transgender individuals will also face significant risks of harassment and violence in custody. Those overlapping vulnerabilities demand a balanced approach that carefully considers the safety and dignity of all groups. Dedicated wings, separated facilities or other bespoke measures can ensure that everyone is treated with dignity without compromising safety. Such solutions demonstrate that recognising physical realities does not negate the validity of gender identity; indeed, they ensure that no group feels excluded, unsafe or overlooked.

We need to look to other jurisdictions to understand the importance of getting this right. There have been cases in England and Scotland that have shown the risks to prioritising safety and incidents in which poorly implemented policies have led to harm in women's prisons. Northern Ireland can and should lead with an approach that balances —

Naomi Long (Alliance, Belfast East)

I thank the Member for giving way. I am aware that there has been a focus, particularly in recent years, on incidents that affected women negatively. Does the Member acknowledge that there have also been deaths in custody of trans prisoners due, at least in part, to policies that were extant in England and Wales?

Edwin Poots (DUP, Belfast South)

The Member has an extra minute.

Claire Sugden (Independent, East Londonderry)

I appreciate the Minister's intervention. Yes, absolutely; that is why we need to take an approach that ensures safety for all in our prison system. However, we cannot take out the specific issues to which biological gender can give rise. We have to take the issue forward sensitively while ensuring safety for all.

Edwin Poots (DUP, Belfast South)

As the next contribution will be from the Minister of Justice, who has up to 15 minutes in which to speak, and we have just over five minutes available, I suggest that we take our ease until Question Time at 2.00 pm. The debate will continue after Question Time, when the next Member to speak will be the Minister of Justice.

Oral Answers to Questions — The Executive Office

Deborah Erskine (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

1. Mrs Erskine asked the First Minister and deputy First Minister to outline the challenges to improving good relations. (AQO 1362/22-27)

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

I ask that junior Minister Reilly take this question, Mr Speaker, with your permission.

Aisling Reilly (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

We have made a good lot of progress on building good relations through the Together: Building a United Community (T:BUC) strategy, particularly across key areas such as shared housing; engagement of young people through the T:BUC camps and wider, on-the-ground delivery; the Urban Villages initiative; and the removal of interface barriers. I place on record my appreciation of the amazing work done by the community and voluntary sector and, in particular, by groups and organisations on the ground. They are invaluable to us all.

Through our engagements and visits in recent months, we have demonstrated that we are fully committed to continuing the process of building good relations in a future defined by peace and prosperity for everyone who calls here home. That is shown through our cross-cutting commitment to peace in the draft Programme for Government (PFG).

We recognise that challenges remain. The day-to-day needs of communities have also changed considerably over the past few years. Communities experiencing good relations issues often face wider socio-economic challenges. As well as tackling those issues, we will need everyone across government and the community sector to work even better together.

A review of the T:BUC strategy has been initiated. Its recommendations are being considered and will shape the process for developing a refreshed approach to good relations.

Deborah Erskine (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I thank the junior Minister for her answer. Does she agree that the example set by political leaders has a significant bearing on building good relations in Northern Ireland? In that context, does she accept that the First Minister's recent attendance at an IRA commemoration event and her glorification of terrorism are examples of not building good relations in our community? Will the junior Minister and the First Minister therefore desist from attending events that glorify terrorism?

Aisling Reilly (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

When it comes to good relations, we all have a part to play. People from different political, ethnic and religious backgrounds, whether they live in a city or in a rural community, all need to be committed to improving community relations.

Just last week, junior Minister Cameron and I met the Clonard-Fitzroy Fellowship, two faith groups that have come together to have conversations with and learn from each other. They are leaders in the community. We also met TACIT in north Belfast at the end of last year, where community leaders are standing side by side and working together for a better future and legacy for the generations coming behind them.

As I mentioned, there is a lot of amazing work happening in the community and voluntary sector. Do we need to build on that? Yes. Do we need to do even more? Yes. Are we committed to doing so? Absolutely. As political leaders and leaders in our community, the First Minister and I will do everything that we can to demonstrate every day that we will do just that.

Pádraig Delargy (Sinn Féin, Foyle)

Will the junior Minister outline what ongoing Executive work there is to bring young people from across our communities together in order to build a better understanding of each other and of all that they have in common?

Aisling Reilly (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

I thank the Member for his question. My focus in this role is on supporting the work of the First Minister and the deputy First Minister, along with junior Minister Cameron, to build a future that is defined by inclusion, equality and respect. Many across the Chamber are also committed to working to deliver that outcome. Investing in our young people and creating opportunities for engagement are key to building on that process.

The T:BUC camps programme that is delivered under the strategy specifically gives our young people the opportunity to build positive relationships with young people from different communities. Since summer 2015, the Executive Office has invested over £12 million in the T:BUC camps programme, with over 950 camps having been delivered, reaching over 33,000 young people. In 2024-25, a further £1·5 million has been invested, with over 110 camps currently being delivered. That investment in our young people and their future is so vital. Learning from each another, understanding each another and recognising that we have more that unites us than divides us in what is an increasingly diverse, vibrant and multicultural society is, simply put, invaluable. We will continue to support that work.

Paula Bradshaw (Alliance, Belfast South)

In evidence sessions to the Committee for the Executive Office, we have been advised that there is no definition of "good relations" on the statute book. Will the Executive Office be taking forward work on that?

Aisling Reilly (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

When you look at the ongoing good relations strategies that we have in the Executive Office, you see that T:BUC, for example, has had a clear impact on the lives of people here through the development of and investment in headline actions and wider commitments by removing interface barriers and bringing people together through sport, education and the camps. As I said, since 2015, we have invested over £12 million in the camps programme, and more than 950 have been delivered. We have reached a massive 33,000 young people. As I said, that demonstrates the commitment of the First Minister and the deputy First Minister, and junior Minister Cameron and me. We will do all that we can to continue that work.

Declan Kearney (Sinn Féin, South Antrim)

2. Mr Kearney asked the First Minister and deputy First Minister for an update on a racial equality strategy post-2025. (AQO 1363/22-27)

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

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

Aisling Reilly (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

Beidh an freagra seo as Gaeilge, más maith leis na Comhaltaí na cluasáin a chur orthu.

[Translation: This answer will be in Irish, if Members wish to put on their headphones.]

Chuaigh oifigigh i gcomhairle le hearnáil na mionlach eitneach cheana féin le tacú le forbairt na straitéise nua comhionannais chiníoch ó 2025 amach.

Ghlac muid na torthaí ó chláir eile ina bpléitear le saincheisteanna sochaí agus creideann muid go bhfuil gá le fócas láidir ar chur chuige sláinte poiblí má táimid le dul i ngleic leis an chiníochas agus neamhionannas ciníoch. Seolfar glao poiblí ar thuairimí gan mhoill, agus ba mhaith linn cluinstin ó phríomhpháirtithe leasmhara, ó earnáil na mionlach eitneach agus ón tsochaí i gcoitinne. Mholfaimis do gach duine a nguth a chur in iúl sa chomhairliúchán thábhachtach sin nuair a bheidh sé ar fáil go poiblí.

I mí na Nollag, d'fhoilsigh muid an t-athbhreithniú neamhspleách ar chur i bhfeidhm na straitéise reatha um chomhionannas ciníocha 2015–2025, mar aon le freagra ón Roinn. Leagadh béim san athbhreithniú ar an athrú suntasach atá tagtha ó seoladh an straitéis, chomh maith leis an ghá atá ann le bheith níos solúbtha le freastal ar imeachtaí seachtracha. Leagadh béim fosta ann ar a thábhachtaí atá ar tháinig siad tríd sa tsaol.

Is é an rún atá againn leanúint ar aghaidh leis an phlé le mionlaigh eitneacha le héisteacht a thabhairt dóibh agus páirt a thabhairt dóibh i bhforbairt na straitéise.

[Translation: Officials have already begun engagement with the minority ethnic sector to support the development of the new strategic approach to racial equality beyond 2025. We have taken the findings from other programmes that deal with societal issues, and we believe that a strong focus on a public health approach is needed if we are to tackle racism and racial inequality. A public call for views will be launched shortly, and we want to hear from key stakeholders, the minority ethnic sector and wider society. We encourage everyone to make their voice heard in this important consultation when it becomes publicly available. In December, we published the independent review of progress on the implementation of the current racial equality strategy 2015-2020, along with a response from the Department. The review highlighted the substantial change in the landscape here since the strategy was launched, as well as the need to be more flexible in responding to external events. It also stressed the importance of lived experience. Our intention is to continue to engage with minority ethnic communities, to listen to them, and to ensure that we capture their voices and involve them in the development of the strategy.]

Declan Kearney (Sinn Féin, South Antrim)

Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire shóisearach as ucht an fhreagra sin. An féidir leis an Aire shóisearach a dheimhniú go mbeidh comhairliúchán agus rannpháirtíocht cheart ann leis na grúpaí is mó a mbeidh tionchar ag an straitéis seo orthu?

[Translation: I thank the junior Minister for her answer. Can the junior Minister confirm that there will be proper consultation and engagement with the groups most impacted on by the strategy?]

Aisling Reilly (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

Is féidir, cinnte, agus ba mhaith liom aitheantas a thabhairt don obair a rinne an Comhalta sa réimse seo le linn a thréimhse sa Roinn. Is féidir liom a dhearbhú don Chomhalta go bhfuil Airí tiomanta lena chinntiú go bhfuil an Straitéis nua um Chomhionannas Ciníoch oiriúnach don fheidhm agus go léireofar inti taithí saoil na ndaoine atá i gcroílár a bhfuil sí ag iarraidh a baint amach.

Faoin Straitéis roimhe seo, bunaíodh an Foghrúpa um Chomhionannas Ciníoch mar ghuth i gcroílár an rialtais do mhionlaigh eitneacha agus imircigh, agus le tacú leis an obair ar chomhionannas ciníoch agus dea-chaidreamh cine a chur chun cinn. Tá an Foghrúpa ina chomhpháirtí lárnach go fóill inár rannpháirtíocht le mionlaigh eitneacha, agus tá ról suntasach aige le tacú le tosaíochtaí reatha a chur i bhfeidhm agus tosaíochtaí amach anseo a stiúradh. Déanann an Foghrúpa ionadaíocht ar 28 n-eagraíocht faoi láthair agus bíonn sé ag obair le príomhcheisteanna agus príomhghníomhaíochtaí a shainaithint a chuirfidh feabhas ar na daoine a ndéanann sé ionadaíocht orthu.

Cuideoidh an t-eolas sin ar fad leis an rannpháirtíocht a mhúnlú agus muid ag obair i dtreo straitéis comhionannais chiníoch ó 2025 amach.

[Translation: Absolutely. I want to acknowledge the work that the Member undertook in this area during his time in the Department. I assure the Member that Ministers are committed to ensuring that the new racial equality strategy is fit for purpose and reflects the lived experience of those who are at the heart of what it aims to achieve. Under the previous strategy, the racial equality subgroup was established as the voice of ethnic people and migrants at the heart of government and to support and drive forward work on racial equality and good race relations. The subgroup remains a key partner in our engagement with minority ethnic communities, and it has a significant role to play in supporting the delivery of current priorities and for steering future priorities. The subgroup represents 28 organisations and works to identify key issues and actions that will improve the well-being of those whom it represents. All that information will assist in shaping engagement as we work towards a racial equality strategy for post-2025.]

Stewart Dickson (Alliance, East Antrim)

Given that the policy and strategy extend from 2015 to 2025, why have you failed to start the renewal of the strategy within the 15- to 25-year time frame? Why do you have to wait until the end of the strategy to consult on a new one when you know that a new one is coming forward?

Aisling Reilly (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

A consultation on a racial equality Bill began in March 2023 and formally closed in June 2023. A report on the responses to and feedback about the consultation was published in August 2024. We aim to bring updated race relations legislation before the Assembly through the legislative programme in the 2025-26 session. That report considers over 50 amendments. It will inform the basis of any legislative change and will move us a step closer to providing the best possible legal protection against racism and towards a more equal society.

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

An féidir leis an Aire shóisearach gealltanas a thabhairt go leathnófar ciste forbartha na mionlach eitneach tar éis mhí an Mhárta?

[Translation: Can the junior Minister assure me that the ethnic minority development fund will be extended beyond the month of March?]

Aisling Reilly (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

Níl an t-eolas sin díreach os mo chomhair, ach tá mé breá sásta scríobh chuig an Chomhalta agus an t-eolas uilig a chur chuige.

[Translation: I do not have that information before me at the moment, but I will write to the Member with all the information.]

Robbie Butler (UUP, Lagan Valley)

3. Mr Butler asked the First Minister and deputy First Minister, further to the deputy First Minister’s comments during Question Time on 9 September 2024, to outline any discussions that they have had with the UK and US Governments in relation to the extension of a pre-clearance process for passengers travelling to the United States of America. (AQO 1364/22-27)

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

As civil aviation is a reserved matter, DFE officials have explored with the Department for Transport the possibility of extending pre-clearance services to Belfast International Airport. The Department for Transport has committed to entering into exploratory talks with the United States Administration on the options for introducing pre-clearance checks on customs and immigration for passengers travelling on direct flights between here and the US. The deputy First Minister and I are fully supportive of the reintroduction of a transatlantic route to Belfast and implementation of pre-clearance. A direct flight between here and the US really would have transformative economic benefits for our economy. It would boost tourism and open up new opportunities across the board, including for our universities. We are fully committed to supporting the Minister for the Economy in any way that we can in taking this forward.

Robbie Butler (UUP, Lagan Valley)

I thank the First Minister for her further confirmation of the Executive Office's ambition on this. The inauguration of President Trump at 12.00 noon today offers a new dispensation with the American Government. We had some great performance from Joe Kennedy as the former Northern Ireland trade envoy. Will the First Minister give a commitment that the Executive Office will work proactively with President Trump to ensure that a special Northern Ireland envoy is in position as soon as possible, not in the last six months of his mandate as previously, and to seek the delivery of transatlantic routes and, indeed, pre-clearance at Belfast International?

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

As the Member has noted, the inauguration is happening as we speak, I believe. Obviously, we will continue to work proactively to try to secure pre-clearance. That would be an enormous economic booster for us here. As we have done with previous Administrations, regardless of who is at the helm, we will work with those who are responsible for delivering this important economic booster. The Economy Minister has taken that forward quite strongly in engaging with the Department for Transport and in commissioning research around this so that we can make the case for why it is so important. Yes, we will take all opportunities to ensure that we can secure this. I think that it is in our best interests to secure this.

Appointments such as that of a US envoy are yet to be made, but we have had beneficial experiences of working with previous envoys. Let us hope that we can have similar types of benefits going forward.

Jonathan Buckley (DUP, Upper Bann)

As has been said, today is a big day for our US friends, who today will see the inauguration of President Trump for his historic second term. It is a presidency that, indeed, I welcome. During the first Trump Administration, the then First Minister, Arlene Foster, and the then deputy First Minister, Martin McGuinness, issued an open invitation for President Trump to visit. First Minister, will that open invitation be extended again by the First Minister and deputy First Minister to ensure that the people of Northern Ireland and the United Kingdom can get the benefits of this second Trump Administration?

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

I think that there is a lot of grey area about what the intention of this new Administration will be, particularly when it comes to economic policy and protectionism policy. Therefore, we will have to work our way through that. He is only being inaugurated as we speak, and we can consider all these things in the round going forward. My interest in engaging with an American Administration is always in our own selfish interests, and that is important. We can all have our own views on the individual who holds the position of president, and we are all entitled to do so. The American people voted for this president, so that is their prerogative. My concern is about what is good for our economy, what is good for our job creation and what is good for our ongoing engagement, which is much wider than the White House. It is about Irish America, engagement across the board, drumming up tourism potential and so much more. We can consider all these things going forward.

Philip McGuigan (Sinn Féin, North Antrim)

In the First Minister's response, she talked about exploring what is good for our economy. Last week, the Economic and Social Research Institute published a report that looked at a new economic model for the North. Does the First Minister welcome that report?

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

Yes, very much so. I have just started to take a look through it. I very much welcome the fact that the report has been published by the Economic and Social Research Institute, because I think that it will contribute to a wider understanding of how our economy works. Our Executive colleague Conor Murphy is working to ensure that our economy serves everybody and serves everybody well and that everybody gets to enjoy prosperity.

He has set out in an economic strategy and plan how that can be done by using the Windsor framework to grow local exports and attract better FDI, taking full advantage of the all-island economy and collaborating very much with our business representatives, trade unions and academia. He has also set out his clear mission to have a highly productive, zero-carbon and regionally balanced economy with good jobs.

As we constantly review, prepare and plan for the future, such reports are very much a welcome part of what we have in the public domain, so that we understand what makes our economy tick and how we can look towards growing it into the future for everybody.

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

First Minister, I am genuinely intrigued to hear that seeking pre-clearance is official Executive policy, in part because it originated from a clandestine bilateral process between the DUP and the UK Government, not the other Executive parties. Secondly, we know that the Trump Administration will be anti-immigration. They will not seek more open borders. Thirdly, it is also true that we already have pre-clearance on this island. The US Administration are likely to say, "Travel 100 miles down the road to Dublin".

Edwin Poots (DUP, Belfast South)

Mr O'Toole, please take your seat.

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

It would also include —.

Edwin Poots (DUP, Belfast South)

Please take your seat. This a time for questions and answers. You in particular, of all the Members, seem to want to make speeches. Will you ask a question, please?

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

I appreciate that, Mr Speaker. I am the leader of the Opposition, and it is my job to hold Ministers accountable.

Is this going to be Executive policy —?

Edwin Poots (DUP, Belfast South)

Mr O'Toole, you are the leader of the Opposition, but I am the Speaker. Do not challenge the Speaker. As with any other Member, you are asked to ask a question. If you cannot, I will move on, so please ask a question.

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

Will seeking pre-clearance in that context and with all that it entails seriously be Executive policy? I do not think that any serious observer thinks that it will happen.

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

I have just said that it is. I just said that the deputy First Minister and I are committed to working with the Economy Minister to pursue it even further. We should take that advantage if we can get it. Ultimately, because of the cost of such infrastructure, it will come down to the airport itself, so we will engage with it also. It is clear what the Economy Minister has set out: connectivity is so important to our economic growth. Therefore, trying to improve connectivity across our island will always be a good thing. So, yes, I cannot be any clearer about the fact that the deputy First Minister and I have said that we are committed to working with the Economy Minister to pursue the matter further.

Steve Aiken (UUP, South Antrim)

First Minister, have you had the opportunity to consult our friends in Scotland and, indeed, in Manchester? Edinburgh, Glasgow and Manchester are looking for pre-clearance as well. That would be well within the remit of the great airport that is Belfast International Airport, which is, of course, in my constituency.

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

We have not engaged with Scotland or Wales on the issue. I think that Dublin is the only place in Europe that has pre-clearance at this stage. We will continue to make the case for connectivity. It is written in the draft Programme for Government that connectivity is so important to growing our economy. We should pursue anything that helps us to improve that situation.

Edwin Poots (DUP, Belfast South)

Mr McNulty's question, question 4, has been withdrawn.

Connie Egan (Alliance, North Down)

5. Ms Egan asked the First Minister and deputy First Minister for an update on the strategic framework to end violence against women and girls. (AQO 1366/22-27)

Cheryl Brownlee (DUP, East Antrim)

12. Ms Brownlee asked the First Minister and deputy First Minister to outline what progress has been made in implementing measures to combat violence against women and girls. (AQO 1373/22-27)

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

Mr Speaker, with your permission, I will answer questions 5 and 12 together.

The ending violence against women and girls first delivery plan was published last September. It sets out key actions to support collaboration across government and wider society. It focuses on prevention and early intervention over the next 15 months. As part of a wider £3·2 million investment, we launched the local change fund on 9 January. A total of £2 million will be shared across 11 councils to enable them to support ending violence against women and girls action in their local areas. That funding will support community networks and provide opportunities for grassroots organisations to play their part in preventing violence, harm and abuse against women and girls.

Work on the regional change fund investment with the community and voluntary sector continues to progress with a view to making an announcement imminently. In partnership with the PSNI and DOJ, the Power to Change public awareness campaign will also be launched soon. The campaign uses the active bystander approach and targets harmful attitudes and behaviours of men and boys.

Recently, Junior Minister Reilly and Junior Minister Cameron had the opportunity to meet the six successful suppliers that are developing innovative ideas and solutions to tackle the scourge of violence against women and girls. That was part of two small business research initiative challenges. Work is also progressing with partners to advance other elements of the delivery plan, including work with sectoral groups to address key issues such as safer socialising and healthy relationships.

Connie Egan (Alliance, North Down)

Thank you, First Minister. Are there any mechanisms in your Department to ensure that there is coordination between councils when it comes to dispersing the local change fund?

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

The strategy aims to bring that joined-up coordinated approach, whether that is across councils or working with the Executive and all Departments on their responsibilities. The fund is consistent across all councils, so it is important that we are joined up. It is important that we support projects on the ground that make a real difference. There may be differences of approaches in different areas, such as rural versus urban, and different factors at play, but there is a fair degree of consistency in how it will be rolled out across councils. One council has already launched, and the rest will launch before March.

Cheryl Brownlee (DUP, East Antrim)

I thank the First Minister for her answer. How has the engagement between councils and TEO on the change fund been? Have those relationships been positive? Do you foresee difficulties in the roll-out of the scheme?

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

No issues have been raised with or elevated to us, for sure. Officials have engaged with all 11 councils on the proposals for strand 1 and the local change fund itself. Applications opened in Antrim and Newtownabbey Borough Council on 6 January and will open across all the other councils between now and March, with delivery commencing from April 2025. That is really good news. Councils are willing to play their part. They are considering proposals to use in-year funding to build momentum for the local change fund, how they will raise awareness around ending violence against women and girls and how they will build the capacity of the community and voluntary sector. Who better than our councils, which are close to the grassroots delivery and the projects that are on the ground doing that work every day, to do this? That seems to be going well. It seems to be a success.

In parallel with all that work, we have engagement with the community and voluntary sector on strand 2, which is the regional change fund. Plans are progressing. I hope that we will be able to launch that over the coming days.

Emma Sheerin (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

Gabhaim buíochas leis an Chéad-Aire as an fhreagra sin.

[Translation: I thank the First Minister for that answer.]

Minister, can you outline how exactly the fund will work to complement the fantastic work by local groups on the ground to end violence against women and girls?

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

Yes. The strategy was about how we can work collectively to end the scourge of violence against women and girls. Coordinating the delivery and success of the challenge funds that we are launching is about how we can work collaboratively with the people who are already on the ground and have the expertise and skills to deliver the message about prevention really strongly. Collaboration has very much been embedded in the strategy from the outset. The sector was part of the design of the strategy itself and is part of the oversight structures for its delivery. I look forward to that.

Time moves quickly. We launched it in September. We are due our first review six months in, which is next month. We will be able to have an understanding of how quickly we have advanced the pledges that we made for the first two years of the strategy. I look forward to getting that review. I am confident that what we set out from September through the strategy is already coming into play. Funding is being announced for the local change fund and will be announced for the regional change fund over the next number of days.

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

First Minister, can you detail the engagement that the Executive Office has had with the British Government on online harm that causes violence against women and girls in Northern Ireland?

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

I do not believe that our Department has had any direct discussions, but I am sure that there has been engagement across other Departments, such as the Department of Justice. I know that we are collaborating at official level, given that it is important that we pick up what works well elsewhere, learn from it and do it here. If there has been direct engagement and I can give you any further information, I am happy to respond to you in writing.

Trevor Clarke (DUP, South Antrim)

6. Mr Clarke asked the First Minister and deputy First Minister to outline what discussions they have had with their Executive colleagues in relation to the commitment in the draft Programme for Government 2024-27 to cut health waiting times, given the current winter pressures. (AQO 1367/22-27)

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

One of our key priorities as an Executive is the health and well-being of our people. We are committed to working together to deliver the transformation needed to deal with the pressures facing the health and social care system.

Following a recent meeting of the Executive, we issued a statement on winter pressures. We acknowledged that this has been a particularly difficult winter across the health and social care system, with high rates of hospital admissions and flu. We also thanked Health and Social Care (HSC) staff, carers and the community and voluntary sector for their tireless work over this difficult winter.

As an Executive, we fully understand the impact of long waiting times on patients and their families. We encourage people to take any steps that they can to stay safe and well this winter. If you are eligible, please take up the flu vaccine, which has now been extended to everyone over the age of 50. We continue to work together on the reform and transformation of the health and social care sector, including the urgent need to reduce waiting times. As with all commitments in the draft Programme for Government, it is one of our shared ambitions, and its importance has been discussed frequently by the Executive.

Trevor Clarke (DUP, South Antrim)

Thank you for your answer, First Minister, and I hear what you say. However, this has been a relatively mild winter, and we have the same problem with waiting lists every year. Hundreds of people are waiting to get into hospital, and, indeed, hundreds are waiting to get out. Does the First Minister have any suggestions for the Health Minister, or will he bring forward specific proposals to relieve the pressures?

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

We had a collective Executive discussion on that last week. We can all say that the situation facing patients right now is not acceptable. The situation facing our Health and Social Care workers is not acceptable. The winter comes every year, so we should be prepared and ready. I want to be helpful to the Health Minister, and the collective will of the Executive is to work together to transform our health and social care system. We need to have a plan to work towards. We have engaged with the Health Minister and will continue to do so, because the public at home want to know when the health system will get better, when they will be able to access their GP and when they will be able to get hospital care if they need it. There is more to be done, and the public will be better served by a collective effort on the health system.

We are funding the health system with over half of our budget; yet and all, the health outcomes are not improving. That has to change. There needs to be a plan to fix that. I will be constructive, and I will work with the Health Minister to get us to the right point. As an Executive, we discussed last week how we could work with the Health Minister, but we need to see a plan that we can all sign up to. Transformation is absolutely where it is at: we need to transform our health and social care system. There are things that work really well in our system and things that do not. We need to see a plan to fix our health system that we can all sign up to.

Linda Dillon (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

Minister, on the point that you have just made, it is necessary for us to see a plan for the winter pressures and a plan to fix the health service as a whole, with a time frame for that plan. Is that what we need to see now? As an Assembly, we have been clear that we want to support the Health Minister and work with him, but we need to see that plan in order to know what we are supporting.

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

Yes. We all know that there are no quick fixes, but we also know that the ingrained problems across health and social care have been there for a long time. We need a transformation plan on paper that people can understand. We need to talk to the public about how we will improve their health outcomes. That requires a collective effort from us, but we need a written plan that we can talk to people about.

The immediate focus has to be on stabilising the health system, but core to that is a plan with measurable targets; that is clear. There are fine examples across our health and social care system of things that work really well. Acute Care at Home is an absolutely excellent initiative that brings care to people's homes and prevents them being hospitalised. We need to ramp that up. There are a lot of things that we can do better, such as supporting our domiciliary care workers who work in the community and keep people well and at home. We all know the ideas, but we need to see a written plan that we can all sign up to.

John Blair (Alliance, South Antrim)

Will the First Minister and deputy First Minister give a commitment not to collapse the institutions again, given the untold damage that suspension has caused to health transformation and outcomes, as we see in emergency departments across Northern Ireland?

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

I am here to do business. I am here to work with Executive colleagues, and I am glad that, as we approach the 1st anniversary of working together in the Executive, we have delivered tangible benefits for the wider public. I am committed to being here every day. I am committed to working with others, I am committed to making politics work, and I would not be here if that were not my objective.

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

It is well recognised in the sector and by the public that transformation of our health services is the long-term solution to our problems, but the short-term solution requires finance. Will the Executive give the Health Minister the finance that he requires to reduce the waiting lists? Does the First Minister agree that, without that finance, that will be an impossible task?

Edwin Poots (DUP, Belfast South)

Minister, you have half a minute.

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

Money matters to being able to invest in our health service. On day 1, when we entered the Executive in February of last year, we collectively made it clear that the funding model that we had was not fit for purpose.

We have made strides forward to change that. We have achieved hundreds of millions of pounds of additional funding because of the Executive's work. Is it enough? No, because we had a poor starting point in that 14 years of austerity crushed our public services.

We have a lot of work to do. Not everything will cost money; sometimes it is about doing things better. However, there is no doubt about this: 52% of our entire Budget goes to the health service, and that will only keep increasing if we do not transform. Let us all work together to make sure that we transform our health and social care system.

Edwin Poots (DUP, Belfast South)

We now move to topical questions.

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

T1. Mr O'Toole asked the First Minister and deputy First Minister when Casement Park will be built, given that the First Minister said last September that it would happen. (AQT 901/22-27)

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

I am absolutely committed to ensuring that Casement Park is built. It is one of the outstanding projects. It must be done, and I will ensure that we continue to raise it until the project is completed. I believe in investment in the west of the city. It will be an enormous booster for the economy and for sport. It is long overdue, and it must be built.

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

First Minister, as with statements on a lot of other issues, one year on since restoration, the public see words but not delivery at Stormont. Can you confirm when Casement Park will be delivered? How often have you and your colleague raised it with the Communities Minister? When in 2025 will we see the 2024 legislative programme delivered?

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

My personal view on Casement Park is well known and has been rehearsed over and over again in the House. I want the Communities Minister to move and work with the GAA to complete the project. The GAA community deserves nothing less. I want to invest in sport. Sport should be a big unifier, not something that divides us.

We will bring a statement on the legislative programme to the House. We have asked Ministers to update us on their legislative programmes for the rest of the mandate. We hope to be able, in the short period ahead, to set that out for the House. One year in, a lot of good things have been delivered by the Executive — things that we can be proud of and that help make people's lives better — whether it is childcare, the Magee task force or the announcements on the A5, the Cookstown bypass or the Enniskillen bypass. The list of what has been achieved in the first year is extensive.

Have we more to do? Absolutely. Will we get there and make more positive strides forward? Yes, we will, because the four parties of the Executive are committed to ensuring that that is the case.

John Blair (Alliance, South Antrim)

T2. Mr Blair asked the First Minister and deputy First Minister to outline the Executive Office's communication plan as regards ensuring that everyone who wishes to come forward to contribute to research into historical clerical abuse of children is granted the opportunity to do so, given the tight time frames. (AQT 902/22-27)

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

We are going through the research. We will then have to make decisions based on the information that comes forward. We want the process to be inclusive. It is important that we ensure that all the voices that want to be heard are heard. I will take the question away. If you have identified particular issues, I would like to hear about them, because it is important that we get it right. It is the third part of the institutional abuse work, and we need to get it right. The research projects are under way, but, as I said, if there are particular issues, please, let me know.

John Blair (Alliance, South Antrim)

I thank the First Minister for the answer. Evidence to the Executive Office Committee last week was clear that there are people, even people who are still resident in Northern Ireland, who are not aware of the redress scheme on the historic institutional abuse of children. What specific learning has been taken to ensure that that is not repeated in the historical clerical child abuse investigation?

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

I do not have the exact details in front of me, but promotion of the scheme to ensure that people are alerted to it has been wide-ranging. It has been done in various ways, including online and in publications. A lot has been done. I do not believe that concerns have been flagged with us that we have not reached large swathes of people, because so many have come forward. However, as with all these things, we want to listen. I just want us to get it right, because those people have been failed at every turn. It is important that, when we are able do something, we do something that is positive, that is important for them and that is exactly right for them.

Michelle Guy (Alliance, Lagan Valley)

T3. Mrs Guy asked the First Minister and deputy First Minister, while being sure that they regard it as a privilege to hold the offices of First Minister and deputy First Minister, whether they agree that it was unacceptable that it took two years before they could take up the roles and, therefore, that we should take forward work to reform the institutions to ensure that no party can ever again deprive the people of Northern Ireland of government. (AQT 903/22-27)

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

As you know, there is not, perhaps, a collective view on reform in the Executive Office. My personal view and that of my party is that the Assembly and Executive Review Committee should do its work and that that is where we should have those conversations. I am absolutely committed to playing my part and that of the party in the conversation on how we can make sure that the institutions are fit for purpose and work in the best interests of the people whom we serve.

Michelle Guy (Alliance, Lagan Valley)

Thank you, First Minister. So that I understand your answer correctly, will you support the Assembly and Executive Review Committee taking forward, within its remit, work on the reform of the institutions?

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

Again, this is a personal view and not that of the Executive Office. My view has always been that the Assembly and Executive Review Committee is the place in which we should do that work, and my colleagues should participate accordingly.

Diane Dodds (DUP, Upper Bann)

T4. Mrs Dodds asked the First Minister and deputy First Minister, after stating that last Friday marked the 32nd anniversary of the Teebane massacre, when a minibus carrying 14 workmen home from work was blown up, killing eight of them, whether the First Minister, given that she has said that there was no alternative to violence, believes that there was no alternative to those murders or whether she treats IRA murders as collateral damage? (AQT 904/22-27)

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

There is no escaping the fact that we have had a very turbulent and difficult past. It is also very important that we remember that much trauma and suffering has been inflicted on so many people across our society. My job, as a political leader in 2025, is to try to heal the wounds of the past and allow a space for us to be respectful of each other, of our life journeys and of what we believe. It is important that we create that space for each other. I am committed to doing that, and I ask the Member to join me.

Diane Dodds (DUP, Upper Bann)

First Minister, the victims of IRA violence will listen carefully to what you have said but will realise that they are hearing the same old platitudes. You could change that today in the Chamber. Given that your party did not cooperate with the Kingsmills inquest, will you call on the Police Ombudsman to release the report on the Kingsmills massacre and ensure that the families get justice?

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

I believe in all families having justice and truth. That is why we have to find a way to properly deal with the past. We had that with the Stormont House Agreement, but, unfortunately, others walked away from it, mainly the British Government and yourselves.

We have to acknowledge that we have so much hurt and pain from the past. Let us help every family to move forward and not pick and choose whom we want to help and support. I am committed to looking towards the future and to helping people to heal — not to forget but to heal. I have said that from day 1, and I am absolutely committed to that. I want us to build a better future and not burden today's children with yesterday. I want us to help people to heal. Let us try to find a way to do that together.

Connie Egan (Alliance, North Down)

T5. Ms Egan asked the First Minister and deputy First Minister when the finalised Programme for Government will be published. (AQT 905/22-27)

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

We are working on it as we speak. We have an Executive meeting this week, but I am not yet sure whether it will make it to that meeting. Needless to say, we intend to get it published ASAP. I hope that that will be in the coming weeks.

Connie Egan (Alliance, North Down)

How will the Executive Office ensure that the consultation responses are reflected in the finalised Programme for Government?

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

We have had over 70 public engagements and 1,400 consultation responses. That is a lot to get through. We have been working our way through those, analysing them as they have come in as opposed to waiting to the end. That, hopefully, will allow us to move to the next stage. The final document will, in the main, reflect the consultation responses that we received, particularly on the bigger issues that came up repeatedly.

Steve Aiken (UUP, South Antrim)

T6. Dr Aiken asked the First Minister and deputy First Minister, after stating that the Secretary of State has today refused to use the Stormont brake, what the First Minister's position is on the use of democratic safeguards against the imposition of unwanted EU rules? (AQT 906/22-27)

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

When issues are identified, we should find pragmatic and reasonable ways in which to deal with them. The Secretary of State has made his call, as he can, on the Stormont brake. We now need to find ways to make things work. Where pragmatism is required, let us find ways to do that. Let us not have stop-start; let us create the stability and certainty that the business community requires. Where we find issues, let us use the mechanisms that we have to raise them in order to get a resolution.

Steve Aiken (UUP, South Antrim)

I think that I thank the First Minister for her remarks. My question was on the role of the democratic institutions and, in particular, the safeguards that were supposed to be in place. When the Windsor Framework Democratic Scrutiny Committee clearly does not work and does not do what it is supposed to do, the key question is this: what proposal is coming from the Executive Office in particular to enable us to get things in which people can have faith and trust? Frankly, people have no faith and trust in the rules and systems that we have at the moment.

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

We were a long time in a period of uncertainty. It then took us a long time to get to the point at which we had the Windsor framework. The mechanisms that have been agreed are agreed. They are the democratic mechanisms through which to deal with the issues. The Stormont brake will not be pulled on this occasion, but let us continue to find a resolution to the issue that was identified. Let us be pragmatic about it instead of grandstanding or trying to be overtly political about it. We are where we are because we have been taken out of Europe against our wishes — that is my personal view — and we have to deal with the consequences of that in a post-Brexit world. That is what we are dealing with. I want us to create certainty and stability for the business community, and, where issues are identified, we should try to find a resolution to them.

Brian Kingston (DUP, Belfast North)

T7. Mr Kingston asked the First Minister and deputy First Minister whether, in pursuance of good relations — an issue on which the First Minister has answered questions today — they agree on the importance of showing democratic leadership and not promoting the glorification of terrorism. (AQT 907/22-27)

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

I have made the point that we should be sensitive to the fact that, when we talk about individuals who were killed in the course of the conflict, regardless of how or by whom, it is important to be respectful of the fact that they are individuals with a family: a mother and a father, siblings and perhaps children. We should be sensitive to the fact that everybody has a right to remember their dead and to do so in a dignified way. My job, as I have said, is to try to deal with the past in a way that allows us to be as comprehensive as we can and that brings truth and justice to as many families as possible, but I also want to be somebody who looks to the future — the next 10 or 20 years — and who tries to make this a better place and to create a better society: one that is inclusive and free from sectarianism and racism. That would be a better prize for everybody whom we collectively serve.

Brian Kingston (DUP, Belfast North)

I will push the First Minister more on that. She talks about taking a victim-centred approach and showing sensitivity to those who have suffered. Does she not recognise that, when individuals who engaged in terrorism are individually lauded and honoured by those in political leadership, it causes only hurt to the families whose loved ones were murdered by terrorists?

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

I have answered the question. As I have said before in the House — I said it when I took up post as First Minister — I am sorry for every lost life, without exception. That is my position. We need to be a bit more sensitive. If Members look at the trauma-informed strategy for victims and survivors that we produced, they will see that it talks about recognising differences and the different perspectives on the past. That is important for healing. I encourage all Members to take that approach instead of trying to point-score politically off one another. Let us be consistent, and let us try to work together to heal the wounds of the past.

Nuala McAllister (Alliance, Belfast North)

T8. Miss McAllister asked the First Minister and deputy First Minister whether, given the controversy over recent public appointments, such as those in the Education Authority, and the recent news about the board of the Arts Council, and considering the importance of having public transparency, it is acceptable that we are still awaiting a Commissioner for Public Appointments to be in post. (AQT 908/22-27)

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

We have started that work. Unfortunately, it has taken us a bit longer than we all would have wanted. In June 2024, Ministers agreed to run a new competition to appoint a Commissioner for Public Appointments. Preparations are well progressed. Since the previous commissioner stepped down from her role, the day-to-day business of the office, including the provision of advice and guidance, has continued. That has not, however, extended to the statutory regulatory duties of the post, which only a commissioner can undertake. Public appointments have continued to be made in the intervening period, and the OCPANI code of practice continues to apply.

Edwin Poots (DUP, Belfast South)

I ask Members to take their ease for a moment while we change Ministers.

Oral Answers to Questions — Economy

Steve Aiken (UUP, South Antrim)

1. Dr Aiken asked the Minister for the Economy, in the light of recent amber warnings on power outages from the System Operator for Northern Ireland (SONI), to outline his assessment of the security of Northern Ireland's electricity supply. (AQO 1377/22-27)

Conor Murphy (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

The security of the electricity supply is a risk that is managed collaboratively by the Government, the Utility Regulator and the System Operator for Northern Ireland (SONI), which provides electricity transmission.

Last week, SONI published a revised winter assessment, following significant damage caused by storm Darragh to the Ballylumford power station. The assessment indicates that, while the power system will experience tighter margins for the remaining winter period, under normal operating conditions, there is sufficient generation to meet customer demand. Therefore, the current risk of any disruption to the electricity supply is low.

The owner of the Ballylumford power station, EP UK Investments, is working at pace with specialist contractors to resume generation at the site as soon as possible. My officials will continue to work with the energy industry and the Utility Regulator to review and monitor the short-, medium- and long-term security of supply and to ensure that our changing energy system is robust and resilient.

Steve Aiken (UUP, South Antrim)

I thank the Minister for his reply. He will be aware that there has always been a lot difficulty around planned maintenance, particularly in relation to Coolkeeragh power station. It is probably due to have some planned maintenance. There is a significant problem, because, if it goes down for any particular reason, there would be significant concerns about maintaining the security of supply. Is the Minister's Department engaging with other utility users more widely so that if, for example, Coolkeeragh goes down, we will not be in a position where we have to do load shedding? That is a significant concern, despite the smooth tones that are coming out of SONI.

Conor Murphy (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

We engage regularly with the Utility Regulator and the supply side for electricity and energy generally — we do something similar with gas — to try to make sure that there is confidence that supplies will remain sufficient to meet our needs. Of course, we cannot predict what weather circumstances might arise, but we have not had that kind of extreme weather since storm Darragh.

My understanding is that we are sufficiently covered for the remainder of the winter. We will keep on top of it. Officials will continue to engage with all those in the sector to make sure that there is an understanding of what the challenges are and to ensure that we build in more security of supply in the short term over the winter and in the long term.

Cathal Boylan (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

Minister, what is the timeline for a new electricity connections policy?

Conor Murphy (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

The Department will publish a consultation imminently on increasing the level of socialisation of reinforcement costs for customers who are connecting to the distribution electricity network. It will review a number of options for sharing the reinforcement costs of the distribution network among all network users. My Department will review the responses to the consultation after it closes in mid-April with the Utility Regulator. I expect to publish a decision thereafter. There are ongoing developments in other areas of connection policy in the North, including NIE Networks' consultation on its cluster methodology.

David Honeyford (Alliance, Lagan Valley)

Recently, the Great British Energy Bill was in front of the Economy Committee. We are looking through the outworkings of it. Will the Minister tell us what advantage that Bill will bring us? Will there be an uplift in investment here? What difference will it make to energy security here?

Conor Murphy (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

Since the very first day that the Government in London came into office, we have engaged with them on those ideas. The Bill was front-loaded in the sense that there would be legislation, and now that has been backfilled, if you like, with detail. We continue to engage on it. Of particular interest are the community energy plans, which will give more resilience at a local community level rather than a reliance on one or two large producers and distributors of electricity. We are very keen to see what advantage there might be. We are told that resource is attached to some of those plans, and we will continue to investigate that with the Department in London to make sure that we get our fair share of whatever is developed.

Paul Frew (DUP, North Antrim)

Is it the case that, due to climate change targets and renewable energy targets, the Minister's Department is putting pressure on the integrated single electricity market (I-SEM) and SONI to use indigenous renewable energy instead of using cheaper interconnected energy?

Conor Murphy (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

The solution will be a mixture of all. Of course, in order to meet our targets for climate change, which the Executive and the Assembly have agreed to, and which are very challenging, we have to ensure that we have a renewable supply. Given our location, our geography and our position on the western Atlantic, there is real potential there for renewable energy and for the industry to gear itself up for that. A long-term ambition on the island of Ireland is to be a net exporter of energy, which would be very beneficial not just to the security of supply for our customers here but for profit generally on the island. It is not a matter of trading one off against the other; it is a matter of trying to ensure that all options are open to us so that, if we end up in the situation where, I hope, that ambition is realised and we are a net exporter, interconnection goes both ways and we will be able to sell electricity off the island.

Diane Forsythe (DUP, South Down)

2. Ms Forsythe asked the Minister for the Economy to outline the steps that he is taking in advance of admissions to further and higher education organisations in September 2025 to address skills shortages. (AQO 1378/22-27)

Conor Murphy (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

My Department works closely with further and higher education institutions to support a skills pipeline that meets the needs of our local economy and addresses skills shortages. That includes a range of interventions: for example, collaborating with employers through our sectoral partnerships in order to align curricula for apprenticeships with industry needs. Promoting pathways to good careers through the Careers Service is also part of that approach, as is attracting learners to further and higher education. College development plans are another important mechanism by which the Department measures performance in addressing subregional skills need. My Department has also worked with the three universities on the first annual outcome agreements, which require the institutions to be responsive to the needs of the economy.

Diane Forsythe (DUP, South Down)

I thank the Minister for his answer. In September 2024, the Northern Ireland Audit Office published the report, 'Developing the skills for Northern Ireland's future', which highlighted the significant undersupply of skills in STEM subjects, particularly engineering and technology, in Northern Ireland. Has the Minister taken any proactive steps since that report was published to increase the uptake of courses in those areas and reduce it where there is potential oversupply in Northern Ireland?

Conor Murphy (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

In collaboration with the universities, we introduced higher education outcome agreements for the 2024-25 academic year. The outcome agreements are intended to demonstrate alignment between the Department's priorities and the work of the universities, including the skills strategy and related targets. For higher education provision in a further education setting, the Department approves all higher education courses planned for delivery to ensure alignment with departmental priorities.

The most recent data showed that nearly half of all graduates from local universities gained a qualification in a broad STEM subject, while a quarter gained a qualification in a narrow STEM subject. Twenty-eight per cent of full-time undergraduate students graduated from university in a narrow STEM subject. We will continue to improve in that area. I very much welcomed the report, which related to a previous period. Nonetheless, it has lessons for us. We will continue to work in that area.

John Stewart (UUP, East Antrim)

Minister, one of the biggest barriers to further and higher education is funding. When will you be able to provide an update on the higher education funding review?

Conor Murphy (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

That continues. It is challenged by the level of funding that we have. As is the case for, I am sure, every Minister who stands here, we would do more in each area if we had more funding to do it with. Unfortunately, given the funding settlement that was proposed by London, we remain in a very challenging situation. We will conclude that review. I am sure that it will be published in due course. We will continue to argue for as much money as we can for the further and higher education sector to ensure that we produce the level of skills and knowledge needed in our society to assist with the growth of the economy.

Pádraig Delargy (Sinn Féin, Foyle)

I thank the Minister for his commitment to ensuring that further and higher education colleges are supported. What is his assessment of the Department's performance in increasing student numbers in further education?

Conor Murphy (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

We continually monitor that. As I say, we have engaged in programmes with the colleges to ensure that we understand the numbers in attendance. There is a desire to increase that. It has gone up by something like 13·5% over the past number of years. There is no doubt that there is capacity there to do more. I have spent quite some time over the past year engaging with the individual colleges and the college principals as a group to try to ensure that we align the provision so that it is seamless across all our colleges. I have also tried to ensure that we do significant outreach and work with those who are assisting in bringing people back into training and education on the potential for alignment and synchronisation between the colleges and the organisations that are involved in that work in the community. We need to try to ensure that we get the best value. There has been a very significant investment in our college estate over the past 10 or 15 years, and we have a very good college estate, but we want to maximise its usage to make sure that we get the best possible outcomes.

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

3. Mr Durkan asked the Minister for the Economy whether his Department will ensure that the views of the community, within the immediate vicinity of the Ulster University Magee campus, will be sought and taken into account to minimise any disruption arising from the university’s expansion. (AQO 1379/22-27)

Conor Murphy (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

My Department is fully committed to ensuring that Ulster University's Magee expansion is done in a way that maximises the benefits to the local community and minimises the potential negative impacts. The task force is made up of local people, including a representative from the community sector. Its recently launched action plan emphasises the importance of meaningful community engagement to keep residents informed and involved. That engagement will continue throughout the expansion process. In addition, Ulster University has already initiated several community engagement forums. The Department will monitor and support those efforts in order to ensure that the expanded campus integrates well with the surrounding area, delivering positive outcomes for residents and the region.

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

I thank the Minister for that answer. Everyone recognises the huge positive impact of university expansion on Derry, but we have to make sure that it is managed right and that local communities are not choked by traffic or have their fabric threatened by the demand for accommodation. I welcome the fact that the chair of the task force has set up a public meeting for next month, but will the Minister expand on the efforts of the university and the task force to identify opportunities for new, purpose-built student accommodation?

Conor Murphy (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

I welcome the Member's acknowledgement of the fact that the task force has done some very positive work. Its membership is rooted in the Derry community, which is beneficial when it comes to local engagement. Accommodation will be a key issue in the expansion, so significant work has been done to identify land and to make sure that there is engagement with the private sector, which will provide a lot of that accommodation. That work has already begun. There is engagement with the council to ensure that spaces that become available can be used.

There is a strong desire to ensure that the surrounding population is not overwhelmed by student numbers. We have seen that happen in parts of Belfast, where a neighbourhood becomes, essentially, a student area. My understanding is that there have been discussions on planning restrictions to ensure that ownership of houses in multiple occupation is kept at a level that does not substantially change the nature of the neighbourhood.

Of course, student accommodation is critical, and the understanding when the task force was put together was that it needed to be recognised that this was not just about creating more university places but about the infrastructure in the city that is needed to accommodate that. Issues such as transport and accommodation will be central to that.

Gary Middleton (DUP, Foyle)

A lot of the issues that residents have faced fall under the remit of other Departments and, not least, the council. Those issues were identified in the Magee task force report. What can you do, Minister, to support the task force in working with those other Ministers to look at proposals for things such as resident parking schemes in and around Derry?

Conor Murphy (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

The Department for Infrastructure has been and will remain engaged with the task force. It is looking at issues such as the restriction on ownership of houses in multiple occupation in areas that are in proximity to the Magee campus. I circulated a draft report and a final report to all Executive colleagues to keep them informed of developments. The project is part of the Executive's Programme for Government, and it was part of an all-party agreement. It is now part of the Programme for Government, and, in that sense, I believe that all the Executive will ensure that they will put what is required into the development so that the 10,000 places are delivered from other Departments as well. I will remain engaged with colleagues as necessary, but I know that some of them have already been engaged with the task force, which is very welcome.

Ciara Ferguson (Sinn Féin, Foyle)

Will the Minister confirm that his Department is working closely with Ulster University to acquire land for the expansion?

Conor Murphy (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

UU is in negotiation with the owners of sites that are located within walking distance of the existing campus in order to purchase suitable land and buildings to support the future growth of student numbers. That work continues, and I hope that announcements will be made on some of it in the very near future.

Peter Martin (DUP, North Down)

4. Mr Martin asked the Minister for the Economy for his assessment of the impact of the introduction of the electronic travel authorisation (ETA) scheme for non-European travellers on the tourism sector. (AQO 1380/22-27)