Northern Ireland Assembly, 28 January 2025

285 contributions from 60 members. The official report.

Speaker's Business

Edwin Poots (DUP, Belfast South)

Excellent; we have a quorum now.

Before we begin today's business, I want to advise Members that, following on from my remarks last week, I will be writing to all of you on the courtesies and conventions that apply to the House. Whilst I understand that, individually, those matters may appear trivial to some, together, the procedures of the House underline that sittings of the Assembly are not just another engagement in Members' diaries and that the Chamber is not just another meeting room.

At one time, only 90 people have the immense privilege of participating in the Chamber. They are given that privilege by the people who elect them. As an institution, the Assembly is the prime source of authority for devolved matters. Therefore, with the privilege that is given to us to be here comes the responsibility to exercise that authority by representing our constituents, holding Ministers to account and taking decisions to change policy and the law to address the issues that impact on all of the community. Respecting our courtesies and procedures is about respecting the serious business that we have to do and respecting the people who put us here to do it.

I remind Members that next week will mark the 1st anniversary of the return of the Assembly, which the vast majority of Members wanted to see. Upholding a parliamentary culture around the serious business that we have to do has a major part to play in restoring and increasing confidence in the Assembly. As Speaker, I cannot control the business that Ministers and Members bring forward or the level of scrutiny that Members want to apply. However, it is my role and that of officials to seek to create the conditions for our business to be done properly and effective scrutiny to be conducted.

Frequently, I raise issues with Ministers about ensuring that they bring business to the Assembly and that they comply with our procedures. The same must apply to Members. In the coming weeks, I intend to say more about our standards of debate. However, I am writing to Members today particularly about the need to be in the Chamber at the appropriate time for the business that they are due to participate in, whether that be questions, statements or debates. Ministers and Members are expected to give priority to the business of Assembly sittings on Mondays and Tuesdays.

Although it is acknowledged that not all Members will be involved in every debate on every issue, where they are due to participate, however, it is the responsibility of Members to monitor how business is moving and ensure that they are in the Chamber when they are required to be. All those points are about respecting the business that we are here to do and the people who have put us here to do it.

Last week, a Member apologised for not being in their place in time, which was appropriate, and they sat on for the entirety of Question Time. I have no issue with that — it was an honest mistake — but, last week, other Members did not turn up to ask their questions. A lot of time is spent by Departments and Ministers on preparing answers to questions, and a lot of expense is incurred. It is pure common courtesy to be here for Question Time. Not turning up and then not apologising for that will not be tolerated.

Again, all those points are about respecting the business that we are here to do and the people who have put us here to do it. The dress code issue was determined by Speaker McLaughlin in 2016, when he ruled:

"While there is no exact dress code, it is entirely appropriate that Members should dress in a way which demonstrates respect for the House and the job we are here to do on behalf of the people the Assembly represents. That should be smart and professional business attire. However, I am content that a tie is not an essential requirement."

As Speaker, it is for me to ensure that that and other procedures and conventions of the House are followed in order to uphold the important and serious business that we are here to do. I have not invented any new rules; I am only upholding the rules and procedures that have been introduced and carried on over the years by previous Speakers. I have no intention of amending the procedures that have been adopted by previous Speakers. A letter will go to everyone, and I encourage Members to take note and work with us on this.

Ultimately, the Speaker has means of ensuring that people comply. We do not want to use those. I am a very generous Speaker. I want to remain so and not come down hard on people. I encourage Members to use their common sense. Thank you for listening, good people who are here. Hopefully, the others who are not here will read what is in the letter, which is a little longer.

Members' Statements

Nicola Brogan (Sinn Féin, West Tyrone)

Rinneadh Lá Idirnáisiúnta an Fhuinnimh Ghlain a cheiliúradh Dé Domhnaigh. Tá Sinn Féin go mór i bhfách leis an straitéis fuinnimh mar a aontaíodh í in 2022. Is leis an straitéis sin a bhainfear an fuinneamh glan amach.

Foilsíodh tuarascáil i mí an Mhárta anuraidh, tuarascáil inar leagadh amach na cúig bhunphrionsabal leis an neodracht carbóin a bhaint amach faoin bhliain 2050 agus le hastaíochtaí ón fhuinneamh a laghdú. Focal mór agus dea-chur leis, sin atá de dhíth anois.

Molaimid an obair atá grúpaí tras-rannacha a dhéanamh le comhar agus cumarsáid a chur chun cinn idir na Ranna uile. Tá an obair sin riachtanach le treoir a thabhairt, le beartais a cheapadh agus le moltaí a dhéanamh sna pleananna gníomhaíochta gach bliain d’fhonn na cuspóirí a bhaint amach.

Ní mór an chóir shóisialta agus an comhionannas bheith chun tosaigh san aistriú chuig an inbhuanaitheacht. Cothú na córach, próiseas cóir.

Nicola Brogan (Sinn Féin, West Tyrone)

[Translation: International Clean Energy Day was celebrated on Sunday. Sinn Féin is very much committed to the energy strategy as agreed in 2022. That is the strategy that will deliver clean energy. A report published in March last year set out the five basic principles for achieving carbon neutrality by 2050 and reducing emissions from energy. That boldness in vision needs to be matched with boldness in action now. We commend the work that cross-departmental groups are doing to promote cooperation and communication between all Departments. That work is essential to provide guidance, to formulate policies and to make recommendations in the annual action plans in order to achieve the objectives. Social justice and equality must be at the forefront of the transition to sustainability. If the process is fair, so too will be the transition.]

Peter Martin (DUP, North Down)

Normally, in a Member's statement, I would speak about constituency issues. This morning, however, I will speak about islands some 6,000 miles away from the United Kingdom. Last year, I was invited by Queen's University Belfast to speak at a debate that was hosted by Friends of the British Overseas Territories (FOTBOT). Its role is to educate people about the British overseas territories' historical links with the UK and to foster relationships between UK politicians and politicians across the territories. FOTBOT gave me the privilege of meeting a delegation of Chagossians during their visit to Northern Ireland. I was particularly moved to hear how their families had been forcibly taken from the Chagos Islands and prevented from returning, which was an extremely painful experience.

The shameful denial of Chagossian sovereignty was compounded by the Labour Government's announcement, during a set of fast-tracked negotiations, that they intend to cede the islands to Mauritius. It is striking that, during the entire process of those negotiations, the Chagossian people were omitted from the talks and their views were not sought. Instead, the Labour Government have attempted to subvert the incoming US Administration by offering the Mauritian Government £90 million a year for 99 years to access Diego Garcia. That is almost £9 billion of taxpayers' money, yet it currently costs nothing. The Mauritian Government, in turn, are far from being an open and tolerant Administration. For example, you can receive a jail sentence of up to 10 years if you dare to say out loud that the Chagos Islands are anything other than Mauritian.

Thanks to the valiant efforts of FOTBOT, awareness of the issue has been raised across the United Kingdom over the past number of weeks. It was extremely encouraging to see such a strong demonstration of support for the Chagossian right to self-determination on 12 November, when FOTBOT held its call-to-action event in London. The event united over 600 Chagossians from a variety of backgrounds behind a single message: their wish for self-determination. I urge all Members to support the voice of the Chagossian people during the next few pivotal weeks, as we await the crucial position and decision of the incoming US Administration with the profound hope that that appalling deal will be discarded.

Michelle Guy (Alliance, Lagan Valley)

We debated a motion on childcare last week, during which I spoke about the need to be sensitive in the language that we use. Referring to full-time carers or parents as "not working" is disparaging. There are implications in those words. They suggest that those people are not making a contribution or do not have ambitions, and we know that that is not true: they make a huge contribution to our families and society. It is important to respect different circumstances and ensure that we do not create stigma or judgement when we talk about those people.

I worked in a career, and I progressed to the point where I was managing a team and a budget. However, it came to the point where paying for childcare and taking unpaid leave to cover school holidays meant that I was just about breaking even. Many mothers, in particular, will have experienced asking for reduced hours or a flexible work pattern, requests that are accepted begrudgingly. They will be told that having a reduced work pattern is a privilege. They will get reduced hours, but they will also get a reduced salary and reduced holidays. Strangely, they will often not get a reduced workload. When we talk about encouraging women back into the workplace, we need to be mindful of that and make sure that we have, yes, the right technical policy interventions but also the right workplace culture. When my kids were really small, I would have benefited from the subsidy scheme that we now have. Working parents deserve that support.

The issue of crippling childcare costs is not new. It has been around for a long time, but we have not addressed it quickly enough. There are flaws in the system that we have now, and it has become almost sacrilegious to point that out. I sat at a round-table event yesterday and heard from parents who are fearless, angry and passionate about the fact that we are not doing enough to help disadvantaged mothers. It is our job to speak up for the people who have been excluded from the scheme. The current scheme helps those who are in a job and eligible for tax-free childcare, and those parents deserve support. However, it excludes parents with children of school age who need childcare. It also excludes parents who are on Universal Credit and those who are in university or doing training. If you are a parent at university and you want to embark on a career or further your career, you are not entitled to the same support as those who are entitled to tax-free childcare. That creates an inequity in access to childcare, which is a policy gap that needs to be closed.

No one is naive to the financial challenges that face our Executive. The budget allocated for childcare and early years must be viewed as an investment. It is one that we would be reaping the rewards of now if we had acted sooner.

Robbie Butler (UUP, Lagan Valley)

Mr Speaker, on my way to the Chamber, I spent the last 20 minutes on a phone call with a constituent who raised a serious issue that has been around for many years. It is one that you are well aware of: what we are doing about TB in cattle. In November last year, the Minister brought out a review of the review, and we are in a stage of paralysis by analysis.

The constituent whom I spoke to this morning has 70 cows that have been identified as having TB. The direction from the Department is that those animals will have to be destroyed at a time of its convenience. The reality for that farmer is that he feeds those cows every day. The cows need to be milked every day, producing thousands of litres of milk that have to be destroyed. It occurred to me that, in getting rid of that milk, there is an environmental impact. Nothing good can be done with it. It has to be squirrelled away somewhere, but, obviously, the toxicity of that milk in the environment has to be considered.

That farmer is practically on his knees this morning. We have been having the discussion for many years about badgers and cattle. He said that we just do not have the balance right. Farmers often feel that they are discredited in regard to how they feel about their animals. Animal welfare features highly in their priorities. They love their cows. The daughters of that gentleman have named most of the cows, because they are from a breeding herd.

The financial implications reach further than what the Department can do by way of paying out money for those cows. The farmer has to feed them every day. Knowing that they are to be destroyed, he has to look at them. They are part of the family fabric. Farmers are under great pressure. We are in a phase now where further paralysis by analysis is just heaping more hurt and harm on our farming community, which is under significant pressure, given what is coming at it from Westminster.

I speak on behalf of farmers in my constituency, who care about animal welfare. By the way, the farmer was not calling for an all-out cull. He understands the animal welfare aspect. However, we are out of kilter, out of balance. The Department and the Minister really need to get over the analysis stage and get to a stage where we can redefine that balance not just for our wildlife but for farm animals and our farmers.

Colm Gildernew (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I want to address some of the issues that continue to flow from storm Éowyn. The key issue that I want to focus on this morning is that the term "unprecedented" has been used about the storm, and the storm itself certainly was unprecedented. However, the impact of power cuts and water disruption on rural areas is far from unprecedented; it is all too precedented. My issue is that we do not seem to be learning the lessons, even the basics, around communication and how we can do better in such situations.

My area, the Brantry in south Tyrone, has been without electric for significant periods three times over the past eight weeks. Yet, every time that those situations arise, we have, at times, trouble getting through on phone lines and trouble getting action. All the time, we have not only people who need life-saving medical equipment, which has been flagged as a significant issue, but huge numbers of others who have, for example, temperature-regulated medicines, which becomes an issue after several days. Families who have children with autism experience huge disruption. We do not seem to have the correct identification and support process in place in advance of such events. Those needs can be predicted and worked on.

I welcome and acknowledge NIE's efforts over the weekend to communicate with us at times, and I acknowledge that we cannot build a perfect system. However, it has to be said that it is no accident that most of the power cuts that are still ongoing — my electricity went off again this morning — are west of the Bann. They are west of the Bann as the result of underinvestment. While we cannot build a perfect system, surely, we can, over time and with proper planning, start to improve the system that we have to make it more robust. That has to be looked at realistically.

Given that we are told that not all needs can be met this time, we have to look at the alternatives. I believe that they lie in rural communities particularly. We have small rural groups and rural halls that are more than willing to help in their communities in times of need.

Those groups' facilities are also without power, however, so we are seeing a situation in which people are being asked to travel to get support. Although the support in Dungannon leisure centre is welcome, people in Fivemiletown are 15 or 20 miles from there.

We need to instil resilience in local communities, including through a scheme that sees small rural halls being equipped with emergency generators, water to some degree, washing facilities and cooking facilities. Doing that would allow those small communities to become more resilient, because do not forget that, at the same time, we are also telling people not to travel. There is therefore much more that can be done. Following Friday's storm, we need to act immediately and make changes for the next time.

Phillip Brett (DUP, Belfast North)

The manner in which innocent victims across Northern Ireland continue to be treated is nothing short of an absolute disgrace. The perpetrators continue to try to justify their actions, while their supporters continue to attempt to rewrite the past.

I am very proud that my party has always stood shoulder to shoulder with innocent victims, and it will continue to do so. For many years, my party, alongside campaigners, made it a top priority to secure a victims' pension scheme for the innocent victims of terrorism. I was absolutely delighted that, in 2019, as a result of the work of my party and campaigners, the innocent victims' disablement payment scheme was introduced. An attempt was made to block the scheme in the courts by the now so-called First Minister for all, because she did not like the fact that perpetrators of violence were excluded from applying to it. Despite those best attempts, I am absolutely delighted to say that, to date, 10,000 innocent victims the length and breadth of the Province have applied to the scheme. Over 1,000 applications have been approved, with over £76 million having been awarded to people. The awarding of those payments will never replace a missing family member at the table, and it will never take away the trauma that they suffered because of terrorism, but it rightly recognises the fact that this place will always respect innocent victims.

Like the overwhelming majority of people in Northern Ireland, my thoughts this week are with the Omagh bombing families. As the public inquiry, which was delayed for far too long, finally gets under way, the message from these Benches and from all right-thinking people in society is this: there was always an alternative to violence and an alternative to mayhem and murder. My party will never shy away from standing shoulder to shoulder with those people.

Nick Mathison (Alliance, Strangford)

I highlight the need for reform of our system of post-primary transfer in Northern Ireland. Over the weekend just past, P7 pupils all across Northern Ireland received their Schools' Entrance Assessment Group (SEAG) test result. Some will have got the outcome that they hoped for, while others will not have, so I begin my remarks by saying well done to all those who sat the test. They will have worked very hard and experienced a lot of pressure, and, regardless of their score, they should be very proud of how they navigated the process. There will be many children who chose not to take the test, and that is a big decision to make in a system that applies huge pressure on children to do so. I emphasise the point that their potential opportunities are not diminished as a result of that decision.

We need to consider undertaking urgent reform of the system. It is completely out of step with a modern, progressive approach to education. Reports over the years have built up a substantial body of evidence that the test is not the best way in which to manage the post-primary transfer process. Most recently, the independent review of education made clear recommendations in that space, stating:

"The current process perpetuates a socio-economic division between selective and non-selective schools."

On that basis, the review recommended:

"the current arrangements should not continue."

That recommendation was stated clearly and unequivocally, and it was made with good reason. The influence of the transfer test pervades almost every aspect of our system. It results in grammar schools, year-on-year, applying admissions criteria that are not recommended by the Department's guidance. It skews the curriculum for Key Stage 2 pupils, who are often taught to attain in a test and not through a broad curriculum. The test is not approved, monitored or scrutinised in any way by any part of the Assembly. It is entirely privatised, yet it dictates the education journey of so many of our children.

As already referenced, it embeds socio-economic divisions in our schools. It also impacts on where our children attend school — taking them away from the schools that are closest to them in their communities — and skews the balance of schools that admit pupils with special educational needs. The case for change is clear. The 'A Fair Start' report was clear in its recommendations that the system is one of "systemic inequality".

I urge the Minister to engage meaningfully with the issue and not to dodge it or say that, because there is no consensus, we cannot look at it. When there is a systemic inequality in our society, a lack of consensus should not dictate whether we take action. The Minister needs to begin the conversation about how we can deliver reform. It is not about criticising schools or parents: we are all navigating a flawed system. The case for change is clear: there is systemic inequality that should not be tolerated, and it is time for the Minister to take real action to begin the conversation on how we can deliver change.

Emma Sheerin (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

I pay tribute to all our front-line workers who have carried us through a very difficult period since the weekend's storm. I was lucky enough to be safe and warm in my house on Friday so the wind did not knock me off my feet. However, I was blown away by the number of messages that I was receiving from very early on Friday — from 6.30 am and 7.00 am — from domiciliary care workers in my area whose main concern was not their own safety but whether the roads to their clients were clear so that they could carry out their daily visits. The concern and care that they exercise for the people whom they look after is overwhelming. Those people are the salt of the earth. Our domiciliary care workers are already overworked and underpaid, and they need to see an uplift in their pay to reflect that. The effort that they went to in order to keep others — the most vulnerable in society — looked about, was a sight to behold.

I also acknowledge the hard work of our NIE staff, including those who handle calls and respond to messages from ourselves, trying to keep us updated; and, obviously, the engineers, the linesmen and the men and women on the ground who are trying to fix the electricity faults across the North. That effort is, obviously, going to continue for the rest of the week and, indeed, into next week. They work in incredibly challenging conditions, with the wind and rain beating off them, and go for 12, 14 and 16 hours at a time without proper sleep or food. They are deprived of all those things but are still trying their hardest. I extend my gratitude to those people and to the people who work in our hospitals and our local shops, cafes and restaurants that have been providing shelter, heat, electricity and warm water to constituents who have not had those services in their homes.

As of today, I still have constituents who do not have running water or electricity. I extend my appreciation to those people for the patience that they have shown, even in trying to get updates. I acknowledge how appreciative they have been of our efforts to try to get the issues resolved for them. This has been a challenging time for people. The community has come together in a way that is brilliant to see in circumstances in which, obviously, none of us wants to be. I place on record our appreciation to all those people who are trying to take us through this difficult time. Hopefully, the next time that we have a situation like this, weather-wise, in the North, we will have infrastructure that is better able to support our rural residents in particular.

Cheryl Brownlee (DUP, East Antrim)

I rise to address the recent findings of the Police Ombudsman in relation to the commemoration at Sean Graham bookmakers on the Ormeau Road in 2021. All of us are acutely aware of our unique and troubled past. It makes the already difficult job of a PSNI officer even more challenging. The political pressure that was put on the PSNI by senior members of Sinn Féin in the aftermath of the Ormeau Road incident was, and remains, unacceptable. The Scoffield judgement clearly demonstrated that that political pressure influenced decision-making at the most senior ranks of the PSNI and resulted in the officers involved being treated in a way that the Chief Constable and his senior officers must ensure is never repeated.

The Office of the Police Ombudsman has had the time to review and examine the events of that day in great detail — a luxury that was not afforded to the officers who responded on the day, who had the added pressure of COVID restrictions and guidelines within which to operate. The DUP continues to stand with the rank-and-file officers of the PSNI who, in this instance, were thrown under the bus. The Public Prosecution Service and the PSNI have, rightly, concluded that no action should be taken against the officers involved.

It is my hope that the publication of the report can allow those officers to close the door and put those events behind them.

Timothy Gaston (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

Next week, it will be a year since the DUP returned to these institutions, boasting that it had cut the pipeline of EU law. Indeed, the Member for East Belfast Mr Brooks put his name to an article in 'The Newsletter' that boasted that the:

"Stormont Brake can work to protect Northern Ireland from harmful EU law".

Having stood on the pedal, unionism has now discovered that the brake has no brake pipes attached. A matter of weeks ago, we saw that the nationalist and republican alliance in the House was happy to perform its masters' bidding and to subject Northern Ireland to laws that no one in this place or our representatives in Westminster can influence. The Secretary of State is clearly treating unionism with contempt. The core issue is that it is one of the 300 areas of law in which we are governed by a foreign parliament.

I remind every unionist in the House that they were elected on the basis of opposition to the protocol. When the votes were cast during the previous Assembly election, we all claimed that we were united behind the joint 'Unionist Declaration on the Northern Ireland Protocol' , which said that it was:

"our unalterable position that the Protocol must be rejected and replaced by arrangements which fully respect Northern Ireland’s position as a constituent and integral part of the United Kingdom."

No one now disputes the fact that the Irish Sea border remains. After last week's brake failure, no one can dispute my party's claim that it is an utterly useless mechanism. The question that now faces every unionist in the House is this: are you prepared to carry on with this sham whilst unionism continues to be walked over?

Gerry Carroll (People Before Profit Alliance, Belfast West)

There has been almost a year and a half of genocide in an attempt to annihilate a whole people in the Gaza Strip. It is worth saying that Israel, despite committing daily massacres and atrocities, failed in its aims. It stated that Hamas would be "wiped out", but it was not. Israel believed that, as a result of its war, people would rally behind it. The truth is that, as a result of its actions and killings on a mass scale, which were live-streamed, its name is the most toxic that it has ever been. During the war, we saw daily and weekly protests in most countries across the world by people of all faiths and none. Quite notably, in big cities, we saw a sizeable number of Jewish activists who were standing up for Palestine, although that was rarely featured in Western media outlets.

We cannot be complacent, because there is still a lot of work to do to end the occupation of Palestine, stop the settlements expanding and tear down those apartheid structures, but it is worth saying that people across this island played their part in the stand against Israel. Whilst there is tentative relief amongst people in the Gaza Strip and Palestinians about the ceasefire, I have no doubt that, if called upon again, people in this country — on this island — will come out in their droves. It is worth mentioning that the deal is the exact same deal that was negotiated last year. The obvious question is this: what was the obstacle? It was — surprise, surprise — Israel's reluctance to sign up to and be bound by a peace agreement.

When news of the ceasefire broke, some people rushed to throw praise on Donald Trump for it, but, in recent days, he has shown his true colours, as he seemingly has given his support for, once again, the forced movement of millions of Palestinians — into Egypt and Jordan this time. Those are countries that Palestinians do not live in or want to go to. By any definition, that is ethnic cleansing on a mass scale. Almost a week into the ceasefire, we have already seen Israel killing Palestinians on the West Bank, including two-year-old Laila al-Khatib, who was shot in the head by the Israeli military. Whilst the lives of Palestinians obviously do not matter to Israel or the occupation forces, they matter to us. That is why we protest and stand up.

Despite all the talk in this institution about exporting the lessons that can be learned from our peace story and all that kind of stuff, it is to the eternal shame of this institution that Ministers could not bring themselves to call for a ceasefire whilst a genocide was being committed live. That should be an important lesson learned for Ministers of this Executive.

Edwin Poots (DUP, Belfast South)

That concludes Members' statements.

Assembly Business

Phillip Brett (DUP, Belfast North)

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. The Standing Orders and conventions of the House are clear that if issues of government policy or budgetary matters are to be announced, they should be announced in the House. As Chairman of the Economy Committee, I, alongside my colleagues, have attempted for weeks to get details of the Economy Minister's proposed allocation of £45 million for local economic partnerships. Despite our not receiving that information, the Minister made that announcement directly to the media yesterday — once again, bypassing the Committee and the House. Will you, Mr Speaker, inform Members how we can stand up for our constituents and ensure that we can ask questions of the Ministers who are allocating that vital public funding?

A Member

Hear, hear.

Edwin Poots (DUP, Belfast South)

I have previously written to Ministers on that issue. The Member did not inform me that he was going to raise it, so I am blind on this particular issue. I will certainly look at it and will write again to the Ministers involved to remind them of their duty — their duty — to come to this place first to make their announcements. The First Minister and deputy First Minister made an announcement yesterday before coming to the Chamber. That was wholly acceptable, because there was an emergency in the country, and it was important that people got that message. It appears that there was not an emergency in this instance, and I will certainly review that. Due courtesy should be given to the House, the Committee and Members, who are elected here to hold Ministers to account. I will come back to you on that, Mr Brett, and thank you for drawing it to my attention.

Members, please take your ease before we move to the next item of business.

(Mr Deputy Speaker [Mr Blair] in the Chair)

Ministerial Statements

John Blair (Alliance, South Antrim)

The Speaker has received notice from the Executive Office that the First Minister and deputy First Minister wish to make a statement. Before I call the Minister, I remind Members that questions should be concise. Long introductions will not be allowed.

Emma Little-Pengelly (DUP, Lagan Valley)

I wish to make a statement on the 42nd summit of the British-Irish Council (BIC), which took place on 6 December 2024. Hosted by the Scottish Government at the Dalmahoy Hotel in Edinburgh, the summit marked the 25th anniversary of the Council's first meeting, which took place in London in December 1999.

Heads of delegation were welcomed by the Scottish Government's First Minister, John Swinney. The First Minister and I attended the summit along with the Minister for the Economy and the Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs. The Ministers have agreed that I make the statement on their behalf.

The UK Government delegation was led by the Prime Minister, Sir Keir Starmer; the Irish Government delegation was led by the Taoiseach, Simon Harris; and the Welsh Government delegation was led by the First Minister, Eluned Morgan. The Government of Guernsey were represented by the Chief Minister, Deputy Lyndon Trott; the Government of Jersey by the Chief Minister, Deputy Lyndon Farnham; and the Isle of Man Government by the Chief Minister, Deputy Alfred Cannan. A full list of the principal delegates who attended is attached to the statement, which has been provided to Members.

The theme of the summit was financing a just transition, and prior to the plenary meeting, the Scottish Government delivered a presentation on the subject. Angus Macpherson, former Co-Chair of the former First Minister's Investor Panel, provided an overview of the characteristics of investor-friendly destinations. That was followed by Deputy First Minister, Kate Forbes, who set out the Scottish Government's approach to attracting global capital investment.

The plenary meeting commenced with a discussion about the initiatives that member Administrations are pursuing in order to ensure that communities are supported in the journey towards decarbonisation and net zero. The plenary meeting also considered efforts to reduce greenhouse gases in various sectors in a manner that is compatible with a just transition.

The Council discussed the importance of working in collaboration with the private sector to encourage inward investment and increase employment opportunities in the renewable energy industry in order to stimulate economic growth and prosperity across our islands. The discussion provided us with the opportunity to highlight several initiatives that are taking place in our own Departments as we move to meet our net zero target and transition to becoming a clean, sustainable and affordable society. Those include work within Northern Ireland's Climate Change Act, our energy strategy, our green skills action plan, our renewable electricity support scheme, our net zero accelerator fund and the establishment of a just transition commission.

We highlighted the importance of working closely with the business and farming communities in ensuring the success of the transition and the pivotal role that those communities will play in realising its full potential. We also reflected that fairness is at the core of a process and that we must provide confidence and clarity around how we will move to net zero in a fair and balanced way. While the scale of the challenge may seem a daunting prospect for some, there is no doubt that it can present opportunities for our people, our businesses and communities. It also places a great responsibility on us in government to deliver a just energy transition, where the benefits are shared by all.

Council members also briefed colleagues on significant developments in their own Administrations and reflected on a number of important domestic topics, including economic growth. The Council also discussed international topics of mutual interest. We took the opportunity to update the Council on the Executive's progress as we near the 1st anniversary of their restoration. We updated members on the development of our Programme for Government and highlighted the important work that is being taken forward under the Executive's ending violence against women and girls strategic framework. We expressed concern about our challenging fiscal situation and spoke of the vital need to transform our public services. We also welcomed the resetting of intergovernmental relations, following the Westminster election, and commended the contribution of the British-Irish Council in promoting positive relations across our islands.

Finally, the Council noted that the next British-Irish Council summit will be hosted by the Northern Ireland Executive in June 2025.

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

Thank you, deputy First Minister, for that statement. This is, indeed, the most vital of subjects and this is an appropriate forum in which to discuss it. You did not mention, however, that Northern Ireland has been a laggard compared with all the other regions. We have a carbon budget, which was passed by the Assembly a number of months ago. I presume and hope that the Environment Minister is now bringing forward a climate action plan. Can you confirm that that climate action plan will be agreed and signed off by the Executive and your party by the time of the next British-Irish Council meeting in Northern Ireland this June?

Emma Little-Pengelly (DUP, Lagan Valley)

I thank the Member for his question. He will be aware that there are a number of legal requirements and obligations on Ministers, and Ministers will endeavour to meet all those legal obligations. Of course, when any policy proposal is brought to the Executive Committee for discussion and agreement, it is right and proper that we scrutinise the detail of that proposal. We will have that discussion, and the desire is to get agreement and consensus on that.

Colm Gildernew (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I thank the Minister for the statement. I note that the next summit will take place here in June. Does the Minister agree that those summits provide a very useful opportunity for all Governments involved to collaborate and share as we work our way through similar issues and challenges?

Emma Little-Pengelly (DUP, Lagan Valley)

Absolutely, and I thank the Member for that question. Collaboration is always of benefit, as is building those robust and resilient relationships, including with other jurisdictions. Not just in relation to this area but on many of the challenges that we face, it makes sense to have those discussions and hear about what is happening and what is working elsewhere. If it is convenient and appropriate to do so, we should take some of that learning and apply it in Northern Ireland. That is the quickest way to get solutions that actually work. In relation to this particular issue, we emphasised in our contributions that it is important that we do not get into the space of competition in some of the areas in which we are developing and investing.

Collaboration, as opposed to everybody trying to do the same thing and competing in the same space, makes sense. It is a huge emerging area. There are, undoubtedly, opportunities for businesses in green growth, but we should do it in a collaborative, complementary and supplementary way with our closest neighbours.

Brian Kingston (DUP, Belfast North)

I am glad to hear from the deputy First Minister that the important topic of reform of our public services was raised at the summit meeting. What commitment can the deputy First Minister give that reform and transformation remain key priorities for our Executive?

Emma Little-Pengelly (DUP, Lagan Valley)

Yes, reform is absolutely key. We cannot continue to do things as we are doing them, or we will get the same outcomes. We know that, throughout Northern Ireland and across the Chamber, there is a desire to improve outcomes and the things that we do to ensure that we meet the needs of the people of Northern Ireland through better rolled-out and transformed public services. Transformation is key. I think that every jurisdiction is looking at the issue. We must do things better in order to achieve the outcomes that we want to achieve.

Stewart Dickson (Alliance, East Antrim)

Thank you, deputy First Minister, for your statement, in which you said that you took the opportunity to update the Council on the Executive's progress as you near your first anniversary. Without reform, however, the Executive and the Assembly are as unstable today as they were at the point of restoration. What, if any, opportunity did you take with the Prime Minister to pursue a reform agenda for this institution, or are you satisfied with the high risk of continued instability?

Emma Little-Pengelly (DUP, Lagan Valley)

I thank the Member for his question. The Member will be more than aware that these institutions, the mechanisms within them and the key principles of consensus and cross-community consensus were all in the Belfast/Good Friday Agreement, an agreement signed up to by a number of parties and endorsed by the people of Northern Ireland and the people of the Republic of Ireland. It has been said repeatedly that the Alliance Party seeks to change the mechanisms that were so consulted on, endorsed and signed up to: that is a matter for a different place. In this statement today, we are focusing on one of the institutions of those agreements — the British-Irish Council — and on the important issues of transformation of public services and green growth.

Nicola Brogan (Sinn Féin, West Tyrone)

Gabhaim buíochas leis an leasChéad-Aire.

[Translation: I thank the deputy First Minister.]

The Minister mentioned reaching our net-zero targets and transitioning to become a more sustainable society. Will she outline what work is ongoing across the Executive to help to achieve those aims, le do thoil?

[Translation: please?]

Emma Little-Pengelly (DUP, Lagan Valley)

I thank the Member for her question. The Member will be aware that this work is led by the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs; indeed, the AERA Minister has brought forward a number of key documents. Many are cross-cutting and significant, which is why they are matters for Executive consideration and agreement. It is important that all Ministers are involved in that process.

The focus of this summit was on a just transition. That is incredibly important, because I think that, at times, people out there feel that that is an agenda that does not necessarily connect to them and will, potentially, increase costs for businesses and consumers. The key thing about the summit was the focus on what is just and balanced. I emphasised at the summit the importance of ensuring that we bring the people with us on this in terms of pace, cost and the impact on public services. Whatever we do in trying to achieve that worthy objective must be done in collaboration with farmers, businesses, the economic generators that are so important to our economy and, indeed, our public services and infrastructure to make sure that we can still do what we need to do in an affordable way.

Harry Harvey (DUP, Strangford)

Deputy First Minister, what work is being undertaken with the business and agriculture sectors to ensure that targets to reach net zero are fair as well as achievable?

Emma Little-Pengelly (DUP, Lagan Valley)

I thank the Member for his important question. Our farming and business communities are the backbone of Northern Ireland's economy. I pay tribute to all those who work so hard day in, day out to hold up our economy and provide employment and many other essential things. I also pay tribute to all those who were out working throughout the period of difficult weather. Farmers do not get the luxury of staying at home and staying safe. They are out every day in every type of weather to provide the food and produce that not only feed Northern Ireland but make the sector a net contributor to the rest of the United Kingdom.

The Member is absolutely right: as we move forward with this agenda, it is critical that we do so in collaboration with farmers, recognising that there ought not to be a disproportionate burden on those who are trying their best and playing such a pivotal role in our food security and our economy.

Paula Bradshaw (Alliance, Belfast South)

I thank the deputy First Minister for her statement. She will be aware that, a few weeks ago, the Executive Office Committee consented to the Northern Ireland Climate Commissioner Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2024. There is quite a bit in the statement on net zero targets. Will she provide an update on when the regulations will be brought forward?

Emma Little-Pengelly (DUP, Lagan Valley)

I thank the Member for her question. A number of questions and issues have been raised around that proposal. Establishing a Climate Commissioner is a legal requirement on the Executive Office, but I am sure that, in the Member's role as Chair of the Committee, she will be aware of the challenges that we have faced because of the drafting of that legislation. It is not without its problems. We have outlined the problems, but we are trying to move forward as best we can within the limitations. The current legislation is not adequate for us to do what we need to do in order to have a fully functioning Climate Commissioner's office, but we are working through that with our lawyers to see what we can do within the parameters of what was drafted and passed by this place.

Pat Sheehan (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

The deputy First Minister said that the theme of the summit was financing the just transition. Will she outline which other areas are covered by the Council's programme of work?

Emma Little-Pengelly (DUP, Lagan Valley)

I thank the Member for his question. The British-Irish Council currently covers 10 work sectors: transport; housing; energy; early years; environment; indigenous, minority and lesser-used languages; drugs and alcohol; planning and places; social inclusion; and creative industries. The summit is reasonably flexible with its agendas. The last few summits have focused on a wide range of issues relating to green growth and the just transition. At the moment, we are discussing what our summit should look at. A number of key challenges face not just us in Northern Ireland and across the United Kingdom but these isles. Some of those issues have been touched on in the Chamber this morning, including transformation of our public services; tackling high waiting lists, which are not unique to us; transformation in the health service; providing affordable childcare; tackling poverty; and trying to achieve economic growth. There is a wide range of issues that we could choose to focus on in our summit. It is good that we have a body that has the flexibility to discuss emerging issues, as it has done over the past 25 years.

Phillip Brett (DUP, Belfast North)

I welcome the fact that the next meeting of the BIC will take place in Northern Ireland and commend North Belfast as the perfect location to host it.

Deputy First Minister, your statement rightly referenced the importance of green growth. Some £150 million has been secured from the Treasury for an enhanced economic zone in Northern Ireland that will focus on green growth. The Department for the Economy has made limited progress in developing that fund and supporting businesses across Northern Ireland. Given the importance of that funding, will you, as the joint head of government, commit to continuing to drive to ensure that we spend the money as soon as possible and continue to grow the economy here?

Emma Little-Pengelly (DUP, Lagan Valley)

I thank the Member for his question and for raising the important issue of opportunities that are presented to us that may not yet have been taken up or have not been taken up and rolled out at the speed that we would wish to see. He is absolutely right. When I listen to people talk about our public services and about transformation, what they say always seems to be prefaced with a hunger or desire by some outside this place to push a significant additional cost on to the citizens of Northern Ireland. I say clearly that, before we contemplate doing that, we must look at every Department and agency to see what opportunities exist to maximise spend and to tackle inefficiency or waste. We need to look at what we can do better with the money that we already have before we have the audacity to say to the ordinary working people of Northern Ireland, "Pay us even more money so that we can take it and not use it in the way in which we ought to be using it". That is a challenge to all our Executive members.

I say strongly that the Executive will not simply take what I see as the easy route of heaping additional bills on the ordinary working families of Northern Ireland. We will look first at the funds that we have, how we spend them and how we can get greater efficiency and do more with what we have.

Emma Sheerin (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

I thank the deputy First Minister for the statement. I was heartened to hear it touch on the importance of ending violence against women and girls. How important is it that our Government and Governments across these islands work with one another to end that scourge on society?

Emma Little-Pengelly (DUP, Lagan Valley)

It is such an important issue. In the first couple of days, around this time last year, the First Minister and I set out clearly that tackling it was key for us. Each death is an absolute tragedy and should have been avoided. We will do everything that we can through the strategy and implementation plan that we have delivered to ensure that everything possible is being done to tackle the scourge of violence against women and girls. We recognise, however, that we cannot do that alone: the Government cannot do it alone, and the Department cannot do it alone. We must work with partners in the community, in schools and in councils. That is why the schemes were rolled out to councils and why some of the funding from them will go to community groups that work directly with those women and girls. They know best what needs to be done to tackle that scourge.

It is also important that we send out a clear message that violence against women and girls is absolutely unacceptable. We are appalled by the level of it in Northern Ireland and are determined to do everything that we can to reduce and eliminate it.

Cheryl Brownlee (DUP, East Antrim)

I thank the deputy First Minister for the statement. Will she provide an update on what arrangements are being made for the next British-Irish Council meeting?

Emma Little-Pengelly (DUP, Lagan Valley)

I thank the Member for her question. Yes, I will. Work on the preparations for the British-Irish Council summit in Northern Ireland in June 2025 continues. It is a really good opportunity for us to pick the issue that we want to discuss at it, which, in my view, should be connected to our Programme for Government and should be an issue on which we can have genuinely good engagement on what we need to do, what learning we can take away and what collaborations we can continue to have that will benefit the people of Northern Ireland.

A huge amount of preparation goes into such events. It is a good opportunity for us to showcase Northern Ireland and what we do here and to showcase the food and other produce of Northern Ireland, as well as our wonderful scenery. We are working on all those issues and hope, shortly, to be able to make some announcements about what the focus will be on and about other aspects of the summit.

Sinéad McLaughlin (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

I thank the deputy First Minister for the statement. She referred to the need to work in collaboration with the private sector. I have spoken to multiple companies in the energy sector. One of the main things that they tell me is that the grid is not fit for purpose. What lessons have you taken from how other jurisdictions develop their grid? Exactly what actions are the Executive taking to make Northern Ireland an investor-friendly destination?

Emma Little-Pengelly (DUP, Lagan Valley)

We are working on the investment strategy for Northern Ireland (ISNI). That is where the focus on capital investment will be. The Programme for Government deals with priorities, and the investment strategy will sit alongside it. Taking a longer-term approach is key to capital investment, because, sadly, such projects take a significant amount of time. Public-sector capital projects take a terribly long time.

Due to the length of time that they take, we see the initial projected costs rising. We see problems arising with the roll-out of some of those projects because it tends to take place over many years. We are looking at that situation through the Strategic Investment Board (SIB), with a real focus on how we improve it. Very few jurisdictions do public-sector capital programmes well. However, everybody is striving to do them better. That economic growth is so important in what we need to do to support our public services and our private sector.

The Member is absolutely right. It is a specialist area. We will, of course, continue to talk to experts in that field about what we need to do. There will probably also be lessons learned about the resilience of the network following the storm that we saw last weekend. Work will continue on that. It has also been flagged as an important issue for grid security. Hopefully, we will be able to update the Member on that very shortly.

Timothy Gaston (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

Deputy First Minister, as the Speaker observed at the start of business today, next week marks the anniversary of the restoration of these institutions. That was partly justified by your party because of the creation of Intertrade UK, yet there is no mention of Intertrade UK in your statement. Why didn't Intertrade UK feature in the discussion, and what is its current budget?

Emma Little-Pengelly (DUP, Lagan Valley)

I thank the Member for his question. He may not be aware of this, but the statement was on the British-Irish Council summit. That is entirely different from the Intertrade UK structure and, indeed, the many structures to enhance collaboration that we have throughout the United Kingdom and beyond. All those structures are important, because greater and wider collaboration across this United Kingdom is important. As a unionist, that is my priority, but it is also key for Northern Ireland. We are a small place, and we should be listening to and learning from elsewhere, taking what we can to ensure that we can roll that out with our public services.

Speaking in a personal capacity, Intertrade UK was very much a proposal of my party, the DUP. We are pleased that the UK Government accepted that proposal and are moving forward with it. Would we like it to be moving forward faster? Of course we would. We welcome the fact that a chairperson has been appointed and understand that we are to have further discussions shortly with the UK Government on the setting up of the body.

I have emphasised, in this role, through a number of the bodies that we sit on — the inter-ministerial councils and the UK-wide bodies — the importance of having Intertrade UK, because we know that there are many businesses in Great Britain that do not understand the current set of systems and are pre-emptively withdrawing from the Northern Ireland market when there is no need to do so. It is critical that companies know that they can send their goods to Northern Ireland, that Northern Ireland is open for business and that those consumer lines are still protected to ensure that we have consumer choice in Northern Ireland. Intertrade UK will play a pivotal and good role in that. The UK Government need to step up and get on with establishing it so that it can fully engage in its work.

John Blair (Alliance, South Antrim)

Thank you, deputy First Minister. That concludes questions on the statement. Please take your ease for a moment before we move to the next item in the Order Paper.

John Blair (Alliance, South Antrim)

The Speaker has received notice from the Minister for Communities that he wishes to make a statement.

Gordon Lyons (DUP, East Antrim)

I will update the Assembly on the housing selection scheme and the ongoing, fundamental review of social housing allocations. I have carefully considered the evidence available and, today, made a decision on the matter of intimidation points.

It has long been a source of frustration to me, along with many others in the Chamber, that the selection scheme treats victims of violence differently, based on the cause of that violence. A victim of terrorism receives more points than a victim of domestic abuse. Someone who has been targeted because of their ethnic identity receives more points than someone who has been targeted because of their gender. We must level the playing field for victims of violence. I am keen to ensure that victims of violence and those who are at risk of violence, including victims of domestic abuse, are prioritised appropriately. We must be more focused on how violence, or the threat of violence, affects a victim and their ability to remain in their home.

My Department has worked with the Housing Executive on a fundamental review of how social homes are allocated, with the aim of making the process fairer and more transparent. A public consultation on 20 proposals for change took place in 2017. The Housing Executive commissioned independent research to inform the future of intimidation points through a range of options. Following careful consideration and in line with the Housing Executive's recommendation, I am announcing today that intimidation points, in the form of rule 23 of the selection scheme, will be removed.

Some Members

Hear, hear.

Gordon Lyons (DUP, East Antrim)

The allocation of 200 points will cease. The independent research, which included extensive stakeholder engagement, and the Housing Executive's consideration of the options informed the decision. Applicants who have experienced violence or abuse or who are at risk of violence or abuse, whatever the motivation and whomever the perpetrator, will continue to be assessed and provided with emergency assistance under the homelessness legislation. The removal of intimidation points will not alter the Housing Executive's duty to support those who need such emergency assistance and find themselves unable to remain in their home. The provision of emergency temporary accommodation will remain under the homelessness legislation. Indeed, the Housing Executive will continue to facilitate specialist tailored support for customers who are impacted on by violence, abuse or trauma.

My decision today is focused on the housing selection scheme, which operates separately from the provision of temporary emergency accommodation under the homelessness legislation. The housing selection scheme is the mechanism for assessing objective housing need in order to make an allocation of a permanent social home. Going forward, the points for violence or the threat of violence in the scheme will not exclude any victim of abuse, violence or trauma. Regardless of causation, victims will be assessed using the same criteria that are in the housing selection scheme. It is an important step forward that all those who are victims of violence, harassment or trauma for any reason, including domestic abuse, will be able to access the same categories of points in the scheme. I have tasked the Housing Executive with removing rule 23 by the end of this financial year.

There will be transitional protection. Applicants who have alleged intimidation and whose circumstances are being considered under rule 23 prior to its removal will be investigated in line with the existing policies and procedures. Applicants who have already been awarded 200 points under rule 23 will retain those points until they are rehoused or until they refuse two reasonable offers of accommodation. Those are transitional arrangements to protect those who have already been awarded points and those whose application is in train.

Work on the fundamental review of the scheme is making progress, with nine of the 20 proposals implemented already. Work continues on the remaining proposals. I want to use the opportunity to do more, so I have asked the Housing Executive to take forward work to review the primary social needs criteria and points for all victims of violence, abuse and trauma as soon as possible and to engage with stakeholders to inform what the prospective changes will look like. I will also consider the impact on the emergency grant. As it stands, if access to the grant were widened to all victims of violence, it would have substantial cost implications. Therefore, I will urgently consider how that support to victims may continue without there being an unsustainable impact on the budget. I assure Members that I will carefully consider the way forward, including any advice or recommendation that is received from the Housing Executive.

I have taken the decision to ensure that the points for violence or threat of violence in the scheme will not exclude any victim of abuse, violence or trauma. That will level the playing field and enable the Housing Executive to award primary social needs points based on the impact on victims, regardless of the cause. As I have said, I want to do more. I want to go beyond removal, and I have asked the Housing Executive to review the primary social needs criteria and points in the scheme and to bring forward those proposals as part of the fundamental review. This decision will ultimately support the Executive’s focus on ending violence against women and girls as set out in the draft Programme for Government. I commend the statement to the House.

Some Members

Hear, hear.

John Blair (Alliance, South Antrim)

Minister, thank you for the statement.

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

We welcome the ongoing efforts to amend a housing allocation scheme that abuses many people and is abused by some. It is shameful and sad that it is victims of domestic abuse who have to uproot their lives and leave their properties, and it is appropriate that they should be served equally by the system to other victims of threat, fear and abuse. However, they should be served equally well not equally badly, and we will have to reserve judgement on that until we see the review of primary social needs points. How does the Minister explain his decision to remove intimidation points altogether, given the previous Minister's commitment not to do so? What steps will be taken to avoid the uneven and unfair system beyond transition where victims up to a certain point will have received 200 points and after the new date will not?

Gordon Lyons (DUP, East Antrim)

First, I agree with the Member that it is a horrendous situation that the innocent victims of domestic abuse are often the ones who have their lives most uprooted. That should not be the case, but we have to deal with the applicants as they come to us, and that is why I want to make sure that there is that level playing field right across Northern Ireland in regard to the points.

I cannot comment on the actions of the previous Minister, but, from my point of view, I have always said that I am a Minister who wants to get things done, to move forward and to make sure that we are delivering for people in Northern Ireland. That is what we are doing today. I received the research and the recommendations, and I considered what the housing associations and what many Members across the House have said to me. I have taken that on board, and I have taken action.

The Member also raised issues in relation to a transition phase. Obviously, we want to move to that next phase, and we want to do that as quickly as possible. However, I want to be fair to those who have already gone through the process, and that is why those who have already been awarded points will retain those points until they turn down two reasonable offers of accommodation or find a suitable home.

Ciara Ferguson (Sinn Féin, Foyle)

I thank the Minister for his statement. Minister, can you put a time frame on the Housing Executive's proposed review of rule 43, which is on primary social needs, given that we need to understand how that change will still be able to adequately prioritise people in imminent and serious danger and people with trauma, including victims of domestic abuse, and protect people from eviction?

Gordon Lyons (DUP, East Antrim)

That is an important review that will need to take place. We should make sure that we get it right, because it will have a huge impact on the allocation and on the lists. That will take time. I do not expect that to be done this year. I think that it will be later on into next year before that is completed. We want that done as quickly as possible, but, obviously, we want it to be as comprehensive as possible as well.

Cheryl Brownlee (DUP, East Antrim)

Thank you, Minister. I very much welcome the announcement, particularly because we are now putting victims first for the first time. That is so fundamental to this change. You said that the date for the removal of intimidation points is by the end of the financial year, but, Minister, can you give a definite date for when intimidation points will be removed?

Gordon Lyons (DUP, East Antrim)

I thank the Member for her comments, and I welcome her interest in the issue. She has raised it with me on a number of occasions, and I know that she will be pleased with the outcome and with the impact that this will have, as she rightly said, on victims in Northern Ireland. I am committed to doing this as quickly as possible. I think that that is what Members across the Chamber want to see happen. I believe that that will be done by the end of this financial year. Obviously, we need to work in coordination with the Housing Executive on that. I have to say that I have a very good relationship with the Housing Executive and with Grainia Long, who is doing a very good job in her role as chief executive. We will be working together to do this as soon as possible, and it is certainly our intention to have this done by the end of the financial year.

Kellie Armstrong (Alliance, Strangford)

Today is an important step in our peacebuilding process when we see that Northern Ireland has the opportunity to remove intimidation points and not give paramilitaries the opportunity to threaten people and create a society that only they control. I thank the Minister for that and for addressing some of the frustrations that many of us know. I also appreciate that this decision reflects on many of the responses that were received by the Housing Executive from Homeless Connect and bodies like that, and I thank the Minister for that too.

In the review of primary social needs, there are still gaps. For example, it does not talk about the victims of human trafficking. I would welcome a review of that. Is it the Minister's intention that the primary social needs points will replace intimidation points? If so, will the police be required to verify applications?

Gordon Lyons (DUP, East Antrim)

I thank the Member for her kind words, which are reflective of where many in the Chamber are: they have seen the issues that these intimidation points have caused in the past. They will be removed, and primary social needs will be looked at. That review will take place. The Member mentioned in particular some issues around human trafficking, and all that can form part of where we go from here.

In relation to — sorry, what was the Member's other question?

Kellie Armstrong (Alliance, Strangford)

It was about the police.

Gordon Lyons (DUP, East Antrim)

Yes, sorry: the police and verification. There are existing systems in place using the PSNI and voluntary and community sector organisations and others. That will continue, but I also expect it to be reviewed, because we need to make sure that the system is as robust as possible. I understand that concerns have been expressed about that, but I hope that we will be able to get a system in place that everybody has confidence in.

John Blair (Alliance, South Antrim)

Before we move on, I remind Members again that questions should be concise. The more concise your question, the better the chance that your Assembly colleagues will have of their question being reached.

Andy Allen (UUP, Belfast East)

I thank the Minister for his statement. I do not think that anybody in the House will deny that intimidation and, indeed, paramilitary intimidation still happens in our communities, irrespective of the 200-point award. Can the Minister advise the House what steps the Executive have taken collectively to eradicate paramilitarism?

Gordon Lyons (DUP, East Antrim)

The Member is absolutely right to raise that issue, because I think, and I hope, that it is the ambition of everybody in the Chamber to see an end to paramilitary activity in Northern Ireland. I do not believe that there was ever justification for paramilitary activity, and I certainly do not believe that there is justification for paramilitary activity today. I will work with the Justice Minister and others to end paramilitary activity and the coercive control that can come from it. Today is an important step in making sure that, regardless of the cause of violence, we have a level playing field to protect victims, because that should be our main responsibility and focus.

Maolíosa McHugh (Sinn Féin, West Tyrone)

Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire as a ráiteas.

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

Will funding be provided to support the NIHE's front-line staff involved in housing allocations to undergo trauma training in order to minimise any potential re-traumatisation of clients during the assessment process following the review of primary social needs points and to remove barriers to sustainable engagement?

Gordon Lyons (DUP, East Antrim)

That is an operational matter for the Housing Executive. I am always happy to talk to the Housing Executive if additional resource is required, but that is not something that has been raised specifically with me by the Housing Executive, as it has control over its budget and how it is allocated. As always, I will be happy to discuss this further with the Member or with the Housing Executive if it is a pressing issue that needs to be addressed.

Peter Martin (DUP, North Down)

I join colleagues in welcoming this statement this morning. It will be incredibly positive for a whole range of people across Northern Ireland. I will focus on domestic abuse and ask the Minister if he can give us more details about what these changes will specifically mean for survivors of domestic abuse in Northern Ireland.

Gordon Lyons (DUP, East Antrim)

First and foremost, it levels the playing field. I have heard from housing associations and from Members across the House about the unfairness of people being treated differently because of the cause of violence. I hope that this sends a strong message that we do not believe that domestic violence is any less worthy a reason for people getting the support that they need. I do not believe that it should ever be seen that way. It is an exceptionally serious issue that devastates lives and has generational impacts. I hope that the statement sends a clear message across Northern Ireland that it is not acceptable and that we will support the victims on a level playing field with everyone else.

Connie Egan (Alliance, North Down)

Minister, I welcome the fact that victims of domestic abuse will be assessed and provided with emergency assistance, and that the process is to become fairer and more transparent. Will you provide a copy of the assessment process that establishes how specialised, tailored support for those who are impacted on by violence, abuse or trauma will be assessed?

Gordon Lyons (DUP, East Antrim)

I am certainly happy to make that available to the Member and the entire House.

Deirdre Hargey (Sinn Féin, Belfast South)

Thanks very much, Minister. Under the housing selection scheme that you mentioned in your statement, the succession of tenancy policy has seen an increase in evictions and homelessness, particularly in the Belfast area, in recent times. A recent High Court case actually ruled in favour of a tenant whom the Housing Executive was trying to evict. In light of those incidents, will the Minister urgently review that policy and its application?

Gordon Lyons (DUP, East Antrim)

We always keep those issues under review. It is clear that there is a balance to be struck to ensure that we always have the right homes for the right people who need them, with the right adaptations or whatever else it might be. At the same time, we understand the importance of succession, especially when families have been established and people have been living in those homes. If the Member has a particular case that she wants to raise with me, I will be happy to look at that.

Brian Kingston (DUP, Belfast North)

I thank the Minister for his welcome statement about being fair to all victims of violence. How can he ensure, as part of the ongoing review, that the primary social needs criteria and points are appropriate and fair to all?

Gordon Lyons (DUP, East Antrim)

That is an important question. We will take time to examine properly the entirety of the issue and ensure that we get it right. We will welcome input from the Member and others as we seek to ensure that we have a system that is fit for purpose and reflects accurately the existing need.

Colm Gildernew (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I am conscious of the concerns that have been raised by Housing Rights. What engagement was there with stakeholders? Who will oversee implementation of the removal of rule 23?

Gordon Lyons (DUP, East Antrim)

The Housing Executive will oversee implementation of the removal of rule 23. The proposal was consulted on widely. In 2017, there was an extensive public consultation. A comprehensive communications and media plan was drawn up. Five public events were held across Northern Ireland, and 13 further targeted stakeholder events took place. A mailshot was issued to all applicants on the waiting list. A total of 185 responses were received from a wide range of stakeholders. My decision has been welcomed broadly. It will be welcomed by stakeholders outside the Chamber, and, judging from the comments that we have heard so far, it has been widely welcomed in the Chamber.

Diane Forsythe (DUP, South Down)

I thank the Minister for his statement and especially for putting victims at the centre of his decision. It is a powerful day for victims, whose voices have been heard. The announcement and the move to help them to escape violence will certainly save lives.

Minister, concern about intimidation points has been an issue for many years. Why has it taken so long to resolve?

Gordon Lyons (DUP, East Antrim)

I thank the Member not only for her question and support but for the work that she has done on the issue for many years. The issue is close to the hearts of many Members around the Chamber. We have all met victims of domestic abuse. We want to do everything that we can to help.

The issue has been going on for many years. Back in 2016, there were debates in the House about the need to remove intimidation points. My party and I have supported that for a long time. There has been a number of reviews. Recommendations have been brought forward along with reports. I am glad that we are in a position today to do it. I cannot comment on what has happened and the responsibilities of those who came before me, but I have always said that, during my time in office, I will get things done to the benefit and betterment of people in Northern Ireland. This decision is another example of that.

Peter McReynolds (Alliance, Belfast East)

Minister, your Department was the lead for Fresh Start work stream two:

"People and communities are more resilient to paramilitary influence and involvement in paramilitarism, criminality and organised crime."

Where a tenant engages in threatening, violent or abusive behaviour towards another household, what will you do to ensure that it is that tenant rather than the tenant from the other household who loses their tenancy?

Gordon Lyons (DUP, East Antrim)

I am glad that the Member has raised the issue, because it is another one that he will see action on soon. There has been a joint consultation with the Department of Justice on antisocial behaviour. We need to make better use of the antisocial behaviour powers that we have, and we also need to increase them. It is inappropriate — I am sure that we all have examples from our constituencies — for those who are, essentially, the troublemakers to be treated better than their victims. In line with what I have set out today, Members will see the change in approach that I am bringing forward: we will always put the victim first.

Phillip Brett (DUP, Belfast North)

Minister, it is a good day for fairness and a great day for equality. The people of North Belfast are sick to the back teeth of languishing on waiting lists while they see those who engage in anti-community activity rushed to the top of the housing selection scheme, particularly when a new social housing allocation —

John Blair (Alliance, South Antrim)

Ask your question.

Phillip Brett (DUP, Belfast North)

— is about to be awarded. Minister, other parties in the Chamber talk the talk about ensuring fairness and equality. Do you agree that that shows that this party walks the walk?

Gordon Lyons (DUP, East Antrim)

I am grateful to the Member for his support, which is often vocal, from the Back Benches. I know that the issue concerns him. I have made it clear that I want to get things done while I hold this office. I hope that, when it comes to housing, we see action being taken. For a long time, people have wanted to see action on the removal of intimidation points; we have taken action. People want to see a housing supply strategy; I have brought one forward. People wanted to see a stand-alone outcome for housing in the Programme for Government; we delivered that as well. I will continue to deliver, whether that is on antisocial behaviour, on cheaper rent through the intermediate rent scheme, through more innovative use of financial transactions capital or by making it easier to build more affordable homes. We are in a crisis situation in Northern Ireland. I will not sit back. I will do what I can to make sure that we improve the lives of people in Northern Ireland.

Sian Mulholland (Alliance, North Antrim)

Thank you so much, Minister, for your statement. A lot of single men who are under threat and kept in temporary accommodation stay there for a long time. If intimidation points are taken away, what support will be given to such men, given that we know that it is difficult for a single male in the system? Similarly, there are male victims of domestic violence who have custody of their children but cannot get extra space. Will support be offered to them?

Gordon Lyons (DUP, East Antrim)

First and foremost, it is about making sure that everybody is on a level playing field and that it does not matter whether a victim of domestic violence or abuse or of intimidation of any kind is female or male. We need to see more homes in the first place, which is why we have the housing supply strategy. With the allocations that I made before Christmas, I provided additional help for those who found themselves homeless. There were also increases for the Supporting People programme, so those who are in a vulnerable situation and need help also have that support. If the Member wishes to raise specific instances with me, I am happy for her to do so. The Housing Executive is committed to doing everything that it can to help those in need, but she raises an important issue, and I have taken it on board.

Nuala McAllister (Alliance, Belfast North)

I thank the Minister for his statement. I welcome the removal of points and the review of primary social needs criteria as part of the overall review. My question is about the review of the emergency grant. In North Belfast, housing is a major stressor, and I am sure that Members' constituency staff will be pleased to hear the statement and will look forward to working with the Housing Executive in the transition period. Minister, how will you ensure that, in the review of the emergency grant, equity will be considered so that those who are most immediately affected are supported?

Gordon Lyons (DUP, East Antrim)

That is absolutely what we want to do through the emergency grant. That is why we will review it. It is currently set at £754, and we pay out about £120,000 a year in grants.

As I said in my statement, there is the potential for a significant cost implication, but that will be looked at. I hope that people can see it from what I have said today, but we want to put fairness at the heart of everything that we do. That includes the emergency grant. We must make sure that we get help to those who need it.

Maurice Bradley (DUP, East Londonderry)

I thank the Minister for his statement. I am sure that it will be welcomed across Northern Ireland, as the issue has been a bone of contention in many areas. The immediate costs of implementing the change are expected to be minimal. The long-term financial impact as a result of the increased demand for housing assistance may be a factor, however. What additional resources are being allocated for that purpose?

Gordon Lyons (DUP, East Antrim)

There is no doubt that we face a housing crisis, and that is why I have taken the steps that I have taken, whether by providing additional resources to tackle some of the acute homelessness issues that we face or by providing additional financial transactions capital to find new ways to ensure that we have adequate housing supply in Northern Ireland. We also need to ensure that we have a housing supply strategy in place so that we can increase the overall number of homes. I do not believe that today's announcement, as the Member rightly stated, will have a significant financial impact, but I am determined to do everything that I can to make sure that we have a housing system that is fit for purpose. I will ask Executive colleagues, who have also made that commitment, to make sure that the funding is in place so that we can succeed.

Michelle Guy (Alliance, Lagan Valley)

I thank the Minister for his statement today. Has he any plans to mainstream the social inclusion model developed through the shared housing programme to empower residents to be resilient to paramilitary influence and to encourage social mixing?

Gordon Lyons (DUP, East Antrim)

It is not specifically part of today's announcement, but we want to do everything that we can to reduce and, I hope, eliminate the control and power that paramilitaries have, and, to achieve that, we will look at all the options.

Colin Crawford (UUP, North Antrim)

In his statement, the Minister highlighted primary social needs criteria and points for all victims of violence. Will he therefore advise, given that violence is already covered under the primary social needs criteria, whether he foresees a new category being added? Will it include increasing the number of points, which is currently 20 for each primary social needs criterion, to a maximum of 40 points?

Gordon Lyons (DUP, East Antrim)

That will all form part of the review that will take place over the next year. If the Member has particular views on what we should do, I will be happy to hear from him.

Gerry Carroll (People Before Profit Alliance, Belfast West)

I am really concerned about the announcement. I fear that it will put people at risk, and I say that with no exaggeration. For people who are the victim of a paramilitary, racist or domestic violence attack, the announcement effectively says that they cannot quickly get the 200 points required to get out of the house, meaning that they will have to stay there. I am concerned that the announcement is not victim-centred and pits victims of domestic violence against victims of racist violence and other types of violence.

John Blair (Alliance, South Antrim)

Question.

Gerry Carroll (People Before Profit Alliance, Belfast West)

The Minister could have increased the threshold for victims of domestic violence, but, under today's announcement, everyone will lose out, so it is very concerning.

Gordon Lyons (DUP, East Antrim)

No. The Member is absolutely wrong. First, the rules on emergency accommodation will stay the same. Nobody will be forced to stay in their home. If somebody is at risk, is fearful or needs to leave their home, the same rules will apply for accessing emergency temporary accommodation if their life is at risk.

I strongly disagree with what the Member said about pitting people against one another. It was a disgraceful comment. That is not what the announcement is about. It is about making sure that everybody is treated in the same fashion. It is about levelling the playing field.

Gerry Carroll (People Before Profit Alliance, Belfast West)

[Inaudible.]

Gordon Lyons (DUP, East Antrim)

No. I find it odd that the Member says that he has a problem with making sure that everybody is treated in the same way. Does he really expect me to say that I believe that certain victims should be treated differently from other victims on the basis of the causation of the violence or the threat? Absolutely not. We will treat everybody equally. It is not about pitting people against one another, and it is terrible that the Member has taken that attitude.

Claire Sugden (Independent, East Londonderry)

Minister, beyond levelling the playing field, I will advocate for the victims of domestic abuse, given that people with children have been waiting in temporary accommodation for a year and a half. Domestic abuse is one of the most prevalent crimes across Northern Ireland, and we need to improve our housing system for victims. The review will give rise to conversations about that, but I urge the Minister to do more, given that there are waiting lists for women's refuges.

Gordon Lyons (DUP, East Antrim)

I am happy to take the Member's comment on board. I want to make sure that I do everything that I can to help those in need, regardless of the source of the threat or the violence. That is why it is important that, for those who are in immediate need, there has been no change to the rules for ensuring that people have temporary accommodation. However, please be assured that I do not believe that it is acceptable, in any way, that people live in temporary accommodation. It is terrible for children, their outcomes, their mental health and their education. That is why we are doing everything that we can to address it. I recently allocated additional resource to help people move on from temporary accommodation. The challenge is huge, but we are taking action to ensure that we deal with it. Today is another positive step.

John Blair (Alliance, South Antrim)

That concludes questions on the statement.

Executive Committee Business

John Blair (Alliance, South Antrim)

I call the Minister for Communities, Mr Gordon Lyons, to move the Consideration Stage of the Pensions (Extension of Automatic Enrolment) Bill.

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

John Blair (Alliance, South Antrim)

Members will have a copy of the Marshalled List of amendments, detailing the single amendment for debate. The single amendment inserting a new clause into the Bill will be debated under the group headed, "Report on effects of regulations." I remind Members that, once the debate on the group has been completed, the Questions on the amendment and clauses stand part will be taken. If that is clear, we shall proceed.

Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

New Clause

John Blair (Alliance, South Antrim)

We now come to the single amendment for debate.

Colm Gildernew (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I beg to move the following amendment:

After clause 1 insert —

“Report on the operation of powers affecting age and qualifying earnings

2.—(1) The Department for Communities must lay before the Assembly a report setting out its assessment of the effects of any changes made by regulations under section 3(1A), 5(1C) or 13A of the Pensions (No. 2) Act (Northern Ireland) 2008.

(2) The report must be laid at least 36 months, and no more than 42 months, after the coming into operation of the first regulations made under any of section 3(1A), 5(1C) or 13A of that Act.”

As Chair of the Committee, I rise to speak in support of the amendment. The stated purpose of the Bill is to implement reforms to automatic enrolment in workplace pensions by introducing a power to make regulations to reduce the lower age limit at which otherwise eligible workers must be automatically enrolled into a pension scheme by their employers. The policy intent is to use the power to make regulations to reduce the lower age limit from 22 to 18 and reduce the lower limit of the qualifying earnings band or repeal the lower limit of the qualifying earnings band, so that contributions are calculated from the first pound earned.

The Bill is small, with only two clauses, but, as I have just outlined, it has potentially far-reaching implications, particularly for young people of working age. During the Committee Stage, members of the Committee asked officials about the plans that the Department had to evaluate the changes once the Bill was in operation. Members were informed that the Department would use tools such as labour market surveys and impact assessments. While those were seen as useful measures, members impressed upon officials the need to be proactive in their evaluation to ensure that unintended consequences, such as those that we heard from the University of Stirling on the clawback of increased costs by employers, would not occur.

The Committee then discussed the possibility of an amendment that would place an obligation on the Department to ensure that a review of the impacts of the legislation was carried out within three years of the powers being used. The Committee asked the departmental officials if they would be prepared to accept that proposed amendment and bring it forward at Consideration Stage. The Minister responded that he did not think that the amendment was required and that the Department could consider providing the Committee with a review of the impact of the implementation of the measures in the Bill three years after introduction based on the monitoring of automatic enrolment that it currently carries out via the annual survey of hours and earnings (ASHE) and any other statistics available at that time.

The Committee was somewhat disappointed and felt that the commitment to produce the report was not strong enough, as a future Minister may not follow up on that commitment and, indeed, a future Committee may not necessarily recollect that such a commitment had been made and therefore may not give it the appropriate prioritisation in terms of post-legislative scrutiny that, the Committee felt, would be required. The Committee therefore decided to table its own amendment, which is before us today. We understand the argument that this is a parity Bill and that such a measure does not exist in the corresponding British legislation. However, just because it is a parity Bill does not mean that we cannot amend and tailor it to ensure that we have a report on how the legislation works in practice here.

The Youth Assembly's engagement with the Committee also underlined how interested young people are in understanding and contributing to decisions made here that will affect them for many years. The impact of the change is important for younger workers, and it is important that we in this place review whether it has the impact that was sought.

The Committee agreed that this was not a major ask of the Department given that, as it said, it already uses certain measures, such as ASHE and other available statistics, so we hope that pulling together a report should not be an unduly onerous task.

I commend the amendment to the House, and I welcome and look forward to the Minister's comments on it.

John Blair (Alliance, South Antrim)

As no other Member has indicated a wish to speak, I call the Minister for Communities to respond.

Gordon Lyons (DUP, East Antrim)

Before I address the technical amendment that the Chairperson of the Committee for Communities has tabled, I thank the Assembly and the Executive for supporting the progress of the Bill through the House. I also offer my thanks to the Office of the Legislative Counsel (OLC) for its rapid yet thorough advice on each stage of the Bill's progress so far. Additionally, I thank the Committee for Communities for its assistance in progressing this short but important Bill to Consideration Stage. The Committee's scrutiny has been robust and diligent.

As you will be aware, the proposals to extend automatic enrolment are intended to continue to normalise pension saving among workers, helping lower earners to build resilience for retirement; support individuals in multiple part-time jobs; and simplify automatic enrolment for employers. The amendment would require the Department to review, report and lay with the Assembly a report setting out its assessment of the impacts of any changes at least 36 months and not more than 42 months after the first regulations come into operation.

The amendment was proposed to me quite late in the Committee Stage. Initially, I did not consider that the amendment was required, as the Bill and the subsequent implementation of the proposals by statutory rule would be parity measures. As an alternative, I proposed that my Department provide the Committee with such a review on the same timescale based on the monitoring of automatic enrolment currently carried out via the annual survey of hours and earnings and other statistics that will be available at that time. However, Committee members decided that a departmental commitment to produce a review was not strong enough, as a future Minister could, when faced with competing priorities, decide against completing a review. On balance, I can see that a review of the initial implementation of the measures may prove useful. Therefore, I am content to support the Committee's amendment.

Gerry Carroll (People Before Profit Alliance, Belfast West)

Will the Minister give way?

John Blair (Alliance, South Antrim)

Sorry, there is no time to give way because the Minister has finished speaking.

Thank you, Minister, for that. I call the Deputy Chairperson of the Committee for Communities to make a winding-up speech.

Ciara Ferguson (Sinn Féin, Foyle)

I thank the Minister for taking the time to listen to the reasoning of the Committee members and the rationale for the Committee's amendment.

At Committee Stage, the Committee had a majority view that this was a significant request, and we thought that it would help keep a necessary focus on post-legislative scrutiny for the next Committee. We are pleased to note the Minister's change in position and remain keen to take a proactive approach to our post-legislative scrutiny role.

I welcome the contribution that the Minister made today and urge Members to support the Committee amendment.

Amendment agreed to. New clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Long title agreed to.

John Blair (Alliance, South Antrim)

That concludes the Consideration Stage of the Pensions (Extension of Automatic Enrolment) Bill. The Bill stands referred to the Speaker.

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

John Blair (Alliance, South Antrim)

The next item of business is a motion to affirm a statutory rule.

Gordon Lyons (DUP, East Antrim)

I beg to move

That the Gaming (Variation of Monetary Limits) Order (Northern Ireland) 2025 be affirmed.

John Blair (Alliance, South Antrim)

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

Gordon Lyons (DUP, East Antrim)

The order was laid before the Assembly on 13 January and is subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. The order is made under the Betting, Gaming, Lotteries and Amusements (Northern Ireland) Order 1985. I thank the Communities Committee for its scrutiny of the policy and the order.

The Gaming (Variation of Monetary Limits) Order increases the maximum permitted stakes and prizes for playing bingo at a bingo club and for playing adult-only gaming machines at those premises where they are allowed. The increases were agreed in principle during the previous Assembly mandate. I understand that agreement then was on the condition that the parent legislation — the Betting, Gaming, Lotteries and Amusements (Northern Ireland) Order 1985 — was amended to ensure that limits could be set at different levels for different premises; for example, at a lower level for premises where alcohol is being sold. That amendment to the primary legislation was made at the end of the previous mandate. The previously agreed increases for gaming and bingo clubs, and for machine gaming in permitted locations, is now reflected in the order. It is important to note that the increases will apply only to higher-limit gaming — in short, gaming in which only people aged 18 and over are permitted to take part.

I will describe each of the increases in turn. I will begin with non-machine gaming at bingo clubs. The order, if affirmed, will increase the maximum amount that may be paid by any one person for any one chance to win a bingo prize from 50p to £1; increase the maximum total amount of sales that a club may take in any game from £120 to £500; increase the maximum single money prize that can be paid or offered to any winner from £25 to £100; and increase the maximum total amount or value of the prizes allowed in any one game from £120 to £500.

If the order is affirmed, it will increase the maximum permitted charge for playing one game on a gaming machine at a registered club from 50p to £2. It will increase the maximum charge for playing any one game on a gaming machine that is installed in a licensed premises — for example, a pub — from 30p to £2, and it will increase the maximum charge for playing any one game on a gaming machine installed at a bingo club premises, licensed office, which is a bookie's office, or a premises that has an amusement permit in force, which is an amusement arcade, from 30p to £2. It will increase the maximum pay-out prize in any one game played on a gaming machine in a premises that is licensed to sell alcohol from £25 to £100, and it will increase the maximum pay-out prize in any one game played on a gaming machine in a bingo club premises, licensed office or premises that have an amusement permit in force from £25 to £500.

The only previously agreed provision that is not included in the order is the proposal to increase the maximum pay-out prize in any one game that is played on a gaming machine in a registered club. During the previous mandate, it was agreed in principle that the present prize limit should be raised from £250 to £400. That increase can only be made by regulation, and it is subject to the negative resolution procedure rather than the affirmative resolution procedure. Therefore, should the Assembly affirm the order today, I will immediately arrange to make and lay a regulation to allow that change to take place.

The increases that the Assembly is being asked to affirm today deliver on the intention of the previous Assembly, which did not have time available to do this during its mandate. They bring Northern Ireland land-based gaming stakes and prize limits into line with those in the rest of the UK. In Great Britain, those land-based limits have been in place for six years. Their introduction was welcomed at the time by those on all sides of the gambling debates, and, so far, there has been no turning back on that. I believe that that will be the case in Northern Ireland as well.

Colm Gildernew (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

On behalf of the Committee for Communities, I support the introduction of the Gaming (Variation of Monetary Limits) Order (NI) 2025. The statutory rule represents a step in modernising our gaming and betting regulations. It ensures that they remain fit for purpose while aligning the framework here with comparable provisions in Britain. The purpose and context of the order, as the Minister set out, is that it will amend articles 77(1), 106(3), 108(6) and 108(8) of the Betting, Gaming, Lotteries and Amusements (NI) Order 1985.

By increasing the limits on charges and prizes for various forms of gaming, the order seeks to reflect inflationary changes and evolving industry standards. Specifically, the updates will apply to bingo clubs, gaming machines in registered clubs and machines that are installed in licensed premises or premises that operate under amusement permits. It is worth noting that some of the limits that are currently in place date back to the 1990s. The order seeks to address those outdated thresholds to better reflect today's economic realities and to ensure parity with regulations across the water. However, it is clear that many Committee members and other Members of the Assembly remain deeply concerned about the broader issue of gambling-related harm across the North. The Committee is committed to examining the wider regulatory landscape to ensure that the appropriate protections are in place.

The Minister has kindly and comprehensively set out the major changes, so I will not repeat those. I will turn to consultation and oversight. The order has not been introduced without due diligence. The Committee was told about the Department's public consultation that took place between December 2019 and February 2020. A clear majority of respondents supported increasing monetary limits for stakes and prizes in line with more up-to-date practices.

Additionally, during Committee discussions on 21 November 2024, members sought assurances in relation to the potential for any adverse impacts. Members asked officials about any possible adverse impacts that may arise from the proposed increase in the maximum amounts for stakes and prizes. Officials said that, from the evidence available, they do not anticipate that the changes, which align with levels in Britain, will lead to higher levels of gambling-related harm. Officials also highlighted that, as the maximum amounts can be changed by delegated legislation, the amounts could be reviewed in the future. Officials advised the Committee that the gambling prevalence survey, as well as information that was provided by the Department of Health and the Department of Education, would be used to monitor whether there is any adverse impact.

The Committee is cognisant of the fact that, in some ways, the order is about catching up with other places. While the Committee was agreed on the approval of the order, members remain concerned about the overall impact of gambling-related harm in our communities. As recently as our last Committee meeting, the Committee agreed to look further at the regulatory landscape. Should any concerns arise in the future, further delegated legislation would allow for prompt review and adjustment of the voluntary limits. As mentioned, the changes proposed in the order will bring us into alignment with Britain, ensuring consistency across jurisdictions.

The Committee understands that this order is a necessary update to gambling legislation here, balancing the need for economic modernisation with the safeguarding of public welfare. It ensures that our gaming sector remains competitive and aligned with broader standards, while maintaining oversight mechanisms to monitor and address potential impacts. However, I reiterate that Committee members remain vigilant about addressing gambling-related harm and are committed to exploring further measures to enhance the regulatory framework in this area. The Committee recognises that this is a step towards a more balanced and responsible approach but is keen to ensure that that is not the end of the conversation.

On behalf of the Committee for Communities, I recommend that the Assembly approve the Gaming (Variation of Monetary Limits) Order (Northern Ireland) 2025.

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

I rise to speak about what is a modest change to the law to increase stakes in bingo halls and other premises where gambling takes place. It is worth saying that I am not opposed to gambling and gaming. In fact, over the Christmas break, I won a few quid on the King George VI Chase, the big race that happens on Boxing Day or St Stephen's Day. I put a couple of quid on a horse, and I won. I come from Downpatrick, which is a town that is proud to have one of the two racecourses in the North. I think that it can be a fun and entirely legitimate way for people to enjoy themselves, and particularly to enjoy sports, and for community organisations and sports clubs to raise necessary funding. It is critical for sports clubs, including GAA clubs, and community groups to raise funding through bingo or local lotteries.

I understand why these measures are being taken, but it is important to say that this debate is happening in the context of a motion on gambling-related harm that we will debate later today. When we had a Bill in the previous Assembly mandate, we were told by the then Minister for Communities, Deirdre Hargey, that there would be more ambition in tackling gambling-related harm. The motion that we will debate later is all-party. The official Opposition and the four Executive parties have all signed up to the text of that motion, which talks specifically about gambling-related harm being a public health crisis.

I do not think that modest increases — although they are fourfold or fivefold in some cases — to potential winnings for people playing bingo or gaming in a community context will be the end of the world. It is not necessarily the root of the problem of gambling-related harm, which is often done on people's phones and is particularly a problem for young and middle-aged men — people about the age of me and the Minister. He might not like me describing him as that.

Gordon Lyons (DUP, East Antrim)

I am a little younger than you.

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

Yes, perhaps he is a little younger than me. It is important to make that distinction.

The important point is that people with addictions are waking up in the middle of the night and gambling away their life savings on devices. It is causing marital break-ups, suicide and desperation. There are Members in the Chamber who have personal experience of it and have talked convincingly about it. At times, there is a mismatch in our ambition in this place. Three and a half years ago, we debated the previous substantive legislation on gambling, and one of the biggest things that it did was to open bookie shops on a Sunday. In a sense, that was fine, because, again, it brought us into line with England and Wales.

Gordon Lyons (DUP, East Antrim)

I appreciate the Member giving way, and I agree with some of the points that he has made. Does he accept that this was part of a larger package of reforms back in 2021? As a result of that legislation, a code of practice applying to gaming machine operators will come in in a way that it has not before. It will be an offence to cause, invite or, in any way, permit a person under 18 to play a high-stakes game. There will also be a new offence of cheating, fixing machines or attempting to cheat. We have to take this in the round, as well as some other things that I will come to later — I know that our interventions cannot be too long. It has to be seen in the round of the agreement that was made at that time. We have measures in place that will make a difference.

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

I am not seeking to attack the Minister on this. That is not what this is about for me. I know that we are the Opposition, but I believe that there is a disjoint in the Chamber. I have made this point consistently, and I made it yesterday when we were debating certain matters: the public want to know what we are doing to deliver on their priorities. Later, they will see us debate an all-party motion on gambling-related harm, in which we call it a public health crisis. Earlier on the same day, our related legislative intervention is to increase some of the payments that can be made. The fact that our rhetoric often does not match the legislative action invites the public to question how serious and joined-up we are.

(Mr Speaker in the Chair)

I acknowledge that, as the Minister said, some of this was agreed to in 2021, but it is also the case that, when the then Minister, his predecessor, introduced that Bill — I have looked at it in Hansard — she said that it was not sufficient. She acknowledged that more needed to be done. That was three and a half years ago. In those three and a half years, lives have been lost, marriages have broken up and families have been pushed into destitution and desperation by what the motion to be debated later today calls a public health crisis.

As legislators, the legitimate question that we should be asking ourselves is this: "What are we doing?". All-party motions are an important statement of intent, but infinitely more important than passing a motion with statements of intent and aspiration is legislative action to, for example, as the Minister mentioned, align with the position in GB. South of the border, in the other part of this island, it is illegal to have gaming machines in pubs. That is not illegal in the North, so there is one alignment that could be brought into force. That is something to consider. I am not saying that that is definitely the right course of action, but it is one potential legislative action that is open to us.

There is a range of regulatory measures that, because gambling is devolved — that is why we are debating it today — we have the power to introduce. Some of the issues that touch on gambling, such as advertising and broadcasting, are reserved matters, but not all of them. I will simply put it this way: there are perfectly good arguments in favour of what is happening today in this secondary legislation and I acknowledge that the Minister is, in many ways, following through on commitments that were made by his predecessor and were agreed to. I do not think that we are necessarily adding to the crisis of problem gambling by increasing the potential payouts in certain community contexts, but it is the case that we are not yet taking visible legislative action to go further, which is what we were told in 2021 that we would do. Later today, we will debate a motion, signed by all five parties in the Chamber, that says that there is a public health crisis. Let us get real.

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

I will briefly give way to the Minister.

Gordon Lyons (DUP, East Antrim)

I want to challenge that, because action is being taken. Let us look at what is happening. The code of practice will be brought forward and will be in place shortly, and work is being done around the levy.

I absolutely agree with the Member that there are very serious concerns around gambling. However, this legislation was subject to health impact screening. This package of measures was agreed, and there are positive implications in issues to do with fixed-odds betting terminals (FOBTs). That brings clarity in the law on that, which I will go into further in my speech. It is unfair, however, to say that action has not been taken.

Edwin Poots (DUP, Belfast South)

I remind the Member not to mix the next debate into this one. Let us focus on the issue here, and the Member can expand further at the next opportunity.

Gordon Lyons (DUP, East Antrim)

The Member will get an extra five minutes.

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

Indeed, I get only five minutes on this legislation. I appreciate the Speaker's intervention, and he is right that we should focus on the matters at hand.

My point is to draw the public's attention to the disparity between what we are doing in legislative terms and what we are doing through motions, and I think that they are increasingly drawing that distinction. The Minister has made some legitimate arguments, and I acknowledge that he is engaged in the issue, but it is really important that we take legislative action and not simply pass motions, legitimate as they are. The public will start to become cynical if they simply hear warm words but see no legislative action, which is, after all, what we are here to deliver.

As you said earlier, Mr Speaker, when you talked about your correspondence to all Members, we are in this place to be legislators and to change the law. We are not a school debating society. We should take seriously the responsibilities that have been given to us. We have the power to change the law and to create criminal offences. We authorise billions of pounds of spending and can levy taxation that is a mandatory charge on the Northern Ireland public. Let us take our responsibilities seriously. That is the simple point that I wanted to make today on the two items of business on gaming that are in front of us.

Philip McGuigan (Sinn Féin, North Antrim)

I find it difficult to disagree with a lot of what Mr O'Toole said. He talked about people waking up during the night and gambling on their phone and about the protections in legislation that are needed to prevent them from doing so. Unfortunately, many studies have shown that, for many, gaming machines are the gateway to much more serious types of gambling harm, so it is important that we get the legislation right.

I understand that the amending order is an attempt to align regulations on gaming machine stake and prize limits with those in Britain. FOBTs used to be classified as B2 gaming machines in Britain. Following the maximum stake reduction in 2019 from £100 to £2, they were reclassified as B3 gaming machines.

There is, unfortunately, lots of evidence of the widespread unlawful operation of electronic gaming machines, including fixed-odds betting terminals, in the North. There have been two decades of illegal use of electronic gaming machines that offer stakes and prizes, while the number of gaming machines has well exceeded what is allowed under the 1985 Order. A PSNI Assistant Chief Constable, in a letter sent to me on 31 March 2022, acknowledged:

"I note your comment that many bookmaking offices here operate more than two gaming machines, and we understand that all FOBT gaming machines operated by them have stakes and prizes well in excess of what is permitted."

We therefore have evidence that the previous legislation was being abused by some who operate gaming machines.

For Members' information, the maximum stake and prize limits for electronic gaming machines legally operated on licensed premises in the North are currently significantly lower than those in Britain. The maximum stake here, as the Minister outlined, is 30p. The prize limit is set at £25, with a maximum of two gaming machines per premises permitted. Under the order, those stake and prize limits for gaming machines operated in bookies will tomorrow, if the motion is agreed, increase to £2 and £500 respectively. The number of gaming machines permitted, however, will remain at two.

The order is a tacit acknowledgement by the Department that some members of the NI Turf Guardians' Association (NITGA), which represents bookmakers, are, unfortunately, operating outside our gambling laws. That is backed up by evidence in an investigation report by FACT, a leading due diligence provider, that was commissioned by law firm Lewis Silkin. Dated 1 August 2024, the report revealed that licensed bookmaker premises in Newry, Ballymena, Belfast and elsewhere were operating up to four electronic gaming machines that offered a maximum stake of £2 and a maximum prize of £500, which is well above what was permitted. The advice of departmental officials to the Committee for Communities was that the order will not increase the current levels of gambling harm, and that may be correct. It is clear, however, that certain historical and current levels of gambling harm would have been lower had the 1985 Order been enforced.

Recent research from the University of Glasgow has shown that there was a strong association between the total consumption of gambling products and the level of harm in our population. The evidence suggests that continuous forms of gambling, with high degrees of concentration of consumption, create the greatest risk of gambling harm. Research that GambleAware commissioned analysed the harms associated with different gambling products. It found gaming machines to be the most harmful group of products, with 76% of people who used only gaming machines experiencing gambling-related harm. That is supported by the most recent gambling survey, which found that people who play casino games on a machine or a terminal were five and a half times more likely to experience gambling harm than the average gambler.

The Department's consultation on regulating this form of gambling was carried out between December 2019 and February 2020. A more up-to-date consultation might have been more useful. Information disclosed on electronic gaming content on such machines may have changed since then, although it may not have.

The Westminster all-party parliamentary group (APPG) on gambling reform recently conducted an investigation that highlighted the fact that stakes in excess of £2 per spin are being facilitated by game-within-game and premium-play features on electronic gaming machines that are classified as B3 machines by Britain's Gambling Commission. Whilst we may be moving towards having similar legislation, we need to keep our eye on enforcement. That is vital. The APPG's letter to the Department for Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) explained that those aspects were a breach of the Gambling Act 2005 in Britain. We need to ensure that, when we set legislation, we look carefully at all the arguments and not just those that are being made by, and in favour of, the gambling industry. We need to equate the public harm to, or even elevate it above, the profit, and I will touch on that in greater detail during this afternoon's debate.

If we reward the unlawful activities of licensed bookmakers in the North, how will we effectively enforce new laws that cover the much more challenging environment of online gambling, which is currently unregulated in our jurisdiction, and protect our population from gambling harm? Enforcement and regulation are key to that, Minister. You touched on the code of practice: you will be aware that, whilst I am speaking as an individual, the all-party group on reducing harm related to gambling has submitted a response to the consultation on the code of practice that says similar things: regulation and enforcement must be key to ensuring the safety of our population.

I have a few questions for the Minister on today's proposal. I want the Minister to provide assurance on who will be responsible for enforcing the new regulations. What role will the PSNI have to play? Will the PSNI just be reactive and act only when it receives a complaint from a member of the public, or will the Department or other statutory agencies be proactive in ensuring that the regulations and the legislation are being followed? The new regulations could increase the risk of harm that is caused by gambling. We need to know who will minimise that risk by safeguarding people and ensuring that some bookmakers do not continue to break the law.

Timothy Gaston (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

I am shocked that the regulations have been brought to the Assembly. I am equally shocked that the Executive agreed to sign off on them, regardless of when that happened. Since the return of Stormont, a growing number of intelligent voices have questioned whether we have the competence to govern. I am deeply concerned that the regulations will give credence to those who suggest that we do not. Although there is a sensible way forward, which I will set out, it is only possible to engage sensibly with the proposed provisions, which increase stakes and prizes, by standing back to ask this question: knowing what we know about Northern Ireland today, is increasing stakes and prizes an appropriate step?

In 2016, the Department for Communities conducted the only comprehensive problem gambling prevalence survey that, to my knowledge, it has ever undertaken. The survey results demonstrated a problem gambling rate here that was not just twice, three times or even four times that in England. Members, it was five times that of England. In other words, the people of Northern Ireland — our constituents — were five times more likely to suffer from gambling harm than people in England. Since that time, the UK Government have conducted a further problem gambling prevalence survey that demonstrates that the situation with problem gambling in England has deteriorated further. In that context, if we are to act responsibly, we must adopt a precautionary position and assume that things have similarly deteriorated here in Northern Ireland, unless and until we have robust data to the contrary.

What will the proposed provisions do? Today, you have the opportunity to go into a bingo hall or a licensed amusement premises and spend 30p on a gaming machine to play the game once, with the enticement that you might win £25. It was in that context that our problem gambling prevalence figures were five times worse than those of England.

Today, however, we are being asked to sweep that away so that vulnerable people in our constituencies can go into a bingo club or licensed premises and spend £2 to play a gaming machine once with the enticement of winning £500. Therefore, the amount that can be paid increases by a factor of well over six, while the enticement to play increases by a factor of over 20. That is revolutionary, and it is not a far-off event.

Article 1 states:

"This Order ... shall come into operation on the day after the day on which it is affirmed by resolution of the Assembly."

In plain English, that means that, if we vote for the changes today, they will come into effect tomorrow. By Friday, you may find yourself confronting the socially destructive implications of permitting a dramatic increase in stakes and prizes. Members will do so against the backdrop of the knowledge that, the last time the Department looked at the issue, we found that our problem gambling figures — remember that this was on the basis of the old stakes and prizes, not the new ones — were five times those of England. Let us not forget that research demonstrates that gambling machines are 10 times more likely to be located in deprived areas. Other Members may be happy to go to bed tonight having voted for that, but I certainly am not.

Of course, I know that the Minister's justification is that the Department conducted a consultation to which consultees responded that stakes and prizes here should be brought into line with those in Great Britain. Some might ask whether it is not odd that I, as a unionist, oppose that. Members, if we are to have competent government, we are required to have regard for more than one thing at a time, and there are two additional considerations that we need to keep in mind when coming to a proper view on the regulations.

First, it is important to remember that Northern Ireland is unlike Great Britain in that it does not have a dedicated gambling commission and that the levels of protection afforded to people in Northern Ireland are much lower. In that context, it makes no sense to expose the people of Northern Ireland to higher risk than the people of GB when the people of Northern Ireland are not afforded the same protections.

Secondly, those who responded to the consultation did not just say that the stakes and prizes should be in line with those in Great Britain; they said that the gambling industry should pay a levy to help those who suffer from gambling harm. It is striking that, at 65%, support for increased stakes and prizes was lower than support for a gambling levy, which was 84%. On 5 April, the Great Britain Gambling Levy Regulations 2025 will come into effect, taking moneys from the gambling industry to pay for the socially destructive implications of gambling. Thus, while the GB rates applied in the regulations will be provided in the context of the protection afforded by the Gambling Commission and the gambling levy, bringing in between £90 million and £100 million per annum, the same will not be the case for Northern Ireland.

Before someone interrupts me to tell me about section 15 of the Betting, Gaming, Lotteries and Amusements (Amendment) Act (Northern Ireland) 2022, which makes provision for such a levy, let me remind the House of two critical limitations. First, no levy has yet been introduced in Northern Ireland, because the Minister has not commenced the power, let alone sought to use it. Section 17(3) of the 2022 Act states:

"Sections 7, 13, 15 and 16 come into operation on such day or days as the Department for Communities may by order appoint."

To date, the Department has not by order appointed the day on which section 15 will come into operation, let alone produced regulations on the basis of it.

Secondly, the section 15 levy is completely unlike the GB levy, because it pertains only to certain forms of terrestrial gambling and does not engage with online gambling at all. If we aspire to govern competently, we must recognise that we cannot blindly seek to bring the risks that face those in Northern Ireland who are vulnerable to gambling harm into line with the risks experienced in Great Britain, knowing full well that the people of Northern Ireland do not enjoy the same protections. Not only that but the people of Northern Ireland will have fewer protections from 5 April 2025 on account of the GB gambling levy. Some might like to stick their head in the sand and pretend that the only relevant point of comparison is stakes and prizes, but the public know that that is not true.

What are we going to do about it? I propose that, at the very least, rather than voting to expose some of the most vulnerable people in our society to greater vulnerability tomorrow — we have reason to believe that they are already five times more vulnerable than those in England — we should not pass the legislation today. I propose that we keep it back, and, if it is to pass, that should only be at a time when we can be sure that the people of Northern Ireland are afforded at least the same levels of protection as those of GB. At the very least, we should wait until the Minister has commenced section 15 of the 2022 Act and developed the regulations to give effect to our gambling levy. He could then return to the House with these regulations and the gambling levy regulations on the same day. Until that time, it would be grossly irresponsible for the House to vote on these regulations, let alone approve them.

Gerry Carroll (People Before Profit Alliance, Belfast West)

I do not know whether this is a declaration of interest, but I occasionally engage in gambling responsibly. I also recognise that gambling is a pastime for people but that it has wrecked the lives of people in working-class communities, in particular, and of people in this Building who have spoken about it before.

I will say more on the next point later, but I am concerned at the prevalence of gambling companies and their profiteering. Many sports organisations and football and other teams have gambling companies' names emblazoned on their jerseys. I am concerned about that. I certainly do not support a prohibitionist approach to the issue, but I support one that focuses on supporting people who are addicted and have come to harm through gambling.

I am curious: the Minister mentioned something about a health review — I think that he used the words "health screening" — before the order was carried out. Will he expand on that? I am not sure how those who are addicted to gambling are protected by the order. If the Minister can expand on that to allay some of the fears that I and, I am sure, others have, that would be helpful.

Gordon Lyons (DUP, East Antrim)

I thank all the Members who contributed to the debate for the points that they have raised, and I want to address those.

First, it is important to put on record again the fact that this is an overall package of measures that the Assembly agreed in 2021 when the debates first took place. Considerable progress has been made in dealing with the concerns that many people have expressed. It is important to note that we now have an offence in law. It is an offence to cause, invite or in any way permit a person under 18 to play a high-stakes gaming machine.

There will be a new code of practice. That, as Mr McGuigan stated, has been consulted on. That will apply to gaming machine operators. Of course, there will be a new offence in regard to cheating and fixing machines or attempting to cheat. Those, together with the legal certainty that the order brings, will be beneficial, because there is some concern in regard to the legal position around the fixed odds betting terminals that are currently in place. There is concern about what their maximum stakes and prizes are. There is an understanding, I believe, that it is a voluntary practice that those are reduced. However, there is additional clarity now that we have advice from the Departmental Solicitor's Office. We have the Supreme Court decision as well, which will limit that to a maximum stake of £2.

I will pick up first on some of the issues that Philip McGuigan addressed. One of the issues that he raised related to illegal machines. That feeds into the broader issues that he raised in relation to enforcement and responsibility. It is absolutely right that we make sure that there is a proper framework in place. I believe that that is what we have done now. Enforcement will be up to the PSNI. I want to make sure that the limits that we see are enforced and that, if illegal machines exist and are in places where they are not allowed to be by law, action is taken by the police. Certainly, if we, as the Department, receive any information about behaviour that is against the law, we have a responsibility to make sure that that is reported. We absolutely will keep an eye on enforcement. The really important point that was raised today is that we need to make sure that we enforce the laws that are in place. It is important that that is on record.

It is also important to note that the biggest problem that we have with gambling relates to online gambling. That is where so much of the concern is right now. That feeds into some of the points that were raised by Mr Gaston, in particular, about the levy. I am absolutely committed to progressing the land-based levy in Northern Ireland. That is a commitment that is on me and something that I enthusiastically support. It is important that we get that funding. That funding can be used only to tackle the health-related impacts of gambling. That is why work is ongoing with my officials. The Department of Health will have work to do as well to make sure that that is progressed. We are doing everything that we can to make sure that that is taken forward. Obviously, there are different rules in place when it comes to levies in regard to online gambling because of the way in which that is regulated. The Health Minister, the Education Minister and I have been very clear that we want to see Northern Ireland get its fair share.

I understand the other concerns that Mr Gaston raised. They were well debated during the passage of the last Bill. Moving into line and having consistency helps us as we attempt to tackle the issue. In fact, it was the Member's predecessor, Mr Allister, who advocated what we are talking about today. He asked during the debate:

"Where is the appetite to do something as simple as putting a £2 maximum stake on these wretched machines?" — [Official Report (Hansard), 27 September 2021, p60, col 2].

I agree, and I am pleased that that is what the regulation will do. We will have that maximum stake, and there will be no ambiguity. That should be welcomed.

I understand the concerns that have been expressed. We need to take into consideration the wider package of measures that are in place and my commitment to the levy, the code of practice and the other issues that have previously been debated. I hope that that reassures Members about the action that I am taking.

I say in response to Mr Carroll that a health impact screening was carried out. The proposals were included in a health impact screening of the overall legislative programme initiated in 2022. The screening concluded that, if taken together with the provisions included in the 2022 Bill, any health impacts were unlikely. I hope that that gives the Member some comfort.

Gerry Carroll (People Before Profit Alliance, Belfast West)

Will the Minister give way?

Gordon Lyons (DUP, East Antrim)

I will finish, because time is tight before lunchtime.

I hope that that gives Members some comfort. This is just the start of the work that we have to do to tackle the issue. It will be debated further later today, but, in the meantime, I ask Members to consider and support the regulations.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved:

That the Gaming (Variation of Monetary Limits) Order (Northern Ireland) 2025 be affirmed.

Edwin Poots (DUP, Belfast South)

We will now suspend for lunch, as the Business Committee will meet at 1.00 pm. The next item of business will be Question Time, which will commence at 2.00 pm.

The sitting was suspended at 12.58 pm.

On resuming —

Oral Answers to Questions — Finance

Diana Armstrong (UUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

1. Ms D Armstrong asked the Minister of Finance to outline how much she allocated to the Department of Health in 2024-2025 to fund waiting list initiatives. (AQO 1437/22-27)

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

10. Mr McGrath asked the Minister of Finance to outline what consideration she has given to ring-fence money in the Draft Budget 2025-26 to address waiting times and the provision of care packages. (AQO 1446/22-27)

Caoimhe Archibald (Sinn Féin, East Londonderry)

With the Speaker's permission, I will answer questions 1 and 10 together.

The Department of Health was provided with a resource departmental expenditure limit (DEL) budget of £7·7 billion in 2024-25. The Department received a further £479 million during in-year exercises. The 2025-26 draft Budget proposes a resource budget of £8·4 billion for the Department of Health. That is an increase of £672 million or 8·7% compared with the 2024-25 non-ring-fenced resource DEL opening baseline. The financial package that accompanied the restoration of the Executive included £34 million specifically for health waiting lists in 2024-25. That was provided as a ring-fenced allocation. Similar funding was not provided by the financial package for 2025-26. To provide the Health Minister with the maximum flexibility in managing his budget, I have not proposed further ring-fencing of funding for waiting lists or care packages in 2024-25 or 2025-26. Whilst that could be considered as part of the final Budget following the consultation exercise, it would require ring-fencing part of the current budget proposed for the Department of Health, reducing the flexibility available to the Health Minister or reducing other Departments' budget allocations.

Diana Armstrong (UUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I thank the Minister for her response. She will be aware, however, that the most recent allocation of £7 million in January monitoring fell short even of the allocation needed to deliver pay parity for our health workers. Does the Minister accept that there is an inconsistency in the Executive's seemingly prioritising tackling waiting lists in the Programme for Government whilst actively deciding not to even partially meet the waiting list initiative bids that were submitted in 2024-25?

Caoimhe Archibald (Sinn Féin, East Londonderry)

In the January monitoring round, the Department of Health made a bid of £1·5 million in relation to waiting lists. As the Member will very likely be aware, we only had £15 million resource DEL to allocate in the January monitoring round, and some of that had to go to pressures in other Departments. The allocation that was made to the Health Minister was for pay, waiting lists and other pressures. It is for the Health Minister to make decisions on how he wants to spend his budget, as he is best placed to do. I do not feel that it is a contradiction in terms for the Executive to have a set of priorities on which we are collectively committed to deliver. It will be for each Minister in their Department to take decisions to prioritise against those objectives and for us, as an Executive collectively, to agree our Budget and try to ensure that it is done through the lens of the Programme for Government. It is also for individual Ministers in their Departments to prioritise the items in the Programme for Government.

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

This is becoming ridiculous. We are told that to save our health service we have to transform, yet we have a Health Minister who says that he does not have enough money to do his day-to-day business never mind undertake transformation. You are the Finance Minister: what are you going to do about it? Are we going to leave people to languish on waiting lists for a generation?

Caoimhe Archibald (Sinn Féin, East Londonderry)

As an Executive collectively, we have set priorities and objectives, but individual Ministers have responsibilities for delivering on those as well. I am quite sure that every Minister in the Executive, if they were talking about their budget, would say that they are not in a position to deliver everything that they would want to deliver day-to-day while balancing that against transformation. That is one of the reasons why I continue to make the case for the Executive to be properly funded according to their level of need. I continue to make the case that we need to revisit our level of need so that we, as an Executive, have the maximum funding available to us. Undoubtedly, there are decisions that individual Ministers and the Executive collectively, working with all Members in the Chamber, will have to take on transformation and on improving productivity and efficiency in each and every Department. I can certainly say that, collectively, as an Executive, we are committed to doing that.

Liz Kimmins (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

Despite what others may say, it is very clear that Health has been prioritised at every opportunity. Can the Minister describe how it will be prioritised in this draft Budget, particularly given that that will lead to other Departments not getting what they want?

Caoimhe Archibald (Sinn Féin, East Londonderry)

There is no doubt that our health service is under immense pressure. Every single one of us will be aware of the implications of that through our constituency offices. It is important that we all recognise the incredible job that our health workers are doing in the most challenging circumstances.

I agree with the Member that the Executive have prioritised Health, and that is reflected in the fact that the Department of Health receives over 50% of the total resource DEL funding available. The draft 2025-26 Budget provides just under £8·4 billion for the Health non-ring-fenced resource DEL baseline, which, as I indicated, is an increase of £672 million, or 8·7%, compared with the 2024-25 opening baseline. I recognise that, even with that additional funding, it will still be challenging, but it is also important to cite the many other areas that we need to invest in, including childcare, homelessness, education and justice initiatives, all of which have a role to play in health outcomes as well. As the Health Minister has himself recognised, there are many competing challenges, and we have a finite amount of funding available to us. Increasing funding for Health means less funding for other services that also contribute to health.

It is also important to reflect on the budget that has been allocated to Health over the past number of years. It has grown slowly and inexorably over time. The draft 2025-26 Budget outcome represents an increase in its resource DEL baseline of over £2·6 billion since 2020-21, which is equivalent to 45·7%. That is very difficult to sustain in the longer term, particularly when outcomes have not been improving in tandem with that increase. Allocations are agreed by Executive members —.

Edwin Poots (DUP, Belfast South)

Minister, your time is gone.

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

2. Mr McGlone asked the Minister of Finance what engagement she has had with the Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs in relation to providing funding to address blue-green algae in Lough Neagh. (AQO 1438/22-27)

Caoimhe Archibald (Sinn Féin, East Londonderry)

I have met the AERA Minister on several occasions since becoming Finance Minister to discuss funding for his Department, including in respect of the issues at Lough Neagh. In addition, the Executive have met collectively to discuss Budget challenges, including in November 2024, prior to agreeing the draft 2025-26 Budget, when all Ministers had an opportunity to highlight their key budgetary pressures.

Minister Muir also shared the Lough Neagh action plan with the Executive in July, and it was discussed and agreed at that point. The protection of Lough Neagh and the surrounding environment is a key priority, as reflected in the draft Programme for Government. I was pleased that, despite significant financial challenges, the Executive agreed to allocate to DAERA £1·5 million resource DEL and £1·6 million capital DEL in June monitoring to support actions relating to Lough Neagh, and an earmarked capital allocation of £12·7 million has been made to DAERA to support a just transition as part of the draft 2025-26 Budget. I understand that among the projects that this will support will be one relating to the sustainable use of livestock slurry. That project aims to reduce the excess nutrients, particularly phosphorus, entering the agri-food system.

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

Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire as a freagra.

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

What collaboration or coordination is going on between the Departments and, indeed, the Executive to help to rectify issues emanating from Department for Infrastructure sewage disposal works? What support has been given to that Department to attempt to address those major issues?

Caoimhe Archibald (Sinn Féin, East Londonderry)

I can assure the Member that those engagements are ongoing between individual Ministers and in the Executive as a whole. As for supporting the actions that relate to, for example, NI Water, additional funding has been made available to the Department for Infrastructure. From the perspective of investing in waste water infrastructure and from an environmental perspective, there is a collective understanding of the need to provide that additional funding. I do not have the figures in front of me for the allocations, but I assure the Member that the Executive take the matter incredibly seriously.

Jonathan Buckley (DUP, Upper Bann)

When we talk about Lough Neagh in this place, it is often through an environmental lens. Although that is important, it is often used as a stick with which to beat the rural, farming community. For many years, many farmers in my constituency of Upper Bann have had their land destroyed by flooding that is associated with Lough Neagh, largely as a result of Department for Infrastructure dredging issues. When any additional funding is allocated to Lough Neagh, will the Minister ensure that value for money is taken into account and that farming is included in the wider discussion?

Caoimhe Archibald (Sinn Féin, East Londonderry)

I assure the Member that the Executive are alive to the need to balance the interests and to recognise the importance of the faming and agriculture community in dealing with some of the challenges, as well as the really important role that that community plays in supporting action to protect our environment. Farming has therefore formed part of our discussions. We have the Lough Neagh action plan, which has been agreed by the Executive. A number of initiatives will be taken forward under that plan. Balancing the interests will be key, however. It is important that we reflect on the role that our farming and agri-food community plays, particularly in our economy.

Nicola Brogan (Sinn Féin, West Tyrone)

Will the Minister detail how the 2025-26 Budget will support agriculture funding?

Caoimhe Archibald (Sinn Féin, East Londonderry)

As all Members will be aware, Treasury removed the ring fence around our agri-food and farming funding in 2025-26 as part of the spending review. I was keen to see appropriate funding be provided to farming communities. I therefore recommended that an earmarked allocation of £332·5 million be provided to DAERA for farming and fisheries support payments. I hope that that important support will continue to be earmarked in future Budget exercises in order to ensure that appropriate funding is provided to that important sector. The Executive supported that collectively. I also proposed a capital allocation of £12·3 million for just transition to provide further support to the farming sector.

Eóin Tennyson (Alliance, Upper Bann)

Minister, you referred to NI Water and the fact that waste water infrastructure contributes to the blue-green algae that we see on Lough Neagh. Do you share the Minister for Infrastructure's assessment that the funding model for NI Water is sustainable and fit for purpose?

Caoimhe Archibald (Sinn Féin, East Londonderry)

The Infrastructure Minister is well on record as saying that. Yesterday, I listened to him respond in the Chamber to a number of questions about NI Water's funding model. I have to say that I concur with his perspective of wanting to ensure that NI Water is kept in public ownership and that no domestic water charges are introduced. Unfortunately, other funding models do not support that particular perspective.

Gary Middleton (DUP, Foyle)

3. Mr Middleton asked the Minister of Finance to outline what actions her Department is taking to support businesses following the Chancellor's autumn Budget 2024. (AQO 1439/22-27)

Stephen Dunne (DUP, North Down)

14. Mr Dunne asked the Minister of Finance to outline what action her Department is taking to mitigate the impact of the increase to employers' National Insurance contributions on hospitality businesses. (AQO 1450/22-27)

Caoimhe Archibald (Sinn Féin, East Londonderry)

With your permission, Mr Speaker, I will answer questions 3 and 14 together. I have been engaging with businesses from a wide range of sectors, including businesses in the hospitality sector, and have heard about the cost pressures that they are facing. I, too, am concerned about the planned changes to National Insurance contributions that are coming in April and have written to the British Government on the need for support or mitigations to ease their impact.

I have also commissioned the Ulster University Economic Policy Centre (UUEPC) to carry out an independent sectoral study on the cost of doing business here. Terms of reference for the research have been published on my Department's website. That research, which will include an assessment of the impact across sectors, will allow me to present as strong a case as possible to the British Treasury on the matter.

In addition, my Department, through Land and Property Services (LPS), offers a wide range of support schemes. Those schemes provide £275 million of support to business ratepayers, alongside offering alternative payment options to assist those who need them because of rating debt. Some 65% of the hospitality industry as a whole is in receipt of support via the small business rate relief scheme.

I have also written to Executive colleagues to encourage them to ensure that their Departments and arm's-length bodies are doing everything that they can to improve performance on prompt payment to businesses. Rest assured that I will do all that I can to press for the needs of the hospitality industry to be addressed.

Gary Middleton (DUP, Foyle)

I thank the Minister for her answer. Recent reports have indicated that, according to insolvency specialists, there has been a record jump in the number of UK businesses in critical financial stress. Businesses are in dire need of support and feel that they are being taxed to death. When will the report be completed and published, and, most important, when will we see proactive steps to support our business community?

Caoimhe Archibald (Sinn Féin, East Londonderry)

I thank the Member for that question. One thing that I was exercised about when I commissioned the research was that we would have it in a timely manner. It is really important that we have the evidence base to inform the spending review, which is scheduled for June. The research will be concluded in a report to me by the end of March. I encourage anybody who is affected and wants to participate in the research to do so. The links and the contact information will be on the Department of Finance website.

Stephen Dunne (DUP, North Down)

I thank the Minister for her answer. I welcome the research and the review of small business rate relief, but it will take time for them to reach their conclusion, and, for some, it will be too little, too late. What further assurances can the Minister provide to business owners in my constituency who have had to lay off staff, and what support can be provided? Will the Minister accept my recent invitation to meet members of the hospitality sector in my constituency?

Caoimhe Archibald (Sinn Féin, East Londonderry)

I thank the Member for his question and for the invitation, which is being considered by officials. I have received representations on the issues facing businesses from representative bodies and individual businesses. There is clearly a lot of pressure from the cost-of-doing-business crisis, with inflationary increases across a range of things from insurance to energy and the cost of goods and services. There are a lot of pressures on businesses. It is important that we understand what those pressures are and any impacts that businesses in the North are feeling that differentiate them from those in Britain or in the South and that we are in a position to make a case that is specific to here and perhaps even to individual sectors here.

I met the hospitality sector last week. A key issue that they raised was VAT and the increased differential between North and South that there will be in the coming months, which will make the North less competitive for some businesses. I have committed to engaging with the British Treasury on that.

Pádraig Delargy (Sinn Féin, Foyle)

Minister, what steps have you taken to lobby the British Chancellor to support businesses that have been impacted on by the increases in National Insurance contributions?

Caoimhe Archibald (Sinn Féin, East Londonderry)

I have written to the Chief Secretary to the Treasury about employers' National Insurance contributions. As I indicated to other Members, I have received significant representation on that issue from businesses and from the community and voluntary sector. In the public sector, we will face particular pressures from that. It is not within the ability of the Executive to mitigate such a significant decision of the British Government on a reserved taxation measure. I have therefore made the case to the Treasury that it must meet the full cost to the public sector and should put in place mitigations for the community and voluntary sector, our small businesses and, in particular, those in the community and voluntary sector who deliver public services on behalf of or in partnership with the public sector.

Colin Crawford (UUP, North Antrim)

Minister, my question may have been partially answered, but, in light of calls from the Federation of Small Businesses (FSB) to support our economy, what proposals do you have for reducing the burden on our SME sector?

Caoimhe Archibald (Sinn Féin, East Londonderry)

I thank the Member for that question. The key initiative has been commissioning the research so that we have a full understanding of the impacts and that any interventions that we make to support businesses are fully informed by that. More important, however, we will be able to make a case to the British Treasury about the impact that its decisions will have on our small and medium-sized businesses. We are a small business economy, and we know how many people are employed by small businesses in all our constituencies. The impact of those decisions will be hugely significant.

David Honeyford (Alliance, Lagan Valley)

Will the Minister give an update on the strategic review of rates? When can businesses expect to see changes to the non-domestic rates coming through?

Caoimhe Archibald (Sinn Féin, East Londonderry)

I made an announcement before Christmas, and we are looking not only at the domestic rating measures but at the non-domestic rating measures. The consultation on the domestic rating measures will be announced imminently. On the non-domestic rating measures, this year, we have said that we will look at small business rate relief. That is particularly timely, given the conversations that we are having here today. We will also look at the rate relief for vacant properties, and I am keen to look at regeneration and whether, if changes are to be made to the vacant property rating relief, we can do those two things together. There is merit in doing that. The work to inform those two consultations is ongoing, and we will launch them after the start of the financial year.

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

4. Mr O'Toole asked the Minister of Finance for an update on the draft Budget 2025-26. (AQO 1440/22-27)

Caoimhe Archibald (Sinn Féin, East Londonderry)

The draft Budget for 2025-26 was agreed by the Executive on 19 December, with a 12-week public consultation launched on the same day. The public spending position, as the Member will know, remains very challenging for 2025-26 for resource and capital spending. Despite the challenges facing us, the draft Budget demonstrates the Executive's commitment to doing what matters most. It will deliver and prioritise additional investment in our public services and an economy that supports businesses to improve the lives of workers, families and communities. I encourage people to have their say and contribute to my Department's overarching consultation, which ends on 13 March.

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

Minister, in the answer to the previous question, you said that a consultation on rates would begin in the new financial year, but it has not been said clearly enough in the Chamber that there will be a 3% increase in the regional rate for businesses in the 2025-26 Budget. Is it not a bit disingenuous for us to come in here and talk about the seriousness of the issues facing business while slipping through a regional rate increase in the non-domestic rate? Has that been agreed by your Executive colleagues?

Caoimhe Archibald (Sinn Féin, East Londonderry)

I would not characterise it as slipping it through, because it was clearly stated in the ministerial statement that was published on 19 December and all the Budget documentation thereafter. It said that the draft Budget for 2025-26 is predicated on those rate increases. What we have tried to do and what we tried to do this year is to look at inflation and stay some way in line with that. I am very conscious of the pressures on businesses, and the Member will be aware of the 5% that was proposed for domestic properties. The differential was in recognition of the particular challenges and the representations that have been made to us in respect of the cost of doing business.

The Member will be aware, as will everybody in the Chamber, of the huge pressure that is on the Executive's Budget and our ability to deliver public services, as many have mentioned during this Question Time. There is an expectation that the public services will be good quality for all the people whom we represent, and the balance that we are trying to achieve is between that Budget and where the burden falls. I am trying as best I can to ensure that it falls on the shoulders of those who are most able to meet it.

Cathy Mason (Sinn Féin, South Down)

Minister, despite the pressures that you face, I welcome the support and the priority that you have given to childcare, which has allowed the development of the very much-needed first steps that we have seen. Will you outline how the 2025-26 Budget will also support childcare?

Caoimhe Archibald (Sinn Féin, East Londonderry)

This year, 2024-25, the Executive had allocated £25 million for proposals brought forward by the childcare affordability task and finish group. The draft Budget 2025-26 proposes that £50 million is earmarked for childcare. That doubles the funding provided in 2024-25. The Executive also agreed, as part of the draft Budget, that a further £5 million would be provided for childcare in the first in-year monitoring round for 2025-26, and that will meet the Education Minister's full request for £55 million.

In the light of the significant financial pressures facing the Executive, those allocations clearly demonstrate our commitment to supporting hard-working families. Childcare is one of the priorities in the draft Programme for Government, so it clearly contributes to that as well.

Paula Bradshaw (Alliance, Belfast South)

5. Ms Bradshaw asked the Minister of Finance to outline any work undertaken by her Department during 2024 to prevent forced marriages. (AQO 1441/22-27)

Caoimhe Archibald (Sinn Féin, East Londonderry)

The General Register Office in my Department provides guidance to registrars in looking for the signs of possible forced marriage and reporting those to the appropriate authorities. That is part of a multi-agency approach to the prevention of forced marriage that operates across all sectors and involves agencies both within and outside government, including the PSNI, the courts, health trusts, schools and others. Action to prevent forced marriages is coordinated by the Forced Marriage Unit, a joint Home Office- and Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office-sponsored body.

My Department has previously inputted on legislative change to combat forced marriage and has worked with colleagues in the Department of Justice and others on this important issue through, for example, the development of guidance. During 2024, my Department developed policy on raising the minimum age of marriage from 16 to 18. That is in recognition that some child marriages can be forced.

The Executive have agreed to include provisions in the forthcoming marriage and civil partnership Bill that will extend the offence of forced marriage to anyone attempting to arrange the marriage of a person aged under 18. I hope to bring that Bill to the Assembly for consideration in the coming months, and I believe that the relevant provisions will provide another important protection against forced marriage.

Paula Bradshaw (Alliance, Belfast South)

Thank you, Minister, I am really pleased to hear that. As you know, in its annual statement, the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission talked about bringing that legislation forward. I have nothing to add other than to say that I look forward to that.

Edwin Poots (DUP, Belfast South)

That is not really a question.

Emma Sheerin (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

Minister, can you outline how the Budget supports ending violence against women and girls?

Caoimhe Archibald (Sinn Féin, East Londonderry)

All of us realise what an important issue that is. Ending all forms of violence, abuse and harm against women and girls is one of the most pressing issues facing our society today. The Executive are committed to tackling that important issue.

In March 2021, the Executive acknowledged the need for a departmental, cross-cutting, government-wide approach to tackle the issue of violence against women and girls. The Executive Office has subsequently been developing a strategic framework to achieve the society-wide transformation that is needed to achieve that Executive priority. The draft Budget for 2025-26 includes an earmarked allocation of £2 million to TEO towards the implementation of phase 1 of its delivery plan. In addition to that earmarked allocation for TEO, it has set aside £1·2 million from its baseline to fund an ending violence against women and girls change fund for community and voluntary sector organisations in partnership with local councils. As part of that wider change fund, a regional change fund initiative was announced on 21 January by the First Minister and deputy First Minister aimed at tackling violence against women and girls.

In response to Paula Bradshaw, I say that the legislation that we are bringing forward is an important part of the effort to challenge violence against women and girls and to bring it to an end.

David Brooks (DUP, Belfast East)

6. Mr Brooks asked the Minister of Finance for an update on her Department's introduction of a baby loss certificate scheme. (AQO 1442/22-27)

Caoimhe Archibald (Sinn Féin, East Londonderry)

I am keen to see the scheme taken forward as quickly as possible to give bereaved families the opportunity to have formal recognition of their loss. I want all parents and families who have suffered the devastating loss of a baby to feel that their grief is recognised.

Primary legislation is currently being drafted that will be the start of the process to establish a scheme here. I hope to introduce the deaths, stillbirths and baby loss Bill in the Assembly in the next number of weeks. We will continue to work with the Department of Health to specify the detail of this important initiative, to make sure that it meets the needs and expectations of the bereaved families and to scope delivery options.

My officials continue to progress work on this at pace, and a more detailed schedule will be made available when this legislation has been considered by the Assembly.

Edwin Poots (DUP, Belfast South)

We have no time for follow-up questions, so we move to topical questions.

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

T1. Mr O'Toole asked the Minister of Finance whether she will provide a multi-year Budget to address long-term challenges and, if so, when, given that one of her officials gave evidence to the Finance Committee some weeks ago that her Department is doing a long-term scoping exercise on five-year budgeting plans, and given that, today, we hear from the Northern Ireland Statistics and Research Agency (NISRA) that by 2027 — the end of this mandate — the number of pensioners will outnumber the number of young people. (AQT 951/22-27)

Caoimhe Archibald (Sinn Féin, East Londonderry)

I thank the Member for the question. I know that he will be aware that one of the things that we committed to in the Budget sustainability plan was that, when there are multi-year spending reviews, we will also do multi-year Budgets alongside that. He will also be aware that the legislation precludes us from doing a multi-year Budget outside of those circumstances.

We are expecting a spending review in June, which will be for two years, and we have the preparations in place to respond and do likewise and to have a two-year Budget in the first instance. The Labour Government have said that they intend to review that every two years and look forward on a three-year basis. That is the basis on which I am planning, and I am very keen that the work that is being undertaken in respect of the departmental plans will help inform that budgeting process and give us the ability to take that slightly longer-term look at things.

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

Minister, I welcome the fact that you are looking at this, but I am concerned that we look as though we are being imprisoned by the strict legal limitations that are imposed on us by London. You and I want a new constitutional future. If we listen to what the Treasury says, we will not be planning for that future. Even if the legislation prevents you from providing a legal Budget, it does not stop you and the Executive providing a five-year indicative Budget for what will be needed to deliver the public services for the population that we will have in 2028-29 and beyond. Can we have that Budget, even if it is just indicative?

Caoimhe Archibald (Sinn Féin, East Londonderry)

The departmental plans will have a forecast of the departmental needs, and that will help us inform the budgeting process. In that respect, we will be able to take that longer-term look at things, but, in terms of actually having an understanding of what our funding envelope is and being able to align that with our priorities, we are, unfortunately, tied to those spending review periods. However, it is really important that that work is done so that we are able to plan to deliver high-quality public services and to support a strong and thriving economy where everybody can prosper.

Deborah Erskine (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

T2. Mrs Erskine asked the Minister of Finance, although it feels quite crass to talk about money when people are still trying to get power restored and people have no water right now, what financial support she has requested from the UK Government for the Executive. (AQT 952/22-27)

Caoimhe Archibald (Sinn Féin, East Londonderry)

I had the opportunity to speak with the Secretary of State on Saturday, and we discussed the impact that the storm is still having. As you quite rightly said, a lot of people are still without power and water, and we are very conscious of that and of the hardship that many continue to face. We continue to engage with partners to do everything possible to rectify that. It is important that we all put on record our gratitude to our front-line workers, including those who worked through the storm and those who are now responding to it. The First Minister and the deputy First Minister met the Prime Minister and senior British Ministers on Saturday as well to ask for that assistance and for mutual aid to support people affected by the storm. Departments have begun to indicate that there is a potential need for financial support, and work has been commissioned to scope what recovery efforts are expected to look like and what should be included in any specific ask that is made in relation to financial support.

Deborah Erskine (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I thank the Minister for her clarification that there have been asks to the Government. I suppose that, in the days and weeks ahead, we will see an actual figure in relation to that. Like her, I put on record my thanks to the front-line workers. I am aware that local businesses are counting the cost as a result of loss of food and things like that, so will there be any financial support for the likes of those local businesses that are counting the cost of the storm?

Caoimhe Archibald (Sinn Féin, East Londonderry)

We are beginning to receive more and more representations about the impact that is being felt, especially as power stays off for a longer time. Again, it is about trying to get an understanding of what those impacts are. Concerns have been raised with me about the likelihood, or otherwise, of insurance covering some of the impacts. We need to have a full understanding of all of that. We will make representations, once we have a full understanding of what the financial costs are going to be. I will be engaging with the Secretary of State again later today, and I have been in correspondence with the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, on the issue.

David Honeyford (Alliance, Lagan Valley)

T3. Mr Honeyford asked the Minister of Finance, further to her earlier answers regarding rate relief and business rates, if she has plans for a banded rating system within the 10-year strategic review of rates. (AQT 953/22-27)

Caoimhe Archibald (Sinn Féin, East Londonderry)

We have set out our intention to look at every rate relief measure over a 10-year period so that we ensure that everything that we are spending money on is still delivering on its policy objective and is still fit for purpose. On those that we are looking at this year, representations have been made to us regarding banded rate reliefs and other, I suppose, sectoral rate reliefs among the rate relief measures that we have currently. There are limitations on the type of rate relief support that we can put in place. The Member will understand that we levy two taxes in one in our rating system: the regional rate and the local council rate. There are, therefore, challenges in what we can do, but we are going to look at all of those things as part of the review.

David Honeyford (Alliance, Lagan Valley)

I thank the Minister for her detailed answer. I am thinking a little bit ahead. Earlier, the Minister talked about the cost of doing business research that is being carried out by the university. Could that research look at a banded rating system as a potential opportunity to help our small businesses in the long term?

Caoimhe Archibald (Sinn Féin, East Londonderry)

The research that we commissioned was a response to the representations that were made in respect of the British Chancellor's autumn statement and some of the measures in it. I anticipate that we will get a lot of useful information. When we were commissioning that research, the Department for the Economy was particularly interested due to some of the strategic objectives in its economic vision. I know that it is looking at the potential for research on initiatives that could support businesses. That would be follow-up research to what is being undertaken currently.

Pat Sheehan (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

T4. Mr Sheehan asked the Minister of Finance what progress has been made on the interim fiscal framework. (AQT 954/22-27)

Caoimhe Archibald (Sinn Féin, East Londonderry)

As the Member will know, the interim fiscal framework provides new funding arrangements based on a new needs-based factor of 124%. That has resulted in an additional £431·4 million in funding through the Barnett formula for the Executive over this financial year and the next. In addition to helping to stabilise our funding, my Department recently published the Executive's Budget sustainability plan and established the interim public-sector transformation board to assess proposals for the £235 million of ring-fenced transformation funding.

Other commitments to be met in the near term include agreeing the mechanism of how the 124% needs-based factor will operate; agreeing the relative funding per head methodology; and developing an evidence base for a higher level of need than 124%. My officials are in discussions with the British Treasury on the relative funding per head methodology and the mechanisms for needs-based funding. The funding mechanism must, as a minimum, be implemented in a way that ensures that the North is funded at our level of need. In my view, it would be unjustifiable for the British Government to recognise that the North has a level of need and then provide funding below that level.

Pat Sheehan (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire as ucht a freagra.

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

What work has been done to develop an evidence base for negotiating a higher need level?

Caoimhe Archibald (Sinn Féin, East Londonderry)

My Department is working to develop the evidence base to demonstrate that the level of need is higher than 124%, and to have that evidence base in place to support the upcoming spending review for 2026-27. I am pleased that the highly respected Professor Gerry Holtham, who led the Holtham commission in Wales, has agreed to conduct an independent review of the North's level of need. Professor Holtham is a renowned expert in the field of public finances. He chaired the Independent Commission on Funding and Finance for Wales, otherwise known as the Holtham commission, which devised the Holtham approach to needs-based funding for Wales. His unique experience and technical expertise in that field mean that he is one of a limited number of individuals who would be able to carry out that work.

Officials are also working closely with colleagues in the Department of Justice and the Department of Health to inform the evidence. The Department of Justice officials are engaging with independent experts to inform their evidence. It is a difficult task, and the final product will need to bring all those strands of work together to provide a coherent argument for why our level of need could be higher. As I said, it is essential that the Executive be funded to enable them to deliver sustainable public services. To do that, we need to be funded to at least our appropriate level of need.