Northern Ireland Assembly, 4 February 2025

314 contributions from 55 members. The official report.

Assembly Business

Edwin Poots (DUP, Belfast South)

I wish to advise Members that, yesterday, I received correspondence from the nominating officer for Sinn Féin informing me that the following Members have resigned their positions with immediate effect: Philip McGuigan, Chair of the Windsor Framework Democratic Scrutiny Committee; Carál Ní Chuilín, Chair of the Committee on Standards and Privileges; Sinéad Ennis, Deputy Chair of the Committee on Procedures; Declan McAleer, Deputy Chair of the Assembly and Executive Review Committee; and Ciara Ferguson, Deputy Chair of the Committee for Communities.

The nominating officer also advised of the following nominations: Philip McGuigan as Chair of the Committee for Health; Ciara Ferguson as Chair of the Windsor Framework Democratic Scrutiny Committee; Cathy Mason as Chair of the Committee on Standards and Privileges; Órlaithí Flynn as Deputy Chair of the Committee on Procedures; Pat Sheehan as Deputy Chair of the Assembly and Executive Review Committee; and Nicola Brogan as Deputy Chair of the Committee for Communities.

All those Members have accepted their nominations and taken up their roles. I wish them every success.

Members' Statements

Colm Gildernew (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I wish to acknowledge the work of the Youth Assembly. It is one of the really interesting developments over the past number of years. The Youth Assembly was initiated under your predecessor, Alex Maskey, in 2021, and I know that you have continued that work. The Youth Assembly, to its credit, shadows the structures here, in that it has 90 Members, and those young people have identified a range of interests that they want to pursue through that format. They have three Committees, and, to the Members' credit, they have identified health, education and rights and equality as their key issues.

I have had the experience of working with the Youth Assembly on several occasions, in my work as a member of the Committee for Communities and at the Public Accounts Committee. Indeed, last week, Youth Assembly Members were involved on two separate occasions. One was the pensions regulations, which we discussed last week, and several Youth Assembly Members gave evidence to the PAC on skills and their perceptions of that subject. I want to thank individually the Members of the Youth Assembly who attended and gave evidence at that session: we had Bláthnaid, Rory, Harrison and Paige. I am always hugely impressed by the diligence that they bring to that work. They are always well prepared, give the subject extensive consideration and bring their unique experience, knowledge and perspective. I therefore encourage Members, in any of their work in Committee, to consider the Youth Assembly. Its Members have important perspectives that they bring to the Youth Assembly on behalf of the people whom they represent, and every time that I engage with them, it reinforces my determination that we will see, as soon as possible, the voting age reduced to 16. Those young people have a voice, and their perspective is important, so I would like to see the voting age lowered to 16 across the island.

Pam Cameron (DUP, South Antrim)

I take the opportunity to raise an issue that affects the residents of Monkstown Mews in my constituency of South Antrim. At the outset, I pay tribute to my party colleagues for their work on the issue before the constituency boundaries changed.

The houses in Monkstown Mews were built almost 20 years ago. It is a quiet residential area with roads that are still unadopted, meaning that services are limited and that those who own their home find it difficult to sell their property owing to the complications arising from the lack of adoption. We all expect that, when we buy a house, the road that it sits on will, in the near future or within a reasonable time, be brought up to a standard that leads to its official adoption, and with official adoption come the basic services of working street lights, road and footway maintenance etc.

For the residents of Monkstown Mews, that is not the case, and they are more than frustrated at the ongoing stalemate, with some forced to rent out their property because, as a result of the sale of their home falling through, they cannot move to another. The situation is not just an inconvenience but a barrier to property ownership, investment and community development, and it is unacceptable that our constituents find themselves living in such uncertainty, deprived of basic amenities that should accompany living in a residential area. More must be done to address the issue of unadopted roads in order to ensure that all residents have access to the infrastructure and services that they deserve.

I express my gratitude to my party colleague Deborah Erskine and welcome her intention to introduce a private Member's Bill to address the problem. Legislation is essential in order to make sure that homeowners in Monkstown Mews and across Northern Ireland can get a resolution to a serious problem that is not of their making. I will keep my constituents informed of the private Member's Bill's progress, and I am delighted to hear that it will be going out to consultation in the near future. I also put on record that I have written to the Minister for Infrastructure on the issue.

Stewart Dickson (Alliance, East Antrim)

I raise an issue that is central to our commitments under section 75(2) of the Northern Ireland Act 1998, specifically the concept of "good relations", which is a term that, despite its frequent use, lacks a statutory definition. The omission has created ambiguity over and practical implications for policy development and community cohesion in Northern Ireland. Section 75(2) mandates that public authorities must promote good relations amongst people of:

"different religious belief, political opinion or racial group."

Despite nearly 30 years of policy development in the area, however, the term remains undefined, and, frankly, its interpretation is woolly and varied. That has led to concerns and given opportunity for misuse by sidestepping equality obligations under the guise of fostering good relations, especially in situations involving racial violence against our black and minority ethnic communities.

In 2014, the Equality Coalition stated in a report that Northern Ireland's framework for good relations, at best, diverges from the principles of human rights and equality and, at worst, runs counter to them. Unlike those areas, good relations lacks any minimum standard or benchmark, which leaves its implementation ambiguous and subjective to interpretation. Failure to provide a definition has allowed section 75 duties that were intended to promote equality and non-discrimination to be turned into what the Equality Coalition has termed a "subjective political veto" over contentious policy. That is a far cry from their original intent, which ultimately undermines their effectiveness.

In 2017, the Council of Europe's Advisory Committee on the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities recommended:

"the Northern Ireland Executive should endeavour to implement the 'good relations' duty as provided under the Northern Ireland Act 1998 in a manner that does not run counter to the equality duty and that does not prevent access to rights of persons belonging to all national and ethnic minorities".

It is now 2025, and Northern Ireland remains without such legislation.

The Executive Office's handling of the good relations strategy has been, at best, slow and ineffective.

Necessary updates to strategies and policies like Together: Building a United Community have been criticised for being lacklustre, and any pressing of the clear need for a legal definition of good relations continues to be ignored. The Equality Commission, the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission and the Commission on Flags, Identity, Culture and Tradition have acknowledged those issues. Alliance supports calls to deliver a statutory definition of good relations, including amendments to the Northern Ireland Act. A statutory definition of good relations would align us with best practice in other jurisdictions across the United Kingdom, but also deliver the promises of the Good Friday Agreement.

In conclusion, defining good relations is not merely about addressing a legislative gap. It is about clearly stating our values and ensuring that our commitments to peace and prosperity are comprehensive and actionable. Let us give good relations a legal definition and a genuine meaning to deliver a more inclusive Northern Ireland.

Steve Aiken (UUP, South Antrim)

It is with some sadness that I rise to report the passing yesterday of our well-liked ex-mayor, councillor and UUP association chair, Jim Montgomery. Jim was a prominent political figure in South Antrim, particularly the town of Antrim — a town that he was immensely proud to represent and with which he had a strong affinity. Everyone knew him as "Gentleman Jim".

Jim was an Ulster Unionist Party councillor for several years, representing Antrim on Antrim and Newtownabbey Borough Council. However, it was during COVID, when he was our mayor, that Jim's immense empathy and compassion was shown to all people of the borough. Working within the restrictions, he reached out to all of the most vulnerable members of our community, using his office to support those most in need and using his voice for the benefit of all. Jim was a local politician for everyone, and condolences have been expressed by all political parties. That is more than testament to the great regard that he was held in by all our communities.

I worked closely with Jim on many other issues, including his help for the blue-light services. He was heavily involved through his civilian role in policing and he provided support for serving and retired members of the PSNI. His role in supporting police pensioners was widely recognised by all members of the policing family as being pivotal to their welfare. The sense of loss and shock that we have in our party is mirrored in the PSNI and the Policing Board. However, it is as a stalwart member of our party that we miss him most. It was only on Friday, at our South Antrim AGM in Ballyclare, that we elected him, unopposed, as the chair of our association.

Above all, to me, he was a friend and confidante, and he always had a very ready sense of humour, as those of us who knew him know. All our party's thoughts are with his family, especially Gordon, Stephen and Nigel. Jim, safe into the night. You are in our prayers; you will be missed.

Órlaithí Flynn (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

I will highlight a meeting that Sinn Féin representatives held recently with ME Support NI to hear about the invaluable support that it is providing to ME patients. ME, also known as chronic fatigue syndrome, is a long-term chronic and painful neurological illness. Over 7,000 people in the North are living with ME, with many so severely affected that they are unable to leave their homes or even their beds. This disease of the central nervous system can have a debilitating impact on people's lives.

A few weeks ago, the Sinn Féin health group MLAs met volunteers from ME Support NI. The people in the support group, who set up the charity, have direct experience of living with this awful disease. They are doing amazing work in supporting people — young and old — who are living with ME, many of whom are living without a diagnosis or a treatment plan and, sadly, feel stigmatised, ignored and not believed when they end up in hospital as a result of that debilitating disease. I sincerely hope that we can make more progress to support the work of ME Support NI to help secure better services, receive proper diagnoses and, generally, raise more awareness of what the disease is and how it affects people.

Patients who suffer from ME deserve to have access to appropriate and quality healthcare. People should not have to travel to hotel rooms to have specialists from overseas diagnose them, which is the situation currently. I will continue to work and speak up for those who are suffering from ME and, hopefully, do all that I can, along with colleagues, to bring about positive change for patients.

ME Support NI is a fantastic charity that does fantastic work for people who are often at their lowest point when they have been struck down by this relatively unknown illness. The charity was originally founded by a brave mother from west Belfast who found herself in the terrible position of having a very sick young child with no diagnosis, no answers, no care pathway and nowhere to turn. Her efforts and perseverance gave rise to a group of people that now provides invaluable support to everyone who lives with ME. I commend that mother, Antoinette, and her son David from west Belfast. They run the charity alongside other board members. Keep up the great work, and, hopefully, we will soon see the appointment of a specialist in this healthcare field.

Diane Forsythe (DUP, South Down)

On Sunday 2 February 2025, the Shore Road at Rostrevor in my constituency of South Down was finally reopened to two lanes of traffic, having had one lane blocked and temporary traffic measures in place for the past 15 months and a couple of days since the storm in October/November 2023. Some in the Chamber may be sick of hearing me talk about it, but I have been relentless in tabling questions for oral and written answer and securing an Adjournment debate on the roads in South Down before Christmas. Thank goodness the road is now open.

Many questions, however, are now pouring in, as the work to move the blocks placed in the middle of the road to block one lane for over a year to the edge of the road at the bottom of the cliff took just one and a half days this weekend. If such short minor works were required, why did it take over 15 months to do them? Why were the people of South Down left behind and forgotten for so long? What did it cost the Department for Infrastructure to run temporary traffic management on the road for the past 15 months? I have asked that question before and been told that the information was commercially sensitive, but I ask it again, because my constituents deserve to know how much it cost to restrict them to one lane of traffic on that main road for over a year. It caused huge delays and inconvenience and hindered business transportation through the area.

I have an evidenced record of consistently fighting on the issue, but I have felt alone. Our local people were failed by our Sinn Féin Infrastructure Minister on it. Where was the South Down MP? He has been as absent on the ground as he has been from his seat at Westminster. Where were the two Sinn Féin MLAs? What about our councillors? I heard no support on the matter from our Sinn Féin-run Newry, Mourne and Down District Council, which pushed through a rates increase last night despite an absolute and ongoing failure to deliver things that are as basic as emptying the bins in the area every week.

In South Down, we have been very much left behind and failed time and time again. I stand alone as the only unionist MLA for South Down. Our DUP team of councillors is hugely in the minority, with only five out of 41 councillors, but we will always stand up and fight for our constituents. The DUP councillors on Newry, Mourne and Down District Council were the only ones to vote against the rates increase last night. We will not sit idly by and watch as our constituents are failed. However, there is a long, hard fight for everything that we do. Anyone who has watched me work hard for my constituents can see that, but we will continue to do it. We are in the minority, but we are proud to always punch above our weight and represent our constituents.

Andrew McMurray (Alliance, South Down)

I acknowledge the 10th anniversary of the Castlewellan parkrun, which takes place every Saturday at 9.30 am in the grounds of Castlewellan Forest Park. Admittedly, I do not partake in parkrun as often as I should like, but it is a fantastic event that takes place in the town. There are also events in Rostrevor and Downpatrick, as well as one that is just outside my constituency in the Montalto estate, Ballynahinch. I am sure that there is one in which every MLA could partake. That said, I know that Members are actively involved in parkrun as participants or volunteers, which further demonstrates its reach and impact.

The events exemplify community in action and reflect the values that we aim to uphold as representatives of the Assembly. Indeed, Northern Ireland is now home to 41 parkrun events and 13 junior parkruns, which represents a remarkable growth since the first event at the Waterworks in Belfast. Across the region, over 50,000 people are registered parkrunners, and around 6,000 individuals take part weekly by running, walking or volunteering. In the number of people participating, NI punches well above our weight. In the rest of the UK, there is one participant per 347 of the population; in the Republic of Ireland, it is one participant per 333 of the population; but, in NI, it is one participant per 285 of the population.

It has become a shining example of community resilience, inclusivity and well-being across Northern Ireland with its focus on cross-community engagement and its ability to positively impact on physical and mental health. Parkrun is a beacon of hope and unity in our society. It has grown into a vital community initiative that promotes health, well-being and inclusivity across Northern Ireland. As a free, weekly 5K event, parkrun welcomes participants of all ages, backgrounds and fitness levels to run, jog or walk and has a unique ability to bring people together regardless of community or creed. From public parks, such as Victoria Park and Ormeau Park in Belfast, to the Peace Bridge in Derry and through to the Lower Drummans event at Magilligan prison, parkrun connects communities in a way that transcends barriers. As Members of the Assembly, let us continue to celebrate and support parkrun for the incredible benefits that it brings to people in Northern Ireland.

Pat Sheehan (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

Ó fógraíodh an sos cogaidh in Gaza an 19 Eanáir, tá Iosrael ag cur lena chuid ionsaithe ar Phalaistínigh sa Bhruach Thiar, sin dar leis an ghrúpa Iosraelach ar son chearta an duine, B’Tselem. Is beag má bhí an sos cogaidh fógartha go raibh sráidbhailte, bailte móra agus gach cathair sa Bhruach Thiar faoi léigear ag arm Iosrael. An seanphort céanna arís, a Cheann Comhairle: Iosrael ag déanamh léigear ar Phalaistínigh agus ag cur isteach ar shaol an gháthPhalaistínigh, ach sa Bhruach Thiar an iarraidh seo. Níl scoláirí in ann dul ar scoil nó ar ollscoil; níl othair in ann cóir leighis a fháil; agus níl oibrithe in ann dul ar obair. Mar a deir an grúpa Iosraelach, B’Tselem: más sos cogaidh é, ní cosúil.

Ní cosúil le sos cogaidh é, a Cheann Comhairle, nuair atá níos mó ná deichniúr Palaistíneach marbh ag arm Iosrael le coicís anuas agus Palaistínigh gafa ina scórtha ag arm Iosrael sa Bhruach Thiar. Tá arm Iosrael ar theann a ndíchill i gcoinne na bPalaistíneach ach, má tá féin, ní chuireann siad isteach ná amach ar na coilínigh atá i mbun foréigin sa Bhruach Thiar. Seasann siad siar de réir mar a théann na coilínigh ag ionsaí pobail Phalaistíneacha, ag iarraidh tithe a chur trí thine agus na daoine go fóill iontu, agus ag scriosadh carranna. Ó thosaigh an sos cogaidh, tá coilínigh ag cur staiceanna i mbéal bóithre ar fud an Bhruaigh Thiar go n-ionsaíonn siad Palaistínigh a bhíonn ag gabháil an bóthar.

Dar le B’Tselem go bhfuil Iosrael ag teacht i dtír ar an sos cogaidh le cur leis an chos ar bolg atá siad a dhéanamh ar mhuintir na Palaistíne sa Bhruach Thiar. Ní sos cogaidh ach spré cogaidh sin, a Cheann Comhairle. Más léir don ghrúpa Iosraelach B’Tselem an méid sin, tá an t-am dearg ag an phobal idirnáisiúnta drochbhearta Iosrael a aithint agus a cháineadh.

Kate Nicholl (Alliance, Belfast South)

This week is National Apprenticeship Week. I will be honest and say that, before joining the Economy Committee, I did not know much about apprenticeships, but the reality is that they are a game changer. They help to grow our economy, tackle poverty and inequality and fill crucial skills gaps. They offer a practical strategic way to boost productivity and develop a workforce that meets our long-term economic needs. That said, we still have a problem: every time we talk about education and skills, the conversation seems to default to academic routes — university, degrees and traditional qualifications. Why is that? Why do we still have an ingrained bias that university is the best option for success?

National Apprenticeship Week is all about changing that mindset and raising awareness of the opportunities that apprenticeships bring. Of course, we know that both academic and vocational pathways are valuable, but we need to shift our thinking. Our focus should be on finding the best opportunities for our young people and not just pushing them down one particular route.

Apprenticeships strike a brilliant balance of earning while learning and gaining qualifications while getting real-world experience. We recently had representations from apprentices at the Committee, and I wish that I had known more about apprenticeships as an option when I was at school. In fact, when it comes to making them more accessible, that is first on my list of things to look at for taking action. Careers advice in schools needs a serious rethink. Work is already happening across Education and Economy, but we also need to make sure that our apprenticeships are properly promoted. A thriving apprenticeship system depends on a strong further education sector, and there are serious concerns about the challenges facing that sector right now.

We also need to reform and devolve the apprenticeship levy, which I have spoken about before, so that we have more control over how the money that businesses pay out is spent. We have to shift the cultural perception of vocational routes so that they are seen as equally valuable, not just as a second choice. We need to support small businesses and mircobusinesses so that they have the confidence and capacity to take on more apprenticeships. We know that more want to do that; they just do not have the capacity to do it.

We are making progress, but we need to go further and faster. Apprenticeships can help us close crucial skills gaps, especially in green industries where we need trained workers to meet our net zero commitments. That is why I, as chair of the all-party group on skills, am really excited that our next inquiry will focus on green skills. Apprenticeships will be so key to making that happen.

Alliance will keep pushing for more apprenticeship opportunities and better support for both apprentices and employers. It is about giving people of all ages the best possible start and helping businesses find the skilled workers that they need to thrive. Happy Apprenticeship Week. There are so many events going on, all of which are detailed on the Economy Department's website. I am hopeful that we can continue to drive change in that area.

Cheryl Brownlee (DUP, East Antrim)

Yesterday evening, along with party colleagues and members of the greater Shankill policing subgroup, I attended a fantastic Protestant/unionist/loyalist (PUL) reference, engagement and listening (REal) event at the Spectrum Centre on the Shankill Road, where we met the Chief Constable, the Deputy Chief Constable and staff from the PSNI. There was an important and open discussion, with clear acknowledgment of the concerns around two-tier policing. Crucially, the Chief Constable committed that, under his leadership, all voices will be heard equally and everyone will be treated the same under the law.

The event also provided an opportunity to discuss the barriers to recruitment and what more can be done to ensure that those in working-class areas can equally access career opportunities in the PSNI. I commend the community organisers for their role in making the engagement possible, bringing together the PUL community from across Northern Ireland and creating a space for constructive and positive dialogue.

The Chief Constable made it clear that the police are there to police and that everyone will be policed equally. That is all we have ever asked for, and it is what that community will continue to demand. May it only be the start of more positive engagement with the PSNI in Northern Ireland.

Sinéad McLaughlin (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

Yesterday, the Minister of Education came to the House to make a ministerial statement on controlled schools and on the announcement of £710,000 in funding for a new football pitch at Lisneal College. I want to be clear: Lisneal College is a fantastic school. It has made huge strides in recent years, thanks, in no small way, to the dedication of an excellent leadership team. Whilst I welcome any funding that comes into my constituency, I cannot ignore the wider context. That is why I am still calling for full transparency around how the decision was made, what criteria were used, how Lisneal compares with the schools that were rejected, and, crucially, what steps will be taken to ensure that other schools in Derry and elsewhere get the funding that they so desperately need. In addition, there must be greater clarity on what is considered a major project compared with a minor one. The Minister indicated that the Department's website was wrong and that a minor capital project is now up to £1 million. When was that 100% inflation rate made, and how did it get to that figure?

Since the announcement, the Education Authority has had to clarify that the football pitch in question is still in use, despite saying that, due to a failed health and safety check, it has been out of use since 2019. Again, I fully support investment in school facilities, but there needs to be clear and transparent decision-making when it comes to such funding allocations.

When I asked those questions yesterday, the Minister said to me:

"She should try to be an MLA for all her constituents in Foyle, not just one section." — [Official Report (Hansard), 3 February 2025, p15, col 1].

I really am hurt and angry that there is any suggestion that I have a sectarian modus operandi against any constituent in Foyle or anywhere.

It is just not in the fibre of my being. I reject what was said on the Floor of the House.

Phillip Brett (DUP, Belfast North)

The King's Award for Voluntary Service is the highest accolade that can be awarded by the monarch to community and voluntary organisations in the United Kingdom. I was absolutely delighted that the amazing Queens Park Women's Group was announced as a recipient of that award this year.

Forged just 15 years ago by two formidable and amazing women, that community group has gone from strength to strength. First formed to tackle antisocial behaviour in Glengormley, the group has expanded to work with older people, invest in skills and ensure that no person in Queen's Park and, indeed, the wider Glengormley area is left behind. Those two formidable ladies, Sharon and Ena McTaggart, have given freely of their time for the past 15 years to make Glengormley the best place that it can be. Often, the awards are given to large community and voluntary organisations that have huge backers and, indeed, a huge funding pot. Day and daily, those women fundraise the money that they need to support their community on their own. Those women give freely of their time, after working during the day, to ensure that every person who calls Glengormley "home" has a community outlet to enjoy.

The community of Queen's Park is a proud working-class community. Never in its wildest dreams did it think that it would be recognised at the heights of Buckingham Palace. However, through the work and dedication of those ladies and their countless volunteers, the community will finally get the recognition that it deserves. It is fitting that I take the opportunity on the Floor of the Assembly to congratulate them on that.

It is also an exciting year for the group because we have just secured new premises to ensure that it can have the resources and facilities to continue its amazing work. I take the opportunity to say, "Well done, ladies".

Edwin Poots (DUP, Belfast South)

Members may take their ease for a moment before we move to the next item of business.

(Madam Principal Deputy Speaker in the Chair)

Assembly Business

Nuala McAllister (Alliance, Belfast North)

I beg to move

That this Assembly notes the resolution of 30 June 2020 that Members’ salaries and pensions should be determined by an independent body and that Members’ allowances should be determined by the Assembly Commission; and resolves that any allowances payable to former Members of the Assembly, under section 48 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998, including resettlement and winding-up allowances, should also be determined by the Assembly Commission; that any change to these allowances may have retrospective or prospective effect; and that the Assembly Commission should publish any such determination.

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

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

Nuala McAllister (Alliance, Belfast North)

Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. I move the motion on behalf of the Assembly Commission to make a technical addition to the Assembly Commission's functions, which is consistent with decisions previously made by the Assembly. I will briefly set out some background for the benefit of Members.

Members may recall that the Assembly Members (Independent Financial Review and Standards) Act (Northern Ireland) 2011 established the independent financial review panel (IFRP) with powers to make determinations in relation to Members' salaries, allowances and pensions. The panel last exercised that power to make the Assembly Members (Salaries and Expenses) Determination (Northern Ireland) 2016. After the panel left office in 2016, the Assembly Commission decided that it was appropriate to review the existing arrangements and legislation. Political developments after 2016 meant that the Assembly Commission did not believe that it was appropriate to treat the matter as a priority when the Assembly was not sitting.

On 18 March 2020, the Assembly Commission decided that, while it would introduce legislation to appoint a new independent body to continue to determine Members' salaries and pensions, it would resume the function of determining the allowances paid to Members. Consequently, on 30 June 2024, the Assembly passed a resolution to confer power on the Assembly Commission to make determinations on Members' allowances. That resolution was passed in accordance with section 47 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998, which provides for payments to be made to current Members of the Assembly, including payments of allowances.

Subsequently, the Assembly Commission made the 2020 determination, which amended certain allowances provisions in the 2016 determination, notably those relating to Members' employees. However, the resolution made by the Assembly in June 2020 did not confer functions on the Assembly Commission in relation to section 48 of the 1998 Act, which provides for payments to be made to former Members. That was not problematic at the time, as the 2020 determination was not concerned with issues related to former Members. However, going forward, today's motion will provide the authority for the Commission to determine allowances to former Members, most notably winding-up and resettlement allowances. Therefore, the motion will provide consistency for the Assembly Commission to make determinations for the full range of allowances payable to Members and former Members.

The motion in itself introduces no changes to allowances to Members or former Members; that will require the Assembly Commission to subsequently publish a determination. Therefore, the motion has no financial implications. The House will also be aware that allowances paid to former Members do not form a significant proportion of the Assembly Commission's overall expenditure, and that is unlikely to change.

Members will note that the debate on the motion has been scheduled to coincide with the introduction of the Assembly Members (Remuneration Board) Bill. That Bill is the formal mechanism under which the power to determine allowances is separated from the power to determine salaries and pensions, although, in practical terms, that occurred in 2020. The Bill ensures that the salaries and pensions of Members will continue to be determined by an independent body. Today's motion, together with that passed by the Assembly in June 2020 and the introduction of the Bill, will provide coherent arrangements for the salaries, pensions and allowances payable to Members and former Members. I commend the motion to the House.

Robbie Butler (UUP, Lagan Valley)

I will find the right words. I have come down without paper.

As has been said, the motion is technical in nature but is consistent with previous Assembly decisions. It would not introduce any changes to Members' or former Members' allowances; such changes would require a subsequent determination by the Assembly Commission. That is in line with previous decisions taken by the House, as the proposer of the motion outlined.

The motion will ensure that the Assembly Commission has the authority to determine allowances for former Members, in particular winding-up and resettlement allowances. That was not done in the June 2020 determination process, which made no changes relating to former Members, so this is about redressing the imbalance.

The motion has no financial implications, as it does not alter the allowances that are paid. As a former member of the Commission, I commend it and the audit team for the work that they do. However, it is a reality that it is up to us, as individual Members with responsibilities, to ensure that we operate within the confines, rules and regulations of that which is laid down.

The Ulster Unionist Party welcomes the Commission motion.

Timothy Gaston (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

The motion begins by noting:

"Members’ salaries and pensions should be determined by an independent body".

Really? It does that in a context where the briefing to assist the Audit Committee's scrutiny of the Assembly Commission's budget for 2025-26 said:

"given that Members' Salaries have not been reviewed since 2016, it is perhaps helpful to note that the current salary for a Member is now more than £19k less than the salary payable to an MSP in the Scottish Parliament or an MS in the Senedd. It therefore seems highly likely that a Remuneration Board will increase Members' salaries."

I make it clear that I do not believe that MLAs should receive a pay rise of one penny, never mind £19,000.

While the briefing did not note this, I urge any independent body reviewing MLA pay to link it to our performance in the House; to consider the fact that we are Members of a legislative Assembly that seldom legislates; to consider that MLAs sit on scrutiny Committees that do not scrutinise; and to remember that MLAs, when asked whether they would like to have a say on laws that govern our economy, voted to hand power to those in a foreign Parliament. Is that the track record of an Assembly whose Members deserve a £19,000 pay hike? I think not, and I trust that the remuneration board will take those indisputable facts into account.

A similar move is afoot in local councils, In the 2025-26 rate-setting process, councils are preparing for a £7,000 increase in councillors' salaries along with generous back pay. Many councils are building in between £250,000 and £500,000 to cover the costs to flow from the announcement expected from Minister Lyons before the summer.

As with the council increase, the motion is an attempt by the parties represented on the Commission to give cover for the awarding of a pay rise to MLAs. I do not believe that we are worth it and will therefore vote against the proposal. Anyone who thinks similarly can join me in the No Lobby.

Gerry Carroll (People Before Profit Alliance, Belfast West)

I oppose the motion, which is a clear attempt to move the dial on a familiar conversation: MLA pay and allowances. The motion reminds us that MLA salaries and pensions are determined by an independent body, effectively laying the groundwork for an inevitable and substantial salary increase for MLAs under the guise of independence and objectivity. Straight after the debate, the Assembly Members (Remuneration Board) Bill will be introduced in the Assembly. When a board is being set up, we all know what it will recommend. There is a clear direction of travel.

In a briefing to the Audit Committee, the Assembly Commission noted that MLA salaries had not been reviewed since 2016 and that the current salary for MLAs is, as we heard, £19,000 less than members of the Scottish and Welsh Parliaments. The Assembly Commission concluded:

"It therefore seems highly likely that a Remuneration Board will increase Members' salaries."

I say this to those who tabled the motion: do not insult our intelligence; do not insult the intelligence of people looking at this debate. If MLA salaries were increased in line with Scotland and Wales, that would mean a 28% — 28% — pay increase for politicians. That would be a kick in the teeth for every worker who stood on a picket line and fought for pay increases that barely kept pace with inflation. Imagine if teachers got a 28% pay increase, health workers got a 28% pay increase or workers in this Building got a 28% pay increase. Remuneration boards for our public-sector workers are not so generous.

Last year, a UK pay review body recommended a 5·5% increase for Health and Social Care workers. It took months of lobbying and the prospect of industrial action for the Health Minister to finally accept that recommendation. In no other job would a 28% pay increase be considered reasonable or affordable.

Trevor Clarke (DUP, South Antrim)

Will the Member give way?

Gerry Carroll (People Before Profit Alliance, Belfast West)

Yes, I will give way.

Trevor Clarke (DUP, South Antrim)

I understand the Member's point about comparisons with the public sector, and he cites the 5·5% for one year. We are working on the presumption that MLAs will get a pay rise, but the fact is that the Commission is asking an independent body to do that work. You are deciding what that body will do. Do you not agree that, whilst some workers got 5·5% for one year, the cumulative effect from 2015, when the pay was last adjusted, will be much more than the 28% that you suggest? Do you not believe in fairness for all workers?

Also, will you join me in calling for the Commission, when an Ad Hoc Committee is set up to review this —.

Gerry Carroll (People Before Profit Alliance, Belfast West)

That is a long intervention.

Trevor Clarke (DUP, South Antrim)

I am still on my feet. The Speaker will call me to order.

Would you support —

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

Excuse me —

Trevor Clarke (DUP, South Antrim)

Would you support —

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

Excuse me. You need to resume your seat. The Member indicated that he would take an intervention. Interventions are meant to be brief, however. The Member has an extra minute.

Gerry Carroll (People Before Profit Alliance, Belfast West)

Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. Interventions are meant to be brief, and the Member's was a bit long. He may have let the cat out of the bag when he said that we are working on the presumption that there will be a pay increase for MLAs. I do not know whether he has more to reveal on the subject. He can speak after me if he wants to.

In no other job would a 28% pay increase be considered reasonable or affordable. Why should MLAs be treated differently from any other worker? The Member fails to grasp that point, when he should.

The motion reminds us that, in 2020, the Assembly Commission was granted powers to determine Members' allowances. It is worth noting that allowances include not just expenses but staff salaries and office rents, yet powers for MLAs to determine their own allowances were granted despite a litany of examples showing that some MLAs cannot be trusted to control the purse strings. A DUP MLA claimed over £4,000 in heating oil in just one year. Mileage expenses of £19,000 were claimed on behalf of a Sinn Féin MLA who did not drive. For 10 years, Sinn Féin MLAs claimed £700,000 of expenses for a research company, Research Services Ireland, that did not exist. Remember that?

Westminster and the Welsh Senedd make use of independent boards to set allowances. There are very few legitimate reasons for MLAs to insist on setting their own allowances, especially when parties here have a track record of misusing public money. We cannot, on the one hand, claim that an independent body is objective enough to set MLAs' salaries while, on the other hand, claim that it cannot be trusted to determine their allowances and expenses. That is completely incoherent.

The motion goes even further. It states that MLAs should set resettlement and winding-up allowances for former MLAs and that those determinations can be applied retrospectively. It is a scheme that is ripe for exploitation. Other workers do not get to set their own expenses and allowances, never mind those of former workers. Again, I ask this: why should MLAs be treated any differently?

It is long past time to have a completely different conversation on pay and allowances, one that asks how MLAs can credibly claim to represent their constituents when their salary is £20,000 more than the average wage. Some would accept its being £40,000 more. The next time that we talk about our pay and expenses, I hope that that is the main topic of conversation. I oppose the motion and urge other parties, including the Opposition, to do the same.

Trevor Clarke (DUP, South Antrim)

I will address some of the comments that have been made. I was not down on the list to speak, but, even though my intervention was considered long, I probably needed a few more seconds to cover all my points. The previous Member to speak put things on the record, so I will put on record the fact that I let no cat out of the bag. It was the Member himself who indicated that our pay is 28% behind that in Scotland and Wales. There is a danger that we are calling into question the independence of an independent panel. Members have not decided anything. Indeed, Members agree with many of the points made about why we should not set our salaries. That was agreed many years ago, hence the need for an independent panel to set them.

Given what I heard from the two Members who seem to oppose the motion — even though nothing has been decided — consideration should be given to Members' being able to opt out. If a pay rise is coming, and they do not want it, include an opt-out option. If they are very principled, they should not take a pay rise, if there is one.

I remind Mr Gaston that his predecessor did not sit on any Committees, because he opted not to do so. If we are to measure people by performance, let us look at performance. Many Members from all parties sit on multiple Committees. If we are going to base pay on performance, those who decide not to sit on Committees, or who decide to sit on only one, should get less, as the Member for North Antrim suggested. What I suggest is that we leave the matter to an independent panel to determine.

Robbie Butler (UUP, Lagan Valley)

I thank the Member for giving way. MLAs' pay is obviously a prickly subject, and one that will pique the public's interest. As a former member of the Commission, I am happy to put on record the fact that, on multiple occasions, the Commission decided not to move on something that would have been difficult for us to debate. Furthermore, the Commission has been operating outside its vires. The legislative provision meant that we should have had a panel in place years ago to address the matter. The Commission chose not to do that because it understood the sensitivities involved. The allegations that have been thrown around today are absolutely baseless. I am happy to support the Commission in that regard.

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

The Member has an extra minute.

Trevor Clarke (DUP, South Antrim)

I thank the Member for his intervention. Of course, I distance myself and the current membership from the misuse of public moneys. There was an issue in the past, and that was recognised, hence the establishment of the independent panel, the purpose of which was to fix some of those things. The recommendations were designed to do just that. We are talking, in passing —.

Gerry Carroll (People Before Profit Alliance, Belfast West)

Will the Member give way?

Trevor Clarke (DUP, South Antrim)

I will allow you a very short intervention. Of course I will.

Gerry Carroll (People Before Profit Alliance, Belfast West)

I will not be as long as you were.

The Member said that a decision has not been made on a pay increase. Will he confirm that, if there is to be a 28% pay increase for MLAs, he and his party will advocate at the Commission for a 28% pay increase for workers in the Building?

Trevor Clarke (DUP, South Antrim)

First, I will advocate for only myself — no one else — because I cannot speak on behalf of my colleagues. Of course, I encourage the Commission to take note of the opt-out option — I have already indicated that at the Commission — which could be used if some Members do not want to take the increase. Whether you take it would then be up you, Mr Carroll. I cannot advocate for something on behalf of my colleagues.

What I will say, for those who did not hear me the first time, is that you are talking about 5% for one year. You are also using the 28% figure. If you take the cumulative figure for an increase of 5% a year from 2015 until 2025, I imagine that it will be much more than 28%.

The other thing that you talked about was workers' rights. I am probably at the upper end when it comes to the age of Members; there are many younger Members who have young families to keep. Why should their pay not stay in kilter with that of their counterparts in other places? I am happy to let you in, if you want in on that.

Gerry Carroll (People Before Profit Alliance, Belfast West)

As someone who has a young family and does not take the full wage, I do not see how you can use that as justification for supporting a pay increase of 28% for MLAs. That does not stand up.

Trevor Clarke (DUP, South Antrim)

Sorry, it does not stand up in your mind, but it stands up in the minds of others. Whilst you do not take the full wage, which is your choice, other Members have young families —

Nuala McAllister (Alliance, Belfast North)

Will the Member give way?

Trevor Clarke (DUP, South Antrim)

I will.

Nuala McAllister (Alliance, Belfast North)

I thank the Member for giving way. The resolution conferred the function of allowances to the Assembly Commission. That enabled Members to take maternity leave, which is something that the independent body had not provided for. I am proud that the Assembly Commission moved on that to support those in the Building with young families.

Trevor Clarke (DUP, South Antrim)

I thank the Member for putting that on the record. As a Member whose family is grown-up, I have no need for that provision.

Timothy Gaston (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

Will the Member give way?

Trevor Clarke (DUP, South Antrim)

However, it is, of course, important that, when looking at workers' rights, we look at their rights across the board.

I will give way.

Timothy Gaston (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

I would like to give the Member the opportunity, in the remaining seconds that he has, to correct the record. He said that Mr Allister did not take up his position on a scrutiny Committee. He wanted to be on the EU scrutiny Committee, but the big parties kept him out of it.

[Interruption.]

You have to take some responsibility for that.

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

Mr Gaston, please take your seat.

Timothy Gaston (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

[Inaudible.]

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

Mr Gaston. Take your seat.

Timothy Gaston (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

That is why you kept him off it.

Trevor Clarke (DUP, South Antrim)

So —.

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

Mr Gaston and Mr Clarke, if you do not mind, will you please return to the subject?

Trevor Clarke (DUP, South Antrim)

I need to address that comment, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. I did not call out Mr Allister incorrectly. I said that Mr Allister refused to take his place on a Committee. Committee membership is allocated by d'Hondt. That is how the allocations are made. No Member has the right to pick the Committee that they want. Committee membership is allocated on the strength of a party's membership. If Mr Gaston wants to rewrite the rules for his media story, that is fine, but the reality is that Committee membership is picked on the basis of party strength, and because he did not get the Committee that he wanted, Mr Allister ran away. So, based on performance, Mr Allister did not deserve his salary.

[Interruption.]

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker —

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

Your time is up.

Trevor Clarke (DUP, South Antrim)

— I commend the motion.

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

Thank you. That is marvellous.

I call Colin McGrath to make a winding-up speech.

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

Thank you very much, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. What a lovely, edifying debate to wake us all up on a Tuesday morning.

As stated by Nuala McAllister at the beginning of the debate, the motion essentially addresses a straightforward, technical matter. The motion is consistent with the resolution that the Assembly made in June 2020. Taken together, the motion and the resolution will allow the Assembly Commission to determine the allowances that are payable to Members and, especially, former Members whose allowances cannot be set by anybody in any great term at this stage. It is a bit of a housekeeping exercise to bring that together. The resolution of the Assembly in 2020, today's motion and the Bill that will be introduced later today — later today — will bring clarity to the legislative arrangements for the determination of Members' salaries and allowances.

I will briefly reflect on some points. If there is a question about the level that MLAs should be paid, maybe they should be paid in a way that is commensurate with their ability to read what a motion is actually about, interpret what a debate is about and then have a debate about that as opposed to having a debate about something completely different. If they have checked their emails — something that I hope that a consummate MLA would do — they will have seen that there is a revised Order Paper with new indicative timings for today, which means that the next item of business might be the issue that some have spent the majority of their time discussing.

I hope that

[Interruption.]

I do not wish to have to teach people the parliamentary process, but that item is the First Stage of a Bill.

[Interruption.]

You will get plenty of opportunity in the Second Stage of the Bill, but allowances — as in, a little bit of goodwill — will be made for Members who are yet to understand the parliamentary process.

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

Colin, will you take your seat, please? Mr Gaston and others, while this is obviously amusing for some, it is a very serious subject. I ask Members to refrain from shouting from a sedentary position. Continue, Colin.

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

Thank you very much, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. Of course, you correctly, at regular times, try to keep Members on the subject matter. Some seem to stray completely. A basic of parliamentary process is being able to stick to the matter at hand.

The scrutiny of the Bill in the weeks ahead will allow further debate on those matters through the different approaches that have been taken. However, it is welcome that those developments have been brought forward with the agreement of the five parties that are represented on the Assembly Commission so that those technical matters on allowances that were not addressed in 2020 can be addressed. I commend the motion to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved:

That this Assembly notes the resolution of 30 June 2020 that Members’ salaries and pensions should be determined by an independent body and that Members’ allowances should be determined by the Assembly Commission; and resolves that any allowances payable to former Members of the Assembly, under section 48 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998, including resettlement and winding-up allowances, should also be determined by the Assembly Commission; that any change to these allowances may have retrospective or prospective effect; and that the Assembly Commission should publish any such determination.

Sinéad Ennis (Sinn Féin, South Down)

I beg to introduce the Assembly Members (Remuneration Board) Bill [NIA Bill 09/22-27], which is a Bill to amend the Assembly Members (Independent Financial Review and Standards) Act (Northern Ireland) 2011 to make provision about the name, functions and membership of the Independent Financial Review Panel; and for connected purposes.

Bill passed First Stage and ordered to be printed.

Committee Business

Robbie Butler (UUP, Lagan Valley)

I beg to move

That the Direct Payments to Farmers (Cross-Compliance) (Amendment) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2024 [SR 2024/211] be annulled.

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

The Business Committee has agreed that there will be no time limit on the debate. I call on Robbie Butler, Chair of the Committee for Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs, to open the debate on the motion.

Robbie Butler (UUP, Lagan Valley)

Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. I rise to speak on behalf of the Committee for Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs and to move the motion. At the Committee meeting on 28 November, officials briefed the Committee on statutory rule (SR) 2024/211, which is the Direct Payments to Farmers (Cross-Compliance) (Amendment) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2024. Officials stated that the SR will remove provisions that were made under two previous SRs.

First, the SR removes the provision in SR 2022/240, which is the Direct Payments to Farmers (Cross-Compliance) (Amendment) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2022, that removed the automatic application of intentional penalties to certain repeated non-compliances for the purposes of nationally funded area-based schemes. That meant that such breaches were regarded as negligent only, and penalties on repetition were kept, at that stage, at 15%. Secondly, the officials advised us that the SR also removes the provision SR 20233/210, which is the Direct Payments to Farmers (Cross-Compliance) (Amendment) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2023.

The Committee noted that the environmental farming scheme drew down EU funds from the rural development programme (RDP) and was subject to EU rules until the completion of the EU spending in 2023. The application of penalties for the environmental farming scheme and other former development programme schemes were aligned with direct payments through SR 2023/210 from 1 January 2024.

We also considered that regulation 4 of SR 2023/210 removed the requirement to increase the number of on-the-spot checks for any act or standard revealing a significant degree of non-compliance. Officials highlighted the need for the SR that we are considering today as being connected to water quality and environmental concerns and the fact that the Minister, having considered the current environmental conditions and protections in place, considered it appropriate to revert to the original penalty regime as a detriment to those who do not comply with cross-compliance verifiable standards on a recurring basis.

After the briefing by the DAERA officials, there was a robust question-and-answer session, and Committee members expressed a range of views. Those views ranged from the majority of members feeling that a return to the previous penalty regime was too draconian, given the challenges now faced by farmers, to a member expressing the need for increased penalties if we are to be serious about tackling environmental challenges. Some Committee members raised concerns that the SR would increase penalties for minor breaches and that penalties were currently enough, given the many challenges facing family farmers and farmers across Northern Ireland. Concerns were expressed about the definition of breaches and how and when any repetitions of minor breaches became classed as "intentional" breaches. However, support was also voiced for higher penalties for intentional or repeated careless environmental breaches, and it is important to highlight that.

The majority of members did not support the SR, but there was no consensus. A vote was taken on DAERA proceeding with the SR. The Committee divided, resulting in Ayes 1, Noes 6, and one abstention.

The Committee then considered the SR at its meeting on 16 January 2025, and many members were concerned that there had been no changes to the policy content since the SL1 briefing in November. Those issues were repeatedly highlighted by members. Only the title had been amended from "(Revocation) Regulations" to "(Amendment) Regulations". Many members again discussed the regulation and expressed a range of views similar to those discussed on 28 November. However, many Committee members now expressed concern that the Minister had not reflected on the issues that the Committee had raised at the meeting on 28 November or reconsidered any aspect of the SR. Some members stated that the Department should have reflected on what was said at the Committee on 28 November and come back with a proposal for amendments to provide a more tiered system of penalties specifically relating to climate and the environment. Some members contended that there are already substantial penalties in place for breaches and that there was no need to segregate minor and major breaches. The view was also expressed that there is a need for harsher fines for environmental and food security breaches.

The majority of the Committee did not support the SR in its current form, and the Committee divided on the rule, resulting in Ayes 1 and Noes 7, with no abstentions.

For completion, at the meeting of 30 January, members considered the thirtieth report of the Examiner of Statutory Rules (ESR), which included the SR. The Committee noted that the ESR had not drawn special attention to the SR.

In concluding my remarks as the Committee Chair, I point out that the majority of members present at the Committee meeting on 16 January agreed to put down a prayer of annulment, but there was no consensus.

I will now speak on behalf of my party and as an MLA. The Ulster Unionist Party understands the current relentless pressures that family farmers face across Northern Ireland. I will reiterate the words that I regularly hear from them: "We want to be green, but we cannot be green if we are in the red".

I believe that, in every deliberation that the AERA Committee had with departmental officials, we demonstrated a desire to work with the Minister and his Department and that, if the Department was serious about tackling climate change and about environmental protections in regard to cross-compliance issues — I do not diminish the Minister's desire to combat climate change and protect the environment — work could have been done to amend certain areas specific to environmental and climate breaches rather than have a broad-brush request.

I remind the House that the change should be considered against the backdrop of the major challenges faced by farmers in regard to inheritance tax changes, the un-ring-fencing of the agri-food budget and the imminent and likely significant challenges that farmers will need to meet for us to achieve our environmental targets without clear pound-for-pound support from the Department. That is still unknown.

I will give the Assembly one example from the many that I have received on what the change does on those cross-compliance matters. It is from a young female farmer, and she relates a story where her dad was fined 5% of a single farm payment for a breach of two cattle out of 380. One had a fully intact tag and one broken tag, and the second had one fully intact tag. The notification of the tag inspection came through on a Friday at 4.00 pm. She said that the closest place that could print tags was 35 minutes away, and it could not be done before closing. In that family's case, the grandfather passed away on the Sunday. Monday was a bank holiday, and the funeral was on the Tuesday. The tag inspection was at 9.00 am on the Wednesday. They failed the inspection, and, even after handing in the grandfather's death certificate and all other evidence, they were still penalised on cross-compliance matters. That has nothing to do with the environment or the climate, and it is exactly what the SR would do.

That is just one example of the many that I have received since taking the Chair of the AERA Committee, and it is evidence of why the move by the Department does not do what it says in the tin. Perhaps the Minister and the Department will accept the offer made by the Committee —.

John Blair (Alliance, South Antrim)

Will the Member give way?

Robbie Butler (UUP, Lagan Valley)

One second, please.

Perhaps the Minister and the Department will accept the offer that has been made by my Committee since I have taken the Chair and its willingness to engage proactively on matters relating to cross-compliance failures, particularly in relation to environment and climate harm.

John Blair (Alliance, South Antrim)

I thank the Member for giving way. A moment or two ago, the Member referenced his acceptance and acknowledgement of the Minister's intention to clean up our environment and tackle climate change. If he does not my mind my asking him directly, does he agree with those aims and will his speech reflect that before he finishes and before we vote?

Robbie Butler (UUP, Lagan Valley)

I thank the Member for his intervention, which is useful. I will be honest: in my time as Chair, I have not detected that any member of the Committee has demonstrated to me that they do not share the Minister's ambition. We all need to reflect that we passed the Climate Change Act in the previous dispensation. I am facing in that direction as the Chair of the Agriculture Committee and as someone who voted for that legislation, but, in reality, I refer the Member to what I said: farmers and the agriculture sector want to be green, but they cannot be green if they are in the red. The Minister and his Department could have segregated the environmental and climate matters out of the regulations, and that would have put the Committee in a position where it could have supported them.

Eóin Tennyson (Alliance, Upper Bann)

I thank the Member for giving way. He has read into the record a touching example of the challenges that many farming families face, and I would never diminish that. There are farming families who work incredibly hard under real pressure. However, will he acknowledge that he cited a 5% subsidy? By voting against the regulations, he would be offering protection not to the families in that circumstance but to those who engage in more severe, repeated breaches.

Robbie Butler (UUP, Lagan Valley)

We do not need to play high politics with this. The Member is absolutely right: the problem is that, if we pass the SR, farmers such as that would be exposed to 100% of the fine, which is an increase. At the moment, we have derogation on those fines, and that is what has been achieved here. We need to move into getting absolutely serious about environmental and climate breaches, but, in reality, while I do not have the number of instances when the Department has acted in that manner, I do not think that that manner could be described as draconian. It is something that happened and could still happen. It might be a reduced fine, but it should not happen anyway. There are operational issues.

Given the fiscal environment in which farmers and others in the agriculture sector are working, we are desperately trying to build their trust. They will be trusted stakeholders as we face into the climate crisis and the targets that we have to meet. In this instance, a simple fix would be for the Minister and the Department to segregate the environmental and climate matters and allow us to look at the other issues in the round.

In bringing my remarks to a close, I look forward to the rest of the debate.

Michelle McIlveen (DUP, Strangford)

I often hear the comment, particularly from the Opposition, that there is a lack of legislation being discussed and passed by the Assembly. While that may be true of primary legislation — not all legislation is good legislation — there is plenty of secondary legislation regularly going through our Committees, and this is one such piece of legislation. I do not know whether it is a result of periods of suspension or the hastily rushed-through COVID rules, but my experience in Committees and during my time as a Minister was that Committees carried out a vital role of scrutiny and holding Ministers and officials to account.

Deborah Erskine (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I thank the Member for giving way. I am probably a bit premature in coming in, but you touch on an important point. The Infrastructure Committee, like the Agriculture Committee, has an important role in looking at legislation that is coming. Tomorrow, we will scrutinise the Department's budget, but we do not yet have evidence on that in our packs. That is coming from officials. Scrutiny is needed, but we need to have the information to do the scrutiny in a timely way.

Michelle McIlveen (DUP, Strangford)

I thank the Member for her intervention.

Eóin Tennyson (Alliance, Upper Bann)

I thank the Member for giving way. She has highlighted the important role of Committees and their work on regulations, and I agree with her. Does she therefore agree that it was shameful that the previous Minister introduced a cap and made secondary legislation when the Assembly was down and there was no Committee in place to scrutinise that?

Michelle McIlveen (DUP, Strangford)

I thank the Member for his intervention. Obviously, that was the process that we worked with at that time.

Subordinate or secondary legislation is hugely important as a delivery mechanism for a range of measures that are permitted under primary legislation. Such measures can be delivered and changed quickly without the need for new primary legislation. Given that, however — I accept what the Member said — there is a real onus on the Committee and the Department to be open in working on this type of legislation. That is the only mechanism that we have for scrutiny of the legislation, and the relevant Committee has a perfectly viable role to play in that. Recently, however, in relation to another SR, the Minister had the audacity to ask the Committee to consider legislation in private session. I find that deeply strange, coming from a party that persistently calls for openness and transparency. It is almost as if that is a slogan, rather than party policy. The Committee's role is to provide challenge and scrutiny, and, while we will all work constructively with the Minister and the Department, it is vital that we perform that role openly and effectively.

The secondary legislation that we are debating today is hugely significant. When officials came to the Committee, it was hugely informative. The Minister would have us believe that the legislation is needed to tackle the problems in Lough Neagh and that failure to pass the legislation would be failure to address those problems. His colleague who sits on the Committee will, no doubt, castigate the rest of us for being anti-environment, which is not true. The legislation gives the Department power to treat as intentional cases in which there are more than three incidents of negligent breaches by farm businesses. That gives the Department power to reduce a farmer's subsidy by up to 100%. I asked the officials a series of questions about how many farms that would have affected and was advised that it would have affected about 613 farms in 2023, which is about 5·7%. I then asked, if we set this in the context of Lough Neagh, how many cases would have related to the protection of waters: the answer was three.

The officials were clear that the Minister wanted the legislation to apply to all compliance cases, not just those that related to environmental protection. That would have included cases of animals that had lost their ear tags. The Chair gave a real example of that. This is a clear choice by the Minister. He had the option to address compliance as it would directly affect the environment. He says that it is about protecting Lough Neagh, but that is not what the legislation is really about. The Minister's colleague on the Committee made the point that we have not reduced fines for any other polluters. However, this legislation applies only to farm businesses. Those farm businesses are also subject to investigation and prosecution by the Northern Ireland Environment Agency (NIEA). Other polluters are subject only to investigation and prosecution by the NIEA. With this legislation, the Minister seeks, in effect, to make farmers potentially doubly liable for negligence rather than intentional actions.

It comes at a time when the Assembly has recognised the pressures faced by farmers: the inheritance tax raid by the Labour Government; the impact of weather conditions; the targets set by the Assembly under the Climate Change Act, which need to be met from within existing budgets; the failure of subsidies to keep pace with inflation over the past 10 years; the failure to address bovine TB; the risks around maedi visna (MV), bluetongue and disease control; and the constraints of the Department's ammonia policy in stymieing the modernisation of farm buildings.

Farmers do not need to be beaten by a bigger stick. The legislation seeks to reimpose what was a flawed and problematic scheme that was in place previously. The Assembly should not be gaslighted into believing that the purpose of the legislation is to address the problems in Lough Neagh. By that logic, we will punish 613 farms for the sins of three. I support the motion.

John Blair (Alliance, South Antrim)

There has been some predicting of what I am about to say. Nevertheless, I hope that I will bring a different perspective and additional information. I rise, as a member of the Committee for Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs and as the Alliance AERA spokesperson, to state clearly that we do not support the prayer of annulment. I am still in shock, if I am honest, that the AERA Committee has failed to support strengthening penalties for those who repeatedly breach regulations on polluting waterways and other matters in order to reverse a 2022 decision that relaxed those rules under —

Robbie Butler (UUP, Lagan Valley)

I thank the Member for giving way. There is no doubting the Member's passion for protecting the environment and on climate issues. However, will the Member confirm that, in reality, I have said nothing that could be contradicted? In the meetings that we had with the Department, it was very clear from anything that the other members and I said that we are serious about the climate and environmental protections and — I am pretty sure that these words will be in Hansard — that the Committee would have looked at segregating those matters. If you do not accept that, I am not sure that we were at the same meetings.

John Blair (Alliance, South Antrim)

I do not deliberately correct the Chair of the Committee on this, but it is not a passion; it is a prerequisite and an absolute must, if we are to save our natural environment and reverse the state of the waterways.

Gerry Carroll (People Before Profit Alliance, Belfast West)

Will the Member give way?

John Blair (Alliance, South Antrim)

I will give way, and then I must make some progress.

Gerry Carroll (People Before Profit Alliance, Belfast West)

I thank the Member. I am not on the Committee, as he knows. Can the Member confirm whether the Committee has had any correspondence from companies such as Moy Park regarding this prayer of annulment or the issue more generally?

John Blair (Alliance, South Antrim)

I thank the Member for his intervention. I can confirm that I am not aware of any such correspondence.

If Members permit, I will now make progress.

As I said, this is returning to a position that existed in 2022. We must understand the purpose of the regulations. They were established not as punitive measures but as essential guidelines to ensure that farmers adhere to standards that protect our environment and maintain the integrity of our food systems. By establishing clear compliance requirements, we encourage our farmers to adopt practices that enhance soil health, improve water quality and promote biodiversity. It is crucial to recognise that those standards benefit farmers and the environment. We also need to recognise that the measures proposed by the Minister are not new or draconian. The Minister's proposals simply take us back to where we were before the relaxation in 2022 of penalties for repeated breaches.

These matters relate directly to the environmental reputation of this place and its products. No attempt to suggest otherwise should be accepted. The parties advocating for the annulment regularly claim, in the Chamber and outside, to protect the environment. For example, they call on the AERA Minister to save Lough Neagh, yet, when it comes to voting on policies that prevent pollution entering Lough Neagh and harming it, they oppose those measures, arguing that they would be too burdensome for farmers. That is absolutely ridiculous and, frankly, shameful. Let us be clear: farmers who conduct good practice — there are many of them — deserve our support, and I hope that they have it, but those who pollute, from all sectors, need to face penalties.

Perhaps surprisingly, given the context of today's debate, in May 2024, all parties on Belfast City Council excluding, in fairness, the DUP, backed a motion advocating for stricter penalties for recurring instances of agricultural pollution. There you have it: in a debating chamber just down the road, the SDLP, the Ulster Unionist Party and Sinn Féin criticised the reduction in penalties by the previous Minister, but, in this place and on the AERA Committee, it appears that they do not want to do anything about it.

It is also a matter of major concern to me that the Committee has sought to minimise and trivialise potential penalties relating to late or non-returned paperwork, as well as tags for livestock and cattle. Those are no trivialities. They are serious matters that relate to food security and traceability. Parties opposing these measures must now justify their change in stance on environmental protection to their constituents and to the global community, which is becoming increasingly concerned about the impacts of climate change and pollution. Parties have publicly pledged to tackle the persistent environmental crisis, which remains unresolved. The decision by the Committee is — I will repeat it — shameful, and Committee members ought to feel embarrassed. It is perfectly clear that, on this occasion, only Alliance is asserting that enough is enough.

These penalties should never have been relaxed in 2022. It was a poor decision by the previous Minister, who showed, on that occasion, a lack of concern for the future. As Minister Muir continues to work towards addressing past mistakes, it is clear that only Alliance is committed to tackling the environmental challenges for real and tackling those that will impact on future generations, perhaps very negatively. Allowing non-compliance to go unchecked could lead to increased pollution of our waterways, detrimental effects on public health and irreparable damage to our ecosystems. There is no point in prioritising short-term gains that may harm our environment and jeopardise our long-term agricultural viability. Indeed, we must support a vision for farming that respects and preserves our natural resources for future generations.

Therefore, as I have made clear, I am utterly dismayed that we are here discussing a prayer of annulment. You would have to be living under a rock not to recognise the extent and urgency of environmental issues. It is vital that every possible measure be taken to reverse the decline of our waterways, our natural environment and biodiversity. As with the measure that we are debating today, our actions will determine the health of our environment for years to come. I urge all Members to reconsider their positions and reflect on the far-reaching implication of these decisions. We have the opportunity today to support a framework that promotes responsible agricultural practices and paves the way for a sustainable future, and I hope that we take that opportunity.

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

I welcome all the contributions today. They have been useful. Indeed, I sat through the Committee meeting and heard the views of other members, who are amply able to articulate those themselves, and I think that John has been in a different place, to be honest with you. I will deal with that.

John Blair (Alliance, South Antrim)

Will the Member give way?

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

Sorry, John.

[Laughter.]

I have only just started.

John Blair (Alliance, South Antrim)

So had I.

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

So had you. Well, that is grand. You can start away.

Cross-compliance has ultimately proven ineffective in addressing pollution problems. Three cases of breaches have been brought forward. Each year, as little as 1% of farms are inspected, with the majority of breaches associated with improper record-keeping. Even before the previous Minister changed the penalty regime, it was clear that cross-compliance was failing to address some of the biggest challenges resulting from agriculture production. To hang your hat entirely on that as something that will address pollution problems is entirely wrong.

That is not me saying that. In the 20 years since the inception of cross-compliance, there has been little evidence that it has actually worked, and the Minister will know that. Why? Those are the findings of the European Court of Auditors, the European Environment Agency and the Institute for European Environmental Policy. They looked at this to see whether it actually works. We need a system of farm regulation that helps to uphold environmental health and animal welfare standards while bringing farmers on a journey to improve compliance, but cross-compliance, as I have outlined and as the experts have said, is not working.

Rather than debate the minutiae of a failed penalty regime that has delivered little for the environment while putting farmers' backs up, we need to move to a new system and bring forward proposals. In fact, I sat through this at the Committee, and those of us who are acquainted with the issues — the Minister had the opportunity to look at this on a couple of occasions — suggested a tiered approach whereby those involved in flagrant breaches of environmental, food or animal welfare standards would be penalised. There was absolutely no doubt about that. It was suggested that, in the interim, if it insists on continuing with cross-compliance, the Department at least look at taking a tiered approach to penalties. Issues were, however, raised about people being opposed to the measures and taking an anti-environment approach. We have said it here and debated the matter ad nauseam: when will we have an independent environmental protection agency, as agreed in 'New Decade, New Approach'?

John Blair (Alliance, South Antrim)

Will the Member give way?

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

I will let you in in a moment, John.

The Minister claims to be making polluters pay — water quality and Lough Neagh have been referred to already — but we are yet to see key plans for cleaning up our waterways. The river basin management plan and the nutrient action plan are years late. I am not laying the blame for all of that at the Minister's door. People crashed the Assembly on a number of occasions, so the responsibility lies with them. Those plans are years late, however. As it stands, the Minister's agriculture portfolio will include introducing a new set of farm sustainability standards, but we have yet to see what they will look like. We need more detail. To what extent will the standards be enforced? How will they help the Department improve compliance? I say advisedly, Minister, that we could learn lessons from what has been implemented in Scotland, where a well-resourced, advice-led approach has improved rates of compliance with farming rules and regulations. There has been broadscale support and buy-in from the farming community, while, here, we are fiddling with a system that has never worked.

Andrew Muir (Alliance, North Down)

I thank the Member for giving way. He mentioned Scotland. Does the Member not recognise that Northern Ireland is an outlier on the issue that we are debating? The changes, which were made in the absence of a sitting Assembly, do not apply in Scotland, nor do they apply in Wales or in any EU member state. Is it not about time that Northern Ireland got back in line with the way in which other places are moving on the issues?

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

I hear what the Minister says, and I hope that he was listening earlier. With the best will in the world, I was giving him advice on these matters. I thank him for his intervention.

John, you wanted to intervene.

John Blair (Alliance, South Antrim)

I am grateful to the Member for taking my intervention. I hope that he can clarify the situation. We have shared space at Lough Neagh rallies. I am puzzled that his colleagues on Belfast City Council, just down the road, called on:

"the DAERA Minister to reinstate the previous more stringent penalties to more accurately reflect the environmental harm caused."

I quote that directly from the text of a Belfast City Council motion. Does the Member therefore think that his colleagues there were wrong? Did he agree with the motion then? Does he agree with it now? Furthermore, if he is such a keen advocate for an independent environmental protection agency, why, when I proposed its establishment in an amendment to the then Climate Change Bill, did he and his colleagues not show up to vote for it?

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

Sorry, but I sat for numerous hours in the Chamber debating the Climate Change Bill, and I voted for it.

On the point that the Member raised about my colleagues on Belfast City Council, that is not incompatible with what was proposed at the Committee, where it was proposed that people who are potentially in serious breach of environmental, food or animal welfare standards should face penalties. If the Member does not hear that, I will repeat it: it is not incompatible with what others are suggesting. Those who are in breach of animal welfare, food or environmental standards should face the wrath of the penalties associated with those breaches. Members might not get that, but that is what was discussed in Committee. I have said it twice now.

In conclusion, we have a flawed system that has failed farmers and, crucially, the environment. Instead of propping up ineffective regulations, we need to take a meaningful, well-resourced approach that ensures compliance, improves environmental outcomes and supports farming communities in a sustainable way and in a way that protects the environment.

I have said it before in this place, and I have to say it again: the majority of farming community members are custodians of the environment. They are custodians of the land, which has been with them for and handed down to them over generations. I would not like to think that anyone is suggesting in any way that all farmers are wrong or have breached the standards. I do not want the message to go out from this place that we are being down on farmers instead of supporting and encouraging them to adopt fresh environmental thinking and standards. Indeed, most of them already do that in practice on their land.

Eóin Tennyson (Alliance, Upper Bann)

In an uncharacteristic gesture, I give some credit to the DUP for consistency, because the DUP has been honest about its environmental credentials. It opposed the Climate Change Act, and it consistently stands up against environmental and climate action. However, what we have heard from other parties in the Chamber today has been a lesson in rank hypocrisy. We need not have been surprised by that. The Ulster Unionist Party, despite talking about the environment, joined the DUP in railing against the Climate Change Act; Sinn Féin was the architect of the Going for Growth strategy, which walked us to the position that we are in with Lough Neagh; and the SDLP delivered sand dredging in the bed of Lough Neagh.

A Member

Will the Member give way?

Eóin Tennyson (Alliance, Upper Bann)

No, we have heard enough from the Member. Thank you, but I want to respond to some of the points that were raised.

What we have heard today is shameful. The hypocrisy and inertia on the issues affecting our environment are eroding trust in these institutions. Just over a year ago, party leaders were out on boats, talking about the ecological crisis and its impact on water quality. They complained about their constituents having to drink mouldy water, yet today, when we have an opportunity to do the bare minimum through legislation, their parties fall at the first hurdle.

I agree with Mr McGlone that cross-compliance penalties alone will not solve the crisis in Lough Neagh. He is right, but they are a starting point whilst we do a wider review of fines and penalties. The Opposition often talk about the fact that they want to see —

A Member

Will the Member give way?

Eóin Tennyson (Alliance, Upper Bann)

No, I will not. Mr McGlone always talks about the need to see legislation being debated on the Floor of the Assembly, but, when it comes, his party prays against it. Non-binding motions in Belfast City Council are one thing, but it is this Chamber that makes legislation. We need to hear some consistency from parties in their approach to these issues.

Mr Butler raised a very important example of a one-off breach that resulted in a cross-compliance penalty. That case would be unaffected by the provisions in the SR. It is about repeated negligent breaches. It also does not follow that every breach will carry a severe fine, but the SR gives the Department the ability to look at the severity of the breach and apply a fine appropriately.

What we have heard today is absolutely outrageous, but I pay tribute to the farmers who comply with regulations, because the vast majority of them are good custodians of our environment. It is a shame that Members seem to be more on the side of polluters and those who breach the rules than those farmers who comply with regulations day in, day out, as they go about their work. I ask Members to reflect on the promises that they made to their constituents and on their public pronouncements about the need for action to tackle water quality issues in Lough Neagh and to put their money where their mouths are by stepping up, acting and supporting a Minister who, for once, can be trusted to protect our environment, rather than doing what the SDLP and Sinn Féin have done today —

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

Order.

Eóin Tennyson (Alliance, Upper Bann)

— in aligning themselves with the Poots penalties.

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

Order. I have given a lot of flexibility and latitude, but I ask the Member to return to the prayer of annulment, please.

Eóin Tennyson (Alliance, Upper Bann)

With respect, Principal Deputy Speaker, I will speak to the prayer of annulment, but it is about regulations that pertain to water quality and agricultural standards, and those issues are relevant.

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

Excuse me. With respect, I know what the prayer of annulment is. I ask you to return to it. Thank you.

Eóin Tennyson (Alliance, Upper Bann)

Thank you, Principal Deputy Speaker.

The SR is the least that we can do. I appeal to all parties to reflect on their supposed environmental credentials, step up and take the action that is necessary. It is not the ceiling of our ambition, but it is a starting point. When we make promises to our electorate, we ought to honour them in the Chamber.

Gerry Carroll (People Before Profit Alliance, Belfast West)

Quite often, with regard to climate issues or the environment, I am critical of the Minister and the Executive for not acting swiftly enough or for having the strategy of trying to merge the interests of agri-food businesses with those of environmentalists. Quite often, with that strategy, the latter and the environment will lose out, and that is without mentioning the disastrous Lough Neagh response. Having said that, the fact that MLAs want to reduce fines on polluters is absolutely mind-boggling. I do not understand that. If you litter in the street, you are obviously fined for littering, but going by what they are saying today, some Members want to whitewash, excuse and allow people to get away with pollution. It is bizarre that Members talk about protecting and supporting farmers. I suggest that, at times, they are more interested in protecting industrial farming and corporations, such as Moy Park. They get industrial derating, which is a corporate handout from the Department of Finance through the rates system.

Robbie Butler (UUP, Lagan Valley)

Will the Member give way?

Gerry Carroll (People Before Profit Alliance, Belfast West)

Yes, go ahead.

Robbie Butler (UUP, Lagan Valley)

Just on the point that the Member raised, to clarify and answer his question, there was no communication from any big industry, such as Moy Park. In fact, there was very little lobbying from stakeholders except farmers, who will be impacted on by the SR.

Let me put this on the record: the Member for Upper Bann is absolutely right. Most of our farmers are actually making great strides with regard to the environmental impact —

Gerry Carroll (People Before Profit Alliance, Belfast West)

[Inaudible.]

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

Excuse me. When a Member gives way and then rises again, it is courtesy that the Member who asked for the intervention sits down.

Gerry Carroll (People Before Profit Alliance, Belfast West)

Thank you for the clarity. There have been a couple of long interventions.

Robbie Butler (UUP, Lagan Valley)

[Inaudible.]

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

Gerry, excuse me a minute. Sorry. Robbie Butler did not hear you. That is the second time that that has happened and that you have done that today, which you are perfectly entitled to do. I am asking that you show courtesy to the Member who asked you for the intervention, to let them know that you are done. Is that fair enough?

Gerry Carroll (People Before Profit Alliance, Belfast West)

Yes. Sorry, say that again. Interventions are meant to be short, and neither was short.

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

Listen. We know that. It is just that the Member was not aware that you were on your feet. He did not hear you, and he cannot see you, because you are sitting behind him. It is just to let you know.

Gerry Carroll (People Before Profit Alliance, Belfast West)

The wider point about Moy Park is that there is still a cosy relationship with it. If it did not correspond with the Committee, that is fair enough. That question was worthy of asking, because there is a consensus that there is a hands-off approach to Moy Park. The industrial derating scheme is one example of many.

Members have said that they are against penalties for farmers and, basically, against fining farmers and the Minister's current position. Implicitly, they are essentially saying that all farmers are polluters, which I do not believe that they are. If they do not support the Minister's position but choose to go for the prayer of annulment, they are basically saying that most farmers are polluters and that many of them will be fined. Therefore, they cannot back that position.

Jonathan Buckley (DUP, Upper Bann)

I thank the Member for giving way. I do not believe that it is that simple. From listening to the debate and, indeed, the evidence, it seems that, in recent times, over 600 cases of cross-compliance were brought and only three were for pollution. It did not stack up that non-compliance was effectively addressing pollution. It actually proves that what we continually see now from the Minister, and particularly his colleagues in the Alliance Party, is more farmer-bashing rather than an attempt to work with farmers to ensure that they can play their role for a sustainable environment while having a viable farming business for the future.

Gerry Carroll (People Before Profit Alliance, Belfast West)

I am not a member of the Committee. Enforcement is an element of the SR, and I assume that a lack of an independent EPA is part of that, which, if I am right, the Member's party is also opposed to. I will just repeat the point that I previously made. If you are saying that you are against repeated polluters being fined, essentially, you are saying that you think that most farmers are guilty of pollution.

A Member

Will the Member give way?

Gerry Carroll (People Before Profit Alliance, Belfast West)

I have given way and have been quite flexible, so I would rather not, thanks.

The real polluters are corporate farmers, dumping sewage and waste into the likes of Lough Neagh and elsewhere. I do not believe that small farmers are to blame.

The Minister can speak for himself in response to what the Member for Upper Bann said about his party being anti-farmer. There is an incorrect attempt to pit the interests of small farmers, many of whom are living in poverty, against the interests of big, industrial farmers. That attempt was what some of the protests in the past few weeks here and in Britain were about: you cannot say that big, industrial farmers have the same interests as small farmers when they absolutely do not.

I am against the prayer of annulment. Some of the issues should be addressed and added to the debate.

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

The Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs, Andrew Muir, will respond to the debate.

Andrew Muir (Alliance, North Down)

Thank you very much, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. I am grateful for the opportunity to respond to the debate on the prayer of annulment. In responding, I will set out the context to explain why my Department has laid the Direct Payments to Farmers (Cross-Compliance) (Amendment) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2024.

The cross-compliance regime has been in place since 2005, through the implementation of the EU common agricultural policy. Cross-compliance is the set of minimum standards to which all farmers who receive public subsidy should adhere. Those cover environmental protection, as well as standards concerning animal health and welfare. The regime helps to protect our precious habitats and waterways and the animal traceability systems that are vital for trade, disease control and human health. The standards are not intended to be excessive or onerous and reflect the responsible stewardship shown by the vast majority of our farmers.

Where the standards are breached, a financial penalty is applied to the payment received by the farmer concerned. Those are not fines; they are penalties applied to public subsidy. The penalties are applied according to a published scale and are dependent on several factors, including the severity or impact of the breach and whether the breach is intentional or negligent. Negligent breaches attract lower penalties than intentional breaches, as the regime accepts that even good farmers make mistakes. Negligent breaches typically attract penalties of 1%, 3% or 5%, depending on the severity of the breach. Where a breach is repeated, the penalty is doubled. Intentional breaches attract penalties of between 15% and 100%, again, depending on the severity.

Since 2005, EU regulations required member states to regard repeated negligent breaches of the same requirement as automatically intentional, with higher penalties applying. In 2022, in the absence of a sitting Assembly to scrutinise or vote against that, my predecessor decided to remove the requirement, and repeated negligent breaches were no longer treated as intentional. Penalties for repeated negligence were effectively capped at 15%. Those changes were made in 2022 to schemes that were nationally funded and were extended to all schemes in 2023 following the cessation of EU funding.

As Minister, I simply cannot stand over that regime. Farmers who have their penalties capped at 15% have breached the same specific requirement at least three times within three years. Some of those breaches, including water pollution, are of high-level severity. I do not think that it is fair that penalties are reduced for repeated breaches of environmental and animal health standards. I do not think that that is fair to the public or the vast majority of our farmers who play by the rules.

William Irwin (DUP, Newry and Armagh)

Will the Minister give way?

Andrew Muir (Alliance, North Down)

I am happy to give way.

William Irwin (DUP, Newry and Armagh)

Does the Minister accept that a 15% penalty can equate to many thousands, or tens of thousands, of pounds for a farmer? Never mind his regime; what he wants to do is bring us back to draconian measures from the European Union. That is the situation, and many, even in his Department, accept that privately.

Andrew Muir (Alliance, North Down)

I want to bring us into line with the European Union and with Scotland and Wales. Cross-compliance has been entirely abolished in England, and it is moving towards a very different set-up. That is what I am trying to do. We are not an outlier.

William Irwin (DUP, Newry and Armagh)

Will the Minister give way?

Andrew Muir (Alliance, North Down)

I will continue. We are not an outlier in relation to animal health, traceability or environmental standards. We cannot afford to do that.

I instructed officials in my Department to begin the process of reversing those changes.

On 14 August 2024, my officials commenced an eight-week, focused consultation with 21 key stakeholders, including the Ulster Farmers' Union, the Rural Community Network and the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds. The four organisations that responded to the consultation supported my intention to reverse the changes. Following that, on 20 November 2024, officials from my Department provided an oral briefing to the AERA Committee. Members expressed some concern about the impact on farmers who breach environmental or animal welfare and traceability standards: I respectfully disagree.

We are all aware of the huge public concern about the condition of our environment, particularly water quality, and the health and welfare of animals. I therefore instructed my officials to proceed to make the regulations, which took effect on 1 January 2025. The regulations are an important means to encourage responsible stewardship, deter wrongdoing and protect our environment when farmers continually disregard the standards that are required.

If you are genuinely serious about wanting to improve water quality and our environment and, importantly, support our critical agri-food industry and farm-to-fork traceability, you cannot, in all conscience, vote for the motion.

Robbie Butler (UUP, Lagan Valley)

Will the Minister give way?

Andrew Muir (Alliance, North Down)

I will continue.

Many talk the talk: you need to walk the walk and join me as I go through the Noes Lobby.

I am happy to give way to the Chair of the Committee.

Robbie Butler (UUP, Lagan Valley)

I thank the Minister for giving way. I think that most Committee members are here. Was the Minister made aware — I am sure that he was — of the Committee's form of words, which was to look at a tiered, segregated response that would take out all the pertinent points that relate to climate and the environment? I will give you another example as to why that should happen. A County Tyrone farmer received fines twice, in 2022 and 2023, of £2,500 for ordering too many tags. That is nothing to do with the environment or climate.

Andrew Muir (Alliance, North Down)

I received no formal correspondence from the Committee on this. Each week, I watch the Committee's proceedings. It is an important Committee. You analyse and consider the issues, and I like to think that I have respectful relationships with Committee members. The gist that I got of that Committee meeting was that we should change the SR and focus only on environmental and water quality breaches: that entirely undervalues the importance of farm-to-fork traceability and animal health and disease.

I am responding to the motion feeling despondent and depressed. I get criticised and told that we need to do more on the environment and water quality, support our agri-food industry and assure customers about the fantastic, quality food that we have in Northern Ireland, and I work really hard to do that. However, when I present a concrete proposal to the Committee and the Assembly, people scatter.

Robbie Butler (UUP, Lagan Valley)

Will the Minister give way?

Andrew Muir (Alliance, North Down)

I will continue. Politics is about leadership and taking difficult decisions. The Secretary of State has talked about that today. We need to do that. When we come to the vote —

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

Will the Minister give way?

Andrew Muir (Alliance, North Down)

— we cannot vote for the prayer of annulment because it is an abdication of responsibility.

I am happy to give way to Patsy.

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

Thank you, Minister. For the purposes of accuracy in the debate, it is, in fact, in the Committee minutes that the key issues that were highlighted at the Committee were — yes, environmental issues — environmental standards, food standards and animal welfare. Those were the three principal issues that were highlighted. They are included in the Committee minutes.

Andrew Muir (Alliance, North Down)

I understand that, Mr McGlone, but that is exactly what the SR seeks to do. I have a lot of respect for you and a very good relationship, but the past year, with the SDLP being the official Opposition, has been difficult because there have been many moments of rank hypocrisy. You have the leader of the Opposition berating me to take action while your party has shown an abject abdication of responsibility through its opposition to this. You cannot criticise the situation at Lough Neagh, want to support the agri-food industry and vote against the SR. You cannot have your cake and eat it. You cannot do that.

[Interruption.]

You have to vote for the SR.

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

Order. Excuse me.

Andrew Muir (Alliance, North Down)

I am going to wind up on this.

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

Excuse me. Take your seat, Minister.

This is a political arena, and political points will be made, but the debate is about a prayer of annulment. I respectfully ask the Minister to return to the prayer of annulment. Thank you.

Andrew Muir (Alliance, North Down)

Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker.

It is important that we focus on what this is. The SR is simply about bringing us back to the cross-compliance standards that applied before October 2022 and apply in every other EU member state and Scotland and Wales. It is important that we get ourselves back to that. What happened in October 2022, in the absence of the Assembly, was wrong, and I am seeking to rectify that.

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

Thank you, Minister, that is much appreciated.

I call Declan McAleer to make a winding-up speech on the motion.

Declan McAleer (Sinn Féin, West Tyrone)

Before I make my winding-up speech, I wish to make a few comments as Sinn Féin's agriculture spokesperson.

Sinn Féin supports the motion to annul SR 2024/211, the Direct Payments to Farmers (Cross-Compliance) (Amendment) Regulations (NI) 2024. As MLAs, it is our duty to ensure that the policies that we put in place are fair, reasonable and effective for those whom they affect. In this case, we feel that the proposed regulations do not address the significant concerns raised by the AERA Committee.

First and foremost, the Committee's discussion on 28 November 2024 highlighted issues regarding penalties for minor breaches. The regulations propose penalties for even smaller, unintentional mistakes that could have severe consequences for farmers; indeed, the Committee Chair described a number of those. We feel that that approach is disproportionate and does not reflect the reality of farming operations. We feel that it is unfair to apply to minor breaches the same penalties as are applied for repeated and intentional non-compliance. We must have a system that differentiates clearly between minor and major infractions.

Furthermore, despite the concerns that were raised in the Committee, it does not appear that the Department has considered those issues or adjusted the regulations. That is concerning, particularly given the significant impact that the penalties could have on our farming community. Many of us believe that we need a more tiered system of penalties that better aligns with the severity of the breach. We have already established substantial penalties for breaches, and additional punitive measures may serve only to harm farmers without addressing the root causes of non-compliance. I urge colleagues to support the annulment of the regulations and call for a more thoughtful and balanced approach that considers the realities faced by farmers.

I will turn to my winding-up remarks in my role as Deputy Chair of the Committee. The Committee Chair, Robbie, mentioned the Committee's discussion on 28 November and highlighted the fact that, when officials briefed us, they linked the matter to water quality and environmental concerns. There was a robust discussion and Q&A at the Committee, and a range of views were expressed. Some felt that the measures were draconian, while others — one member in particular — felt that that was not the case.

My writing is not very good. You were all talking too fast.

[Laughter.]

The majority of Committee members did not support the SR, and the Committee divided by one vote against six. The matter was considered again on 16 January, but we felt that no changes had been made to reflect the Committee's concerns. The Committee divided again by one vote against seven, and the majority of the Committee agreed to seek the annulment of the SR.

In his capacity as UUP agriculture spokesperson, Robbie said that he understood the pressures facing farmers and referenced, for example, the inheritance tax changes and the Budget. He said that farmers:

"cannot be green if they are in the red"

and he felt that the Department should have amended the SR and not taken a broad-brush approach. He gave the example of a farmer who was fined 5% due to a tag issue despite the extenuating circumstances of a death in the family.

Michelle McIlveen of the DUP highlighted the important role of the Committee in scrutinising secondary legislation. A lot of legislation is going through the Committee, and it is important that the Committee fulfils that vital scrutiny role. There is an onus on the Committee to do that in an open and effective manner. She said that the SR gave the Department the power to reduce a farmer's subsidy by up to 100% and that farms are also regulated by NIEA. Michelle also highlighted the additional pressures on farmers, citing the examples of bovine TB, bluetongue, ammonia, the Budget and, obviously, climate change legislation.

John Blair of the Alliance Party said that there was a predictability about the debate. He said that there were regulations for farmers to adhere to standards on soil health, water quality and biodiversity and that the SR would return us to the pre-2022 position. He finds it hypocritical of some parties to say that they support saving Lough Neagh whilst opposing the measures, which could contribute to saving it. He feels that the Committee's decision was shameful and that the penalty should never have been relaxed. He urged Members to reconsider.

Patsy McGlone of the SDLP said that the cross-compliance system fails farmers and the environment. He said that it delivers little for the environment whilst getting farmers' backs up. He highlighted the SDLP's preference for a tiered approach and the importance of having an independent EPA. He said that we needed to see plans to clear up waterways and mentioned that the decision was brought in during a period of Assembly collapse. He highlighted the fact that farmers are the custodians of the countryside and that we do not want to send a message from the Chamber that we are down on or against farmers because the overwhelming majority of farmers are environmentalists and good custodians of the countryside.

Eóin Tennyson of the Alliance Party said that we have an opportunity today to do the bare minimum but we are failing. He said that we need consistency from parties in the Chamber. He said that the SR focuses on repeated negligent breaches, that the vast majority of farmers are good custodians of the environment and that we all need to step up and take the necessary action.

Gerry Carroll said that he agrees with the Minister. He, too, is against the prayer of annulment, which, he says, suggests that most farmers are polluters. He made the point that small farmers are not to blame and that it is big industrial farmers who do most of the damage to the countryside.

The Minister said that the cross-compliance regime had been in place since 2005 to set minimum standards on the environment and animal health and welfare that are vital for trade, disease control and human health. The Minister said that breaches result in a penalty. He highlighted the regime of negligence penalties as 1%, 3% and 5%, which double if the breach is repeated. He said that, in 2022, when there was no Assembly in place, the cap was set at 15%. He said that some breaches are of high-level severity and that it is not fair on the public and all the farmers who play by the rules.

The Minister said that he watches the Committee. It is good that we have the Minister watching proceedings every week. The Minister said that he began the public consultation process in August and briefed the Committee in November, and that the SR is important to protect the environment and encourage responsible stewardship and for traceability and animal health. He said that we could not have our cake, which is saving Lough Neagh, and eat it, which is going against the SR through the prayer of annulment.

That is the best summary that I can give.

Question put.

The Assembly divided:

Ayes 53; Noes 18

AYES

Dr Aiken, Dr Archibald, Ms D Armstrong, Mr Baker, Mr Beattie, Mr Bradley, Mr Brett, Miss Brogan, Mr Brooks, Ms Brownlee, Mr K Buchanan, Mr T Buchanan, Mr Buckley, Ms Bunting, Mr Butler, Mrs Cameron, Mr Chambers, Mr Clarke, Mr Crawford, Mrs Dillon, Ms Dolan, Mr Dunne, Ms Ennis, Mrs Erskine, Ms Ferguson, Ms Flynn, Ms Forsythe, Mr Frew, Mr Gaston, Mr Gildernew, Mr Givan, Miss Hargey, Mr Harvey, Mr Irwin, Mr Kelly, Ms Kimmins, Mr Kingston, Mrs Little-Pengelly, Mr Lyons, Mr McAleer, Mr McGuigan, Mr McHugh, Miss McIlveen, Mr Martin, Mrs Mason, Ms Á Murphy, Mr O'Dowd, Mrs O'Neill, Ms Reilly, Mr Robinson, Mr Sheehan, Ms Sheerin, Ms Sugden

Tellers for the Ayes: Mr Irwin, Miss McIlveen

NOES

Ms K Armstrong, Mr Blair, Ms Bradshaw, Mr Carroll, Mr Dickson, Mr Donnelly, Ms Egan, Mrs Guy, Mr Honeyford, Mrs Long, Miss McAllister, Mr McMurray, Mr McReynolds, Mr Mathison, Mr Muir, Ms Mulholland, Ms Nicholl, Mr Tennyson

Tellers for the Noes: Mr Donnelly, Mr McMurray

Question accordingly agreed to.

Resolved:

That the Direct Payments to Farmers (Cross-Compliance) (Amendment) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2024 [SR 2024/211] be annulled.

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

Members, please take your ease until the next item of business.

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

Private Members' Business

Cathy Mason (Sinn Féin, South Down)

I beg to move

That this Assembly recognises the fundamental importance of education in enabling our children and young people to reach their full potential, develop their skills and prepare them for life; further recognises that the education system must support and accommodate the diverse needs, interests and potential of all children and young people; acknowledges the vital role that the Department of Education plays in opening career pathways for young people and the pivotal work done by our school staff to support this; and calls on the Minister of Education to assess the current per-pupil funding model for sixth-form colleges to consider whether it adequately supports all learning pathways with the potential to help address identified skills gaps across the economy.

John Blair (Alliance, South Antrim)

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

Cathy Mason (Sinn Féin, South Down)

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle.

[Translation: Thank you, Mr Speaker.]

In order for our young people to thrive, we must ensure that they are in an environment that harnesses their full potential. Young people should be free to choose the path that they feel best fits their interests and abilities. Our education system should not inhibit that. When I speak to school leaders, teachers and principals, it is clear that our current per-pupil funding model is restricting their ability to meet the needs of every one of their pupils. Budget constraints often dictate course offerings rather than courses being offered to meet students' needs.

Schools work incredibly hard to offer a broad and balanced curriculum. Despite the pressures that are facing principals and teachers, they deserve credit for going above and beyond to develop acute subject choices and deliver the best career pathways for their pupils. However, the lack of flexibility in school budgets forces principals to make rigid decisions that may not have the best interests of pupils at heart. That is disadvantageous to many children who simply cannot access the pathway of their choice due to circumstances that are beyond their control.

The school funding system must be fair, sustainable and centred around the needs of our young people. Let us ensure that every young person has the opportunity to reach their full potential, no matter what path they wish to take. It is important that we enhance cooperation between sixth forms and further education colleges to broaden subject options. The Minister must improve accessibility for all young people to ensure that every student can fulfil their potential, whether they pursue an academic role, a vocational path or a blended pathway.

Every child must have the very best opportunities to reach their full educational potential. Young people should be afforded the opportunity to explore a comprehensive and diverse selection of subjects and career paths. I urge all Members to support an education system that meets the hopes and aspirations of all our young people. The school funding system must be fair, sustainable and centred around the needs of our young people. Let us ensure that every young person has the opportunity to reach their full potential, no matter what path they wish to take.

Peter Martin (DUP, North Down)

I beg to move amendment No 1:

Leave out all after "Department of Education" and insert: "and Department for the Economy play in opening career pathways for young people and the pivotal work done by staff in our schools, colleges and universities to support this; calls on the Minister of Education to assess options to increase per-pupil funding across our education system, as well as review the operation of the common funding scheme, particularly with respect to sixth-form colleges; and further calls on the Minister for the Economy to ensure that careers advice adequately supports all learning pathways with the potential to help address identified skills gaps across the economy."

John Blair (Alliance, South Antrim)

You will have 10 minutes to propose and five minutes to make a winding-up speech. Please open the debate on amendment No 1.

Peter Martin (DUP, North Down)

I fully welcome the debate. I thank the proposers of the motion for tabling it. As you will note, our amendment accepts over half the original motion. My colleagues will pick up on that point in their speeches. The original motion misses a key aspect that is important when we look at those areas, and that is the role of the Department for the Economy.

When I speak to some of the key aspects of our amendment, it may be worth laying out how schools are funded and the mechanisms for delivering that. The Member opposite touched on that in her speech. Grant-aided schools are funded using the common funding scheme (CFS), which is more commonly known as the common funding formula (CFF). That is the Department's mechanism for allocating school budgets across the system. In effect, the mechanism distributes a quantum of money, and some of the factors that it considers are the overall enrolment and pupils' needs.

Post-primary education, which we are examining today, is made up of a whole range of factors — there are some 17 — and those are fairly detailed and complex. The CFF distributes the money that sits in what we call the aggregated schools budget. There is also — I am sure that it will be talked about today — the age-weighted pupil unit (AWPU), and that factor distributes the most significant portion of what we know as the delegated budget to schools. We also know that, in the use of that formula, a sixth-form pupil attracts more funding than a pupil in years 8 to 10. Therefore, it naturally follows that schools want to keep pupils where they can.

I am sure that the Members opposite will address this in their speeches. I feel that the original motion is a little vague. The motion:

"calls on the Minister of Education to assess the current per-pupil funding model for sixth-form colleges to consider whether it adequately supports all learning pathways".

When I read that, I was not completely clear whether those who tabled it wanted DE funding to be reduced to incentivise pupils to go to FE, whether they wanted it to be raised to place more funding into sixth forms in schools or, possibly, whether they wanted funding reconfigured out of Education and into Economy, which also holds some responsibility for careers. Equally, to be fair to them, it might just be that the motion is suggesting that the CFF be revised.

To a degree, as we look at sixth-form centres and their competitors, such as colleges around the country, the economic theory of what we call competitive advantage comes into play. That simply means that, whether you are a country, a business or an individual, you are best to focus on the things that you do best and leave others to do the things that they do best. In operative terms, that means, in the area that we are looking at today, that, for example, where there is a local college offering a level 3 extended diploma in music technology and it has a state-of-the-art suite to support that qualification, it makes little sense for a school to try to replicate that qualification within its offering. Conversely, if sixth forms are offering a wide range of A levels, as most of them do, it does not make very much sense to me for colleges to offer the same, other than picking up some students who are repeating their A levels. To be fair, the Alliance amendment touches quite comprehensively on the point that, as we look at how careers are configured and who stays in school, who goes off to college and who goes to work, a pupil-centred approach is needed and also that, at that age range, there is a range of qualifications that pupils can study and where they go is where the best offering that can be provided is. I accept that, for some students, that is in school and that, for others, that might be at their local college.

Returning to our amendment, we cannot have a conversation about, as the motion puts it, "career pathways" without having input from the Department for the Economy. That is not referenced in the original motion, and I admit that I found that a little surprising.

Pádraig Delargy (Sinn Féin, Foyle)

I thank the Member for giving way, and I will clarify some of his points. We made the motion intentionally narrow because we feel that there are several stages to the broader careers conversation. The intention of this is to change the funding model so that, with the specific element that currently lies with schools, a more collaborative approach is taken. We see this as a necessary prerequisite to the broader conversation around careers moving forward on a collaborative approach.

Peter Martin (DUP, North Down)

I thank the Member opposite for that very useful intervention. I agree with him, as, I think, everyone in the House will, that we want the best for children. We also want them to be studying in the right environment that gives the right opportunities for their career in the future.

The Department for the Economy holds a pivotal role with the careers services that it provides, and that is reflected in our amendment. For example, it hosts a careers service for 11- to 19-year-olds, including a separate section on year 10 career choices. I happen to have someone in year 10, and they are considering their options, mainly under the guidance of their mother. A careers service offering has to include Economy. I agree with the Member opposite: it is collaborative work and both Departments have a role to play.

The thrust of the motion is sixth-formers and sixth-form colleges, which, I accept, the Member clarified. That is a little narrow and a little late, however, considering that the Department for the Economy already provides careers guidance to students in year 10 — third form in old money — on the subjects that they should take for GCSE and on the degree, apprenticeship or career that they might embark on. We have to look at that at an earlier stage.

Our amendment seeks to address that — I will, keeping an eye on the time, quote from it — as it:

"further calls on the Minister for the Economy to ensure careers advice adequately supports all learning pathways with the potential to help address identified skills gaps across the economy."

That is really important. The Department for the Economy holds supply information on where the jobs will be in five to 10 years' time. Economy knows that. Our macroeconomy is always changing, and jobs are always changing, but, hopefully, the collaborative piece that is reflected in our amendment addresses that. Economy knows where we will need future apprentices and future degrees as part of a changing, dynamic workforce.

We ask the Minister of Education:

"to assess options to increase per-pupil funding across our education system, as well as review the operation of the common funding scheme, particularly with respect to sixth-form colleges."

I know that, if additional funding —

Nick Mathison (Alliance, Strangford)

I thank the Member for giving way. The motion and the DUP amendment speak to the need for some form of review of how we fund that. Does the Member agree that delivery of the 14-19 framework is also vital? The gateway review of it in 2024 was not favourable. You can provide as much funding as you want, but we need the overarching strategy to interlock with that.

John Blair (Alliance, South Antrim)

The Member's time is almost up.

Peter Martin (DUP, North Down)

Thank you very much. I concur with the Chair of the Education Committee that the 14-19 framework is important, and it was useful to include that in his party's amendment. How am I doing? Twenty seconds.

If additional funding is provided to the Minister of Education, we can look at flexibility for the CFF. I encourage and support that. We want to get the maximum money directly into schools, and I ask Members to support our amendment.

John Blair (Alliance, South Antrim)

Done in 20 seconds, Mr Martin. Thank you.

The Business Committee has agreed to meet at 1.00 pm today. I propose therefore, by leave of the Assembly, to suspend the sitting until 2.00 pm. The debate will resume after Question Time, when the first Member to be called will be Michelle Guy to move amendment No 2.

The debate stood suspended.

The sitting was suspended at 12.58 pm.

On resuming (Mr Speaker in the Chair) —

Oral Answers to Questions — Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs

Sinéad McLaughlin (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

1. Ms McLaughlin asked the Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs how many of the actions in the environmental improvement plan for Northern Ireland with a delivery date of 2024 have been completed. (AQO 1480/22-27)

Andrew Muir (Alliance, North Down)

Before I commence my answer, I want, one year since taking up office as Minister, to thank the officials in my Department who have supported me over the last 12 months and the officials in the Assembly who organise the business here. I approach each Question Time with trepidation. Apparently, that is the way it should be. It is an important moment for Assembly Members to scrutinise Ministers, and I value that opportunity.

On Sinéad McLaughlin's question, it is important to note that Executive approval for the environmental improvement plan or EIP — another acronym in my Department — was obtained just three months before the end of 2024. It is public knowledge that I tabled the EIP for Executive approval in March last year, public knowledge because the Office for Environmental Protection (OEP) opened an investigation because of the delays in getting approval.

Approval was, however, obtained, and the EIP was laid before the Assembly on 27 September 2024. While it has enabled us to move our collective focus towards implementation and monitoring delivery, Members will understand that time has been limited since the EIP was finalised for relevant Departments to take forward the actions in the plan. However, I am pleased to advise that 11 actions with target dates of 2024 plus a further three actions in the environmental improvement plan have been delivered. That includes the significant achievement of setting Northern Ireland's first three carbon budgets, which was done at the end of last year. I thank my Executive colleagues and MLAs for their support in reaching that milestone. Their support will be required over the time ahead as we continue to deliver on the environmental improvement plan.

Sinéad McLaughlin (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

Thank you, Minister, for your answer. I understand that you experienced significant frustration in trying to get the plan approved.

I am concerned about the environmental deterioration of the Mobuoy site and the pollution of the River Foyle in the absence of proper interventions. Are you confident that the plan will deliver the change that we need? What steps is your Department taking to ensure that you do not miss targets?

Andrew Muir (Alliance, North Down)

I thank the Member for her supplementary question. It took a while to get the EIP agreed, but I am a runner and I do marathons. What you do is train harder and work hard at it. That is what I do with my Executive colleagues, and that is how we get progress in this place as part of a power-sharing Executive.

I share the Member's concerns about Mobuoy. I visited the site last year, and it is concerning to see what occurred there. I have received a submission from officials about a consultation on the remediation options for Mobuoy. I have agreed that we should proceed with that. It will start in spring. It is important that people feed into the consultation and give us their views about that. It is important that we move to that next stage on this important issue.

Paula Bradshaw (Alliance, Belfast South)

2. Ms Bradshaw asked the Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs for his assessment of Belfast City Council's 'Segregation and the Environment: Breaking Down Barriers' research report, which highlighted the opportunity to address climate change by reducing segregation. (AQO 1481/22-27)

Andrew Muir (Alliance, North Down)

My officials have regular engagement with many of our local authorities that are leading the way in some of their innovative local climate initiatives. I am aware of and have read Belfast City Council's important work through the development of the report, 'Segregation and the Environment: Breaking Down Barriers'. Later this month, I will be meeting the authors of the report. The report outlines the environmental impact caused by duplication of services and reduced access to environmental projects. It highlights the need not just in Belfast but across Northern Ireland to tackle those barriers in order to hit our statutory emission reduction targets and achieve a just and fair transition to a net zero society by 2050.

The impacts of climate change do not discriminate. They will affect all of us. Climate change is a shared problem and needs a collective action solution. Segregation hampers communities' abilities to work together collectively, whether the segregation is physical or psychological. In the transformation to net zero, we need to be aware of our unique history and the challenges that we face but also the opportunities, and the council's report recognises that.

Divided communities and the fear of violence and antisocial behaviour can lead not just to reduced connectivity but to poverty, poor physical and mental health, unemployment and educational underachievement. Dealing with climate change positively and working together will provide co-benefits that will help address those issues. If we, across the Assembly, can lead the transition to net zero, making use of green growth, creating good local jobs, improving the environment we live in and reducing climate impact, we will see opportunities for better lives ahead.

Paula Bradshaw (Alliance, Belfast South)

Thank you, Minister, for your answer. You mentioned the duplication of services: could you give an assessment of your understanding of how that duplication increases the carbon footprint?

Andrew Muir (Alliance, North Down)

The council's 'Segregation and the Environment' report highlights the issues that we face with duplication of services: lack of connectivity between people and communities; parallel services and buildings that all need to become climate-resilient; and additional costs that we therefore bear, both financially and in terms of a greater carbon footprint at city level. Other cities and regions do not face a legacy of segregation and duplication of services in their climate journey. We know that segregation can lead to divisions; the duplication of public services, like separate bus routes; and additional travel, which increases traffic, emissions and costs. Therefore, Belfast may have to do more than other cities to achieve the same results.

In designing our climate policies across all Departments, we need to think about the unique circumstances that we face in Northern Ireland. Duplication of services compounds division, adds to a lack of contact, leads to mistrust and can decrease connectivity. However, that is where we can join up our policies. Reducing our carbon footprint, adapting to the effects of climate change, improving our environment and increasing biodiversity can really help the communities that are most disadvantaged. Improved good relations and working together on the shared climate challenge can increase cohesion and resilience and bring communities together.

We need to deal with the division in our society. It affects our environment. It is one of the climate change issues. There are key opportunities for change. I declare that I am on the board of governors of Rathmore Primary School. There are things that we can do, as MLAs and Ministers, to address division in our society. We can promote, encourage and facilitate integrated education. We can deliver shared housing. It should be a collective endeavour.

Jonathan Buckley (DUP, Upper Bann)

How does the Minister propose to break down barriers and address division between him and the farming community in Northern Ireland? At a recent public meeting attended by thousands of farmers, the loudest cheer of the night was when they said, "Tell the Minister to get the boot off the farmer". What will the Minister do to reduce regulation and stop swamping farmers with bureaucracy in order to ensure that they have a viable farming future for generations to come?

Andrew Muir (Alliance, North Down)

I am working hard to deliver for farmers in Northern Ireland. I am proud of that. I have delivered key successes in the draft Budget. We are the only region of the UK to get ring-fenced funding for agriculture, agrienvironment, fisheries and rural development not just for the next financial year but for future years. Other regions of the UK have not achieved that. I have achieved a just transition fund for agriculture. Being able to put that in place and support farmers is absolutely key. That is what I am doing.

I am also being honest. The Member mentioned reducing regulation: have you seen the situation in Lough Neagh, Mr Buckley?

[Interruption.]

Yes. I stand here in this role to serve all constituents in Northern Ireland fairly. That is what I am doing, and that is what leadership is about.

Phillip Brett (DUP, Belfast North)

3. Mr Brett asked the Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs what financial support his Department is providing to local councils to support an increase in the rates of household recycling. (AQO 1482/22-27)

Andrew Muir (Alliance, North Down)

I am committed to assisting local councils to transform kerbside recycling and household recycling centre infrastructure and services to help meet our recycling targets and deliver a circular economy in Northern Ireland through my Department's £23 million household waste recycling collaborative change programme. That is a bit of a mouthful. The programme supports capital projects that improve both the quantity and quality of household recycling collected, which is vital in helping to keep our valuable resources in use for longer and reducing consumption of virgin materials. Reducing the quantity of residual waste will also reduce reliance on landfill and recovery.

Funding of up to 50% of eligible costs is available to local councils. Since the programme's launch in June 2019, £8·26 million has been allocated to seven councils for 12 projects. Allocations of funding under the programme must be made by 31 March 2026. Further information on the fund and application process can be found on the DAERA website.

In addition, my Department provides funding to the waste and resources action programme to provide essential local council support, including specialist technical guidance, as well as delivering key national and regional behaviour change campaigns. My Department has been engaging frequently with all 11 local councils to ensure that Northern Ireland is best placed to meet the ambitious recycling targets set by the House in legislation, including the 70% recycling target set out in the Climate Change Act.

Phillip Brett (DUP, Belfast North)

The Minister may be aware that the North Belfast constituency is covered by two local government authorities: Belfast City Council and Antrim and Newtownabbey Borough Council. Despite being only streets apart, the quality of service offered to ratepayers in the two jurisdictions is miles apart. The rates of recycling in the Antrim and Newtownabbey end far exceed those in the Belfast City Council end. Has the Minister given any consideration to trying to encourage a uniformity of policy across all councils in Northern Ireland so that, regardless of postcode, people have access to the same service? Ultimately, the ratepayers pay the same bill.

Andrew Muir (Alliance, North Down)

Thank you, Mr Brett. The Member raises an important issue, in that one of the other issues that relate to this is how we can create better public understanding of what can and cannot be recycled and which bins to use. Sometimes, there is confusion around that. Last year, my officials undertook a consultation around recycling. We have been working through the outcome of that consultation. We will engage with the Committee on that, of course. Part of that will be issuing a bit more guidance to councils about what can be done regarding household recycling and having a bit more uniformity around the issues. The Member raises important issues.

John Blair (Alliance, South Antrim)

Successful and increasing recycling and a circular economy are very closely related. Will the Minister give us an idea of his thinking on what benefit there will be to individuals from a circular economy?

Andrew Muir (Alliance, North Down)

There will be significant benefits. My officials have been working closely with the Department for the Economy — I congratulate Caoimhe Archibald on her appointment as Minister for the Economy — on the development of a circular economy strategy to support the ambition of delivering a low-carbon circular economy. The draft circular economy strategy for Northern Ireland identifies the benefits of a circular economy to individuals. It states that, for example:

"People will be supported to develop relevant skills that will help them transition fairly and inclusively from carbon intensive industries into new jobs. Products and services will provide greater efficiency, durability, better end-of-life outcomes with greater overall consumer satisfaction. We will have greater choice and quality of products and services at a reduced cost through additional circular models and through reuse and introduction of quality standards. Traditionally marginalised groups will be supported by socially conscious businesses adopting circular business models, providing training and employment opportunities for those with disabilities or health conditions. Total ownership costs will reduce as products are designed for remanufacturing, repair and recycling. Better choice of healthy locally produced foods as the circular food system reduces our reliance on chemical farming interventions."

Robbie Butler (UUP, Lagan Valley)

Anaerobic digestion (AD) is often an overlooked aspect in the recycling of household waste, including food and garden waste. Will the Minister provide an update on where he sees that fitting into the circular green economy that he is talking about? Is any action being taken with councils to encourage greater use of AD?

Andrew Muir (Alliance, North Down)

The Member talks about an issue that I am quite excited about. It is a positive development in farming. There is so much good work in farming, and some of it has been highlighted today.

The role of anaerobic digestion is growing, and we need to make sure that we do it in a coordinated fashion. I engage with the Economy Minister on it, because there are new opportunities from it. We see it take place in farming. We also have to consider where the planning process sits around it. I have been having discussions on that with the Infrastructure Minister, and I will take forward discussions with the Economy Minister, because there is an overlap with energy production. Quite a lot of work on the issue is under way.

I am also conscious of the developments in the South. If you read the 'Irish Farmers Journal', you will see where it is going. Some of this is in its infancy. I want to be able to make more firm announcements on how we can coordinate across Departments on the issue over the year ahead.

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

On recycling, has the Department considered imposing levies on companies such as Amazon, whose packaging of deliveries takes up a significant proportion of people's bins? I am sure that we all agree that the goods are over-packaged.

Andrew Muir (Alliance, North Down)

Part of the consultation that was undertaken last year, which I have talked about, related to businesses and waste. I will announce a way forward on that over the time ahead. There are already laws in place around the issue of businesses and packaging. I am happy to write to the Member to outline the situation and the requirements placed on them.

Keith Buchanan (DUP, Mid Ulster)

4. Mr K Buchanan asked the Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs to provide an update on the rural halls refurbishment scheme. (AQO 1483/22-27)

Andrew Muir (Alliance, North Down)

I thank Mr Buchanan for his question. The question is about rural communities and rural halls, so I record my thanks to the rural communities across Northern Ireland for the support that they have given to so many people who were affected by the recent storm. As I have said a number of times, I am very grateful for the work that farmers in particular have undertaken in the aftermath of the storm to help clear roads and support local communities. It is important that I put that on record.

During the storm, a lot of people in rural communities used their rural hall. The Member has been a good advocate for rural halls. I will answer the question, but I have heard some of the representations that he has made on the issue. It is important that he understand that I have been listening, and I will see what my Department can do.

As the Member has rightly said previously, the rural halls refurbishment scheme concluded in January 2024. It was a rural policy framework pilot initiative that provided capacity building, training and grants up to a maximum of £40,000 for rural community and voluntary sector organisations to deliver capital works for rural halls, with the aim of keeping those community facilities viable and sustainable, and, in many cases, enabling them to offer additional services.

In 2024, I established a new rural policy unit, which was tasked with developing future rural policy for Northern Ireland. As part of that work, previous rural policy initiatives and interventions, including the rural halls refurbishment scheme, are being reviewed and evaluated. The findings, lessons learned and recommendations will be considered in full and factored into the development of any new rural policy proposals. My Department's 2024-25 business plan has committed to developing for consultation a new evidence-based rural policy. It is my intention that draft proposals will be consulted on this year.

Keith Buchanan (DUP, Mid Ulster)

I thank the Minister for his answer. Minister, I appreciate your response about the new rural policy unit's reviewing and evaluating the rural halls refurbishment scheme. We have seen the work that rural communities have done over the past few weeks to help keep Northern Ireland moving. Will you commit to ensuring that the scheme is included in the new rural policy?

Andrew Muir (Alliance, North Down)

We are giving active consideration to how we can support rural halls in the context of the new policy. Initial discussion took place with officials last week about that. It is something that I want to tease out a bit more, however. I understand why many people have made representations to me about the importance of rural halls, and their importance was demonstrated in the aftermath of the recent storm. The scheme's inclusion is being given active consideration. I am happy to meet the Member in the time ahead. He may wish to put in a request to my private office to discuss the matter further.

Declan McAleer (Sinn Féin, West Tyrone)

I associate myself with what the Minister has said. Last week, rural halls and the farming community performed admirably during the storm crisis. It was former Minister Poots who introduced the pilot scheme for rural halls —

Some Members

Hear, hear.

Declan McAleer (Sinn Féin, West Tyrone)

— in the previous mandate. I support what has been said and underline the importance of rural halls and basic services as part of any future replacement rural development programme.

Edwin Poots (DUP, Belfast South)

Well said, that man.

Andrew Muir (Alliance, North Down)

I assure the Member that we are giving active consideration to that. The previous Minister, who is in the Chair today — I am not looking for any extra time as a result of my saying this — introduced the scheme as a pilot initiative. We have to consider where that fits into our new policy and provide a bit of sustainability. We want to assure people that it is not just a pilot scheme but that we are able to continue with it. We need to compile business cases and follow the proper governance processes, but proper consideration is being given to it.

The rural development programme delivered strong benefits for rural communities. We are giving consideration to the impact of its having been withdrawn and to what we can do together on the issue. The Member kindly welcomed me to Loughmacrory on New Year's Eve. I was able to see the facilities there that he and the community have been involved in delivering. They are fantastic facilities, and the rural development programme helped deliver them. Let us see what we can do in the time ahead to support rural communities across Northern Ireland.

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

Minister, do you agree that, since the removal of EU rural support, much of the aid to our rural communities has diminished?

Andrew Muir (Alliance, North Down)

One thing that has perhaps been overlooked is the impact of Brexit on the rural development programme. It is something that I see every day in my Ministry. When I visited Loughmacrory, I saw the facilities that had been supported there, but funding was not available thereafter. Brexit was a really bad idea for not just Northern Ireland but the rest of the UK. It has flatlined our economy and failed our rural communities. Let us collectively come together, however.

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

[Interruption.]

Andrew Muir (Alliance, North Down)

I am engaging with the new Finance Minister on the issues. Yes, we have dual market access, about which the leader of the Opposition is chuntering from a sedentary position. I have promoted that quite often. In general, however, Brexit has not worked out very well for the UK, particularly for rural communities.

Gerry Carroll (People Before Profit Alliance, Belfast West)

Minister, have you given any consideration to whether it would be suitable to use rural halls to help tackle the housing and homelessness crisis across our communities?

Andrew Muir (Alliance, North Down)

The Member makes an interesting point. I am happy to take it up with the Minister for Communities to see what opportunities might arise from it.

Connie Egan (Alliance, North Down)

5. Ms Egan asked the Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs for an update on actions being taken to improve animal welfare. (AQO 1484/22-27)

Peter Martin (DUP, North Down)

6. Mr Martin asked the Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs to outline his timeframe for the introduction of a licensing framework for animal welfare establishments, including dog pounds. (AQO 1485/22-27)

Andrew Muir (Alliance, North Down)

Mr Speaker, with your permission, I will group questions 5 and 6.

I confirm that my Department is advancing preparations to introduce a version of Lucy's law for Northern Ireland. In the coming weeks, I intend to launch a full public consultation on mandatory CCTV in abattoirs. I am also actively considering my animal welfare priorities for the remainder of the mandate to ensure that the most pressing needs are addressed. I have engaged in a series of meetings with stakeholders to outline my proposed priorities and listen to their feedback. Those priorities include a prohibition on the use of aversive training devices, such as electric shock collars, which are really wrong, folks; the mandatory microchipping of pet cats; and the strengthening of dog microchipping requirements by making it an offence not to update records. Work has also commenced to provide me with advice on the appointment of an expert group that will review dog breeding regulations to provide an assessment of the need for regulation of canine fertility services. I note that that was warmly welcomed by stakeholders, because it is important that we look at how we can address the issue comprehensively.

When it comes to a licensing framework for animal welfare establishments, many of those are already subject to a licensing regime, including pet shops and riding, animal boarding and zoological establishments. In addition, the licensing of dog breeding by councils includes an inspection of premises. The Dogs (Northern Ireland) Order 1983 already contains powers for councils to establish and maintain dog pounds. Consequently, their operation is a matter for councils, and I do not consider a stand-alone licensing regime to be necessary.

Connie Egan (Alliance, North Down)

Thank you, Minister. I welcome your commitment to animal welfare. Will you join me on a visit to Assisi Animal Sanctuary in our constituency of North Down?

Andrew Muir (Alliance, North Down)

I would be delighted to do so. It is really important that I record my appreciation of and support for the many animal welfare organisations that operate in Northern Ireland, including Assisi and many more, such as Cats Protection, Dogs Trust and the Ulster Society for the Prevention Cruelty to Animals (USPCA). Those organisations play a valuable role, and it is important that we support them. If the Member sends correspondence to my private office, I will be delighted to arrange a visit to Assisi in Conlig.

Peter Martin (DUP, North Down)

I thank the Minister for his answer to my colleague's question and to mine. I want to be clear on something, because I was not sure from his answer. Is he saying that he will not introduce a licensing framework for animal welfare establishments in this mandate?

Andrew Muir (Alliance, North Down)

When it comes to the current licensing regime for establishments, legislation allows my Department to license four distinct animal businesses. I am, however, acutely aware of the fact that those laws have their origins in 1972. There are potentially much better ways of doing things, and other animal-related businesses may warrant licensing. For example, in other parts of the UK, legislation has evolved to deal with home boarding and pet day care, while licences are required for activities such as mobile animal exhibits. I am also aware that the Scottish Government have consulted on the potential to extend licensing to dog grooming and dog walking.

I remain keen to overhaul the regulations for the licensing of animal welfare establishments, but in order to deliver change in areas such as boarding and pet selling, I would need to repeal existing primary legislation. Doing so in this mandate would be a challenge. That having been said, however, I have already set out a range of priorities for the remainder of the Assembly mandate, which includes a commitment to review dog breeding and the operation of canine fertility clinics as well as potential regulation of the rescue and rehoming sector. It also remains the case that all protected animals in any setting continue to be protected by the Welfare of Animals Act (Northern Ireland) 2011, which provides enforcement agencies with substantial powers to act in situations where an animal is subject to unnecessary suffering. My engagement with stakeholders on that issue is not complete, and I have not taken any final decisions.

There is a lot to do around animal welfare. We lost two years of the mandate, because this place did not sit for two years. That has constrained our ability to introduce legislation. I will continue to engage with stakeholders, and I will announce an animal welfare pathway in the time ahead. I will ensure that all Members get a copy of that and that I engage with Committee on it.

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

Minister, you said last year that the creation of an all-island animal cruelty register was "untenable". I think that that was the word that you used. Is that still your position? Have you done any more thinking on that matter?

Andrew Muir (Alliance, North Down)

I do plenty of thinking, Matthew. I took the issue forward and met my then counterpart, Minister Charlie McConalogue. Martin Heydon has now taken over, and I had a really good conversation with him last week. We discussed whether the South plans to bring forward a register of that nature, and I was informed that it does not. With regard to the animal welfare pathway, we are exploring further methods that we could offer to different organisations to deal with some of their concerns about animal welfare, and Access NI may be involved. We will announce the way forward on that as part of the animal welfare pathway.