Northern Ireland Assembly, 8 April 2025

336 contributions from 51 members. The official report.

Assembly Business

Edwin Poots (DUP, Belfast South)

Before we begin, I ask for the House's indulgence to stray slightly from our normal procedures. Today is the last sitting before Dr Alex McGarel retires from the Assembly. While she has been at the Assembly since 2008, first as Clerk to the then Committee for the Environment, she has, over the past 11 years, been Clerk to the Business Committee and been responsible for working with Whips and the Executive to manage the business coming through the House.

Alex would be the first to advise me that I should not name officials in the Chamber

[Laughter]

but it is right that we should formally record her work and dedication to the Assembly. She is very well regarded by Members and her colleagues and will be very much missed. I therefore hope that the whole House will join me in thanking her for her service and wishing her all the best for a very long and happy retirement, although, as I understand it, she is going to lamb sheep

[Laughter.]

Having done that for quite a number of years in years gone by, I know that it is no retirement, but it is very rewarding when you bring a little lamb into the world. Thank you, Alex, for all that you have done.

[Applause.]

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

With your indulgence, Mr Speaker, I would like to be associated with your comments. From being in the Assembly, as a former Chair of the Environment Committee and in various other roles that I have performed, I know that Alex has always been there, bringing a very professional, intellectual and calming influence to all that she was associated with. Alex, from me to you, I offer my sincerest best wishes for the future and for your retirement in whatever guise that may take. Best wishes, Alex.

Joanne Bunting (DUP, Belfast East)

This announcement has taken me by shock this morning. Alex will be a significant loss to the Assembly and to the House. I have worked with Alex for many years during my time as a member of staff in the DUP Chief Whip's office and as DUP Chief Whip. She was always there if I needed to understand something, needed something explained or needed assistance or help. Alex was always a very steady hand, dispensing sage advice. It was a joy to work with her and to know that she was there to give that advice and assistance, and she was always good fun.

Alex, I cannot thank you enough. I appreciate that it is not protocol to speak beyond the Speaker's Chair, but, on behalf of everybody in the DUP, I wish you every success in the next phase of your life. You will be sorely missed. Thank you for everything that you have done for us over the many years that you have been here.

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

Like Joanne, I was shocked to find out this morning that you were going, Alex. On behalf of Sinn Féin, I wish you all the very best. I was Sinn Féin's Chief Whip twice. As we know, it is not easy, and, as you know, we are not easy.

[Laughter.]

On a personal note, I thank you very much from my time as Whip and in the office of Deputy Speaker. I have no idea what lambing sheep entails — I am from the New Lodge Road, and not many sheep are lambed in that area — but I have no doubt that you will work as hard at that as you have at your job here. You are well respected across the House and by all parties, and you will be missed. Thank you very much. Enjoy your very early retirement. Good luck.

Paula Bradshaw (Alliance, Belfast South)

On behalf of the Alliance Party MLA group, Alex, I say that you have been a wonderful source of information. As late as 5.30 pm last night, I ran in to ask you about Standing Order 33. We will miss you sorely, and I am sure that your colleagues in the Business Office will as well. Thank you for everything. Have a happy retirement.

Steve Aiken (UUP, South Antrim)

Thank you, Alex. On behalf of the Ulster Unionist Party, I wish you all the best for your well-earned retirement. Mr Speaker, the nice thing, when sitting in that Chair beside Alex, is when she looks across and gives that little, quizzical look. It reminds you that you need to keep on your toes. Thank you very much for everything that you have done, Alex. You will, indeed, be missed. Don't be a stranger.

Jonathan Buckley (DUP, Upper Bann)

Further to my colleague Joanne Bunting's remarks, Alex, you will definitely be missed. As somebody who has lambed a few sheep, I can say that it is a rewarding and valuable profession.

Mr Speaker, Alex has been of assistance to you in the Chair, and it would be remiss if we were not to also mention a lady who has been vital to so many of us. I think of Kristine Gillespie in the Assembly library. Kristine is also retiring, having given 24 years' service to the library. She has been a valuable source of information for so many of us, taking on board our many issues and complaints — Members are not easy to deal with, at times. I put that on record. I thank them both for their service.

Edwin Poots (DUP, Belfast South)

Thank you, Members. That is the embarrassing bit over, Alex.

[Laughter.]

I probably should not have been so nice to Alex, because, when I was the Minister of the Environment for two years, she was feeding Patsy McGlone all the information to go after me on.

[Laughter.]

Nonetheless, that is the role of the Assembly: encouraging people to find the appropriate information on which to challenge Ministers and, often, to inform Ministers. That is an important part of the role.

Members' Statements

Aoife Finnegan (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

Go raibh maith agaibh, a chairde.

[Translation: Thank you, friends.]

As we speak, the Mournes are burning. They have been burning for three weeks. Huge tracts of land have been destroyed, and all manner of unique native flora and fauna have been killed. Furthermore, we heard, just this week, that there is an 80% chance of another massive outbreak of blue-green algae in Lough Neagh this summer. That is why positions such as the Climate Commissioner are crucial. Aside from that being a legal requirement of the Climate Change Act 2022, which the House supported, protecting our environment will require independent offices that can hold Departments to account on their climate requirements and offer expert advice and analysis when needed.

Of course, the climate threat has no respect for borders and requires an all-Ireland response. The "One Island-One Environment" event sought to examine another major aspect of climate change here: its future impact on the island of Ireland as a single biogeographic entity. On Friday, I attended the "One Island-One Environment" conference with my colleagues, Sinn Féin TD Pa Daly and Sinn Féin MEP Lynn Boylan. At the conference, the many shared climate and environmental challenges and opportunities that face us as an island were discussed. That includes the potential for us to achieve energy independence and energy security as well as addressing the environmental damage to some of our inland waterways, such as Lough Neagh.

Sinn Féin's vision for renewable energy is to ensure that the transition is fair, just and affordable by using our natural resources to create more national wealth for the benefit of all, socially and economically, in the long term.

My constituency of Newry and Armagh shares in the many challenges and opportunities that climate change presents to environmental-facing rural communities across the island. As a Sinn Féin representative for Newry and Armagh, I will work to support family farms and sustainable farming, which play such an important role in our community and local economy.

Joanne Bunting (DUP, Belfast East)

I extend warmest congratulations to the Belfast Giants, who have once again made Northern Ireland proud by winning the Elite Ice Hockey League title for the 2024-25 season, which is the third time in four years. It goes beyond a sporting victory: it is a celebration of excellence, determination, dedication, commitment and the will to win and a demonstration of the unifying power of sport in our society. The Giants' success on the ice is truly remarkable. To lift the league title in such a way and in such a competitive environment is no mean feat. That title win was not a given: it was hard-won in a tough sport. The victory speaks volumes about the professionalism and dedication of the players, the coaching staff and everyone behind the scenes at the club.

What makes the Belfast Giants so special is not just their performance on the rink but the role they play in the life of this city and region. Since their formation in 2000, the Giants have done more than just bring silverware to Belfast; they have made ice hockey what it is in Northern Ireland. They have built the fan base, been instrumental in the growth of ice hockey in Northern Ireland and inspired countless young people to look at the option of sport on the ice.

The Giants' community outreach work also deserves particular recognition. From supporting youth mental health initiatives to engaging with schools, championing anti-sectarianism and anti-racism campaigns, the club has consistently used its platform for good. It is a role model for how professional sport can make a tangible difference in society.

Let us not underestimate the economic impact of the Giants' success. They attract thousands of fans every week, including many visitors from overseas, supporting local jobs, tourism and the night-time economy in east Belfast and beyond.

Well done to all involved in this great victory, and long may their success continue.

Paula Bradshaw (Alliance, Belfast South)

I rise to note a recent report from independent academics in London that has laid bare the severe damage that Assembly collapse and stop-start government is causing to communities and public services in Northern Ireland. It reinforces the need to reform the institutions so that they cannot be collapsed on a whim and the sectarian veto becomes a thing of the past.

The report, 'Reform of Stormont: Options for Discussion', from the constitution unit at University College London states that, during Assembly collapses from 2017 to 2020 and from 2022 to 2024:

"much of the work of government, particularly longer-term work, went undone, which is reflected in the current economic and public service problems experienced in Northern Ireland."

That is strikingly similar to the module 1 report of the UK COVID-19 inquiry, which also noted that preparations for the pandemic had been hindered by the absence of functioning government in the months before the virus first emerged from China in late 2019.

The University College London report, authored by Conor Kelly, Alan Renwick and Alan Whysall, goes even further, blaming recent Assembly collapses for the failure to progress long-term solutions to the problems faced by Northern Ireland's finances, health service and other public-sector services. Of course, it must be said that that is to do with not just the non-operation of the institutions but the bias in our institutional set-up in favour of the status quo and against reform. Taking the key decisions to reform our health service and water infrastructure etc and, indeed, to tackle the cost of division is rendered much more difficult by the prospect of blockage via the abuse of the sectarian veto. The report assesses the options for reforming the power-sharing structures at Stormont and says:

"Removing ... veto powers within the Executive could speed up ... decision-making"

and improve the implementation of key policy priorities. Again, that is linked to the emerging evidence in the COVID inquiry.

That independent analysis reinforces what the Alliance Party has been saying for years, even decades. Ransom politics and vetoes over government are blocking the transformation and improvement of key public services and causing damage to people and communities across Northern Ireland. Stop-start government takes a wrecking ball to the key priorities that households in every corner of Northern Ireland are, we know, relying on us to deal with. The independent report, along with the emerging evidence from the COVID-19 inquiry, provides fresh impetus to all parties in the Chamber and to the UK and Irish Governments to engage meaningfully in a conversation about institutional reform ahead of the next Assembly election in 2027.

Jemma Dolan (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

The lack of preschool places is causing great distress to families across Fermanagh. I have been contacted by countless parents who are anxious, frustrated and deeply concerned because they simply cannot secure a place for their child. It is not a case of parents being picky because they did not get their first preference; a number of my soon-to-be four-year-old constituents have missed out on a place at all four of their local playgroups. Their families now face enormous uncertainty as they try to plan for the months ahead, and many fear that their children will miss out on vital early years education. That situation not only places an emotional burden on parents and children but creates serious logistical challenges for working parents who rely on preschool places to help them to balance work and family life.

The Minister and the Education Authority must work with local providers to ensure that additional preschool places are made available in Fermanagh and across the North as a matter of urgency. We need a clear plan to support rural provision and ensure that no child is left without a place.

Brian Kingston (DUP, Belfast North)

I praise two championship-winning Belfast teams that raised their league trophy last weekend. By number of league title wins, one team is the most successful team in the United Kingdom in the modern era, and the other is the most successful team in the world, no less.

The first champions are the Belfast Giants, who, as Joanne Bunting said, once again won the Elite Ice Hockey League with a comeback win against the Nottingham Panthers on Sunday. The Giants have won four of the past five league titles, all of them under head coach Adam Keefe, who arrived as a player in 2011 and went on to become team captain and head coach. His team is now going for the grand slam, which will be its second grand slam in three years, if it can add the play-off title to the league title and the Challenge Cup, which it has already won this year. The Belfast Giants have now won the Elite Ice Hockey League seven times, extending their record as the most successful team since that UK-wide league commenced in 2003.

The Giants will be back in the Champions Hockey League next season, playing against the top teams in Europe. With matches at the SSE Arena regularly selling out and averaging about 7,000 spectators per game, the Giants have successfully embedded ice hockey here and, as one of our top-performing teams, are a credit to us all in Northern Ireland.

Mr Speaker, if you do not mind my extending my statement into South Belfast, I will say that the other champion team is, of course, Linfield Football Club, which lifted the Gibson Cup for a record-extending fifty-seventh time on Saturday after defeating Glentoran 2-1 in the Irish Premiership at Windsor Park. Linfield actually won the league a couple of weeks ago with six games to spare, that being the first time that a team has won the league before the split. Linfield thereby extended its record as the club with the greatest number of top division titles — 57 — of any country in the world. It will aim to emulate Larne by qualifying for one of the European league competitions next season.

Particular congratulations are due to manager David Healy for achieving an impressive six league titles in nine full seasons as Linfield manager, a record that will sit alongside his status as Northern Ireland's leading goalscorer at international level. Special mention must also be given to the man who lifted the Gibson Cup on Saturday, Linfield's captain fantastic, Jamie Mulgrew. He won his eleventh Irish Premiership title, setting a new record in the Irish league and overtaking that other modern-day Linfield legend, Noel Bailie, who won an impressive 10 league titles as part of his exceptional total of 40 trophy wins.

We in Northern Ireland take great pride in sporting achievements and in those who put us on the map in international competition, so we wish the Belfast Giants and Linfield every success in their European adventures next season.

Edwin Poots (DUP, Belfast South)

Thank you, Mr Kingston. I am delighted to endorse your remarks about Linfield Football Club; I do not whether I am allowed to do so, but I just have.

Nick Mathison (Alliance, Strangford)

I rise to highlight the deeply concerning evidence that the Education Committee received last week about the Education Authority's (EA) 14-plus transitions service. The service is tasked to deliver a statutory function to prepare young people with a statement of special educational needs (SEN) for their transition out of statutory education and on to the next step in their journey. We learned that just 10 staff support the service, which aims to support 9,000 young people in the 14-plus age bracket with a SEN statement. Each staff member will end up with caseloads of around 900 young people to support. Is it any wonder that parents report simply not receiving the service at all?

The Committee previously heard evidence from Alma White, who has spearheaded the Caleb's cause campaign, and she powerfully set out how unsupported many parents and young people feel as they navigate the transition. We all know that the budgets of every Department are under pressure, but this is a statutory service. It is not an add-on or an optional extra. Those young people are entitled to a transition plan to support their educational journey. I urge the EA, in the first instance, to urgently bring forward a business case for the resources that it needs for the service, and the Education Minister should look seriously at whether the right financial support is targeted at that vital service.

The concern is about more than the understaffing. We also learned that, even after a plan is provided to those young people, once they leave the school system, no Department or other statutory agency owns the plan or has any legal duty to deliver on it. The legal protections that a student with special educational needs has at school are simply lost overnight. Is it right for us to present our young people with special educational needs with that sort of cliff edge as they plan to leave school?

I fully support the calls from Caleb's cause for legislation to put in place the legal protections that our young people with SEN need at 19 or whenever they leave the school system. I call on the Economy Minister in the first instance to urgently update the Assembly on the outcome of her Department's review of the matter. We need to know what she will do tangibly and legislatively to address the cliff edge. While we wait for progress, the Education Minister cannot let the EA transition service flounder in its current form. He must act to rectify the position, which was set out so clearly at the Education Committee last week. It is unacceptable and cannot be allowed to continue in its current form, otherwise we will profoundly let down our young people with SEN.

Diane Forsythe (DUP, South Down)

Yesterday evening, I was privileged to join the deputy First Minister, Emma Little-Pengelly, at Bloody Bridge to meet and thank the incredible team that is responding to the fires in the Mournes. We appreciate them so much as they fight the fires to keep us all safe and save nature. The Northern Ireland Fire and Rescue Service (NIFRS) has been dedicated and outstanding in its work across Northern Ireland to fight a huge range of fires, especially those in the Mourne Mountains this weekend. Last night, it was insightful to hear about the success of the tactical approaches used across the fire sites, as well as about the professionalism, expertise and hard work in the face of danger. Our Fire and Rescue Service is amazing, and I thank it for all that it has done and continues to do.

Two weeks ago, I stood here and spoke about the devastating fires in the Mournes and appealed for people to stop that awful behaviour. I am saddened to have to speak again following the escalation, with a major incident declared on Saturday night and an arrest for arson. It needs to stop. I welcome the fact that the PSNI have made an arrest in connection with Saturday's fire, as well as its excellent coordination on the ground, closing roads and managing safety. I give special thanks to our local Mournes neighbourhood sergeant, Kenny Gracey, who was among those whom we met last night.

It is important that the seriousness of the criminal activity that led to some of the fires be recognised. Arson is a dangerous crime that puts many lives at risk, not least the lives of those who go out to fight the fires. I hope that we see serious sentences and punishments that fit those crimes.

Last night, we also met Sky Watch Northern Ireland, which is a Northern Ireland-based search-and-rescue charity that uses specialist drones, high-tech equipment and all-terrain vehicles to assist the police, fire service and other agencies with emergency responses. Its input into dealing with the fires has been critical. Mr Speaker, those on the Sky Watch NI team spoke highly about you and were grateful that, in your time as AERA Minister, when there were horrific mountain fires in 2021, you recognised their need for improved equipment and secured resources for them.

The deputy First Minister and I were grateful that those on the team took the time to show us their equipment and how they reach difficult terrain in their vehicles. They demonstrated how they use the drones to view and measure the movement of the fire to assist the fire service. That was so impressive, and it gave us a great insight into the importance of resourcing such things to enable our emergency services to respond to such events. It would be great to see DAERA supporting the team's ideas for new drones to carry water up to the fires, which has the potential to make a huge impact.

Again, I thank the emergency services, as they continue to fight the fires today. I pray for their safety and call on the public to stay out of the mountains until it is declared safe to return. I call on anyone with evidence of criminal behaviour to come forward to the PSNI.

Timothy Gaston (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

I rise for the third time in the Chamber to raise the issue of the imposition of Irish language signage at Grand Central station. I do so, Ms Hunter, not because of a coloniser mindset, but because I believe that Northern Ireland is big enough to accommodate identities that are not Irish. While the issue was raised under "any other business" at the Executive on Thursday, the media have noted that Ministers were surprised by the deputy First Minister's robustness at the press conference. Be that as it may, I welcome the acknowledgement by yet another senior figure in the DUP that the Infrastructure Minister's decision is controversial and should go before the Executive.

When does the point come when I will welcome not just words but actions? On Friday, my party leader made four points about the issue. The Minister cites Translink's decisions to have bilingual signage at Newry and on some Glider services as justifying her imposition of Irish language signage at Grand Central station. In doing so, she acknowledges that it is for Translink, not the Minister, to make such operational decisions. The partnership agreement that governs the relationship between DFI and Translink makes that clear. Secondly, while the Communities Minister may have statutory responsibilities in respect of language, Minister Kimmins has none. That means that her decision was a cross-cutting one that required Executive approval. Thirdly, the money spent on this is immaterial: what matters is the social impact. The polling which I have referenced in the Chamber shows that the Irish language has a chill factor for people from a Protestant background, including Alliance voters. Fourthly, in contending that her remit involves overseeing the delivery of public transport services, Minister Kimmins effectively concedes her overreach, because imposing the signage on a station is clearly neither overseeing the delivery of public transport nor compatible with the arrangements that afford such functions to the arm's-length body. Translink is not being allowed to operate as an arm's-length body if the Minister is involving herself in the minutiae of operational decisions.

I have established with the Business Office that my petition to refer the matter to the Executive remains open to receive signatures until 28 April. After that, it will be too late, and every unionist in the Chamber will have to answer why they did not join me in doing something about it. In the words of Hamlet:

"Suit the action to the word".

Jonathan Buckley (DUP, Upper Bann)

I stand today to give voice to the growing frustration and disappointment felt by many hard-working families in our community. Those families are being denied preschool places for their children not because they applied too late or did not meet the requirements but because of a system that prioritises certain circumstances over others. The dated and discriminatory legislation, which has been in place since 1999, instructs preschool education providers to prioritise some kids over others, placing labels and assumptions on kids before they have even had a chance to start their education journey.

Let me be clear: supporting vulnerable families and ensuring that every child has access to early education is vital. However, we must also recognise that many hard-pressed working families are being penalised because they do not meet the current criteria. Parents are penalised for going the extra mile and for working every hour of the day to provide a living for their family, with little left at the end of the month to show for it.

In the past week, I have spoken to working families who have been denied a preschool place even though they have multiple children already at their preferred school. I have spoken to working families who have been allocated a space in, sometimes, their eighth or ninth school of choice, which is often far from their home and past a number of preferred schools along the way. It is beyond ridiculous. Those families contribute to society, pay taxes and do their best to provide for their children, often juggling work, rising living costs and childcare, yet, when it comes to securing a preschool place, they find themselves at the back of the queue. That is not just disappointing; it is unfair.

The system should not pit one family's needs against another's. It should be about balance. Every child deserves a start in life, regardless of their parent's income bracket or employment status. Preschool education is not a luxury but a foundation. Access to such a thing should be equitable across the board. We call for a more inclusive approach that does not overlook the struggles and contributions of working families. Members, we should endeavour to have a system that values fairness and ensures that no family is left behind simply because they are doing their best to stay afloat.

Michelle Guy (Alliance, Lagan Valley)

I am delighted to congratulate Harmony Hill Primary School in Lisburn on celebrating its 60th anniversary. I pay tribute to the leadership team of Mrs Johnston and Mr Henry for the work that they do and to all the staff in that absolutely wonderful school, which is the heart of its community. I also acknowledge an amazing concert that the school held last week in the Island Arts Centre in Lisburn to celebrate the anniversary. It was an absolutely amazing night. There are so many talented kids in that school. Well done to all of them and to all the staff who made the event happen. I send congratulations to them again on their 60th anniversary and best wishes for the rest of the celebrations that they have planned.

Colm Gildernew (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I raise again the desperate situation of many families who need respite services. It must be said that, in many situations, respite is the bare minimum that many of our carers and families get. It allows them a short time to have a break, refresh their batteries and just recharge. However, too often, we see situations in which respite is cancelled at the last minute for families who were so desperately looking forward to it. I have seen that happen once again in Dungannon in my constituency. On that occasion, the cancellation was linked to staffing, but the impact is the same. They are families, some of them with parents in their 80s, who are doing the vast majority of the care, day in and day out, week in and week out, and had been looking forward to one weekend. The levels of respite in general have been cut dramatically over years now, which means that many families get only a weekend or a day or two at a time. To have that withdrawn at short notice is absolutely devastating. I urge the Minister of Health and the trusts to look urgently at how the situation can be stabilised, because it is just not fair to continue to let down families who do so much on behalf of all of us. In many ways, they are the backbone of the health service, and we are letting them down repeatedly.

Executive Committee Business

Gordon Lyons (DUP, East Antrim)

I beg to move

That the Child Support Enforcement Bill [NIA Bill 05/22-27] do now pass.

Edwin Poots (DUP, Belfast South)

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

Gordon Lyons (DUP, East Antrim)

I am pleased to move the Final Stage of the Child Support Enforcement Bill. I thank the Committee and Members across the Chamber who have given their support to the Bill and its progression through the Assembly.

The Bill will enable the Child Maintenance Service (CMS) to make an administrative liability order without requiring an application to the Magistrates' Court. The existing court-based liability order process takes, on average, 22 weeks. It is estimated that the new administrative liability order process could be substantially shortened to six weeks.

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

If the Bill attains Royal Assent, secondary legislation will be required to implement and commence the proposals of the Act. It is expected that the first regulations relating to appeals against liability orders will be subject to the confirmatory procedure, thereby ensuring enhanced scrutiny through debate in the Assembly. Members may also note that a regulatory impact assessment was not prepared as the Bill will have minimal impact on businesses, charities, social economy enterprises or voluntary bodies.

The measures in the Bill will substantially speed up the time that it takes for the CMS to initiate its strongest enforcement powers and will improve the CMS in its role to secure child maintenance for children. Therefore, I commend the Bill to the Assembly.

Colm Gildernew (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

As Chair of the Committee for Communities. I support the Final Stage of the Child Support Enforcement Bill.

The purpose of this short but significant Bill is to enable the Department to make administrative liability orders for the enforcement of child maintenance payments, replacing the current court-based process. It provides for the right of appeal to a court against the making of such an order. The Committee for Communities has welcomed the legislation, which aims to reduce the time taken to pursue enforcement action from the current average of 22 weeks through the courts to six weeks via the new administrative route. Members were reassured to note that the administrative orders carry the same weight as those issued by courts. Appropriate safeguards will remain in place, including access to appeal and the discharge of orders, where appropriate.

Following Second Stage, the Committee took forward its scrutiny role in accordance with Standing Orders. Despite receiving a modest response to our public call for evidence, we undertook a range of activity to inform our considerations. That included engaging directly with officials from the Department for Communities, who provided written responses and oral briefings, and commissioning research from the Assembly's Research and Information Service (RaISe), which produced a comprehensive comparative analysis and other useful insights.

The Committee carefully considered the Bill's two clauses and one schedule as well as the wider implications of moving from a judicial process to an administrative process. Members explored matters such as safeguards for vulnerable individuals, including those experiencing mental ill health or domestic abuse, as well as the cross-border enforceability of administrative orders. Members were broadly satisfied with those measures.

Clause-by-clause scrutiny was conducted at our meeting on 21 November 2024. Having satisfied itself that the provisions of the Bill were appropriate, the Committee agreed all aspects of the Bill without amendment. No amendments were tabled by Members or the Minister at either Consideration Stage or Further Consideration Stage. That reflects the Committee's view that the Bill, as drafted, appears fit for purpose and will maintain sufficient protections. I wish to place on record the Committee's thanks to all those who supported our scrutiny of the Bill, including the departmental officials and the RaISe team.

While the legislation will affect a small proportion of Child Maintenance Service cases — around 2% — it still represents a significant change in process. The Committee has therefore recommended that the Department monitor the new arrangements and review their implementation after 12 months. We expect to be kept informed of how the new system is operating in practice, including its effectiveness in reducing processing times and maintaining safeguards.

On behalf of the Committee for Communities, I am content to recommend that the Assembly agree the Final Stage of the Child Support Enforcement Bill.

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

We on the Opposition Benches will vote for the Child Support Enforcement Bill to pass today.

The Bill retains parity with the rest of the UK, which passed its Bill in July 2023. We have previously made and, I am sure, will again make a principled argument against parity because we recognise the invidious position that that often puts the Minister and the Executive in when cuts come from London. However, on this occasion, parity is bringing legislation that will actually benefit the people here, and we welcome that. The non-payment of child maintenance disproportionately affects women, and the payment of child maintenance is also an important alleviating factor in tackling child poverty. All in all, this is positive legislation. We welcome it and give it our support.

Gordon Lyons (DUP, East Antrim)

I am grateful for the support across the House, and I commend the Bill to the House.

Question put and agreed to. Resolved:

That the Child Support Enforcement Bill [NIA Bill 05/22-27] do now pass.

Gordon Lyons (DUP, East Antrim)

I beg to move

That this Assembly endorses the principle of the extension to Northern Ireland of the provisions of the Employment Rights Bill, introduced in the House of Commons on 10 October 2024, relating to statutory sick pay as contained in clauses 12 and 13 of the Bill; the Fair Work Agency under Part 5 of the Bill and the saving provisions as set out in schedule 11 to the Bill as they relate to the Agricultural Wages (Regulations) (Northern Ireland) Order 1977; in relation to public-sector outsourcing of relevant contracts by bodies carrying out reserved functions in Northern Ireland; the protection of workers as set out in clause 30 of the Bill; the enforcement of relevant labour market legislation under Part 5 of the Bill as set out in schedule 7 and enabling the Secretary of State for Business and Trade, with the consent of relevant Northern Ireland Departments, to increase the remit of the Fair Work Agency, in the future, on a range of labour market and employment legislation that may include Northern Ireland devolved legislation.

Steve Aiken (UUP, South Antrim)

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

Gordon Lyons (DUP, East Antrim)

The Employment Rights Bill was introduced in the House of Commons on 10 October 2024. The Bill aims to improve workplace conditions, extend employee protections, modernise employment laws, enhance existing provisions and introduce new rights. It also allows for the establishment of a single, UK-wide enforcement body, to be known as the Fair Work Agency, which will bring together existing enforcement functions from across a number of regimes.

The Bill is substantial, but the legislative consent motion (LCM) includes only the small number of provisions that affect devolved matters. The provisions fall under the remits of the Department for Communities, the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs, the Department for the Economy and the Department of Finance. Following requests from each of the relevant Ministers, I agreed to include the provisions of the Bill that fell to each of their Departments in the LCM in order to maintain parity with Great Britain on those matters.

I will now turn to the provisions of the Bill that fall within the scope of the LCM. Clauses 12 and 13 relate to statutory sick pay (SSP), which is the minimum that an employer must pay an eligible employee if they are unable to work owing to illness or injury. To be eligible, an employee must have average weekly earnings at or above the lower earnings limit, which is currently £6,500 a year. SSP is paid from the fourth day of absence. The standard rate for 2025-26 is £118·75, and it is paid for 28 weeks. Clause 12 will remove the waiting period for SSP. Currently, employees must wait three days before they can receive SSP payments. By enabling SSP to start from the first day of sickness, the Bill ensures that employees are supported from the moment that they are unable to work, which will address gaps in financial support during short-term illnesses and reduce financial hardship for employees.

Clause 13 will remove the lower earnings limit so that all employees, regardless of their income, will be eligible for SSP. That change will ensure that low-income workers, who are often most vulnerable to financial hardship during illness, are not left without support when they need it most. To ensure fairness, SSP payments will be set at whichever is lower between the flat weekly rate of £118·75 and 80% of the employee's weekly wages. That means that the majority of people who get SSP will continue to get the flat rate. For those who already earn less than the flat rate, however, the percentage-based option ensures that no one will receive more in SSP than they would have earned through wages.

Enforcement and dispute resolution is currently carried out by HMRC on a UK-wide basis. Part 5 of the Bill proposes to transfer SSP enforcement and dispute resolution to the new Fair Work Agency. In Northern Ireland, that change will ensure that local workers will benefit from the same level of enforcement and support as workers in Great Britain. DFC will retain overarching policy responsibility for SSP and maintain an advisory role to support the Fair Work Agency.

Clause 145 will amend the Gangmasters (Licensing) Act 2004 for the purposes of abolishing the Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority (GLAA) and transferring its functions to the new Fair Work Agency.

The Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority is a non-departmental public body that is sponsored by the Home Office and operates UK-wide to tackle worker exploitation, tax evasion and health and safety negligence. In Northern Ireland, its operations are funded and managed through DAERA. The authority currently employs two Northern Ireland-based enforcement officers, and it is understood that the functions currently carried out in Northern Ireland by the authority will not change on the ground.

Schedule 11 provides transitional and saving provisions, with paragraph 19 of that schedule providing that any of the amendments to the National Minimum Wage Act 1998 made in paragraphs 17 to 23 of schedule 10 do not affect any provision of that Act relating to the operation of the Agricultural Wages (Regulation) (Northern Ireland) Order 1977. That is a simple saving provision that ensures that the Agricultural Wages (Regulation) (Northern Ireland) Order 1977 remains operable and so maintains the Agricultural Wages Board for Northern Ireland.

Schedule 7, at paragraphs 8 to 12, lists the Northern Ireland legislation that is subject to enforcement by the Fair Work Agency under Part 5 of the Bill. That relates to legislation in respect of statutory sick pay. Schedule 7, at paragraph 35, gives powers enabling the Secretary of State to increase the remit of the Fair Work Agency in the future on a range of labour market and employment legislation by adding to the list of relevant labour market legislation contained in Part 1 of schedule 7, however paragraph 35(3) requires that any such changes that include Northern Ireland devolved legislation will require the consent of the relevant Northern Ireland Department or Departments.

Clause 30 of the Bill seeks to amend the Procurement Act 2023 by allowing a UK Minister to produce and publish a code of practice in relation to the protection of workers in outsourcing arrangements by public bodies to ensure that workers are treated no less favourably than workers of the contracting authority. The Procurement Act 2023 is UK-wide; however, as procurement policy is a transferred matter, Northern Ireland has opted out of the Act for key policy matters that do not relate to trade. It is, therefore, proposed that clause 30 will apply where reserved bodies are operating in Northern Ireland; where there is joint procurement between a transferred Northern Ireland body and a UK reserved body where the UK body is in the lead role; or where a transferred Northern Ireland body uses a framework set up by a reserved body or uses a reserved central procurement authority. Clause 30 will not apply to transferred Northern Ireland public bodies except for the previously mentioned circumstances.

In summary, agreeing the LCM will bring benefits to Northern Ireland. It will ensure that employees here receive the same enhanced SSP entitlements as their counterparts in Great Britain. That uniformity will help to prevent inequalities in worker protections and will minimise administrative burdens for employers operating across the UK. Incorporating the proposed abolition of the Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority and the establishment of the Fair Work Agency avoids the need for a separate enforcement body in Northern Ireland, which would require significant time and resources to establish. The amendment to the Procurement Act 2023 will provide for the protection of workers in outsourcing arrangements by reserved public bodies operating in Northern Ireland, and the Bill has been amended to ensure that the powers enabling the Secretary of State to increase the remit of the Fair Work Agency by adding to the list of relevant labour market legislation contained in Part 1 of schedule 7 to the Bill will rely on the consent of the relevant Northern Ireland Department where they relate to Northern Ireland devolved legislation.

The proposals are not expected to have direct financial implications for the Northern Ireland block grant. At a UK level, consolidating functions under the Fair Work Agency is expected to generate efficiencies, although specific savings have not yet been quantified. While I seek to avoid using the LCM process where possible, in all the circumstances, it seems sensible to secure the benefits of the Bill for employees in Northern Ireland by agreeing to an LCM in respect of the Bill. The other Executive Ministers who are party to this LCM agree that, in these circumstances, an LCM is the best approach. The use of this procedure in this case should not be seen as a precedent or as an indication of how I intend to proceed in the future in this area. I am very aware of the importance of the Assembly's role in considering legislation and, in particular, the value of the Committee's scrutiny role.

Colm Gildernew (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

At its meeting on 27 February 2025, the Committee was briefed by officials from the Department for Communities, the Department of Finance, the Department for the Economy and the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs. The Committee was informed:

"The Bill aims to improve workers' conditions, extend employee protections, modernise employment laws and enhance existing provisions. It also allows for the establishment of a single ... enforcement body, which is to be known as the Fair Work Agency (FWA), that will bring together existing enforcement functions across a range of areas."

Those are all positive changes, which the Committee welcomes. Members were also informed that there will be an increase in cost for some employers in the North, particularly those who previously made SSP payments from the fourth day of sickness or excluded low-earning employees. Whilst we do not like to see increased costs, we were pleased to hear that they are mitigated to some degree by the broader benefits of supporting employee welfare, particularly for those who are on lower incomes, and reducing workforce disruption caused by sick workers attending work and passing on illness to others and the impact that that has on productivity.

The Committee heard that aligning with the Bill through an LCM ensures that employees here will receive the same enhanced SSP entitlements as their counterparts in other jurisdictions. That can only be a welcome measure at a time when working families are under increasing financial pressure in a cost-of-living crisis. The Committee welcomes the fact that that will prevent inequalities in workers' protections and minimise administrative burdens for employers who operate here and in Britain. The Committee asked officials what safeguards would be in place to ensure that the existing devolved employment laws were not altered without full Executive agreement. We were informed that the creation of the Fair Work Agency would have no immediate impact on devolved employment law. I welcome the comments that the Minister made at the end of his opening remarks on future changes that may be considered.

By seeking an amendment to the Bill, the Department for the Economy has future-proofed the North's option to become involved with the Fair Work Agency's work should the relevant Minister deem that to be appropriate at the time. It was reassuring to note that the Department for the Economy has been working closely with its colleagues in the Department for Business and Trade (DBT) and the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel on an amendment to the Bill that will introduce a consent mechanism to ensure that, if a future Secretary of State wants to increase the Fair Work Agency's remit so that it falls across devolved powers, they must seek the full consent of the relevant Department here and will not be able to proceed without that consent.

Members also asked about the proposal to abolish the Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority and whether any assurance could be provided that, as a result of the transition, there would be no weakening or dilution of the protection that the current level of labour market enforcement offers here, particularly in vulnerable sectors. We welcomed the officials' response that some of the benefits that will be brought about will enhance those protection levels and that the only difference that employees, employers and employee providers will notice is that, instead of having to go to multiple places when they need help, there will be a single point of access for help. The Committee also welcomed the guarantee that there will be no dilution of the protection measures that the GLAA offers. We also asked the officials whether there would be any impact on the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) as a result of the LCM. We were told that no impact is anticipated and that one of the main reasons why the Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority exists is to ensure that labour providers comply with all their statutory obligations, including, importantly, health and safety law. The Committee welcomes that reassurance.

In considering the LCM, the Committee decided that it is supportive of the provisions of the Bill that relate to statutory sick pay and believes that they will offer substantial protections to workers. The Committee also welcomes measures in the Bill that remove the eligibility requirement for earnings to be above the lower earnings limit and allow payment from the first day of any period of entitlement. The Committee is also supportive of the calls by the Equality Commission and the unions to ensure, in the context of addressing the potential for forced labour and the exploitation of migrant workers, that the remit of the FWA in the North covers all sectors of the economy in which migrant labour is prevalent; that operations in the North are sufficiently resourced; and that there is an associated focus on raising awareness of the rights of migrant workers. The Committee is also supportive of the call for union representation on the FWA. We were reassured to hear that the creation of the Fair Work Agency would have no impact on devolved employment law, as members feel that our employment and equality legislation needs to be protected. That will then ensure that the Assembly is protected and that no decisions to expand the remit of the FWA can be taken without the consent of Assembly Ministers. The Committee feels that consideration should be given to what local accountability mechanisms could be established to ensure that there is appropriate oversight of the role that the Fair Work Agency is proposed to fulfil. Consideration should also be given to the role that trade union representatives can play as part of that oversight.

We were recently informed that the House of Commons Report Stage of the Bill was held on 11 and 12 March and that Government amendments were tabled and are now in the Bill. We were made aware that the Government amendments were largely on provisions that did not engage the legislative consent mechanism and, therefore, do not come within the scope of the LCM. The Committee welcomes the relevant amendments to the Bill on SSP, the Fair Work Agency and the requirement to obtain the consent of the relevant Department here before any transferred legislation relating to employment rights can be added to the FWA's remit. Whilst the Committee is of the opinion that it prefers to see legislation originate in the Assembly, it accepts that, in this case, it is advantageous that any changes be made across all jurisdictions at the same time to ensure that people here in the North benefit from the changes brought about by the Bill. The Committee is therefore supportive of the draft legislative consent motion. On that basis, on behalf of the Committee, I support the motion.

I would like to make a few remarks as Sinn Féin communities spokesperson. Sinn Féin is broadly content with the reforms set out in the Bill, particularly the changes to statutory sick pay. Once enacted, the Bill will ensure that every worker is able to access statutory sick pay from the first day of illness. I acknowledge that the Department for the Economy is doing some interesting work on a 'good jobs' Bill, and we look forward to seeing more progress on that.

Initially, we had concerns about the Fair Work Agency, particularly the provision that allows the Secretary of State to expand the remit of the agency into devolved areas without any local democratic input. However, as I outlined in my earlier remarks, the amendment secured by the Minister for the Economy has provided an assurance that any future expansion of the FWA into devolved areas must have the consent of the Minister for the Economy and cannot proceed without that consent. It is important that the Fair Work Agency have local trade union representation on its board as a means of ensuring that workers have a voice in any discussions about the operational remit of the agency.

Finally, it is our view that local legislation is generally preferable to legislative consent motions. However, we are content that, on this occasion, the LCM provides the best mechanism for adopting the changes to ensure that we maintain parity with the other jurisdictions and that workers benefit from greater protections at the earliest possible stage.

Phillip Brett (DUP, Belfast North)

I put on record the Committee for the Economy's support for today's LCM. At the Committee for the Economy's meeting on 19 February 2025, we received oral and written evidence from the Department on the aspects of the Bill for which legislative consent is sought today. As the House is aware, although the Employment Rights Bill includes a large number of provisions, most apply only to GB. The Department briefed the Committee on those aspects of the LCM that will touch on the devolved competencies of the Assembly.

The Committee understands that the FWA is intended to bring together existing state enforcement functions and, over time, take on the enforcement of a wide range of employment rights. The FWA will be an executive agency of the Department for Business and Trade, and the Bill will allow the FWA to enforce certain employment legislation in respect of holiday and statutory sick pay throughout the United Kingdom. Officials indicated that, initially, there will be, in effect, no change to those enforcement functions in Northern Ireland, other than the establishment of the FWA and the abolishment of one body, the Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority, and one role, Director of Labour Market Enforcement.

The Bill is understood to give the Secretary of State for Business and Trade the power to make regulations to expand the remit of state enforcement functions to include other employment legislation. Those are now subject to amendments that require the consent of the Executive. The Committee for the Economy therefore agreed that it supports the LCM. On behalf of the Committee, I am happy to have outlined our support for the motion.

Kellie Armstrong (Alliance, Strangford)

Thanks to the Minister for bringing forward the LCM today. As the Committee Chair outlined, the Bill aims to improve workers' conditions, extend employee protections, modernise employment laws and enhance existing provisions.

It also allows for the establishment of a UK-wide enforcement body, which is to be known as the Fair Work Agency and about which I raised concern at the Committee at the time. That agency will bring together existing enforcement functions across a range of areas.

The Bill is substantial. Its impact is wider than usual on the devolved settlement. However, the LCM includes only a small number of provisions that appear in the Bill, as the Chair outlined. The amendments that were taken forward after the LCM are not included here. The provisions of the Bill fall under the remit of the Department for Communities, the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs, the Department for the Economy and the Department of Finance. As we heard from Mr Brett, the Department for the Economy is content with that.

I would not say that I am not content with the LCM, but I would like to highlight to the House the fact that the background paper states:

"Paragraph 27 of Schedule 5 to the Bill will allow for the Secretary of State to add enactments to the list of relevant labour market legislation under the remit of the FWA, or to vary a reference to an enactment in that list that may include Northern Ireland devolved legislation in the future. The amended text in the Bill safeguards the devolved status of employment law",

as outlined by the Chair and taken forward by the Minister for the Economy,

"whilst still affording Northern Ireland the option of utilising the FWA to enforce employment rights in the future, should the relevant Northern Ireland department deem that appropriate."

I wish to ensure that, in endorsing the LCM, the House recognises the potential for the Fair Work Agency to make changes to employment rights but only if the relevant Northern Ireland Department deems it appropriate. Therefore, I ask the Minister for Communities, who is moving the LCM on behalf of so many others, as he said, to assure the House that, if any Department deems that future Fair Work Agency changes to employment rights are appropriate for introduction in Northern Ireland, the changes will be subject to regional public accountability, as some witnesses who provided evidence to our Committee called for, and will be brought to the House for confirmation before being implemented.

There is no mention of the Windsor framework and article 2, which talks about no loss of equality and human rights for people in Northern Ireland because of Brexit. I would like an assurance from the Minister for Communities that, although the LCM and the Bill do not make reference to the Windsor framework, our equality and human rights here will not be eroded through the Fair Work Agency.

Declan McAleer (Sinn Féin, West Tyrone)

I welcome the opportunity to speak on the motion on behalf of the Committee for Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs.

On 19 November, we first considered correspondence from DAERA on the potential extension to here of provisions in the UK Employment Rights Bill that would abolish the Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority, move its enforcement powers to the Secretary of State for Business and Trade and create a UK-wide Fair Work Agency that would carry out the work of the GLAA going forward. Minister Muir was minded to agree to an extension of the powers to NI via a legislative consent motion.

We next considered the matter at our meeting of 23 January 2025, when we received an update letter from DAERA and noted that Minister Muir had now agreed to the extension of the powers to here. We were advised that, as well as DAERA, the Department for Communities, the Department of Finance and the Department for the Economy were within the scope of the Bill and that DFC would lead on the LCM.

The Committee noted that Minister Muir had indicated that he was content to support the LCM subject to the Bill's being amended in Part 2 of schedule 4 to ensure that approval from the Executive was required in the event of the Secretary of State for Business and Trade choosing to exercise the powers to amend relevant labour market legislation as set out in Part 1 of schedule 4. The Committee agreed to seek an oral briefing from DAERA and DFC officials. The briefing took place at our meeting on 20 February. We discussed the Minister's proposed amendment, which was to give assurance that the Secretary of State's powers to amend relevant labour legislation in NI would not be exercisable in the absence of Executive approval. The Committee also heard that the GLAA's functions would continue until the Fair Work Agency was operational and that there would, therefore, be no gap in the service provided to workers and employers.

The Committee heard that the Bill would bring benefits in protecting workers' rights and create a single recognisable brand for workers. The Committee then agreed to write to DAERA and the Committee for Communities in support of the LCM.

The Committee considered the matter for a final time at its meeting on 27 March, when we were advised by DAERA that further amendments to the Bill had been made as a consequence of the House of Commons Report Stage. However, none of the amendments changed the clauses to which Minister Muir had consented, and no new clauses had been introduced that were relevant to DAERA, so the LCM did not need to be amended. We noted that we had already agreed to support the LCM, that Minister Muir's requested amendment had now been included and that the Department was satisfied with the LCM as drafted.

After considering the matter at four meetings and taking oral evidence from DAERA and DFC officials, the Agriculture Committee supports the extension to here of provisions of the UK Employment Rights Bill through the LCM.

Steve Aiken (UUP, South Antrim)

Thank you very much indeed, Declan. Minister, please make the winding-up speech on the motion.

Gordon Lyons (DUP, East Antrim)

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I thank Members for their contributions to the debate. On balance, the provisions of the Bill that engage the LCM should extend to Northern Ireland. Agreeing to the LCM will allow important provisions to be enacted across the UK. I am grateful for the support that we have had across the Chamber and from the Committees.

One issue, in particular, has been raised again: that of Northern Ireland's employment legislation being added to the list of relevant legislation. Just to be clear in response to Kellie Armstrong's comment, changes that include Northern Ireland devolved legislation will require the consent of the relevant Northern Ireland Department or Departments. It is not a matter for the House or the Executive; the consent is given by the Minister, and that consent is given by way of communication between the Secretary of State and the relevant Minister.

I am grateful for the widespread support that we have in the Chamber and commend the motion to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved:

That this Assembly endorses the principle of the extension to Northern Ireland of the provisions of the Employment Rights Bill, introduced in the House of Commons on 10 October 2024, relating to statutory sick pay as contained in clauses 12 and 13 of the Bill; the Fair Work Agency under Part 5 of the Bill and the saving provisions as set out in schedule 11 to the Bill as they relate to the Agricultural Wages (Regulations) (Northern Ireland) Order 1977; in relation to public-sector outsourcing of relevant contracts by bodies carrying out reserved functions in Northern Ireland; the protection of workers as set out in clause 30 of the Bill; the enforcement of relevant labour market legislation under Part 5 of the Bill as set out in schedule 7 and enabling the Secretary of State for Business and Trade, with the consent of relevant Northern Ireland Departments, to increase the remit of the Fair Work Agency, in the future, on a range of labour market and employment legislation that may include Northern Ireland devolved legislation.

Steve Aiken (UUP, South Antrim)

Members may take their ease for a few moments before the next item of business.

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

I beg to move

That the draft Northern Ireland Climate Commissioner Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2025 be approved.

Steve Aiken (UUP, South Antrim)

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

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

Thank you, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle

[Translation: Mr Deputy Speaker]

. Today, we seek the Assembly's approval for the Northern Ireland Climate Commissioner Regulations 2025. It might be useful for Members if I set out the principal considerations that informed the preparation of the statutory rule (SR).

The Executive Office proposes to make a statutory rule under powers conferred by section 50 of the Climate Change Act 2022. When the Act was made in 2022, section 50 was an addition to the Climate Change Bill that was voted on and agreed in the Chamber. Therefore, the regulations are procedural in that they are the legislative tool for completing the establishment of the Climate Commissioner, a requirement that was made in law in 2022.

As is required by the Climate Change Act, the statutory rule is subject to the draft affirmative resolution procedure before the Assembly. The statutory rule is in line with what is allowed for in section 50 of the Act, which is that it will allow TEO to establish an independent office to be known as the "Northern Ireland Climate Commissioner" and to allow the commissioner to have the following functions. The commissioner will oversee and report on the exercise of functions of our Departments under the Act. In particular, the commissioner will be able to provide advice and make recommendations to Departments, undertake commission research and publish reports, advice, recommendations and any other relevant information. The purpose of the statutory rule is, therefore, to implement section 50 of the Climate Change Act and to establish a Climate Commissioner here.

Climate change is not a concept or a possibility; it is happening right now, and the impacts locally are as real as they are pressing. Once established, we would be the first area on these islands to have its own dedicated Climate Commissioner. They will work together with the other climate advisory bodies that operate here: the Climate Change Committee (CCC), the Office for Environmental Protection (OEP) and the just transition commission to support delivery of the Climate Change Act. That is something that, we hope, Members will get behind today.

We thank the Executive Office Committee and the Examiner of Statutory Rules for their prompt scrutiny of the regulations, and we welcome contributions from Members today.

Paula Bradshaw (Alliance, Belfast South)

The Committee first considered the draft regulations on 23 October 2024, and Members agreed to forward the SL1 letter and draft statutory rule to the Committee for Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs to seek its views before formally considering the SL1. On 20 November 2024, the Committee considered the response from the AERA Committee of 11 November. The AERA Committee indicated that it was supportive of the functions of the proposed Northern Ireland Climate Commissioner. At that meeting and having further considered the SL1, the Committee decided to withhold its consent until any amendments recommended by the Climate Change Committee had been incorporated into the regulations.

The Committee agreed to request an update on the timescales for ongoing engagement with the Climate Change Committee, as well as further information on the costs that the proposed commissioner's office would entail, the organisational structure of the new office and whether the office would remain in TEO after establishment. The response to those queries, including input from the Climate Change Committee, was received from TEO on 4 December 2024. The Committee considered the response from TEO and formally considered the SL1 for the draft regulations on 15 January 2025 and had no objection to the proposed statutory rule.

The Committee then received an oral briefing on the draft regulations, as laid before the Assembly, from the director of climate change and green growth in TEO on 19 March 2025. The Committee agreed to write to the Department to request a detailed breakdown of the £1 million per annum estimated costs for the establishment of the commissioner's office, including accounts for the salaries of the commissioner and their staff and infrastructure costs. The Committee also agreed to schedule the draft SR for consideration at the meeting of 26 March 2025.

At that meeting of 26 March, the Committee considered the answers received to its queries of 19 March and the report of the Examiner of Statutory Rules. The Examiner had no issues to raise. However, her report stated that the draft regulations contained typographical errors that had arisen as a result of a technical drafting issue. The Department is concerned and will correct those minor errors at its earliest opportunity. I am content with the approach of the Department in this instance.

The Question on the draft regulations was put to the Committee, and it divided: five members voted "Aye"; three members voted "No"; and there were no abstentions. The Committee therefore recommended that the draft Northern Ireland Climate Commissioner (Northern Ireland) Regulations 2025 be approved by the Assembly.

I will now make a few points in my capacity as an MLA. The Climate Change Act was, of course, proposed by a DUP Minister. After considerable discussion to build consensus around the content of that legislation, it was unanimously agreed at Final Stage. That included DUP MLAs, of course, who backed their Minister's Bill but also Members right across the political spectrum of the Chamber.

The incorporation of a Climate Commissioner was primarily in recognition of the cost of inaction, which would be considerably higher than the cost of a commissioner who would ensure action. Northern Ireland had already been an outlier in the UK, with a record of improvement, particularly around carbon emissions, that was notably inferior to the rest of the UK for almost the entire 21st century. It would be peculiar if unionists were to continue to argue that Northern Ireland should remain an outlier in the UK on the matter. It is worth noting that steps to combat climate change in Northern Ireland, including the appointment of —

Robbie Butler (UUP, Lagan Valley)

Will the Member give way?

Paula Bradshaw (Alliance, Belfast South)

Yes, go ahead.

Robbie Butler (UUP, Lagan Valley)

Would the Member like to reflect on her statement where she rolled all unionists into one? You talked about the DUP at the start of your statement, which was fine. However, we have not had the chance to speak in the debate yet, and you have just said, "unionists". Would you like to reflect on that statement, please?

Paula Bradshaw (Alliance, Belfast South)

Thank you for your intervention. I was referring to the unionist position at the time that the Climate Change Act was before the Assembly.

Robbie Butler (UUP, Lagan Valley)

[Inaudible.]

Paula Bradshaw (Alliance, Belfast South)

OK, that is fine, but I will reflect that the three members at the Executive Office Committee who voted against were all unionists.

Robbie Butler (UUP, Lagan Valley)

Will the Member give way?

Paula Bradshaw (Alliance, Belfast South)

No, I would like to make some progress.

It is worth noting that steps to combat climate change in Northern Ireland, including the appointment of a commissioner, are to be matched by a just transition fund for agriculture, which is now in place at £12 million. However, climate change is by no means just about agriculture, despite the fact that our departmental set-up puts Agriculture and Environment together. The very reason for having a commissioner appointed by the Executive Office is that climate change is a cross-cutting issue. We need to do much more on clean energy, which falls to the Department for the Economy. We need to do much more on active travel, which falls to the Department for Infrastructure. Clean air is a Health issue as well as an environmental one. Preparing the next generation for climate-friendly living is an Education issue. The allocation of resources to combat climate change and reduce pollution falls to Finance and even, in some instances, councils. That is why the matter cannot be left to a single Department and why we support the regulations today.

Aoife Finnegan (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

Climate change is a defining crisis of our time on a global and national scale. Through the New Decade, New Approach agreement, a commitment was made to introduce legislation and targets for reducing carbon emissions in line with the Paris Accord on climate change. That commitment resulted in the Climate Change Act that was passed in 2022, which sets out ambitious emissions reductions targets for the North to achieve net zero emissions by 2050. It established a framework to help do that and requires the Executive Office to establish an independent office for a Climate Commissioner. We need to appoint a commissioner and implement the Act. As we approach 2050 and work towards net zero, we need to honour those commitments and ensure that a commissioner is appointed and the Act is implemented. The draft regulations set an annual monitoring duty for the commissioner alongside reporting and oversight roles, mainly to manage the operations of the Act.

The cross-party support for the Act makes it essential that we see the motion passed. We are living in a climate crisis typified by extreme and unpredictable weather conditions. Locally, we have seen the impact of flooding, storms and, most recently, forest fires, which cause devastation to the environment and the communities that inhabit them. As we speak, the Mournes are burning and have been for three weeks. Just this week, we have also heard that there is an 80% chance of another massive outbreak of blue-green algae in Lough Neagh this summer.

The creation of this role is a legal obligation in the Climate Change Act. We share a moral responsibility to tackle the climate crisis that is upon us and create a Climate Commissioner. On that basis, I support the motion and encourage others to fulfil their legal and moral obligations to do so.

Harry Harvey (DUP, Strangford)

I oppose the imposition of the outworkings of the regulations, outworkings that will undoubtedly create yet another tier of bureaucracy that Northern Ireland can do well without. Whilst I acknowledge that the Executive Office is legally bound to lay the regulations before the Assembly and create a Climate Commissioner within the mandated two-year period, the DUP position on the issue remains the same as when the Bill creating the office was debated in the Chamber during the last mandate.

Philip McGuigan (Sinn Féin, North Antrim)

I thank the Member for giving way. While I no longer sit on the AERA Committee, the Member and I were colleagues on it during the lengthy debate on the Climate Change Act. He points out that the Executive Office is legally obliged: will he also consider that the wording of clause 50 of the Climate Change Act came about from an amendment brought to the House by his colleague, the Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs at the time, and that his party supported that Bill in its totality? Indeed, at its Final Stage, his colleague, the Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs, who is now the Speaker of the House, said, in the Chamber:

"I am grateful for the support that my Bill" —

his words —

"has received during its passage through the Assembly. Climate change affects everyone in" —

NI —

"and on the planet, and it requires people to respond at local and global levels. As politicians, we have a duty to take action to ensure that our environmental footprint becomes less significant and that we produce a sustainable economic and environmental model where both can prosper." — [Official Report (Hansard), 9 March 2022, p2, col 1].

Steve Aiken (UUP, South Antrim)

Philip — Mr McGuigan, there is ample time for you to speak in the debate. I can add you to the list if you so wish.

Philip McGuigan (Sinn Féin, North Antrim)

I will finish, Mr Deputy Speaker.

Steve Aiken (UUP, South Antrim)

Interventions are supposed to be short. You and I both know that your intervention is well beyond what it should be, but I am more than happy to add you to the list.

Philip McGuigan (Sinn Féin, North Antrim)

I just want to make the point again that the Act was supported not only by the DUP but by the Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs, who was a DUP Minister.

Harry Harvey (DUP, Strangford)

I thank the Member for his intervention and comments.

Let me be clear: legislation to tackle climate-related environmental issues is a necessity. It is vital that, as custodians of the planet and the world around us, we take our role seriously and seek to live more sustainably. Our party continues to champion sustainable industries and efforts to tackle environmental harm as we collectively seek to legislate to protect our natural assets. We cannot, however, permit ourselves to operate in a bubble on the issue, however genuine our motivation may be.

There is a cost to everything, and, in an era in which we constantly ask ourselves whether we are getting value for money, I fail to see how the outworkings of the regulations represent value for money to the taxpayer. I fail to see how an estimated annual cost of £1 million to facilitate the creation and functioning of the office of a Climate Commissioner represents good value for money. The existence of a commissioner will do absolutely nothing to address the issues. It must be considered what an additional £1 million could do if it were used to tackle the likes of the Lough Neagh crisis or if it were invested in sustainable infrastructure or in the use of green energy across the government estate. All those examples would represent tangible benefits in addressing environmental issues across Northern Ireland. I am concerned that the regulations merely divert much-needed finance to administrative costs.

Deborah Erskine (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

Will the Member give way?

Harry Harvey (DUP, Strangford)

Yes, of course.

Deborah Erskine (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

The Member has rightly pointed out the financial impacts and constraints. I will put the DUP's position on the record. We objected to the amendment at the time, but, once it was made, we would have had to vote down the entire Bill. Doing so would have knocked out everything.

Harry Harvey (DUP, Strangford)

I thank the Member for her intervention and comments.

Given that my party and the TUV were the only parties to reject the creation of a commissioner initially, it will be interesting to see whether other parties in the Chamber continue their support for the office. It will also be interesting to note whether, when it is created, those parties take any of the advice or recommendations from the commissioner's office under their notice. I suspect that that will be the case only if the new commissioner plays the right tune. When presented with recommendations and advice in the past from UK-wide expert bodies, such as the UK Climate Change Committee, that advice was ignored, as it did not suit parties' political agendas. Even if we accept that there is some value in creating the position, the role of the commissioner has already been undermined by the failure to consult him on the content of the current carbon budgets and the 2040 emissions targets.

Paula Bradshaw (Alliance, Belfast South)

I thank the Member for giving way. I appreciate his setting out his party's position. As I outlined, we discussed the regulations on at least five occasions in Committee. It was only at the last moment that one line was read out to say that the DUP was not in support of them. Committee members from the DUP had the opportunity on many occasions to raise their concerns and ask TEO officials for guidance and information. They never took that opportunity.

Harry Harvey (DUP, Strangford)

I thank the Member for her intervention and comments. We raised our objections at the proper time, thank you.

This is mandated in section 23 of the Climate Change Act. How are we to expect that any commissioner will represent value for money when we are coming so late to the game. The Office for Environmental Protection —.

Sinéad Ennis (Sinn Féin, South Down)

Go raibh maith agat.

[Translation: Thank you.]

I appreciate the Member's giving way. I find it bizarre that the DUP and the Member are encouraging a race to the bottom. Does the Member not agree that investing in climate action is a bargain but waiting for climate collapse definitely is not?

Harry Harvey (DUP, Strangford)

I thank the Member for her intervention. Indeed, we want to invest our money wisely.

As I was saying, the Office for Environmental Protection and the UK Climate Change Committee, which are both expert bodies in the field, have ably provided guidance and advice on these matters in the past. I see no need to duplicate their role. At a time when hospitals and schools need funding and families are dealing with the continuing effects of the cost-of-living crisis, I cannot, in good conscience, support the creation of further bureaucracy in the system.

John Stewart (UUP, East Antrim)

Climate change is one of the defining challenges of our time. We all recognise that there is an urgent need for robust, independent oversight as we strive to meet our net zero obligations by 2050. However, it is important to remember the financial reality: we need to balance our climate obligations against the need to deliver high-quality public services for all our people. The creation of an independent Northern Ireland Climate Commissioner, as provided for in section 50 of the Climate Change Act (Northern Ireland) 2022, is a logical and necessary first step. The new office will have a clear remit to oversee and report on departmental compliance with climate obligations, offer expert advice, commission research and publish findings and recommendations to guide policy and delivery. It is also right that the commissioner operate independently of Departments such as DAERA, DFI and DFE, which will be tasked with delivering the actions that the commissioner monitors. I note that the NICC's placement in the Executive Office is a deliberate act to ensure separation of leadership from the centre of government.

While the UUP supports the establishment of the commissioner in principle, I must highlight concerns around cost, sustainability and timing. We are told that the commissioner's office is expected to cost approximately £1 million per annum. That is significant recurring expenditure at a time when our public finances are under considerable strain.

Deborah Erskine (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I thank the Member for giving way. Does he accept, as I do, the fact that there is a UK Climate Change Committee, which is an expert body in looking at these issues for the whole UK? Why would we spend that amount of money when that body is already in place?

John Stewart (UUP, East Antrim)

I thank the Member for that intervention. She will realise that, as a devolved region, we control our own Departments and that, while the Climate Change Committee exists and offers some advice, the Climate Commissioner will specifically oversee our Departments.

A Member

[Inaudible.]

John Stewart (UUP, East Antrim)

Sorry, are you seeking to make an intervention? I thought that you were speaking to me. I will move on.

The commissioner's office is expected to cost approximately £1 million per annum, which is significant expenditure at a time when we are under strain. We face acute pressures across our health service, education system and community infrastructure. Every pound must be carefully weighed. The Executive's "Planet" mission in the Programme for Government is commendable, balancing green growth and an equitable, just transition, but we must ask whether this is the right moment to commit substantial new funding to the establishment of another body and is well intentioned.

I note that, while the regulations have been carefully drafted and comply with the enabling power of the Climate Change Act, there has not been a full public consultation. I appreciate that the Act does not require one, but transparency and public engagement are essential, so it would be good to have that.

Moving forward, it is critical that the office deliver. It must not become a well-meaning but costly entity that publishes reports without delivering meaningful change. It must hold Departments accountable, challenge when necessary and support the practical implementation of climate policy, especially where delivery lags behind ambition.

We will not oppose the regulations, as we welcome their strategic intent and the focus on strong and independent oversight, but I urge Ministers to be careful of the cost — not only the financial cost but the cost to public trust when delivering during this mandate. I reiterate that, as we strive to meet our climate obligations and to play our part, we must ensure that that is not at the expense of our people and does not further undermine the delivery of high-quality public services in an area in which these institutions are already under considerable strain.

Sinéad McLaughlin (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

My SDLP colleagues and I warmly welcome the appointment of Northern Ireland's first Climate Commissioner.

The SDLP has long championed the creation of an independent office to oversee and scrutinise our collective efforts to meet climate targets. The Assembly agreed to that in 2022.

Today marks progress, but it is also a reminder of how far we have yet to go. As I have said before and, no doubt, will have to say again and again, Northern Ireland will not, on its current trajectory, reach net zero until the year 2118. That is not just disappointing; it is unacceptable for our people, the planet and, above all, the future generations who will pay the price of our inaction. What makes it worse is that we were once ahead of our neighbours and counterparts, east and south, in our ambition to tackle climate breakdown. However, we have fallen behind. That is a truth that we must face.

It is not all bad news, though. Northern Ireland will now be the first region in the UK to establish its Climate Commissioner. That is a significant achievement and we should be proud of it: while others talk about independent oversight, we are putting it in place. That is not just symbolic; it is structural, and it sets us apart. It sends a signal to investors, communities and the next generation that Northern Ireland is serious about green transition and wants it to happen. Importantly, placing the commissioner in the Executive Office will allow them to operate with the independence that the role requires. Given how cross-cutting the climate challenge is — it spans Agriculture, Infrastructure, Communities, Economy and much more — separation from departmental silos is essential. Now is our chance to act more decisively.

The levers that we need to deliver a just, green and ambitious transition are all within our grasp, but we must be bold enough to use them, create certainty for businesses, empower communities and take part in local climate action to ensure that no worker is left behind in this economic transformation.

As others have said, this is a legal obligation of the Climate Change Act. I was somewhat surprised by the DUP's position at the Committee. It was a little bit johnny-come-lately. Once again, I fear that the DUP, instead of leading, is following, and it is following the TUV. That is not leading and it is not leadership.

John Blair (Alliance, South Antrim)

Like my Alliance colleague who spoke previously, I am pleased to support these long-awaited regulations, which will represent, if passed, a significant step forward in our ongoing journey to a more environmentally sustainable future for Northern Ireland.

The appointment is not merely a legal requirement. The proposed Climate Commissioner will play a pivotal role in managing the delivery of our climate policies, advocating for nature recovery and supporting initiatives crucial to the protection of our species, populations, habitats and ecosystems. It is therefore crucial that the regulations before us be put in place so that the required progress is made.

We have faced instability in our Assembly and subsequent gaps in delivering crucial climate policies, including our pledge to support the appointment of a Climate Commissioner. Some are still trying to delay progress, raising concerns about costs and bureaucratic processes. Such delays and indecision jeopardise Northern Ireland's position in the global effort to protect our environment and, more importantly, the well-being of our communities. We cannot allow hesitation to hinder our progress any further.

Let us be clear: our planet must take precedence over short-term financial concerns. The nominal costs associated with establishing the commissioner should be viewed through the lens of the long-term benefits of a sustainable environment and what that will yield for communities and future generations. Unfortunately, some parties, including, very obviously, the DUP, continue to voice scepticism about the necessity of a Northern Ireland Climate Commissioner. However, we cannot afford to overlook the scientific consensus on the issue. The UK Climate Change Committee has publicly welcomed the establishment of such a role and highlighted the urgent need for strong leadership and coordinated action in addressing the climate crisis. That same —.

Philip McGuigan (Sinn Féin, North Antrim)

I thank the Member for giving way. He highlighted the fact that others have raised the issue of costs. He rightly points out the global damage to the environment, but, if we look much closer to home, 30 miles down the road, at the gorse fires in County Down and, indeed, in County Antrim, we will see that the cost of not doing the right thing for our environment and our climate will be far more expensive in the long run.

John Blair (Alliance, South Antrim)

I thank the Member for the intervention, and I welcome the example that he gave. I can add another one — I am sure that he would agree with this — which is the rise in the water temperature in Lough Neagh. I know only too well about that in my constituency, and it will probably play out in the news again very soon this year. Additionally, in looking at our global responsibilities, however, we should acknowledge the fact that net zero targets that established national Governments set represent at least 87% of global greenhouse gas emission targets, so there is also a crucial part to play there.

As climate-related events escalate worldwide, the call for urgent action has never been clearer. It is our collective responsibility to support the draft regulations today, recognising that immediate action is required and that further delays are simply not an option. We are more than a quarter of a way through the 21st century, yet the climate crisis remains real and urgent, as world events show us on an increasingly regular basis. It is now time to get on with it.

Brian Kingston (DUP, Belfast North)

No one in the Assembly doubts the need for us to be good guardians of our natural environment and to recognise where human activity is causing damage to our environment and our planet. At every level of society, we need to play our part in reducing harmful emissions and unnecessary waste and in increasing recycling. However, the headline commitments in recent climate regulations have been highly aspirational and devoid of a concrete assessment of the policies and proposals that Departments would need to advance. Despite that, there are estimated net costs of £479 million for carbon budgets to 2037 and £707 million under the revised emission targets for 2040. Those are huge sums, considering the deep financial pressures that public services face.

Throughout the advancement of the Climate Change Act (Northern Ireland) 2022, which was a political compromise in the face of a rival, private Member's Bill from the Green Party that would have gone even further, the DUP sought to protect agriculture and the taxpayer in Northern Ireland from unrealistic demands. We question the value of establishing a Climate Commissioner at a cost of in the region of £1 million per annum, which is not an insignificant sum, and whether such a post would contribute anything to what already exists through the Climate Change Committee and the Office for Environmental Protection. It remains our view that, given the state of public services, including the pressures facing health, education, infrastructure, policing and all other services, any business case that is developed to operationalise the commissioner's office should not be railroaded through at the expense of projects that are, to all intents and purposes, more important and impactful for the people, communities and groups that face significant challenges in everyday life.

John Blair (Alliance, South Antrim)

Will the Member give way?

Brian Kingston (DUP, Belfast North)

No, I will carry on; there is plenty of speaking time for all.

There has been a degree of revisionism in this place, and we have heard it in the debate, on the DUP's position on a Climate Commissioner. The record is clear: we opposed outright the establishment of such a position and voted against a host of amendments that sought to progress that proposal under various guises. At Consideration Stage of the Climate Change (No. 2) Bill, Tom Buchanan raised the following questions, which remain as valid today as they were then.

What will an additional body deliver:

"over and above the role of the independent Climate Change Committee?"

Where are the gaps:

"to justify another body being set up to provide ... advice that is already being given"?

He continued:

"To set this up and to fund it will cost us millions, with set-up costs, staff costs and running costs. Who will pay the price? Will it be Health? Will it be Education?"

Will it be policing? Or:

"Will it be our community groups?" — [Official Report (Hansard), 1 February 2022, p149, col 1].

During the passage of the Act, no thought was given to how a commissioner would interact with the Climate Change Committee or the Office for Environmental Protection. No financial modelling was provided, and there was no proper consultation or impact assessment. The Climate Change Committee's response to the consultation on the draft regulations for a Climate Commissioner was, in part, to point out the potential for its role to overlap with that of any new Climate Commissioner. It beggars belief that we are going down the road of a possible duplication, at a cost to the public purse, when no such office exists in any other region of the United Kingdom.

Robbie Butler (UUP, Lagan Valley)

I am often asked why I joined the Ulster Unionist Party and not the DUP, particularly when I am interviewed by young people. It is because of moments such as this, and that is the honest truth.

Some Members

Do not be ridiculous.

Robbie Butler (UUP, Lagan Valley)

That is the honest truth. I am going to speak the truth, and I am going to speak for a unionism that is not in denial. It is a unionism that speaks to reality head-on. I am disappointed with the Chair of the Executive Office Committee for othering unionism. I will put that in context. I asked the Chair to clarify her statement and her use of the word "unionist" to describe a homogenous group of people. Unionists are free thinkers, and that is probably why we have a number of parties: because we are not afraid to speak out on important issues. I hope that the Chair reflects on that.

Paula Bradshaw (Alliance, Belfast South)

Will the Member give way?

Robbie Butler (UUP, Lagan Valley)

I absolutely will.

Paula Bradshaw (Alliance, Belfast South)

The problem, when we sit on these Benches and look across, is that there are very few issues on which you vote in a different Lobby from other unionist parties. It is very easy for us to see that you, in many ways, are a block.

Robbie Butler (UUP, Lagan Valley)

I thank the Member for her intervention. The Member did not engage with my point. I talked about using the word "unionist". I suggest that someone looks through Hansard and Twitter to see how many times the word "nationalist" is used to describe either Sinn Féin or the SDLP. It is probably zero. However, she has no problem with the use of the word "unionist" to talk about unionist parties.

Back to the matter under debate. A unionism that does not cherish the environment or speak to the truth of climate change is not strong. I suggest that it is brittle. We see the devastation caused by the wildfires, the scorched fields, the blackened hills and the exhausted firefighters, and yet we hear the commentary today about the fiscal appropriation of what we are trying to do. Where is the depth? Where is the sincerity?

Let me give you some testimony and background to show why this is important to me. When I joined the Fire Brigade in 2000, for the first four or five years, I probably dealt with three or four grass or gorse fires in that time. There were no major or significant incidents. The fires happened in small numbers. Since that time, worldwide, probably led most effectively in Spain, but we have spoken into it for quite a few years now, is the growing propensity, risk and cost of wildfires in Northern Ireland.

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

Will the Member give way?

Robbie Butler (UUP, Lagan Valley)

Yes.

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

Will the Member add to that the growing cost of the recent storms and floods and the costs associated with the rising temperatures, which have contributed to the algal bloom in Lough Neagh?

Robbie Butler (UUP, Lagan Valley)

I thank the Member for his intervention. I absolutely agree.

I will set a bit more of the context. Why do I think that this is absolutely necessary? For five years out of the past eight, we did not have any ministerial lead on anything in this country for health, education, wildfires or the climate. Let us not lose sight of ourselves here, guys. People are going to put their trust in us. Do we deserve it? No, we do not. We have no stability or credibility, and that is what we are trying to achieve. We are looking at a body that will still be created, that we can still speak to and that we can still change. But let me tell you this —.

Peter Martin (DUP, North Down)

Will the Member give way?

Robbie Butler (UUP, Lagan Valley)

I will let you in in a wee second.

One week of wildfires in Northern Ireland costs more than £1 million. Just for that week, not for the reparation, not for fixing back or building back. What else happens in that week when we spend at least £1 million on a major incident? We put people's lives at risk.

Philip McGuigan (Sinn Féin, North Antrim)

Will the Member give way?

Peter Martin (DUP, North Down)

Will the Member give way?

Robbie Butler (UUP, Lagan Valley)

Give me one second. I am very popular today. One wee second. I will let you in, because it is genuinely important to talk about the issue.

It is probably £1 million per week, and there is another cost that nobody has mentioned today, especially when the fire is in the Mournes. There are two dams in the Mournes that supply our drinking water. How much does it cost to clean that water after a fire? After the last burn, it cost £890,000 to clean the drinking water. We have to be fiscally appropriate, but let us talk about all the costs.

Peter Martin (DUP, North Down)

I thank the Member for giving way. Given the number of interventions, he is certainly very popular, and I appreciate this opportunity to make a couple of points. We have talked about wildfires, but as far as I understand it, those were set deliberately, and there is an investigation into that. On the wider point, though, it is this place's responsibility to make good decisions. The Member has highlighted that in this debate, but we are talking about £1 million here. My party's point is that agencies are already in place to do that work. It is not about climate change: we all agree that action needs to be taken, but there are agencies in place to do that, and £1 million could be invested in school counselling or in Health for core grant funding in the community.

I reflect to the Member that his Minister rightfully comes to the Chamber and often talks about a lack of funding —

Robbie Butler (UUP, Lagan Valley)

An intervention is supposed to be short.

Peter Martin (DUP, North Down)

I will be short. That money could be used more effectively elsewhere.

Steve Aiken (UUP, South Antrim)

Will the Member take his seat? I had a discussion with Mr McGuigan earlier about stretching the boundaries of an intervention. There is ample opportunity for you to put your name down if you so wish. Do you wish to put your name down? No. Well, that is fine. We will keep it nice and short, then. Thank you for your intervention — I think. Mr Butler?

Robbie Butler (UUP, Lagan Valley)

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. The Member has put his point on the record. Equally, I have set out why it would be penny wise and pound foolish to suggest such a thing. The Member will understand that that £1 million is set aside for this purpose. It is not something that a Minister can bid for and then allow to be traded off.

Wildfires are avoidable. They may be, and predominantly are, set deliberately. However, the reality is that because of climate change, the fire loading in those mountains and grassland areas is significantly worse than it was 20, 25 or 30 years ago. I am glad that the Member has put on the record that this is not about climate denial. I hope that other Members will speak to that.

John Blair (Alliance, South Antrim)

Will the Member give way?

Robbie Butler (UUP, Lagan Valley)

At this point, to be fair, it is right to be fiscally appropriate and the DUP has centred on the figure of £1 million. I think that Mr Carroll had asked for an intervention first.

Gerry Carroll (People Before Profit Alliance, Belfast West)

I thank the Member for giving way. Is the Member concerned that gorse fires are happening generally but also, seemingly, there is no record kept of how many occur? Leaving aside whether it should happen at all, there is a requirement for farmers to notify the Department before a gorse fire. Beyond two applications for consent in the past five years, no record is kept of people notifying the Department. Does the Member have any concerns about that?

Robbie Butler (UUP, Lagan Valley)

I thank the Member for raising that. One of the things that I am frustrated about at the moment is that while, to his credit, in 2021 the then Minister, Mr Poots, embarked on a strategy for tackling those types of incidents, that piece of work, unfortunately, has still not seen the light of day. I do not know whether that is down to political failure. We need to get to the bottom of that to find out why we have not —. I will give way.

Sinéad Ennis (Sinn Féin, South Down)

I appreciate that the Member has been generous with his time. Mr Kingston posed the question: who will pay the price? Does the Member agree that communities in the Mournes have had to deal with not only this wildfire but previous incidents in 2004, 2011 and 2021? People are still dealing with the impact of the floods. Ordinary people's energy bills are going up. Those are the people who will pay the price for the DUP and others' cowardice when it comes to this matter.

Robbie Butler (UUP, Lagan Valley)

I thank the Member; she has put her points on the record. I agree with the first part of what she said. There are legitimate reasons why people should question when we spend £1 million on setting up an agency. We do not want a body, whether it is arm's-length or totally independent, to be without function or purpose and not have deliverables. The outcomes will be really important, but the impacts are on our communities. In the Mournes, for example, cover is provided by retained firefighters. There are no full-time fire stations there. Those firefighters are men and women who are pulled out of their everyday jobs to spend 16 or 18 hours up a mountain. That has impacts on their families and the businesses in the area. Those impacts are probably not even captured. I am going to let Mr Blair in.

John Blair (Alliance, South Antrim)

I thank the Member, who has been incredibly patient. I want to ask him two things. First — I hope that he does not mind me asking — does he feel that some of what we are hearing today from the DUP is a bit rich, considering that that party thought that it was OK to spend around or over a quarter of a million pounds on magnetic pouches for a very limited number of schoolkids? Secondly, the Member has covered well the cost of doing nothing. On that theme, apart from the fact that doing nothing is much more expensive in the longer term, does he agree that the Climate Commissioner could play a vital role in ensuring that public funds are best spent in a coordinated and targeted way?

Robbie Butler (UUP, Lagan Valley)

I thank the Member for his input. Fiscal appropriation should be the concern of all the Ministries, Departments and Members here. I have no issue with that.

In reality, what we have faced over the past couple of weeks — we have all spoken about it and made comment on it — is avoidable. Some Members have said that the burning was deliberate, but we can embark on a package of work, and the Climate Commissioner and the commission can play a specific role in that. Why would that be important to Northern Ireland? It is because Northern Ireland should set the standard for everything. We should not be behind the eight ball when it comes to protecting and cherishing our environment and being the lead voice in making Northern Ireland the place that it should be. Part of that is about protecting our environment and heritage, not to mention the impact on our wildlife.

I do not want to demonise anyone, but we need to get on with this at pace.

Timothy Gaston (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

Going by the debate so far, I have no doubt that the regulations that are before the House will be approved, but I welcome the fact that, after I raised questions on 19 March, DUP colleagues joined me in making similar points the following week in Committee.

Regardless of the motive, there are good reasons for opposing the regulations. Northern Ireland will be the first region in the UK to have its very own Climate Commissioner. When I look at all the things on which we fall behind, I have to ask why we are taking the lead on this. Importantly, the Executive Office Committee has received evidence that the commissioner will require a budget of around £1 million per annum. It is estimated that the commissioner will have 15 staff. I contrast that with other important bodies, such as Intertrade UK, which has an independent budget of zero and an independent staff of zero. No one used the appointment of a Climate Commissioner as a reason to get this place up and running, but some unionists claimed that Intertrade UK was in that category.

I will ask those who champion climate alarmism four fundamental questions. A number of Members have, rightly, made interventions, so if any of them want to make an intervention to answer my questions as I go on, I will be happy to give way.

Can you provide any data on the impact of climate change on Northern Ireland? I look to Mr McGuigan, Mr Stewart, Mr Butler and Mr Blair: does anyone want to give me that detail?

Robbie Butler (UUP, Lagan Valley)

Will the Member give way?

Timothy Gaston (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

Go ahead.

Robbie Butler (UUP, Lagan Valley)

On the Northern Ireland-specific facts, we have a stand-alone Fire and Rescue Service. It is unique on these islands. Every Fire and Rescue Service in England, Scotland and Wales relies on the support of other services. We do not: we have a stand-alone service. When we have a spate of such incidents, therefore, which are happening with greater regularity and ferocity because — this is unarguable — of climate change, why would we not use the data that we have, which is our data, and respond accordingly to protect our environment?

Timothy Gaston (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

Mr Butler, we have changes in climate. My goodness, we had the medieval warm period. Was it a renegade step that the Vikings did not come forward with a climate commissioner to sort out all their problems? The Thames froze. These are natural cycles.

Robbie Butler (UUP, Lagan Valley)

Will the Member give way?

Timothy Gaston (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

Absolutely. Go on ahead, Mr Butler.

Robbie Butler (UUP, Lagan Valley)

The Member's strategy is simply to do nothing. We can do something, but his strategy is to do nothing. What sort of politics is that?

Timothy Gaston (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

We have heard in the debate that we have a body that can oversee and look at these issues. Mr Butler denies the fact that climate changes come and go.

Sinéad McLaughlin (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

Will the Member give way?

Timothy Gaston (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

Yes, Ms McLaughlin.

Sinéad McLaughlin (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

Mr Gaston, in the House last week, you said that you wanted a green transition. You wanted Ballymena to be a hydrogen hub —

Timothy Gaston (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

Absolutely.

Sinéad McLaughlin (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

— because of climate change.

Timothy Gaston (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

No, no.

Sinéad McLaughlin (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

No, you cannot have that one day and have nothing the next day. Climate change is either happening or it is not; it either is a crisis or it is not. You cannot just pick and choose your fights.

Timothy Gaston (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

As I said in the House last week, Ms McLaughlin — indeed, she was in the Chamber at the time — I recognise where the economy is going, so I make no apology for championing North Antrim and championing Wrightbus to deliver new buses, but, my goodness, we have not heard anybody come up with a fact or a figure today to tell us what the benefits of having a Climate Commissioner will be.

My second question is —.

John Blair (Alliance, South Antrim)

Will the Member give way?

Timothy Gaston (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

Yes, go on ahead, Mr Blair.

[Laughter.]

John Blair (Alliance, South Antrim)

I will give the Member a figure. The water temperature of Lough Neagh has risen by over 1°C, and he has seen the consequences. Climate change has been a contributing factor. It is not the only factor, but it has certainly been a contributing factor. Separately, when it comes to global responsibility — I would really like the Member to tell me what his global responsibility is — the Global South, which has undeniably contributed far less to climate change than industrialised and developed areas, is in a situation in which millions of people are already facing displacement from their home because of rising sea levels. Can the Member therefore define for the House his global responsibility?

Timothy Gaston (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

I am here to talk about Northern Ireland. The Member talks about 1°C, but he fails to take into account the mass amounts of sewage that are being deposited into Lough Neagh. That also creates blue-green algae and has a big effect on the quality of our drinking water.

I will move on to my next question. How are we to assess the success of the commissioner?

[Pause.]

No? Nobody has taken me up on that one, so I will move on to my next question. What change to global temperatures will there be if he or she is the most successful commissioner that we could possibly have?

John Blair (Alliance, South Antrim)

I understand that the situation will be slightly better than medieval warming.

Timothy Gaston (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

Is that an intervention? I have no idea, Mr Blair, whether you are —.

Steve Aiken (UUP, South Antrim)

Mr Blair.

John Blair (Alliance, South Antrim)

I thought that he had given way, Mr Deputy Speaker.

Timothy Gaston (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

Yes, I —

Steve Aiken (UUP, South Antrim)

No, he did not.

Timothy Gaston (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

— will give way. Take to your feet. Do you want to come in, Mr Blair?

John Blair (Alliance, South Antrim)

No.

Timothy Gaston (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

Nothing. That is OK. I gave you the opportunity.

If the UK were fortunate enough to have the most excellent Climate Commissioners in all four nations, what would be the impact be on global temperatures? I say to all the climate alarmists and all those with facts and figures that, once again, I am prepared to give way. Ms McLaughlin, you are smiling. Anybody? Officials were not able to answer those questions in Committee. MLAs? No? I will therefore move on. Unless and until those questions can be answered, this project has to be considered questionable.

Yesterday in the House, the Minister of Finance told me that he would have to examine the case put forward by the Chief Constable for the PSNI to get more funding. Who has examined the case for a Climate Commissioner against the impact that a commissioner will have on the climate? I dare say nobody. I put it to the House that, for the money involved, there are many more worthy causes that should be placed ahead of having a Climate Commissioner.

I will also explore some fundamental, factual issues with commissioners. At the Committee for the Executive Office, we were told that the suggested annual budget of £1 million was based on what one would expect a commissioner's office to cost. The Executive Office Committee has recently been looking at issues related to historical childhood abuse. We have a Commissioner for Survivors of Institutional Childhood Abuse. From what I have seen, she is doing a very good job and is an excellent fit for the role. Does she have a budget of £1 million? What was her budget to highlight her work and to look out for victims outside of Northern Ireland? Was it anywhere close to £1 million? Absolutely not. I would like the First Minister, when she is summing up, to pick up on that point.

Furthermore, I will contrast the proposed powers of the Climate Commissioner with those of the proposed Commissioner for the Ulster-Scots and the Ulster-British Tradition. The Climate Commissioner, who will take up office should the regulations pass, will, according to regulation 4, have powers to:

"(a) provide advice and make recommendations; (b) undertake or commission research; (c) publish— (i) reports, (ii) advice and recommendations, (iii) other relevant information."

When I compare that with section 3 of the Identity and Language (Northern Ireland) Act 2022, I discover that, unlike the Climate Commissioner, the Commissioner for the Ulster-Scots and the Ulster-British Tradition will have no powers to make recommendations and no powers to commission research or publish material pertaining to his or her office.

Whether it be on budget or powers, it seems as though some commissioners are more equal than others.

Members, we all have a responsibility to steward our environment and pass it on to the next generation in a better shape.

Danny Donnelly (Alliance, East Antrim)

Will the Member give way?

Timothy Gaston (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

I am happy to give way to Mr Donnelly.

Danny Donnelly (Alliance, East Antrim)

There is worldwide scientific consensus that climate change is happening and is man-made, resulting from the burning of fossil fuels. Organisations such as NASA, the Royal Society and the Met Office are all very clear on that. Does the Member know better than them?

Timothy Gaston (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

Once again, I ask the Member this: what difference will that commissioner make here in Northern Ireland?

Danny Donnelly (Alliance, East Antrim)

You have no answer.

Timothy Gaston (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

What will —?

[Interruption.]

One Member at a time.

Steve Aiken (UUP, South Antrim)

Members.

Danny Donnelly (Alliance, East Antrim)

[Interruption.]

Steve Aiken (UUP, South Antrim)

Mr Donnelly, behave. We are having a fruitful debate, and I am allowing a degree of movement because many Members have considerable views. However, I will not tolerate shouting across the Chamber like that — not in this place. This is not the Dáil.

[Laughter.]

Over to you, Mr Gaston.

Timothy Gaston (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

Thank you very much, Mr Deputy Speaker. You raised a very good point about the Dáil and the conduct of its Members. You would not get that in Stormont.

We all hear well and good about the commissioner and what they are going to do. I will make a point that I made at Committee: once the commissioner is in place, there will be extra bureaucracy for businesses. Mr Butler is the Chairman of the Agriculture Committee. My goodness, once the Climate Commissioner comes into place in Northern Ireland, they are going to have a devastating impact on our agri—.

Declan McAleer (Sinn Féin, West Tyrone)

I thank the Member for taking an intervention. Clearly, he is a climate change denier. The agri-food industry is so important to here. Does the Member accept that, if this region were labelled as one that is not fulfilling its global commitments in regard to climate change, that would have a devastating impact on our agri-food industry? International customers would vote with their feet.

Timothy Gaston (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

The net zero Bill, which was rushed through this place at the end of the previous mandate, basically put a knife through a lot of our agri-industry. In years to come, our stock numbers will be slashed. I have no doubt that the commissioner will add an extra burden.

Declan McAleer (Sinn Féin, West Tyrone)

Will the Member give way?

Timothy Gaston (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

Yes.

Declan McAleer (Sinn Féin, West Tyrone)

Has the Member been following at all the legislation that Minister Muir is introducing? The Department is introducing measures by which we can meet our targets without slashing the national herd.

Timothy Gaston (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

I hope that that is a commitment and that, when the new commissioner is in place, they will not challenge that.

The people who are best placed to look after our environment are our farmers. They have done that very well for the past number of years. No farmer wants to damage the landscape; they want to have the most efficient landscape in the best shape possible and to have the best produce. I will take no slight to the agriculture industry in this place. Indeed, at every opportunity, I will stick up for the farmer.

Declan McAleer (Sinn Féin, West Tyrone)

Will the Member give way?

Timothy Gaston (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

One more.

Declan McAleer (Sinn Féin, West Tyrone)

We accept the importance of farmers: they are the custodians of the countryside, and 75% of the land here is farmed. Does the Member accept that, if this region were considered one that does not meet its global responsibilities towards climate change and the environment, that would have a detrimental impact on our farmers in marketing their produce on the international stage?

Timothy Gaston (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

As we have already heard, we have a UK-wide oversight body that is in charge of all this. Why does Northern Ireland think that it knows best? It will create an empire of 15 additional staff, who will put bureaucracy above and beyond what there already is. I certainly do not believe in that. It is not the best use —.

Jonathan Buckley (DUP, Upper Bann)

I thank the Member for giving way. We hear Members talk about the protection of Northern Ireland agriculture. They say that, if we do not comply with targets or meet the vast swathes of regulations on climate change, we will, in some way, be at a loss. However, a number of years ago, China was building two new coal plants each week.

How does the Member think that a Climate Commissioner specifically for Northern Ireland will benefit the Northern Ireland public?

Timothy Gaston (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

Thank you very much, Mr Buckley. I hope that, throughout my speech, I have shown that I do not believe that the Climate Commissioner will bring anything to Northern Ireland. I do not think that they will bring any benefit. I believe that they will bring only bureaucracy and more headaches for business and our agri-industry. I am very happy, at the end of the debate, to be the only one in that position, though, hopefully, the DUP will divide the House on this, and I certainly will vote against the establishment of this commissioner. It is not the right time, there is no need for the post, and that £1 million would be better spent elsewhere.

Gerry Carroll (People Before Profit Alliance, Belfast West)

The previous contribution would have been a good comedy act if the issue were not so serious: the future of the planet and life itself on it. Obviously, there is a need for a robust Climate Commissioner with teeth to act and enforce a change of policy and action, but I remain unconvinced that this legislation will actually achieve that. The legislation states that the commissioner will provide advice and recommendations to Departments here on how to manage the transition to a net zero economy. Providing advice and recommendations is all that they are allowed to do. The obvious question is this: will the Executive actually act on those recommendations? Other activists will be asking that as well.

The CCC letter states:

"the priority should be to determine clearly the nature of the Commissioner's role, and then to ensure that the functions and powers provided for are suitable to deliver the role effectively. We recognise that the Act is limited as to what it says around the Commissioner's duties, so the draft Regulations may not be the best place for providing such detail."

That is not quite coming out of the traps fighting, to put it mildly. On the role of the commissioner, it also states that the commissioner, going back to my earlier point, will provide advice and recommendations to Departments on how to manage the transition to a net zero economy. As part of that, I emphasise the point that the commissioner engage with a range of stakeholders, whether it be the farming community, businesses or the community sector. The commissioner will have to engage across the board. It may look like innocuous stuff at first glance, but I believe that that will give cover to inaction, which will be presented as the farming community being opposed to this, that and the other, even though most farmers, despite protests from the big agri sector, need and want to see climate action.

Given what we have heard from one Executive party, I am concerned that the Executive have the power to include a clause to allow the office to continue to function in the event of a vacancy or defect in the appointment or reappointment. So, if somebody leaves the commissioner role because they are prevented from acting by the DUP or anybody else, how do we know that the person who is fulfilling that role will be operating independently? I question whether the regulations will allow fairness to take hold.

There are more questions than clarity in the legislation. I urge the First Minister and the Executive to move at speed to ensure that there is an independent environmental protection agency (EPA) and that the legislation comes through urgently. Despite the important legislation passed in 2022, it is clear that the Executive are moving at a snail's pace whilst the planet heats up. We have had the hottest years on record over the past 10 years or so. That is the evidence that people should be referring to and looking at. We are seeing extreme weather patterns in summer and winter. Climate change will lead to devastation across the world, including here, and particularly for poorer people in the Global South. I care about those people, even if some in the House do not. Locally, we have continuous environmental destruction; habitat destruction; gorse fires; unsafe and unhealthy meat farming; and waste dumping, whether at Mobuoy or in our waters of Lough Neagh, Belfast lough and elsewhere.

I will certainly not oppose the legislation, but my concern is the lack of action that will probably come from the commissioner's role being established. I will be happy to be proven wrong on that point.

Steve Aiken (UUP, South Antrim)

I call on the First Minister to conclude and wind on the debate.

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

Thank you, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle.

[Translation: Mr Deputy Speaker]

. Thanks to many of the Members who spoke for their sensible contributions to the debate. In some ways, it is a repeat of the debate that we had in 2022. I want to pick up on some of the points that were raised today. It would be short-sighted of anybody having this debate today not be very conscious of and acutely aware that the Mournes are on fire, that Lough Neagh is in crisis and that flooding is becoming an everyday reality for many people. That is climate crisis in action. That is what is happening all around us, and we have a moral duty and a responsibility to do something and to do something with urgency. This is not a choice. It is an absolute necessity. I thank all those who contributed positively to the debate, and I welcome the fact that many Members indicated that they will vote for the regulations. It is an absolute dereliction of duty by the Members of the DUP to vote against the regulations, particularly given the crises that we face right now. It is illogical — completely illogical. I will go further and concur with some of the language that has been used today, which said that it is a "bizarre" and "peculiar" approach.

I am bringing these regulations on behalf of the Executive Office. I want to pick up on some points that Members made during the debate. I re-emphasise the fact that the commissioner will have a crucial role to play in helping us to achieve net zero. In the first instance, the commissioner will hold us all to account and ensure that we all play our part and deliver on the promises that were made. The Chair of the Committee made that point. We all have a part to play, every Department has a part to play and every agency has a part to play. The significance of the commissioner is that they will provide independent advice to all Departments on how we should go about meeting our climate change targets in a way that responds to our communities' needs.

A number of points were made that asked why we are doing this. We all voted for the legislation. That is why, and it is also necessary that we do this piece of work. The remit of the commissioner was brought forward by Minister Poots, the then AERA Minister. That is what we are voting on today.

Gerry Carroll (People Before Profit Alliance, Belfast West)

I thank the First Minister for giving way. Did the deputy First Minister make it clear anywhere in the Executive what type of commissioner she and her party would be supportive of?

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

As I said, I am bringing the legislation on behalf of the joint office — on behalf of the Executive Office. I will pick up on the role of the commissioner. It has already been prescribed in legislation, so that is what the commissioner will have to do. However, there will be more work to be done on that. Some Members have questioned the value of such a commissioner when other places may not have one. The value is that it gives us a local lens. It will be in addition to other things that are already there, so it can only be an advantage to us. Members refer to the fact that there is a Climate Change Committee. That is fine and grand, and we can lean into that, but the local lens will be the additional value that will also allow us to address any particular challenges that we have here.

Members referred to the Budget and the amount that a commissioner will cost. As has been said, it will cost round £1 million. That is, more or less, the average cost of setting up any new arm's-length body. That will be money well spent, for all the reasons that many Members eloquently gave today. The cost of doing nothing is much, much higher. That is why it is essential that we get on and do this work. It is going to take a bit more time. Moving the motion on the regulations today is the outworking of the 2022 legislation, but it will take another period of time to get the commissioner up and running and to address some of the outstanding issues that have been identified.

This is not about duplication. It is very much about the role of the commissioner — that is the local lens — and the role that it will play in holding us all to account. It will also complement things that are already happening. A lot of responsibility falls to DAERA under the legislation. We have already seen some progress in some areas. We have the Lough Neagh action plan and the first environmental improvement plan, and DAERA is working towards the just transition commission. The commissioner will have to work in tandem with other agencies, so there will have to be memorandums of understanding on how they work with other bodies, such as Waterways Ireland, the Utility Regulator and the Environment Agency. There is a huge amount to be worked out in the period ahead as we get this up and running.

Someone asked a question about the role not going out to consultation — I do not think that the Member is in the Chamber now. The definition of what is included in the role of the commissioner's office has been defined in the 2022 legislation. Ordinarily, you would go out to consult in instances such as this, but, because there is limited policy discretion, it was not deemed necessary. However, the functions can be added to in the future by regulation, and perhaps that is something that we will revisit here in the future.

After the regulations have been affirmed by the Assembly — I am assuming that, given the number of Members who have indicated that they will vote for them — we will move on to the next step, which is to fully establish the commissioner, to have the office up and running and to allow TEO officials to work on and resolve any outstanding issues in section 50 of the Climate Change Act.

Emma Little-Pengelly (DUP, Lagan Valley)

I thank the First Minister for giving way. It is important to put on record that the First Minister is, indeed, responding to the debate on behalf of the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister. It is also important that I distance myself from some of the personal remarks that the First Minister has made today in response to the debate. I am sure that those around the House will understand fully that there is a range of views. Of course, on many of the issues referred to by the First Minister, there is a different view in the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister.

This is being moved forward because we recognise that there is a legal requirement on the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister. As I indicated in response to questions last week, my concern is entirely about the cost of this, the reasoning for doing this right now and the added value of it, given the work of the UK-wide Climate Change Committee, at a time of significant financial pressure on our public services. That is my position; I have articulated it. I put on record that there is a difference of views, but we are moving forward, because this is a legal obligation. Until the House amends the legislation, it will remain a legal obligation.

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

The deputy First Minister has her personal view on the record. I undertook to bring this forward, in one sense because it is a legal duty, but it is also a moral duty, folks. It is a moral duty: we have to do it. I am absolutely determined to work with others to ensure that that is the case.

I thank Members for their contributions throughout the debate. Establishing the body will take a bit of time. We have a bit of a road to go to refine everything, to make sure that we have it up and running and to see how it works and interacts with all the other bodies. We have to do this. We have to protect the world for future generations. Someone mentioned going to school assemblies or talking to young kids: this is about their future. This is about the world that they live in, what it looks like and how it feels for them. We should all commit to working together and acknowledge that climate change is, in fact, a reality, that we are living in those times and that we must do something about it.

Steve Aiken (UUP, South Antrim)

Thank you very much, First Minister, and thank you very much, ladies and gentlemen, for an entertaining debate.

Question put.

The Assembly divided:

Ayes 51; Noes 19

AYES

Mr Allen, Ms D Armstrong, Ms K Armstrong, Mr Beattie, Mr Blair, Mr Boylan, Ms Bradshaw, Miss Brogan, Mr Butler, Mr Carroll, Mr Chambers, Mr Crawford, Mr Delargy, Mrs Dillon, Ms Dolan, Mr Donnelly, Mr Durkan, Ms Egan, Ms Ennis, Ms Ferguson, Ms Finnegan, Ms Flynn, Mr Gildernew, Mrs Guy, Miss Hargey, Mr Honeyford, Ms Hunter, Ms Kimmins, Mr McAleer, Miss McAllister, Mr McGlone, Mr McGrath, Mr McGuigan, Mr McHugh, Ms McLaughlin, Mr McMurray, Mr McNulty, Mr Mathison, Mr Muir, Ms Mulholland, Ms Murphy, Mr Nesbitt, Ms Ní Chuilín, Ms Nicholl, Mr O'Dowd, Mrs O'Neill, Mr O'Toole, Ms Reilly, Ms Sheerin, Mr Stewart, Mr Tennyson

Tellers for the Ayes: Ms Finnegan, Ms Murphy

NOES

Mr Brett, Mr Brooks, Mr K Buchanan, Mr Buckley, Ms Bunting, Mr Clarke, Mrs Dodds, Mr Dunne, Mrs Erskine, Ms Forsythe, Mr Frew, Mr Gaston, Mr Harvey, Mr Irwin, Mr Kingston, Miss McIlveen, Mr Martin, Mr Middleton, Mr Robinson

Tellers for the Noes: Mr Harvey, Mr Kingston

Ms Bradshaw acted as a proxy for Ms Nicholl.

Mr McGrath acted as a proxy for Mr O'Toole.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Resolved:

That the draft Northern Ireland Climate Commissioner Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2025 be approved.

Steve Aiken (UUP, South Antrim)

The Business Committee has arranged to meet at 1.00 pm — oh, it has just started. I propose therefore, by leave of the Assembly, to suspend the sitting until 2.00 pm.

The sitting was suspended at 1.01 pm.

On resuming (Mr Speaker in the Chair) —

Oral Answers to Questions — Health

Edwin Poots (DUP, Belfast South)

Question 8 has been withdrawn.

David Brooks (DUP, Belfast East)

1. Mr Brooks asked the Minister of Health for an update on improving access to paediatric percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) tube surgery in Northern Ireland. (AQO 1870/22-27)

Mike Nesbitt (UUP, Strangford)

Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy insertion for children and young people is a very complex procedure. It requires specialist clinical and nursing input that is prior to, during and post procedure. Officials have been working with Belfast Health and Social Care Trust to identify measures in order to address the issue. The trust scheduled additional clinics and theatre sessions to reduce paediatric waiting times, and additional PEG procedures have occurred. The trust now has a weekly list to carry out PEG insertions.

Belfast Trust explored the potential for another NHS body to carry out the procedure and approached the private sector to see whether we could address some of the backlog. An NHS provider has outlined that it will be able to carry out some procedures. South Eastern Trust is also in a position to carry out some less complex procedures. However, the private sector is not an option.

I assure Members that departmental officials and Belfast Trust colleagues are working hard to deal with the issue, but the ongoing pressures on the service and the demand for theatre capacity mean that it will not be solved immediately. We will continue to assess and gauge progress, with the aim of ensuring that all children and young people receive the care that they require as quickly as possible. The actions that have happened and are planned are having tangible impacts on the waiting list. We have seen a reduction from 92 children last April to 27 children on the waiting list now.

David Brooks (DUP, Belfast East)

I thank the Minister for his answer. The campaign group Parents 4 Pegs NI will be holding a drop-in session upstairs and would welcome the engagement, if you are free later, Minister. They would welcome further clarity — you have given some — on whether the current strategy, as they understand it, of having two surgeries a week, the partnership with Evelina hospital in London and the surgeries currently being done at the Ulster Hospital will be sustained in order to see the rest of the waiting list reduced and will continue to be the way to move forward.

Mike Nesbitt (UUP, Strangford)

I thank the Member for his interest and his follow-up question. If I can, I would certainly like to engage with the parents. It is a situation that became intractable for quite a time, and I was concerned about why the list became so long. It was a result of capacity at the Royal Belfast Hospital for Sick Children, and that was due to demand and the availability of a number of theatres. There has been a lot of good work in the coordinated approach that the Member has outlined and in the validation of the list. I am pleased to see that there has been a significant reduction in that waiting list. However, given the fact that they are young people and it is such a serious condition, really the only acceptable number on the waiting list has to be zero. That is the target.

Alan Chambers (UUP, North Down)

Will the Minister detail the measures that he has put in place to oversee the mitigations?

Mike Nesbitt (UUP, Strangford)

I thank the Member. Officials in my Department maintain regular contact with the Belfast Trust's management to oversee that the proposed actions are taking place. Officials schedule regular meetings with senior trust representatives, and the main aim is to ascertain the current waiting times and to discuss any issues arising that may cause delays. Officials work with the Belfast Trust's senior team and with other trusts to consider options and to ensure that the progress that has resulted in the reduction from 92 to 27 children can be maintained. The trust is a crucial partner in the regional child health partnership and in paediatric surgery, and that is a standing agenda item at those regular meetings. PEG insertion procedures will be discussed at that forum.

Edwin Poots (DUP, Belfast South)

Members, there is a problem with the microphones. I have to shout. Members might note that. I do not think that any of them are working. The sound is not working on the monitors or the live coverage. However, we will continue.

William Irwin (DUP, Newry and Armagh)

2. Mr Irwin asked the Minister of Health to outline any lessons learned from winter pressures on the health service. (AQO 1871/22-27)

Mike Nesbitt (UUP, Strangford)

I was clear last year that we expected a very difficult winter and that my Department's winter plan would not eliminate the pressures but, at best, serve to mitigate them. We know from previous years that people become sicker and sicker for longer over the winter months and that that brings additional pressures to a service that is already feeling strain and facing long-term financial challenges. That is why I no longer talk about winter pressures but about additional winter pressures, given the pressures that are on emergency departments (EDs) 365 days a year.

As expected, the huge pressures manifested themselves in those emergency departments over Christmas. We had long waits and overcrowding, but we have learned from previous years that, overall, unscheduled care activity and acuity do not increase in winter; rather, it is the slowing of the flow through the system that creates those delays and additional pressures. Some of the flow issues are due to increased discharge delays to nursing homes and because domiciliary care demand has exceeded capacity. The situation is clearly not what I wish for for our patients or staff, and I apologised at the time to everybody affected.

I remain determined to find better ways to work as a system to tackle the complex issues that we face. That is why I initiated a series of winter planning workshops with the aim of identifying new and innovative solutions to our collective system flow issues. I attended the first of those in March and was encouraged by the engagement and enthusiasm from leaders right across the Health and Social Care (HSC) system; indeed, over 100 people turned up. The room was full, and we had a waiting list. The final workshop will be held in June, and that process will inform a sharper, more focused winter improvement plan for next year.

William Irwin (DUP, Newry and Armagh)

I thank the Minister for his response. In light of the winter pressures, what steps is the Department taking to reduce the number of people unnecessarily attending accident and emergency departments? How can we better educate the public on appropriate alternatives in order to ease the burden on our emergency services?

Mike Nesbitt (UUP, Strangford)

I thank the Member for his follow-up question. There is a question in my mind about what percentage of people who attend an emergency department do so unnecessarily. Again, "Zero" would be the ideal answer to that question. We are trying to identify as early as possible in the patient journey the correct pathway for them. That may be an emergency department, but it may not. It might be to stick with primary care and their general practitioner. We also have urgent care centres being developed in our acute hospitals and other pathways such as respiratory areas and cardiac areas. We are looking at as many different pathways as possible to take the pressure off the emergency departments.

Edwin Poots (DUP, Belfast South)

We are working again.

Philip McGuigan (Sinn Féin, North Antrim)

I accept that the workshops are ongoing and have not been completed yet, but the Minister has mentioned domiciliary care.

[Inaudible]

has the Minister come to the conclusion that additional support is needed for domiciliary care teams in the lead-up to the coming winter to ensure timely discharge from hospital?

Mike Nesbitt (UUP, Strangford)

I thank the Committee Chair for his comments and the question. Yes. The biggest single action that I can take is to introduce a real living wage for people who provide social care. That way, it will become a more attractive profession, and we can therefore grow that workforce. If we do not grow the workforce, the pressures will, by and large, remain.

We often say that, to deliver healthcare, you need buildings, equipment and medicines but, if you do not have a workforce, all that is as nothing. When winter pressures were manifesting themselves in the emergency departments, that was when we saw where the problem was. It was the flow, and the problem was at the back door. People who were medically fit for discharge from acute beds were still in the beds because they did not have what they wanted, whether that was a bed in a care home or a domiciliary package. That is not easily fixed, because it requires a long-term recruitment and retention process to get the right workforce. We are working on it, and the real living wage is an important step in addressing the challenges.

Danny Donnelly (Alliance, East Antrim)

Community pharmacy has been identified as a key part of the response to additional winter pressures. Will the Minister invest in stabilising that sector in order to maximise the role that it plays in supporting the health service to respond to additional winter pressures and meeting patients' needs closer to home?

Mike Nesbitt (UUP, Strangford)

I thank the Member for his question. He knows that I have the desire to shift left to primary and community care, and community pharmacies are key to that, as are general practitioners, dentists and so on. I continue to engage with Community Pharmacy NI. They come to me with what, I believe, are valid concerns. When they articulate where they are, they do not make things up. They say, "We have genuine concerns about the future of our ability and the sustainability of some of our community pharmacies". Yet, when I look at the statistics, I see that we have more community pharmacies per 100,000 people than anywhere else in the United Kingdom and that our investment in community pharmacies has gone up significantly, by millions of pounds. It is not an area where I have come to some definitive conclusion on why, while we are investing, they are not satisfied with that investment and still come back with genuinely held concerns. That will be an ongoing discussion until we get to a resolution where we are all happy that we have an agreed position.

Doug Beattie (UUP, Upper Bann)

3. Mr Beattie asked the Minister of Health for an update on the work of the Regional Trauma Network (RTN) in supporting victims and survivors of the Troubles in Northern Ireland. (AQO 1872/22-27)

Mike Nesbitt (UUP, Strangford)

I am pleased to say that, since the beginning of the 2023-24 financial year, around 9,000 individuals have availed themselves of services in the Regional Trauma Network through the Victims and Survivors Service (VSS) and its 46 community and voluntary sector partner organisations. Around 600 individuals have availed themselves of services through the health and social care trusts' Regional Trauma Network teams. To date, the total number of cross-referrals has been low, but that is not unexpected at this stage, and numbers continue to grow. The latest figures, as of the end of December 2024, are 60 referrals from trusts to community and voluntary groups, with 123 referrals from community and voluntary groups to trust trauma teams. At present, there are 424 people in therapy across all trust trauma teams. The service user experience captured has been positive.

Of major significance, in addition to direct referrals between statutory and community and voluntary sector organisations, is the fact that the RTN is taking forward additional work across a number of work streams, including training, research, monitoring and evaluation and children and young people, recognising the intergenerational impact of the conflict. The Regional Trauma Network also contributes to the overall ambition of the mental health strategy. Ultimately, the network and the service that it provides make a real difference to real people who have suffered physical and psychological harm. It offers a range of supports and interventions to address the long-term consequences of their traumatic experiences.

Doug Beattie (UUP, Upper Bann)

I thank the Minister. What he laid out is encouraging. The Minister knows that dealing with bereavement is key to supporting victims and survivors, be that Sean Brown's family, Patsy Gillespie's family or Mary Hull, whom you, Minister, know very well. Are there any specialist bereavement services part of the Regional Trauma Network? Would the Minister support a bereavement payment scheme?

Mike Nesbitt (UUP, Strangford)

I thank the Member for his follow-up question. The Regional Trauma Network is as broad in its reach as it can be, and, of course, service users bring up bereavement daily. I am confident that the RTN has the capacity, skills and experience to deal with that.

The Member will be aware that the Regional Trauma Network was my big ask as I led the Ulster Unionist delegation into the Stormont House talks — my goodness — 10 or 11 years ago, so I am pleased to see it in place. The biggest toxic legacy of our conflict, which we so euphemistically call our "Troubles", is poor mental health and well-being not just at an individual level but at a family and community level. The RTN is making significant inroads in tackling that toxicity, and bereavement is a central part of that.

I am certainly open to discussions on a bereavement payment. I would not want to make policy on the hoof — I am sure that the Member will appreciate that — but that is certainly worth detailed and due consideration.

Edwin Poots (DUP, Belfast South)

Members, whilst our mics had been working, Hansard is not recording this. Our sessions are supposed to be in public. There is no record of what is happening, and the public are not able to hear it. We will suspend the sitting for 15 minutes.

Mike Nesbitt (UUP, Strangford)

Can I not just say what I want?

[Laughter.]

[Interruption.]

No.

[Laughter.]

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

Get your own money.

[Laughter.]

David Brooks (DUP, Belfast East)

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. What about those of us who have asked questions but not had the responses recorded?

Edwin Poots (DUP, Belfast South)

We will get advice on that. Obviously, the Minister was using scripted material, so

[Inaudible.]

OK, Members, you can relax for about 15 minutes, go and get a cup of coffee or whatever, and hopefully our technical people will resolve

[Inaudible.]

The sitting was suspended at 2.15 pm and resumed at 2.32 pm.

Edwin Poots (DUP, Belfast South)

I think that the audio recording for Hansard is now working. Can we test it before we start? I invite Members to take their ease for a minute while we check that Hansard can hear me talking so that the plenary sitting can be reported. The answer is yes, so we are ready to go again. The first supplementary question to Mr Beattie's question will be from Jonathan Buckley.

Jonathan Buckley (DUP, Upper Bann)

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I do not know whether our microphones are working just yet. Oh, they are now.

Edwin Poots (DUP, Belfast South)

Yes.

Jonathan Buckley (DUP, Upper Bann)

Minister, although the Regional Trauma Network has played an important role in supporting victims and survivors of the Troubles, are the network's current capacity and resources adequate to meet the needs of those who are affected, especially in light of the complex and long-term nature of the traumas that those victims experienced during Northern Ireland's Troubles?

Mike Nesbitt (UUP, Strangford)

As I was saying, the RTN was set up specifically for victims and survivors of the conflict. It was agreed during the Stormont House talks by Martin McGuinness, Peter Robinson and all the other party leaders who were involved. Then, however, officials made the point that the National Health Service has to be open to all. One cannot have an NHS service, or a Health and Social Care (HSC) service, that is limited to a specific number of people. The compromise was to have that first phase, which is to run for a minimum of three years, with phase 1 being specifically targeted at victims and survivors of the conflict.

The network has a waiting list. That answers the Member's question, in that the capacity is not there to deal with every single victim and survivor who wants to ask for help with the trauma that they suffered, and continue to suffer, as a consequence of the conflict. Could that resource be put in place? I think that doing so would be just too big an ask. On top of that, at some point there has to be a phase 2, which will open up the RTN further in order to comply with what the officials were saying back in the day, which, as I said, was that one cannot have a National Health Service service that is limited to a specific group of the population. Phase 1, that period of at least three years, takes us to April of next year, so we are only 12 months away from a decision, but the decision does not have to be to just open it up to everybody. We may look at a graduated move towards opening it up, because, to get back to the Member's question, the capacity will always struggle to meet the demand.

Edwin Poots (DUP, Belfast South)

Your two minutes are up, Minister.

Órlaithí Flynn (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

With phase 2 approaching, is the Minister confident that the Regional Trauma Network can be protected for the people for whom it was designed, namely victims and survivors? I raised the matter with the deputy First Minister the other day in relation to the wider victims and survivors strategy.

Mike Nesbitt (UUP, Strangford)

I thank the Member for her question. I acknowledge her ongoing interest in the area and in the broad field of mental health and suicide prevention. As I said, April 2023 is the appropriate date to start the clock on phase 1, so April 2026 is when three years will be up. I go back to the fact that it is a period of at least three years, not of three years. Certainly, from talking to groups such as Relatives for Justice (RFJ), the Ely Centre and South East Fermanagh Federation (SEFF) — the six or seven groups that were always involved in the co-design of the network — I know that there is extreme concern. It is not over-egging it to say that there is extreme concern about opening it up, thereby diluting what it can do for their service users. I am very aware of that, and I will work hard to try to protect it, because it was my idea, and the idea was to work for the victims and survivors of the conflict.